Christian belief doesn't save.
guardian Snow
together: who hath declared this from ancient time? who hath told it
from that time? have not I YHWH? and there is no Elohim else beside
me; a just El and a Saviour; there is none besides me.
Isa 45:22 Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth:
for I am El, and there is none else.
It breaks my heart that so many people want to learn by bad examples
how to weasel their way around keeping the word of YAHWEH. Instead of
binding it on their hearts, they spend day and night twisting the
truth to create an Elohim of their own making and desires, one that
serves them and not one they serve.
If I am to take any example from scriptures on how to lead my life, I
choose the prophet Daniel for my own. I’d like to encourage some of
you prayer warriors to be like Daniel also... Daniel had a hard life
and as a child was swept from his home and brought to serve one of the
most evil tyrants of world history, Nebuchadnezzar, Sovereign of
Babylon.
He was trained in foreign traditions and even suffered the humiliation
of having his name changed to a pagan one of Belteshazzar, his very
identity was stolen. Can you imagine what that must have been like?
I can’t and must consider myself blessed that I have the freedom
Yahweh has given me.
Dan 1:8 But Daniel purposed in his heart that he would not defile
himself...
What a powerful statement that is to me... that we purpose in our
hearts not to defile ourselves. Not just among heathens but all men.
We are called to set ourselves apart from the world and all that is in
it.
A recent post of mine was very controversial but I’m so happy that I
did it because in the process, Yahweh taught me something new that I
honestly didn’t notice the importance of it before hand. You see, a
lot of the times, I just start writing and I allow the word of
Yahweh’s scriptures to guide me and lead me... where it lead me was to
his little gem:
Psa 51:16 For thou desirest not sacrifice; else would I give it: thou
delightest not in burnt offering.
Psa 51:17 The sacrifices of Elohim are a broken spirit: a broken and a
contrite heart, O Elohim, thou wilt not despise.
You see, lately for me, I’ve had a crushed spirit and a broken heart,
not because of any personal relationship problems but because, I often
wonder where Yahweh is leading me. I wonder if anybody at all hears
me, trying to help them see the truth and so often I feel so
ineffective.
The easy path in this life is to just play along with the crowd and
except the dogma of the day and to just follow along and agree. A
dozen times a day people will say, “your blind” and I respond with the
word of Yahweh.
Mat 23:26 “Blind Pharisee, first clean the inside of the cup and dish,
so that the outside of them becomes clean too.
We must clean out our own defilement inside and that means I start
with my own. I am not your judge and this is not about me telling you
what you do wrong, you know for yourself what needs to be cleaned out
of your closet, just as I do. So, without condemnation, I challenge
you dear reader, clean out the closet and purpose in your heart not to
defile yourself with the world.
But Daniel gave me so much more of an example in my life and one I
hope you take with you also... One of fearlessness to face any danger
and know that Yahweh walks beside you, behind you and in front of you
when you do set in your heart to do righteousness and right-ruling.
Isa 54:17 “No weapon formed against you shall prosper, and every
tongue which rises against you in judgment you shall prove wrong. This
is the inheritance of the servants of [Yahweh] יהוה, and their
righteousness from Me,” declares [Yahweh] יהוה.
Take your inheritance and embrace it as a servant, with humility and
yes... even a bruised spirit and know that his promise is with YOU!
Fear nothing but Yahweh and know that he is your righteousness and
your strength and your saviour.
Isa 45:15 Truly You are Ěl, who hide Yourself, O Elohim of Yisra’ĕl,
Saviour!
He has hid himself from the world for the time being.
Jer 4:22 “For My people are foolish, they have not known Me. They are
stupid children, and they have no understanding. They are wise to do
evil, but to do good they have no knowledge.”
I was a stupid child, unknowing and ignorant and that is my
confession, but I purpose in my heart, I will not defile myself
Father, show me your good and teach me your way that I might not
stumble again. Like Daniel, bring me out of the furnace of affliction
and into your way.
Deu 4:20 “But יהוה [Yahweh] has taken you and brought you out of the
iron furnace, out of Mitsrayim, to be His people, an inheritance, as
it is today.
So let’s share together the story of Daniel:
Dan 3:12 There are certain Jews whom thou hast set over the affairs of
the province of Babylon, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego; these men,
O king, have not regarded thee: they serve not thy elohim, nor worship
the golden image which thou hast set up.
The story is set and Daniel has refused to break the commandment, even
knowing that surely Yahweh would have mercy. Rather than bend to the
traditions of man and then count on compassion, Daniel put his very
heart to do what is right and obey Yahweh at the cost of even his very
life.
Dan 3:17 If it be so, our Elohim whom we serve is able to deliver us
from the burning fiery furnace, and he will deliver us out of thine
hand, O king.
Dan 3:18 But if not, be it known unto thee, O king, that we will not
serve thy elohim, nor worship the golden image which thou hast set up.
Now notice that Daniel doesn’t assume or know he is going to live and
he is ready to die for what he knows is right and pay with the highest
cost, his life.
Dan 3:19 Then was Nebuchadnezzar full of fury, and the form of his
visage was changed against Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego: therefore
he spake, and commanded that they should heat the furnace one seven
times more than it was wont to be heated.
Dan 3:20 And he commanded the most mighty men that were in his army to
bind Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego, and to cast them into the
burning fiery furnace.
Dan 3:21 Then these men were bound in their coats, their hosen, and
their hats, and their other garments, and were cast into the midst of
the burning fiery furnace.
Dan 3:22 Therefore because the kings commandment was urgent, and the
furnace exceeding hot, the flame of the fire slew those men that took
up Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego.
Dan 3:23 And these three men, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego, fell
down bound into the midst of the burning fiery furnace.
Dan 3:24 Then Nebuchadnezzar the king was astonied, and rose up in
haste, and spake, and said unto his counsellors, Did not we cast three
men bound into the midst of the fire? They answered and said unto the
king, True, O king.
Dan 3:25 He answered and said, Lo, I see four men loose, walking in
the midst of the fire, and they have no hurt; and the form of the
fourth is like the Son of Elohim.
And then we see Yehoshua the Messiah in the fire with Daniel.
Now I hope and pray that none of us has to face the furnace but if we
do, I hope that you too are ready to be as uncompromising as Daniel to
obey the Torah of Yahweh. Don’t be foolish and seek your own will
being “wise to do evil”, take the inheritance of the servant with both
hands and Yahweh will reward you. Practice belief by keeping his word
and not just with your lips.
Mat 15:8 This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and
honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me.
Mat 15:9 But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the
commandments of men.
Mat 15:10 And he called the multitude, and said unto them, Hear, and
understand:
Mat 15:11 Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that
which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man.
Mat 12:36 “And I say to you that for every idle word men speak, they
shall give an account of it in the day of judgment.
Mat 12:37 “For by your words you shall be declared righteous, and by
your words you shall be declared unrighteous.”
Be righteous in all your words! May Yahweh bless and keep you strong
and build you up.
Shalom,
*´¨)
¸.•´ ¸.•*´¨) ¸.•*¨)
(¸.•´ (¸.• (Snow(.¸.•*´¨)
Change will not come if we wait for some other person or some other
time. We are the ones we've been waiting for. We are the change that
we seek.
Barack Obama
He who passively accepts evil is as much involved in it as he who
helps to perpetrate it. He who accepts evil without protesting against
it is really cooperating with it.
Martin Luther King, Jr.
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
All that we are is the result of what we have thought. The mind is
everything. What we think we become.
Buddha
http://www.e-sword.net/ Free bible software
http://groups.google.com/group/messianicYehoshua <-- join
http://www.isr-messianic.org/ <- download the scriptures free
or
http://messianicyehoshua.googlegroups.com/web/RNKJV_W.zip <--free
download of the Restored Names King James Version
guardian Snow
> Allow me to ask this, what is it you believe you have to gain
> by continuing in a false system of belief ? Jesus stated expressly
> that He came for the jews ONLY, in which case the gentiles can look
> forward to hell no matter what..
Hi Firefly. Of course you can ask me anything but since you have
presumed already that my belief system is “false” before I’ve given my
answer, doesn’t it seem just a little pointless? You already have the
answers for yourself from your faulty translation of scriptures. For
the sake of anybody that hasn’t presupposed things, let’s examine the
scriptures for evidence together.
Now let’s keep in mind that Israel already has an “everlasting
covenant” with Yahweh via Mt. Sinai and the “Ten Commandments” that
were written on stone:
Deu 4:13 “And He made known to you His covenant which He commanded you
to do, the Ten Words, and He wrote them on two tablets of stone.
People can argue all day that the covenant was 613 laws but that is
just what they choose to believe, not what the scriptures say. They
choose to believe this because they are unable to recognize the 4
layers of Torah that were to govern Israel as I have attempted to
point out on many occasions.
Gen 26:5 because Aḇraham obeyed (1) My voice and guarded My Charge:
(2) My commands, (3) My laws, and (4) My Torot.
Many prophecies about the Messiah were made and Isaiah had a lot to
say. In the 42 chapter he speaks about establishing a covenant “to a
people”.
Isa 42:6 “I, [Yahweh] יהוה, have called You in righteousness, and I
take hold of Your hand and guard You, and give You for a covenant to a
people, for a light to the gentiles, 7 to open blind eyes, to bring
out prisoners from the prison, those who sit in darkness from the
prison house.
The prophet said that the Messiah was a “light to the gentiles” and to
“those who sit in darkness” on more than one occation.
Isa 49:6 and He says, “Shall it be a small matter for You to be My
Servant to
(1) raise up the tribes of Jacob, and to
(2) bring back the preserved ones of Yisra’ĕl?
(3) And I shall give You as a light to the gentiles,
(4) to be My deliverance to the ends of the earth!”
In this one verse, we read 4 different missions of the Messiah, the
Servant of Yahweh. This teaching is confirmed in the Good News:
Luk 2:32 a light for the unveiling of the gentiles, and the esteem of
Your people Yisra’ĕl.”
Matthew specifically says:
Mat 4:14 That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Isaiah the
prophet, saying,
Mat 4:16 The people which sat in darkness saw great light; and to them
which sat in the region and shadow of death light is sprung up. (Isa
9:2)
Almost all of Isaiah is written about the “light of the gentiles”:
Isa 60:3 And the Gentiles shall come to thy light, and kings to the
brightness of thy rising.
So, all the people of that day and age knew that the Messiah was for
the gentiles.
Mar 2:17 When Yahushua heard it, he saith unto them, They that are
whole have no need of the physician, but they that are sick: I came
not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.
First off, the idea that you are unable to be righteous, not true.
Yehoshua came for the SINNERS, which is to say those who transgress
the Torah of Yahweh that they might be called out of rebellion.
Luk 5:32 I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.
Many people do not understand that he spoke in parables all the time:
Mat 15:24 But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost
sheep of the house of Israel.
All were to become Israel and Judah and “cling to the house of Jacob”.
Isa 14:1 For YHWH will have mercy on Jacob, and will yet choose
Israel, and set them in their own land: and the strangers shall be
joined with them, and they shall cleave to the house of Jacob.
Have you become a stranger?
Shalom,
*´¨)
¸.•´ ¸.•*´¨) ¸.•*¨)
(¸.•´ (¸.• (Snow(.¸.•*´¨)
Change will not come if we wait for some other person or some other
time. We are the ones we've been waiting for. We are the change that
we seek.
Barack Obama
http://www.e-sword.net/ Free bible software
http://groups.google.com/group/messianicYehoshua <-- join
http://www.isr-messianic.org/ <- download the scriptures free
or
http://messianicyehoshua.googlegroups.com/web/RNKJV.zip <--free
download of the Restored Names King James Version
He who passively accepts evil is as much involved in it as he who
Rod
> On Jun 9, 12:57 am, Rod <firefly200...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Allow me to ask this, what is it you believe you have to gain
>> by continuing in a false system of belief ? Jesus stated expressly
>> that He came for the jews ONLY, in which case the gentiles can look
>> forward to hell no matter what..
>
> Hi Firefly. Of course you can ask me anything but since you have
> presumed already that my belief system is “false” before I’ve given my
> answer, doesn’t it seem just a little pointless?
It may be. I thought your belief system was similar to mine, and I am
finding mine rather pointless the last few days, and seeking answers.
> You already have the
> answers for yourself from your faulty translation of scriptures. For
> the sake of anybody that hasn’t presupposed things, let’s examine the
> scriptures for evidence together.
>
> Now let’s keep in mind that Israel already has an “everlasting
> covenant” with Yahweh via Mt. Sinai and the “Ten Commandments” that
> were written on stone:
>
> Deu 4:13 “And He made known to you His covenant which He commanded you
> to do, the Ten Words, and He wrote them on two tablets of stone.
>
> People can argue all day that the covenant was 613 laws but that is
> just what they choose to believe, not what the scriptures say. They
> choose to believe this because they are unable to recognize the 4
> layers of Torah that were to govern Israel as I have attempted to
> point out on many occasions.
Lets assume for my sake that most of what I've been taught is wrong;
and truthfully much of it IS wrong...
And Isaiah 14:2 says:
And the peoples shall take them, and bring them to their place; and
the house of Israel shall possess them in the land of Jehovah for
servants and for handmaids: and they shall take them captive whose
captives they were; and they shall rule over their oppressors.
Here are the problems: I'm not willing to be a slave or a servant to
the jews, and nowhere in the verses you have quoted do I see the bible
state that the Gentiles will be granted salvation or eternal life, and
you can safely assume that I don't believe Paul in the least.
So my quandry...and my confusion..
>
> Have you become a stranger?
I was born a gentile, not a jew. I suppose according to biblical
reasoning, all of us have our roots in Adam, making us Hebrew, but
Isaiah 14:2 says nothing about salvation or eternal life for a
"Stranger" and everything about being a slave to the jews...
I do understand the link that you've made here, but I can't see
the association conferring salvation without becoming a slave or
servant of the jews.
This isn't just, or right.
Misanthropic Curmudgeon
[snip]
> If I am to take any example from scriptures on how to
> lead my life, I choose the prophet Daniel for my own.
Why not take the bits about offering your daughters up to rapists,
slaughtering unbeleivers, or turning on your family?
Zadok
"Rod" <> wrote in message ...
> Here are the problems: I'm not willing to be a slave or a servant to
> the jews, and nowhere in the verses you have quoted do I see the bible
> state that the Gentiles will be granted salvation or eternal life, and
> you can safely assume that I don't believe Paul in the least.
>
>
> So my quandry...and my confusion..
>
> >
> > Have you become a stranger?
>
> I was born a gentile, not a jew. I suppose according to biblical
> reasoning, all of us have our roots in Adam, making us Hebrew, but
> Isaiah 14:2 says nothing about salvation or eternal life for a
> "Stranger" and everything about being a slave to the jews...
>
> I do understand the link that you've made here, but I can't see
> the association conferring salvation without becoming a slave or
> servant of the jews.
>
> This isn't just, or right.
Your problem is that as a gentile you want to be saved by the Jewish God.
Then to do that you have to become a Jew. Get circumsized and obey the law.
Or if you don't want to do that, then invent your own God, as Saulus the
apostate
did, and pretend it is still the Jewish God, simply because if you admit
that it is a
new God, then people will not believe, as it is not ancient enough.
And if Pagans don't follow quickly enough, just adopt some of their customs,
their holidays and have the government on your side.
Smile.
Doug
in article <CyzXl.31172$PH1.29987@edtnps82>:
Jesus never told Gentiles to get circumcised. He commended the faith of a
Roman centurion, who asked him to heal his servant, in Luke 7:9.
He told a Samaritan woman that the time had come, that it was no longer
necessary to go to Jerusalem, to worship God. Instead of practising the
old rituals, people would worship God in spirit and in truth.
John 4:19-24
The woman saith unto him, Sir, I perceive that thou art a prophet.
Our fathers worshipped in this mountain; and ye say, that in Jerusalem is
the place where men ought to worship.
Jesus saith unto her, Woman, believe me, the hour cometh, when ye shall
neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father.
Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of
the Jews.
But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship
the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship
him.
God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and
in truth.
--
Doug
Rod
> "Rod" <> wrote in message ...
>> Here are the problems: I'm not willing to be a slave or a servant to
>> the jews, and nowhere in the verses you have quoted do I see the bible
>> state that the Gentiles will be granted salvation or eternal life, and
>> you can safely assume that I don't believe Paul in the least.
>>
>>
>> So my quandry...and my confusion..
>>
>>> Have you become a stranger?
>> I was born a gentile, not a jew. I suppose according to biblical
>> reasoning, all of us have our roots in Adam, making us Hebrew, but
>> Isaiah 14:2 says nothing about salvation or eternal life for a
>> "Stranger" and everything about being a slave to the jews...
>>
>> I do understand the link that you've made here, but I can't see
>> the association conferring salvation without becoming a slave or
>> servant of the jews.
>>
>> This isn't just, or right.
>
> Your problem is that as a gentile you want to be saved by the Jewish God.
As a child I was taught it is so, that Christ died for our sins,
and I accepted it without question up until the last several years,
when I felt forced to question what was represented to me as truth.
Since that time my philosophical self believed it had finally
found a plateau, up until a few days ago.
My problem is more complex than that. I'm trying to understand the
physical link that some seem to think exists between Jews and
Gentiles, that may give me insight into how they can believe
that one can just obey the law and become a jew.
> Then to do that you have to become a Jew.
No can do. There are several levels of order to satisfy before that
can happen. The jews, just as other people, have genetic markers
that make them who they are. The jews were primarily of the tribe of
Judah, some being of the tribe of Benjamin, and they were black.
No. As far as I can tell, thats a fallacy of belief in the religion,
and it's ever addressed in Revelation 2:9 and 3:9:
Rev 2:9 I know thy tribulation, and thy poverty (but thou art rich),
and the blasphemy of them that say they are Jews, and they art not, but
are a synagogue of Satan.
Rev 3:9 Behold, I give of the synagogue of Satan, of them that say
they are Jews, and they are not, but do lie; behold, I will make them to
come and worship before thy feet, and to know that I have loved thee.
> Get circumsized and obey the law.
>
> Or if you don't want to do that, then invent your own God, as Saulus the
> apostate
> did, and pretend it is still the Jewish God, simply because if you admit
> that it is a
> new God, then people will not believe, as it is not ancient enough.
>
> And if Pagans don't follow quickly enough, just adopt some of their customs,
> their holidays and have the government on your side.
>
> Smile.
>
>
I am not a believer in the words of Paul. Paul was a liar, and his
great lie was that he was tapped on the shoulder by Christ and
converted, and he admitted as much.
Zadok, I find comfort from one of two things, believing I know the
truth, or actually KNOWING the truth.
I'm seeking BIBLICAL confirmation that a Gentile can be saved, and
by what means.
From what I'm seeing so far, their is no possible way a gentile can
be saved.
Aaron
I would disagree with you on the actual position of Rabbi Shaul (a. k.
a.: "Pavlos" or "Paul"). Rabbi Kefa (Peter) did say that those not
educated in Judaism (The only religious education at the time of his
writing) could read the true facts that Shaul wrote and fail to
understand them, and that this failure would be so bad that they would
adopt false theologies that lead to damnation. Reading the acient
greek texts of Shaul's writings, it seems that he is being poorly
translated from Hebrew, and that he agrees with the Torah and with
Messiah.
I do agree with you that the Christian interpretation of Shaul's
writings is false and in some areas so blasphemous as to lead
Christians into damnation.
>>
>> And if Pagans don't follow quickly enough, just adopt some of their
>> customs, their holidays and have the government on your side.
>>
>> Smile.
>
>Jesus never told Gentiles to get circumcised. He commended the faith of a
>Roman centurion, who asked him to heal his servant, in Luke 7:9.
First, His actual name is "Yshu`a," which is Hebrew for "salvation."
Second, in Matthew 5:17-19, He told all of His followers to obey all
613 Commandments in the Torah.
Third, in Matthew 7:21-23, He said that those people who call upon His
name for salvation, but who disobey the Comandments will be damned.
>
>He told a Samaritan woman that the time had come, that it was no longer
>necessary to go to Jerusalem, to worship God. Instead of practising the
>old rituals, people would worship God in spirit and in truth.
Yes, Messiah predicted the destruction of the Second Temple. Yes, He
confirmed what is written in the Talmud, In the Messianic Age our
offerings will consist of prayers and praise. Of course Christians do
some of the prayers, but do not study the Bible enough to even know if
they are doing all of them.
Aaron
wrote:
There have been Gentile groups who seek to become Jewish without
actually allowing Jews to join. They typically end up not obeying the
Law, fixating on a single Commandment, or doing Commandments wrong and
insisting that they are the only ones who know how to obey God. So,
there does need to be some sort of Jewish education involved.
>
>
>
>> Then to do that you have to become a Jew.
>
> No can do. There are several levels of order to satisfy before that
> can happen. The jews, just as other people, have genetic markers
> that make them who they are. The jews were primarily of the tribe of
> Judah, some being of the tribe of Benjamin, and they were black.
The people konwn as "Jews" today are compsed of all 12 tribes.
However the Temple recods were burned by the Romans and new
geneological records were not begun. So, aside from family
traditions, jew tend to only remember when we are called to the Torah
(Kohanim. Lviyim, and Yisrael)
I do not know what you mean about being "black." If you are refering
to the race, there are Jews who have the physical characteristics of
each of the "races" of humanity.
>
> No. As far as I can tell, thats a fallacy of belief in the religion,
> and it's ever addressed in Revelation 2:9 and 3:9:
>
> Rev 2:9 I know thy tribulation, and thy poverty (but thou art rich),
>and the blasphemy of them that say they are Jews, and they art not, but
>are a synagogue of Satan.
>
> Rev 3:9 Behold, I give of the synagogue of Satan, of them that say
>they are Jews, and they are not, but do lie; behold, I will make them to
>come and worship before thy feet, and to know that I have loved thee.
How many Christians claim to be grafted into Israel based on a
misunderstanding of Romans Chapter 11? They never bother to convert
they just claim to be "Spiritual Jews" even though they reject Jewish
spirituality.
Jon R
> Isa 45:21 Tell ye, and bring them near; yea, let them take counsel
> together: who hath declared this from ancient time? who hath told it
> from that time? have not I YHWH? and there is no Elohim else beside
> me; a just El and a Saviour; there is none besides me.
> Isa 45:22 Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth:
> for I am El, and there is none else.
>
> It breaks my heart that so many people want to learn by bad examples
> how to weasel their way around keeping the word of YAHWEH. Instead of
> binding it on their hearts, they spend day and night twisting the
> truth to create an Elohim of their own making and desires, one that
> serves them and not one they serve.
Jon: I agree that people not following the word of God is is sad.
This is not just christians who should and would know better if they
would read and pray.
Many christians do both of these, so please do not lump.
> http://groups.google.com/group/messianicYehoshua<-- joinhttp://www.isr-messianic.org/ <- download the scriptures free
> orhttp://messianicyehoshua.googlegroups.com/web/RNKJV_W.zip <--free
Jon R
Jon: A good answer!
Jon R
Jon: You do not become a Jew nor was this ever require by the Lord,
but you should indeed
continue to accept the fact that Jesus came as the passover lamb, not
just for the People of Israel, but rather for all mankind.
colp
Why not explain the context before you make a complete prat of
yourself?
colp
Why would he? They were not the focus of his mission.
colp
Peter was led by Paul to his death.
John 21:18 Verily, verily, I say unto thee, When thou wast young, thou
girdedst thyself, and walkedst whither thou wouldest: but when thou
shalt be old, thou shalt stretch forth thy hands, and another shall
gird thee, and carry [thee] whither thou wouldest not.
> Reading the acient
> greek texts of Shaul's writings, it seems that he is being poorly
> translated from Hebrew, and that he agrees with the Torah and with
> Messiah.
Problems in translation do not account for Paul's lawlessness and his
lies.
Misanthropic Curmudgeon
GS arbitarily picked Daniel as an example.
I arbitarily picked Lot (who is explicitly refered to as a just and
noble man, who offered his daughters up to a raping mob so they would
go away) and a couple of others
Doug
<2gcv25toorb15da4g...@4ax.com>:
I think you are misreading that.
Matthew 7:21-23
Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the
kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in
heaven.
Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in
thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many
wonderful works?
And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye
that work iniquity.
>
>
>>He told a Samaritan woman that the time had come, that it was no longer
>>necessary to go to Jerusalem, to worship God. Instead of practising the
>>old rituals, people would worship God in spirit and in truth.
>
> Yes, Messiah predicted the destruction of the Second Temple. Yes, He
> confirmed what is written in the Talmud, In the Messianic Age our
> offerings will consist of prayers and praise. Of course Christians do
> some of the prayers, but do not study the Bible enough to even know if
> they are doing all of them.
Jesus told the scribes and Pharisees,
Matthew 15:6-8
Ye hypocrites, well did Esaias prophesy of you, saying,
This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with
their lips; but their heart is far from me.
And he said many of the the Jews, the "children of the kingdom," would
miss out, while Gentiles would go in.
Matthew 8:11-12
And I say unto you, That many shall come from the east and west, and
shall sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of
heaven.
But the children of the kingdom shall be cast out into outer darkness:
there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
>
>
>
>>John 4:19-24
>>The woman saith unto him, Sir, I perceive that thou art a prophet. Our
>>fathers worshipped in this mountain; and ye say, that in Jerusalem is
>>the place where men ought to worship. Jesus saith unto her, Woman,
>>believe me, the hour cometh, when ye shall neither in this mountain, nor
>>yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father. Ye worship ye know not what: we
>>know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews.
>>But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship
>>the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to
>>worship him.
>>God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit
>>and in truth.
--
Doug
guardian Snow
> > It breaks my heart that so many people want to learn by bad examples
> > how to weasel their way around keeping the word of YAHWEH. Instead of
> > binding it on their hearts, they spend day and night twisting the
> > truth to create an Elohim of their own making and desires, one that
> > serves them and not one they serve.
>
> Jon: I agree that people not following the word of God is is sad.
> This is not just christians who should and would know better if they
> would read and pray.
> Many christians do both of these, so please do not lump.
There is no "god" in Hebrew scriptures. Elohim Yahweh is his name for
all generations, see Exodus 3:15 after you see your bible preface.
H1167
בּעל
ba‛al
bah'-al
From H1166; a master; hence a husband, or (figuratively) owner (often
used with another noun in modifications of this latter sense: LORD,
man, + married, master, person, + sworn, they of.
That’s right.. Ba’al means LORD as in:
Exo 20:2 I am the LORD thy God,
The Christian belief has relied on faulty translations of scriptures
for hundreds of years because it is man’s tradition first and because
it allows the lies of Christianity to continue. Christian pastors
maintain these lies because first off, it’s not popular to preach the
truth, that they and their religion of mislead people. Nobody wants
to purchase bibles that preach the truth and that the world is
deceived making all the prophecy true:
Jer 23:27 Which think to cause my people to forget my name by their
dreams which they tell every man to his neighbour, as their fathers
have forgotten my name for Baal.
Why did the recently published “New International Version” (NIV) of
the Bible fail to use the name of God where it appears about 7,000
times in ancient Bible manuscripts? In response to a person who
inquired about this, Edwin H. Palmer, Th.D., Executive Secretary for
the NIV’s committee wrote:
“Here is why we did not: You are right that Jehovah is a distinctive
name for God and ideally we should have used it. But we put 2 1/4
million dollars into this translation and a sure way of throwing that
down the drain is to translate, for example, Psalm 23 as, ‘Yahweh is
my shepherd.’ Immediately, we would have translated for nothing.
Nobody would have used it. Oh, maybe you and a handful [of] others.
But a Christian has to be also wise and practical. We are the victims
of 350 years of the King James tradition. It is far better to get two
million to read it—that is how many have bought it to date—and to
follow the King James, than to have two thousand buy it and have the
correct translation of Yahweh. . . . It was a hard decision, and many
of our translators agree with you.”
Hos 2:17 “And I shall remove the names of the Baʽals from her mouth,
and they shall no more be remembered by their name.
Hopefully for you, today is that day when you stop calling on the name
of “Lord” and start to recognize the true name of the creator!
Deu 32:3 “For I proclaim the Name of [Yahweh] יהוה, Ascribe greatness
to our Elohim.
His name is not Baal Gawd!
Shalom,
*´¨)
¸.•´ ¸.•*´¨) ¸.•*¨)
(¸.•´ (¸.• (Snow(.¸.•*´¨)
http://groups.google.com/group/messianicYehoshua <-- join
http://www.isr-messianic.org/ <- download the scriptures free
or
http://messianicyehoshua.googlegroups.com/web/RNKJV_W.zip <--free
download of the Restored Names King James Version
"In Some Other World" lyrics by Wax U.K.
The prophet born again
the Bibie in his hand
With fire and brimstone eyes.
The saviour on TV with tax immunity
donations exorcized.
Who are these men in their ivory towers
not heaven sent
no
no.
Worshipping greed in the name of Jesus
save our souls!
In some other world you'd be branded as thieves
Thrown to your knees and made to answer.
In some different time they would lock you away
As mad men I'd say Amen.
Behind the public smile the politicians guile
so vain and powerful.
Elected for his hair by people unaware
it's unbelievable.
Brothers in arms robbing the future
shining in childrens eyes.
Shame on this world
shame on our country
shame on you.
In some other world you'd be branded as thieves
. . .
We built you an altar instead of an outcast
We made you a king respected and wealthy
The verdict is in
the jury is guilty.
Worshipping greed in the name of Jesus
shame on you!
In some other world you'd be branded as thieves
. . .
In some other world you'd be branded as thieves
. . .
randy
"guardian Snow"
"There is no "god" in Hebrew scriptures. Elohim Yahweh is his name for
all generations, see Exodus 3:15 after you see your bible preface."
Elohim can be translated into "gods" or "God" or "divinely-appointed
rulers." "God" is a perfectly good translation of the *concept,* which we in
English refer to as the "God of Israel," or as the "God and Father of Jesus
Christ."
Please do not get hung up on words. They are just vehicles of expression to
help form a common understanding. The more technical "Yahweh" may add a more
personal touch to our deity, and that is fine. But for many people, the word
"God" is sufficient.
This is why we get into all these arguments about whose Bible translation is
better. At worst, we begin to accuse other versions of being "satanic" or
"deceptive," falling into a judgmental spirit. Using simpler words is not
always an intended dilution of concepts to pervert the truth. Sometimes we
have to put things on a simpler level to reach more people. Please be
understanding--not judgmental!
randy
guardian Snow
> "guardian Snow"
> "There is no "god" in Hebrew scriptures. Elohim Yahweh is his name for
> all generations, see Exodus 3:15 after you see your bible preface."
>
> Elohim can be translated into "gods" or "God" or "divinely-appointed
> rulers." "God" is a perfectly good translation of the *concept,* which we in
> English refer to as the "God of Israel," or as the "God and Father of Jesus
> Christ."
>
< Please do not get hung up on words.
Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with Elohim,
and the Word was Elohim.
The idea of translating a plural word, Elohim to a singular word with
a different meaning is just wrong. It is this same misuse of words
that has driven you to false worship of Yehoshua.
Gen 23:5 And the sons of Ḥĕth answered Aḇraham, saying to him, 6
“Hear us, my master [adonai also translated LORD in KJV]: You are a
Elohim [translated mighty in kjv but also GOD] prince among us. Bury
your dead in the choicest of our burial places. None of us withholds
from you his burial site, from burying your dead.”
Here Abraham is also called adonai and Elohim, Lord and God in KJV
translation, the same is used for “Jesus” in the equivalent Greek text
“Kurious and Theos”. He also has the title of Elohim but they
correctly translate the word "mighty" but is usually translated
“God”. Does Yahweh share his name with Abraham now? Of course not.
YHWH is Elohim of Elohim and to continue to mistranslate the
scriptures for the sake of personal dogma is transgression of Torah.
We have ONE SAVIOR in Yahweh alone who sent us his Elohim and Savior
son Yehoshua.
>They are just vehicles of expression to
> help form a common understanding. The more technical "Yahweh" may add a more
> personal touch to our deity, and that is fine. But for many people, the word
> "God" is sufficient.
A lie is not sufficient unless of course your only goal is to continue
living that lie.
Exo 3:15 And Elohim said further to Mosheh, “Thus you are to say to
the children of Yisrael, YAHWEH Elohim of your fathers, the Elohim of
Aḇraham, the Elohim of Yitsḥaq, and the Elohim of Yaaqoḇ, has sent
me to you. This is My Name forever, and this is My remembrance to all
generations.’
This is the ONLY name ever given.
Act 2:21 ‘And it shall be that everyone who calls on the Name of יהוה
[Yahweh] shall be saved.’
If you would like to comment on this, feel free to add them to this
web page.
http://groups.google.com/group/messianicYehoshua/web/removing-the-name-of-yhwh
Shalom,
*´¨)
¸.•´ ¸.•*´¨) ¸.•*¨)
(¸.•´ (¸.• (Snow(.¸.•*´¨)
http://groups.google.com/group/messianicYehoshua <-- please join
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/messianic_Yehoshua/
If we all worked on the assumption that what is accepted as true is
really true, there would be little hope of advance.
Orville Wright
http://www.e-sword.net/ Free bible software
http://www.isr-messianic.org/ <- download the scriptures free
or
http://messianicyehoshua.googlegroups.com/web/RNKJV.zip <--free
download of the Restored Names King James Version
If history is any indication, all truths will eventually turn out to
be false.
Dean Kamen
__,
.-'_-'`
.' {`
.-'````'-. .-'``'.
.'(0) '._/ _.-. `\
} '. )) _<` )` |
`-.,\'.\_,.-\` \`---; .' /
) ) '-. '--:
( ' ( ) '. \
'. ) .'( / )
)/ ( '. /
'._( ) .'
gs ( (
`-.
http://groups.google.com/group/messianicYehoshua/web/the-revelation-of-yahwshua-ha-mashiyach---whose-son-is-he
randy
"guardian Snow"
randy
> Elohim can be translated into "gods" or "God" or "divinely-appointed
> rulers." "God" is a perfectly good translation of the *concept,* which we
> in
> English refer to as the "God of Israel," or as the "God and Father of
> Jesus
> Christ."
< Please do not get hung up on words.
"The idea of translating a plural word, Elohim to a singular word with
a different meaning is just wrong. It is this same misuse of words
that has driven you to false worship of Yehoshua."
We disagree on what is true worship. Nonetheless, my point is that the
plural word "Elohim" obtains its meaning from *context,* and not from its
plural form. If the application is to a monotheistic deity, it matters not
in the least if the word has a plural form. It may apply either to "gods" or
to the monotheistic "God." If you don't agree, it has little to do with
whether my worship is false or not. It is a matter of whether we let the
context of the biblical passages determine how the word is being used.
"We have ONE SAVIOR in Yahweh alone who sent us his Elohim and Savior
son Yehoshua."
I have no problem with that. But the way we let words express the name of
that deity is a matter of what kind of language people utilize to express
it. If people want to use "Elohim" to describe either a pantheon of gods or
the monotheistic God of the Jews, it is a matter of what language they
employ and a matter of what words in their language they choose to use. In
my world I could use the word "heavens" to describe the Kingdom of God. It
would no less be one Kingdom even if I chose the plural word "heavens" to
describe it.
Just adding my comments. Thankyou.
randy
guardian Snow
> "guardian Snow"
> randy> Elohim can be translated into "gods" or "God" or "divinely-appointed
> > rulers." "God" is a perfectly good translation of the *concept,* which we
> > in
> > English refer to as the "God of Israel," or as the "God and Father of
> > Jesus
> > Christ."
>
> < Please do not get hung up on words.
>
> "The idea of translating a plural word, Elohim to a singular word with
> a different meaning is just wrong. It is this same misuse of words
> that has driven you to false worship of Yehoshua."
>
> We disagree on what is true worship. Nonetheless, my point is that the
> plural word "Elohim" obtains its meaning from *context,* and not from its
> plural form. If the application is to a monotheistic deity, it matters not
< in the least if the word has a plural form. It may apply either to
"gods" or
> to the monotheistic "God." If you don't agree, it has little to do with
> whether my worship is false or not. It is a matter of whether we let the
> context of the biblical passages determine how the word is being used.
Elohim is English in that it uses English characters and not Hebrew
ones. It may be a new word to you but none the less we can find the
word define in Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elohim
It is not uncommon for English to take words from other languages
otherwise you would have no understanding of Sabbath, Satan, Rabbi,
Passover, haleluyah which means, "praise Yah", clearly another word
based on Hebrew understanding. The list goes on by the way....
> "We have ONE SAVIOR in Yahweh alone who sent us his Elohim and Savior
> son Yehoshua."
>
> I have no problem with that. But the way we let words express the name of
> that deity is a matter of what kind of language people utilize to express
> it. If people want to use "Elohim" to describe either a pantheon of gods or
> the monotheistic God of the Jews, it is a matter of what language they
> employ and a matter of what words in their language they choose to use. In
> my world I could use the word "heavens" to describe the Kingdom of God. It
> would no less be one Kingdom even if I chose the plural word "heavens" to
> describe it.
>
> Just adding my comments. Thankyou.
> randy
I respect your comments Randy but this confusion has led to millions
of Christians following after false deities in the Messiah, who never
wanted us to serve him directly.
Mat 4:10 Then saith Yehoshua unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it
is written, Thou shalt worship YAHWEH thy Elohim, and him only shalt
thou serve.
This one verse is actually proof that Yehoshua is not the Almighty
creator because Satan wouldn't bother trying to tempted him AND
Yehoshua would have said, "serve me" but he didn't. "God" as a word
has nothing to do with Hebrew and is actually associated with the name
of Baal [Lord] Gawd.
In modern English it is derived from German, since the scriptures were
first published by Gutenberg in Germany during the dark ages. While
you can blissfully say that it doesn't matter, presenting the truth as
written should be very important to any believer.
Isa 14:26 This is the purpose that is purposed upon the whole earth:
and this is the hand that is stretched out upon all the nations. 27
For YHWH of hosts hath purposed, and who shall disannul it? and his
hand is stretched out, and who shall turn it back?
What I know is that only YHWH turns back false council by his Torah.
Isa 14:32 What shall one then answer the messengers of the gentiles?
That YHWH hath founded Zion, and the poor of his people shall trust in
it.
Shalom,
*´¨)
¸.•´ ¸.•*´¨) ¸.•*¨)
(¸.•´ (¸.• (Snow(.¸.•*´¨)
http://groups.google.com/group/messianicYehoshua <-- join this message
board to respond
randy
"guardian Snow"
randy
> ...my point is that the plural word "Elohim" obtains its meaning from
> monotheistic deity, it matters not in the least if the word has a plural
> form. It may apply either to "gods" or to the monotheistic "God." If you
> don't agree, it has little to do with whether my worship is false or not.
> It is a matter of whether we let the context of the biblical passages
> determine how the word is being used.
"Elohim is English in that it uses English characters and not Hebrew
ones. It may be a new word to you but none the less we can find the
word define in Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elohim..."
Elohim is not a new word to me. It is the English expression of a Hebrew
word for "God." The fact it has a plural form does not alter its application
to a monotheistic God, as used by the Hebrews. The English expression of the
word contains precisely the same concept, using a plural form of a word to
express a single deity.
If you want to ask why a plural form of a word is used to express a
monothesitic God, that is besides the point. Plural forms of words are
normally used to express single entities. For examples, the "heavens"
express a single universe.
randy
colp
> "guardian Snow"
> randy
>
> > ...my point is that the plural word "Elohim" obtains its meaning from
> > *context,* and not from its plural form. If the application is to a
> > monotheistic deity, it matters not in the least if the word has a plural
> > form. It may apply either to "gods" or to the monotheistic "God." If you
> > don't agree, it has little to do with whether my worship is false or not.
> > It is a matter of whether we let the context of the biblical passages
> > determine how the word is being used.
>
> "Elohim is English in that it uses English characters and not Hebrew
> ones. It may be a new word to you but none the less we can find the
> word define in Wikipedia:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elohim..."
>
> Elohim is not a new word to me. It is the English expression of a Hebrew
> word for "God." The fact it has a plural form does not alter its application
> to a monotheistic God, as used by the Hebrews. The English expression of the
> word contains precisely the same concept, using a plural form of a word to
> express a single deity.
>
> If you want to ask why a plural form of a word is used to express a
> monothesitic God, that is besides the point.
No, it isn't.
> Plural forms of words are
> normally used to express single entities.
No, they're not.
> For examples, the "heavens"
> express a single universe.
Straw man. Heavens and universe are different words. Also, the Hebrew
word shmayim (heavens) has two separate meanings in Genesis.
guardian Snow
Actually brother, he is correct in that Elohiym, while being a English
plurality, can express quantitative and quality of values as in great
verses greatest. The problem arises when EL, Eloah, Elohim, Elohiym,
Adonai, Baal are all translated with the same meanings as his set
apart name YAHWEH. Seven different words are all translated Lord when
it suites Christian doctrine and what's ironic is that the so called,
"Jewish" Publication Bible does this same thing, which calls me to
question just how "Jewish" the translators were.
Deu 10:17 For YHWH your Elohim is the mighty one of the elohim , and
Sovereign of sovereign, a great El, mighty, and terrible, which
regardeth not persons, nor taketh bribes:
So while scriptures do acknowledge other "mighty ones" such as Moses,
Abraham and Yehoshua, there is only ONE who is, Elohim Yahweh EL
Shaddai.
Had scriptures been properly translated, nobody would be confused to
think that Yehoshua was ELOHIM but not the Almighty since even you or
I are considered Elohim.
Psa 82:6 I, I said, “You are elohim, And all of you are sons of the
Most High.
but we are NOT gods that we should be worshipped:
Psa 82:6 I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the
most High.
So we know this is a false translation of a quality and not a
quantity.
randy
"colp"
randy
> Elohim is not a new word to me. It is the English expression of a Hebrew
> word for "God." The fact it has a plural form does not alter its
> application
> to a monotheistic God, as used by the Hebrews. The English expression of
> the
> word contains precisely the same concept, using a plural form of a word to
> express a single deity.
> If you want to ask why a plural form of a word is used to express a
> monothesitic God, that is besides the point.
"No, it isn't."
Yes it is. Explaining *why* a plural word denotes something singular is one
thing. The fact it is so is an entirely other thing. We know that plural
words do refer to singular things. I gave you only one example.
Heavens=universe. Another would be waters=sea.
> Plural forms of words are
> normally used to express single entities.
"No, they're not."
Elohim is used of a monotheistic deity. I gave you other examples above.
> For examples, the "heavens"
> express a single universe.
"Straw man. Heavens and universe are different words...."
It isn't a "straw man." We must have two different words to show that a word
with a plural form can denote a singular entity. Elohim=God,
heavens=universe, waters=sea, etc. etc.
randy
randy
"guardian Snow"
randy
> > Plural forms of words are
> > normally used to express single entities.
> No, they're not.
"Actually brother, he is correct in that Elohiym, while being a English
plurality, can express quantitative and quality of values as in great
verses greatest. The problem arises when EL, Eloah, Elohim, Elohiym,
Adonai, Baal are all translated with the same meanings as his set
apart name YAHWEH. Seven different words are all translated Lord when
it suites Christian doctrine and what's ironic is that the so called,
"Jewish" Publication Bible does this same thing, which calls me to
question just how "Jewish" the translators were."
You make an issue out of God's "set apart name YAHWEH." But does God really
consider His name so important?
Exo 3:14 God said to Moses, "I AM WHO I AM." And he said, "Say this to the
people of Israel, �I AM has sent me to you.�"
What this tells me is that God is more concerned with expressing the fact of
His existence rather than designating a special name for himself. After all,
it was Moses who asked for His name--not God who volunteered a name for Him
to be remembered by.
In another place, consider...
Gen 32:29 Then Jacob asked him, "Tell me, I pray, your name." But he said,
"Why is it that you ask my name?"
So it seems that God is less interested in His own name than we are.
But on the matter of plurals expressing a singular reality, that is the way
composite nouns work. If the accumulated mass of something expresses a
single thing, then the plural equals something singular. For example,
waters=sea. In the case of deity, we have deity expressing a composite of
all that it means for men to express deity, whether "gods" or "God."
Therefore, the plural conception of deity, or *deity* itself, refers to the
singular God.
"Had scriptures been properly translated, nobody would be confused to
think that Yehoshua was ELOHIM but not the Almighty since even you or
I are considered Elohim."
It's really *context* that determines what words mean. That does not require
a word-for-word translation. If we know that the word "elohim" does not have
to refer to human judges, or to a plurality of gods, then we can easily
learn to associate "elohim" with "God."
randy
guardian Snow
> You make an issue out of God's "set apart name YAHWEH." But does God really
> consider His name so important?
> Exo 3:14 God said to Moses, "I AM WHO I AM." And he said, "Say this to the
> people of Israel, ‘I AM has sent me to you.’"
Because of mistranslation, you don't know what verse to look at to
find the name, try the next verse:
Exo 3:14 And Elohim said to Mosheh, “I am that which I am.”1 And He
said, “Thus you shall say to the children of Yisra’ĕl, ‘I am has sent
me to you.’ ” Footnote: 1The Heḇrew text reads: ’eyeh ’asher ’eyeh,
the word ’eyeh being derived from hayah which means to be, to exist,
but the Aramaic text here in v. 14 reads: ayah ashar ayah. This is not
His Name, but it is an explanation that leads up to the revelation of
His Name in v. 15, namely: YAHWEH יהוה.
Exo 3:15 And Elohim said further to Mosheh, “Thus you are to say to
the children of Yisra’ĕl, ‘יהוה YAHWEH Elohim of your fathers, the
Elohim of Aḇraham, the Elohim of Yitsḥaq, and the Elohim of
Yaʽaqoḇ, has sent me to you. This is My Name forever, and this is My
remembrance to all generations.’
Isa 42:8 I am YAHWEH: that is my name: and my glory will I not give to
another, neither my praise to graven images.
Now why is his name so important?
Joe 2:32 And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the
name of YAHWEH shall be delivered: for in mount Zion and in Jerusalem
shall be deliverance, as YAHWEH hath said, and in the remnant whom
YAHWEH shall call.
It doesn't say all who call on adonai, all who call on baal, all who
call on elohim... THREE times it tells us to call on the name of
YAHWEH. Is it your desire that men not be saved?
There is only ONE.
Mar 12:29 And Yahushua answered him, The first of all the commandments
is, Hear, O Israel; YAHWEH is our Elohim, YAHWEH is one:
Mar 12:30 And thou shalt love YAHWEH thy Elohim with all thy heart,
and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy
strength: this is the first commandment.
Here we have a direct quote of Deuteronomy so that we can have no
doubt exactly what is said in the Hebrew:
Deu 6:4 Hear, O Israel: YAHWEH is our Elohim, YAHWEH is one:
Deu 6:5 And thou shalt love YAHWEH thy Elohim with all thine heart,
and with all thy soul, and with all thy might.
Act 2:21 ‘And it shall be that everyone who calls on the Name of יהוה
[Yahweh] shall be saved.’
If you would like to comment on this, feel free to add them to this
web page.
http://groups.google.com/group/messianicYehoshua/web/removing-the-name-of-yhwh
Shalom,
*´¨)
¸.•´ ¸.•*´¨) ¸.•*¨)
(¸.•´ (¸.• (Snow(.¸.•*´¨)
http://groups.google.com/group/messianicYehoshua <-- please join
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/messianic_Yehoshua/
If we all worked on the assumption that what is accepted as true is
really true, there would be little hope of advance.
Orville Wright
http://www.e-sword.net/ Free bible software
http://www.isr-messianic.org/ <- download the scriptures free
or
http://messianicyehoshua.googlegroups.com/web/RNKJV.zip <--free
download of the Restored Names King James Version
If history is any indication, all truths will eventually turn out to
be false.
Dean Kamen
__,
randy
"guardian Snow"
randy
> You make an issue out of God's "set apart name YAHWEH." But does God
> really
> consider His name so important?
> Exo 3:14 God said to Moses, "I AM WHO I AM." And he said, "Say this to the
> people of Israel, ‘I AM has sent me to you.’"
"Because of mistranslation, you don't know what verse to look at to
find the name, try the next verse:..."
I'm not an expert at translation, and neither are you, I would suppose. I
accept the English translation that I have available. I don't take seriously
conspiracy theories that presuppose an interest in perverting or diluting
the Scriptures. For the most part English translations of the Bible simply
want to communicate in English the basic idea of what the Scripture authors
attempted to communicate.
"Exo 3:14 And Elohim said to Mosheh, “I am that which I am.”1 And He
said, “Thus you shall say to the children of Yisra’ĕl, ‘I am has sent
me to you.’ ” Footnote: 1The Heḇrew text reads: ’eyeh ’asher ’eyeh,
the word ’eyeh being derived from hayah which means to be, to exist,
but the Aramaic text here in v. 14 reads: ayah ashar ayah. This is not
His Name, but it is an explanation that leads up to the revelation of
His Name in v. 15, namely: YAHWEH יהוה."
It is only you who are emphasizing the importance of using a particular name
among many names that belong to God. The point is, Moses pursued His name,
though this appeared to be of less concern to God Himself. Take for example
the angel's indifference to Jacob wanting to know his name after he wrestled
with him.
God's name describes the *quality* that He wished to communicate to Moses,
the fact that He *exists.* How do I come to believe this? I believe it
because there are many names and many qualities that God communicated to
Israel regarding His name. He is, for example, the God of healing, the God
of provision, and the mighty God, etc.
"Isa 42:8 I am YAHWEH: that is my name: and my glory will I not give to
another, neither my praise to graven images.
Now why is his name so important?"
Only because it communicates the idea of a single divine personality, the
source of our spirituality. And God's names communicate qualities, such as
righteousness and mercy, that we need to know when adopting His spirituality
in our own life.
"Act 2:21 ‘And it shall be that everyone who calls on the Name of יהוה
[Yahweh] shall be saved.’ "
I have no doubt that it is important that we focus on the right God. Getting
His name right only concerns the fact that we must have the right God.
Misspelling, or mispronouncing, His name has nothing to do with getting the
right God. Using the word God, Elohim, or Yahweh has nothing to do with
getting the right God. What we must understand is that there are unique
qualities associated with this one God, and a particular history as it
affects our adoption of His spirituality. It is, then, His spirituality that
matters, and not using one particular name. He actually has *many* names,
and not just one. If you wish to set apart the name "Yahweh" to designate
the God who contains all of His qualities, fine. That works for me. But
denying someone else use of the word "God" to express precisely the same
thing is an attempt to control how people communicate and use language.
randy
guardian Snow
The Messianic community in an effort to promote better understanding
has stopped using the word Holy. Instead we use the words “set
apart”. It’s a logical consideration when you think about clarity.
We can call anything holy but this is not the case.
The word “god”, itself is not “Holy”, even if some consider it to be.
If it were then we would find no other deity in reference with the
word. Zeus, Apollo, Athena are just a few that were consider pagan
gods and so the word is not set apart from all others.
Jer 23:27 Which think to cause my people to forget my name by their
dreams which they tell every man to his neighbour, as their fathers
have forgotten my name for Baal.
One of the names of Baal was Gad.
H1409
גּד
gawd
A variation of H1409; Fortune, a Babylonian deity: - that troop.
For some reason it’s translated “that troop” in the KJV. But if we
look at the “variation”:
Notice first that there is NO difference between the two words
characters in Hebrew. Gawd is pronounced god.
Isa 65:11 “But you are those who forsake [YAHWEH] יהוה, who forget My
set-apart mountain, who prepare a table for Gad, and who fill a drink
offering for Meni.
This is the ONLY listing for gawd of furtune in the entire scriptures.
So, next I figure I’ll look into Baal Gad.
H1171
בּעל גּד
ba‛al gâd
bah'-al gawd
From H1168 and H1409; Baal of Fortune; Baal Gad, a place in Syria: -
Baal-gad.
Notice again... same characters for Gawd. Interesting that so many
treat this name as if it’s sacred and type G-d. When you consider the
fact that Hebrew doesn’t have vowels, G-d is exactly what is written.
Notice that the name gawd is in fact Gad as recorded as H1409.
Baal’s name is what the world considers a sacred name! No wonder it
says, “In God we trust” on all the money in the United States.
Jos 11:17 from Mount Ḥalaq that goes up to Sĕʽir, and as far as Baʽal
Gaḏ in the Valley of Leḇanon below Mount Ḥermon. And he captured
all their sovereigns, and smote them and killed them.
Jos 11:18 Yehoshua fought with all those sovereigns for a long time.
Yehoshua is also the name of the Messiah! (Zec 6 11-12)
http://yahushua.net/baalgad.htm
Shalom,
*´¨)
¸.•´ ¸.•*´¨) ¸.•*¨)
(¸.•´ (¸.• (Snow(.¸.•*´¨)
A designer knows he has achieved perfection not when there is nothing
left to add, but when there is nothing left to take away.
Antoine de Saint-Exupery
http://groups.google.com/group/messianicYehoshua <-- join
http://www.isr-messianic.org/ <- download the scriptures free
or
http://messianicyehoshua.googlegroups.com/web/RNKJV_W.zip <--free
colp
> "colp"
> randy
>
> > Elohim is not a new word to me. It is the English expression of a Hebrew
> > word for "God." The fact it has a plural form does not alter its
> > application
> > to a monotheistic God, as used by the Hebrews. The English expression of
> > the
> > word contains precisely the same concept, using a plural form of a word to
> > express a single deity.
> > If you want to ask why a plural form of a word is used to express a
> > monothesitic God, that is besides the point.
>
> "No, it isn't."
>
> Yes it is. Explaining *why* a plural word denotes something singular is one
> thing. The fact it is so is an entirely other thing.
The distinction isn't important.
> We know that plural
> words do refer to singular things.
Only in exceptional cases.
> I gave you only one example.
> Heavens=universe.
Straw man, like I said. The heavens are not the universe from the POV
of man.
> Another would be waters=sea.
Water/waters is plural because the root word contains the masculine
plural suffix. This is another exception to the general rule, and this
idea could be applied to shmayim also.
>
> > Plural forms of words are
> > normally used to express single entities.
>
> "No, they're not."
>
> Elohim is used of a monotheistic deity. I gave you other examples above.
Two or three exceptions do not demonstrate a general rule.
>
> > For examples, the "heavens"
> > express a single universe.
>
> "Straw man. Heavens and universe are different words...."
>
> It isn't a "straw man."
It is a straw man because the plural 'heavens' is not the same as the
singular 'universe'.
> We must have two different words to show that a word
> with a plural form can denote a singular entity. Elohim=God,
> heavens=universe, waters=sea, etc. etc.
Rubbish. Hebrew grammar is the primary indicator of exceptional cases
of number.
As far as monotheism goes, in the Tanak the word Elohim is not used to
refer to YHWH, but rather words like Elahi or Elohinu are.
guardian Snow
> Rubbish. Hebrew grammar is the primary indicator of exceptional cases
> of number.
>
> As far as monotheism goes, in the Tanak the word Elohim is not used to
> refer to YHWH, but rather words like Elahi or Elohinu are.
Most importantly EL the singular refers to Yahweh as Elohim of
Elohim. Unfortunately this is lost on those who insist on corruption
and worship Baal G'D instead of the one true EL Shaddai Yahweh.
Mar 16:17 “And these signs shall accompany the ones who believe: In My
Name they shall cast out demons, they shall speak with renewed
tongues,
Will they renew their tongues? I find it interesting that people seem
to think we don't speak English when clearly we are conversing with
English characters.
colp
> On Jun 24, 5:25 pm, colp <c...@solder.ath.cx> wrote:
>
> > Rubbish. Hebrew grammar is the primary indicator of exceptional cases
> > of number.
>
> > As far as monotheism goes, in the Tanak the word Elohim is not used to
> > refer to YHWH, but rather words like Elahi or Elohinu are.
>
> Most importantly EL the singular refers to Yahweh as Elohim of
> Elohim.
YHWH is not referred to as Elohim of Elohim, but as Elahi [singular]
of the Elohim [plural]:
For YHWH Elahikm is Elahi [of] the Elohim
[כי יהוה אלהיכם הוא אלהי האלהים]
Deu 10:17
guardian Snow
:) It's always good to have a brother of understanding to correct me.
Keep up the good work brother. Remember that most of the time I
backtrack from the English Scriptures because I still can't get into
reading left to right. It's a fascinating language but it's like
driving in England Vs. the United States where you drive on the right
Vs. the left side of the road and you have to forget all your habits
and stay off the right side and expect metrics.
randy
"guardian Snow"
randy
> Only because it communicates the idea of a single divine personality, the
> source of our spirituality. And God's names communicate qualities, such as
> righteousness and mercy, that we need to know when adopting His
> spirituality
> in our own life.
"The Messianic community in an effort to promote better understanding
has stopped using the word Holy. Instead we use the words “set
apart”. It’s a logical consideration when you think about clarity.
We can call anything holy but this is not the case."
Sometimes it helps to bring attention to our reckless, automatic use of
words that should in reality mean something more. The word "holy" serves me
very well in understanding that God alone bestows upon His name and upon
others His own unique, spiritual qualities. When we become like God and
conform to His will, we become "holy" like God.
Sometimes "set apart" can be used in such a casual way that we fail to
recognize how important it is in our understanding as it relates to God. To
be "set apart" can be a simple ordination, a calling to a particular task.
But to be "set apart" actually means much more than this. It means that we
have been set apart in order to come into a unique relationship with God in
the sense of becoming *partners* with Him. In being set apart, we enter into
a prophetic realm, and also become "holy."
I guess what I'm saying is that there is a place to choose what words we
use, in particular when a word obtains an almost mechanical, perfunctory
meaning. Sometimes we need to substitute in another word, to bring attention
to some other facet of the word, to recover the whole, or original, meaning
of the word. I'm not against you using the word "holy" or the words "set
apart." What matters really is what you're trying to say. But to judge those
who use words that make sense for them is just a control tactic, and I would
discourage it.
"The word “god”, itself is not “Holy”, even if some consider it to be.
If it were then we would find no other deity in reference with the
word. Zeus, Apollo, Athena are just a few that were consider pagan
gods and so the word is not set apart from all others."
It is not the word "God" that would make it holy, but rather, it's
association with a particular deity, the Christian God or the Jewish God.
Holiness is an attribute of a pure God, whose laws are considered to be
sacred and morally perfect.
Let us keep in mind that when God drew attention to His name, He was drawing
attention not to the name itself, but rather, to His identity. It would be
silly for me to say that it is very important that my name is Randy. It
would be more important to me that if there was a lottery winner, and Randy
was the winner, that they get the right "Randy." ;)
randy
guardian Snow
> Let us keep in mind that when God drew attention to His name, He was drawing
> attention not to the name itself,
Rev 14:12 Here is the endurance of the set-apart ones, here are those
guarding the commands of Elohim and the belief of יהושע.
How nice that you ignored my post.
Elohim does NOT mean God and I can’t be any clearer than that. Elohim
means “mighty one” and while it is used many times as a title for our
Almighty, it is not his name. You cannot replace the title Elohim
with “God” and all versions of scriptures that do this are corrupted
and useless, fit only for fire.
In scriptures we have many different Elohim’s such as Moses and Israel
as a nation as recorded:
Psa 82:6 I, I said, “You are elohim, And all of you are sons of the
Most High.
Psa 82:7 “But as men you die, And fall as one of the heads.”
It’s silly that ISR made this title to be used without capitalizing it
to say it means something different.. “You are Elohim”, simply means
that you are made mighty by Yahweh, the Elohim of Elohims.
Deu 10:17 “For [Yahweh] יהוה your Elohim is Elohim of mighty ones and
Master of masters, the great Ěl, mighty and awesome, who shows no
partiality nor takes a bribe.
We can see here that there a many “mighty ones” but only one is our
Almighty. Simply put, Elohim is a plural title that can mean many
mighty ones or even a nation of mighty ones. God is a singular word
and a complete faulty mistranltion. Somebody named Frank recently
posted:
“Jesus is Yahweh (YHWH).
Jesus is Yahweh Elohim (LORD God).”
This is a completely ignorant and blasphemous statement. He is
attempting to again blend the mistranslations with what is truly
written in Hebrew. He wants to make his belief match up but this is
the same error that has been done for 2000 years now, out of
ignorance. I don’t think Frank is evil but he is attempting out of
vanity to reason old wine and new wine together in the same flask.
Mat 9:17 “Neither do they put new wine into old wineskins, or else the
wineskins burst, and the wine is spilled, and the wineskins are
ruined. But they put new wine into fresh wineskins, and both are
preserved.”
Franks wine skin has burst. He wants to use Greek words still even
using mistranslated names for Yehoshua and maintain his old belief.
His sin is vanity. It is a vain man that is unable to recognize he is
wrong.
Joh 12:44 Then [Yehoshua] יהושע cried out and said, “He who believes
in Me, believes not in Me but in Him who sent Me.
To My brother Jonathan, John never at any point makes the false
assertion that Yehoshua was the Almighty. To the contrary as you see,
Yehoshua by John makes it clear that we do not worship his Messiah but
in (the spirit) of our heavenly Father who sent him.
Joh 4:23 “But the hour is coming, and now is, when the true
worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and truth, for the
Father also does seek such to worship Him.
Joh 4:24 “Elohim is Spirit, and those who worship Him need to worship
in spirit and truth.”
The Good News of John doesn’t lead us to false worship, only
mistranslation of the word Elohim to God allows that and the two words
have entirely different meanings. We are told to put away old things
and never to return to them.. “God” is not a title I use.. period…
it’s the name of Baal.
Yehoshua is ELOHIM, just like Moses or any other mighty one but that
does not make him the Almighty.
Isa 19:20 And it shall be for a sign and for a witness to [Yahweh]
יהוה of hosts in the land of Mitsrayim. When they cry to [Yahweh] יהוה
because of the oppressors, He sends them a Saviour and an Elohim, and
shall deliver them.
Yahweh is our Savior for sending us an Elohim in Yehoshua and there is
none other.
Isa 45:21 “Declare and bring near, let them even take counsel
together. Who has announced this from of old? Who has declared it from
that time? Is it not I, יהוה? And there is no mighty one besides Me, a
righteous Ěl and a Saviour, there is none besides Me.
Isa 45:22 “Turn to Me and be saved, all you ends of the earth! For I
am Ěl, and there is none else.
We have ONE SAVIOUR in Yahweh alone who sent us his Elohim and Savior
son Yehoshua.
Hos 2:16 “And it shall be, in that day,” declares [Yahweh] יהוה, “that
you call Me [One Husband] ‘אישׁ,’ and no longer call Me ‘My Baʽal.’
Hos 2:17 “And I shall remove the names of the Baʽals from her mouth,
and they shall no more be remembered by their name.
Hos 2:18 “And in that day I shall make a covenant for them with the
beasts of the field, and with the birds of the heavens, and with the
creeping creatures of the ground, when bow, and sword, and battle I
break from the earth. And I shall make them lie down in safety.
Hos 2:19 “And I shall take you as a bride unto Me forever, and take
you as a bride unto Me in righteousness, and in right-ruling, and
kindness and compassion.
Hos 2:20 “And I shall take you as a bride unto Me in trustworthiness,
and you shall know [Yahweh] יהוה.
Shalom,
*´¨)
¸.•´ ¸.•*´¨) ¸.•*¨)
(¸.•´ (¸.• (Snow(.¸.•*´¨)
http://groups.google.com/group/messianicYehoshua <-- my site
“Hi. It's me. I know you're out there. I know you're working as
fast as you can to catch me. I thought I should call and let you know
how things stand. I know you're real proud of this world you've built,
the way it works, all the nice little rules and such, but I've got
some bad news. I've decided to make a few changes.”
Neo – The Matrix
http://www.e-sword.net/ Free bible software
http://www.isr-messianic.org/ <- download the scriptures free
or
http://messianicyehoshua.googlegroups.com/web/RNKJV.zip <--free
download of the Restored Names King James Version
An error does not become truth by reason of multiplied propagation,
nor does truth become error because nobody sees it.
Mohandas Gandhi
randy
"colp"
randy
> > If you want to ask why a plural form of a word is used to express a
> > monothesitic God, that is besides the point.
> "No, it isn't."
> Yes it is. Explaining *why* a plural word denotes something singular is
> one
> thing. The fact it is so is an entirely other thing.
"The distinction isn't important."
You made the distinction important. I indicated the fact is that plural
words (nouns) may indeed indicate a singular entity. Asking why this is so I
indicated was not important as much as acknowledging it as fact. You denied
this. So I will prove to you that plural nouns can represent singular
realities *as a general rule,* without having to explain to you *why*
anybody does this.
There are "mutated nouns," nouns that appear as a single group and yet use
plural verbs. There are also plural nouns that use a singular verb.
"Collective nouns," one of a collective group used as the object of a
preposition can have either a singular or plural verb. Names of companies or
organizations, referring to a sports team by the city in which it resides
normally use singular verbs. On the other hand, there are singular subjects
with plural predicates. This is just how the English language operates.
Understanding how Hebrew works would require more study into that language.
There are irregular plural noun forms in Hebrew. Elohim may be an example,
as far as I know.
http://grammar.ccc.commnet.edu/grammar/plurals.htm
http://www.hebrew4christians.com/Grammar/Unit_Four/Plural_Nouns/plural_nouns.html
"As far as monotheism goes, in the Tanak the word Elohim is not used to
refer to YHWH, but rather words like Elahi or Elohinu are."
I will get back with you on this.
randy
r m
>
> "As far as monotheism goes, in the Tanak the word Elohim is not used to
> refer to YHWH, but rather words like Elahi or Elohinu are."
In many ancient cultures, expressing things in the plural is a common
literary device to heighten the sense. For example 'heaven' in the
Bible is often expressed as 'heavens' or 'the heavenlies' - literary
than literal.
Another form of this literary device is the use or the n/(n+1)
expression. So, in Pro 30:18 we read "Three things are too wonderful
for me; four I do not understand"; or in Deut 17:6 "on the evidence
of two witnesses or of three witnesses the one who is to die shall be
put to death"; or Joh 2:6 " there were six stone water jars there for
the Jewish rites of purification, each holding twenty or thirty
gallons".
The parallel to Pro 30:18 gives an important insight IMHO "the way of
an eagle in the sky, the way of a serpent on a rock, the way of a ship
on the high seas, and the way of a man with a virgin" (v.19) in that
it follows the Creation pattern leading to the climax of God resting
on the 7th day - each detail building on the foregoing and raises our
emotional and intellectual stakes to a higher level.
So, as to "why a plural form of a word is used to express a
monothesitic God?", I have no probs for the mo.
Cheers.
colp
> "colp"
> randy
>
> > > If you want to ask why a plural form of a word is used to express a
> > > monothesitic God, that is besides the point.
> > "No, it isn't."
> > Yes it is. Explaining *why* a plural word denotes something singular is
> > one
> > thing. The fact it is so is an entirely other thing.
>
> "The distinction isn't important."
>
> You made the distinction important.
No, I didn't.
> I indicated the fact is that plural
> words (nouns) may indeed indicate a singular entity.
No, you didn't say 'may'. You said: "Plural forms of words are
randy
"randy"
> "As far as monotheism goes, in the Tanak the word Elohim is not used to
> refer to YHWH, but rather words like Elahi or Elohinu are."
> I will get back with you on this.
I really don't understand this. I see Elohim all through the Bible used in
reference to Israel's God.
randy
colp
You need to look at the Hebrew text to see this.
Moreover he said, I [am] the God [אלהי] of thy father, the God [אלהי]
of Abraham, the God [אלהי] of Isaac, and the God [אלהי] of Jacob. And
Moses hid his face; for he was afraid to look upon God [האלהים].
Exodus 3:6
http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Exd&c=3&v=1&t=KJV#conc/6
The first four words are singular posessive, but the last word is
plural, and includes the definite article ה.
The last word is plural because there are two divine beings in
context, YHWH and his angel.
randy
"guardian Snow"
randy
> Let us keep in mind that when God drew attention to His name, He was
> drawing
> attention not to the name itself,
"How nice that you ignored my post."
Don't confuse reading your post with disagreeing with your post.
"Elohim does NOT mean God and I can’t be any clearer than that...."
No, that's very clear, and let me be equally clear--you're wrong!
"Elohim has plural morphological form in Hebrew, but it is usually used with
singular verbs and adjectives in the Hebrew text. Traditionally, the God of
Israel is understood as a singular Deity."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elohim
"Elohim means “mighty one” and while it is used many times as a title for
our
Almighty, it is not his name...."
It is what He is called, regardless of whether you call it His "name" or
not. I don't understand what your hangup is with knowing His *name?* I'm not
even sure He has a specific name. When the Scriptures speak of His "name,"
it seems to be speaking of His identity, reference to who He is. It doesn't
seem to concern a particular word designating His individuality. His
individuality is associated largely with who He is as Creator, and as the
judge of the world.
randy
randy
"colp"
randy
> I indicated the fact is that plural
> words (nouns) may indeed indicate a singular entity.
"No, you didn't say 'may'. You said: "Plural forms of words are
normally used to express single entities." "
I'm not interested in your word games. It is normal that in certain cases
plural word forms express single entities. If you want to play games, forget
it.
randy
randy
"colp"
randy
> I really don't understand this. I see Elohim all through the Bible used in
> reference to Israel's God.
"You need to look at the Hebrew text to see this.
Moreover he said, I [am] the God [אלהי] of thy father, the God [אלהי]
of Abraham, the God [אלהי] of Isaac, and the God [אלהי] of Jacob. And
Moses hid his face; for he was afraid to look upon God [האלהים].
Exodus 3:6"
I don't need to do this. It's enough to reference a Hebrew concordance,
which indicates elohim refers to God many, many times in the Jewish
Scriptures. If you refuse to see this, too bad.
What makes you think I need to read Exodus 3? Reference to Elohim is in
*many places* in the Jewish Scriptures, and yes, it refers to "God."
randy
guardian Snow
> "Elohim means “mighty one” and while it is used many times as a title for
> our
> Almighty, it is not his name...."
>
> It is what He is called, regardless of whether you call it His "name" or
> not. I don't understand what your hangup is with knowing His *name?* I'm not
> even sure He has a specific name. When the Scriptures speak of His "name,"
> it seems to be speaking of His identity, reference to who He is. It doesn't
> seem to concern a particular word designating His individuality. His
> individuality is associated largely with who He is as Creator, and as the
> judge of the world.
> randy
If I call you man, it would be accurate but it would not identify who
you are. If I call you Randy that identifies you the man.
You could worship Elohim, but what Elohim are you going to worship?
Bill Gates is Elohim. All this means is that he is powerful. Elohim
is a title of strength that means "mighty one". In scriptures even
cities are elohim.
Jon 3:3 ..Now Nineveh was an exceeding great city of three days'
journey.
Nineveh wasn't a "God" or a city of Gods and in this we see that
Elohim is a complete mistranslation as g'd which is based in pagan
understanding.
H1409
גּד
g-d
randy
"guardian Snow"
randy
> ...I don't understand what your hangup is with knowing His *name?* I'm not
> even sure He has a specific name. When the Scriptures speak of His "name,"
> it seems to be speaking of His identity, reference to who He is. It
> doesn't
"If I call you man, it would be accurate but it would not identify who
you are. If I call you Randy that identifies you the man."
"Man" is a generic term, and does not express any particular individual. If
you want to point out a particular man, you would have to identify which man
you're referring to. You could do this by assigning him a name, title, or
simply say, "Hey you."
The point is that God does not seem to have any one particular name, and
seems to act somewhat amused when a man tries to attach a label to Him. The
angel asked Jacob, "Why do you ask me my name?" The angel was somewhat
amused that a man could reduce God to a category or level of understanding
that is equal to man.
And so, God responded to Moses, "Why don't you just call me, 'I Am?' " It is
nearly absurd to reduce God to an individual human name, since God has so
many central nervous systems, and so many sets of eyes, that it is
impossible to view God as a human individual alone. If we were to reduce Him
to strictly human terms, we would have to see God as trillions and trillion
of individuals, each keeping tabs on his own little space in the universe,
so he could keep track of events and govern closely. But God is not a human
individual alone (although He was represented in Jesus), and cannot
therefore be viewed as if He could be limited strictly to a human figure or
name. "Yahweh" may do the trick for some. But that's just a name indicating
God exists. God has many other names as well. For the Hebrews He could be
called "God of the Hebrews." For Christians He can be called "God of the
Church."
"You could worship Elohim, but what Elohim are you going to worship?
Bill Gates is Elohim. All this means is that he is powerful. Elohim
is a title of strength that means "mighty one". In scriptures even
cities are elohim."
Your problem is that words often have several uses, or several definitions.
In the case of "Elohim" the application determines the definition. Yes, the
term can be applied to "mighty men." And in other cases, the context
determines that "Elohim" means "God of the Hebrews," or "I Am." The term in
its generic use can also be applied more naturally in its plural form to
"gods," or "idols." But the old idolatrous form of "gods" came to be used by
the Hebrews for their monotheistic God. So it is context that determines the
use.
randy
Bear
Bear
wrote:
>
>"Bear"
>randy
>
>> Great points Randy.
>
>Thankyou. Can you imagine God getting upset for getting His name wrong, for
>using an outmoded name, or someone else's mispronounced label for Him? We
>give our friends and loved ones nicknames. Can you imagine God telling us we
>got the wrong god just because we made up a nickname for Him?
>
>...On the other hand, we should be careful when giving God a nickname. At
>the very least, it had better be holy! ;)
>randy
I agree Randy as I believe the numbers of names and titles in
scripture capably demonstrate. How many different titles/descriptions
of Himself did Jesus use in His letters to the seven churches in
Revelation. That being said, I also believe that whatever name or
title is used, it should be done with reverence and respect deserving
of the Holy God.
Some people seem to ignore the fact that Jesus used "Father" when
teaching the disciples how to pray, was He being irreverent because He
did not use a name that some seem to think makes them more righteous
because of the name they use for God?
randy
colp
> "Bear"
> randy
>
> > Great points Randy.
>
> Thankyou. Can you imagine God getting upset for getting His name wrong, for
> using an outmoded name, or someone else's mispronounced label for Him?
Yes, I can.
Thou shalt not take the name of YHWH thy Elah in vain; for YHWH will
not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.
Exodus 20:7
Strong's H7723 - shav'
1) emptiness, vanity, falsehood
a) emptiness, nothingness, vanity
b) emptiness of speech, lying
c) worthlessness (of conduct)
> We
> give our friends and loved ones nicknames. Can you imagine God telling us we
> got the wrong god just because we made up a nickname for Him?
You didn't make up any nickname, you used the name that your whore
church told you to use.
colp
> "colp"
> randy
>
> > I really don't understand this. I see Elohim all through the Bible used in
> > reference to Israel's God.
>
> "You need to look at the Hebrew text to see this.
> Moreover he said, I [am] the God [אלהי] of thy father, the God [אלהי]
> of Abraham, the God [אלהי] of Isaac, and the God [אלהי] of Jacob. And
> Moses hid his face; for he was afraid to look upon God [האלהים].
> Exodus 3:6"
>
> I don't need to do this.
Right, you've got doctrine, so you don't need to see the truth. Where
does you concordance say that Abraham or Moses were monotheists?
randy
"Bear"
randy
> Some people seem to ignore the fact that Jesus used "Father" when
> teaching the disciples how to pray, was He being irreverent because He
> did not use a name that some seem to think makes them more righteous
> because of the name they use for God?
Good point. I'm wondering if someone could find something possibly wrong
with Jesus addressing Yahweh/God as "Father?"
randy
randy
"colp"
randy
> ...Can you imagine God getting upset for getting His name wrong, for
> using an outmoded name, or someone else's mispronounced label for Him?
"Yes, I can.
Thou shalt not take the name of YHWH thy Elah in vain...."
The vain use of God's name has nothing whatsoever to do with using a nominal
label for the Creator-God. It has to do with claiming reverence for deity as
a show without really meaning business. Or it has to do with swearing oaths
in the name of God without fulfilling vows. It has to do with acting in a
way not consonant with the God we claim to represent. It has nothing at all
to do with what name we apply to God. But nobody--nobody is referring to God
by the name of "Baal." We would call God whatever fits the language we're
using as it is translated from the original biblical languages. And the word
we use derives its meaning from the context we apply the word in. If our
intent is to speak of the Hebrew God, then our use of "Elohim" is a
reference to Him--not to any other god.
> We
> give our friends and loved ones nicknames. Can you imagine God telling us
> we
> got the wrong god just because we made up a nickname for Him?
"You didn't make up any nickname, you used the name that your whore
church told you to use."
At this point I think I'll let you argue with somebody else.
randy
randy
"colp"
randy
"Right, you've got doctrine, so you don't need to see the truth. Where
does you concordance say that Abraham or Moses were monotheists?"
If the way you discuss things with me is by calling my church a "whore
church," I'm not interested.
randy
Bear
merlin
> > ...Can you imagine God getting upset for getting His name wrong, for
> > using an outmoded name, or someone else's mispronounced label for Him?
that happens all the time. we see the angry god men create, we see
the mean jesus on christnet all the time, the jesus of the temple
tantrum that never happened, as the story is a plant to suggest how
unholy the isrealites were and how pure christians are.
.
we see those that choose not to love and still say they are part of
the religion of love.
> "Yes, I can.
then do,
> Thou shalt not take the name of YHWH thy Elah in vain...."
this is not an answer. this does not suggest you know god.
>
> The vain use of God's name
god is love, god will answer any call. god will come to us no matter
what we call god.
god loves us that much. it is men that hate each other and blame it
on god and threaten each other and form religions.
religions are the tower of babel that separate us all.
> has nothing whatsoever to do with using a nominal
> label for the Creator-God.
it isn't a label. it is a rank in the universe.
it is a station in life that we progress through as divine spirit for
lack of a better discription.
it is an honor bestowed on a being to be called the creator god.
as there are other jobs in the universe that may be considered the
rank of god.
tho we might not use the name of god.
the 'spiritual' ruler of the universe can be called god.
the 'spiritual' ruler of the moon might be called god.
these are all part of the evolving nature of spirit that everyone is
promoted upward and onward and then back to the big bang.
> It has to do with claiming reverence for deity as
> a show without really meaning business.
not when you have met the deity.
> Or it has to do with swearing oaths
you are speaking here of a religion not god.
god has never asked merlin to worship god.
men demand merlin worship god.
yet when we meet god we want to honor god and love god for what we
know about god when we do meet god.
> in the name of God without fulfilling vows.
that people fail is not god's fault.
that people fail is the human condition.
the potential is what we deal with god.
our potential, who we really are matters.
not just this cloak we where called randy.
> It has to do with acting in a
> way not consonant with the God we claim to represent.
you keep talking about religion not god.
you are talking about the rules of a religion the rituals of a
religion.
when we find god we don't need religion, tho that may help us share
our experiences with others
by creating a common language to work with each other and share our
love.
> It has nothing at all
> to do with what name we apply to God.
god is god, every language has a name for god.
> But nobody--nobody is referring to God
> by the name of "Baal."
they did call god baal. and the propaganda today is that that god was
evil,
cause that god's people lost the publicity wars.
> We would call God whatever fits the language we're
> using as it is translated from the original biblical languages.
yes there is text to god in every language.
it says the same things about god every religions says.
tho the stories will suit the manners of the people sharing the
experiences with god.
as we can see in some of the ancient religions.
> And the word
> we use derives its meaning from the context we apply the word in.
go beyond words. there have only been words on this planet
since the origin of humans on the planet. there were no words before
humans.
words will disappear from the universe again some day when humans
cease to exist again.
things were not always as they are now before humans.
billions of years ago.
> If
our choices are shaped by our love.
> our
> intent is to speak of the Hebrew God, then our use of "Elohim" is a
> reference to Him--not to any other god.
yet you do not claim anyone can?
yes be respectful of all religions.
> > We
> > give our friends and loved ones nicknames. Can you imagine God telling us
> > we
> > got the wrong god just because we made up a nickname for Him?
that may be what the bible is, human's nicknames for god. for the
bible is a record of what humans think about god historically.
> "You didn't make up any nickname, you used the name that your whore
> church told you to use."
name calling is silly, distrust is great, harm has been done in the
name of god.
yet it is up to each of us, not the state, not a religion to share our
love and find the father mother god.
and when we all see jesus a new language a new name for god may rise
up.
when jesus message becomes a reality on earth, we may find we don't
language anymore.
and that 'childhood's end' may be the fear of the future we all have
experienced from within.
> At this point I think I'll let you argue with somebody else.
> randy
what has god said to you personally can you share here at this moment?
in love with the living gay jesus,
merlin
merlin
> "colp"
> randy
>
> "Right, you've got doctrine, so you don't need to see the truth.
doctrine is specific to each religion.
there is no truth in god for god is beyond polarity.
humans on earth live in duality good and evil.
truth and fiction, these are the tools we have that allow us to exist.
god watches us and helps us juggle the weight of our understanding of
god
with our own sense of truth.
> Where
> does you concordance say that Abraham or Moses were monotheists?"
they both had many wifes for sure.
founders of religions never make sense to those that are empathic to
the religion.
look at how many americans think Zeus is dead.
> If the way you discuss things with me is by calling my church a "whore
> church," I'm not interested.
> randy
acknowledge the evil done in jesus name.
work with those that will talk with us.
isolation is the problem in america.
this isolation in religion has lead to discrimination and segregation
in almost every church in america.
we can't share our love, when we get offended.
think of jesus on the cross getting offended for the way people didn't
get his message of love.
can you see jesus up there complaining about people not being nice?
jesus didn't stop loving no matter what was said.
jesus didn't stop teaching love no matter what people said about him
or the father mother god.
early christian astounded the none christian romans by loving no
matter what the romans did to them.
that is what gave christianity its power in the early days. the pure
love and non reaction that
christians showed when a situation arose that was not comfortable for
anyone.
in love withthe living gay jesus who taught us to love no matter what
is happening or said to us,
merlin
randy
"merlin"
randy
> > ...Can you imagine God getting upset for getting His name wrong, for
> > using an outmoded name, or someone else's mispronounced label for Him?
"that happens all the time. we see the angry god men create, we see
the mean jesus on christnet all the time, the jesus of the temple
tantrum that never happened, as the story is a plant to suggest how
unholy the isrealites were and how pure christians are."
These are not arguments. Just ranting.
"we see those that choose not to love and still say they are part of
the religion of love."
What is your concept of "love?" Can you imagine if I say your religion
doesn't count? Your philosophy doesn't count. Your beliefs don't count. Your
personal experience doesn't count, because it is hypocritical? That's what
your "rant" says!
"god is love, god will answer any call. god will come to us no matter
what we call god.
god loves us that much. it is men that hate each other and blame it
on god and threaten each other and form religions.
religions are the tower of babel that separate us all."
You use religious conceptualizations to disprove religion, and to show that
it is necessarily hypocritical? That in itself is hypocrasy!
> has nothing whatsoever to do with using a nominal
> label for the Creator-God.
"it isn't a label. it is a rank in the universe.
it is a station in life that we progress through as divine spirit for
lack of a better discription.
it is an honor bestowed on a being to be called the creator god.
as there are other jobs in the universe that may be considered the
rank of god.
tho we might not use the name of god.
the 'spiritual' ruler of the universe can be called god.
the 'spiritual' ruler of the moon might be called god.
these are all part of the evolving nature of spirit that everyone is
promoted upward and onward and then back to the big bang."
We are discussing the Judeo-Christian label for Jehovah-God. We aren't
discussing pagan labels and concepts.
"you are speaking here of a religion not god.
god has never asked merlin to worship god.
men demand merlin worship god.
yet when we meet god we want to honor god and love god for what we
know about god when we do meet god."
The Judeo-Christian God does demand that merlin worship Him. If you worship
a god that does not require this, I doubt he or she is a true "god."
"you keep talking about religion not god.
you are talking about the rules of a religion the rituals of a
religion.
when we find god we don't need religion, tho that may help us share
our experiences with others
by creating a common language to work with each other and share our
love."
Religion and God are talked about simultaneously. You cannot talk about one
without talking about the other.
> our
> intent is to speak of the Hebrew God, then our use of "Elohim" is a
> reference to Him--not to any other god.
"yet you do not claim anyone can?
yes be respectful of all religions."
The discussion concerns Judeo-Christianity--not other religions.
randy
randy
"merlin"
randy
"doctrine is specific to each religion.
there is no truth in god for god is beyond polarity...."
I suppose you want to discuss the nature of God? Then I must completely
disagree with you. For there to be an objective reality called "God," there
*must* be a polarity. On the one hand the things that define what God is
must be dogmatically true, a doctrine. But the things that God isn't must be
excluded as false.
"humans on earth live in duality good and evil...."
Yes, there is good and evil in our human existence, and also in the
universe. Bad things happen and good things happen. However, this is not to
say that God Himself is both good and evil. He is defined as "good" in my
book. But He does allow bad things to happen to resolve issues of
independence and rebellion, for a better end.
"truth and fiction, these are the tools we have that allow us to exist."
"Fiction" does not allow us to exist.
"acknowledge the evil done in jesus name...."
I have many times. I just don't acknowledge that Jesus himself ever did any
evil. I believe he was God incarnate, God in the flesh, God with a true
human personality. He was sinless, and did only good.
"work with those that will talk with us.
isolation is the problem in america.
this isolation in religion has lead to discrimination and segregation
in almost every church in america."
I agree with the need to exchange religious ideas, and to socialize, to
provide justice for all.
"jesus didn't stop teaching love no matter what people said about him
or the father mother god."
I agree. Jesus demonstrating forgiving, tolerant love. It is an example to
me personally.
"in love withthe living gay jesus who taught us to love no matter what
is happening or said to us..."
Nothing in the gospels suggested Jesus was gay. And I don't believe he was,
because Jewish Law prohibited homosexuality. And Jesus advocated fulfillment
of the Law.
randy
guardian Snow
Shouldn't you take up your argument with the book of Revelation?
Mat 23:2 Saying, The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat:
Even today this prophetic statement rings true.
Act 23:6 Now Sha’ul, perceiving that one part were Sadducees and the
other Pharisees, cried out in the council, “Men, brothers, I am a
Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee…
How do Christians reconcile this passage of scriptures? If Paul was
"inspired" by the "Holy Spirit" then either he told the truth and his
IS a Pharisee by his own testimony or a liar. Does the "Holy Spirit"
grant that an Apostle be allowed to lie?
Rom 3:7 For if the truth of God hath more abounded through my lie
unto his glory…
A lie is still a lie. The problem that I personally see with the
teachings of Paul vs the Messiah is that while the Messiah taught us
not to judge one another, everything I read in Paul is judgmental and
a Pharisee.
A clear example of how Paul is still preaching as a Pharisee is seen
here:
Mat 9:10 And it came to be, as Yehoshua sat at the table in the house,
that see, many tax collectors and sinners came and sat down with Him
and His taught ones.
Mat 9:11 And when the Pharisees saw it, they said to His taught ones,
“Why does your Teacher eat with tax collectors and sinners?”
1Co 5:11 But now I have written to you not to keep company with anyone
called ‘a brother,’ if he is one who whores, or greedy of gain, or an
idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or a swindler – not even to eat
with such a one.
Mat 9:12 And Yehoshua hearing this, said to them, “Those who are
strong have no need of a physician, but those who are sick.
Mat 9:13 “But go and learn what this means, ‘I desire compassion and
not offering.’ For I did not come to call the righteous to repentance,
but sinners.”
When we put the teachings side by side, it’s clear to all except the
many “Christian Pharisee’s” in the world today that are a student of
this Pharisee. What does our heavenly Father tell us in his Torah?
Let’s break it down, First we know:
Deu 4:2 “Do not add to the Word which I command you, and do not take
away from it, so as to guard the commands of Yahweh your Elohim which
I am commanding you.
Isn’t it ironic that they took his name YAHWEH out of the very verse
that says not to alter it? We are not to add or take away from the
Torah. This specifically means the book of Deuteronomy, not the
entire collection of books known as the bible. We can be assured of
that here:
Deu 4:8 “And what great nation is there that has such laws and
righteous right-rulings like all this Torah which I set before you
this day?
Since Paul wasn’t written until thousands of years later, we know the
two are not connected in the command so continue with me please:
Deu 4:9 “Only, guard yourself, and guard your life diligently, lest
you forget the Words your eyes have seen, and lest they turn aside
from your heart all the days of your life. And you shall make them
known to your children and your grandchildren.
How many Christians have forgotten the words of this book? We carry
it around day and night and yet, most don’t know or care what it says
and treat it with disregard as if it’s something written only for that
tribe in the wilderness.
Exo 12:49 “There is one Torah for the native-born and for the stranger
who sojourns among you.”
So, if you consider yourself a person serving our Father, that one
Torah is for you too. Now what is the “Law of Moses” as Christians
call it? You see, most people want to say that it is 613 laws that no
one is able to keep but what does the Torah say?
Deu 4:13 “And He made known to you His covenant which He commanded you
to do, the Ten Words, and He wrote them on two tablets of stone.
The TEN COMMANDMENTS are the covenant! So, Just like the Messiah
preached, if you want to enter into life, guard the commandments! How
simple is that? The sign of the “Church of the Dragon” is the church
that has bitterly fought against the 10 commandments. THE CHRISTIAN
CHURCH! Every pastor that preaches against the Sabbath is unknowingly
or willingly a part of the false church!
Rev 12:17 And the dragon was enraged with the woman, and he went to
fight with the remnant of her seed, those guarding the commands of
Elohim and possessing the witness of Yehoshua Messiah.
YOU my dear reader may be a part of that very church. It is a bitter
pill to think that all these years, WE have been the false church. I
do not tell you this to accuse you but to inform you. Who will be
saved?
Rev 14:12 Here is the endurance of the set-apart ones, here are those
guarding the commands of Elohim and the belief of Yehoshua.
Those who guard the commandments are the ones set apart for our
heavenly father. The only reason that the church of the dragon
refuses to accept the truth is over ONE issue, THE SABBATH. For at
least a thousand years Rome has dictated to you what is scriptures and
told you what you are to consider, “the way of [Yahweh] יהוה” but
many do not even know his name and probably call him “GOD” or “LORD
GOD ALMIGHTY”. But that was not the name given to him and for
thousands of years, we have not had access to the truth.
A common cry of the “Church of the Dragon” is that it has been this
way for 2000 years but that’s not true either. The scriptures were not
even canonized until 321 by anti-Semites at the Council of Nicaea.
Then for another thousand years people were either not taught to read
or the words were dictated from pulpits in churches. Emperor
Constantine made sure that pagan Easter, Christmas and the Day of the
Sun were “harmonized” into scriptures and burned or destroyed many
books that were being distributed that didn’t suite his doctrine.
In 1440, German inventor Johannes Gutenberg invented a printing press
and the Gutenberg bible was distributed.
It was not lawful for people to even read the scriptures for
themselves. These bibles were distributed to Church’s with a Germanic
names, which is where the name “God” comes from, not Hebrew, Not Greek
which used, “Theos”.
In 1556, The Geneva (the New Testament completed in 1556 and
published, while the entire work was finished in 1560) Bible that the
“Puritans” brought on the Mayflower to America still read Passover.
It was in fact the Geneva Bible that King James hated so much that
inspired him to authorize his own version with his official stamp of
approval. The margin notes in the Geneva Bible were written by John
Calvin and those who kept the Geneva Bible were called, Calvinist,
Protestants and Puritans.
Being translated by “Protestants” during a time of persecution in
England, the translators converged in Geneva, Switzerland, where they
were able to arrange publication of their work. Fleeing the
persecution of Roman Catholic Queen Mary I (18 February 1516 – died
17 November 1558) in England, who would not tolerate the Protestant
Geneva Bible (which she only lived to see the New Testament version
of) proclaimed the Pope an “antichrist” in its commentary notes of
Revelation.
The Geneva Bible was where John Calvin first stated that the “Dragon
of Revelation” was in fact the Roman Catholic Church. So this
understanding is nothing new and still we keep its cannon except the
“Apocrypha” that was removed in the 19th century by American Bishops!
Note: The Catholic church still considers these books inspired.
In 1604 there was a ruling from the Hampton Court Conference between
the King James I and various clergymen. An agreement was reached that
there should be a revised English version of the Bible without the
side notes of the Geneva Bible. Forty-seven scholars began the
revision to create the King James Version which used the Tyndale,
“Bishop’s Bible” and Geneva Bibles English text, not the Greek or
Hebrew Text.
In 1611, King James’s Bible came along and continued to alter all the
names (except Satan) and removing words like “Sabbath” at key
locations in scriptures to fit his false doctrine. Examining Greek
text, we find that the word “Sabbath” is removed in many locations
after the resurrection.
(Mar 16:2) (Mar 16:9) (Luk 18:12) (Luk 24:1) (Joh 20:1) (Joh 20:19)
(Act 20:7) (1Co 16:2) (Heb 4:9)
And (Mat 28:1) Sabbath is removed the second instance of its use.
So then people had Germanic based deity names (In a Hebrew based
scripture) in bibles from English versions revised in the KJV but it
was the Geneva Bible is what was brought to the Americas. So again
we see that the words of scriptures were altered and removed by
scribes and translators. Can anybody say Babylon? The prophet
Jeremiah knew this and penned:
Jer 8:7 “Even a stork in the heavens knows her appointed times. And a
turtledove, and a swallow, and a thrush observe the time of their
coming. But My people do not know the right-ruling of Yahweh.
Jer 8:8 “How do you say, ‘We are wise, and the Torah of Yahweh is with
us’? But look, the false pen of the scribe has worked falsehood.
Ironically scribes again removing the name of Yahweh in a place where
the text reads the scribes mistranslate scriptures.
Jer 8:9 “The wise shall be put to shame, they shall be broken down and
caught. See, they have rejected the Word of Yahweh, so what wisdom do
they have?
The fact is it has not been since the invention of the internet and
the distribution of E-Sword [1998] and other bible software, which
everyday people have had access to what is written. The history… has
hidden the truth for a thousand years by knowing clergymen. Until we
all had computers that could search key words and free access to the
information that has been obscured in foreign languages, we simply did
not know.
NOW we know the truth so what does the Torah say?
Deu 4:23 “Guard yourselves, lest you forget the covenant of Yahweh
your Elohim which He made with you, and shall make for yourselves a
carved image in the form of whatever Yahweh your Elohim has forbidden
you.
It’s too late for that, even the modern day English speaking “Jews”
speak of the Germanic name in scriptures.
Deu 4:28 “And there you shall serve mighty ones, the work of men’s
hands, wood and stone, which neither see nor hear nor eat nor smell.
Christians bow before wood and stone crosses and statues all the time.
Deu 4:29 “But from there you shall seek Yahweh your Elohim, and shall
find, when you search for Him with all your heart1 and with all your
being.
When will we find the truth? When we search for him, with ALL our
heart and all our being. So the truth isn’t something that is readily
available, we must search for it. It’s not just a gift that’s tossed
around, we must pray for it and search for it and ask.
Deu 4:30 “In your distress, when all these words shall come upon you
in the latter days, then you shall return to יהוה your Elohim and
shall obey His voice.
Or so we hope you will but many of the Church of the Dragon will war
against the true word.
Deu 11:26 ‘See, I am setting before you today a blessing and a curse:
Deu 11:27 the blessing, when you obey the commands of Yahweh your
Elohim which I command you today;
Deu 11:28 and the curse, if you do not obey the commands of Yahweh
your Elohim, but turn aside from the way which I command you today, to
go after other mighty ones which you have not known.
Read carefully the curse, it say that if you do not obey the Ten
commandments, you are cursed. Now let’s examine what brother Paul
said:
Gal 3:10 For as many as are of works of Torah are under the curse, for
it has been written, “Cursed is everyone who does not continue in all
that has been written in the book of the Torah, to do them.”
Now the closest to this is here:
Deu 27:26 ‘Cursed is he who does not establish the Words of this
Torah.’ And all the people shall say, ‘Amĕn!’
Can you see where he added to the Torah? It does not say “all that
has been written”. What many consider to be a apostle of Christ ADDED
to the words of the Torah. The curse was if you DO NOT OBEY the
COMMANDMENTS and there are only Ten Commandments, regardless of what
Jews speak of.
Deu 4:13 “And He made known to you His covenant which He commanded you
to do, the Ten Words, and He wrote them on two tablets of stone.
That being said, is enough for me to recognize that Paul was in fact a
false apostle. I challenge any reader to find the words written by
apostle Paul in the Torah.
1Co 5:3 For I indeed, as absent in body but present in spirit, have
already judged the one who did this, as though I were present.
1Co 5:12 For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Do you not
judge those who are inside?
Mat 7:1 “Do not judge, lest you be judged.
1Co 6:1 Dare any of you, having a matter against another, go to law
before the unjust, and not before the saints?
In the book of Acts He is asked if he will go before Jerusalem to be
judged in the temple. Did he practice what he preached? Note: At the
time, Nero was Caesar.
Act 25:9 But Festus, willing to do the Jews a pleasure, answered
Paul, and said, Wilt thou go up to Jerusalem, and there be judged of
these things before me?
So he's asked if he will "go before the saints".
Act 25:10 Then said Paul, I stand at Caesar's judgment seat, where I
ought to be judged: to the Jews have I done no wrong, as thou very
well knowest.
We can clearly see that he didn't go back to Jerusalem. What happened
to his earlier account? He said,
Act 21:13 Then Paul answered, What mean ye to weep and to break mine
heart? For I am ready not to be bound only, but also to die at
Jerusalem for the name of the Lord Iesus.
It's historically recorded that he died in Rome and so we see this is
a false statement also!
Mar 8:15 And He was warning them, saying, “Mind! Beware of the leaven
of the Pharisees and of the leaven of Herodes.”
Act 13:1 And in the assembly that was at Antioch ... with Herodes the
district ruler, and Sha’ul.
How long will people ignore Paul's own testimony? If we know the
Roman Church is the Dragon, how come we keep it’s canon?
Shalom,
*´¨)
¸.•´ ¸.•*´¨) ¸.•*¨)
(¸.•´ (¸.• (Snow(.¸.•*´¨)
http://groups.google.com/group/messianicYehoshua
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/messianic_Yehoshua/
Failure is a detour, not a dead-end street.
Zig Ziglar
A nation or civilization that continues to produce soft-minded men
purchases its own spiritual death on the installment plan.
Martin Luther King, Jr.
http://www.e-sword.net/ Free bible software
http://www.isr-messianic.org/ <- download the scriptures free
or
http://messianicyehoshua.googlegroups.com/web/RNKJV.zip <--free
download of the Restored Names King James Version
Exo 31:13 “And you, speak to the children of Yisra’ĕl, saying, ‘My
Sabbaths you are to guard, by all means, for it is a sign1 between Me
and you throughout your generations, to know that I, יהוה, am setting
you apart. Footnote: 1The only sign of YAHWEH setting us apart, the
only sign of the everlasting covenant, is His Sabbaths, one of them
being the seventh day Sabbath. This is repeated in Ezek. 20:12 & 20.
merlin
> there is no truth in god for god is beyond polarity...."
>
> I suppose you want
love.
> to discuss the nature of God?
would rather hear of any direct personal experiences with god you may
have had.
> Then I must completely
> disagree with you.
you are only using your mind to say this.
not any personal experiences with jesus love.
> For there to be an objective reality called "God," there
> *must* be a polarity.
the physical world only exists in polarity.
god may not be of this physical world of polarity.
when god can live outside the creation of the universe.
god does not need the universe to exist.
the universe lives within the confines of the laws of science, god
does not.
tho god may use these laws while dealing with humans.
> On the one hand the things that define what God is
> must be dogmatically true, a doctrine.
why so? you sound so brittle.
> But the things that God isn't must be
> excluded as false
why so? your entire concept of god is a belief system.
go deeper into god and find god.
jesus says start with love.
> "humans on earth live in duality good and evil...."
>
> Yes, there is good and evil in our human existence, and also in the
> universe. Bad things happen and good things happen. However, this is not to
> say that God Himself is both good and evil.
god does not participate in good and evil.
there is this reality outside of good and evil before the universe was
born.
polarity allows the flowers to grow.
polarity allows the sparrow.
polarity creates the gravity that keeps us on the earth.
> He is defined as "good" in my
> book.
who is he?
> But He
who is the he you speak of? you are not allow yourself to escape your
human condition enough to consider anything else as a reality outside
of what your mind knows? why do you limit yourself so emphatically?
> does allow bad things to happen to resolve issues of
> independence and rebellion, for a better end.
god has nothing to do with good and evil.
like willy wonka, god may quietly say stop, yet god is not invested in
the outcome,
god will not make us, our own experiences will.
we seemingly keep repeating things until we get them right.
that is the better end. it is a goal we as humans work toward.
> "truth and fiction, these are the tools we have that allow us to exist."
>
> "Fiction" does not allow us to exist.
as the opposite of truth, fiction is as important as truth in this
world.
> "acknowledge the evil done in jesus name...."
>
> I have many times. I just don't acknowledge that Jesus himself ever did any
> evil.
who told you this? you are confusing the opposite with evil.
polarity is the opposites of the same coin.
> I believe
when will you know?
> he was God incarnate, God in the flesh, God with a true
> human personality.
and so are you, what are you doing with it?
we see what jesus did with his love when jesus found all this out for
himself with the love of the father mother god.
> He was sinless, and did only good.
you can't prove this. rather than see jesus as perfect.
as the romans created the legend of the first perfect western human.
see jesus as someone that got it right for change?
jesus love is the message for our time.
jesus love is the way to the future we must travel through
to get where jesus showed us we can go.
jesus has never asked merlin to treat jesus as a god.
it is you that says jesus is a god.
> "work with those that will talk with us.
> isolation is the problem in america.
> this isolation in religion has lead to discrimination and segregation
> in almost every church in america."
>
> I agree with the need to exchange religious ideas,
would rather you share jesus love, and pitch in and help.
talk is cheap for all of us on christnet.
> and to socialize, to
> provide justice for all.
where is this happening in christianity today?
we just don't see christians pitching in the media.
jesus was treated unfairly out of fear for society.
this pattern is repeated today in our cuban prisons.
as america treats others as jesus was treated out fear.
> "jesus didn't stop teaching love no matter what people said about him
> or the father mother god."
>
> I agree. Jesus demonstrating forgiving, tolerant love. It is an example to
> me personally.
those are bi products of jesus love.
go deeper and see that jesus love really does in your life.
> "in love withthe living gay jesus who taught us to love no matter what
> is happening or said to us..."
>
> Nothing in the gospels suggested Jesus was gay.
can you explain jesus sexuality then for us?
when modern homophobes have rewriten the bible?
jesus told merlin jesus may be referred to as gay.
it is like unto seeing and american indian jesus,
the black jesus, the korean jesus and the very euro jesus in most
bibles.
jesus comes to us in ways that are meaningful to us.
this simple jewish rabbi carpenter semite king.
merlin is grateful that this love that jesus taught actually can bring
jesus closer to us.
what personal experiences have you had with jesus love?
> And I don't believe he was,
when will you know? have you asked jesus?
> because Jewish Law prohibited homosexuality.
and that stopped who from doing what in history?
king david broke about every law in the book and is praised today tho
no one can find a trace of king david historically.
> And Jesus advocated fulfillment
> of the Law.
and that ends the law according to you.
when you start worshipping on the sabbath.
when you stop wearing blended garments.
when your diet reflects the teachings of jesus.
when you discover the love jesus taught to find.
then tell us which laws are to be followed by you.
in love with the living gay jesus who taught us to love to find the
father mother god.
merlin
randy
"merlin"
randy
> to discuss the nature of God?
"would rather hear of any direct personal experiences with god you may
have had."
I have experienced God from childhood. I believe faith was in my heart when
I looked up and saw red clouds in the evening. Something about the sky
commends the reality of God. And when I turned against my conscience in my
adolescence, I was compelled by God's presence to make unpopular and tough
decisions. I had to turn against my own lusts. I for the most part have
succeeded in that, I think.
> On the one hand the things that define what God is
> must be dogmatically true, a doctrine.
"why so? you sound so brittle."
Everything is defined by the rules of its existence. The polarity is the
opposite of what its existence would be. If a God of love and justice
exists, then the opposite cannot be true. God cannot be malicious and evil.
He cannot be capricious and unconcerned about His creation.
All of the corollaries that follow the idea of a Christian God, the idea
that He sent His Son in the flesh to die for human sin, can be viewed in the
same way. If God saw it as necessary that He send His Son in order to fully
substitute His life for our life, than the opposite cannot be true, that God
never became flesh or provided a full means of forgiving our sin.
"who is the he you speak of? you are not allow yourself to escape your
human condition enough to consider anything else as a reality outside
of what your mind knows? why do you limit yourself so emphatically?"
We do not have the capacity to create alternative realities. There is only
one reality. All else is fiction.
"we seemingly keep repeating things until we get them right.
that is the better end. it is a goal we as humans work toward."
Yes, but there may be a limit to God's patience.
"as the opposite of truth, fiction is as important as truth in this
world."
Only for purposes of entertainment.
> I believe
"when will you know?"
"Believe" is sometimes the polite way of saying, "I know."
> he was God incarnate, God in the flesh, God with a true
> human personality.
"and so are you, what are you doing with it?
we see what jesus did with his love when jesus found all this out for
himself with the love of the father mother god."
I don't know what you mean by "father mother god," but the crucifixion of
Christ, or his atoning death, was simply the legal means by which God
determined He would live spiritually within men. There is no other basis by
which God will actually *inhabit* men, because it was His plan to suffer our
pain first, before allowing a deeper relationship between us.
It really boils down to our choice to accept the basis of this proposed
relationship. It is not just His suffering our pain that matters here. More,
it is the fact that the one who suffers the pain also reveals the
spirituality that is to become our righteousness. We see him as not only
forgiving our sins on the cross, but also exhibiting the forgiveness and
grace that we are to possess.
> He was sinless, and did only good.
"you can't prove this. rather than see jesus as perfect.
as the romans created the legend of the first perfect western human."
Well, you have the accounts of Jesus in the gospels. Make up your own mind
if Jesus was divine or not, whether he was sinless or not. You have his
words, his attitude, and his view of life. For me, it's pretty clear. He was
God in the flesh, a perfectly obedient man.
"jesus has never asked merlin to treat jesus as a god.
it is you that says jesus is a god."
Jesus did not come to coerce anybody. But he does warn us that there is no
other option if we are to face reality.
> and to socialize, to
> provide justice for all.
"where is this happening in christianity today?
we just don't see christians pitching in the media."
The media is not necessariliy favorable to Christianity. Christianity shows
up on TV or in literature in the forms of paid religious programming or
Christian tracts. And that is Christian evangelism. Beyond this,
Christianity relies upon Christians to do good works. Integrating with
nonChristians would produce good works apart from Christian spirituality.
And Christians are primarily interested in promoting Christian spirituality.
That doesn't, of course, mean that Christians are unsocial or unwilling to
communicate with nonChristians.
> Nothing in the gospels suggested Jesus was gay.
"can you explain jesus sexuality then for us?
when modern homophobes have rewriten the bible?"
Jesus proclaimed his spirituality in the context of Moses' ethics. None of
this has to do with being judgmental. The idea is to recover people who are
under the wrath of God. This is love--not hatred and prejudice.
"what personal experiences have you had with jesus love?"
It is a spiritual love. And it is undergirded by a firm commitment to obey
the holy laws of divine conduct. We must respect others, and yet not
compromise the truth.
> And Jesus advocated fulfillment
> of the Law.
"and that ends the law according to you.
when you start worshipping on the sabbath.
when you stop wearing blended garments.
when your diet reflects the teachings of jesus.
when you discover the love jesus taught to find."
Fulfillment of the Law does not mean a continuation of the Law. Many parts
of the Law reflected holiness using symbolic elements that had nothing to do
with righteousness in an intrinsic way. What I eat does not have anything to
do with making me righteous. Washing my hands has nothing to do with
spiritual purification. These material elements used in the Law were only
symbolic of deeper issues of the heart, matters of fidelity to our spouses,
faithfulness to our covenants, and commitment to social justice. We are not
as Christians to pursue the more symbolic issues of the Law. Rather, we are
to see Jesus as the true representation of righteousness--something the Law
pointed to.
randy
randy
"guardian Snow"
randy
> If the way you discuss things with me is by calling my church a "whore
> church," I'm not interested.
"Shouldn't you take up your argument with the book of Revelation?"
The book of Revelation calls "Babylon" a whore. It doesn't call the church a
whore!
"Act 23:6 Now Sha’ul, perceiving that one part were Sadducees and the
other Pharisees, cried out in the council, “Men, brothers, I am a
Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee…
How do Christians reconcile this passage of scriptures? If Paul was
"inspired" by the "Holy Spirit" then either he told the truth and his
IS a Pharisee by his own testimony or a liar. Does the "Holy Spirit"
grant that an Apostle be allowed to lie?"
You're placing limitations on the use of language that is never required in
normal communication. The use of tenses is not always a perfect science.
When Paul said he was a Pharisee, he was indicating that he had received the
formal training necessary to be a Pharisee. It didn't mean he continued to
practise being a Pharisee.
And yet Paul was not concerned to annoy the Sadducees by siding with the
Pharisees on the matte of resurrection. It was indeed a very clever move,
because Paul could be honest about his beliefs in the resurrection, and at
the same time neutralize perhaps half of those who stood against him.
"Rom 3:7 For if the truth of God hath more abounded through my lie
unto his glory…
A lie is still a lie. The problem that I personally see with the
teachings of Paul vs the Messiah is that while the Messiah taught us
not to judge one another, everything I read in Paul is judgmental and
a Pharisee."
Paul is not a Pharisee, and he was the preeminent teacher of "grace." Paul
in the above verse was not advocating "lying." Rather, he suggested that
even if men chose to sin, God would come out ahead. God is able to plan for
every human rebellion, ultimately triumphing in the affairs of men.
"A clear example of how Paul is still preaching as a Pharisee is seen
here:...
1Co 5:11 But now I have written to you not to keep company with anyone
called ‘a brother,’ if he is one who whores, or greedy of gain, or an
idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or a swindler – not even to eat
with such a one."
Paul said Christians should discern among their own group who is living
inconsistently as a Christian. That is absolutely necessary, unless you are
to suggest that the Catholic Church should protect priests who are
pedophiles? On the other hand, Paul said we are not to judge those outside
of the church, since they are not under our authority and do not represent
Christ.
"...What does our heavenly Father tell us in his Torah?
Let’s break it down, First we know:
Deu 4:2 “Do not add to the Word which I command you, and do not take
away from it, so as to guard the commands of Yahweh your Elohim which
I am commanding you."
Finding the Law fulfilled in Jesus is not taking away the laws and morals of
God. Christianity preserves all of the moral values of the Law, and
understands that it is fulfilled in the spirituality that Jesus gave us.
"So, if you consider yourself a person serving our Father, that one
Torah is for you too. Now what is the “Law of Moses” as Christians
call it? You see, most people want to say that it is 613 laws that no
one is able to keep but what does the Torah say?"
I see the Torah as valuable to all Christians, but not as a currently-valid
covenant. It is valuable as a reference to what Jesus' spirituality is like.
And our spirituality has nothing to do with the material symbols of the Law
that had nothing to do with our righteousness. Christian spirituality has
nothing to do with what we eat, what we wear, or whether we offer an animal
sacrifice. Rather, Christian spirituality is a matter of a heart changed by
God's Spirit, enabling us to partner with God to demonstrate His love and
justice.
Your post is a little long. Chop it down, and I'll discuss each issue with
you.
randy
guardian Snow
> I see the Torah as valuable to all Christians, but not as a currently-valid
> covenant. It is valuable as a reference to what Jesus' spirituality is like.
> And our spirituality has nothing to do with the material symbols of the Law
> that had nothing to do with our righteousness. Christian spirituality has
> nothing to do with what we eat, what we wear, or whether we offer an animal
> sacrifice. Rather, Christian spirituality is a matter of a heart changed by
> God's Spirit, enabling us to partner with God to demonstrate His love and
> justice.
One of the teachings of the Messiah that I’ve been pondering over
lately is this:
Mat 23:23 “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! Because you
tithe the mint and the anise and the cumin, and have neglected the
weightier matters of the Torah: the right-ruling and the compassion
and the belief. These need to have been done, without neglecting the
others.
Now, I spend a lot of time talking about the Ten Commandments, people
are right, I come back to the Sabbath all the time but that’s because
it is the sign of the servants of our heavenly father.
Eze 20:20 ‘And set apart My Sabbaths, and they shall be a sign between
Me and you, to know that I am [YAHWEH] יהוה your Elohim.’
So because I want to see people come to the truth, I spend a lot of
time speaking of these verses. Lately I’ve been compelled to speak a
lot about Paul because people can’t or refuse to try and give a
reasonable explanation. They complain that I’m tearing passages out
of context but isn’t that what every single Christian minister is
doing? Entire books have been written about just a few versus taken
out of context and “The prayer of Jabez” by Bruce Wilkinson is just
one example.
1Ch 4:10 And Jabez called on the Elohim of Israel, saying, Oh that
thou wouldest bless me indeed, and enlarge my coast, and that thine
hand might be with me, and that thou wouldest keep me from evil, that
it may not grieve me! And Elohim granted him that which he requested.
An entire book was written about that one verse and Christians loved
it. It was on the New York’s best sellers list and sold over 9
million copies. So the issue isn’t that I take verses out of context,
it’s that I dare to point out that the message of the Messiah and Paul
don’t agree.
People are split and simply refuse to acknowledge this and I would say
mainly out of fear. People are afraid that when Paul is exposed as a
false apostle, that people are going to reject the Good News of the
Messiah. A person that disagrees with me has pointed out that my
favorite church, The United Church of God (A great Sabbath practicing
church) issued a statement that said, “Jesus Christ and all of His
apostles, including Paul, taught the same. They all regarded the Old
Testament Scriptures as the foundation of the Christian way of life.
But Paul's writings have been greatly misinterpreted from the first
century until this day.”
I stand by my belief. Misinterpretations or not, it’s reality that we
are dealing with and that reality is this:
Pro 10:19 When words are many, Transgression is not absent, But he who
restrains his lips is wise.
As it stands, the context that Paul is used can be for the Torah or
against it, that is reality. Half the church believes we are unable
to sin because we are under grace and not the Covenant of the Torah,
which at one point Paul does acknowledge.
Rom 3:31 Do we then nullify the Torah through the belief? Let it not
be! On the contrary, we establish the Torah.
Then we have the other end of the field, those who believe we are not
under the Torah as Paul says to clearly?
Rom 6:14 For sin shall not rule over you, for you are not under the
law but under favour.
Rom 6:15 What then? Shall we sin because we are not under Torah but
under favour? Let it not be!
Rom 6:16 Do you not know that to whom you present yourselves servants
for obedience, you are servants of the one whom you obey, whether of
sin to death, or of obedience to righteousness?
Rom 6:23 For the wages of sin is death, but the favorable gift of
Elohim is everlasting life in Messiah YEHOSHUA our Master.
Romans 6:23 fails to take into account the very thing that the Messiah
spoke about… compassion. Are the wages of sin instant death to all
that sin?
Exo 34:4 And he cut two tablets of stone like the first ones. Then
Mosheh rose early in the morning and went up Mount Sinai, as YAHWEH
had commanded him, and he took two tablets of stone in his hand.
Exo 34:5 And YAHWEH came down in the cloud and stood with him there,
and proclaimed the Name, [YAHWEH] יהוה.
Exo 34:6 And YAHWEH passed before him and proclaimed, “YAHWEH ,YAHWEH
an Ěl compassionate and showing favour, patient, and great in kindness
and truth,
Exo 34:7 watching over kindness for thousands, forgiving crookedness
and transgression and sin, but by no means leaving unpunished,
visiting the crookedness of the fathers upon the children and the
children’s children to the third and the fourth generation.” Footnote:
1This is confirmed in Num. 14:18, and in Jer. 30:11.
Exo 34:8 And Mosheh hurried and bowed himself toward the earth, and
did obeisance,
Exo 34:9 and said, “If, now, I have found favour in Your eyes, O
YAHWEH, I pray, let YAHWEH go on in our midst, even though we are a
stiff-necked people. And forgive our crookedness and our sin, and take
us as Your inheritance.”
So we are punished but not necessarily death. Our Father in heaven
has been exceptionally patient with us and for a millennium people
have come to see him as an El with no compassion and this is the error
of the Pharisee.
2Co 12:16 But be it so, I did not burden you. But being crafty, did I
catch you with guile?
Somebody under the handle “OneandOnlyOne” said, “This is why I love
the NT so much. It allows you to see whatever you want to see. Want
to see "Jesus" who breaks Torah or Paul who hates Torah, and you can
see that. Or you can see something totally opposite. You see Paul
applying words associated with the devil himself.”
So, they love the New Testament because he loves strife? If I see
grievous errors in the doctrine of Paul that don’t agree with what the
Messiah taught, then how can my church be right? The fact is that
nobody is willing to even consider the fact that the doctrine is wrong
because they have been conditioned to believe Paul all there life.
The wages of sin aren’t death or we all would be dead long ago, our EL
is compassionate and forgives us our sin. Not because of the Messiah
but because he is a compassionate EL.
Deu 4:31 “For YAHWEH your Elohim is a compassionate Ěl, He does not
forsake you, nor destroy you, nor forget the covenant of your fathers
which He swore to them.
It is a law that he is compassionate and that he does not forsake us
and destroy us. IT IS WRITTEN and this is what we are called on by the
Messiah to understand. The problem with Paul is that he leaves you
with a false Torah. There is no Torah of death! Death did not reign
from Adam to Moses! The son does not die for the sin of the Father!
Eze 18:4 “See, all beings are Mine, the being of the father as well as
the being of the son is Mine. The being that is sinning shall die.
This is confirmed in the Torah in Numbers 16. Paul has twisted the
words of the Torah because he didn’t understand it. The Torah and the
commandment were the same from the beginning, Israel wasn’t given a
new law on Mt. Sinai, they were given the same Torah Abraham obeyed.
1Jn 2:7 Beloved, I write no fresh command to you, but an old command
which you have had from the beginning. The old command is the Word
which you heard from the beginning.
How do I know for certain that the command was from the beginning?
Gen 4:7 “If you do well, is there not acceptance? And if you do not do
well, sin1 is crouching at the door. And its desire is for you, but
you should master it.” Footnote: 1Sin (transgression of the law) was
already then known, as we also read in 39:9.
If you want to understand how sin leads to death read Psalm 7.
Psa 7:11 Elohim is a righteous judge. And Ěl is enraged every day,
Psa 7:12 If one does not repent! He sharpens His sword, He bends His
bow and makes it ready,
Psa 7:13 And He has prepared for Himself instruments of death, He
makes His arrows hot for pursuers.
Psa 7:14 See, he who is bound with wickedness, And has conceived
trouble and brought forth falsehood,
Psa 7:15 He has made a pit and dug it out, And falls into the ditch he
made!
Psa 7:16 His trouble turns back upon his own head, And his wrongdoing
comes down on the top of his head.
Psa 7:17 I give thanks to [YAHWEH] יהוה according to His
righteousness, And praise the Name of [YAHWEH] יהוה Most High.
EL does not destroy you, you destroy yourself by continuing to sin.
Again Psalm 9:
Psa 9:16 YAHWEH has made Himself known, He has done right-ruling; The
wrong is snared in the work of his own hands. Meditation. Selah. 17
The wrong return to the grave, All the gentiles that forget Elohim.
So all who hate the Torah of life need to understand just how much
compassion you have already been shown!
Deu 13:17 “And none of that which is put under the ban is to cling to
your hand, so that YAHWEH turns from the fierceness of His displeasure
and shall show you compassion, love you and increase you, as He swore
to your fathers,
Deu 13:18 when you obey the voice of YAHWEH your Elohim, to guard all
His commands which I command you today, to do what is right in the
eyes of YAHWEH your Elohim.
Pro 6:23 For the command is a lamp, And the Torah a light1, And
reproofs of discipline a way of life, Footnote: 1Ps. 119:105.
2Ki 14:6 But he did not put to death the children of the murderers,
according to what is written in the Book of the Torah of Mosheh, in
which YAHWEH commanded, saying, “Fathers are not put to death for the
children, and children are not put to death for the fathers, but each
one is put to death for his own sin.”
Grace without works forces Christians to ignore many of the teachings
of the Messiah, so I thought it should be good that a list of these
passages should be compiled:
Mat 19:17 And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is
none good but one, that is, Elohim: but if thou wilt enter into life,
keep the commandments.
Mat 19:18 He saith unto him, Which? Yahushua said, Thou shalt do no
murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou
shalt not bear false witness,
Mat 19:19 Honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy
neighbour as thyself.
Mar 7:9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of
YHWH, that ye may keep your own tradition.
Mar 10:18 And Yahushua said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there
is none good but one, that is, YHWH.
Mar 10:19 Thou knowest the commandments, Do not commit adultery, Do
not kill, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Defraud not, Honour
thy father and mother.
Mar 12:29 And Yahushua answered him, The first of all the commandments
is, Hear, O Israel; YAHWEH is our Elohim, YAHWEH is one: 30 And thou
shalt love YAHWEH thy Elohim with all thy heart, and with all thy
soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the
first commandment.
This is a direct quote of the Torah:
Deu 6:4 Hear, O Israel: YAHWEH is our Elohim, YAHWEH is one: 5 And
thou shalt love YAHWEH thy Elohim with all thine heart, and with all
thy soul, and with all thy might.
Luk 18:19 And Yahushua said unto him, Why callest thou me good? none
is good, save one, that is, YHWH.
Luk 18:20 Thou knowest the commandments, Do not commit adultery, Do
not kill, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Honour thy father
and thy mother.
Joh 14:15 If ye love me, keep my commandments.
Joh 14:21 “He who possesses My commands and guards them, it is he who
loves Me. And he who loves Me shall be loved by My Father, and I shall
love him and manifest Myself to him.”
Joh 14:24 “He who does not love Me does not guard My Words. And the
Word which you hear is not Mine but of the Father Who sent Me.
1Jn 5:3 For this is the love of YHWH, that we keep his commandments:
and his commandments are not grievous.
2Jn 1:6 And this is love, that we walk after his commandments. This is
the commandment, That, as ye have heard from the beginning, ye should
walk in it.
Rev 12:17 And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make
war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of
YAHWEH, and have the testimony of Yahushua the Messiah.
Rev 14:12 Here is the patience of the saints: here are they that keep
the commandments of YAHWEH, and the faith of Yehoshua.
Rev 22:14 Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may
have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates
into the city.
2Pe 2:21 For it had been better for them not to have known the way of
righteousness, than, after they have known it, to turn from the holy
commandment delivered unto them.
Jas 2:11 For he that said, Do not commit adultery, said also, Do not
kill. Now if thou commit no adultery, yet if thou kill, thou art
become a transgressor of the law.
Shalom,
*´¨)
¸.•´ ¸.•*´¨) ¸.•*¨)
(¸.•´ (¸.• (Snow(.¸.•*´¨)
I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are
so unlike your Christ.
Mohandas Gandhi
http://groups.google.com/group/messianicYehoshua <-- join to respond
http://www.isr-messianic.org/ <- download the scriptures free
I challenge you to make your life a masterpiece. I challenge you to
join the ranks of those people who live what they teach, who walk
their talk.
Tony Robbins
merlin
>
> I have experienced God from childhood. I believe faith was in my heart when
> I looked up and saw red clouds in the evening.
this is a good beginning. go deeper with love.
>Something about the sky
> commends the reality of God. And when I turned against my conscience in my
> adolescence, I was compelled by God's presence to make unpopular and tough
> decisions. I had to turn against my own lusts. I for the most part have
> succeeded in that, I think.
more of god is available to each of us.
don't turn against yourself, love yourself.
see what comes up don't repress it.
then you can deal with it better purhaps.
merlin has found most people are holding a trashcan lid down in their
emotional life
afraid of what might come up, rather than stopping the fighting inside
and dealing with
what ever issues arise.
love for god teaches us not to be afraid of ourselves.
and what seem to be describing is teen against that we get.
> Everything is defined by the rules of its existence.
you make your own rule.
you adopt what ever you find to fit your life around you.
we build our own spiritual nests so to speak.
> The polarity is the
> opposite of what its existence would be.
life is the same above and below.
polarity only exists in creation, not in god's world.
that is why so many have the fantasy of heaven as a nuetrally
threatening place.
> If
when?
> a God of love and justice
> exists, then the opposite cannot be true.
on earth, yes, in heaven? no it cannot be true.
the battle over the heavens has been won,
the battle over earth is on going.
> God cannot be malicious and evil.
people are.
> He cannot be capricious and unconcerned about His creation.
god has no stake in the outcome.
god will help us solve our own problems.
when we really meet god and work with god
we get to know the nature of god by the problems we solve in
ourselves.
god is our imagination, for better or worse, for how else would we
know god?
>
> All of the corollaries that follow the idea of a Christian God, the idea
> that He sent His Son in the flesh to die for human sin, can be viewed in the
> same way.
these are claims not made in heaven, these are claims made by rome who
began christianity as a empire religion.
>If
when.
>God saw it as necessary that He send His Son
he sent you.
god so loved the world that god sent each one of us to the other.
> in order to fully
> substitute His life for our life,
jesus says we don't need that.
jesus said he came here to stop the intermediaries.
we don't need priests, we don't need human sacrefices,
we don't need anyone to speak with god.
use jesus as an example you can realize, not an ideal you can never
attain.
> than the opposite cannot be true,
on earth the opposite is always part of the picture.
in heaven it need not be.
that is why spirit wants to inhabit a body, that they too may
work on the things they know they need to change
in the next life.
> that God
> never became flesh or provided a full means of forgiving our sin.
god is flesh in all of us.
god has sent us older brothers and sisters to show us how they did it.
we basically are stuck figuring it for ourselves
and love will draw god toward us to help us.
> "who is the he you speak of? you are not allow yourself to escape your
> human condition enough to consider anything else as a reality outside
> of what your mind knows? why do you limit yourself so emphatically?"
>
> We do not have the capacity to create alternative realities. There is only
> one reality. All else is fiction.
why do you limit yourself thusly?
think about god before the universe, think about god after the
universe.
it is the same god. no moved by light nor dark, not moved by polarity
at all.
sitting in the center of the minds eye of universe radiating out
in ever corner, cause we are particles of this god manifest.
> "we seemingly keep repeating things until we get them right.
> that is the better end. it is a goal we as humans work toward."
>
> Yes, but
yes but?
> there may be a limit to God's patience.
to your patience you mean.
god's investiment is in the long haul.
god will help us pick ourselves up everytime
and dust us off as we need it.
we have to stand back up and get ready to take life on again and
again.
> "as the opposite of truth, fiction is as important as truth in this
> world."
>
> Only for purposes of entertainment.
tell us how you life outside of fiction.
it is a constant struggle to find what is not fiction.
merlin seeks confirmation for everything from god.
and can find that confirmation in many ways.
it is entertainment, it is the basic struggle of life.
do you cook your own food?
> > I believe
>
> "when will you know?"
>
> "Believe" is sometimes the polite way of saying, "I know."
then be that direct. belief systems can vary, personal experiences
with god tend to sound the same tho be separate and individual at the
moment to each of us.
> > he was God incarnate, God in the flesh, God with a true
> > human personality.
>
> "and so are you, what are you doing with it?
> we see what jesus did with his love when jesus found all this out for
> himself with the love of the father mother god."
>
> I don't know what you mean by "father mother god,"
the whole compass that is god.
the father creator figure and mother birthing figure.
and the god of the whole of all concepts of god.
when people talk about god, they tend to only talk about the father
god of concepts and judgement,
they seldom bring up the mother, the physical universe is the mother
god as well.
> but the crucifixion of
> Christ,
merlin is not into human sacrifices, merlin is not into sheading blood
for purification.
> or his atoning death,
jesus never died.
the christ is alive in your today.
> was simply the legal means by which God
> determined He would live spiritually within men.
as do you and all of us.
don't make jesus the exception, make jesus the rule of law.
that we all can follow and find the father mother god.
> There is no other basis by
> which God will actually *inhabit* men,
god is inhabiting you and you don't even know it.
> because it was His plan to suffer our
> pain first,
when you need a purification by blood.
> before allowing a deeper relationship between us.
just take a bath next time?
just put on clean clothes?
and open and renew your mind?
> It really boils down to our choice to accept the basis of this proposed
> relationship.
yes, building a relationship with god.
> It is not just His suffering our pain that matters here.
who is he?
> More,
> it is the fact that the one who suffers the pain also reveals the
> spirituality that is to become our righteousness.
we are righteous even at our worse.
for god would not allow darkness in anyone save it is their choice to
what they will with the power of god they have been given by god.
judas and the fallen angle were both right hand beings to god and
jesus, they were doing god and jesus business even in betrayal. would
you not do the same for god? anything god wants of you?
including be thought of poorly by the whole world?
> We see him as not only
> forgiving our sins on the cross, but also exhibiting the forgiveness and
> grace that we are to possess.
forgive yourself.
> > He was sinless, and did only good.
>
> "you can't prove this. rather than see jesus as perfect.
> as the romans created the legend of the first perfect western human."
>
> Well, you have the accounts of Jesus in the gospels.
jesus is alive today, talk to jesus, ask jesus, see what happens.
> Make up your own mind
> if Jesus was divine or not,
everyone is divine.
humans have set up this system the way it is.
and christian debbie downers of the world are trying to tell us we are
not worthy.
well we are even as the messes we have become.
> whether he was sinless or not.
is part of our changing growth and our ability to find god with this
love jesus tells us we can.
> You have his
> words, his attitude, and his view of life.
who is he?
> For me, it's pretty clear. He was
> God in the flesh, a perfectly obedient man.
merlin prays you think of yourself in the same manner.
> "jesus has never asked merlin to treat jesus as a god.
> it is you that says jesus is a god."
>
> Jesus did not come to coerce anybody.
another but comming up.
either jesus is what you say jesus is above or jesus is not what you
tell us, make up your mind, not buts about it.
> But he does warn us
he shows us how to love, the rest is made up by guys that wanted to
start a religion.
> that there is no
> other option if we are to face reality.
why limit yourself? god is infinate, start treating god with that
kinda of respect.
your god is to tied to the earth. let you god rule the universe too?
> > and to socialize, to
> > provide justice for all.
>
> "where is this happening in christianity today?
> we just don't see christians pitching in the media."
>
> The media is not necessariliy favorable to Christianity.
oh we get a pretty clear picture. this recent attack by the ft worth
police on a gay bar will
tell you more about christians in america than anything. the phelps
family is doing their part too.
> Christianity shows
> up on TV or in literature in the forms of paid religious programming or
> Christian tracts. And that is Christian evangelism. Beyond this,
> Christianity relies upon Christians to do good works.
prop 8 in california is political work that several christian
organizations worked hard on.
> Integrating with
> nonChristians would produce good works apart from Christian spirituality.
so you are afraid of other religions weakening your faith?
> And Christians are primarily interested in promoting Christian spirituality.
they promote christianity. not jesus work.
> That doesn't, of course, mean that Christians are unsocial or unwilling to
> communicate with nonChristians.
then stop the political action agianst gays and other minorities in
america.
christians are killing people cause they don't like them in america.
christians are torturing people as jesus was tortured and don't get
it.
love and let the world take care of itself.
this constant bossing people around needs to stop..
> > Nothing in the gospels suggested Jesus was gay.
>
> "can you explain jesus sexuality then for us?
> when modern homophobes have rewriten the bible?"
>
> Jesus proclaimed his spirituality in the context of Moses' ethics.
and you refuse to follow moses law don't you?
you flat out refuse to follow these same laws you just mentioned.
so who must follow these laws when christians refuse?
jesus lived by them for sure.
yet look deeply, you may be reading a flawed intrepetation.
> None of
> this has to do with being judgmental.
it is two faced to bring it up and not be practicing it yourself.
the definition of the sabbath is a good place to start.
> The idea is to recover people who are
> under the wrath of God.
you have not established that god hates enough to have wrath.
> This is love--not hatred and prejudice.
you can't seem to separate the two. these are the polarity of
christianity.
christians say one thing and do another.
down to the idea of following moses law.
> "what personal experiences have you had with jesus love?"
>
> It is a spiritual love.
cop out, you are being asked you personal expericences.
> And it is undergirded by a firm commitment to obey
> the holy laws of divine conduct.
this says nothing about a relationship with god or jesus.
> We must respect others, and yet not
> compromise the truth.
this has nothing to do with developing maintaining or realizing a
direct relationship with god.
this is judgemental and does not answer and question.
>
> > And Jesus advocated fulfillment
> > of the Law.
>
> "and that ends the law according to you.
> when you start worshipping on the sabbath.
> when you stop wearing blended garments.
> when your diet reflects the teachings of jesus.
> when you discover the love jesus taught to find."
>
> Fulfillment of the Law does not mean a continuation of the Law.
bully for you. so what laws were you referring to against
homosexaulity?
this is two faced, to say the laws are ended for everyone except the
gays? LOL.
> Many parts
> of the Law reflected holiness
you said the law ended with jesus.
> using symbolic elements that had nothing to do
> with righteousness in an intrinsic way. What I eat does not have anything to
> do with making me righteous.
no does who you have sex with.
> Washing my hands has nothing to do with
> spiritual purification.
nor does how you have sex with.
> These material elements used in the Law were only
> symbolic of deeper issues of the heart, matters of fidelity to our spouses,
christians have outlawed marriage in merlin's state.
> faithfulness to our covenants,
christians refuse to acknowledge gay rights or marriage all over
america.
> and commitment to social justice.
there is no social justice in america, the baptists have not
apologized for slavery.
> We are not
> as Christians to pursue the more symbolic issues of the Law.
good for you. so the ten commandments don't mean anything to you?
> Rather, we are
> to see Jesus as the true representation of righteousness--something the Law
> pointed to.
so you don't have to know jesus personally?
in love with the living gay jesus who taught us that when we love we
may open the door and find god,
merlin
randy
"merlin"
randy
> a God of love and justice
> exists, then the opposite cannot be true.
"on earth, yes, in heaven? no it cannot be true.
the battle over the heavens has been won,
the battle over earth is on going."
You seem to be some kind of gnostic who forms a dichotomy between the truths
of heaven and the truths of the earth. That's pretty arbitrary of you, in
view of the fact you've never been to "heaven."
"god is our imagination, for better or worse, for how else would we
know god?"
Now your true beliefs emerge, that there is no real God. If that is your
belief, so be it. I choose to believe in a God, not just because it's
reasonable, but also because He is near and within the realm of my personal
experience. Neither do I find there to be any dichotomy between the truths
of heaven and the truths of the earth. It's just that heaven will one day
bring final justice to the earth, whereas today we still see in the earth a
conflict between good and evil.
> in order to fully
> substitute His life for our life,
"jesus says we don't need that...."
On the contrary, he said we need his spiritual life, because our human life
is insufficient and unprepared for eternal life.
"god is flesh in all of us..."
No He is not. He was made flesh in the person of Jesus. That is, Jesus was
God become flesh. We are not and never will be so. We will never be divine.
But we can incorporate into our lives the spiritual substance that belongs
to God--not so that we will be God, but rather, so that we may participate
in His holiness and righteousness.
Only those who accept the spirituality of Jesus will thus know what it is
for God's Spirit to be infused into their own human life and flesh. No
others can have such an experience, except perhaps in the most transient
way. God's purpose is to *reside* in man--not merely to "touch bases" with
man.
"tell us how you life outside of fiction.
it is a constant struggle to find what is not fiction.
merlin seeks confirmation for everything from god.
and can find that confirmation in many ways.
it is entertainment, it is the basic struggle of life."
Fiction movies do contain themes that make us think about God and eternity,
about universl moral principles and issues of spirituality. But it is only
reality that we are after. Fiction is a means of using allegory to describe
things that interest us in our subconscious mind.
"merlin is not into human sacrifices, merlin is not into sheading blood
for purification."
There isn't a man or woman on earth who won't die, or shed his blood. Dying
is as human as living. Jesus' death was not a magical concoction designed to
give man an elixir of life. Rather, it was a means of forgiveness--a victim
saying "I forgive you" to those who've wrong him. The reward of accepting
this forgiveness and the reward of accepting his righteous example is the
gift of his spirituality, to those who accept his authority to grant this
wish.
"jesus never died...."
That's crazy.
"god is inhabiting you and you don't even know it."
God is inhabitting me, and I *do* know it!
> We see him as not only
> forgiving our sins on the cross, but also exhibiting the forgiveness and
> grace that we are to possess.
"forgive yourself."
I need *God's forgiveness* in order to receive eternal life from Him. Only
God can create and recreate man. Only God can give us eternal life and
immortality. That's the kind of "forgiveness" I want.
"everyone is divine....
Not even close. If I was divine, I'd remember creating the world. I don't,
obviously.
"who is he?"
Have you even read the gospels? Jesus is the very word of God, God made
flesh. When you read what Jesus said, you're reading the very words of God
Himself.
> Jesus proclaimed his spirituality in the context of Moses' ethics.
"and you refuse to follow moses law don't you?..."
I follow the principles of righteousness that the Law prescribed. The Law
depicted, in symbolic fashion, what the Messiah would be like. He would be
perfectly holy, and without sin. But he gives us his righteousness not by
demanding perfection of us, but by granting his righteous spirituality to
all those who accept him.
"you flat out refuse to follow these same laws you just mentioned...."
The Law was a temporary system of righteousness leading to Christ. Its
material symbols, water, blood, food, and stone were used symbolically to
portray something that is eternal in the heavens. Righteousness has always
been a spiritual thing, but symbols were used temporarily to depict it.
Perfect righteousness rests only in the Christ. But we can exhibit his
spirituality if we accept him as Messiah.
> Fulfillment of the Law does not mean a continuation of the Law.
"bully for you. so what laws were you referring to against
homosexaulity?"
The laws that prohibit even wearing clothes designed to make us look like
the other sex.
"this is two faced, to say the laws are ended for everyone except the
gays? LOL."
No, the Law was for gays. It was to condemn their behavior as sinful. But it
was also to discourage them from being gay, and to get them to repent so
that they may receive God's spirituality and eternal life.
> Many parts
> of the Law reflected holiness
"you said the law ended with jesus."
The holiness of the Law depicted Jesus just as he lived, and just as it was
depicted in the gospels. The moral laws represent eternal values that have
always been part of man and always will be part of man. God will always
require of man that he be righteous, pure, and just. That was true of Jesus.
And God wants that to be true of us also.
Gotta go,
randy
I
> "god is flesh in all of us..."
>
> No He is not. He was made flesh in the person of Jesus. That is, Jesus was
> God become flesh.
UTTER NONSENSE!!!!
Jesus NEVER claimed to to be the infinite One God.
The finite Jesus of Nazreth is totally different to the infinite One God
....
COMPARISON BETWEEN GOD & JESUS OF NAZARETH
God is:
- everywhere (omnipresent):
- all knowing (omniscient)
- all powerful (omnipotent)
- Spirit
- eternal, self-existent
- invisible
- immutable (unchangeable)
- does not urinate, deficate or pass wind.
- does not get tired or sleep.
- does not die.
- sends but is not sent
- rules but is not ruled over
- commands but is not commanded.
BUT
The human Jesus of Nazareth is:
- confined / restricted to his human body
- doesn't know when the end will come
- heals a man in stages with spittle and dust
- cannot do miracles because of people's unbelief.
- human flesh with a spirit.
- began as a fetus inside Mary
- totally visible from his birth till his death.
- changed in the normal physical and psychological stages of all humans /
aged.
- urinated, deficated and passed wind.
- got tired and slept
- died by Roman execution.
- was sent and did not send
- is ruled over
- is commanded
Which seems to be the better God to worship?
--
MY BLOG - MARK T - my thoughts on Christianity & links
http://www.blognow.com.au/strooth/
MY SOUNDCLICK PAGE- download my original songs in mp3 format
http://www.soundclick.com/marktindall
merlin
> You seem to be some kind of gnostic
when we love and find a direct relationship with god, we can learn
about anything.
it is like unto it's own computer access, no google needed.
amazing since of expansion in this love.
> who forms a dichotomy between the truths
> of heaven and the truths of the earth. That's pretty arbitrary of you, in
> view of the fact you've never been to "heaven."
it is arbetrary to limit yourself and god.
>
> "god is our imagination, for better or worse, for how else would we
> know god?"
>
> Now your true beliefs emerge,
what is to believe?
> that there is no real God.
god isn't a cookie cutter thang, god is the god of the entire known
and non known universe.
you may be worshiping only the king of the world/god of this world not
the god of the universe.
> If
talk about what you know.
> that is your
> belief, so be it.
excuse you. this is a rude 'what ever'
think for yourself. do something for yourself.
leave other people alone.
you seem to know only how to insult here.
> I choose to believe in a God,
believe anything you want, that is what jesus says christians do.
that christians think jesus is dead so they act like jesus is dead
and do anything they want.
> not just because it's
> reasonable,
please don't tell us you are wise.
> but
now you are contradicting yourself.
why are chatting when you keep putting merlin down?
> also because He
who is he?
> is near and within the realm of my personal
> experience.
yet you have not one story about a personal god.
> Neither do I find there to be any dichotomy
what does this mean to you?
you see contradiction in your misrepresentation of merlin and accuse
merlin of it?
> between the truths
> of heaven and the truths of the earth.
there is no difference in truth, it is how truth is used on earth that
may be untruth.
> It's just that heaven will one day
> bring final justice to the earth,
ok, believe anything you want.
don't love enough to ask jesus,
only use someone else's stories of jesus.
don't have any or your own experiences.
> whereas
you are not be logical you are being judgemental.
> today we still see in the earth a
> conflict between good and evil.
that is what makes the world go round.
polarity is the basis of all plantary movement.
it is the why the sun lets the earth go round.
> On the contrary,
jesus said to merlin we don't need to follow anyone.
we don't need to worship anyone, we don't need to accept the authority
of anyone over us.
not even you.
what did jesus tell you?
> he said we need his spiritual life,
we all got a spiritual life.
we all got a spirit, we can't live in a human body without a soul.
> because our human life
> is insufficient and unprepared for eternal life.
so what, you got one now, act like it.
>
> "god is flesh in all of us..."
god is all of us, someday christians will understand the nature of the
father mother god jesus found.
it can't be understood just with the mind, we need the flaming heart
of love we see in the pics of jesus.
> No He is not.
neibobing again?
> He was made flesh in the person of Jesus.
who is he?
> That is, Jesus was
> God become flesh.
we all are, just cause jesus figured it before you, you want to
worship jesus?
you are being set up for the anti christ when you worship humans as
gods.
yahweh warned us.
> We are not and never will be so.
neibobing again?
> We will never be divine.
neibobing again?
> But
another self contradiction?
> we can incorporate into our lives the spiritual substance that belongs
> to God
you don't seem to understand how you got here, that you do not really
want to discuss it is very amusing.
you say no to everything.
>--not so that we will be God,
we are part of god, we have god in us,
you can deny it till you find out for sure.
> but rather,
self contradictory statement.
> so that we may participate
> in His holiness and righteousness.
god existed before there was holiness and righteousness.
before the moon was created there was god.
before the first sun shown in the unviverse there was god.
now tell us again what god can't do?
> Only
ah the exclusive club for jesus stuff.
stop telling merlin you are the only one.
> those who accept the spirituality of Jesus will thus know what it is
> for God's Spirit to be infused into their own human life and flesh.
who is in the flesh now?
who is typing this?
not a spirit, a real human being.
work from where you are first.
you seem to not be loving at all.
> No
neighbobing again?
> others can have such an experience, except perhaps in the most transient
> way. God's purpose is to *reside* in man--not merely to "touch bases" with
> man.
you can believe anything you want till you know.
> "tell us how you life outside of fiction.
> it is a constant struggle to find what is not fiction.
> merlin seeks confirmation for everything from god.
> and can find that confirmation in many ways.
> it is entertainment, it is the basic struggle of life."
>
> Fiction movies do contain themes that make us think about God and eternity,
love is faster.
> about universl moral principles and issues of spirituality.
this is a political statement not something you know about god.
> But
it isn't what you just said it is something else?
> it is only
> reality that we are after.
jesus make it perfectly clear to merlin that the new jerusalem will be
on earth.
you can go to you private ocean liner in the heaven world
> Fiction is a means of using allegory to describe
> things that interest us in our subconscious mind.
that may be the best definition of the bible merlin has seen.
> "merlin is not into human sacrifices, merlin is not into sheading blood
> for purification."
>
> There isn't a man or woman on earth who won't die, or shed his blood.
in phony wars? criminalized and then murdered?
> Dying
> is as human as living.
no one ever dies. you place too much importance in your life to your
body.
love and you will may find a refreshed way to see yourself as a soul
locked in your body.
and your body as a change of clothes.
> Jesus' death was not a magical concoction designed to
> give man an elixir of life.
you said his blood saved you.
> Rather, it was a means of forgiveness--a victim
> saying "I forgive you" to those who've wrong him.
don't need blood to that.
we can all say we are sorry and will not do it again.
that would be more human than killing jesus to feel better about our
problems.
>The reward of accepting
> this forgiveness
we are already forgiven, we are all trying to remember who we were
that we don't have to stay trapped on this planet.
> and the reward of accepting his righteous example is the
> gift of his spirituality,
yes jesus lived, jesus walked his walk and talked his talk.
something merlin has few christians even try.
that is why merlin says, find love, find a real relatinship with jesus
as jesus taught us to find the father mother god. as jesus was able
to speak with the father, so jesus says we can.
> to those who accept his authority
this is religious politics.
jesus refused such authority in the desert.
remember when he asked his tempter to stay behind jesus?
why would jesus later than assume any mantle of over bearing lord?
when jesus is simply known for love?
it is the emporers of rome that wrote this into the story.
this is the authority of an earthly king written into the story.
so christians will obey their kings and priests and do as they say.
this isn't about a relationship with god.
do you go around telling people to accept your authority?
prolly not. then why do you think jesus would?
merlin has found jesus love to be more kind and gentle and yet
realistic at the same time.
> That's crazy.
now you calling merlin crazy, by your authority over merlin?
jesus never died, jesus is not dead, nor is anyone else that ever was
born on earth.
we are all alive and well.
>
> "god is inhabiting you and you don't even know it."
>
> God is inhabitting me, and I *do* know it!
then act like it. yet you do not tell one story that suggests this is
true.
>
> > We see him as not only
> > forgiving our sins on the cross, but also exhibiting the forgiveness and
> > grace that we are to possess.
>
> "forgive yourself."
>
> I need *God's forgiveness*
then you have to wait don't you?
until you find god?
> in order to receive eternal life from Him.
every soul has eternal life or satan would be dead.
> Only
> God can create and recreate man.
this has nothing to do with knowing god.
> Only God can give us eternal life and
> immortality.
we have it already, find something else to use god for other than your
own self protective motives.
> That's the kind of "forgiveness" I want.
then wait for it to come to you.
>
> "everyone is divine....
>
> Not even close.
neighbobing again?
> If
if means you don't know.
> I was divine, I'd remember creating the world.
not necessarily, it would be even more difficult to speak with you.
> I don't,
> obviously.
you deny jesus yes.
> "who is he?"
>
> Have you even read the gospels?
another insult.
> Jesus is the very word of God,
says who? no really, yahweh warned us.
> God made
> flesh.
we created ourselves in our own image with god's laws, and god said
this was good.
> When you read what Jesus said, you're reading the very words of God
> Himself.
would rather you met jesus for yourself.
you seem happy like this.
>
> > Jesus proclaimed his spirituality in the context of Moses' ethics.
>
> "and you refuse to follow moses law don't you?..."
>
> I follow the principles of righteousness that the Law prescribed.
the question isn't about the spirit of the law, it is about the law.
this break away from isreal and yahweh is because europe was anti
semetic from ancient times.
> The Law
> depicted, in symbolic fashion, what the Messiah would be like.
then leave it there?
> He would be
> perfectly holy, and without sin.
good for you. you have memorized what you are told.
> But he gives us his righteousness not by
> demanding perfection of us, but by granting his righteous spirituality to
> all those who accept him.
too judgmental and self protective. this is about your fear not jesus
love.
> "you flat out refuse to follow these same laws you just mentioned...."
>
> The Law was a temporary system of righteousness leading to Christ.
you are a christ.
> Its
> material symbols, water, blood, food, and stone were used symbolically to
> portray something that is eternal in the heavens. Righteousness has always
> been a spiritual thing, but symbols were used temporarily to depict it.
> Perfect righteousness rests only in the Christ. But we can exhibit his
> spirituality if we accept him as Messiah.
this not about love, nor about the real jesus. get simpler you are
trying to rule the world here, come back to earth hons, learn to love
as the rest of us doing and see what happens. jesus did amazing
things with this love.
>
> > Fulfillment of the Law does not mean a continuation of the Law.
>
> "bully for you. so what laws were you referring to against
> homosexaulity?"
>
> The laws that prohibit even wearing clothes designed to make us look like
> the other sex.
yup, another homophobe for jesus. you are trying your hard not to
sound like one.
yet you are very judgement, demanding and empirial in your tude.
you have put merlin down many times in this post.
you don't seem to care about jesus love for all.
jesus wore a dress!
> "this is two faced, to say the laws are ended for everyone except the
> gays? LOL."
>
> No, the Law was for gays.
you have told us you are beyond the laws, that for you the laws have
been fulfilled.
so why you telling someone else about the laws you have forsaken?
> It was to condemn their behavior as sinful.
not at all. you have been mislead by the same people that got you to
memorize the above stuff you quoted.
> But
contradicting yourself again?
> it
> was also to discourage them from being gay,
not at all. obviously you are ready a homophobic bible.
that is your choice.
> and to get them to repent so
> that they may receive God's spirituality and eternal life.
ah another death threat. christians can't stop themselves.
now we have the ft worth attack on gays to prove how homophobic
christians really are.
>
> > Many parts
> > of the Law reflected holiness
>
> "you said the law ended with jesus."
>
> The holiness of the Law depicted Jesus just as he lived,
you are not living it.
you just judge your brother in christ.
you do not love.
and you pretend to know jesus when asked.
> and just as it was
> depicted in the gospels.
you memorize well.
> The moral laws
this is political.
morality is not about religion.
> represent eternal values that have
> always been part of man and always will be part of man.
in the bible men have many wives.
> God will always
> require of man that he be righteous, pure, and just.
these are bi products of jesus love, these are things that happen to
us when we love
don't force yourself to be good, cause your darkness will break out
when you least expect it.
love as you have never loved before and we will all benefit from your
love.
> That was true of Jesus.
oh oh, there have been years of conversation on christnet on this
concept of the true jesus.
> And God wants that to be true of us also.
learn to love then review this post.
merlin knows that when you start to love you get the whole picture,
and not see god as a gated community.
in love with the living gay jesus who taught us to love,
merlin
randy
"guardian Snow"
randy
> I see the Torah as valuable to all Christians, but not as a
> currently-valid
> covenant. It is valuable as a reference to what Jesus' spirituality is
> like.
> And our spirituality has nothing to do with the material symbols of the
> Law
> that had nothing to do with our righteousness. Christian spirituality has
> nothing to do with what we eat, what we wear, or whether we offer an
> animal
> sacrifice. Rather, Christian spirituality is a matter of a heart changed
> by
> God's Spirit, enabling us to partner with God to demonstrate His love and
> justice.
"Now, I spend a lot of time talking about the Ten Commandments, people
are right, I come back to the Sabbath all the time but that’s because
it is the sign of the servants of our heavenly father."
That's alright, as long as you recognize you are not even remotely a
conventional Christian. Christians do not believe that we are to live under
the Law of Moses. The Law is an outmoded covenant, fulfilled in the life of
Jesus Christ. The Sabbath is a part of that covenant--not a part of the
gospel of Christ.
"...Lately I’ve been compelled to speak a lot about Paul because people can’t
or refuse to try and give a reasonable explanation...."
I've not in the least refused to offer an explanation.
"They complain that I’m tearing passages out of context..."
Well yes, we're debating about what the context of these passages are.
That's just what debate is.
"I stand by my belief. Misinterpretations or not, it’s reality that we
are dealing with and that reality is this...
As it stands, the context that Paul is used can be for the Torah or
against it, that is reality. Half the church believes we are unable
to sin because we are under grace and not the Covenant of the Torah,
which at one point Paul does acknowledge..."
The church does not generally believe Christians are "unable to sin."
"Rom 3:31 Do we then nullify the Torah through the belief? Let it not
be! On the contrary, we establish the Torah."
Paul is here establishing the moral principles of the Torah, which are
eternally binding. Principles such as love, truth, and justice are eternal
values, and remain true whether under the Law or under the gospel of Christ.
"Then we have the other end of the field, those who believe we are not
under the Torah as Paul says to clearly?"
Paul does not say we are under the Law, let alone "clearly." In fact Paul
*clearly* says we are *not* under the Law! There are so many quotes to this
effect I need not even mention them.
As I said, Paul establishes the eternal principles of righteousness
contained in the Law, the predicted need for Christ's salvation, our need
for repentance, and the need we have for eternal life. That life could never
come under the Law, as even the Law itself declared.
Deut 30:1 And when all these things come upon you, the blessing and the
curse...
When the blessings and the curse came upon Israel it was an indication that
the same old Adamic curse rested upon Israel as upon Adam himself. If Adam
was cursed with death for one sin, Israel is just as cursed with death for
many national sins. Eternal life clearly comes by the gift of Messiah, and
not by obedience to the Law. Therefore, the Law had no value in terms of
giving us life, and was used only as a temporary covenant until Christ came,
who could in fact grant us eternal life.
"Rom 6:23 For the wages of sin is death, but the favorable gift of
Elohim is everlasting life in Messiah YEHOSHUA our Master.
Romans 6:23 fails to take into account the very thing that the Messiah
spoke about… compassion. Are the wages of sin instant death to all
that sin?"
Who said the wages of sin is "instant death?" Who ever said that the gift of
God lacks "compassion?"
"So we are punished but not necessarily death. Our Father in heaven
has been exceptionally patient with us and for a millennium people
have come to see him as an El with no compassion and this is the error
of the Pharisee."
I don't think that anybody fails to see that Christians present their Christ
as "compassionate." And nobody is saying that God doesn't grant a reprieve
from death for those who repent. God is very, very patient with sinful
humanity, and clearly, people are not dropping dead every time they sin!
"2Co 12:16 But be it so, I did not burden you. But being crafty, did I
catch you with guile?
...You see Paul applying words associated with the devil himself."
Paul is being facetious and kidding. He assumes that he will be accused of
being "crafty" by his detractors.
"1Jn 2:7 Beloved, I write no fresh command to you, but an old command
which you have had from the beginning. The old command is the Word
which you heard from the beginning."
The command from the beginning was the command that Jesus had given under
the Law. That is not contradicted by Jesus' claim to have saved us from a
"law of death." The principles of righteousness remain true forever. But
that righteousness cannot live in us forever unless we are saved under an
entirely different law, the law of Christ's salvation.
The Law provided righteousness, but did not provide for eternal life. If we
would receive both righteousness and eternity, we must live according to the
word of Christ, and not according to the word of Moses. All that was under
the Law had to do with this life, with temporal things. But the word of
Christ deals with eternity, and with resurrection.
Choose if you want righteousness and death, or righteousness and life. If
you live under the Law, only death awaits you. But if you hang on the word
of Christ, you will live forever. And the principles of his righteousness
are the same as that which he preached even while Israel was under the Law.
randy
randy
"I"
randy
>> ...He was made flesh in the person of Jesus. That is, Jesus was God
>> become flesh.
> UTTER NONSENSE!!!! Jesus NEVER claimed to to be the infinite One God.
Everything he did and said suggested he was the infinite God made into
finite flesh. That he did not advertise himself as such only suggests that
he commends himself to those who have faith, and not to enemies of the
faith.
randy
randy
"merlin"
randy
> You seem to be some kind of gnostic
"when we love and find a direct relationship with god, we can learn
about anything.
it is like unto it's own computer access, no google needed.
amazing since of expansion in this love."
That's kind of elusive. I was wondering if you consider yourself in league
with gnosticism?
> who forms a dichotomy between the truths
> of heaven and the truths of the earth. That's pretty arbitrary of you, in
> view of the fact you've never been to "heaven."
"it is arbetrary to limit yourself and god."
God sets His own limits. We don't get to define Him for ourselves.
"excuse you. this is a rude 'what ever'
think for yourself. do something for yourself.
leave other people alone.
you seem to know only how to insult here."
So merlin believes only in his own belief system? All else is rude? I just
believe in what is--not in what I concoct for myself.
> The laws that prohibit even wearing clothes designed to make us look like
> the other sex.
"yup, another homophobe for jesus...."
No, I just believe in the historical Jesus--not a jesus of my own making.
randy
guardian Snow
YHWH.
Jer 23:20 The displeasure of [Yahweh] יהוה shall not turn back until
He has done and established the purposes of His heart. In the latter
days you shall understand it perfectly.
.
Jer 23:27 Which think to cause my people to forget my name by their
dreams which they tell every man to his neighbour, as their fathers
have forgotten my name for Baal.
Jer 12:16 And it shall come to pass, if they will diligently learn the
ways of my people, to swear by my name, YAHWEH liveth; as they taught
my people to swear by Baal; then shall they be built in the midst of
my people.
Jer 12:17 But if they will not obey, I will utterly pluck up and
destroy that nation, saith YAHWEH.
Baal is translated LORD as shown here:
Isa 16:8 the lords1167 of the heathen1471
H1167
בּעל
baal
One of the names of Baal was G-d.
H1409
גּד
gawd
A variation of H1409; Fortune, a Babylonian deity: - that troop.
For some reason it’s translated “that troop” in the KJV. But if we
look at the “variation”:
Notice first that there is NO difference between the two words
characters in Hebrew. Gawd is pronounced g-d and Hebrew has no
vowels, "God" is the name of Baal [Lord].
Isa 65:11 “But you are those who forsake YAHWEH, who forget My set-
apart mountain, who prepare a table for G-d, and who fill a drink
offering for Meni.
This is the ONLY listing for g-d of furtune in the entire scriptures.
So, next I figure I’ll look into Baal Gad.
H1171
בּעל גּד
ba‛al gâd
bah'-al gawd
From H1168 and H1409; Baal of Fortune; Baal G-d, a place in Syria: -
Baal-gad.
Notice again... same characters for G-d.
I
>>> ...He was made flesh in the person of Jesus. That is, Jesus was God
>>> become flesh.
>> UTTER NONSENSE!!!! Jesus NEVER claimed to to be the infinite One God.
>
> Everything he did and said suggested he was the infinite God made into
> finite flesh.
Really? You haven't read your bible very well nor do you understand how it
was EDITED.
from Geza Vermes - "The Authentic Gospel Of Jesus" (Penguin:2003)
Geza Vermes is the Professor Emeritus of Jewish Studies at Oxford
University.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
... I have simply tried to put the record straight and to reconstruct a
genuine likeness of Yeshua, son of Joseph of the Galilean townlet of
Nazareth. p. vii
... the Jesus image concealed beneath Luke, Matthew and Mark. p. viii *[Note
that John's gospel is largely ignored except where it mentions the same
things as the synoptic gospels.]
... the aim of these gospels was to transmit, not the report of a
chronicler, but the doctrinal message of the early church. Their purpose
was primarily didactic, not historical. p. x
... none of the canonical Gospels can reach back directly to Jesus. p.xi
... how can the religiojn of Jesus be summarised? His religion is a
particular response to a specific situation by an extraordinary man.
Christianity, on the other hand, is the general development of the religion
of Jesus by practical people planning for the future in an ordinary time
setting. The two are definitely connected, yet they are also radically
different. .... AD 6. The political unrest stirred up and nurtured a
feverish longingh for an impending divine intervention, especially in the
wake of the widely influential ministry of John the baptist in the late
twenties. jesus was to address and respond to this feverish expectation.
The Kingdom of God was believed to be at hand. The Kingdom was a wholly
Jewish issue, involving Jews alone, and requiring an exclusivey Jewish
solution. The non-Jewish played no part in it. pp. 413-414
The religion revealed by the authentic message of Jesus is straight forward,
without complex dogmas, 'mythical' images or self-centred mystical
speculation. It resembles a race consisting only of the final straight,
demanding from the runners their last ounce of energy and with a winner's
medal for all the JEWISH participants who cross the finishing line. ...
Compared with the dynamic religion of Jesus, fully evolved Christyianity
seems to belong to another world. With its mixture of high philosophical
specualtion on the triune God, its Johnannine logos mysticism and Pauline
Redeemer myth of a dying and risen Son of God, with its sacramental
symbolism and ecclesiastical discipline substituted for the extinct
eschatological passion, with its cosmopolitan openness combined with a
built-in anti-Judaism, it is hard to imagine how the two could have sprung
from the same source. Yet 2,000-year-old Christianity, responsible for the
survival of the Gospel tradition, proudly considers Jesus as its founder and
what I have reconstructed as the genuine religion of Jeus is espoused
nowadays only by single individuals or is distorted and caracatured by cultb
groups and sects. p.415
Some years ago I gave a lecture on the historical Jesus to the teaching
staff and graduate students of an interdenominational theological faculty in
Australia. At the end of a lengthy and lively discussion I was faced with a
final question:'How can we improve opur understanding of Jesus?' I tried to
be evasive and pleaded that it was not my task to 'preach', but the audience
adamantly insisted. So I came up with the following counsel which, I
believe, touches the heart of the matter: 'Look for what Jesus himself
taught instead of being satisfied with what has been taught about him.'
"The Authentic Gospel of Jesus" is the tentative answer of an historian to
inquiring minds, from all faiths or from none, who are fascinated by the
figure of Jesus and seek to discover the real nature of his message. p. 417
merlin
> That's kind of elusive.
when jesus teaches us about love?
> I was wondering if you consider yourself in league
> with gnosticism?
explain what you are talking about.
names are not necessary.
merlin belongs to no religion tho merlin respects all religions
and merlin does consider merlin a christian in the heart.
the concepts of the individual christ are the basis of christianity.
the concepts of individual responsibility to god is the bases of jesus
teachings.
there is no super group needed to find god.
> "it is arbetrary to limit yourself and god."
>
> God sets His own limits.
according to who?
> We don't get to define Him for ourselves.
until you try to love as jesus loves you will never know.
this is the odd part, not one person on christnet has said they will
even try to love as jesus loves.
when we do, we find out more about god than you will ever imagine by
not loving.
this is the key to the whole universe. love, this is the method to
unlock the door to god.
it is laid out like a picnic blanket by jesus, and you refuse to sit
down and love and eat from the basket of love.
aversion, fear, doubt, no experience adds up and becomes its own
inertia.
> So
a needle pulling thread.
>merlin believes only in his own belief system?
not gonna believe your neighbob.
you have not said one positive thang here,
it is all critical.
> All else is rude?
when you call people names it is rude.
you don't even see it.
> I just
you keep claiming yourself just, merlin does not see you being just.
merlin sees you as opinionated, which is fun to chat.
> believe in what is--not in what I concoct for myself.
what are you talking about. this is about you hons, not merlin.
> "yup, another homophobe for jesus...."
>
> No,
yes randy, and you have a death threat in your previous post.
> I just believe
and you do not know.
> in the historical Jesus
then ignore the living jesus and do what ever you want, believe what
ever you want.
jesus said there would be people like this. even those that claim to
be christians.
> --not a jesus of my own making.
until you meet jesus it appears that way.
love will unlock your spirit and allow you to explore.
that is how jesus became this breakaway thinker in his own time.
jesus came upon love and it revolutionized his world and our world.
that you refuse to even find this love in your life, is not merlin's
fault.
it isn't even your fault, for someday you will know jesus by your
love.
and you too can find the father mother god, and sit in the garden and
speak with your god
as jesus did, and you may not be interrupted by roman soldiers coming
to arrest you.
while needing someone to plant a kiss to tell you apart from your
friends.
in love with the living gay jesus,
merlin
guardian Snow
> The Law provided righteousness, but did not provide for eternal life. If we
> would receive both righteousness and eternity, we must live according to the
> word of Christ, and not according to the word of Moses. All that was under
> the Law had to do with this life, with temporal things. But the word of
> Christ deals with eternity, and with resurrection.
>
> Choose if you want righteousness and death, or righteousness and life. If
> you live under the Law, only death awaits you. But if you hang on the word
> of Christ, you will live forever. And the principles of his righteousness
> are the same as that which he preached even while Israel was under the Law.
> randy
Your teachings are that of a pure Pharisee. Take a moment to study
this one verse:
Mat 23:23 “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! Because you
tithe the mint and the anise and the cumin,
1 and have neglected the weightier matters of the Torah: the right-
ruling and the compassion and the belief. These need to have been
done,
without neglecting the others. Footnote:1The wording in Lk. 11:42 is
somewhat different.
I put this in three parts because it speaks first to "the law" that
you seem to think is without compassion being that you are a Pharisee
Randy. You have neglected the weightier matters of compassion!
Deu 4:31 (For YHWH thy Elohim is a merciful El;) he will not forsake
thee, neither destroy thee, nor forget the covenant of thy fathers
which he sware unto them.
Now how can I be "dead" if I live under the LAW OF COMPASSION? You
blasphemy YHWH every time you say that he is without compassion in the
LAW. You preach of an unforgiving Elohim that requires sacrifice not
realizing his Messiah preached against your heresy:
Mat 9:13 “But go and learn what this means, ‘I desire compassion and
not offering.’ For I did not come to call the righteous to repentance,
but sinners.”
YOU CAN BE RIGHTEOUS!
randy
"I"
randy
>> Everything he did and said suggested he was the infinite God made into
>> finite flesh.
> Really? You haven't read your bible very well nor do you understand how
> it was EDITED.
You assume it was edited. And if it was edited, I don't know how you can
determine what is edited, and what isn't.
> from Geza Vermes - "The Authentic Gospel Of Jesus" (Penguin:2003)
> Geza Vermes is the Professor Emeritus of Jewish Studies at Oxford
> University.
> ... I have simply tried to put the record straight and to reconstruct a
> genuine likeness of Yeshua, son of Joseph of the Galilean townlet of
> Nazareth. p. vii
Pure bunk. Geza assumes there is a difference between Jewish Christianity
and Gentile Christianity. But is it really surprising that the addition of a
multitude of nations changed the essential character of the Christian
church? When the church was exclusively Jewish, it would have only a Jewish
character. But when the Gentile nations were added in, there would be many
more issues to address, and a brand new character would develop.
Is this bad? I think not. Jews may have wished to preserve the Jewish
character of the church when they became Christians. But I'm sure other
nations would have something to say about that! Paul argued for less
competitiveness in the church, and less arrogance. We are joined together in
a single deity, in a single Messiah. I don't care what language it is put
in, or what tradition we use. Some are philosophical, and others prophetic.
But we all believe in the same Messiah.
I see no inconsistency between the Jesus of Christian history and the Jesus
of the 1st century Palestine. They are one and the same. It was just a
matter of adding all other nations of the world along with Israel.
randy
randy
"merlin"
randy
> I was wondering if you consider yourself in league
> with gnosticism?
"explain what you are talking about.
names are not necessary.
merlin belongs to no religion tho merlin respects all religions
and merlin does consider merlin a christian in the heart."
Are you trying to be "artful" when you refer to yourself in the third
person? Regardless, gnosticism was an ancient religious form that imitated
some of the features of Christianity, and saw a dichotomy on earth, good and
evil. The problem was to be resolved by assuming a superior knowledge and a
superior spirituality. Though this is true also in Christianity, the former
draws upon a different source for that spirituality--it is not Christ, or it
is a different christ. And as a result gnosticism obtained a different
definition of what was "good and evil."
"until you try to love as jesus loves you will never know.
this is the odd part, not one person on christnet has said they will
even try to love as jesus loves...."
And I don't know of any real Christian who doesn't say they want to love
like Jesus loved. That's why the bumper sticker, "What Would Jesus Do?" Or,
"Please Be Patient With Me. God's Not Finished With Me Yet."
"this is the key to the whole universe. love, this is the method to
unlock the door to god.
it is laid out like a picnic blanket by jesus, and you refuse to sit
down and love and eat from the basket of love."
I refuse to have the love of Jesus? You've got to be kidding! It is the love
of Christ that compelled me to recommit to being a Christian. I was deathly
afraid of living a religious life the rest of my life. I was deathly afraid
of enslavement to a God of holiness in an age of freedom and
experimentation. I was afraid God would never let me enjoy life. But I
submitted out of reverence for God, and learned to love Him. And it was
because He revealed to me that He had love.
> "yup, another homophobe for jesus...."
> No,
"yes randy, and you have a death threat in your previous post."
I don't personally threaten anybody. I don't wish harm on anybody. But out
of love for you I would warn you to repent of anything that may displease
your Father in heaven.
randy
randy
"guardian Snow"
randy
> The Law provided righteousness, but did not provide for eternal life. If
> we
> would receive both righteousness and eternity, we must live according to
> the
> word of Christ, and not according to the word of Moses. All that was under
> the Law had to do with this life, with temporal things. But the word of
> Christ deals with eternity, and with resurrection.
"Your teachings are that of a pure Pharisee..."
I am not in the least in favor of Phariseeism. They believed in practising
the Law. They believed in judging people more by the letter of the Law than
by the spirit of the Law. Jesus came with a righteous spirit to bring
salvation to those who had failed under the Law. And we all failed under the
Law, because we all are subject to the curse of Adam and to the curse of
death. We are all condemned to death, even if there was a system of Law that
promised righteousness and temporary peace.
So no, I'm not in the least Pharisaical. But you are. You are, because you
teach the Law. You teach the Sabbath. And you judge those who are not under
the Law as being against God and against Christ. That is judgmentalism, and
it is not the standard Jesus used to judge the world.
Jesus did use the Law to judge Israel in terms of righteousness under that
system. But it was not the system Jesus intended to judge the world for all
time. Jesus' gospel is such that it intends to judge the world on the basis
of an *eternal* system. Jesus came to bring eternal life, and did so by his
gospel. And so, those who do not live in accord with his gospel are judged
on an eternal basis, not just on the basis of righteousness, but also on the
basis of eternity.
It is therefore crucial, I think, to understand that the Law was just a
temporary system of judgment used by God, and the gospel was the eternal
system of judgment God chose to use to judge the world. When you rely upon
the Law, you rely upon an outdated standard that was applied only to Israel.
Today, I believe God judges the world by the gospel of Jesus. And so, we do
not rely upon the Law. Rather, we rely upon the righteousness of *Jesus
himself.* The Law was only a poor imitation of the righteousness that Jesus
himself displayed. Nobody under the Law ever displayed the quality of
righteousness that Jesus himself displayed.
Therefore, Jesus' righteousness is the true basis of our salvation--not the
righteousness of the Law. And choosing to live by Christ's gospel is not a
choice *against the righteousness of the Law,* but rather a choice for the
righteousness that that Law represented, the righteousness of Christ.
randy
I
>>> Everything he did and said suggested he was the infinite God made into
>>> finite flesh.
>> Really? You haven't read your bible very well nor do you understand how
>> it was EDITED.
>
> You assume it was edited.
The bible has been edited several times. provide proof to the contrary.
> And if it was edited, I don't know how you can determine what is edited,
> and what isn't.
Scholarly textual criticism ......... regarding the historical Jesus in the
following ......
METHODOLOGY from Funk, Hoover and the Jesus Seminar's "The Five Gospels"
(Polebridge: 1993)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"SEVEN PILLARS" OF CONTEMPORARY SCHOLARLY WISDOM
1. The distinction between the historical Jesus (uncovered by historical
excavation) and the Christ of Faith (encapsulated in the first creeds).
2. Recognising that the synoptic gospels (Mark, Matthew & Luke) are much
closer to the historical Jesus than John's gospel which presents a
"spiritual" Jesus.
3. The recogintion of Mark's gospel as prior to Matthew's and Luke's and
their basis.
4. The identification of the hypothetical source Q as the explanation for
the "double tradition" (The material Matthew & Luke have in common beyond
their dependence on Mark.)
5. The liberation of the non-eschatological Jesus of the aphorisms and
parables from Albert Schweitzer's eschatological Jesus,
6. Recognition of the fundamental contrast between the oral culture (ijn
which Jesus was at home) and a print culture (like our own). (The Jesus whom
historians seek will be found in those fragments of tradition that bear the
imprint of orality: short, provocative, memorable, oft-repeated phrases,
sentences, and stories.)
7. The reversal regarding who bears the burden of proof. The gospels are now
assumed to be narratives in which the memory of Jesus is embellished by
mythic elements that express the church's faith in him, and by plausible
fictions that enhance the telling of the gospel for 1st century listeners
who knew about divine men and miracle woprkers first hand. Supposedly
historical elements in these narratives must be proved so.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
TWO DIFFERING PORTRAITS OF JESUS:
1. The Synoptic gospels (Mark, Matthew & Luke)
- Jesus speaks in parables and aphorisms
- God's imperial rule is the theme of Jesus' teaching
2. John's Gospel
- Jesus speaks in long, involved discourses
- Jesus is the theme of his own teaching
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
THE FOUR SOURCE THEORY:
Matthew used Mark, Q, and is own special source called M.
Luke also used Mark and Q, but had another source called L, which Mathew did
not have.
The material in M & L probably comes from oral tradition.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
RULES OF WRITTEN EVIDENCE:
CLUSTERING & CONTEXTING
1. The evangelists frequently group sayings and parables in clusters and
complexes that did not originate with Jesus.
2. The evangelists frequently relocate sayings and parables or invent new
narrative contexts for them.
REVISION & COMMENTARY
3. The evangelists frequently expand sayings or parables, or provide them
with an interpretive overlay or comment.
4. The evangelists often revide or edit sayigs to make them conform to their
own individual language, styleor viewpoint.
FALSE ATTRIBUTION
5. Words borrowed from the fund of common lore or the Greek sriptures are
often put on the lips of Jesus.
DIFFICULT SAYINGS
6. Hard sayings are frequently softened in the process of transmission to
adapt them to the conditions of daily living.
7. Variations in difficult sayings often betray the struggle of the early
Christian community to interpret or adpat sayings to its own situation.
CHRISTIANISING JESUS
8. Sayings and parables expressed in "Christian" language are rthe creation
of the evangelists or their Christian predecessors.
9. Saying or parables that contrast with the language or viewpoint of the
gospel in which they are embedded reflect older tradition (but not
necessarily tradition that originated with Jesus).
10. The Christian community develops apologetic statements to defend its
claims and sometimes attributes such statements to Jesus.
11. Sayings and narratives that reflect knowledge of events that took place
after Jesus' death are the creation of the evangelists or rthe oral
tradition before them.
FROM THE GOSPELS TO JESUS: THE RULES OF ORAL EVIDENCE
12. Only sayings and parables that can be traced back to the oral period,
30-50 CE, can possibly have orginated with Jesus.
13. Sayings or parables that are attested to in two or more independent
sources are older than the sources in which they are embedded.
14. Sayings or parables that are attested in two different contexts probably
circuklated independently at an earlier time.
15. The same or similar content attested in two or more different forms has
had a life of its own and therefore may stem from old tradition.
16. Unwritten tradition that is captured by the written gospels relatively
late may preserve very old memories.
ORALITY & MEMORY (STORY TELLER'S LICENSE)
17. The oral memory best retains sayings and anecdotes that are short,
provocative, memorable - and oft-repeated.
18. The most frequently recorded words of Jesus in the surving gospels take
the form of aphorisms and parables.
19. The earliest layer of teh gospel tradition is made up of singl;e
aphorisms and parables that circulated by word of mouth prior to the written
gospels.
20. Jesus' disciples remembered the core or gist of his sayings and
parables, not his precise words, except in rare cases.
DISTINCTIVE DISCOURSE
21. Jesus' characteristic talk was distinctive - it can usually be
distinguished from common lore. otherwise it is futuile to search for the
authentic words of Jesus.
22. Jesus' sayings and parables cut against the social and religious grain.
23. Jesus' sayings and parables surprise and shock: they characteristically
call for a reversal of roles or frustrate ordinary, everyday expectations.
24. Jesus' sayings and prables are often characterised by exaggeration,
humour, and paradox.
25. Jesus' images are concrete nd vivid, his sayings and parables
customarily metaphorical and without explicit application.
THE LACONIC SAGE
26. Jesus does not as a rule initiate dialogue or debate, nor does he offer
to cure people.
27. Jesus rarely makes pronouncements or speaks about himself in the first
person.
28. Jesus makes no claim to be the Anointed, the messiah.
AGENDA
29. Canonical boundaries are irrelevant in critical assessments of the
various sources of information about Jesus.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The 120 scholars from the Jesus Seminar give each verse in the five gospels
a probabilty that is colour coded:
RED - I would include this item unequivically in the database for
determining who Jesus was / Jesus undoubtedly said this or something very
like it.
PINK - I would include this item with reservations (or modifications) in the
database / Jesus probably said something like this.
GRAY - I would not include this item in the database, but I might make use
of some of the content in determining who Jesus was / Jesus did not say
this, but the ideas contained in it are close to his own.
BLACK - I would not include this item in the primary database / Jesus did
not say this; it represents the perspective or content of a later or
different tradition.
MOST of John's gospel is colour-coded BLACK.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Canons of Tischendorf
Lobegott Friedrich Constantin von Tischendorf (1815-1874)
(1)The text is to be sought from the most ancient evidence, meaning
especially the oldest Greek manuscripts;
(2) a reading peculiar to a single document is to be considered suspect;
(3) an obvious scribal error is to be rejected even though well supported
in the manuscripts;
(4) in parallel passages the tendency of copyists would be to make the
readings agree, and therefore, in such passages, testimonies are to be
preferred which are not in precise
accordance;
(5) that reading is to be preferred which could have given occasion to the
others, or which appears to comprise the elements of the others; and
(6) that reading is to be preferred which accords with NT Greek or with the
style of the individual writer.
(Summarized by Finegan, Encountering NT Manuscripts, p. 63)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Metzger Criteria
1.. EXTERNAL EVIDENCE, involving considerations bearing upon:
1.. The date of the witness or, rather, of the type of text.
2.. The geographical distribution of the witnesses that agree in
supporting a variant.
3.. The genealogical relationship of texts and families of witnesses:
Witnesses are weighed rather than counted.
2.. INTERNAL EVIDENCE, involving two kinds of probabilities:
1.. Transcriptional Probabilities depend upon considerations of
palaeographical details and the habits of scribes. Thus:
1.. In general the more difficult reading is to be preferred.
2.. In general the shorter reading is to be preferred.
3.. That reading is to be preferred which stands in verbal dissidence
with the other.
2.. Intrinsic Probabilities depend upon considerations of what the
author was more likely to have written, taking into account:
1.. the style and vocabulary of the author throughout the book,
2.. the immediate context,
3.. harmony with the usage of the author elsewhere, and, in the
Gospels,
4.. the Aramaic background of the teaching of Jesus,
5.. the priority of the Gospel according to Mark, and
6.. the influence of the Christian community upon the formulation and
transmission of the passage in question.
Metzger, The Text of the New Testament, pp. 209-210.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Twelve Basic Rules of Aland/Aland
1.. Only one reading can be original, however many variant readings there
may be.
2.. Only the readings which best satisfies the requirements of both external
and internal criteria can be original.
3.. Criticism of the text must always begin from the evidence of the
manuscript tradition and only afterward turn to a consideration of internal
criteria.
4.. Internal criteria (the context of the passage, its style and vocabulary,
the theological environment of the author, etc.) can never be the sole basis
for a critical decision, especially when they stand in opposition to the
external evidence.
5.. The primary authority for a critical textual decision lies with the
Greek manuscript tradition, with the version and Fathers serving no more
than a supplementary and corroborative function, particularly in passages
where their underlying Greek text cannot be reconstructed with absolute
certainty.
6.. Furthermore, manuscripts should be weighed, not counted, and the
peculiar traits of each manuscript should be duly considered. However
important the early papyri, or a particular uncial, or a minuscule may be,
there is no single manuscript or group or manuscripts that can be followed
mechanically, even though certain combinations of witnesses may deserve a
greater degree of confidence than others. Rather, decisions in textual
criticism must be worked out afresh, passage by passage (the local
principle).
7.. The principle that the original reading may be found in any single
manuscript or version when it stands alone or nearly alone is only a
theoretical possibility. Any form of eclecticism which accepts this
principle will hardly succeed in establishing the original text of the New
Testament; it will only confirm the view of the text which it presupposes.
8.. The reconstruction of a stemma of readings for each variant (the
genealogical principle) is an extremely important device, because the
reading which can most easily explain the derivation of the other forms is
itself most likely the original.
9.. Variants must never be treated in isolation, but always considered in
the context of the tradition. Otherwise there is too great a danger of
reconstructing a "test tube text" which never existed at any time or place.
10.. There is truth in the maxim: lectio difficilior lectio potior ("the
more difficult reading is the more probable reading"). But this principle
must not be taken too mechanically, with the most difficult reading (lectio
difficilima) adopted as original simply because of its degree of difficulty.
11.. The venerable maxim lectio brevior lectio potior ("the shorter reading
is the more probable reading") is certainly right in many instances. But
here again the principle cannot be applied mechanically.
12.. A constantly maintained familiarity with New Testament manuscripts
themselves is the best training for textual criticism. In textual criticism
the pure theoretician has often done more harm than good.
Kurt Aland and Barbara Aland, The Text of the New Testament, pp. 275-276.
From http://www.earlham.edu/~seidti/iam/text_crit.html#principles
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>> from Geza Vermes - "The Authentic Gospel Of Jesus" (Penguin:2003)
> > Geza Vermes is the Professor Emeritus of Jewish Studies at Oxford
>> University.
>> ... I have simply tried to put the record straight and to reconstruct a
>> genuine likeness of Yeshua, son of Joseph of the Galilean townlet of
>> Nazareth. p. vii
>
> Pure bunk.
Really? So what are YOUR educational qualifications that make you more
knowledgeable than the Professor Emeritus of Jewish Studies at Oxford
University??????
guardian Snow
> "Your teachings are that of a pure Pharisee..."
>
> I am not in the least in favor of Phariseeism. They believed in practising
> the Law. They believed in judging people more by the letter of the Law than
> by the spirit of the Law. Jesus came with a righteous spirit to bring
> salvation to those who had failed under the Law. And we all failed under the
> Law, because we all are subject to the curse of Adam and to the curse of
> death. We are all condemned to death, even if there was a system of Law that
> promised righteousness and temporary peace.
No, they didn't believe in that at all... LIKE YOU they disregarded
the Torah of Yahweh in favor of man's tradition.
Mat 15:5 “But you say, ‘Whoever says to his father or mother,
“Whatever profit you might have received from me has been dedicated,”
Mat 15:6 is certainly released from respecting his father or mother.’
So you have nullified the command of Elohim by your tradition.
Just like you they nullified the command by your tradition. I noticed
you removed the quote:
Mat 23:23 “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! Because you
tithe the mint and the anise and the cumin,1 and have neglected the
weightier matters of the Torah: the right-ruling and the compassion
and the belief. These need to have been done, without neglecting the
others.
Because it says they have neglected the compassion and belief of
YAHWEH, just as you do.
Deu 4:31 (For YHWH thy Elohim is a merciful El;) he will not forsake
thee, neither destroy thee, nor forget the covenant of thy fathers
which he sware unto them.
You are the one who believes unless one believes in murder for
redemption, one can't be saved. You believe Yahweh has no
compassion. You believe his law is without compassion and you believe
a lie.
Shalom,
*´¨)
¸.•´ ¸.•*´¨) ¸.•*¨)
(¸.•´ (¸.• (Snow(.¸.•*´¨)
http://groups.google.com/group/messianicYehoshua <-- please join
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/messianic_Yehoshua/
If we all worked on the assumption that what is accepted as true is
really true, there would be little hope of advance.
Orville Wright
http://www.e-sword.net/ Free bible software
http://www.isr-messianic.org/ <- download the scriptures free
or
http://messianicyehoshua.googlegroups.com/web/RNKJV.zip <--free
download of the Restored Names King James Version
If history is any indication, all truths will eventually turn out to
be false.
Dean Kamen
__,
.-'_-'`
.' {`
.-'````'-. .-'``'.
.'(0) '._/ _.-. `\
} '. )) _<` )` |
`-.,\'.\_,.-\` \`---; .' /
) ) '-. '--:
( ' ( ) '. \
'. ) .'( / )
)/ ( '. /
'._( ) .'
gs ( (
`-.
randy
"I"
randy
> The bible has been edited several times. provide proof to the contrary.
Why? You're the one claiming it was editted.
> Scholarly textual criticism ......... regarding the historical Jesus in
> the following ......
> METHODOLOGY from Funk, Hoover and the Jesus Seminar's "The Five Gospels"
> (Polebridge: 1993)
The Jesus Seminar is pure bunk. Here are some of the criticisms of the Jesus
Seminar, as given in Wikipedia...
(quote)
the Jesus Seminar creates a Jesus who is separated from both his cultural
setting and his followers;
the voting system is seriously flawed;
the criteria defining what constitutes red/pink/grey/black are inconsistent;
it was an error to exclude apocalyptic messages from Jesus' ministry;
the attempt to popularize Jesus research degraded the scholarly value of the
effort;
the conclusions largely represent the premises of the fellows, even though
the seminar has warned themselves to "Beware of finding a Jesus entirely
congenial to you";
the Jesus Seminar is hypercritical of canonical accounts of Jesus, but
unduly credulous and uncritical when it comes to relatively late
extra-canonical accounts;
only about 14 of the fellows are leading figures in New Testament
scholarship; and
the fellows do not represent a fair cross-section of viewpoints.
(unquote).
The article mentions that it was an effort of about 150 scholars and
authors, and yet it is said above that "only about 14 of the fellows are
leading figures in New Testament scholarship." I concur with the
criticism--the Jesus Seminar has bias, and uses its credentialed
participants with the underlying motive to debunk the idea of biblical
inspiration.
> Really? So what are YOUR educational qualifications that make you more
> knowledgeable than the Professor Emeritus of Jewish Studies at Oxford
> University??????
Having a doctoral degree or being a professor or author does not indicate
you speak the truth. There are plenty of excellent communicators out there
who like to present theories in exchange for money. And as a bonus they get
to show their learning and reasoning skills to the world.
What enables me to better understand what Jesus was saying and who he was is
the fact I've entered into the experience Jesus proposed and said was
necessary for salvation. When that proves to be true, then we can know that
the picture presented about him is true. Actually, a large part of world
history shows the impact Christ has had on it. Kind of makes up lift your
head up and take notice...
randy
randy
"guardian Snow"
randy
> I am not in the least in favor of Phariseeism. They believed in practising
> the Law. They believed in judging people more by the letter of the Law
> than
> by the spirit of the Law. Jesus came with a righteous spirit to bring
> salvation to those who had failed under the Law. And we all failed under
> the
> Law, because we all are subject to the curse of Adam and to the curse of
> death. We are all condemned to death, even if there was a system of Law
> that
> promised righteousness and temporary peace.
"No, they didn't believe in that at all... LIKE YOU they disregarded
the Torah of Yahweh in favor of man's tradition."
The New Testament says that they were judgmental. They ruled that Jesus
deserved death. They held to a literal view of the Law that actually ignored
the more important spiritual aspects of the Law. For example, they saw Jesus
as violating the Sabbath when he healed the lame man. And they saw Jesus'
disciples as violating the Sabbath when they picked grain on the Sabbath.
"You are the one who believes unless one believes in murder for
redemption, one can't be saved...."
It was inevitable that Jesus be murdered if God sent him here, representing
His own divine person. All the things that men do to God, all of the sins
they commit against Him, all of the hatred directed towards Him would be
directed towards Jesus as well. It was inevitable that Jesus be killed, if
God was to send Him to represent His Son. But that was the price that had to
be paid in order to save mankind. If Jesus was not sent, mankind could not
be saved. You may not like it--too bad. Your salvation depends upon
accepting Him. And in order for Him to come, He would have to accept being
murdered.
"You believe Yahweh has no compassion. You believe his law is without
compassion and you believe a lie."
I don't know what you're talking about. There was plenty of compassion in
the Law, and I certainly believe the Gospel has compassion. There is no
question that I believe in both the Gospel and compassion. Your accusations
are baseless.
randy
I
>> METHODOLOGY from Funk, Hoover and the Jesus Seminar's "The Five >>
>> Gospels" (Polebridge: 1993)
....
> Here are some of the criticisms of the Jesus Seminar, as given in
> Wikipedia...
Wikipedia is bunk and not accepted as a reliable source in any educational
institution.
>> Really? So what are YOUR educational qualifications that make you more
>> knowledgeable than the Professor Emeritus of Jewish Studies at Oxford
>> University??????
>
> Having a doctoral degree or being a professor or author does not indicate
> you speak the truth.
It DOES indicate that the person knows more than YOU. ;-)
As usual, you have given NO EVIDENCE for any of your subjective opinions.
You have proved absolutely correct .........
--
The most pronounced characteristics [of fundamentalists] are the following:
(a) a very stong emphasis on the inerrancy of the Bible, the absence from it
of any sort of error;
(b) a strong hostility to modern theology and to the methods, results and
implications of modern critical study of the Bible;
(c) an assurance that those who do not share their religious viewpoint are
not really 'true Christians' at all.
- James Barr "Fundamentalism" (SCM Press:1977) p.1
guardian Snow
> "guardian Snow"
> randy
>
> > I am not in the least in favor of Phariseeism. They believed in practising
> > the Law. They believed in judging people more by the letter of the Law
> > than
> > by the spirit of the Law. Jesus came with a righteous spirit to bring
> > salvation to those who had failed under the Law. And we all failed under
> > the
> > Law, because we all are subject to the curse of Adam and to the curse of
> > death. We are all condemned to death, even if there was a system of Law
> > that
> > promised righteousness and temporary peace.
>
> "No, they didn't believe in that at all... LIKE YOU they disregarded
> the Torah of Yahweh in favor of man's tradition."
>
> The New Testament says that they were judgmental.
I quote the Gospel and you quote Paul, what's wrong with this
picture? Go worship your false apostle and spare me your garbage
posting.
You have no desire for the truth because you can only quote false Paul
or tear bits out of the Good News to support your doctrine. All other
books of the real scriptures say guard the command of YHWH and do good
works that you will be judged by~
Rev 22:12 And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to
give every man according as his work shall be.
Rev 22:13 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first
and the last.
Rev 22:14 Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may
have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates
into the city.
Rev 22:15 For without are dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and
murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie.
ACCORDING to every man his works and blessed are those that DO HIS
COMMANDMENTS~
Shalom,
*´¨)
¸.•´ ¸.•*´¨) ¸.•*¨)
(¸.•´ (¸.• (Snow(.¸.•*´¨)
http://groups.google.com/group/messianicYehoshua <-- join
“Hi. It's me. I know you're out there. I know you're working as
fast as you can to catch me. I thought I should call and let you know
how things stand. I know you're real proud of this world you've built,
the way it works, all the nice little rules and such, but I've got
some bad news. I've decided to make a few changes.”
Neo – The Matrix
http://www.e-sword.net/ Free bible software
http://www.isr-messianic.org/ <- download the scriptures free
or
http://messianicyehoshua.googlegroups.com/web/RNKJV.zip <--free
download of the Restored Names King James Version
An error does not become truth by reason of multiplied propagation,
nor does truth become error because nobody sees it.
Mohandas Gandhi
http://messianicyehoshua.googlegroups.com/web/shalom.mp3 free music
http://messianicyehoshua.googlegroups.com/web/Music_-_Kerry_Alexander_-_B%27nai_Shalom.mp3
colp
> "colp"
> randy
>
> "Right, you've got doctrine, so you don't need to see the truth. Where
> does you concordance say that Abraham or Moses were monotheists?"
>
> church," I'm not interested.
I'm not here to discuss anything with you.
Babylon was another name for Rome.
Christianity was the official religion of Rome/Babylon.
The whore of Babylon in Revelation is associated with weath or
opulence
God is the name of a deity of fortune.
Christianity is a death cult.
randy
"I"
> As usual, you have given NO EVIDENCE for any of your subjective opinions.
The entire exercise in the Jesus Seminar is subjective speculation--not
fact. People actually *vote* on what they think is authentic!
> The most pronounced characteristics [of fundamentalists] are the
> following:
> (a) a very stong emphasis on the inerrancy of the Bible, the absence from
> it
> of any sort of error;
> (b) a strong hostility to modern theology and to the methods, results and
> implications of modern critical study of the Bible;
> (c) an assurance that those who do not share their religious viewpoint are
> not really 'true Christians' at all.
> - James Barr "Fundamentalism" (SCM Press:1977) p.1
However, I can only be considered a semi-fundamentalist. I do think there
are errors in the Bible, and that its human authors were flawed. Basically,
they told the truth when they spoke, and were inspired in their biblical
writings. Imperfect men can indeed speak the truth about religion.
I'm not objecting to any kind of biblical criticism. I find that entirely
justified, when opinions are recognized as merely opinions, and facts are
distinguished from opinion. The Jesus Seminar is pure bunk--the opinions of
a bunch of scholars who have already made up their minds that there is no
such thing as divine inspiration, no such thing as a new nature in Christ,
and no reason to believe that the biblical authors spoke the truth about
religion.
Furthermore, I don't have a "hate complex" towards those who are liberal.
And I do recognize that there are authentic Christians with theology that I
consider to be seriously flawed. For example, I see Jimmy Carter as a
Christian even though he apparently holds to an extremely-tolerant attitude
towards homosexuality. I accept Obama as a practising Christian even though
his spiritual experience seems to be very undernourished, or perhaps even
unenlightened.
randy
randy
"guardian Snow"
randy
> > I am not in the least in favor of Phariseeism. They believed in
> > practising
> > the Law. They believed in judging people more by the letter of the Law
> > than
> "No, they didn't believe in that at all... LIKE YOU they disregarded
> the Torah of Yahweh in favor of man's tradition."
> The New Testament says that they were judgmental.
"I quote the Gospel and you quote Paul..."
I've been referring to the gospel accounts of what Pharisees were like. They
did follow the Law, even though they added to it. Their problem was that
they ignored the true spirituality of men like Jesus while condemning them
for not showing an adherance to their view of the Law. Pharisees were thus
"judgmental," and lacked spiritual discernment.
That is what Pharisees were like, and I am not like them. In fact I've had a
long series of discussions with people in this newsgroup whom I disagree
with--simply because I can discern that they are honest.
randy
randy
"colp"
randy
> "Right, you've got doctrine, so you don't need to see the truth. Where
> does you concordance say that Abraham or Moses were monotheists?"
> If the way you discuss things with me is by calling my church a "whore
> church," I'm not interested.
"I'm not here to discuss anything with you."
I don't care what your reason is for being here. You did in fact address me
as seen above. You asked where the concordance says that Abraham or Moses
were monotheists. If you don't want to discuss anything with me, don't ask
me any questions.
"Babylon was another name for Rome."
I agree.
"Christianity was the official religion of Rome/Babylon...."
I don't agree. Christianity became the official religion of Rome. Christians
called *pagan Rome* "Babylon." Once Rome was Christianized, it was no longer
referred to as "Babylon"--at least not until the Protestant Reformation of
the 16th century.
randy
merlin
> "Christianity was the official religion of Rome/Babylon...."
>
> I don't agree. Christianity became the official religion of Rome. Christians
> called *pagan Rome* "Babylon." Once Rome was Christianized, it was no longer
> referred to as "Babylon"--at least not until the Protestant Reformation of
> the 16th century.
> randy
so the name calling in christianity started that far back?
this notion that christians really honestly think they were superior
has historically been proven?
thank you randy, it explains alot.
in love with the living gay jesus,
merlin
the nasty name calling on here is ridiculous.
the constant attempt smear people is outrageous.
and the criminalization of those that disagree by christians seems
paramount.
guardian Snow
Randy.. I quoted to you what the Messiah said.. do the same or shut
up. You can't support your belief with scriptures of the gospel.
Mat 15:5 “But you say, ‘Whoever says to his father or mother,
“Whatever profit you might have received from me has been dedicated,”
Mat 15:6 is certainly released from respecting his father or mother.’
So you have nullified the command of Elohim by your tradition.
Just like you they nullified the command by your tradition. I noticed
you removed the quote:
Mat 23:23 “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! Because you
tithe the mint and the anise and the cumin,1 and have neglected the
weightier matters of the Torah: the right-ruling and the compassion
and the belief. These need to have been done, without neglecting the
others.
You seem to think you can just say whatever you want and not support
your idea from scriptures and they don't support that at all....
scriptures are on my side but since you don't believe the Messiah, you
make up fiction to support your ideas.
randy
"merlin"
"randy"
> ...Christianity became the official religion of Rome. Christians
> called *pagan Rome* "Babylon." Once Rome was Christianized, it was no
> longer
> referred to as "Babylon"--at least not until the Protestant Reformation of
> the 16th century.
"so the name calling in christianity started that far back?..."
God wanted Christians to know how He viewed Rome, even though He had placed
that city in power. Daniel foresaw the rise of four great empires that would
dominate the Middle East and Israel. They would be tolerated by God until
His purposes are finished.
randy
randy
"guardian Snow"
randy
> I've been referring to the gospel accounts of what Pharisees were like....
"Randy.. I quoted to you what the Messiah said.. do the same or shut
up. You can't support your belief with scriptures of the gospel."
That is your standard--not mine. I believe Paul properly represented Jesus,
so I feel I can quote either Jesus or Paul...or James for that matter. My
point was very simple, and it is supported in the gospels. The Pharisees
followed the Law, and failed to judge things on a *spiritual basis.* You
want a quote from the gospel on that? There are many. Here's one....
Matthew 23:29 Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for you build
the tombs of the prophets and adorn the monuments of the righteous,
30 saying, �If we had lived in the days of our fathers, we would not have
taken part with them in shedding the blood of the prophets.�
31 Thus you witness against yourselves, that you are sons of those who
murdered the prophets.
How many more references do you need?
"Mat 15:5 �But you say, �Whoever says to his father or mother,
�Whatever profit you might have received from me has been dedicated,�
Mat 15:6 is certainly released from respecting his father or mother.�
So you have nullified the command of Elohim by your tradition.
Just like you they nullified the command by your tradition. I noticed
you removed the quote:
Mat 23:23 �Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! Because you
tithe the mint and the anise and the cumin,1 and have neglected the
weightier matters of the Torah: the right-ruling and the compassion
and the belief. These need to have been done, without neglecting the
others."
I remove portions that do not prove anything I'm opposing. Quoting the
gospels does not prove anything I oppose. I realize tht the Pharisees added
onto the Law of Moses. I never said otherwise. But they *did follow the
Law.* My concern with them was that they failed to *spiritually discern* the
righteous in their overzealotry over the Law and with their dogmatic
additions to the Law. That they followed the Law is beyond dispute. That
they judged people by false standards is also beyond dispute, in terms of
the way the gospels viewed it.
randy
Dr. House
> "merlin"
> "randy"
>
> > ...Christianity became the official religion of Rome. Christians
> > called *pagan Rome* "Babylon." Once Rome was Christianized, it was no
> > longer
> > referred to as "Babylon"--at least not until the Protestant Reformation of
> > the 16th century.
>
> "so the name calling in christianity started that far back?..."
>
> God wanted Christians to know how He viewed Rome, even though He had placed
> that city in power.
That doesn't make any sense. And please don't blame God for name
calling.
randy
"Dr. House"
randy
> God wanted Christians to know how He viewed Rome, even though He had
> placed
> that city in power.
"That doesn't make any sense. And please don't blame God for name
calling."
In the book of Daniel a series of empires were viewed as arising on earth.
They were nations that dominated the Middle East and the land of Israel, and
so they were very significant to the Hebrew people. The 4th empire, the
Roman Empire, was an extension of the 1st empire, the Babylonian Empire. And
so, Rome became the new "Babylon."
Maybe this helps. Maybe it doesn't.
randy
merlin
> "Dr. House"
> randy
>
> > God wanted Christians to know how He viewed Rome, even though He had
> > placed
> > that city in power.
>
> "That doesn't make any sense. And please don't blame God for name
> calling."
so all the expressed hate on christnet is from jesus? cause god wants
those the christians hate to know it?
what happened to love? what happened to love they neighbor?
> In the book of Daniel
that is going pretty far back to support your name calling.
> a series of empires were viewed as arising on earth.
> They were nations that dominated the Middle East and the land of Israel, and
> so they were very significant to the Hebrew people. The 4th empire, the
> Roman Empire, was an extension of the 1st empire, the Babylonian Empire. And
> so, Rome became the new "Babylon."
yeah get those non christians romans, show jesus you are the boss.
> Maybe this helps. Maybe it doesn't.
yes greatly, as you used it as insult.
in love with the living gay jesus,
merlin
when jesus says love is the power of god in action on earth.
and we read hate and subtle hatred in coded phrases coming from
christians on christnet.
do you not see how the concept of the anti christ is those that know
better not bothering to do better?
just the number of times, christians have threaten people with death
on christnet is major.
randy
"merlin"
randy
> a series of empires were viewed as arising on earth.
> They were nations that dominated the Middle East and the land of Israel,
> and
> so they were very significant to the Hebrew people. The 4th empire, the
> Roman Empire, was an extension of the 1st empire, the Babylonian Empire.
> And
> so, Rome became the new "Babylon."
"yeah get those non christians romans, show jesus you are the boss."
We view the 4 empires as the dominant, controlling powers in the Middle
East, making Israel subject to them. What about that is "showing Christians
are the boss?"
randy
merlin
why?
why does anyone need to be in control of everyone else?
let us all respect each other and see what happens.
we all get the same opportunities to each our own way of find love and
find god.
when we live in faith, without the knowledge of god, we do as we
please.
when we know god is alive and answer to god on a daily bases, we want
our love to show through.
not to impress god, to keep our actions from preventing god in our
lives from shinning through.
you are not being asked to answer for every christian, you are being
asked about your life in christ.
your love in jesus and your relationship with the father mother god.
love till hurts, love when yah don't want to, love cause you know no
other way to do it.
and then watch and listen and realize, that that is the goal of every
soul.
to be their best, show their best and become who we really are,
not these personalized self protective pronouncement that promote
things we have do not fully understand ourselves.
I
>> As usual, you have given NO EVIDENCE for any of your subjective opinions.
>
> the Jesus Seminar ... People actually *vote* on what they think is
> authentic!
Biblical scholars with PhDs in the relevant area vote on the degree of
probability of specfic verses and / or parts of verses relating to the
historic time / space Jesus of Nazarteth (NOT the post-Easter post 70 CE
"Christ of Faith" who is completely different). That is a totally valid way
to get a consensus of what most scholars agree upon.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The 120 scholars from the Jesus Seminar give each verse in the five gospels
a probabilty that is colour coded:
RED - I would include this item unequivically in the database for
determining who Jesus was / Jesus undoubtedly said this or something very
like it.
PINK - I would include this item with reservations (or modifications) in the
database / Jesus probably said something like this.
GRAY - I would not include this item in the database, but I might make use
of some of the content in determining who Jesus was / Jesus did not say
this, but the ideas contained in it are close to his own.
BLACK - I would not include this item in the primary database / Jesus did
not say this; it represents the perspective or content of a later or
different tradition.
MOST of John's gospel is colour-coded BLACK.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
YOU, on the other hand ... no evidence whatsoever and NO QUALIFICATION to
speak on the subject matter with any authority.
colp
> "colp"
> randy
>
> > "Right, you've got doctrine, so you don't need to see the truth. Where
> > does you concordance say that Abraham or Moses were monotheists?"
> > If the way you discuss things with me is by calling my church a "whore
> > church," I'm not interested.
>
> "I'm not here to discuss anything with you."
>
> I don't care what your reason is for being here. You did in fact address me
> as seen above. You asked where the concordance says that Abraham or Moses
> were monotheists. If you don't want to discuss anything with me, don't ask
> me any questions.
>
> "Babylon was another name for Rome."
>
> I agree.
>
> "Christianity was the official religion of Rome/Babylon...."
>
> I don't agree.
Because Christians didn't call it that?
Apparently Christianity, as the universal religion ot Rome, will
accept any idiot into the fold.
> Christianity became the official religion of Rome. Christians
> called *pagan Rome* "Babylon." Once Rome was Christianized, it was no longer
> referred to as "Babylon"--at least not until the Protestant Reformation of
> the 16th century.
So what? Do you really think that metaphorical beast no longer existed
just because it was persecuting those who rejected Christianity?
"Kill them all. God will know his own"
Arnaud Amaury, Catholic monk.
guardian Snow
> "guardian Snow"
> randy
>
> > I've been referring to the gospel accounts of what Pharisees were like....
>
> "Randy.. I quoted to you what the Messiah said.. do the same or shut
> up. You can't support your belief with scriptures of the gospel."
>
> That is your standard--not mine. I believe Paul properly represented Jesus,
> so I feel I can quote either Jesus or Paul...or James for that matter. My
> point was very simple, and it is supported in the gospels. The Pharisees
> followed the Law,
No, they didn't.
Mar 7:13 nullifying the Word of Elohim through your tradition which
you have handed down. And many such traditions you do.”
They kept man made traditions and that is not the Torah. You only
demonstrate to me that you clearly ignore the teachings of Yehoshua.
and failed to judge things on a *spiritual basis.* You
> want a quote from the gospel on that? There are many. Here's one....
>
> Matthew 23:29 Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for you build
> the tombs of the prophets and adorn the monuments of the righteous,
> 30 saying, ‘If we had lived in the days of our fathers, we would not have
> taken part with them in shedding the blood of the prophets.’
> 31 Thus you witness against yourselves, that you are sons of those who
> murdered the prophets.
That says nothing about keeping the law.
> How many more references do you need?
>
> "Mat 15:5 “But you say, ‘Whoever says to his father or mother,
> “Whatever profit you might have received from me has been dedicated,”
> Mat 15:6 is certainly released from respecting his father or mother.’
> So you have nullified the command of Elohim by your tradition.
> Just like you they nullified the command by your tradition. I noticed
> you removed the quote:
> Mat 23:23 “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! Because you
> tithe the mint and the anise and the cumin,1 and have neglected the
> weightier matters of the Torah: the right-ruling and the compassion
> and the belief. These need to have been done, without neglecting the
> others."
>
> I remove portions that do not prove anything I'm opposing.
So, right here YOU ADMIT YOU appose the teachings of the Messiah!
> Quoting the
> gospels does not prove anything I oppose. I realize that the Pharisees added
> onto the Law of Moses. I never said otherwise.
You just said they kept the law and now you back track and say they
added to it and the scriptures say that they NULLIFIED or MADE VOID
the law by their tradition. It doesn't say they added to it and it
doesn't say they kept it either... it says they made it of no effect
and guess what.. SO DO YOU!
> But they *did follow the
> Law.*
Your are repeating your scriptural LIE! NO, they didn't.
>My concern with them was that they failed to *spiritually discern* the
> righteous in their overzealotry over the Law and with their dogmatic
> additions to the Law.
NO THEY DIDN'T.
Mat 15:9 But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the
commandments of men.
They taught the commandments of MEN, not the commandments of YAHWEH.
You are a PHARISEE and you are too blind to see that you are and that
your master Paul is also still teaching you to be one...
> That they followed the Law is beyond dispute.
NO, you have no scriptural support for that lie and I've already shown
evidence several times now that you are fabricating something that
isn't written in the Good News. You believe that the kept the law
because like you... they:
Mat 22:15 Then went the Pharisees, and took counsel how they might
entangle him in his talk.
Whenever one of you Pharisees are told you should keep the
commandments, you bring up obscure references.
>That
> they judged people by false standards is also beyond dispute, in terms of
> the way the gospels viewed it.
Mat 23:28 Even so ye also outwardly appear righteous unto men, but
within ye are full of hypocrisy and iniquity.
1Th 5:22 Abstain from all appearance of evil.
You ignore the gospel and love only Paul and then pretend the message
is the same while you overthrow the doctrine of the Messiah. You have
rejected the living waters.
Jer 2:11 Hath a nation changed their elohim, which are yet no elohim?
but my people have changed their glory for that which doth not profit.
Jer 2:12 Be astonished, O ye heavens, at this, and be horribly afraid,
be ye very desolate, saith YAHWEH.
Jer 2:13 For my people have committed two evils; they have forsaken me
the fountain of living waters, and hewed them out cisterns, broken
cisterns, that can hold no water.
Your religion is a failure and your belief is what drove me from
Christianity! Thank you! You personally Randy are the one who made
me see that Christianity is a death cult following a Roman apostle!
I have you to thank for that and I'm grateful.
Shalom,
*´¨)
¸.•´ ¸.•*´¨) ¸.•*¨)
(¸.•´ (¸.• (Snow(.¸.•*´¨)
Conflict cannot survive without your participation.
Wayne Dyer
http://groups.google.com/group/messianicYehoshua <-- please join
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/messianic_Yehoshua/
http://www.e-sword.net/ Free bible software
http://www.isr-messianic.org/ <- download the scriptures free