PDA

View Full Version : Jewed



Pages : [1] 2

CherubRam
December 31st, 2014, 10:21 PM
Isaiah 65:15
You will leave your name to my chosen ones as a curse;(Jew) the Sovereign LORD will put you to death, but to his servants he will give another name. (Christian)

Acts 11:26
and when he found him, he brought him to Antioch. So for a whole year Barnabas and Saul met with the church and taught great numbers of people. The disciples were called Christians first at Antioch.

CherubRam
December 31st, 2014, 10:25 PM
It is difficult to be friends with Hebrews when you keep getting Jewed. :(

OCTOBER23
December 31st, 2014, 10:47 PM
I am a JEW ,

I will be your Friend.:):thumb:

CherubRam
January 1st, 2015, 05:58 AM
I am a JEW ,

I will be your Friend.:):thumb:
I was just giving an example. Thanks anyway.

bybee
January 1st, 2015, 06:20 AM
It is difficult to be friends with Hebrews when you keep getting Jewed. :(

Your choice of words is marginal.

CherubRam
January 1st, 2015, 06:35 AM
Your choice of words is marginal.

Even so, I am not the one who wrote the scriptures. What do you think of my interpretation?


Isaiah 65:15
You will leave your name to my chosen ones as a curse;(Jew) the Sovereign LORD will put you to death, but to his servants he will give another name. (Christian)

Acts 11:26
and when he found him, he brought him to Antioch. So for a whole year Barnabas and Saul met with the church and taught great numbers of people. The disciples were called Christians first at Antioch.

bybee
January 1st, 2015, 09:38 AM
Even so, I am not the one who wrote the scriptures. What do you think of my interpretation?


Isaiah 65:15
You will leave your name to my chosen ones as a curse;(Jew) the Sovereign LORD will put you to death, but to his servants he will give another name. (Christian)

Acts 11:26
and when he found him, he brought him to Antioch. So for a whole year Barnabas and Saul met with the church and taught great numbers of people. The disciples were called Christians first at Antioch.
Your Isaiah quote was directed to a specific time and place in the history of God's chosen ones. I have not thought of it as a universal, eternal condemnation.
I am open to being proven wrong?

chair
January 1st, 2015, 01:01 PM
Antisemites are quite skilled at cherry-picking verses out of the Hebrew Bible to shore up their hate.

Daniel1611
January 1st, 2015, 07:51 PM
Antisemites are quite skilled at cherry-picking verses out of the Hebrew Bible to shore up their hate.

"Anti-Semitism" is one of the most over used words in the world. No one is saying they hate Jews. I hate Judaism. I will say it. I hate all false religions, including Judaism. My prayer for followers of Judaism is that they be saved.

Jacob
January 1st, 2015, 08:15 PM
My Lord and Savior, Jesus the Messiah, is a Jew. I don't understand this thread. The gospel is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes... to the Jew first and also to the Greek. Romans 1:16 NASB.

Desert Reign
January 1st, 2015, 09:12 PM
It is true that Jews did and still do reject Jesus. I also accept that it was God who ejected them from the land of Israel under the Romans.

But it was not primarily the rejection of Jesus that brought this about. It was the long history of rebellion that was only ever patchily overcome, of which the rejection of the Christ was just the culmination.

However, none of that is grounds for prejudice. Rather such matters should strike awe in us. As Paul says, if God rejected the original olive tree and instead grafted in the wild olive branches, then he can just as easily cut the wild ones off and reinstate the original ones. Which he will do if we get to be arrogant in the way the Israelites obviously were.
The judgement fell under the Romans and what happened after that down through the centuries happened because the Jews were without a proper home, defenceless and without status, not because God is still judging them. The Bible says that God still loves the Jews because of the fathers.
Our reaction as Christians should by no means be to join in with cursing but to show love and offer them salvation in Christ. This is the only true way they can ever come back to fellowship with God. This is the way that every Israelite will be saved and there is no other way. Supporting the nation that they now call their own is a way of showing this practical love but without Christ, their fellowship with God will remain purely historical.

Jacob
January 1st, 2015, 09:34 PM
Romans 11:17 NASB - But if some of the branches were broken off, and you, being a wild olive, were grafted in among them and became partaker with them of the rich root of the olive tree,

Romans 11:24 NASB - For if you were cut off from what is by nature a wild olive tree, and were grafted contrary to nature into a cultivated olive tree, how much more will these who are the natural branches be grafted into their own olive tree?

steko
January 1st, 2015, 10:11 PM
It is true that Jews did and still do reject Jesus. I also accept that it was God who ejected them from the land of Israel under the Romans.

But it was not primarily the rejection of Jesus that brought this about. It was the long history of rebellion that was only ever patchily overcome, of which the rejection of the Christ was just the culmination.

However, none of that is grounds for prejudice. Rather such matters should strike awe in us. As Paul says, if God rejected the original olive tree and instead grafted in the wild olive branches, then he can just as easily cut the wild ones off and reinstate the original ones. Which he will do if we get to be arrogant in the way the Israelites obviously were.
The judgement fell under the Romans and what happened after that down through the centuries happened because the Jews were without a proper home, defenceless and without status, not because God is still judging them. The Bible says that God still loves the Jews because of the fathers.
Our reaction as Christians should by no means be to join in with cursing but to show love and offer them salvation in Christ. This is the only true way they can ever come back to fellowship with God. This is the way that every Israelite will be saved and there is no other way. Supporting the nation that they now call their own is a way of showing this practical love but without Christ, their fellowship with God will remain purely historical.

:thumb: Excellent!

patrick jane
January 1st, 2015, 10:26 PM
Isaiah 65:15
You will leave your name to my chosen ones as a curse;(Jew) the Sovereign LORD will put you to death, but to his servants he will give another name. (Christian)

Acts 11:26
and when he found him, he brought him to Antioch. So for a whole year Barnabas and Saul met with the church and taught great numbers of people. The disciples were called Christians first at Antioch.

what's your point with this post ?

IMJerusha
January 1st, 2015, 10:30 PM
what's your point with this post ?

You have to ask? :chuckle:

patrick jane
January 1st, 2015, 10:34 PM
You have to ask? :chuckle:

was i asking you ?

patrick jane
January 1st, 2015, 10:40 PM
Antisemites are quite skilled at cherry-picking verses out of the Hebrew Bible to shore up their hate.

pro-semites are quite skilled at imagining persecution and hate, creating the very things they complain about. perpetual paranoia:singer:

chair
January 2nd, 2015, 04:39 AM
"Anti-Semitism" is one of the most over used words in the world. .

Could be. But it is also one of the most common forms of bigotry in the world, and the word has its uses. A thread entitled "Jewed" is asking for it.

No one is saying they hate Jews. I hate Judaism. I will say it. I hate all false religions, including Judaism. My prayer for followers of Judaism is that they be saved.
Do you hate the wrong brands of Christianity as well?

Desert Reign
January 2nd, 2015, 04:49 AM
Romans 11:17 NASB - But if some of the branches were broken off, and you, being a wild olive, were grafted in among them and became partaker with them of the rich root of the olive tree,

Romans 11:24 NASB - For if you were cut off from what is by nature a wild olive tree, and were grafted contrary to nature into a cultivated olive tree, how much more will these who are the natural branches be grafted into their own olive tree?

Yes, OK. They were branches cut off but from their own tree. I said that slightly wrong. But the meaning is the same. Thanks for pointing it out.

IMJerusha
January 2nd, 2015, 09:06 AM
was i asking you ?

Well...no, I was just joking with you Patrick. I apologize if I offended you. :(

IMJerusha
January 2nd, 2015, 09:17 AM
It is difficult to be friends with Hebrews when you keep getting Jewed. :(

What I find unsettling is the way people use the word Jew in a derogatory manner and contrary to what Patrick posted, it's difficult not to see the negative context when used this way. The word in English means something "Yehudi," its Hebraic counterpart, does not mean. It's not the same as say, Samson and its Hebraic counterpart Shimshon.

Jacob
January 2nd, 2015, 11:31 AM
Yes, OK. They were branches cut off but from their own tree. I said that slightly wrong. But the meaning is the same. Thanks for pointing it out.A root is mentioned, but for the teaching it is not spelled out what would be the significance, except that the root like the branches is natural or wild.

kayaker
January 2nd, 2015, 12:40 PM
"Anti-Semitism" is one of the most over used words in the world. No one is saying they hate Jews. I hate Judaism. I will say it. I hate all false religions, including Judaism. My prayer for followers of Judaism is that they be saved.

Indeed... Preaching to the choir, a "Semite" is an ancestrally undiluted descendant of Shem, son of Noah, other than with a Gentile (Genesis 9:27, 10:2, 3, 4, 5). Otherwise, mixed progeny do not carry the ancestral title of the father. The 'seed' of Abraham (John 8:33 KJV, John 8:37 KJV) via his second wife Keturah (Genesis 25:1, 2), were "...the children of Keturah" according to Moses (Genesis 25:3, 4, 5), and were not "Abraham's children" (John 8:39 KJV).

Since Moses recorded said progeny of Abraham were the 'sons' of Keturah; then, her son Shuah was not a Hebrew. In fact, Moses said Judah's father-in-law Shuah, 'son' of Keturah, was a Canaanite (Genesis 38:1, 2). Likewise, Ezra said Judah's wife, daughter of Keturah's Canaanite son Shuah (Genesis 38:1, 2), was a "Canaanitess" (1Chronicles 2:3 KJV). Ezra went further to document neither Judah's Canaanite son Shelah (Genesis 38:5, 11, 26), nor "The sons of Shelah the son of Judah" (1Chronicles 4:21, 22, 23) were counted among Ezra's tribal roster of Judah in 1Chronicles 4:1 KJV.

All being said, for someone to suggest they are Hebrew and/or Semite worthy to declare ancestral title to the nation/state of Israel... I insist on birth records continuing beyond those four thousand years of infamous Hebrew OT 'who begat who'. If said records cannot be produced, well... didn't those Shelanite descendants of Judah's Canaanite son Shelah ask for Jesus' birth record (John 8:13 KJV)? For anyone to claim anti-Semite victimhood based on their alleged title... one has to prove they are Semite to begin with. Otherwise, impostor might be a better title (Revelation 2:9, 3:9).

kayaker

Daniel1611
January 2nd, 2015, 08:23 PM
Could be. But it is also one of the most common forms of bigotry in the world, and the word has its uses. A thread entitled "Jewed" is asking for it.

Do you hate the wrong brands of Christianity as well?

Jew is not a race, so I don't count it as bigotry. If one hates an idea, philosophy or religion, it's not equal to racism. I hate Judaism like I hate all false religions. I just hate Judaism more because one of it's foundations is the vile blasphemy of our Lord Jesus Christ. I hate false Christianity because it's false and unsaving. But I don't know any false Christians that would call Jesus the bastard son of whore, an idolater, a false prophet, etc...which Judaism does. I'm so tired of these white guys that run around saying it's racism to dislike their vile religion because they're Hebrew. Hebrews weren't white. Show your genealogy if you want to claim to be above criticism for some racist reason.. If the truth about Judaism offends Jews, then they should get a new religion. One isn't born a Jew. They choose to be a Jew and they could choose a new religion.

kayaker
January 3rd, 2015, 01:05 AM
Jew is not a race, so I don't count it as bigotry. If one hates an idea, philosophy or religion, it's not equal to racism. I hate Judaism like I hate all false religions. I just hate Judaism more because one of it's foundations is the vile blasphemy of our Lord Jesus Christ. I hate false Christianity because it's false and unsaving. But I don't know any false Christians that would call Jesus the bastard son of whore, an idolater, a false prophet, etc...which Judaism does. I'm so tired of these white guys that run around saying it's racism to dislike their vile religion because they're Hebrew. Hebrews weren't white. Show your genealogy if you want to claim to be above criticism for some racist reason.. If the truth about Judaism offends Jews, then they should get a new religion. One isn't born a Jew. They choose to be a Jew and they could choose a new religion.

Well Daniel... the majority of Christians believe Rahab the harlot was in the ancestry of Jesus. Note the distinction of Matthew 1:5, and the KJV rendering Matthew 1:5 KJV. I proffer RaChab and RaHab were two distinct females as different as Rachael and Rachel. RaChab was not RaHab the harlot. Do you subscribe to the notion RaHab the harlot was in the ancestry of Jesus? Those who subscribe to the notion RaHab the harlot was in the ancestry of Jesus do indeed suggest Jesus was the progeny of harlotry. Didn't Tamar play the harlot (Genesis 38:24 KJV), mother of Pharez, found in the lineage of Jesus (Matthew 1:3, Luke 3:31, 32, 33)? The instigators of the crucifixion proclaimed they were "not born of fornication" (John 8:41 KJV). How to you reconcile these issues?

kayaker

kayaker
January 3rd, 2015, 09:59 AM
Antisemites are quite skilled at cherry-picking verses out of the Hebrew Bible to shore up their hate.

Anti-Semites were those who instigated the crucifixion, chair. They would today, no small offense mind you. Impostors are quite skilled at jumping on a wrecked bus, and proclaiming a back injury while looking for an attorney. Sure it is a Hebrew Bible... there just aren't any ancestrally authentic Hebrews around, unless you've got some birth certificates.

If you want to read about hatred... check out your Talmud. Do you think Ham's hatred for Noah inspired Ham to have sex with Noah's wife, and then sodomize and castrate Noah? Doesn't sound like something a loving son would do. If you feel a little heat on this thread, wait until you get a load of this Matthew 13:36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43.

kayaker

resodko
January 3rd, 2015, 10:04 AM
well, they do mix the blood of Christian children into their matzahs :idunno:

kayaker
January 3rd, 2015, 10:23 AM
well, they do mix the blood of Christian children into their matzahs :idunno:

LOL! The notion of sacrificial cannibalism was familiar to those instigating Jesus' crucifixion, also (John 6:51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57). When Jesus ascended... kinda left 'em drooling, LOL!

A hearty welcome to TOL, resodko!

Straightshot
January 3rd, 2015, 10:30 AM
My comments


Briefly ......

Jesus is not finished with His national people of Israel for sure

He has a motive .... and a purpose

He is a "Jew" by His humanity .... still is [Revelation 5:5]

And He is coming to rescue a believing remnant part of modern Israel from Satan's beast in the human little horn of Daniel's visions who will be bent upon destroying them .... this will be displayed in the Middle East by his followers, the surrounding Muslims [Psalms 83; Jeremiah 30; 31:37; Ezekiel 38; Daniel 2:40-43; 7:7-25; 8:9-25; 9:26-27 [the other prince]; 11:36-45: 12:1-7; Joel 2; 3; Micah 5; Zechariah 12; 13; 14; Matthew 24; Luke 21:20-36; 2 Thessalonians 2:8-12; Revelation 9:11; 11:7; 12:12; 13:1-4; 17:8-18]

There are scads of prophetic scriptures that tell of this controversy and all of it will come to pass with 100% accuracy

Foretelling these things is the Lord's business and He will execute

Those who think that He is finished with Israel carry replacement theology and have been mislead to believe that the professing church of western persuasion is now "Israel"

The same have been taught to render the unfulfilled portion of the literal and related prophetic scriptures into metaphorical mush

The Lord is not a white anglo saxon cowboy

.... and the world is going to find this out [Ezekiel 39]

resodko
January 3rd, 2015, 10:33 AM
The Lord is not a white anglo saxon cowboy






http://thumbs2.ebaystatic.com/d/l225/pict/271595669493_1.jpg

heir
January 3rd, 2015, 11:57 AM
My Lord and Savior, Jesus the Messiah, is a Jew. I don't understand this thread. The gospel is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes... to the Jew first and also to the Greek. Romans 1:16 NASB.The gospel of Christ (Romans 1:16 KJV, 1 Corinthians 15:1-4 KJV) is no longer to the Jew first and also to the Greek, but to all men.

1 Timothy 2:4 Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.

1 Timothy 2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;

1 Timothy 2:6 Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.

heir
January 3rd, 2015, 11:59 AM
I hate all false religions, including Judaism. My prayer for followers of Judaism is that they be saved.:up:

IMJerusha
January 3rd, 2015, 12:23 PM
:up:

Hailing hatred? Scripture to support that, please. :)

patrick jane
January 3rd, 2015, 12:25 PM
i wanna get "Jewed" so bad

IMJerusha
January 3rd, 2015, 12:34 PM
Jew is not a race, so I don't count it as bigotry. If one hates an idea, philosophy or religion, it's not equal to racism. I hate Judaism like I hate all false religions. I just hate Judaism more because one of it's foundations is the vile blasphemy of our Lord Jesus Christ. I hate false Christianity because it's false and unsaving. But I don't know any false Christians that would call Jesus the bastard son of whore, an idolater, a false prophet, etc...which Judaism does. I'm so tired of these white guys that run around saying it's racism to dislike their vile religion because they're Hebrew. Hebrews weren't white. Show your genealogy if you want to claim to be above criticism for some racist reason.. If the truth about Judaism offends Jews, then they should get a new religion. One isn't born a Jew. They choose to be a Jew and they could choose a new religion.

Judaism is not the enemy nor is the God of Judaism false. If you wish to spew hatred and be a little Hitler, I suggest you not do it by Yeshua's name or on His heritage which IS shown in Scripture.

chair
January 3rd, 2015, 12:52 PM
Jew is not a race, so I don't count it as bigotry. If one hates an idea, philosophy or religion, it's not equal to racism. I hate Judaism like I hate all false religions. I just hate Judaism more because one of it's foundations is the vile blasphemy of our Lord Jesus Christ. I hate false Christianity because it's false and unsaving. But I don't know any false Christians that would call Jesus the bastard son of whore, an idolater, a false prophet, etc...which Judaism does. I'm so tired of these white guys that run around saying it's racism to dislike their vile religion because they're Hebrew. Hebrews weren't white. Show your genealogy if you want to claim to be above criticism for some racist reason.. If the truth about Judaism offends Jews, then they should get a new religion. One isn't born a Jew. They choose to be a Jew and they could choose a new religion.

Jews are not a race. I did not use the term "racism". Jews are not the practitioners of a "vile religion" either, as you pretend. They are an ethnic group. and hating Jews is a dangerous form of bigotry.

And contrary to your ideas, it is simply not true that one of " it's foundations is the vile blasphemy of our Lord Jesus Christ". Complete nonsense. For the most part, we simply ignore Jesus. He is of little importance to us- just as Mohammed is near meanigless to you.

IMJerusha
January 3rd, 2015, 12:56 PM
For the most part, we simply ignore Jesus. He is of little importance to us- just as Mohammed is near meanigless to you.

Huh! I guess that depends on the Jewish person just as it depends on the Christian as to whether Muhammad is meaningless.

Daniel1611
January 3rd, 2015, 01:08 PM
Judaism is not the enemy nor is the God of Judaism false. If you wish to spew hatred and be a little Hitler, I suggest you not do it by Yeshua's name or on His heritage which IS shown in Scripture.

Phillipians 3:18 (For many walk, of whom I have told you often, and now tell you even weeping, that they are the enemies of the cross of Christ

1 John 2:23 Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father: (but) he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also.

IMJerusha
January 3rd, 2015, 01:12 PM
Phillipians 3:18 (For many walk, of whom I have told you often, and now tell you even weeping, that they are the enemies of the cross of Christ

1 John 2:23 Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father: (but) he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also.

This does not dismiss the God of Israel as the One True God. Man's sin does not define God. BTW, anyone who hates denies the Son.

heir
January 3rd, 2015, 01:13 PM
Hailing hatred? Scripture to support that, please. :)The Judaism we see today is nothing more than a system of bondage as Israel fell, diminished and by the close of Acts was cast away for a reason and for a season. I hope those who are tangled up in it or any other religious system will be saved.

Romans 11:32 For God hath concluded them all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all.

Romans 11:33 O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out!

heir
January 3rd, 2015, 01:15 PM
Jews are not a race. I did not use the term "racism". Jews are not the practitioners of a "vile religion" either, as you pretend. They are an ethnic group. Hosea 1:9 KJV

Daniel1611
January 3rd, 2015, 01:15 PM
This does not dismiss the God of Israel as the One True God. Man's sin does not define God. BTW, anyone who hates denies the Son.

Judaism does not acknowledge the God of Israel. The Bible says that he who hath the Son hath the Father, but he who denies the Son denies the Father also. The Bible says one CANNOT acknowledge the Father without acknowledging the Son. Judaism does not believe on the Son, therefore they do not Believe in the Father. Then who do they believe in? A false god.

As to anyone who hates the Jews because they are the enemies of the Cross, they need to read their Bibles again. We are to love our enemies and pray for them, not hate them.

Daniel1611
January 3rd, 2015, 01:20 PM
Jews are not a race. I did not use the term "racism". Jews are not the practitioners of a "vile religion" either, as you pretend. They are an ethnic group. and hating Jews is a dangerous form of bigotry.

And contrary to your ideas, it is simply not true that one of " it's foundations is the vile blasphemy of our Lord Jesus Christ". Complete nonsense. For the most part, we simply ignore Jesus. He is of little importance to us- just as Mohammed is near meanigless to you.

The Jewish Talmud calls Jesus a sorcerer, and idolater, and the bastard son of a whore who is in hell. It refers to Jesus multiple time as the "son of Pantera." This hatred of Jesus Christ plays a big role in Judaism, as does the belief that gentiles are inferior. You may not believe such things, but they are in the Judaist texts whether you believe in them or not.

IMJerusha
January 3rd, 2015, 01:32 PM
Judaism does not acknowledge the God of Israel.

Really. :rolleyes: What is the most important prayer in Judaism?


The Bible says that he who hath the Son hath the Father, but he who denies the Son denies the Father also. The Bible says one CANNOT acknowledge the Father without acknowledging the Son. Judaism does not believe on the Son, therefore they do not Believe in the Father. Then who do they believe in? A false god.

Anyone who chooses to live in sin denies the Father as well as the Son. Those verses aren't speaking solely of Jews or unbelievers in general.


As to anyone who hates the Jews because they are the enemies of the Cross, they need to read their Bibles again. We are to love our enemies and pray for them, not hate them.

Then I guess you'd best stop hating.

Daniel1611
January 3rd, 2015, 01:39 PM
Really. :rolleyes: What is the most important prayer in Judaism?.

I don't care what Judaism's prayers are. The BIBLE says one CANNOT acknowledge the Father if one does not also acknowledge the Son. That's what the Bible says. If one wants to believe in their false God more than they want to heed the words of the Bible, they have the free will to do so. I personally don't care what anyone says about such matters. I care what the Bible says. The Bible says people that reject the Son also reject the Father. Judaism rejects the Son, and therefore, rejects the Father.

Daniel1611
January 3rd, 2015, 01:41 PM
Yea, ye took up the tabernacle of Moloch, and the star of your god Remphan, figures which ye made to worship them: and I will carry you away beyond Babylon. Acts 7:43

Straightshot
January 3rd, 2015, 01:56 PM
"The Bible says people that reject the Son also reject the Father. Judaism rejects the Son, and therefore, rejects the Father."


This is true, but here is what you miss from you study of the scriptures

The Lord has intents of restoring the kingdom to Israel for His purposes ..... but to only those that turn and believe upon Him as their Messiah and King

This is going to happen

A returned remnant is in the land today in unbelief .... but a remnant part of the same will turn and believe during the coming time of "Jacob's trouble" [Jeremiah 30] .... this period will be the same as the Lord's coming hour [time] of trial and judgment upon an unbelieving earth [Psalms 2; 2 Thessalonians 2:8-12; Jude 1:14-15; Revelation 6:12-17]

Here are the scriptures about this future time related to the Lord's national people of Israel [Isaiah 11; 27:12-13; Jeremiah 31:31-37; Ezekiel 36; 38; 39; Daniel 9; 11:41; 12:1-7; Joel 2; 3; Micah 4; 5; Zechariah 12; 13; 14; Matthew 24; Luke 21:20-36; Acts 1:6; Romans 11; Revelation 7:1-8; 12; 14:1-7]

chair
January 3rd, 2015, 01:58 PM
The Jewish Talmud calls Jesus a sorcerer, and idolater, and the bastard son of a whore who is in hell. It refers to Jesus multiple time as the "son of Pantera." This hatred of Jesus Christ plays a big role in Judaism, as does the belief that gentiles are inferior. You may not believe such things, but they are in the Judaist texts whether you believe in them or not.

I expected this response. If you hate Jews, you can interpret "son of Pantera" as Jesus- it makes you feel justfied in your hatred.

And guess what? An obscure reference somewhere in the Talmud does not turns something into "a big role in Judaism", or make it "one of it's foundations". I have a Talmud in my house. 19 large volumes. If Jesus is mentioned at all in there it is in an extremely minor role.

If Judaism has foundations (an interesting topic of discussion in itself), hating Jesus ain't one of them. You can look up Maimonides 13 principles of faith, for example. Sorry- no Jesus there.

We predate Christianity by 1,000 years? Why should we care about Jesus?

I am very sorry about this. Your Savior is a near-nobody to us, except for in one thing: the religion founded in his name has been a source of a lot of bigotry and violence to us over the ages.

chair
January 3rd, 2015, 02:01 PM
...One isn't born a Jew. They choose to be a Jew and they could choose a new religion.

Almost missed this. This is simple false. Jews are born as Jews. Judaism is the religion of the Jews- not the other way around (i.e. people who practice Judaism are Jews).

Straightshot
January 3rd, 2015, 02:06 PM
Israel is in unbelief today .... but this condition is going to change for some who will turn to Jesus Christ as Messiah and King

Example [Revelation 7:1-8; 14:1-7]

The OT and the NT confirm this truth

Here are a few passages:

Daniel
9:1 In the first year of Darius the son of Ahasuerus, of the seed of the Medes, which was made king over the realm of the Chaldeans;

9:2 In the first year of his reign I Daniel understood by books the number of the years, whereof the word of the LORD came to Jeremiah the prophet, that he would accomplish seventy years in the desolations of Jerusalem.

9:3 And I set my face unto the Lord God, to seek by prayer and supplications, with fasting, and sackcloth, and ashes:

9:4 And I prayed unto the LORD my God, and made my confession, and said, O Lord, the great and dreadful God, keeping the covenant and mercy to them that love him, and to them that keep his commandments;

9:5 We have sinned, and have committed iniquity, and have done wickedly, and have rebelled, even by departing from thy precepts and from thy judgments:

9:6 Neither have we hearkened unto thy servants the prophets, which spake in thy name to our kings, our princes, and our fathers, and to all the people of the land.

9:7 O LORD, righteousness belongeth unto thee, but unto us confusion of faces, as at this day; to the men of Judah, and to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and unto all Israel, that are near, and that are far off, through all the countries whither thou hast driven them, because of their trespass that they have trespassed against thee.

9:8 O Lord, to us belongeth confusion of face, to our kings, to our princes, and to our fathers, because we have sinned against thee.

9:9 To the Lord our God belong mercies and forgivenesses, though we have rebelled against him;

9:10 Neither have we obeyed the voice of the LORD our God, to walk in his laws, which he set before us by his servants the prophets.

9:11 Yea, all Israel have transgressed thy law, even by departing, that they might not obey thy voice; therefore the curse is poured upon us, and the oath that is written in the law of Moses the servant of God, because we have sinned against him.

9:12 And he hath confirmed his words, which he spake against us, and against our judges that judged us, by bringing upon us a great evil: for under the whole heaven hath not been done as hath been done upon Jerusalem.

9:13 As it is written in the law of Moses, all this evil is come upon us: yet made we not our prayer before the LORD our God, that we might turn from our iniquities, and understand thy truth.

9:14 Therefore hath the LORD watched upon the evil, and brought it upon us: for the LORD our God is righteous in all his works which he doeth: for we obeyed not his voice.

9:15 And now, O Lord our God, that hast brought thy people forth out of the land of Egypt with a mighty hand, and hast gotten thee renown, as at this day; we have sinned, we have done wickedly.

9:16 O LORD, according to all thy righteousness, I beseech thee, let thine anger and thy fury be turned away from thy city Jerusalem, thy holy mountain: because for our sins, and for the iniquities of our fathers, Jerusalem and thy people are become a reproach to all that are about us.

9:17 Now therefore, O our God, hear the prayer of thy servant, and his supplications, and cause thy face to shine upon thy sanctuary that is desolate, for the Lord's sake.

9:18 O my God, incline thine ear, and hear; open thine eyes, and behold our desolations, and the city which is called by thy name: for we do not present our supplications before thee for our righteousnesses, but for thy great mercies.

9:19 O Lord, hear; O Lord, forgive; O Lord, hearken and do; defer not, for thine own sake, O my God: for thy city and thy people are called by thy name.

9:20 And whiles I was speaking, and praying, and confessing my sin and the sin of my people Israel, and presenting my supplication before the LORD my God for the holy mountain of my God;

9:21 Yea, whiles I was speaking in prayer, even the man Gabriel, whom I had seen in the vision at the beginning, being caused to fly swiftly, touched me about the time of the evening oblation.

9:22 And he informed me, and talked with me, and said, O Daniel, I am now come forth to give thee skill and understanding.

9:23 At the beginning of thy supplications the commandment came forth, and I am come to shew thee; for thou art greatly beloved: therefore understand the matter, and consider the vision.

9:24 Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy.

9:25 Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times.

9:26 And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined.

9:27 And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.

Revelation
1:1 The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John:

1:2 Who bare record of the word of God, and of the testimony of Jesus Christ, and of all things that he saw.

1:3 Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written therein: for the time is at hand.

1:4 John to the seven churches which are in Asia: Grace be unto you, and peace, from him which is, and which was, and which is to come; and from the seven Spirits which are before his throne;

1:5 And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood,

1:6 And hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father; to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen.

1:7 Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him. Even so, Amen.

Romans
11:1 I say then, Hath God cast away his people? God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin.

11:2 God hath not cast away his people which he foreknew. Wot ye not what the scripture saith of Elias? how he maketh intercession to God against Israel saying,

11:3 Lord, they have killed thy prophets, and digged down thine altars; and I am left alone, and they seek my life.

11:4 But what saith the answer of God unto him? I have reserved to myself seven thousand men, who have not bowed the knee to the image of Baal.

11:5 Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace.

11:6 And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then it is no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.

11:7 What then? Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded.

11:8 (According as it is written, God hath given them the spirit of slumber, eyes that they should not see, and ears that they should not hear;) unto this day.

11:9 And David saith, Let their table be made a snare, and a trap, and a stumblingblock, and a recompence unto them:

11:10 Let their eyes be darkened, that they may not see, and bow down their back alway.

11:11 I say then, Have they stumbled that they should fall? God forbid: but rather through their fall salvation is come unto the Gentiles, for to provoke them to jealousy.

11:12 Now if the fall of them be the riches of the world, and the diminishing of them the riches of the Gentiles; how much more their fulness?

11:13 For I speak to you Gentiles, inasmuch as I am the apostle of the Gentiles, I magnify mine office:

11:14 If by any means I may provoke to emulation them which are my flesh, and might save some of them.

11:15 For if the casting away of them be the reconciling of the world, what shall the receiving of them be, but life from the dead?

11:16 For if the firstfruit be holy, the lump is also holy: and if the root be holy, so are the branches.

11:17 And if some of the branches be broken off, and thou, being a wild olive tree, wert graffed in among them, and with them partakest of the root and fatness of the olive tree;

11:18 Boast not against the branches. But if thou boast, thou bearest not the root, but the root thee.

11:19 Thou wilt say then, The branches were broken off, that I might be graffed in.

11:20 Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be not highminded, but fear:

11:21 For if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he also spare not thee.

11:22 Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them which fell, severity; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in his goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off.

11:23 And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be graffed in: for God is able to graff them in again.

11:24 For if thou wert cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and wert graffed contrary to nature into a good olive tree: how much more shall these, which be the natural branches, be graffed into their own olive tree?

11:25 For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.

11:26 And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob:

11:27 For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins.

11:28 As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, they are beloved for the father's sakes.

11:29 For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance.

11:30 For as ye in times past have not believed God, yet have now obtained mercy through their unbelief:

11:31 Even so have these also now not believed, that through your mercy they also may obtain mercy.

11:32 For God hath concluded them all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all.

11:33 O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out!

11:34 For who hath known the mind of the Lord? or who hath been his counsellor?

11:35 Or who hath first given to him, and it shall be recompensed unto him again?

11:36 For of him, and through him, and to him, are all things: to whom be glory for ever. Amen.

Straightshot
January 3rd, 2015, 02:18 PM
Thanks for the E-mail steko

Those who hold anti-Semitic replacement theologies like the Muslims and many of the professing Christian church are in grave error and this they are going to find out .... sooner or later

And those of Israel that still remain in blindness today are going to be surprised .... even shocked

kayaker
January 3rd, 2015, 03:28 PM
Jews are not a race. I did not use the term "racism". Jews are not the practitioners of a "vile religion" either, as you pretend. They are an ethnic group. and hating Jews is a dangerous form of bigotry.

And contrary to your ideas, it is simply not true that one of " it's foundations is the vile blasphemy of our Lord Jesus Christ". Complete nonsense. For the most part, we simply ignore Jesus. He is of little importance to us- just as Mohammed is near meanigless to you.

Weren't/aren't Gentiles considered 'dogs' by many Talmudic Jews, chair? Maybe you can translate a Talmudic rendering:


“Our Rabbis taught: Three copulated in the ark, and they were all punished — the dog, the raven, and Ham. The dog was doomed to be tied, the raven expectorates [his seed into his mate's mouth]. and Ham was smitten in his skin.34

34 I.e., from him descended Cush (the negro) who is black-skinned”
http://www.come-and-hear.com/sanhedr...108.html#PARTb

I get the impression racism against God's dark-skinned folk began before 1492... Didn't that raven decide to become the mythical Phoenix that reincarnated itself since it was unable to procreate via that bizarre manner of oral copulation? Wasn't Hitler's mascot a Phoenix? Weren't the majority of victims of the holocaust, Ashkenazi Jews... and, not Sephardic Jews?

So, chair... which Jews are allegedly ethnic? Ashkenazi, or Sephardic? What is the Genesis ancestry of those Ashkenazi Jews? Possibly they were Nimrod's proselytes: Gentile descendants of Ashkenaz, son of Gomer (think Germany), son of Japheth, 'father' of the Gentiles (Genesis 9:27, 10:2, 3, 4, Genesis 10:5 KJV)?

You ever come up with those 'who begat who' birth certificates for the last couple thousand years? See, Jesus explained to Nicodemus flesh birth was to no avail. God's Messiah's arrival generation was prophesied by Lamech, the executioner of Cain (Genesis 4:23 KJV) in the next verse of the First Book of Moshe: Genesis 4:24 KJV, that's seventy-seven generations. Go to Luke 3:38 KJV and begin counting with God is #1, Adam is #2, Seth is #3...

Then, if Jesus doesn't work for you folks... I suggest you back up a couple thousand years and pick one out. Might I suggest Caiaphas or Annas? Did your ancestors not instigate the crucifixion of an innocent Man, chair? I do agree with IMJershua that hatred is unbecoming a Christian... and, I seriously doubt any Christian on this thread would literally crucify you.

kayaker

patrick jane
January 3rd, 2015, 03:37 PM
I expected this response. If you hate Jews, you can interpret "son of Pantera" as Jesus- it makes you feel justfied in your hatred.

And guess what? An obscure reference somewhere in the Talmud does not turns something into "a big role in Judaism", or make it "one of it's foundations". I have a Talmud in my house. 19 large volumes. If Jesus is mentioned at all in there it is in an extremely minor role.

If Judaism has foundations (an interesting topic of discussion in itself), hating Jesus ain't one of them. You can look up Maimonides 13 principles of faith, for example. Sorry- no Jesus there.

We predate Christianity by 1,000 years? Why should we care about Jesus?

I am very sorry about this. Your Savior is a near-nobody to us, except for in one thing: the religion founded in his name has been a source of a lot of bigotry and violence to us over the ages.

we don't hate jews. nobody does. some jews hate Jesus. their egos and pride will not allow them to admit they are wrong. they generate hate and imagine persecution. self. it's all about themselves. I, Me, Us, We - Them. it's all in your head :kiss:

Ben Masada
January 3rd, 2015, 03:51 PM
Isaiah 65:15
You will leave your name to my chosen ones as a curse;(Jew) the Sovereign LORD will put you to death, but to his servants he will give another name. (Christian)

Acts 11:26
and when he found him, he brought him to Antioch. So for a whole year Barnabas and Saul met with the church and taught great numbers of people. The disciples were called Christians first at Antioch.

Isaiah 65:15 is a reference to the Ten Tribes of Israel aka the Kingdom of the North when HaShem rejected them for good and confirmed Judah to remain as one People; one Kingdom under another name aka the Jewish People. (Psalm 78:67-69 and Ezek. 37:22)

Acts 11:26 is the document to prove that Christianity started with Paul who gave Christians the name that has been used to this day. One text has nothing to do with the other.

chair
January 3rd, 2015, 03:53 PM
"Proving" that Jews believe X or Y from some phrase in the Talmud is akin to "proving" that Americans believe X or Y based on something recorded in the congressional record. It is really a pointless exercise.


Weren't/aren't Gentiles considered 'dogs' by many Talmudic Jews, chair? Maybe you can translate a Talmudic rendering:


“Our Rabbis taught: Three copulated in the ark, and they were all punished — the dog, the raven, and Ham. The dog was doomed to be tied, the raven expectorates [his seed into his mate's mouth]. and Ham was smitten in his skin.34

34 I.e., from him descended Cush (the negro) who is black-skinned”
http://www.come-and-hear.com/sanhedr...108.html#PARTb I get the impression racism against God's dark-skinned folk began before 1492...


There is anti-Ham sentiment in the Bible itself. Read Genesis 10. Ham, by the way, includes "Cush, Egypt, Put and Canaan"- not Negroes alone, as your source would have it.

Oddly enough, modern Jews (of all colors) are not particularly known for their anti-black racism.



Didn't that raven decide to become the mythical Phoenix that reincarnated itself since it was unable to procreate via that bizarre manner of oral copulation? Wasn't Hitler's mascot a Phoenix? Weren't the majority of victims of the holocaust, Ashkenazi Jews... and, not Sephardic Jews?

What in teh world are you going on about? Some mention of a raven in the Talmud connects to Hitler?

Hitler's Germany managed to kill many Sepharadim, as well as Ashkenazim. Try Saloniki, for example. The only reason they didn'y kill the Sepharadi Jews of North Africa is that the British managed to stop their invasion


So, chair... which Jews are allegedly ethnic? Ashkenazi, or Sephardic?
All.

What is the Genesis ancestry of those Ashkenazi Jews? Possibly they were Nimrod's proselytes: Gentile descendants of Ashkenaz, son of Gomer (think Germany), son of Japheth, 'father' of the Gentiles (Genesis 9:27, 10:2, 3, 4, Genesis 10:5 KJV)?

Perhaps this, perhpas that- perhaps you are a sick bigot.



You ever come up with those 'who begat who' birth certificates for the last couple thousand years? See, Jesus explained to Nicodemus flesh birth was to no avail. God's Messiah's arrival generation was prophesied by Lamech, the executioner of Cain (Genesis 4:23 KJV) in the next verse of the First Book of Moshe: Genesis 4:24 KJV, that's seventy-seven generations. Go to Luke 3:38 KJV and begin counting with God is #1, Adam is #2, Seth is #3...

Then, if Jesus doesn't work for you folks... I suggest you back up a couple thousand years and pick one out. Might I suggest Caiaphas or Annas? Did your ancestors not instigate the crucifixion of an innocent Man, chair? I do agree with IMJershua that hatred is unbecoming a Christian... and, I seriously doubt any Christian on this thread would literally crucify you.

kayaker

You are rambling. You have no idea what Jews are.

We are a nation. Call us a tribe if you like. It is not a strictly genetic thing, as some racists would like it to be. One can join the Jeiwsh nation.

Yes, hatred is unbecoming to you- so why do you harbor it?

Ben Masada
January 3rd, 2015, 04:06 PM
1 - "The Bible says people that reject the Son also reject the Father. Judaism rejects the Son, and therefore, rejects the Father."

2 - The Lord has intents of restoring the kingdom to Israel for His purposes ..... but to only those that turn and believe upon Him as their Messiah and King.

3 - A returned remnant is in the land today in unbelief .... but a remnant part of the same will turn and believe during the coming time of "Jacob's trouble" [Jeremiah 30] .... this period will be the same as the Lord's coming hour [time] of trial and judgment upon an unbelieving earth [Psalms 2; 2 Thessalonians 2:8-12; Jude 1:14-15; Revelation 6:12-17]

4 - Here are the scriptures about this future time related to the Lord's national people of Israel [Isaiah 11; 27:12-13; Jeremiah 31:31-37; Ezekiel 36; 38; 39; Daniel 9; 11:41; 12:1-7; Joel 2; 3; Micah 4; 5; Zechariah 12; 13; 14; Matthew 24; Luke 21:20-36; Acts 1:6; Romans 11; Revelation 7:1-8; 12; 14:1-7]

1 - I am a living evidence that you are wrong and so are millions of Jews. And mind you, I do not reject Jesus per se but for what you claim him to have been. This is not up-front a Jew who rejects Jesus. Jesus was a Jewish Rabbi and a Master. Not only myself but also some of the Pharisees of the time of Jesus had the opinion about Jesus if you read John 3:1,2.

2 - How about restoring the Gentiles who accept the invitation of Isaiah 56:1-8 and convert to Judaism? Why it has to be the other way around? It rather smells Replacement Theology.

3 - What more terrible than the Holocaust could be Jacob's troubles? Nevertheless the Jews still don't believe that Jesus was the Messiah.

4 - None of those texts in the Tanach agree with the NT. So, you are mixing apples with oranges so to speak.

patrick jane
January 3rd, 2015, 04:16 PM
all i know is, the jews, or jewish, or hebrews or nation or tribes or race or people or bloodline or ancestry, is ALL of US. a very confused, wrong, sinful, stupid, dumb, selfish - "all knowing, special, chosen people". yeah, that's all of us. i'm irish but i still want a little jew in me :mario:

patrick jane
January 3rd, 2015, 04:19 PM
after all, what's in a jew ? we don't know what a jew is. they don't even know ! basically gypsies. they follow the money ? jk

patrick jane
January 3rd, 2015, 04:24 PM
you guys know i'm kidding. that's my slogan after all. most every jewish person i know has a great sense of humor. i love seinfeld, larry david and many other jewish comediens. i like comedy. they do too. it's the uptight ones that can't laugh that annoy me. just like ANY person, no matter what "ish" we are. don't take yourselves and your heritage so serious. you've been wrong for so long. we all are

Ben Masada
January 3rd, 2015, 04:27 PM
all i know is, the jews, or jewish, or hebrews or nation or tribes or race or people or bloodline or ancestry, is ALL of US. a very confused, wrong, sinful, stupid, dumb, selfish - "all knowing, special, chosen people". yeah, that's all of us. i'm irish but i still want a little jew in me :mario:

According to Elijah in I Kings 18:21, you are straddling the issue between God and Baal, whatever he meant by that. One cannot have a "little of Jew" in him and live as something else. You are either a Jew or not a Jew at all. A hyphenate Jew is not Judaism.

Ben Masada
January 3rd, 2015, 04:28 PM
after all, what's in a jew ? we don't know what a jew is. they don't even know ! basically gypsies. they follow the money ? jk

No my friend, the money follows us.

Ben Masada
January 3rd, 2015, 04:36 PM
you guys know i'm kidding. that's my slogan after all. most every jewish person i know has a great sense of humor. i love seinfeld, larry david and many other jewish comediens. i like comedy. they do too. it's the uptight ones that can't laugh that annoy me. just like ANY person, no matter what "ish" we are. don't take yourselves and your heritage so serious. you've been wrong for so long. we all are

It is not really that we have been wrong but rather that we have been right. We have not been wrong; we have been weak sometimes as in Europe during the Holocaust. Now, we are flying F-16's in the skies of the Middle East

patrick jane
January 3rd, 2015, 04:37 PM
ok - ur a bigger jew than me

bybee
January 3rd, 2015, 04:38 PM
ok - ur a bigger jew than me

Perhaps he is a bigger man than thee?

patrick jane
January 3rd, 2015, 04:38 PM
No my friend, the money follows us.

can i have some ?

patrick jane
January 3rd, 2015, 04:39 PM
Perhaps he is a bigger man than thee?

thou

patrick jane
January 3rd, 2015, 04:44 PM
It is not really that we have been wrong but rather that we have been right. We have not been wrong; we have been weak sometimes as in Europe during the Holocaust. Now, we are flying F-16's in the skies of the Middle East

i agree with you. and Israel. our ally. but i also listened to the other side of the story. attacks on palestine and innocent people. displacing them. twisting through media that Israel is the victim in everything. "Israeli Defense Forces" ? Zionism ? Greed. Self. one word in the end. always. go fix your hair :kiss:

patrick jane
January 3rd, 2015, 04:48 PM
It is not really that we have been wrong but rather that we have been right. We have not been wrong; we have been weak sometimes as in Europe during the Holocaust. Now, we are flying F-16's in the skies of the Middle East

ok - jews are right. i forgot (self). everybody else is wrong. wail - :bang:

Straightshot
January 3rd, 2015, 05:09 PM
My comment

Do either of you just above consider the possibility that it is the Lord who has set the controversy between Israel and the Muslims for His purposes?

The One who ultimately decides and makes the destiny?

He has on this issue .... already explained in His Word

It is a done deal .... and the end game is approaching

It is the Lord will have His way on the matter .... wait and see

meshak
January 3rd, 2015, 05:11 PM
My comment

Do either of you just above consider the possibility that it is the Lord who has set the controversy between Israel and the Muslims for His purposes?

The One who ultimately decides and makes the destiny?

He has on this issue .... already explained in His Word

It is a done deal .... and the end game is approaching

It is the Lord will have His way on the matter .... wait and see

yes!

bybee
January 3rd, 2015, 05:19 PM
thou

He is a wiser man than me.

patrick jane
January 3rd, 2015, 05:26 PM
He is a wiser man than me.

everyone is wiser than me

patrick jane
January 3rd, 2015, 05:30 PM
My comment

Do either of you just above consider the possibility that it is the Lord who has set the controversy between Israel and the Muslims for His purposes?

The One who ultimately decides and makes the destiny?

He has on this issue .... already explained in His Word

It is a done deal .... and the end game is approaching

It is the Lord will have His way on the matter .... wait and see

i have considered that and much more. don't pretend to know, what me & ben know and believe, simply by several above posts. assuming our level of wisdom. i was kidding mostly, i can't speak for ben, but look at the thread title. should i be serious ?

CherubRam
January 3rd, 2015, 05:34 PM
Almost missed this. This is simple false. Jews are born as Jews. Judaism is the religion of the Jews- not the other way around (i.e. people who practice Judaism are Jews).

The term Jew applied to all peoples of the world who worshipped the God of Abraham. The mission of the faith has always been to convert the nations to the faith.

The word "Jew" was a nickname assigned by the Babylonians to anyone who either lived in or came from the area of Judea.

A Jew is a convert to Judaism, and the Hebrews are an ethnic group of people.

Contrary to popular belief, Jews are not a race, but an assembly of people. Hebrews are a race.

A Hebrew may or may not be a Jew.

CherubRam
January 3rd, 2015, 05:38 PM
Weren't/aren't Gentiles considered 'dogs' by many Talmudic Jews, chair? Maybe you can translate a Talmudic rendering:


“Our Rabbis taught: Three copulated in the ark, and they were all punished — the dog, the raven, and Ham. The dog was doomed to be tied, the raven expectorates [his seed into his mate's mouth]. and Ham was smitten in his skin.34

34 I.e., from him descended Cush (the negro) who is black-skinned”
http://www.come-and-hear.com/sanhedr...108.html#PARTb

I get the impression racism against God's dark-skinned folk began before 1492... Didn't that raven decide to become the mythical Phoenix that reincarnated itself since it was unable to procreate via that bizarre manner of oral copulation? Wasn't Hitler's mascot a Phoenix? Weren't the majority of victims of the holocaust, Ashkenazi Jews... and, not Sephardic Jews?

So, chair... which Jews are allegedly ethnic? Ashkenazi, or Sephardic? What is the Genesis ancestry of those Ashkenazi Jews? Possibly they were Nimrod's proselytes: Gentile descendants of Ashkenaz, son of Gomer (think Germany), son of Japheth, 'father' of the Gentiles (Genesis 9:27, 10:2, 3, 4, Genesis 10:5 KJV)?

You ever come up with those 'who begat who' birth certificates for the last couple thousand years? See, Jesus explained to Nicodemus flesh birth was to no avail. God's Messiah's arrival generation was prophesied by Lamech, the executioner of Cain (Genesis 4:23 KJV) in the next verse of the First Book of Moshe: Genesis 4:24 KJV, that's seventy-seven generations. Go to Luke 3:38 KJV and begin counting with God is #1, Adam is #2, Seth is #3...

Then, if Jesus doesn't work for you folks... I suggest you back up a couple thousand years and pick one out. Might I suggest Caiaphas or Annas? Did your ancestors not instigate the crucifixion of an innocent Man, chair? I do agree with IMJershua that hatred is unbecoming a Christian... and, I seriously doubt any Christian on this thread would literally crucify you.

kayaker

If that is really what your Rabbi's teach, then they are a bunch of babbling idiot.

CherubRam
January 3rd, 2015, 05:41 PM
Isaiah 65:15
You will leave your name to my chosen ones as a curse;(Jew) the Sovereign LORD will put you to death, but to his servants he will give another name. (Christian)

Acts 11:26
and when he found him, he brought him to Antioch. So for a whole year Barnabas and Saul met with the church and taught great numbers of people. The disciples were called Christians first at Antioch.

A reminder of page one. What do you think about my interpretation?

patrick jane
January 3rd, 2015, 06:03 PM
A reminder of page one. What do you think about my interpretation?

what is you interpretation ? please tell me again, what scripture and what interpretation. one at a time. specific, if you will. i'll try to understand your question and answer it

Daniel1611
January 3rd, 2015, 06:09 PM
Almost missed this. This is simple false. Jews are born as Jews. Judaism is the religion of the Jews- not the other way around (i.e. people who practice Judaism are Jews).

The Bible disagrees with you.

Esther 8:17 And in every province, and in every city, whithersoever the king's commandment and his decree came, the Jews had joy and gladness, a feast and a good day. And many of the people of the land became Jews; for the fear of the Jews fell upon them.

Daniel1611
January 3rd, 2015, 06:23 PM
If Judaism has foundations (an interesting topic of discussion in itself), hating Jesus ain't one of them. You can look up Maimonides 13 principles of faith, for example. Sorry- no Jesus there.

We predate Christianity by 1,000 years? Why should we care about Jesus?

I am very sorry about this. Your Savior is a near-nobody to us, except for in one thing: the religion founded in his name has been a source of a lot of bigotry and violence to us over the ages.

Check your Talmud for Sanhedrin 43a, Sanhedrin 107b, and Gittin 56a, 57b. Just to name a few blasphemous references to Jesus Christ.

And before Christianity had many converts, it was Judaism who hated and persecuted Christians. The Book of Acts records many instances of Judaists persecuting and killing Christians. Not to mention that the Talmud says that gentiles are animals worthy of death. Any Christian who defends this vile, disgusting, racist cult called Judaism needs to wake up.

And more than that, we need to pray that the followers of Judaism wake up and believe on Jesus Christ: the Messiah, the King.

kayaker
January 3rd, 2015, 08:01 PM
"Proving" that Jews believe X or Y from some phrase in the Talmud is akin to "proving" that Americans believe X or Y based on something recorded in the congressional record. It is really a pointless exercise.

I thought the Talmud pretty well spoke for itself, chair... catch the link.


There is anti-Ham sentiment in the Bible itself. Read Genesis 10. Ham, by the way, includes "Cush, Egypt, Put and Canaan"- not Negroes alone, as your source would have it.

Read Genesis 10 you suggest? I believe I referenced said chapter in the post you respond to. The source is the link, chair. Didn't you say you had all those volumes of the Talmud? Maybe you've not gotten to that part, yet. But, thanks for expounding on the magnitude of Talmudic bigotry and racism.


Oddly enough, modern Jews (of all colors) are not particularly known for their anti-black racism.

Your favorite translator Rashi (1200's) seemed to agree with those two Rabbis viewing black skin as a curse. Maybe Jewish hatred of Muslims has taken the front seat...


What in teh world are you going on about? Some mention of a raven in the Talmud connects to Hitler?

That kinky raven was Hitler's mascot, the Phoenix. Hitler didn't sire any kids, did he? Besides, the Talmud is into kinky bird sex.


Hitler's Germany managed to kill many Sepharadim, as well as Ashkenazim. Try Saloniki, for example. The only reason they didn'y kill the Sepharadi Jews of North Africa is that the British managed to stop their invasion

Well, at least the British aren't 'anti-Semites'. Might want to check your homework before you jump on that wrecked bus:


“The genocidal impact of the Holocaust, the mass murder of approximately six million Jews during World War II devastated the Ashkenazi and their Yiddish culture, affecting almost every Jewish family.[19][20]”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashkenazi_Jews


Perhaps this, perhpas that- perhaps you are a sick bigot.

Perhaps a sick bigot... but not an anti-Semite? Perhaps you have some dirty ancestral laundry you prefer to circumvent. Do you think Jesus was a bigot in Revelation 2:9, 3:9?


You are rambling. You have no idea what Jews are.

Jesus knew... Matthew 23:13, 15, 17, 23, 25, 27, 29. You guys ever figure out the significance of Genesis 4:24? Or, is "seventy and sevenfold" still an "undesignated coincidence"? Who would ever have realized a descendant of Cain would prophesy the arrival generation of Messiah? Certainly not those who embellish endless ancestral genealogy as a ticket to paradise.


We are a nation. Call us a tribe if you like. It is not a strictly genetic thing, as some racists would like it to be. One can join the Jeiwsh nation.

I can appreciate the proselyte part, particularly related to Japheth's Gentile grandson, Ashkenaz. The part of being Jewish that is ethnic... sounds racist to begin with. It's the ethnic aspect that establishes inheritance rights to Promised Land, correct (Deuteronomy 25:5, 6)? And, that's why the last two thousand years of birth certificates can't be produced to convince Islam. The al-Aqsa mosque on the temple mount is the only reason Islam hasn't glazed the whole region with a nuke.

Didn't Moses exclude Ammonites and Moabites in Deuteronomy 23:3? Didn't Moshe exclude Hittites, Girgashites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites, and Jebusites from the Israelite congregation in Deuteronomy 7:1? Was Almighty God a bigot in Deuteronomy 7:2, 3, 5? The ancestrally intact Israelites were God's chosen people (Deuteronomy 7:6, 7, 8, 9, 10) before the title "Jew" appeared.

But, you suggest anyone can 'join'; but not everyone's ethnic. Didn't Ezra reiterate said incorporation being a great trespass in Ezra 9:1, 2, 8? But, you guys open the doors contrary to Deuteronomy 7:11? Well, I think Jesus beat you guys to that inclusion a couple thousand years ago, speaking of replacement theology. Ask Nicodemus.


Yes, hatred is unbecoming to you- so why do you harbor it?

I advise my Christian peers that hatred is really insignificant relating to you guys... pity might be a better perspective. But, I can't say circumcision of the heart is always painless. Sounds to me like you guys threw Moses under the bus. Ezra too, for that matter.

kayaker

CherubRam
January 3rd, 2015, 08:08 PM
Check your Talmud for Sanhedrin 43a, Sanhedrin 107b, and Gittin 56a, 57b. Just to name a few blasphemous references to Jesus Christ.

And before Christianity had many converts, it was Judaism who hated and persecuted Christians. The Book of Acts records many instances of Judaists persecuting and killing Christians. Not to mention that the Talmud says that gentiles are animals worthy of death. Any Christian who defends this vile, disgusting, racist cult called Judaism needs to wake up.

And more than that, we need to pray that the followers of Judaism wake up and believe on Jesus Christ: the Messiah, the King.
Christianity is a sect of Judaism. Not everyone in Judaism reject Christ message, he had many followers. It was the Hellenistic Jews that had Christ killed. It was also the Hellenistic Jews that persecuted the followers of Christ.

Here is an example: After killing Hebrew Christians, the Jews would take the New testament scripture written in Hebrew, and carefully cut the name of God out. Then they would place the divine name in a safe place to keep. Following that, they then would burn the remainder of the scrolls in a fire. Rabbi Yose who lived during the second century AD states that, "One cuts out the reference to the Divine Name which are in them [the New Testament writings] and stores them away, and the rest burns." One of his characteristic sayings is, "He who proclaimed the coming of the Messiah,[John] and he who hated scholars [Yahshua] and his disciples; and that false prophet and those slanderers, will have no part in the future world."

According to Wilhelm Bacher this was directed against the Hebrew Christians. And so it is an established fact then, that the disciples of Christ did in fact write the Holy Name of God into the original New Testament.

CherubRam
January 3rd, 2015, 08:10 PM
what is you interpretation ? please tell me again, what scripture and what interpretation. one at a time. specific, if you will. i'll try to understand your question and answer it

Isaiah 65:15
You will leave your name to my chosen ones as a curse;(Jew) the Sovereign LORD will put you to death, but to his servants he will give another name. (Christian)

Acts 11:26
and when he found him, he brought him to Antioch. So for a whole year Barnabas and Saul met with the church and taught great numbers of people. The disciples were called Christians first at Antioch.

patrick jane
January 3rd, 2015, 08:29 PM
Isaiah 65:15
You will leave your name to my chosen ones as a curse;(Jew) the Sovereign LORD will put you to death, but to his servants he will give another name. (Christian)

Acts 11:26
and when he found him, he brought him to Antioch. So for a whole year Barnabas and Saul met with the church and taught great numbers of people. The disciples were called Christians first at Antioch.

i can make that same interpretation. hard to disagree. much of Isaiah contains predictions that foretell of soon-to-occur events, and distant future events at the same time, using prose and poetry. you could also say that ANY people that do not heed God's call or ANY people that did recognize The Messiah - Jesus Christ. Isaiah was calling Judah back to God and to tell of the coming of Jesus. yes, you could say (jew) and (Christian). i think Acts 11:26 - speaks for itself - :rapture:

Jacob
January 3rd, 2015, 10:42 PM
The gospel of Christ (Romans 1:16 KJV, 1 Corinthians 15:1-4 KJV) is no longer to the Jew first and also to the Greek, but to all men.

1 Timothy 2:4 Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.

1 Timothy 2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;

1 Timothy 2:6 Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time. All men includes the Jew first and also the Greek.

chair
January 4th, 2015, 01:20 AM
The Bible disagrees with you.

Esther 8:17 And in every province, and in every city, whithersoever the king's commandment and his decree came, the Jews had joy and gladness, a feast and a good day. And many of the people of the land became Jews; for the fear of the Jews fell upon them.

What people call "coverting to Judaism" is not simply accepting a religion. It is joining a people, a nation. The religion is only part of that.

patrick jane
January 4th, 2015, 01:58 AM
What people call "coverting to Judaism" is not simply accepting a religion. It is joining a people, a nation. The religion is only part of that.

coverting ? i knew it. it is a secret covert organiztion. islam calls themselves a nation :cow:

CherubRam
January 4th, 2015, 07:23 AM
What people call "coverting to Judaism" is not simply accepting a religion. It is joining a people, a nation. The religion is only part of that.

True Christianity is Judaism fulfilled under Messiah and the New Covenant. True Christianity is Judaism. Messiah did not come to start a new religion, but to reconcile man to God under the New Covenant. The corruptions in the New Testament are from the Pagan Catholics. The original Christians were trapped between the Hellenistic Jews and the Gnostics and Pagans. All three worked to pervert the original scriptures. This includes the Old Testament as well as the New Testament.

kayaker
January 4th, 2015, 07:59 AM
coverting ? i knew it. it is a secret covert organiztion. islam calls themselves a nation :cow:

LOL! Swooning today, spooning tomorrow. Sounds like an 'undercover' operation. Matthew 24:37, 38, 39... Genesis 6:1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. Interestingly, Islam knows their father was Abraham, AND their mother was Hagar. Can't get a straight motherly answer from the Jews, speaking of replacement genealogy. Abraham sired progeny via Hagar, Sarah, Keturah, and concubines... but, Abraham gave all he had to Isaac (Genesis 25:5). To claim property rights in Promised Land... one would have to be a descendant of Isaac, via Abraham & Sarah.

Take a look at John 8:33 KJV. Those seeking to crucify Jesus unveiled they were not descendants of Abraham & Sarah---> Isaac & Rebekah---> Jacob Israel---> Israelites who were in bondage in Egypt. The Jews definitely aren't descendants of Abraham & Hagar---> Ishmael & Egyptian wife---> Muslims. So, we're down to descendants of Abraham & Keturah, or Abraham & concubines. Pretty simple deduction when we quit swooning.

kayker

Daniel1611
January 4th, 2015, 08:05 AM
What people call "coverting to Judaism" is not simply accepting a religion. It is joining a people, a nation. The religion is only part of that.

In Esther 8, the people joined the people of God. There was no "Judaism" then. This is the main lie of the Judaists and their Zio-Christian devotees. Judaism is a false, pagan religion invented in Babylon. It is NOT a Biblical religion, and it rejects the true God. Of course the followers of Judaism don't admit that they hate Jesus Christ or that they believe gentiles are subhuman. They don't admit that they worship false gods because the Talmud instructs them to lie to outsiders. A disgusting "religion" Judaism is.

Yoḥanon-benYaʿăqov
January 4th, 2015, 11:10 AM
First of all, most of the Jews I know and associate with do not even believe that any such person as Yéshu haNotzri ever existed. It’s pretty difficult to “reject” the figment of someone’s imagination.

I don’t believe in Santa Claus; the Easter bunny; the tooth fairy; or any other of the xian created lies that they tell their children every day. Do I reject them? How can I? They are not real; they are the figments of someone’s imagination.

If someone hands me a gift, I have two choices: accept it or reject it. Yet that gift is something tangible right there in my sight. How precisely does someone accept or reject something which is not real?

There are two different Talmudiym: Talmud Y’rushalmi and Talmud Bavli. Although there are 5 -7 entirely different people, from entirely different time periods, which have the name Yéshu, neither Talmud ever mentions or even glosses any such person as Yéshu HaNotzri.

The one killed for Sorcery lived in the Second Century BCE over one hundred years before your alleged man-god was even born.

The one born from the illicit union between the hair dresser and the Roman soldier lived just before 200 CE. And this story is not even found in either Talmud.

These are different people who lived at different times with entirely different stories.

The fact of the matter is that none of the people who tend to regurgitate this anti-Semitic, xian propaganda even have the first clue how to read what is actually written.

How do you know that the Romans of the late-Fourth Century CE, who invented xianity, did not use these differing stories of different people from different times to help create your man-god?

After all, historically speaking, most of the historical documents relating xianities history date from the Fifth – Ninth Centuries CE. There are precisely zero documents of Constantine’s lifetime contemporary with his lifetime. That is very strange because there are over 2 dozen secular and Government documents contemporary with Julius Caesar who lived nearly 400 years before Constantine. There are dozens through hundreds of surviving records of every Roman Emperor, contemporary with their lifetimes, yet the oldest records of Constantine are from more than 100 years after his death. In the ten years I worked in the field of Papyrology, I learned that this was a well-documented fact.

The fact of the matter is that xianity prior to 380 CE is a complete total historical vacuum. And everything pointing to it having a history prior to that is found in church records, mostly from 650 – 900 CE.

Most xians don’t even know that the 27 books they call the new testament have only been such for less than 500 years. Prior to that “Revelation/Apocylpse” was not part of it; 2nd Peter was not part of it; 6 of the “Pauline Epistles” were not part of it. Yet “The Shepherd of Hermas,” and “The Epistle of Barnabas” were part of it.

The current 27 books were decided at the Council of Trent on April 8th 1546 CE by the Roman Catholic Church; and for Protestants – The French Confession of Faith 1559 CE; The Belgic Confession of 1561 CE; and the Westminster Confession of Faith of 1647 CE.

To date there are over 5,830 Greek manuscripts of what are now considered the 27 canonical books of the xian new testament. There is not a single one of them that have not been tampered with by a so-called “corrector” (many of the larger codices have more than 20 “correctors”).

What precisely were they correcting?

Well if you take a good look at the manuscript history you will discover that the “church” changed the contents of the “new testament” more often than they changed their underwear. Between 500 – 1000 CE manuscripts came in spurts. Every time the church came up with a new doctrine, they changed the “new testament” to fit their new doctrine.

It is such a garbled mess, that if you took every single manuscript in existence and laid them side by side you could create 7 entirely different “new testaments.”

Jews have believed in, and have been doing exactly the same thing for 3,500 years. Xianity, which has existed in some form or another for 1,634 years, has not remained consistent in its belief system for even one entire century throughout its existence. If it had, why are there over 40,000 denominations of xianity today, who all have different belief systems? The only thing that any of them seem to share in common is the belief in Yéshu haNotzri, a fictional character.

As far as the original post, Y’sha’yahu 65 clears that up in its entirety just a few verses earlier. But I will address that in another post.

Yoḥanon-benYaʿăqov
January 4th, 2015, 11:37 AM
I have to agree with “Chair” on this point, yes it is interesting how these bigots cherry-pick sentences, twist them entirely out of context, and lie about what is actually being said; very typical xian behavior.

Y’sha’yahu 65:9 – 15:



וְהוֹצֵאתִי מִיַּעֲקֹב חֶרַע וְמִיהוּדָה יוֹרֵשׁ הָרָי וִירֵשׁוּהָ בְחִירַי וַעֲבָדַי יִשְׁכְּנוּ־שָׁמָּה׃

וְהָיָה הַשָּׁרוּן לִנְוֵה־צֹאן וְעֵמֶק עָכוֹר לְרֵבֶץ בָּקָר לְעַמִּי אֲשֶׁר דּרָשׁוּנִי׃

וְאַתֶּם עֹזְבֵי יְיָ הַשְּׁכֵחִים אֶת־הַר קָדְשִׁיהַעֹרְכִים לַגַּד שֻׁלְחָן וְהַמְמַלְאִים לַמְנִי מִמְסָךְ׃

וּמָנִיתִי אֶתְכֶם לַחֶרֶב וְכֻלְּכֶם לַטֶּבַח תִּכְרָעוּ יַעַן קָרָאתִי וְלֹא עֲנִיתֶם דִּבַּרְתִּי וְלֹא שְׁמַעְתֶּם וַתַּעֲשׂוּ הָרַע בְּעֵינַי וּבַאֲשֶׁר לֹא־חָפַצְתּי בְּחַרְתֶּם׃

לָכֵן כֹּה־אַמַר ׀ אֲדֹנָי יְיָ הִנֵּה עֲבָדַי ׀ יֹאכֵלוּ וְאַתֶּם תִּרְעָבוּ הִנֵּה עֲבָדַי יִשְׁתּוּ וְאַתֶּם תִּצְמָאוּ הִנֵּה עֲבָדַי יִשְׂמָחוּ וְאַתֶּם תֵּבֹשׁוּ׃

הִנֵּה עֲבָדַי יָרֹנּוּ מִטּוּב לֵב וְאַתֶּם תִּצְעֲקוּ מִכְּאֵב לֵב וּמִשֵּׁבֶר רוּחַ תְּיֵלִילוּ׃

וְהִנַּחְתֶּם שִׁמְכֶם לִשְׁבוּעָה לִבְחִירַי וֶהֱמִיתְךָ אֲדֹנָי יְיָ וְלַעֲבָדָיו יִקְרָא שֵׁם אַחֵר׃

V’hotzéʾtiy miyyaʿăqov zeraʿ umiyhudah yorésh haray viyréshuah v’ḥiyray vaʿăvaday yish’k’nu-shammah:

V’hayah hasharon lin’véh-tzoʾn v’émeq ʿaḵor l’révetz baqar l’ammiy ʾăsher d’rashuniy:

V’attem ʿoz’véy HaShem hash’ḵéḥiym ʾet-har qad’shiy haʿor’ḵiym laggad shul’ḥan v’ham’mal’iym lam’niy mim’saḵ’:

Umaniytiy ʾet’ḵem laḥerev v’ḵul’ḵem lattevaḥ tiḵ’raʿu yaʿan qaraʾtiy v’loʾ ʿăniytem divar’tiy v’loʾ sh’ma’tem vattaʿăsu haraʿ b’éynay uvaʾăsher loʾ-ḥafatz’tiy b’ḥar’tem:

Laḵén koh-ʾamar | ʾĂdonay HaShem hinnéh ʿăvaday | yoʾḵélu v’attem tir’avu hinnéh ʿăvaday yish’tu v’attem titz’maʾu hinnéh ʿăvaday yish’maḥu v’attem tévoshu:

Hinnéh ʿăvaday yaronnu mittuv lév v’attem titz’ăqu mik’év lév umishéver ruaḥ t’yéliylu:

V’hinnaḥ’tem shim’ḵem lish’vuʿah liv’ḥiyray vehĕmiyt’ḵa ʾĂdonay HaShem v’laʿăvadayv yiq’raʾ shém ʾaḥér:

“I will draw out offspring from Yaʿăqov and Y’hudah, heir of My mountains, and My chosen ones shall inherit it, and My servants shall dwell there.

And the Sharon will become a dwelling place for sheep, and the Valley of Aḵor a place for cattle to rest, for My people who sought Me.

But you who forsake HaShem, who forget My Holy Mountain, who set a table for Gad (god of luck) and who fill a mixed wine offering for Meniy (god of destiny).

I will appoint you for the sword, and all of you shall kneel for the slaughter; because I called out and you did not answer, I spoke and you did not listen, and you did what was evil in My eyes, and what I did not desire, you chose.

Therefore, so said my Lord HaShem, “Behold, My servants shall eat, but you shall be hungry, My servants shall drink, but you shall thirst, My servants shall rejoice, but you shall be ashamed.

Behold, My servants shall sing from joy of heart, but you shall cry out from sorrow of heart, and from a broken spirit you shall wail.

And you shall leave your name for an oath to My Chosen Ones, ‘And my Lord HaShem shall execute you,’ but to His servants He shall call out another name.”

Who are the “Chosen Ones” and “His Servants?” The offspring of Jacob and Judah are His Chosen Ones and Servants.

Who are the ones giving up their name? Those people who are worshipping false gods and doing evil.

Just another example of that good old xian love: hand pick a Scripture, twist and distort it completely out of context into a total lie; and use it to make a virulent hate speech.

kayaker
January 4th, 2015, 12:30 PM
I have to agree with “Chair” on this point, yes it is interesting how these bigots cherry-pick sentences, twist them entirely out of context, and lie about what is actually being said; very typical xian behavior.

Who are the “Chosen Ones” and “His Servants?” The offspring of Jacob and Judah are His Chosen Ones and Servants.

Who are the ones giving up their name? Those people who are worshipping false gods and doing evil.

Just another example of that good old xian love: hand pick a Scripture, twist and distort it completely out of context into a total lie; and use it to make a virulent hate speech.

Well, at least chair acknowledges Levitical/Davidic ancestry. You ever figure out who yo mamma is? Leave a stone unturned there, Yoh?

The chosen ones of Judah... are you talking about the Shelanite descendants of Judah and his Canaanite wife? Or, are you talking about the Pharzite descendants of Judah and his daughter-in-law, Tamar? Care to clarify your ancestry with a little more distinction? You can gloss right over the last 2k generations of nonexistent birth certificates... maybe you don't exist (LOL!) and expect me to believe you have some heritable interest in Promised Land? Who's yo mamma? Judah's unnamed Canaanite wife? Or, Judah's daughter-in-law, Tamar? Don't know? Let me guess... (John 8:41 KJV).

CherubRam
January 4th, 2015, 12:55 PM
[SIZE=3][FONT=Times New Roman]I have to agree with “Chair” on this point, yes it is interesting how these bigots cherry-pick sentences, twist them entirely out of context, and lie about what is actually being said; very typical xian behavior.
It is very unlikely that the word should be translated as "oath." It would be stupid for people to use the word "Jew" as a oath. You failed to mention that the ancient Hebrew language often has a double in translation. Example: Wind = spirit. Your explanation is dishonest.




Isaiah 65:15. KJV
15 And ye shall leave your name for a (curse / oath) unto My chosen, for the Lord God shall slay thee and call His servants by another name,...

CherubRam
January 4th, 2015, 12:58 PM
Dishonest Hebrews have made the name "Jew" a curse word.

CherubRam
January 4th, 2015, 01:05 PM
Christianity is a sect of Judaism. Not everyone in Judaism reject Christ message, he had many followers. It was the Hellenistic Jews that had Christ killed. It was also the Hellenistic Jews that persecuted the followers of Christ.

Here is an example: After killing Hebrew Christians, the Jews would take the New testament scripture written in Hebrew, and carefully cut the name of God out. Then they would place the divine name in a safe place to keep. Following that, they then would burn the remainder of the scrolls in a fire. Rabbi Yose who lived during the second century AD states that, "One cuts out the reference to the Divine Name which are in them [the New Testament writings] and stores them away, and the rest burns." One of his characteristic sayings is, "He who proclaimed the coming of the Messiah,[John] and he who hated scholars [Yahshua] and his disciples; and that false prophet and those slanderers, will have no part in the future world."

According to Wilhelm Bacher this was directed against the Hebrew Christians. And so it is an established fact then, that the disciples of Christ did in fact write the Holy Name of God into the original New Testament.

Rabbi Yose and Josephus lived during the first and second century AD. They acknowledge that Christ lived. And don't forget, the Hebrews were destroying all records giving proof that Christ existed. See now how the word "Jew" is associated with evil!

CherubRam
January 4th, 2015, 01:10 PM
Everyone knows that the word Jew implies evil, it has been that way for two thousand years. If I were you, I would insist on being called a Hebrew, and not a Jew. That is assuming you do not like to be associated with evil.

Yoḥanon-benYaʿăqov
January 4th, 2015, 01:41 PM
כפי שציינתי לפני הדבר מלבד נאומי שנאה

Yoḥanon-benYaʿăqov
January 4th, 2015, 01:54 PM
Well, at least chair acknowledges Levitical/Davidic ancestry. You ever figure out who yo mamma is? Leave a stone unturned there, Yoh?מי אתה שתעליב את האמא שלי?

IMJerusha
January 4th, 2015, 02:17 PM
The Judaism we see today is nothing more than a system of bondage as Israel fell, diminished and by the close of Acts was cast away for a reason and for a season. I hope those who are tangled up in it or any other religious system will be saved.

Romans 11:32 For God hath concluded them all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all.

Romans 11:33 O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out!

Just as I hope that any who divide the Body in Replacement Theology will be saved.

IMJerusha
January 4th, 2015, 02:39 PM
First of all, most of the Jews I know and associate with do not even believe that any such person as Yéshu haNotzri ever existed. It’s pretty difficult to “reject” the figment of someone’s imagination.

We must hang out with different Jewish people. :chuckle:


There are two different Talmudiym: Talmud Y’rushalmi and Talmud Bavli. Although there are 5 -7 entirely different people, from entirely different time periods, which have the name Yéshu, neither Talmud ever mentions or even glosses any such person as Yéshu HaNotzri.

That depends on the age of the edition you are reading. Due to some pretty hairy disputations as early as 521, many of the references were removed by both Christian and Jewish scholars. If one reads Lauterbach's commentaries, there are few references but Travers Herford claims there are many.

How have you been, btw?

IMJerusha
January 4th, 2015, 02:54 PM
I have to agree with “Chair” on this point, yes it is interesting how these bigots cherry-pick sentences, twist them entirely out of context, and lie about what is actually being said; very typical xian behavior.

Not every Christian holds with Replacement Theology which you full well know.

IMJerusha
January 4th, 2015, 03:15 PM
Well, at least chair acknowledges Levitical/Davidic ancestry.

Would you mind telling me how that is possible?

IMJerusha
January 4th, 2015, 03:21 PM
מי אתה שתעליב את האמא שלי?

Dude, if they'll insult God, they won't give a second thought about your mother.

CherubRam
January 4th, 2015, 05:03 PM
כפי שציינתי לפני הדבר מלבד נאומי שנאה

It is an interpretation not a hate speech.

Daniel1611
January 4th, 2015, 07:19 PM
The Talmud teaches that "Jews" are the master race. Judaism isn't so much a religion built around a false god as it is self-worship. The Talmud says God is under the authority of the Rabbis. It's a racist ideology.

CherubRam
January 4th, 2015, 07:46 PM
The Talmud teaches that "Jews" are the master race. Judaism isn't so much a religion built around a false god as it is self-worship. The Talmud says God is under the authority of the Rabbis. It's a racist ideology.

Hellenist Judaism is what brought Israel to a bad end. Keep in mind that not all were evil, and many followed Yahshua as the Messiah.


Galatians 2:14
But when I saw that they were not walking uprightly according to the truth of the good news, I said to Peter before everyone, If you, being a Jew live in the manner of the nations, and not in the manner of the Jews, then how will you compel the nations to Judaize?

Daniel1611
January 4th, 2015, 07:56 PM
Hellenist Judaism is what brought Israel to a bad end. Keep in mind that not all were evil, and many followed Yahshua as the Messiah.


Galatians 2:14
But when I saw that they were not walking uprightly according to the truth of the good news, I said to Peter before everyone, If you, being a Jew live in the manner of the nations, and not in the manner of the Jews, then how will you compel the nations to Judaize?

What brought Israel to an end is that the majority of them rejected the Lord Jesus Christ and took up the star of their god Remphan. Many Jews believed in the true God and accepted Jesus Christ. Many Jews did not and they stuck to their false religion. Judaism is and always has been a false religion. It has never been the OT religion. It has always been a false religion created in Babylon.

CherubRam
January 4th, 2015, 08:13 PM
What brought Israel to an end is that the majority of them rejected the Lord Jesus Christ and took up the star of their god Remphan. Many Jews believed in the true God and accepted Jesus Christ. Many Jews did not and they stuck to their false religion. Judaism is and always has been a false religion. It has never been the OT religion. It has always been a false religion created in Babylon.

You have a misconception of the term "Judaism." Judaism is the religious belief in a single God named Yahwah. The fact that there are, or have been evil people in Judaism, is not relevant.

Daniel1611
January 4th, 2015, 08:25 PM
You have a misconception of the term "Judaism." Judaism is the religious belief in a single God named Yahwah. The fact that there are, or have been evil people in Judaism, is not relevant.

No, you have the misconception. No where is the term "Judaism" found in the Bible. Judaism is a false religion based on the Talmud that worships false gods like Shekinah. Judaism has nothing to do with the Bible or the true God, other than the fact that it blasphemes the true God, Jesus Christ.

CherubRam
January 4th, 2015, 11:03 PM
No, you have the misconception. No where is the term "Judaism" found in the Bible. Judaism is a false religion based on the Talmud that worships false gods like Shekinah. Judaism has nothing to do with the Bible or the true God, other than the fact that it blasphemes the true God, Jesus Christ.

Indeed, Judaism is a made up term, but what you are talking about is Paganism, Mysticism, and Gnosticism. True Judaism has nothing to do with those things. Like I said, Judaism is the belief in the Abrahamic God who is a single being.

chair
January 5th, 2015, 04:01 AM
Would you mind telling me how that is possible?

I am a Levite on my father's side.
On my mother's side, I am descended from Isaac Abravanel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Abravanel) > He claimed to be descended from the line of Exilarchs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exilarch), who in turn claimed Davidic descent.

I am more certain of being a Levite than of being of Davidic descent, to tell you the truth.

kayaker
January 5th, 2015, 06:10 AM
I am a Levite on my father's side.
On my mother's side, I am descended from Isaac Abravanel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Abravanel) > He claimed to be descended from the line of Exilarchs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exilarch), who in turn claimed Davidic descent.

I am more certain of being a Levite than of being of Davidic descent, to tell you the truth.

Thanks, chair...
I'm Scotch/Irish paternally, Dutch/Cherokee Indian maternally. My maternal grandmother looks full-blooded Cherokee! With all due and sincere respect, I have no ancestral claim to Native American property or rights... although, there could be a possibility. I do understand the identification requirements to probate a will, and public notice for any contest of said will. I trust you see the analogy.

Furthermore, for one to claim themselves a descendant of Abraham... well, Abraham sired children via Hagar, Sarah, Keturah and concubines. Those Shelanites (alleged Jews) who instigated the crucifixion were the descendants of Abraham via his wife Keturah (of mysterious ancestry). Judah (of Abraham) hooked up with a Canaanite wife (of Abraham via Keturah). So, I trust you can appreciate my insistence contesting the ancestral component of everyone who proclaims themselves a Jew.

I can generally respect your ancestral claim, as I trust you can respect mine: Noteworthy, respectfully; but, not enough to stake a claim in heritable property. However, as I've suggested chair... you might be sleeping with the enemy. And, when that al-Aqsa mosque gets bulldozed... give me a call.

kayaker

kayaker
January 5th, 2015, 07:17 AM
Dude, if they'll insult God, they won't give a second thought about your mother.

So... Yoh is whining thinking I'm talking about his mom? Seriously? I made it perfectly clear, IMJ: Is Yoh a descendant of Judah's Canaanite wife, or Judah's daughter-in-law, Tamar? Does Yoh have you thinking I'm casting shadows on his mommy's character?

Is Yoh a descendant of Abraham claiming ownership to the title, "Jew"? AND, ownership to heritable property in Promised Land? Abraham sired progeny via Hagar, Sarah, Keturah and concubines. How does Yoh know he's not a descendant of Hagar/Ishmael? Ask Yoh to man-up and get over himself... and his mommy. I'm talking probably 4k years ago... isn't he?

I'm contesting the probation of Abraham's will that Yoh obviously claims certain heritable rights to: "And Abraham gave all that he had unto Isaac" (Genesis 25:5 KJV). That's Abraham's progeny via his wife, Sarah. So, either Yoh can produce the ancestral maternal documents. Or, get to the back of the line... behind the Muslims... who openly proclaim themselves descendants of Abraham via Ishmael/Hagar.

kayaker

chair
January 5th, 2015, 08:04 AM
Thanks, chair...
I'm Scotch/Irish paternally, Dutch/Cherokee Indian maternally. My maternal grandmother looks full-blooded Cherokee! With all due and sincere respect, I have no ancestral claim to Native American property or rights... although, there could be a possibility. I do understand the identification requirements to probate a will, and public notice for any contest of said will. I trust you see the analogy.

Furthermore, for one to claim themselves a descendant of Abraham... well, Abraham sired children via Hagar, Sarah, Keturah and concubines. Those Shelanites (alleged Jews) who instigated the crucifixion were the descendants of Abraham via his wife Keturah (of mysterious ancestry). Judah (of Abraham) hooked up with a Canaanite wife (of Abraham via Keturah). So, I trust you can appreciate my insistence contesting the ancestral component of everyone who proclaims themselves a Jew.

I can generally respect your ancestral claim, as I trust you can respect mine: Noteworthy, respectfully; but, not enough to stake a claim in heritable property. However, as I've suggested chair... you might be sleeping with the enemy. And, when that al-Aqsa mosque gets bulldozed... give me a call.

kayaker

If you were an active member of the Cherokee tribe, then would you have some claims? Or is it all race in your mind?

edit: I checked this on the site of the Cherokee nation (http://www.cherokee.org/AboutTheNation/FrequentlyAskedQuestions.aspx):

"While there are admittedly many people of Cherokee ancestry, not all of them qualify for tribal citizenship in any of these three tribes. Each tribe has its own criteria for citizenship"

I was a little surprised at this. I thought they would say "criteria for citizenship has been decided for us by some outsider who posted on some forum on the internet. We don't get to decide who we are."

IMJerusha
January 5th, 2015, 11:13 AM
The Talmud teaches that "Jews" are the master race. Judaism isn't so much a religion built around a false god as it is self-worship. The Talmud says God is under the authority of the Rabbis. It's a racist ideology.

Really? Would you be so kind as to post that?

IMJerusha
January 5th, 2015, 11:28 AM
I am a Levite on my father's side.
On my mother's side, I am descended from Isaac Abravanel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Abravanel) > He claimed to be descended from the line of Exilarchs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exilarch), who in turn claimed Davidic descent.

I am more certain of being a Levite than of being of Davidic descent, to tell you the truth.

Claims are great but just like with the Cherokee Nation and the Wendat Nation, claims must be proven (believe it or not, the Indian Nations keep excellent records.) How can anyone trace their lineage to any of the twelve tribes?

IMJerusha
January 5th, 2015, 11:46 AM
So... Yoh is whining thinking I'm talking about his mom? Seriously? I made it perfectly clear, IMJ: Is Yoh a descendant of Judah's Canaanite wife, or Judah's daughter-in-law, Tamar? Does Yoh have you thinking I'm casting shadows on his mommy's character?

Is Yoh a descendant of Abraham claiming ownership to the title, "Jew"? AND, ownership to heritable property in Promised Land? Abraham sired progeny via Hagar, Sarah, Keturah and concubines. How does Yoh know he's not a descendant of Hagar/Ishmael? Ask Yoh to man-up and get over himself... and his mommy. I'm talking probably 4k years ago... isn't he?

I'm contesting the probation of Abraham's will that Yoh obviously claims certain heritable rights to: "And Abraham gave all that he had unto Isaac" (Genesis 25:5 KJV). That's Abraham's progeny via his wife, Sarah. So, either Yoh can produce the ancestral maternal documents. Or, get to the back of the line... behind the Muslims... who openly proclaim themselves descendants of Abraham via Ishmael/Hagar.

kayaker

You misunderstood my post and its intent. It is patently rude to post in a foreign language and my point was in regard to many TOLers. John is a Hebrew linguist and he should know better but he does love to show off.

chair
January 5th, 2015, 11:55 AM
Claims are great but just like with the Cherokee Nation and the Wendat Nation, claims must be proven (believe it or not, the Indian Nations keep excellent records.) How can anyone trace their lineage to any of the twelve tribes?

It is "just" oral tradition. Something that modern societies don't appreciate.

I doubt the Indian nations had written records a few generations ago.

By the way, did you ever ask yourself what our basis is for accepting the Bible? I mean the Old Testament in my case. Why should I think it is true? Just because it is written down?

IMJerusha
January 5th, 2015, 12:10 PM
What brought Israel to an end is that the majority of them rejected the Lord Jesus Christ and took up the star of their god Remphan. Many Jews believed in the true God and accepted Jesus Christ. Many Jews did not and they stuck to their false religion. Judaism is and always has been a false religion. It has never been the OT religion. It has always been a false religion created in Babylon.


David was pre-Babylon. His shield, the Magen David had nothing to do with any false god.

IMJerusha
January 5th, 2015, 12:21 PM
It is "just" oral tradition. Something that modern societies don't appreciate.

"Just"... "Just" made men twice as fit for Gehenna. "Just" became a way to create an environment that could never tolerate Mashiach.


I doubt the Indian nations had written records a few generations ago.

It is true that the Nations recorded genealogies orally and then they became written.


By the way, did you ever ask yourself what our basis is for accepting the Bible? I mean the Old Testament in my case. Why should I think it is true? Just because it is written down?

By faith, the same way as many have come to accept Yeshua HaMashiach. The record of His genealogy is one of the ways to show fulfillment of Prophecy.

chair
January 5th, 2015, 12:31 PM
By faith, the same way as many have come to accept Yeshua HaMashiach...

Well, for us, it is not just "faith". It is tradition. Oral tradition.

Daniel1611
January 5th, 2015, 07:17 PM
Really? Would you be so kind as to post that?

Talmud:

"You are Adam ["man"], but goyim [gentiles] are not called Adam ["man"]." Kerithoth 6b

"The seed of the goyim is like an animal." Sanhedrin 74b

"All Gentile children are animals." Yebamoth 98a

Just to name a few.

kayaker
January 5th, 2015, 08:26 PM
If you were an active member of the Cherokee tribe, then would you have some claims? Or is it all race in your mind?

edit: I checked this on the site of the Cherokee nation (http://www.cherokee.org/AboutTheNation/FrequentlyAskedQuestions.aspx):

"While there are admittedly many people of Cherokee ancestry, not all of them qualify for tribal citizenship in any of these three tribes. Each tribe has its own criteria for citizenship"

I was a little surprised at this. I thought they would say "criteria for citizenship has been decided for us by some outsider who posted on some forum on the internet. We don't get to decide who we are."


I am rolling in the floor, chair!!! I'm chief Blind Wild Hawg of the Buffalowlife tribe, ROFLOL! So... you get to decide who you are. Cool, chair... from everything except the ancestral aspect boasting heritable claims to property rights that wouldn't survive probation. I only have to go back three generations. Odds are quite good that I could do that if race was an issue. The fact remains that you cannot provide 2k years of ancestral records. I contest the racial (ethnic) aspect of anyone's claim to heritable rights to Promised Land. My contest in your case was Deuteronomy 7:1, 2 reiterated by Ezra 9:1, 2. Do you have any 'who begat who's' to establish an unadulterated claim to ethnic rights to property?

I'm not telling you who you are... you aren't producing your ancestral records supporting the ancestral aspect of your claim. I respectfully give you the benefit of the doubt... but, the Land isn't yours without documentation. I'm the king of Scotland, remember? And, since you cannot produce the records for property rights, legally... you aren't officially who you say you are from an ethnic, ancestral perspective.

So, tell you what, chair... I'll return the invitation: You can join my Buffalowlife tribe... but, you have to cut the palm of your hand and swap blood in a hand shake. You won't believe the recipe for my kosher buffalo BBQ! It's not me claiming Cherokee tribal rights... it's you claiming ethnic tribal rights. As far as the rest of what is involved in declaring one's self a Jew... knock yourself out. Besides... its not folk like me you need to convince. Its the Muslims, prepared to light the fuse on the next Big Bang Theory when their mosque is out of your way.

kayaker
January 5th, 2015, 08:50 PM
You misunderstood my post and its intent. It is patently rude to post in a foreign language and my point was in regard to many TOLers. John is a Hebrew linguist and he should know better but he does love to show off.

My apology for any misunderstanding, IMJ. Rest assured, I am totally underwhelmed with Yoh's linguistic skills. I suggest maybe Yoh develop his Ancestry.com skills... Why am I not surprised he regresses when his feet get held to the fire? My molecular genetics book did't say a thing about God... therefore Yoh's God doesn't exist? My phone book doesn't show his name... therefore Yoh doesn't exist. Rather juvenile. All a diversion, a redundant, juvenile smoke and mirrors ploy. My questions were clear, while he acts like a child who had a candy bar yanked out of his hands.

Rather interesting, IMJ: I have learned here that Judaism and Talmudism are not synonymous. Is this correct? Well, unless one's a Talmudist.

kayaker

kayaker
January 5th, 2015, 09:25 PM
"Just"... "Just" made men twice as fit for Gehenna. "Just" became a way to create an environment that could never tolerate Mashiach.

It is true that the Nations recorded genealogies orally and then they became written.

By faith, the same way as many have come to accept Yeshua HaMashiach. The record of His genealogy is one of the ways to show fulfillment of Prophecy.

Astute point, IMJ. I was asked a similar question by a PhD Theologian colleague: "With all the ancients records and documents of many different religions... what makes you think the Bible is authentic?" Fair question, don't you think? My response: "All those four thousand years of recorded Hebrew 'who begat who's' is the mortar in the foundation of my faith."

Yeshua HaMashiach's arrival generation was prophesied in Genesis 4:24 KJV, "seventy and sevenfold," 77 generations. Try counting in Luke 3:38 KJV from God is #1, Adam is #2, Seth is #3... Of course, "sevenfold" (Genesis 4:15 KJV), and "seventy and sevenfold" (Genesis 4:24 KJV) are merely 'undesignated coincidences' according to my search of Jewish literature... With all due respect... Christianity is a little slack there as well. Such is a significant clue unravelling the mystery of the mark of Cain... Pandora's box, btw.

kayaker

patrick jane
January 5th, 2015, 10:27 PM
Astute point, IMJ. I was asked a similar question by a PhD Theologian colleague: "With all the ancients records and documents of many different religions... what makes you think the Bible is authentic?" Fair question, don't you think? My response: "All those four thousand years of recorded Hebrew 'who begat who's' is the mortar in the foundation of my faith."

Yeshua HaMashiach's arrival generation was prophesied in Genesis 4:24 KJV, "seventy and sevenfold," 77 generations. Try counting in Luke 3:38 KJV from God is #1, Adam is #2, Seth is #3... Of course, "sevenfold" (Genesis 4:15 KJV), and "seventy and sevenfold" (Genesis 4:24 KJV) are merely 'undesignated coincidences' according to my search of Jewish literature... With all due respect... Christianity is a little slack there as well. Such is a significant clue unravelling the mystery of the mark of Cain... Pandora's box, btw.

kayaker

if we calculate how many generations have passed since Jesus, is it less than a hundred ? how many generations, on average, are in a century ? :rapture:

kayaker
January 5th, 2015, 11:44 PM
if we calculate how many generations have passed since Jesus, is it less than a hundred ? how many generations, on average, are in a century ? :rapture:

Well hey patrick jane!

I do indeed admire your unbridled curiosity... a rare find. The number of years embraced within the OT is somewhere in the 4k range as I recall. I suspect there's considerable debate as to the specifics. But, for my purpose, 4k years sounds close enough. It's really the number of generations that's significant, and I've read disputes over the numbers of generations with no reference to the magical number, 77.

When I divided the assumed 4k years of OT history, by 77 prophesied generations (Genesis 4:24), I came up with 52 years per generation. Sounded like a reasonable number of years, and therefore a fit well within realistic parameters.

So, if it took around 4k years to generate 77 generations... and, we are about 2k years A.D.; then, we're about 39 generations into the future from Jesus' day. I suppose today we're roughly around 116 generations (77+39) from Adam... that'd be around 2 generations per century (corrected). A generation is about 52 years... 100 years in a century

Do keep in mind... 77 generations is not synonymous with "endless genealogies." I've had that thrown at me quite a number of times. 77 is a finite number. Those faiths waiting on Messiah to arrive... those are the one's who subscribe to "endless genealogies." God at the beginning in Luke 3:38, and Jesus at the end in Luke 3:23. God's chosen existed within those two parameters. God's chosen exist through faith in His Son beyond those parameters: our adoption papers are signed in Jesus' authentic blood. Praise His Holy Name... all 77 unadulterated generations, thereof... speaking of being baptized in the 'name' of the Father, the Son... and the Holy Spirit!

kayaker

patrick jane
January 6th, 2015, 12:21 AM
Well hey patrick jane!

I do indeed admire your unbridled curiosity... a rare find. The number of years embraced within the OT is somewhere in the 4k range as I recall. I suspect there's considerable debate as to the specifics. But, for my purpose, 4k years sounds close enough. It's really the number of generations that's significant, and I've read disputes over the numbers of generations with no reference to the magical number, 77.

When I divided the assumed 4k years of OT history, by 77 prophesied generations (Genesis 4:24), I came up with 52 years per generation. Sounded like a reasonable number of years, and therefore a fit well within realistic parameters.

So, if it took around 4k years to generate 77 generations... and, we are about 2k years A.D.; then, we're about 39 generations into the future from Jesus' day. I suppose today we're roughly around 116 generations (77+39) from Adam... that'd be around 2 generations per century (corrected). A generation is about 52 years... 100 years in a century

Do keep in mind... 77 generations is not synonymous with "endless genealogies." I've had that thrown at me quite a number of times. 77 is a finite number. Those faiths waiting on Messiah to arrive... those are the one's who subscribe to "endless genealogies." God at the beginning in Luke 3:38, and Jesus at the end in Luke 3:23. God's chosen existed within those two parameters. God's chosen exist through faith in His Son beyond those parameters: our adoption papers are signed in Jesus' authentic blood. Praise His Holy Name... all 77 unadulterated generations, thereof... speaking of being baptized in the 'name' of the Father, the Son... and the Holy Spirit!

kayaker

thanks, i think alot. not much else at times. but i'm sure there is a scientific or genealogical formula for calculating generations. maybe even in The Bible. i'm also lazy, so i just think about looking things up. lol, but i just logically calculated about 4 maybe 5 generations per century. so, what do think the 77 generations means ? to avenge ? do you think it is telling an estimated time frame of Christ's Return ? maybe we are right around 77 ? spooky ? - :drum:

patrick jane
January 6th, 2015, 12:51 AM
thanks, i think alot. not much else at times. but i'm sure there is a scientific or genealogical formula for calculating generations. maybe even in The Bible. i'm also lazy, so i just think about looking things up. lol, but i just logically calculated about 4 maybe 5 generations per century. so, what do think the 77 generations means ? to avenge ? do you think it is telling an estimated time frame of Christ's Return ? maybe we are right around 77 ? spooky ? - :drum:

anyone care to speculate ? don't be shy. well, i'm getting offline anyway. same bat channel, same bat time.

patrick jane
January 6th, 2015, 12:51 AM
Well hey patrick jane!

I do indeed admire your unbridled curiosity... a rare find. The number of years embraced within the OT is somewhere in the 4k range as I recall. I suspect there's considerable debate as to the specifics. But, for my purpose, 4k years sounds close enough. It's really the number of generations that's significant, and I've read disputes over the numbers of generations with no reference to the magical number, 77.

When I divided the assumed 4k years of OT history, by 77 prophesied generations (Genesis 4:24), I came up with 52 years per generation. Sounded like a reasonable number of years, and therefore a fit well within realistic parameters.

So, if it took around 4k years to generate 77 generations... and, we are about 2k years A.D.; then, we're about 39 generations into the future from Jesus' day. I suppose today we're roughly around 116 generations (77+39) from Adam... that'd be around 2 generations per century (corrected). A generation is about 52 years... 100 years in a century

Do keep in mind... 77 generations is not synonymous with "endless genealogies." I've had that thrown at me quite a number of times. 77 is a finite number. Those faiths waiting on Messiah to arrive... those are the one's who subscribe to "endless genealogies." God at the beginning in Luke 3:38, and Jesus at the end in Luke 3:23. God's chosen existed within those two parameters. God's chosen exist through faith in His Son beyond those parameters: our adoption papers are signed in Jesus' authentic blood. Praise His Holy Name... all 77 unadulterated generations, thereof... speaking of being baptized in the 'name' of the Father, the Son... and the Holy Spirit!

kayaker

amen, brougham

CherubRam
January 6th, 2015, 04:41 PM
A Generation is 70 years.


Exodus 20:6
but showing love to a thousand generations of those who love me and keep my commandments.

1000 X 70= 7000.

7000 marks the end of the millennial reign of Christ and when Yahwah will create all things new.

Daniel1611
January 6th, 2015, 06:48 PM
Indeed, Judaism is a made up term, but what you are talking about is Paganism, Mysticism, and Gnosticism. True Judaism has nothing to do with those things. Like I said, Judaism is the belief in the Abrahamic God who is a single being.

Is Islam based on belief in the true God?

kayaker
January 6th, 2015, 09:00 PM
thanks, i think alot. not much else at times. but i'm sure there is a scientific or genealogical formula for calculating generations. maybe even in The Bible. i'm also lazy, so i just think about looking things up. lol, but i just logically calculated about 4 maybe 5 generations per century. so, what do think the 77 generations means ? to avenge ? do you think it is telling an estimated time frame of Christ's Return ? maybe we are right around 77 ? spooky ? - :drum:

You're welcome patrick jane. Sorry I fell out on you last night...
The significance of 77 generations suggested in Genesis 4:24 prophesied the arrival generation of Messiah. Such was about a 4k year prophesy from just a handful of generations fresh out of the Garden of Eden.

So... does "seventy and sevenfold" refer to 77 generations? Cain's descendants fell off the OT radar in Genesis 4:24... then, there is no way to determine if 77-fold was referring to 77-generations without following another who-begat-who roster to find out if anything significant was going on in the future. The lengthy genealogy of the generations of Jesus comes to mind. If you will go to Luke 3:38, counting names (generations) from God is generation #1, Adam is generation #2, Seth #3... when you continue counting names for each generation, you will discover Jesus is the 77th generation from Almighty God (#1), inclusively. Therefore, the "seventy and sevenfold" (77) in Genesis 4:24 prophesied the arrival generation of Messiah around four thousand years before His generation even existed.

Furthermore, the One prophesied to arrive in the 77th generation from God (inclusively) is reasonably presumed to have rather remarkable power... including Divine knowledge of the mark of Cain from Almighty God, Himself. There are various reasonable attempts at unravelling that mystery... only One with divine knowledge received directly from God (who instituted the mark) could unveil this mystery. Jesus is the first one I've come across in the Bible who clearly understood the mark of Cain.

You would think Judaism or Catholicism would have figured out this mystery, and others, with their proclamations of antiquity suggesting divine, exclusive, intimate connections with Almighty God. But, it appears God decides what to reveal, to whom, and when... as God so chooses.

As far as how many years is one generation... and with utmost respect for CherubRam's post above, I might suggest considering the humanly possible parameters. A female achieves fertility as early as about age 12. Therefore, her pregnancy could result in the birth of a daughter who would achieve fertility also, at about age 12. The shortest length of one generation could be 12 years. That's about 8 generations per century (8 generations x 12 years per generation = 96 years).

Now, examining the possibly longest number of years... Sarah was 90 years old when Isaac was born or conceived, as I recall. Assuming Sarah was fertile at age 12, then 90 minus twelve (78) might be considered the longest length of a generation. However, we do have to keep in mind that Sarah miraculously conceived (v. immaculately), and Isaac's conception was no ordinary thing.

With due respect to CherubRam's astute post... you pose an interesting question: How old was the oldest mother in the Bible when she gave birth to her last child (without divine intervention)? When the Spirit moves you, patrick jane!

kayaker

patrick jane
January 6th, 2015, 09:16 PM
You're welcome patrick jane. Sorry I fell out on you last night...
The significance of 77 generations suggested in Genesis 4:24 prophesied the arrival generation of Messiah. Such was about a 4k year prophesy from just a handful of generations fresh out of the Garden of Eden.

So... does "seventy and sevenfold" refer to 77 generations? Cain's descendants fell off the OT radar in Genesis 4:24... then, there is no way to determine if 77-fold was referring to 77-generations without following another who-begat-who roster to find out if anything significant was going on in the future. The lengthy genealogy of the generations of Jesus comes to mind. If you will go to Luke 3:38, counting names (generations) from God is generation #1, Adam is generation #2, Seth #3... when you continue counting names for each generation, you will discover Jesus is the 77th generation from Almighty God (#1), inclusively. Therefore, the "seventy and sevenfold" (77) in Genesis 4:24 prophesied the arrival generation of Messiah around four thousand years before His generation even existed.

Furthermore, the One prophesied to arrive in the 77th generation from God (inclusively) is reasonably presumed to have rather remarkable power... including Divine knowledge of the mark of Cain from Almighty God, Himself. There are various reasonable attempts at unravelling that mystery... only One with divine knowledge received directly from God (who instituted the mark) could unveil this mystery. Jesus is the first one I've come across in the Bible who clearly understood the mark of Cain.

You would think Judaism or Catholicism would have figured out this mystery, and others, with their proclamations of antiquity suggesting divine, exclusive, intimate connections with Almighty God. But, it appears God decides what to reveal, to whom, and when... as God so chooses.

As far as how many years is one generation... and with utmost respect for CherubRam's post above, I might suggest considering the humanly possible parameters. A female achieves fertility as early as about age 12. Therefore, her pregnancy could result in the birth of a daughter who would achieve fertility also, at about age 12. The shortest length of one generation could be 12 years. That's about 8 generations per century (8 generations x 12 years per generation = 96 years).

Now, examining the possibly longest number of years... Sarah was 90 years old when Isaac was born or conceived, as I recall. Assuming Sarah was fertile at age 12, then 90 minus twelve (78) might be considered the longest length of a generation. However, we do have to keep in mind that Sarah miraculously conceived (v. immaculately), and Isaac's conception was no ordinary thing.

With due respect to CherubRam's astute post... you pose an interesting question: How old was the oldest mother in the Bible when she gave birth to her last child (without divine intervention)? When the Spirit moves you, patrick jane!

kayaker

very interesting. yes, God marked cain so that no one would kill him ? it's hard to follow the who begat who, unless we focus soley on that. but, have you heard more to the meaning of the mark ? -

patrick jane
January 6th, 2015, 09:20 PM
A Generation is 70 years.


Exodus 20:6
but showing love to a thousand generations of those who love me and keep my commandments.

1000 X 70= 7000.

7000 marks the end of the millennial reign of Christ and when Yahwah will create all things new.

just me, but i disagree with 70 years for 1 generation. however, i do think we are close to the end times. Jesus' Return ! Amen ! but every generation believes that, it seems. :rapture:

patrick jane
January 6th, 2015, 09:23 PM
You're welcome patrick jane. Sorry I fell out on you last night...
The significance of 77 generations suggested in Genesis 4:24 prophesied the arrival generation of Messiah. Such was about a 4k year prophesy from just a handful of generations fresh out of the Garden of Eden.

So... does "seventy and sevenfold" refer to 77 generations? Cain's descendants fell off the OT radar in Genesis 4:24... then, there is no way to determine if 77-fold was referring to 77-generations without following another who-begat-who roster to find out if anything significant was going on in the future. The lengthy genealogy of the generations of Jesus comes to mind. If you will go to Luke 3:38, counting names (generations) from God is generation #1, Adam is generation #2, Seth #3... when you continue counting names for each generation, you will discover Jesus is the 77th generation from Almighty God (#1), inclusively. Therefore, the "seventy and sevenfold" (77) in Genesis 4:24 prophesied the arrival generation of Messiah around four thousand years before His generation even existed.

Furthermore, the One prophesied to arrive in the 77th generation from God (inclusively) is reasonably presumed to have rather remarkable power... including Divine knowledge of the mark of Cain from Almighty God, Himself. There are various reasonable attempts at unravelling that mystery... only One with divine knowledge received directly from God (who instituted the mark) could unveil this mystery. Jesus is the first one I've come across in the Bible who clearly understood the mark of Cain.

You would think Judaism or Catholicism would have figured out this mystery, and others, with their proclamations of antiquity suggesting divine, exclusive, intimate connections with Almighty God. But, it appears God decides what to reveal, to whom, and when... as God so chooses.

As far as how many years is one generation... and with utmost respect for CherubRam's post above, I might suggest considering the humanly possible parameters. A female achieves fertility as early as about age 12. Therefore, her pregnancy could result in the birth of a daughter who would achieve fertility also, at about age 12. The shortest length of one generation could be 12 years. That's about 8 generations per century (8 generations x 12 years per generation = 96 years).

Now, examining the possibly longest number of years... Sarah was 90 years old when Isaac was born or conceived, as I recall. Assuming Sarah was fertile at age 12, then 90 minus twelve (78) might be considered the longest length of a generation. However, we do have to keep in mind that Sarah miraculously conceived (v. immaculately), and Isaac's conception was no ordinary thing.

With due respect to CherubRam's astute post... you pose an interesting question: How old was the oldest mother in the Bible when she gave birth to her last child (without divine intervention)? When the Spirit moves you, patrick jane!

kayaker

when did Jesus mention the mark of cain ? yes, women had children at a younger age then. we will really never know

kayaker
January 6th, 2015, 10:56 PM
when did Jesus mention the mark of cain ? yes, women had children at a younger age then. we will really never know

It appears theologians commonly suggest the timespan between Adam and Jesus was about 4,026 years. There were 77 generations between God and Jesus (Luke 3:23-38). I'm certainly not debating CherubRam's figure of 70 years, and find his rendering quite interesting as you've clearly picked up on... end times.

You ask a really tough question patrick jane, regarding Jesus' knowledge of the mark of Cain. It is utterly imperative to keep in mind that Jesus judged no one (John 8:15 KJV, John 8:26 KJV). In other words, Jesus could not literally speak a person's name in condemnation (other than 'devil', already judged). Otherwise, Jesus would have invoked Judgment. I proffer such was the temptation of Jesus mentioned in John 8:6 KJV... that woman cast before Jesus was caught in the act, correct (John 8:3 KJV)? Referring to Mosaic Law (John 8:5 KJV) found in Leviticus 20:10 KJV; both that adulteress and adulterER should be stoned. The temptation was for Jesus to summon the dude she was caught in the act with.

Jesus has to power to judge, but the timing is established by His Father alone (Matthew 24:36 KJV). That a being said, Jesus never spoke the name 'Cain' during His ministry.

The 1611 KJV Bible most distinctly preserves the subtlety of Jesus' knowledge of the mark of Cain. Those who instigated the crucifixion were the primary focus of Jesus' conversation between John 8:12-47. Jesus was speaking directly to His unnamed detractors in John 8:44 KJV after those detractors said their Father was God (John 8:41 KJV). Since Jesus could not speak a name in condemnation, Jesus spoke in pronouns in v. 44 in similar subtle fashion as He doodled the names of those who'd had sex with that adulteress (John 8:6 KJV, John 8:7 KJV, John 8:8 KJV). My parentheses:


John 8:44 KJV "Ye (detractors) are of you father (literal) the devil (not God, John 8:41 KJV), and the lusts of your (literal) father (Satan) ye (detractors) will do."

Jesus and these detractors already knew they were descendants of Cain considering Matthew 23:34 KJV, Matthew 23:35 KJV. Who killed Abel, patrick jane? Take a closer look at Matthew 23:35 KJV remembering Jesus could not speak the name of Cain in condemnation. Continuing in John 8:44 KJV (my parentheses):


"He (_____) was a murderer from the beginning (Genesis 4:8 KJV), and abode not in the truth (Genesis 4:9 KJV), because there is no truth in him (_____). When he (_____) speaketh a lie (Genesis 4:9 KJV), he (_____) speaketh of his (_____) own : for he ('his' own, the devil) is a liar (Genesis 3:4 KJV), and the father of it (Genesis 3:5 KJV)."

Whose name fills those blanks, patrick jane? Jesus' detractors were the descendants of Cain, and Cain's father was not God (via Adam). This opens Pandora's box rattling the timbers in many faith paradigms. What did Jesus then tell those detractors?

John 8:45 KJV, John 8:46 KJV, with emphasis on John 8:47 KJV.

Jesus knew quite a bit more than most of us realize. Cain's descendants fell off the radar in Genesis 4:24 KJV... and, now here they are back on the scene 77 generations from God. Lots of unanswered questions! Greatest mystery ever written, our Bible.

kayaker

patrick jane
January 6th, 2015, 11:45 PM
It appears theologians commonly suggest the timespan between Adam and Jesus was about 4,026 years. There were 77 generations between God and Jesus (Luke 3:23-38). I'm certainly not debating CherubRam's figure of 70 years, and find his rendering quite interesting as you've clearly picked up on... end times.

You ask a really tough question patrick jane, regarding Jesus' knowledge of the mark of Cain. It is utterly imperative to keep in mind that Jesus judged no one (John 8:15 KJV, John 8:26 KJV). In other words, Jesus could not literally speak a person's name in condemnation (other than 'devil', already judged). Otherwise, Jesus would have invoked Judgment. I proffer such was the temptation of Jesus mentioned in John 8:6 KJV... that woman cast before Jesus was caught in the act, correct (John 8:3 KJV)? Referring to Mosaic Law (John 8:5 KJV) found in Leviticus 20:10 KJV; both that adulteress and adulterER should be stoned. The temptation was for Jesus to summon the dude she was caught in the act with.

Jesus has to power to judge, but the timing is established by His Father alone (Matthew 24:36 KJV). That a being said, Jesus never spoke the name 'Cain' during His ministry.

The 1611 KJV Bible most distinctly preserves the subtlety of Jesus' knowledge of the mark of Cain. Those who instigated the crucifixion were the primary focus of Jesus' conversation between John 8:12-47. Jesus was speaking directly to His unnamed detractors in John 8:44 KJV after those detractors said their Father was God (John 8:41 KJV). Since Jesus could not speak a name in condemnation, Jesus spoke in pronouns in v. 44 in similar subtle fashion as He doodled the names of those who'd had sex with that adulteress (John 8:6 KJV, John 8:7 KJV, John 8:8 KJV). My parentheses:


John 8:44 KJV "Ye (detractors) are of you father (literal) the devil (not God, John 8:41 KJV), and the lusts of your (literal) father (Satan) ye (detractors) will do."

Jesus and these detractors already knew they were descendants of Cain considering Matthew 23:34 KJV, Matthew 23:35 KJV. Who killed Abel, patrick jane? Take a closer look at Matthew 23:35 KJV remembering Jesus could not speak the name of Cain in condemnation. Continuing in John 8:44 KJV (my parentheses):


"He (_____) was a murderer from the beginning (Genesis 4:8 KJV), and abode not in the truth (Genesis 4:9 KJV), because there is no truth in him (_____). When he (_____) speaketh a lie (Genesis 4:9 KJV), he (_____) speaketh of his (_____) own : for he ('his' own, the devil) is a liar (Genesis 3:4 KJV), and the father of it (Genesis 3:5 KJV)."

Whose name fills those blanks, patrick jane? Jesus' detractors were the descendants of Cain, and Cain's father was not God (via Adam). This opens Pandora's box rattling the timbers in many faith paradigms. What did Jesus then tell those detractors?

John 8:45 KJV, John 8:46 KJV, with emphasis on John 8:47 KJV.

Jesus knew quite a bit more than most of us realize. Cain's descendants fell off the radar in Genesis 4:24 KJV... and, now here they are back on the scene 77 generations from God. Lots of unanswered questions! Greatest mystery ever written, our Bible.

kayaker

indeed. thanks because i've been looking for someone that discusses deeper meaning, and fearless dialogue. and i often tell people, best book ever, better than any movie. read, understand. nobody takes the time. or they think they've already learned enough. i did pick up on that while reading The Bible. i seem to have a gift of combining OT and NT and everything makes sense. anything i don't understand, i trust God. yes, it was quite clear who Jesus was talking about. either cain or satan itself. it's one of those countless details i notice and plan to pray and meditate more on. that's why i love reading The Bible over and over again. i don't take notes or mark in my Bible. i'm lazy. Thank God i retain quite a bit on my own. so many folks on TOL get bogged down with bickering, particular words, numbers, and translations. not much spiritual movement or progress. i'm 45, but i have been Blessed to take a few years off and do intense Prayer and Bible Study. it's a lifelong process. God has put me in a place that i prayed for. nothing selfish or material. just a contentment and peace that i didn't think was possible in my life. enough about me but ALL Glory to God ! ! ! - i gotta go soon, but i enjoy your conversation. i'll be back in a few. usually about this time each evening. are you Jewish ?

IMJerusha
January 7th, 2015, 02:22 PM
Talmud:

"You are Adam ["man"], but goyim [gentiles] are not called Adam ["man"]." Kerithoth 6b

"The seed of the goyim is like an animal." Sanhedrin 74b

"All Gentile children are animals." Yebamoth 98a

Just to name a few.

Do you have any idea when that was written? Back then, all goyim were pagans unless they had chosen to worship the God of Israel and had put aside all other false gods in which case God instructed them to be treated as native born Israelites. What does Scripture state about pagans? You can not just pick up Talmud, Babylonian at that, and read it without context. "Master race" is also not the same thing as God's chosen people which is why I asked you to point out where the Talmud states what you posted. Now, I'm not a supporter of Talmud but I'm also not going to use it to persecute Jewish people.

IMJerusha
January 7th, 2015, 02:31 PM
My apology for any misunderstanding, IMJ. Rest assured, I am totally underwhelmed with Yoh's linguistic skills. I suggest maybe Yoh develop his Ancestry.com skills... Why am I not surprised he regresses when his feet get held to the fire? My molecular genetics book did't say a thing about God... therefore Yoh's God doesn't exist? My phone book doesn't show his name... therefore Yoh doesn't exist. Rather juvenile. All a diversion, a redundant, juvenile smoke and mirrors ploy. My questions were clear, while he acts like a child who had a candy bar yanked out of his hands.

It would appear juvenile behavior abounds, your phone book notwithstanding.


Rather interesting, IMJ: I have learned here that Judaism and Talmudism are not synonymous. Is this correct? Well, unless one's a Talmudist.

I think that depends on whether one believes Judaism is a matter of faith or a matter of blood or both.

IMJerusha
January 7th, 2015, 02:54 PM
Astute point, IMJ. I was asked a similar question by a PhD Theologian colleague: "With all the ancients records and documents of many different religions... what makes you think the Bible is authentic?" Fair question, don't you think?

Sure.


My response: "All those four thousand years of recorded Hebrew 'who begat who's' is the mortar in the foundation of my faith."

A good answer. I would add to that a still small voice and the evidence of our eyes.


Yeshua HaMashiach's arrival generation was prophesied in Genesis 4:24 KJV, "seventy and sevenfold," 77 generations. Try counting in Luke 3:38 KJV from God is #1, Adam is #2, Seth is #3... Of course, "sevenfold" (Genesis 4:15 KJV), and "seventy and sevenfold" (Genesis 4:24 KJV) are merely 'undesignated coincidences' according to my search of Jewish literature... With all due respect... Christianity is a little slack there as well. Such is a significant clue unravelling the mystery of the mark of Cain... Pandora's box, btw.

kayaker

If there was anything concrete available for us, what need of faith? In regard to the mark of Cain, or sign of Cain depending on translation, seriously...who cares!? All these things will be learned in the end in His Time.

kayaker
January 9th, 2015, 09:16 AM
It would appear juvenile behavior abounds, your phone book notwithstanding.



I think that depends on whether one believes Judaism is a matter of faith or a matter of blood or both.

Thanks for humoring me, IMJ. You above statement was in response to:


Originally Posted by kayaker View Post
Rather interesting, IMJ: I have learned here that Judaism and Talmudism are not synonymous. Is this correct? Well, unless one's a Talmudist.

I also appreciate chair's notion there are two aspects of being Jewish; ancestry, and 'all other' (respectfully) which you embrace in the term 'faith'. And, if I understand you correctly, Talmudism is not the only 'faith' aspect of Judaism, analogous to denomination/church in Christianity. The focus of my contest is the ancestral component. Ironically, Christians debate salvation by works... speaking of 'faith'. CherubRam appears to proffer the title 'Jew' is gnostic/pagan/etc. fabrication if I gather his impression correctly.

Do note IMJ: Chair's ancestral aspect of being Jewish is predicated on Levitical/Davidic ancestry. Ben's ancestral aspect of being Jewish is predicated on the main stem of Judah. Yoh shifts from foot to foot. Ironically, God's 'chosen people' were distinctly Israelites, before the title 'Jew' made print... said 'chosen people' were Israelites, collectively, in Deuteronomy 7:6, 7, 8 before the conquest of the Promised Land. Evidently (obviously), there's a Jewish consensus that ancestry is at least a component of being Jewish... However, the contrast between chair's ancestral notion (at least Levitical/Davidic), and Ben's notion of ancestral notion (via Judah), we now find a breach in consensus on the ancestral component of being Jewish.

While I've suggested chair might find himself sleeping with the enemy; Ben refuses to expound on his Judahite (stem of Judah) ancestral component. My persistent argument: Judah sired his third surviving Canaanite son Shelah, via his Canaanite wife (Genesis 38:1, 2, 1Chronicles 2:3) contrary to Mosaic Law Deuteronomy 7:1, 2, 3. Judah's relationship with his Canaanite wife was observed as a great trespass by Ezra some thousand years later in Ezra 9:1, 2. Furthermore, Ezra excluded Judah's eldest surviving son Shelah, and "The sons of Shelah the son of Judah" (1Chronicles 4:21, 22, 23) from the tribal roster of Judah in 1Chronicles 4:1.

Meanwhile, King David and Jesus were descendants of of Judah and his daughter-in-law Tamar, contrary to Leviticus 18:15, 21:7, 9, 13, 14, 15, etc, via their eldest twin son Pharez (Matthew 1:3, Luke 3:31, 32, 33). Since Judah was the prophesied progenitor of Messiah, there's a line in the sand, here.

Ben wisely and cautiously refuses to address this Judahite ancestral distinction of being Jewish. If I may be so presumptuous, chair has yet to explore this ancestral aspect of Jewishness; as Yoh performs the Texas two-step. Furthermore, CherubRam's claim of the gnostic/pagan origin of the title 'Jew' has at least some foundation, in my mind, when suggesting the Shelanites (descendants of the Canaanite son of Judah, Shelah) possess the prophesied bloodline to produce Messiah. Like I've suggested to chair... he might be sleeping with the enemy, while Ben performs his fire-walking ceremony.

If anyone has tainted the ancestral title of 'Jew', IMJ... they are the Shelanites. King David and Jesus were Pharzite Jews. The Shelanites have no ancestral authority to claim legitimate ancestry (Jewish, on ancestral grounds) securing property in the Promised Land. You might want to ask yourself, along with chair, Yoh, and the rest of us... Is the 'stem of Judah' Ben suggests as the ancestral component of Jewishness, is Ben talking about the Shelanites? Or, Pharzites? Hence: Who's ya mamma? Judah's Canaanite wife? Or, Judah's daughter-in-law, Tamar?

I'll also address your appreciated next posts, shortly.

kayaker

IMJerusha
January 9th, 2015, 09:45 AM
Thanks for humoring me, IMJ. You above statement was in response to:



I also appreciate chair's notion there are two aspects of being Jewish; ancestry, and 'all other' (respectfully) which you embrace in the term 'faith'. And, if I understand you correctly, Talmudism is not the only 'faith' aspect of Judaism, analogous to denomination/church in Christianity. The focus of my contest is the ancestral component. Ironically, Christians debate salvation by works... speaking of 'faith'. CherubRam appears to proffer the title 'Jew' is gnostic/pagan/etc. fabrication if I gather his impression correctly.

Do note IMJ: Chair's ancestral aspect of being Jewish is predicated on Levitical/Davidic ancestry. Ben's ancestral aspect of being Jewish is predicated on the main stem of Judah. Yoh shifts from foot to foot. Ironically, God's 'chosen people' were distinctly Israelites, before the title 'Jew' made print... said 'chosen people' were Israelites, collectively, in Deuteronomy 7:6, 7, 8 before the conquest of the Promised Land. Evidently (obviously), there's a Jewish consensus that ancestry is at least a component of being Jewish... However, the contrast between chair's ancestral notion (at least Levitical/Davidic), and Ben's notion of ancestral notion (via Judah), we now find a breach in consensus on the ancestral component of being Jewish.

While I've suggested chair might find himself sleeping with the enemy; Ben refuses to expound on his Judahite (stem of Judah) ancestral component. My persistent argument: Judah sired his third surviving Canaanite son Shelah, via his Canaanite wife (Genesis 38:1, 2, 1Chronicles 2:3) contrary to Mosaic Law Deuteronomy 7:1, 2, 3. Judah's relationship with his Canaanite wife was observed as a great trespass by Ezra some thousand years later in Ezra 9:1, 2. Furthermore, Ezra excluded Judah's eldest surviving son Shelah, and "The sons of Shelah the son of Judah" (1Chronicles 4:21, 22, 23) from the tribal roster of Judah in 1Chronicles 4:1.

Meanwhile, King David and Jesus were descendants of of Judah and his daughter-in-law Tamar, contrary to Leviticus 18:15, 21:7, 9, 13, 14, 15, etc, via their eldest twin son Pharez (Matthew 1:3, Luke 3:31, 32, 33). Since Judah was the prophesied progenitor of Messiah, there's a line in the sand, here.

Ben wisely and cautiously refuses to address this Judahite ancestral distinction of being Jewish. If I may be so presumptuous, chair has yet to explore this ancestral aspect of Jewishness; as Yoh performs the Texas two-step. Furthermore, CherubRam's claim of the gnostic/pagan origin of the title 'Jew' has at least some foundation, in my mind, when suggesting the Shelanites (descendants of the Canaanite son of Judah, Shelah) possess the prophesied bloodline to produce Messiah. Like I've suggested to chair... he might be sleeping with the enemy, while Ben performs his fire-walking ceremony.

If anyone has tainted the ancestral title of 'Jew', IMJ... they are the Shelanites. King David and Jesus were Pharzite Jews. The Shelanites have no ancestral authority to claim legitimate ancestry (Jewish, on ancestral grounds) securing property in the Promised Land. You might want to ask yourself, along with chair, Yoh, and the rest of us... Is the 'stem of Judah' Ben suggests as the ancestral component of Jewishness, is Ben talking about the Shelanites? Or, Pharzites? Hence: Who's ya mamma? Judah's Canaanite wife? Or, Judah's daughter-in-law, Tamar?

I'll also address your appreciated next posts, shortly.

kayaker

It was God who laid out the criteria for being His Chosen. It has nothing to do with Shelanites or Pharzites.

kayaker
January 9th, 2015, 10:19 AM
Sure.



A good answer. I would add to that a still small voice and the evidence of our eyes.



If there was anything concrete available for us, what need of faith? In regard to the mark of Cain, or sign of Cain depending on translation, seriously...who cares!? All these things will be learned in the end in His Time.

With sincere appreciation for "a still small voice", IMJ... Ben claims to walk by 'sight', not by faith. With all due respect, Ben mocks faith, I mock Talmudism, while I want to 'see' those birth certificates... Didn't those who instigated the crucifixion ask for Jesus' birth records in John 8:13? Jesus and His Father were two witnesses according to Mosaic Law (John 8:14 KJV, John 8:18 KJV). Don't witnesses testify? What were those two testimonies of those two divine witnesses authenticating Jesus' divinity between John 8:12 KJV, and John 8:47 KJV? Rhetorically, of course...

Paul spoke much on faith, particularly Hebrews chapter 11 (tremendous chapter!). In his very next chapter, Paul spoke of faith fulfilled:


Hebrews 12:1, 2 "Wherefore seeing we also are compassed about with so great a cloud of witnesses, let us lay aside every weight, and the sin which doth so easily beset us, and let us run with patience the race that is set before us. 2) Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God."

I suggest 'faith finished' inspires further inquiry... as in discerning the two testimonies of two divine witnesses.

As far as the significance of the mark of Cain; then, Revelation 2:9, 3:9 bears significance in the next verse:


Revelation 3:10 KJV "Because thou kept the word of my patience (distinguishing an ancestral Jew, from an impostor in the prior verse, and in Revelation 2:9), I also will keep thee from the hour of temptation, which shall come upon all the world, to try them that dwell upon the earth."

Were the Shelanites, who instigated the crucifixion, ancestral Jews, IMJ? In all likelihood, Ben ascribes to the notion the Shelanite descendants of Judah possess the lineage to produce Messiah; or... the Shelanites ARE messiah, as a 'people', speaking of ancestral arrogance. Ben, of course, will not come out of the closet on this issue... while chair, Yoh, and most of the rest of us wander in the proverbial 'dark.'

Do you subscribe to the rendering the instigators of the crucifixion fulfilled Genesis 3:14, 15, KJV? Those Shelanite detractors were the synagogue of Satan (Revelation 2:9, 3:9). This takes us back to Genesis as Jesus spoke regarding end times in Matthew 24:36, 37, 38, 39. Was Cain alive in Noah's day, IMJ (Genesis 6:1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7)? So, certainly... unveiling the mark of Cain is paramount to the ancestral distinction of Revelation 2:9, 3:9, and such 'truth' is significant as established in Revelation 3:10 KJV. Furthermore, this 'truth' is the collective testimony of Jesus and His Father as Jesus spoke in John 8:30 KJV, John 8:31 KJV, John 8:32 KJV, found in the following verses through John 8:47 KJV.

kayaker

kayaker
January 9th, 2015, 10:39 AM
It was God who laid out the criteria for being His Chosen. It has nothing to do with Shelanites or Pharzites.

I appreciate your comment that "It was God who laid out the criteria for being His Chosen", IMJ. I've offered scripture which delineated this distinction. I might add... after the arrival of God's Son, a Pharzite Jew, ancestry was no longer of any significance in the least (but, don't tell this to a Shelnatie). Jesus' dialogue with Nicodemus brings the insignificance of ancestry to light... after the fact... after the arrival of God's Son.

Please try digging around a little deeper, and you'll find the Shelanites were the instigators of the crucifixion... with a little 'faith' I appreciate. Jesus was a Pharzite Jew, those who instigated the crucifixion were Shelanites 'Jews'... The Shelanites were 'chosen' to instigate the crucifixion per Genesis 3:14, 15. Wasn't Judas Escariot, chosen? Did Jesus make a mistake 'choosing' Judas? Rhetorically, of course.

Discerning a Pharzite from a Shelanite is paramount to discerning Revelation 2:9, 3:9. Discerning a Pharzite from a Shelanite is paramount to discerning "And ye shall now the truth, and the truth shall make you free" (John 8:32 KJV). We do 'put on Christ' as Paul spoke, do we not? Jesus was a Pharzite Jew. In this manner, I also consider myself a Pharzite Jew, by adoption. Of course... a Shelanite will find this quite humorous! LOL!

kayaker

IMJerusha
January 9th, 2015, 11:43 AM
I appreciate your comment that "It was God who laid out the criteria for being His Chosen", IMJ. I've offered scripture which delineated this distinction. I might add... after the arrival of God's Son, a Pharzite Jew, ancestry was no longer of any significance in the least (but, don't tell this to a Shelnatie). Jesus' dialogue with Nicodemus brings the insignificance of ancestry to light... after the fact... after the arrival of God's Son.

Please try digging around a little deeper, and you'll find the Shelanites were the instigators of the crucifixion... with a little 'faith' I appreciate. Jesus was a Pharzite Jew, those who instigated the crucifixion were Shelanites 'Jews'... The Shelanites were 'chosen' to instigate the crucifixion per Genesis 3:14, 15. Wasn't Judas Escariot, chosen? Did Jesus make a mistake 'choosing' Judas? Rhetorically, of course.

Discerning a Pharzite from a Shelanite is paramount to discerning Revelation 2:9, 3:9. Discerning a Pharzite from a Shelanite is paramount to discerning "And ye shall now the truth, and the truth shall make you free" (John 8:32 KJV). We do 'put on Christ' as Paul spoke, do we not? Jesus was a Pharzite Jew. In this manner, I also consider myself a Pharzite Jew, by adoption. Of course... a Shelanite will find this quite humorous! LOL!

kayaker

I am not going to seek to draw a difference in Jews between Pharzites and Shelanites. To me there is but one criteria and that is the criteria of faith. Discernment regarding the hearts of those in the Body belongs solely to God. If one is a Pharzite or a Shelanite or a Karaite, that is between them and God. Not that I wish to lump all Jews into one big pile as Shmuel Asher calls it but rather I wish to lump all believers into the One Body, the people of God, and leave to God what is His business. Not all Christians "lovingly" deride Jews as the group behind the evil of this world. We are each responsible for the part we play in sin whether we hold with Yeshua HaMashiach or not.

kayaker
January 9th, 2015, 12:41 PM
I am not going to seek to draw a difference in Jews between Pharzites and Shelanites. To me there is but one criteria and that is the criteria of faith. Discernment regarding the hearts of those in the Body belongs solely to God. If one is a Pharzite or a Shelanite or a Karaite, that is between them and God. Not that I wish to lump all Jews into one big pile as Shmuel Asher calls it but rather I wish to lump all believers into the One Body, the people of God, and leave to God what is His business. Not all Christians "lovingly" deride Jews as the group behind the evil of this world. We are each responsible for the part we play in sin whether we hold with Yeshua HaMashiach or not.

I sincerely admire and appreciate your testimony, IMJ! With all due respect, turning a blind eye to the Pharzite v. Shelanite distinction is respected. Paul made a comment that if it offends a brother to eat meat... then, don't eat meat. Yours is more an evangelistic perspective, with utmost and sincere respect, IMJ. There are scant few who wish to dine at this table of distinction.

If one wishes to "deride Jews as the group behind the evil of this world" begs the question... this ancestral 'Jewish' distinction. If you consider yourself a Jewish evangelist being a Messianic Jew, it would appear this Jewish distinction, Pharzite v. Shelanite, would be a fundamental component of your ministry. Chair, of Levite/Davidic ancestry, will find himself polarized within Judaism with Ben's notion the ancestral component of Jewishness is founded through Judah.

Chair claims Levitical/Davidic ancestry. I still respect his claim, but not sufficiently to probate Abraham's last will and testament (Genesis 25:5). Abraham's wife Keturah's sons, "the children of Keturah" (Genesis 25:4) received neither gifts as did Abraham's concubines (Genesis 25:6), nor did Keturah's sons partake in Abraham's funeral (Genesis 25:9). Judah's "Canaanitess" wife (1Chronicles 2:3) was the daughter of the Canaanite Shuah (Genesis 38:1, 2). Shuah, Judah's Canaanite father-in-law, was the 'son' of Keturah (Genesis 25:1, 2, 3, 4), and Moses made this distinction affirmed by Ezra. Looking closely, Jesus made this same "seed" v. "children" distinction in John 8:37 KJV and John 8:39 KJV. Jesus went further to imply (John 8:15) His Shelanite detractors were the literal descendants of Cain, son of Satan in John 8:44 KJV. That those Shelanites were the descendants of Cain is readily deduced in Matthew 23:29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35... those Shelanites were descendants of who killed Abel (Matthew 23:35 KJV).

Do you think this resonates with Revelation 2:9, 3:9? Please reconsider Jesus' words in Luke:


Luke 12:49, 50, 51, 52, 53, KJV "I am come to send fire on the earth; and what will I, if it be already kindled? 50) But I have a baptism to be baptized with; and how am I straightened till it be accomplished! 51) Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay, but rather division: 52) For from henceforth there shall be five in one house divided, three against two, and two against three. 53) The father shall be divided against the son, and the son against the father; the mother against the daughter, and the daughter against the mother; the mother in law against her daughter in law, and the daughter in law against her mother in law."

Aren't we discussing ancestry?

So... this is the ancestral distinction Chair needs to hear about. The Shelanites were impostor 'Jews' who gave the title a bad name, beginning with the crucifixion of an innocent Man. If Levitical/Davidic Jews are given a bad name... one needs to look no further than the Shelanites, descendants of Judah and his Canaanite wife. The Shelanites instigated the crucifixion... the ancestral 'truth' will set one free from the lie the Shelanites bear the lineage to produce the messiah, and free from the lie Jesus, a Pharzite Jew, is an impostor.

It would be more appropriate for chair to ask Ben about the descendants of Judah... Shelanites v. Pharzites (Genesis 3:15 KJV).

kayaker

IMJerusha
January 9th, 2015, 02:18 PM
I sincerely admire and appreciate your testimony, IMJ! With all due respect, turning a blind eye to the Pharzite v. Shelanite distinction is respected. Paul made a comment that if it offends a brother to eat meat... then, don't eat meat. Yours is more an evangelistic perspective, with utmost and sincere respect, IMJ. There are scant few who wish to dine at this table of distinction.

I don't look at it as turning a blind eye but rather turning my eye upon Yeshua as opposed to man. As regards evangelism, we are all called to this.


If one wishes to "deride Jews as the group behind the evil of this world" begs the question... this ancestral 'Jewish' distinction. If you consider yourself a Jewish evangelist being a Messianic Jew, it would appear this Jewish distinction, Pharzite v. Shelanite, would be a fundamental component of your ministry.

Pharzite v. Shelanite via Karaite? No, thank you. And considering the fact that in Yeshua there is no Jew or Gentile, my only need within ministry is to point Him out, as that is the only distinction that matters to God.


Chair, of Levite/Davidic ancestry, will find himself polarized within Judaism with Ben's notion the ancestral component of Jewishness is founded through Judah.

Chair claims Levitical/Davidic ancestry. I still respect his claim, but not sufficiently to probate Abraham's last will and testament (Genesis 25:5). Abraham's wife Keturah's sons, "the children of Keturah" (Genesis 25:4) received neither gifts as did Abraham's concubines (Genesis 25:6), nor did Keturah's sons partake in Abraham's funeral (Genesis 25:9). Judah's "Canaanitess" wife (1Chronicles 2:3) was the daughter of the Canaanite Shuah (Genesis 38:1, 2). Shuah, Judah's Canaanite father-in-law, was the 'son' of Keturah (Genesis 25:1, 2, 3, 4), and Moses made this distinction affirmed by Ezra. Looking closely, Jesus made this same "seed" v. "children" distinction in John 8:37 KJV and John 8:39 KJV. Jesus went further to imply (John 8:15) His Shelanite detractors were the literal descendants of Cain, son of Satan in John 8:44 KJV. That those Shelanites were the descendants of Cain is readily deduced in Matthew 23:29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35... those Shelanites were descendants of who killed Abel (Matthew 23:35 KJV).

Do you think this resonates with Revelation 2:9, 3:9? Please reconsider Jesus' words in Luke:


Luke 12:49, 50, 51, 52, 53, KJV "I am come to send fire on the earth; and what will I, if it be already kindled? 50) But I have a baptism to be baptized with; and how am I straightened till it be accomplished! 51) Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay, but rather division: 52) For from henceforth there shall be five in one house divided, three against two, and two against three. 53) The father shall be divided against the son, and the son against the father; the mother against the daughter, and the daughter against the mother; the mother in law against her daughter in law, and the daughter in law against her mother in law."

Aren't we discussing ancestry?

So... this is the ancestral distinction Chair needs to hear about. The Shelanites were impostor 'Jews' who gave the title a bad name, beginning with the crucifixion of an innocent Man. If Levitical/Davidic Jews are given a bad name... one needs to look no further than the Shelanites, descendants of Judah and his Canaanite wife. The Shelanites instigated the crucifixion... the ancestral 'truth' will set one free from the lie the Shelanites bear the lineage to produce the messiah, and free from the lie Jesus, a Pharzite Jew, is an impostor.

It would be more appropriate for chair to ask Ben about the descendants of Judah... Shelanites v. Pharzites (Genesis 3:15 KJV).

kayaker

What I see is you and others making distinctions that need not, no, should not be made within the faith, but for the One. We all stand equally before the Throne in our filth, not one of us better than another. "They are all gone aside, they are all together become filthy: there is none that doeth good, no, not one." Psalm 14:3 This being God's view of the children of men, ancestry has no bearing. What has bearing is faith and that has been God's point from the beginning.

kayaker
January 9th, 2015, 04:11 PM
I don't look at it as turning a blind eye but rather turning my eye upon Yeshua as opposed to man. As regards evangelism, we are all called to this.



Pharzite v. Shelanite via Karaite? No, thank you. And considering the fact that in Yeshua there is no Jew or Gentile, my only need within ministry is to point Him out, as that is the only distinction that matters to God.



What I see is you and others making distinctions that need not, no, should not be made within the faith, but for the One. We all stand equally before the Throne in our filth, not one of us better than another. "They are all gone aside, they are all together become filthy: there is none that doeth good, no, not one." Psalm 14:3 This being God's view of the children of men, ancestry has no bearing. What has bearing is faith and that has been God's point from the beginning.

I am indeed sincerely grateful for your entertaining my posts, IMJ. I'm not aware of anyone who considers Jewishness void of ethnicity. Chair's notion is Levite/Davidic, Yoh's is via Jacob and Judah, and Ben's is strictly through Judah... So much for the clarity on this topic... speaking of wandering in darkness.

Agreed entirely... ancestry, beyond the arrival of God's Son, is of no value. But, such is a moot argument with those who subscribe to and proclaim the racist notion of ancestral superiority and supremacy in the eyes of God. Only God's Son fulfilled this position, and He condemned no specific individual in His entire ministry.

Many Christians wandering in ancestral darkness subscribe to the ill-defined notion the Jews are God's chosen people. The Israelites were, God defined those people with surgical precision, while the Shelanites deluded the lost sheep of the house of Israel that Jesus was an ancestral impostor... and, so it remains today.

Thank you again, IMJ... your faith is indeed entirely greater than mine.

kayaker

IMJerusha
January 9th, 2015, 06:45 PM
I am indeed sincerely grateful for your entertaining my posts, IMJ. I'm not aware of anyone who considers Jewishness void of ethnicity. Chair's notion is Levite/Davidic, Yoh's is via Jacob and Judah, and Ben's is strictly through Judah... So much for the clarity on this topic... speaking of wandering in darkness.

I wouldn't say it's void of ethnicity. I would say that it can not be proven to any of the 12 tribes.


Agreed entirely... ancestry, beyond the arrival of God's Son, is of no value. But, such is a moot argument with those who subscribe to and proclaim the racist notion of ancestral superiority and supremacy in the eyes of God.

I don't believe Jews subscribe or proclaim anything the least bit racist. What they proclaim is that the Jews are God's chosen people and I don't find that to be racist.


Only God's Son fulfilled this position, and He condemned no specific individual in His entire ministry.

Fulfilled what position, that of superiority and supremacy? I just can not attach those descriptors to Yeshua who came to earth in such humble circumstances willing to serve both God and man.


Many Christians wandering in ancestral darkness subscribe to the ill-defined notion the Jews are God's chosen people. The Israelites were, God defined those people with surgical precision, while the Shelanites deluded the lost sheep of the house of Israel that Jesus was an ancestral impostor... and, so it remains today.

As opposed to Christians who take upon themselves rights belonging solely to God?


Thank you again, IMJ... your faith is indeed entirely greater than mine.

I would have no clue about that because I can't see into your heart nor can you see into mine.

Daniel1611
January 9th, 2015, 07:06 PM
Claiming to be "chosen" because of your DNA is racist. NO WHERE does the Bible support any such assertion. Further, the claims of todays "Jews" of "Jewish" ancestry are entirely unfounded. They have absolutely no proof that they are descended from the Hebrews any more than anyone else is. It's just something they were told. And being that every "Jew" I've ever met is as white as I am, I have my doubts. The Hebrews in the Bible were not white.

Race and ethnicity and nationality don't matter. God is no respecter of persons and nether should we be. The whole world is of one blood. What matters is whether or not one believes on Jesus Christ.

IMJerusha
January 9th, 2015, 07:23 PM
Claiming to be "chosen" because of your DNA is racist. NO WHERE does the Bible support any such assertion. Further, the claims of todays "Jews" of "Jewish" ancestry are entirely unfounded. They have absolutely no proof that they are descended from the Hebrews any more than anyone else is. It's just something they were told. And being that every "Jew" I've ever met is as white as I am, I have my doubts. The Hebrews in the Bible were not white.

Race and ethnicity and nationality don't matter. God is no respecter of persons and nether should we be. The whole world is of one blood. What matters is whether or not one believes on Jesus Christ.

"But you are A CHOSEN RACE, A royal PRIESTHOOD, A HOLY NATION, A PEOPLE FOR God's OWN POSSESSION, so that you may proclaim the excellencies of Him who has called you out of darkness into His marvelous light; for you once were NOT A PEOPLE, but now you are THE PEOPLE OF GOD; you had NOT RECEIVED MERCY, but now you have RECEIVED MERCY." 1 Peter 2:9-10

I wonder where Peter got that notion?

Daniel1611
January 9th, 2015, 07:27 PM
"But you are A CHOSEN RACE, A royal PRIESTHOOD, A HOLY NATION, A PEOPLE FOR God's OWN POSSESSION, so that you may proclaim the excellencies of Him who has called you out of darkness into His marvelous light; for you once were NOT A PEOPLE, but now you are THE PEOPLE OF GOD; you had NOT RECEIVED MERCY, but now you have RECEIVED MERCY." 1 Peter 2:9-10

I wonder where Peter got that notion?

And Peter was talking about who? Jews? No. He was talking about people who believe on Jesus Christ. People who believe on Christ are God's chosen people regardless of their race or ethnicity. And people that reject Christ are condemned already, regardless of their race or ethnicity. It's a very clear concept in the Bible. There are no scriptures that support this racist garbage spouted by Bible-hating Zionists.

kayaker
January 9th, 2015, 08:03 PM
I wouldn't say it's void of ethnicity. I would say that it can not be proven to any of the 12 tribes.

The proof is in the ancestry of Jesus, IMJ. And, that's what the "Jews" refute, but can't seem to locate their birth records: Levite/Davidic... Jacob/Judah... Judah via his Canaanite wife, or Tamar. Matthew laid it out in Matthew 1 with particular emphasis on Matthew 1:3 KJV. Luke took the generations of Jesus all the way back to Almighty God in Luke 3:23-38... all 77 prophesied generations, thereof (Genesis 4:24 KJV). The Jews ordained the Pharzite David as king suggesting Judah married Tamar, if my memory serves me. Well, why don't they throw a little white-wash on Jesus, too? Does the title hypocrite come to mind in Matthew 23:13, 14, 15, 23, 25, 27? Jesus was no pacifist, IMJ.


I don't believe Jews subscribe or proclaim anything the least bit racist. What they proclaim is that the Jews are God's chosen people and I don't find that to be racist.

Daniel1611 brought forth some interesting posts/points from the Talmud. Are you including Talmudic Jews in your title, "Jews"? The Talmudic Jews teach Ham sodomized Noah and castrated him... and, and that Ham's son Cush was "smitten" with black skin as a consequence. Talmudic Jews sound pretty racist. Again... are you including Talmudic Jews in your title? "They" can proclaim that the "Jews are God's chosen people..." Racist or not, such claim is restricted exclusively to the Israelites according to Moses speaking directly to the Israelites in Deuteronomy 7:6, 7, 8, 9. Israelites were distinctly an ancestral people (Deuteronomy 7:1, 2, 3, Ezra 9:1, 2). Can you offer such ancestral distinction within the title, Jew? Chair, Yoh, and Ben need to make up my mind.


Fulfilled what position, that of superiority and supremacy? I just can not attach those descriptors to Yeshua who came to earth in such humble circumstances willing to serve both God and man.

I can appreciate where you're coming from, IMJ. It may come as a surprise that Jesus never said, "I forgive you." Jesus usually said "Thy sins be forgiven thee..." And, He typically included, "Thy faith hath made thee whole." Jesus also said, "Go, and sin no more" (John 8:11 KJV), circumventing forgiveness the adulteress never asked for. I think we'll see the other side of Jesus when He turns those harvest angels loose again, speaking of the wheat and the tares.


As opposed to Christians who take upon themselves rights belonging solely to God?.

Jesus did say:


John 14:1, 2, 3, 4, KJV "Let not your heart be troubled: ye believe in God, believe also in me. 2) In my Father's house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you. 3) And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto myself; that where I am, there ye may be also. 4) And whither I go ye know, and the way ye know."

Sounds to me if one expects to sit at the table in the big house... well? I kinda get the impression my flesh belongs to Satan, and my soul belongs to God, with my adoption papers signed in Jesus' Pharzite Jewish blood. Evidently, the discernment of Revelation 2:9, 3:9 escapes you... you're in good company!


I would have no clue about that because I can't see into your heart nor can you see into mine.

If I recall correctly, you professed your faith in Jesus in one of your posts. Was I mistaken? I was taking you at your word. With all due respect for faith and believing, respectfully IMJ... how do you KNOW Jesus is Messiah? The Jews KNOW He isn't (John 8:41 KJV). How do you Scripturally refute their claim from the OT?

kayaker

IMJerusha
January 9th, 2015, 10:45 PM
And Peter was talking about who? Jews? No. He was talking about people who believe on Jesus Christ. People who believe on Christ are God's chosen people regardless of their race or ethnicity. And people that reject Christ are condemned already, regardless of their race or ethnicity. It's a very clear concept in the Bible. There are no scriptures that support this racist garbage spouted by Bible-hating Zionists.

Peter was talking about Jews as well as Gentiles...all believers. There is no racist garbage...only the Faith of those who believe in the One True God of Israel.

IMJerusha
January 9th, 2015, 11:08 PM
The proof is in the ancestry of Jesus, IMJ. And, that's what the "Jews" refute, but can't seem to locate their birth records: Levite/Davidic... Jacob/Judah... Judah via his Canaanite wife, or Tamar. Matthew laid it out in Matthew 1 with particular emphasis on Matthew 1:3 KJV. Luke took the generations of Jesus all the way back to Almighty God in Luke 3:23-38... all 77 prophesied generations, thereof (Genesis 4:24 KJV). The Jews ordained the Pharzite David as king suggesting Judah married Tamar, if my memory serves me. Well, why don't they throw a little white-wash on Jesus, too? Does the title hypocrite come to mind in Matthew 23:13, 14, 15, 23, 25, 27? Jesus was no pacifist, IMJ.

Daniel1611 brought forth some interesting posts/points from the Talmud. Are you including Talmudic Jews in your title, "Jews"? The Talmudic Jews teach Ham sodomized Noah and castrated him... and, and that Ham's son Cush was "smitten" with black skin as a consequence. Talmudic Jews sound pretty racist. Again... are you including Talmudic Jews in your title? "They" can proclaim that the "Jews are God's chosen people..." Racist or not, such claim is restricted exclusively to the Israelites according to Moses speaking directly to the Israelites in Deuteronomy 7:6, 7, 8, 9. Israelites were distinctly an ancestral people (Deuteronomy 7:1, 2, 3, Ezra 9:1, 2). Can you offer such ancestral distinction within the title, Jew? Chair, Yoh, and Ben need to make up my mind.



I can appreciate where you're coming from, IMJ. It may come as a surprise that Jesus never said, "I forgive you." Jesus usually said "Thy sins be forgiven thee..." And, He typically included, "Thy faith hath made thee whole." Jesus also said, "Go, and sin no more" (John 8:11 KJV), circumventing forgiveness the adulteress never asked for. I think we'll see the other side of Jesus when He turns those harvest angels loose again, speaking of the wheat and the tares.

.

Jesus did say:


John 14:1, 2, 3, 4, KJV "Let not your heart be troubled: ye believe in God, believe also in me. 2) In my Father's house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you. 3) And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto myself; that where I am, there ye may be also. 4) And whither I go ye know, and the way ye know."

Sounds to me if one expects to sit at the table in the big house... well? I kinda get the impression my flesh belongs to Satan, and my soul belongs to God, with my adoption papers signed in Jesus' Pharzite Jewish blood. Evidently, the discernment of Revelation 2:9, 3:9 escapes you... you're in good company!



If I recall correctly, you professed your faith in Jesus in one of your posts. Was I mistaken? I was taking you at your word. With all due respect for faith and believing, respectfully IMJ... how do you KNOW Jesus is Messiah? The Jews KNOW He isn't (John 8:41 KJV). How do you Scripturally refute their claim from the OT?

kayaker

You want me to label and point fingers of disdain and condemnation at people like you do? Sorry. And you have the audacity to imply that if I don't, I'm not a believer in Yeshua or that I am somehow lacking because I do not apply the same meanings to Scripture that you do. Obviously, the discernment of the Ruach does not escape me and yes, I am in good company. :)

kayaker
January 10th, 2015, 12:13 AM
You want me to label and point fingers of disdain and condemnation at people like you do? Sorry. And you have the audacity to imply that if I don't, I'm not a believer in Yeshua or that I am somehow lacking because I do not apply the same meanings to Scripture that you do. Obviously, the discernment of the Ruach does not escape me and yes, I am in good company. :)

Chair, Yoh, and Ben can't seem to come to a consensus on the ethnicity of Jewishness. Have you? I agree with Jesus pointing the finger at those impostor Pharisees in Matthew 23, among other places.

I'm not suggesting that you are lacking in faith, IMJ. I stated your faith is greater than mine. I'm also stating that you have been unable to discern Revelation 2:9, 3:9... you are in good company! Neither have Chair, Yoh, or Ben... while they refute the divinity of Jesus. I'll take your faith any day over their confusion, but I won't placate them on some unfounded, racist ancestral claim. Their ancestral arrogance ended with the arrival of the Pharzite Jesus, and the Shelanites instigated the crucifixion of an innocent Man (John 8:37 KJV)... just like their flesh ancestor premeditated the murder of an innocent man (John 8:38 KJV, Genesis 4:8 KJV).

What blood are they going to put on their doorposts when those reaper angels return? That spotless, unblemished sacrificial lamb won't work the next time... unless it is THE Lamb, as God so told Abraham when he was about to sacrifice Isaac.

kayaker

patrick jane
January 10th, 2015, 12:53 AM
Chair, Yoh, and Ben can't seem to come to a consensus on the ethnicity of Jewishness. Have you? I agree with Jesus pointing the finger at those impostor Pharisees in Matthew 23, among other places.

I'm not suggesting that you are lacking in faith, IMJ. I stated your faith is greater than mine. I'm also stating that you have been unable to discern Revelation 2:9, 3:9... you are in good company! Neither have Chair, Yoh, or Ben... while they refute the divinity of Jesus. I'll take your faith any day over their confusion, but I won't placate them on some unfounded, racist ancestral claim. Their ancestral arrogance ended with the arrival of the Pharzite Jesus, and the Shelanites instigated the crucifixion of an innocent Man (John 8:37 KJV)... just like their flesh ancestor premeditated the murder of an innocent man (John 8:38 KJV, Genesis 4:8 KJV).

What blood are they going to put on their doorposts when those reaper angels return? That spotless, unblemished sacrificial lamb won't work the next time... unless it is THE Lamb, as God so told Abraham when he was about to sacrifice Isaac.

kayaker

all the OT Jews should read my new thread. and look up Grace Ambassadors - Justin Johnson - The Mystery of Christ. it's all about Israel. it's only a 58 minute video. he does not talk or act like a preacher. go ahead, i dare you to check it out. it may help you discount Christianity. or not :Patrol:

patrick jane
January 10th, 2015, 12:57 AM
Chair, Yoh, and Ben can't seem to come to a consensus on the ethnicity of Jewishness. Have you? I agree with Jesus pointing the finger at those impostor Pharisees in Matthew 23, among other places.

I'm not suggesting that you are lacking in faith, IMJ. I stated your faith is greater than mine. I'm also stating that you have been unable to discern Revelation 2:9, 3:9... you are in good company! Neither have Chair, Yoh, or Ben... while they refute the divinity of Jesus. I'll take your faith any day over their confusion, but I won't placate them on some unfounded, racist ancestral claim. Their ancestral arrogance ended with the arrival of the Pharzite Jesus, and the Shelanites instigated the crucifixion of an innocent Man (John 8:37 KJV)... just like their flesh ancestor premeditated the murder of an innocent man (John 8:38 KJV, Genesis 4:8 KJV).

What blood are they going to put on their doorposts when those reaper angels return? That spotless, unblemished sacrificial lamb won't work the next time... unless it is THE Lamb, as God so told Abraham when he was about to sacrifice Isaac.

kayaker

all the OT Jews should read my new thread. and look up Grace Ambassadors - Justin Johnson - The Mystery of Christ. it's all about Israel. it's only a 58 minute video. he does not talk or act like a preacher. go ahead, i dare you to check it out. it may help you discount Christianity. or not :Patrol: - :cheers:

chair
January 10th, 2015, 01:26 PM
Thanks for humoring me, IMJ. ..
Do note IMJ: Chair's ancestral aspect of being Jewish is predicated on Levitical/Davidic ancestry. Ben's ancestral aspect of being Jewish is predicated on the main stem of Judah. Yoh shifts from foot to foot. Ironically, God's 'chosen people' were distinctly Israelites, before the title 'Jew' made print... said 'chosen people' were Israelites, collectively, in Deuteronomy 7:6, 7, 8 before the conquest of the Promised Land. Evidently (obviously), there's a Jewish consensus that ancestry is at least a component of being Jewish... However, the contrast between chair's ancestral notion (at least Levitical/Davidic), and Ben's notion of ancestral notion (via Judah), we now find a breach in consensus on the ancestral component of being Jewish.
...

The modern people called "Jews" are called so because they are mostly descended from the tribe of Judah. They are not exclusively from the tribe of Judah, however. If you walk into a synagogue, you will find that there are also Levites and Priests (who are a sub-group of Levites). There are a few special things that these Jews do: the first readings of the Torah scroll are reserved for them, and the priests bless the congregation (the later is spelled out in the Old Testament).

There are also those who joined the Jewish People, or the descendants of those who did in the past. But you would have no way of knowing who they are.

There is no "break in the concensus", as you would have it.

In prayers we refer to ourselves as "Yisrael", or "Bnei Yisrael"- the Hebrew term for what in English is called "Israelites".

chair
January 10th, 2015, 01:30 PM
"But you are A CHOSEN RACE, A royal PRIESTHOOD, A HOLY NATION, A PEOPLE FOR God's OWN POSSESSION, so that you may proclaim the excellencies of Him who has called you out of darkness into His marvelous light; for you once were NOT A PEOPLE, but now you are THE PEOPLE OF GOD; you had NOT RECEIVED MERCY, but now you have RECEIVED MERCY." 1 Peter 2:9-10

I wonder where Peter got that notion?

Exodus 19, perhaps?

patrick jane
January 10th, 2015, 01:56 PM
you Jewed yourselves

IMJerusha
January 10th, 2015, 02:25 PM
Exodus 19, perhaps?

No perhaps to it. And God speaks to us now just as He spoke to Moses. The Covenant has changed but God's promise is the same...be obedient, honor His Covenant and we will be His most treasured possession. Baruch HaShem!

"Whoever has my commands and keeps them is the one who loves me. The one who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I too will love them and show myself to them." John 14:21

Ben Masada
January 10th, 2015, 03:01 PM
Claiming to be "chosen" because of your DNA is racist. NO WHERE does the Bible support any such assertion. Further, the claims of todays "Jews" of "Jewish" ancestry are entirely unfounded. They have absolutely no proof that they are descended from the Hebrews any more than anyone else is. It's just something they were told. And being that every "Jew" I've ever met is as white as I am, I have my doubts. The Hebrews in the Bible were not white.

Race and ethnicity and nationality don't matter. God is no respecter of persons and nether should we be. The whole world is of one blood. What matters is whether or not one believes on Jesus Christ.

If those who don't believe on Jesus, what will happen, will they belong to a different race?

kayaker
January 10th, 2015, 04:21 PM
The modern people called "Jews" are called so because they are mostly descended from the tribe of Judah. They are not exclusively from the tribe of Judah, however. If you walk into a synagogue, you will find that there are also Levites and Priests (who are a sub-group of Levites). There are a few special things that these Jews do: the first readings of the Torah scroll are reserved for them, and the priests bless the congregation (the later is spelled out in the Old Testament).

There are also those who joined the Jewish People, or the descendants of those who did in the past. But you would have no way of knowing who they are.

There is no "break in the concensus", as you would have it.

In prayers we refer to ourselves as "Yisrael", or "Bnei Yisrael"- the Hebrew term for what in English is called "Israelites".

Thanks for your post, chair.

On the Levite/Davidic component... I can appreciate where you are coming from. However, the Judah component I have a problem with. Judah sired three Canaanite sons via his Canaanite wife, the third surviving was Shelah, who survived to procreate. That God slew his two elder brothers should raise a significant red flag.

Judah's relationship with his Canaanite wife was contrary to Deuteronomy 7:1, 2, 3, reiterated by Ezra in Ezra 9:1, 2. Following Deuteronomy 7:1, 2, 3, Moses made it specifically clear the Israelites were God's chosen people a few verses later Deuteronomy 7:6, 7, 8, 9. Judah was not 'isolated' from among the Israelites entering Egypt. Yet, you suggest the majority of Jews were from the tribe of Judah. Why is this distinction necessary? Judah was an Israelite.

Ezra went further to exclude Judah's Canaanite son Shelah (elder to Pharez via Tamar), and "The sons of Shelah the son of Judah..." (1Chronicles 4:21, 22, 23) from Ezra's tribal roster of Judah in 1Chronicles 4:1 KJV. Therefore, a Shelanite is NOT an Israelite. Abraham's 'progeny' via Keturah, great grandmother of Shelah, were NOT Hebrews... they were the "children of Keturah" (Genesis 25:4), and NOT the 'sons' of Abraham. Ezra reiterated this distinction in 1Chronicles 2:3 kJV.

Things can certainly be different today, but I prefer to begin focusing on what is written. Do you consider a Shelanite to be a Hebrew, or Israelite? Please keep in mind Deuteronomy 25:5, 6 concerning inherited property as Judah gave his widowed daughter-in-law Tamar to Onan...

To my rendering, the Shelanite descendants of Judah were never Israelite, never Hebrew, and clearly refused entry into the Israelite congregation. How do you reconcile this distinction in those days?

As far as a breach in consensus... Ben used the Judah component, exclusively. Yoh shifted from foot to foot, as I now hear you diluting out the significance of Levite/Davidic ancestry, respectfully. In Ben's case, your Levite/Davidic component becomes totally subservient as you paint Jewish ethnicity with a broad, ancestral brush. Ben will unlikely come forth to discuss this distinction, as I suspect he subscribes to Shelanite ancestral superiority above ALL of Abraham's descendants.

There's a breach in consensus on Jewish ethnicity when one looks into the depth of ancestry, chair. Jesus did... those who instigated His crucifixion were Shelanite 'Jews.' Unfortunately, IMJ hasn't yet achieved this distinction found in Revelation 2:9, 3:9. With utmosts respect to her... neither has Christianity achieved this distinction in any form or fashion as I have found in the literature. What I'm suggesting chair, is there are circumcised Shelanite impostors among your ranks... and, they instigated the crucifixion to shut Jesus up as He was unveiling their ancestral hypocrisy.

kayaker

patrick jane
January 10th, 2015, 05:13 PM
If those who don't believe on Jesus, what will happen, will they belong to a different race?

they will be under the Law - Works - impossible to obey. see, God knew this and prepared a Way. Jesus Christ. The Truth The Way and The Life. they will not be saved ? i can't say. read The Bible, what does that say ? be honest, don't pick and choose the scriptures that needlessly perpetuate a covenant and promises that have changed. sorry, it's not me, it's God's Will and His Word.

Daniel1611
January 10th, 2015, 08:50 PM
If those who don't believe on Jesus, what will happen, will they belong to a different race?

I don't understand the question. Maybe change the punctuation or add some more words.

IMJerusha
January 10th, 2015, 10:50 PM
Unfortunately, IMJ hasn't yet achieved this distinction found in Revelation 2:9, 3:9. With utmosts respect to her... neither has Christianity achieved this distinction in any form or fashion as I have found in the literature. What I'm suggesting chair, is there are circumcised Shelanite impostors among your ranks... and, they instigated the crucifixion to shut Jesus up as He was unveiling their ancestral hypocrisy.

kayaker

Thanking God the distinction I have received is the best...covered by the blood of Yeshua! :wave:

kayaker
January 10th, 2015, 11:23 PM
Thanking God the distinction I have received is the best...covered by the blood of Yeshua! :wave:

Indeed, IMJ... the blood of a Pharzite Jewish Yeshua!

blessings

kayaker

kayaker
January 12th, 2015, 10:35 PM
The modern people called "Jews" are called so because they are mostly descended from the tribe of Judah. They are not exclusively from the tribe of Judah, however. If you walk into a synagogue, you will find that there are also Levites and Priests (who are a sub-group of Levites). There are a few special things that these Jews do: the first readings of the Torah scroll are reserved for them, and the priests bless the congregation (the later is spelled out in the Old Testament).

There are also those who joined the Jewish People, or the descendants of those who did in the past. But you would have no way of knowing who they are.

There is no "break in the concensus", as you would have it.

In prayers we refer to ourselves as "Yisrael", or "Bnei Yisrael"- the Hebrew term for what in English is called "Israelites".

Thinking more and appreciating your post, chair...

Your mention the Jews are mostly descendants of Judah is appreciated. I proffer they are predominately the Shelanite descendants of Judah and his Canaanite wife, contrary to Deuteronomy 7:1, 2, 3. Keeping Deuteronomy 7:3 KJV in mind for Israelites to not even marry the Canaanites, Moses continued, instructing the Israelites how to deal with the Canaanites, etc.:


Deuteronomy 7:4, 5, KJV "For they will turn away thy son from following me, that they may serve other gods: so will the anger of the Lord be kindled against you (Israelites), and destroy thee suddenly. 5) But thus shall ye deal with them; ye shall destroy their altars, and break down their images, and cut down their groves, and burn their graven images with fire."

Moses established the Israelites as God's chosen in the next few verses, and Moses then reflected on his aforementioned instructions to the Israelites:


Deuteronomy 7:11, 12, KJV "Thou (Israelites) shalt therefore keep the commandments, and the statutes, and the judgments, which I command thee (Israelites) this day, to do them."

Even a thousand years later, Ezra recognized the Israelites' violations of Moses' commandments, statutes, and judgments in Ezra 9:1, 2, 3, 7. What changed, chair? With sincere consideration of your post, I have a hard time understanding how an Israelite can surrender God's chosen Israelite identity to the ancestral ambiguity in the title, Jew. Please forgive me chair... but, I'm hearing the story of Esau all over this scenario.

Granted, Christians seldom follow the traditions of the patriarchs, but I not hearing those claiming ancestry to the patriarchs keeping Moses' 'commandments, and the statutes, and the judgments" given to their Israelite fathers and mothers. In fact... such trespass (per Ezra) sounds contrary to Exodus 20:12 KJV, one of the Ten Commandments.

Again, chair... do you consider the Canaanite Shelanite descendants of Judah to be Israelite, or Hebrew? Do you consider yourself a Jew first, and Israelite second? Being Israelite utterly trumps the title Jew, for eternity. For the record, chair... King David was a Pharzite Jew. And, when one explores the scripture with but a little faith... King David was an ancestral Israelite. Judah's daughter-in-law Tamar, maternal ancestress to David, was an Israelite priestess when associating Genesis 38:24 KJV with Leviticus 21:9 KJV (corrected from 20:10). Whoever wrote Leviticus (as in your proclaimed paternal ancestors) surely believed Tamar was a Priestess. In fact, associating Genesis 38:24 KJV with Leviticus 21:9 KJV (corrected from 20:10) sanctions the very high probability Tamar was a LEVITE Priestess, daughter of Levi! David was NOT a Jew, chair.

kayaker

patrick jane
January 12th, 2015, 11:00 PM
Thinking more and appreciating your post, chair...

Your mention the Jews are mostly descendants of Judah is appreciated. I proffer they are predominately the Shelanite descendants of Judah and his Canaanite wife, contrary to Deuteronomy 7:1, 2, 3. Keeping Deuteronomy 7:3 KJV in mind for Israelites to not even marry the Canaanites, Moses continued, instructing the Israelites how to deal with the Canaanites, etc.:


Deuteronomy 7:4, 5, KJV "For they will turn away thy son from following me, that they may serve other gods: so will the anger of the Lord be kindled against you (Israelites), and destroy thee suddenly. 5) But thus shall ye deal with them; ye shall destroy their altars, and break down their images, and cut down their groves, and burn their graven images with fire."

Moses established the Israelites as God's chosen in the next few verses, and Moses then reflected on his aforementioned instructions to the Israelites:


Deuteronomy 7:11, 12, KJV "Thou (Israelites) shalt therefore keep the commandments, and the statutes, and the judgments, which I command thee (Israelites) this day, to do them."

Even a thousand years later, Ezra recognized the Israelites' violations of Moses' commandments, statutes, and judgments in Ezra 9:1, 2, 3, 7. What changed, chair? With sincere consideration of your post, I have a hard time understanding how an Israelite can surrender God's chosen Israelite identity to the ancestral ambiguity in the title, Jew. Please forgive me chair... but, I'm hearing the story of Esau all over this scenario.

Granted, Christians seldom follow the traditions of the patriarchs, but I not hearing those claiming ancestry to the patriarchs keeping Moses' 'commandments, and the statutes, and the judgments" given to their Israelite fathers and mothers. In fact... such trespass (per Ezra) sounds contrary to Exodus 20:12 KJV, one of the Ten Commandments.

Again, chair... do you consider the Canaanite Shelanite descendants of Judah to be Israelite, or Hebrew? Do you consider yourself a Jew first, and Israelite second? Being Israelite utterly trumps the title Jew, for eternity. For the record, chair... King David was a Pharzite Jew. And, when one explores the scripture with but a little faith... King David was an ancestral Israelite. Judah's daughter-in-law Tamar, maternal ancestress to David, was an Israelite priestess when associating Genesis 38:24 KJV with Leviticus 20:10 KJV. Whoever wrote Leviticus (as in your proclaimed paternal ancestors) surely believed Tamar was a Priestess. In fact, associating Genesis 38:24 KJV with Leviticus 20:10 sanctions the very high probability Tamar was a LEVITE Priestess, daughter of Levi! David was NOT a Jew, chair.

kayaker

well, by nature that last statement may upset some and shock others. i guess we can all look up what you have looked up. is it all from the OT Bible ? - :sam:

chair
January 13th, 2015, 04:39 AM
Thinking more and appreciating your post, chair...

Your mention the Jews are mostly descendants of Judah is appreciated. I proffer they are predominately the Shelanite descendants of Judah and his Canaanite wife, contrary to Deuteronomy 7:1, 2, 3. Keeping Deuteronomy 7:3 KJV in mind for Israelites to not even marry the Canaanites, Moses continued, instructing the Israelites how to deal with the Canaanites, etc.:


Deuteronomy 7:4, 5, KJV "For they will turn away thy son from following me, that they may serve other gods: so will the anger of the Lord be kindled against you (Israelites), and destroy thee suddenly. 5) But thus shall ye deal with them; ye shall destroy their altars, and break down their images, and cut down their groves, and burn their graven images with fire."

Moses established the Israelites as God's chosen in the next few verses, and Moses then reflected on his aforementioned instructions to the Israelites:


Deuteronomy 7:11, 12, KJV "Thou (Israelites) shalt therefore keep the commandments, and the statutes, and the judgments, which I command thee (Israelites) this day, to do them."

Even a thousand years later, Ezra recognized the Israelites' violations of Moses' commandments, statutes, and judgments in Ezra 9:1, 2, 3, 7. What changed, chair? With sincere consideration of your post, I have a hard time understanding how an Israelite can surrender God's chosen Israelite identity to the ancestral ambiguity in the title, Jew. Please forgive me chair... but, I'm hearing the story of Esau all over this scenario.

Granted, Christians seldom follow the traditions of the patriarchs, but I not hearing those claiming ancestry to the patriarchs keeping Moses' 'commandments, and the statutes, and the judgments" given to their Israelite fathers and mothers. In fact... such trespass (per Ezra) sounds contrary to Exodus 20:12 KJV, one of the Ten Commandments.

Again, chair... do you consider the Canaanite Shelanite descendants of Judah to be Israelite, or Hebrew? Do you consider yourself a Jew first, and Israelite second? Being Israelite utterly trumps the title Jew, for eternity. For the record, chair... King David was a Pharzite Jew. And, when one explores the scripture with but a little faith... King David was an ancestral Israelite. Judah's daughter-in-law Tamar, maternal ancestress to David, was an Israelite priestess when associating Genesis 38:24 KJV with Leviticus 20:10 KJV. Whoever wrote Leviticus (as in your proclaimed paternal ancestors) surely believed Tamar was a Priestess. In fact, associating Genesis 38:24 KJV with Leviticus 20:10 sanctions the very high probability Tamar was a LEVITE Priestess, daughter of Levi! David was NOT a Jew, chair.

kayaker

You are making a whole series of assumptions and mistakes. I will try to starighten this out as best as I can:

1. You seem to think that "racial purity" is important. " a "Semite" is an ancestrally undiluted descendant of Shem, son of Noah, other than with a Gentile (Genesis 9:27, 10:2, 3, 4, 5). Otherwise, mixed progeny do not carry the ancestral title of the father". Life is not that simple. Even King David, who you keep mentioning, was of mixed heritage. Look up "Ruth".
2. There were no Israelites at the time of the Judah and Tamar story. The Sons of Israel were just an extended family at the time. Where do you think they got their wives from? Where was Tamar from, for that matter? You make her out to be an "Israelite Priestess", by somehow applying the rules of Leviticus (dating 500 years later) backwards in time. But - I really do not understand how you do this tirck, or why.
3. Modern Jews are simply the surviving Israelites. Mostly from the tribe of Judah. I do not see the difficulty here.
4. You assume, for reasons that are unclear, that modern Jews are "Shelanites". Why do you make that assumption? Why not the families of Peretz or Zerach?
5. You assume that there was something worng with the "Shelanites". They are mentioned in Chronicles, as just another clan of the tribe of Judah.

Chair

kayaker
January 13th, 2015, 08:11 AM
well, by nature that last statement may upset some and shock others. i guess we can all look up what you have looked up. is it all from the OT Bible ? - :sam:

You are indeed patrick on the spot! Thanks again for your correction. I've had to make another correction that reveals is a very subtle distinction on a very key point:


"Whoever wrote Leviticus (as in your proclaimed paternal ancestors) surely believed Tamar was a Priestess. In fact, associating Genesis 38:24 KJV with Leviticus 21:9 KJV (corrected from 20:10) sanctions the very high probability Tamar was a LEVITE Priestess, daughter of Levi!"

I am not aware David was ever directly referred to as a Jew in the OT, or the NT for that matter. Christians ambiguously (through lack of a ancestral knowledge, respectfully) refer to Jesus as a Jew. Jesus was not just any ole Jew of some ambiguous ancestry... Jesus was a Pharzite Jew (Matthew 1:3, Luke 3:31, 32, 33). This may seem like splitting hairs, patrick jane... but, those who instigated the crucifixion were the Shelanite descendants of Judah, while Jesus and David were the descendants of Judah and Tamar via their eldest twin son, Pharez. Hence, David was not just any ole ancestrally ambiguous Jew following the traditions of the elders... David was a Pharzite Jew, as was Jesus, to be ancestrally explicit. To be more ancestrally precise even still, David and Jesus were ISRAELITES considering my correction above.

Of course, Judaism, playing smoke and mirror games, has recanted the significance of ancestry shifting from foot to foot appreciating chair's post... while Moses made ancestry of God's chosen irrefutable (Deuteronomy 7:1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10) as Ezra affirmed over a thousand years later in Ezra 9:1, 2, 3, 7... look a few verses further:


Ezra 9:11, 12, 13, 14, 15, KJV "Which thou hast commanded by thy servants the prophets, saying, The land, unto which ye go to possesses it (Deuteronomy 7:1, 2), is an unclean land with filthiness of the people of the lands, with their abomination, which have filled it from one end to another with their uncleanness. 12) Now therefore give not your daughters unto their sons, neither take their daughters unto your sons (Deuteronomy 7:3 KJV), nor seek their peace or their wealth for ever: that ye may be strong, and eat the good of the land, and leave it for an inheritance to your children for ever (Deuteronomy 25:5, 6). 13) And after all that is come upon us (Israelites) for our evil deed, and for our great trespass, seeing that thou our God (of Israel) hast punished us less than our iniquities deserve, an dhast given us such deliverance as this (Ezra 9:8 KJV); 14) Should we again break thy commandments (ancestral ambiguity in, "Jew"), an djoin in affinity with the people of these abominations (Canaanite Shelanites)? wouldest not thou be angry with us till thou hadst consumed us, so that there should be no remnant nor escaping? 15) O Lord God of Israel, thou art righteous: for we remain yet escaped, as it is this day: behold, we are before thee in our trespasses (Judah hooked with with a Canaanite = Shelanites): for we cannot stand before thee because of this."

David was not any ole Jew, and neither was Jesus... as you hear chair diluting out the ancestry of David with the story of Ruth, which I well anticipated, btw. I've gotta render unto Caesar... but, I'll be back to respond to chair's appreciated rebuttal.

kayaker

IMJerusha
January 13th, 2015, 10:09 AM
Indeed, IMJ... the blood of a Pharzite Jewish Yeshua!

blessings

kayaker

I am unaware of Scripture's confirmation of this. In Yeshua we have no differences and He is our distinctive trait.

CherubRam
January 14th, 2015, 12:31 AM
We should all get down on our knees and pray we do not get Jewed again.
The synagogue of Satan were and are the Hellenistic Jews who practice Mysticism, now called Kabbalah. They believe the New Covenant is for only the Gentiles and not them. In other words, keeping circumcision and the festivals with the old priesthood.

Revelation 2:9
I know your afflictions and your poverty—yet you are rich! I know about the slander of those who say they are Jews and are not, but are a synagogue of Satan.


Revelation 3:9
I will make those who are of the synagogue of Satan, who claim to be Jews though they are not, but are liars—I will make them come and fall down at your feet and acknowledge that I have loved you.

patrick jane
January 14th, 2015, 12:43 AM
You are indeed patrick on the spot! Thanks again for your correction. I've had to make another correction that reveals is a very subtle distinction on a very key point:


"Whoever wrote Leviticus (as in your proclaimed paternal ancestors) surely believed Tamar was a Priestess. In fact, associating Genesis 38:24 KJV with Leviticus 21:9 KJV (corrected from 20:10) sanctions the very high probability Tamar was a LEVITE Priestess, daughter of Levi!"

I am not aware David was ever directly referred to as a Jew in the OT, or the NT for that matter. Christians ambiguously (through lack of a ancestral knowledge, respectfully) refer to Jesus as a Jew. Jesus was not just any ole Jew of some ambiguous ancestry... Jesus was a Pharzite Jew (Matthew 1:3, Luke 3:31, 32, 33). This may seem like splitting hairs, patrick jane... but, those who instigated the crucifixion were the Shelanite descendants of Judah, while Jesus and David were the descendants of Judah and Tamar via their eldest twin son, Pharez. Hence, David was not just any ole ancestrally ambiguous Jew following the traditions of the elders... David was a Pharzite Jew, as was Jesus, to be ancestrally explicit. To be more ancestrally precise even still, David and Jesus were ISRAELITES considering my correction above.

Of course, Judaism, playing smoke and mirror games, has recanted the significance of ancestry shifting from foot to foot appreciating chair's post... while Moses made ancestry of God's chosen irrefutable (Deuteronomy 7:1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10) as Ezra affirmed over a thousand years later in Ezra 9:1, 2, 3, 7... look a few verses further:


Ezra 9:11, 12, 13, 14, 15, KJV "Which thou hast commanded by thy servants the prophets, saying, The land, unto which ye go to possesses it (Deuteronomy 7:1, 2), is an unclean land with filthiness of the people of the lands, with their abomination, which have filled it from one end to another with their uncleanness. 12) Now therefore give not your daughters unto their sons, neither take their daughters unto your sons (Deuteronomy 7:3 KJV), nor seek their peace or their wealth for ever: that ye may be strong, and eat the good of the land, and leave it for an inheritance to your children for ever (Deuteronomy 25:5, 6). 13) And after all that is come upon us (Israelites) for our evil deed, and for our great trespass, seeing that thou our God (of Israel) hast punished us less than our iniquities deserve, an dhast given us such deliverance as this (Ezra 9:8 KJV); 14) Should we again break thy commandments (ancestral ambiguity in, "Jew"), an djoin in affinity with the people of these abominations (Canaanite Shelanites)? wouldest not thou be angry with us till thou hadst consumed us, so that there should be no remnant nor escaping? 15) O Lord God of Israel, thou art righteous: for we remain yet escaped, as it is this day: behold, we are before thee in our trespasses (Judah hooked with with a Canaanite = Shelanites): for we cannot stand before thee because of this."

David was not any ole Jew, and neither was Jesus... as you hear chair diluting out the ancestry of David with the story of Ruth, which I well anticipated, btw. I've gotta render unto Caesar... but, I'll be back to respond to chair's appreciated rebuttal.

kayaker

yes. i wasn't trying to correct you, because i don't know enough about lineage. i was just saying we could look things up,i may do that somedy. i procrastinate. good points, but i can neither agree or disagree yet. i'm sure most , if not all, is true. i guess i asked a good question that helped you see something. accident. gotta go :Patrol:

IMJerusha
January 14th, 2015, 01:38 AM
We should all get down on our knees and pray we do not get Jewed again.

Thanks but I'll follow Yeshua and the Ruach if it's all the same to you rather than try to find people to rag on. I just don't get the point of that.

JosephR
January 14th, 2015, 02:44 AM
We should all get down on our knees and pray we do not get Jewed again.
The synagogue of Satan were and are the Hellenistic Jews who practice Mysticism, now called Kabbalah. They believe the New Covenant is for only the Gentiles and not them. In other words, keeping circumcision and the festivals with the old priesthood.

Revelation 2:9
I know your afflictions and your poverty—yet you are rich! I know about the slander of those who say they are Jews and are not, but are a synagogue of Satan.


Revelation 3:9
I will make those who are of the synagogue of Satan, who claim to be Jews though they are not, but are liars—I will make them come and fall down at your feet and acknowledge that I have loved you.


you have no idea what you type about..

Heb 8:8 is the ONLY new cov you will find...

and mark these words. when the world turned its back against the Father the Jews kept His Laws and ways.

and you dont know scrap about Kabbalah, or the seeking or way of God.... thats what is means......

CherubRam
January 14th, 2015, 05:14 AM
you have no idea what you type about..

Heb 8:8 is the ONLY new cov you will find...

and mark these words. when the world turned its back against the Father the Jews kept His Laws and ways.

and you dont know scrap about Kabbalah, or the seeking or way of God.... thats what is means......

Heb 8:8. But God found fault with the people and said: “The days are coming, declares the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the people of Israel and with the people ...

Is it true that Messianics keep covenant circumcision? Is it true they keep the festivals? As for Kabbalah, I do know what Mysticism is.



Acts 13:6
They traveled through the whole island until they came to Paphos. There they met a Jewish sorcerer and false prophet named Bar-Jesus,

Acts 26:3
and especially so because you are well acquainted with all the Jewish customs and controversies. Therefore, I beg you to listen to me patiently.

Titus 1:14
and will pay no attention to Jewish myths or to the merely human commands of those who reject the truth.

Jude 1:4
Because you are unaware that certain men have sneaked in, who are of a ancient order to their condemnation, these ungodly men turn the grace of our God into immorality, and deny that that our lord Yahshua is the Messiah.

JosephR
January 14th, 2015, 05:19 AM
Heb 8:8. But God found fault with the people and said: “The days are coming, declares the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the people of Israel and with the people ...

Is it true that Messianics keep covenant circumcision? Is it true they keep the festivals? As for Kabbalah, I do know what Mysticism is.

I know of alot worse then those keeping Gods days...You speak of a New Covenant for Christians,, please provide scripture.

and you havent a clue..just cause you say you do you show your hate and ignorance... does not mean you know the keys of Solomon,or the ways of Enoch.....

JosephR
January 14th, 2015, 05:21 AM
Heb 8:8. But God found fault with the people and said: “The days are coming, declares the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the people of Israel and with the people ...

Is it true that Messianics keep covenant circumcision? Is it true they keep the festivals? As for Kabbalah, I do know what Mysticism is.

further more, Kabbalah is an in depth look at scripture like Ezekiel... thru eyes and translations that you are not aware of,in the mother tounge..the Hebrew language is very complex.. these are the keepers of the old ways..

CherubRam
January 14th, 2015, 05:25 AM
further more, Kabbalah is an in depth look at scripture like Ezekiel... thru eyes and translations that you are not aware of,in the mother tounge..the Hebrew language is very complex.. these are the keepers of the old ways..

That is what people in Astrology and Numerology also say.

JosephR
January 14th, 2015, 05:26 AM
That is what people in Astrology and Numerology also say.

then you dont know where your own religion has its roots...

divination, the sign of Jonah,,ect ect ect

JosephR
January 14th, 2015, 05:28 AM
from one new moon to another!!

yes ,new moons, you see your religion is Lunar based,not like the pagan sun worshipers...you are so different then them...

CherubRam
January 14th, 2015, 05:49 AM
then you dont know where your own religion has its roots...

divination, the sign of Jonah,,ect ect ect
I am smart enough to know what a parable is. I know the difference between Numerics and Numerology, between Astronomy and Astrology.



Amos 5:26
You have lifted up the shrine of your king, the pedestal of your idols, the star of your god— which you made for yourselves.

Psalm 64:2
Hide me from the conspiracy of the wicked, from the plots of evildoers.

Isaiah 8:12
“Do not call conspiracy everything this people calls a conspiracy; do not fear what they fear, and do not dread it.

Jeremiah 11:9
Then the Lord said to me, “There is a conspiracy among the people of Judah and those who live in Jerusalem.

Ezekiel 22:25
There is a conspiracy of her princes within her like a roaring lion tearing its prey; they devour people, take treasures and precious things and make many widows within her.

Acts 9:23
After many days had gone by, there was a conspiracy among the Jews to kill him,

Acts 23:12
[ The Plot to Kill Paul ] The next morning some Jews formed a conspiracy and bound themselves with an oath not to eat or drink until they had killed Paul.

Isaiah 45:19
I have not spoken in secret, from somewhere in a land of darkness; I have not said to Jacob’s descendants, ‘Seek me in vain.’ I, the Lord, speak the truth; I declare what is right.

Zechariah 10:2
The idols speak deceitfully, diviners see visions that lie; they tell dreams that are false, they give comfort in vain. Therefore the people wander like sheep oppressed for lack of a shepherd.

Matthew 15:9
They worship me in vain; their teachings are merely human rules.’”

Mark 7:7
They worship me in vain; their teachings are merely human rules.’

kayaker
January 16th, 2015, 08:50 AM
You are making a whole series of assumptions and mistakes. I will try to starighten this out as best as I can:

1. You seem to think that "racial purity" is important. " a "Semite" is an ancestrally undiluted descendant of Shem, son of Noah, other than with a Gentile (Genesis 9:27, 10:2, 3, 4, 5). Otherwise, mixed progeny do not carry the ancestral title of the father". Life is not that simple. Even King David, who you keep mentioning, was of mixed heritage. Look up "Ruth".
2. There were no Israelites at the time of the Judah and Tamar story. The Sons of Israel were just an extended family at the time. Where do you think they got their wives from? Where was Tamar from, for that matter? You make her out to be an "Israelite Priestess", by somehow applying the rules of Leviticus (dating 500 years later) backwards in time. But - I really do not understand how you do this tirck, or why.
3. Modern Jews are simply the surviving Israelites. Mostly from the tribe of Judah. I do not see the difficulty here.
4. You assume, for reasons that are unclear, that modern Jews are "Shelanites". Why do you make that assumption? Why not the families of Peretz or Zerach?
5. You assume that there was something worng with the "Shelanites". They are mentioned in Chronicles, as just another clan of the tribe of Judah.

Chair

There is no assumption about Deuteronomy 7:1, 2, 3, in my mind, chair. There is no assumption about Ezra 9:1, 2, 3, 7, either. The assumption you persistently make is that Moses or Ezra ever rescinded (withdrew, rendered null and void) these "commandments, and the statues, and the judgments, which I (Moses) command thee this day, to do them" (Deuteronomy 7:11 KJV).

Furthermore, the ‘chosen of God’ were the ancestrally intact Shemite/Hebrew/Israelites who Moses was addressing in Deuteronomy 7:1, 2, 3. In these verses, Moses rebuked marital relationships with those “seven nations” including the Canaanites, specific to our discussion as relates to Judah and his Canaanite father-in-law (Genesis 38:1, 2), his Canaanitess wife (1Chronicles 2:3), and their Canaanite/Shelanite descendants, contrary to Deuteronomy.

Over a thousand years later in Ezra 9:1, 2, 7, 8, Ezra affirmed God’s chosen were the ancestrally intact Shemite/Hebrew/Israelite “holy seed.” Ezra documented only a “remnant” of ancestrally intact “holy seed” Shemite/Hebrew/Israelites had NOT trespassed Deuteronomy 7:1, 2, 3 since the days of Shem, son of Noah. Ezra’s specific cases testifying to the surviving “holy seed” “remnant” are in the OT, and Ezra testified to their existence culminated in the “remnant” “holy seed.” Moses was resolved for a “thousand generations”, chair. Ezra certainly thought so! Please listen again to Moses a few verses later:


Deuteronomy 7:8 KJV "Know therefore that the Lord thy God, he is God, the faithful God, which keepeth covenant and mercy with them (Israelites) that love him and keep his commandments (Deuteronomy 7:2, 3) to a thousand generations."

Did you capture this "keep his commandments (Deuteronomy 7:2, 3) to a thousand generations", chair? Sounds resolute to me. In far fewer than a hundred generations, I gather the clear impression you’ve replaced your Yisrael, Bnei Yisrael (Israelite) heritage as God’s chosen, with the ancestrally ambiguous title, Jew. Do Christians not respect Jews for honoring the Laws of Moses? If I may be so bold chair, it is not me who is making “a whole series of assumptions and mistakes” as you suggest. Please ‘straighten this out as best you can’:

A) Who, when, where, and by whose divine authority in the OT were God’s chosen to be anyone other than ancestrally intact, Shemite/Hebrew Israelites (Deuteronomy 7:6, 7, 8, 9)?

B) Who, when, where, and by whose divine authority in the OT was Deuteronomy 7:1, 2, 3 ever rescinded such that Shemite/Hebrew Israelites could marry Canaanites, specifically?

C) Please provide OT examples of ordained marital unions explaining how Ezra’s Shemite/Hebrew/Israelite “remnant” “holy seed” survived ancestrally intact to his day.

D) How long would Ezra’s “holy seed” “remnant” remain ancestrally intact following the days of Ezra?

Please allow me to post individual replies to the five points you brought up. We can discuss your remaining points in chronological order as we move along. I would prefer to reply to each of your points, all fell swoop… but, I risk receiving a respected TOL warning for too long of a post. When you reply to this post, I will enjoy moving on to #1 “racial purity” in your post.

kayaker

nikolai_42
January 16th, 2015, 09:31 AM
Isaiah 65:15
You will leave your name to my chosen ones as a curse;(Jew) the Sovereign LORD will put you to death, but to his servants he will give another name. (Christian)

Acts 11:26
and when he found him, he brought him to Antioch. So for a whole year Barnabas and Saul met with the church and taught great numbers of people. The disciples were called Christians first at Antioch.

First of all, it looks like the Lord - in that chapter - is talking about the loss of identity of Israel. The masses would be killed (as you quoted in your OP, but some would be saved and would be called by a "new name". Look at what He says earlier in the chapter :

Behold, it is written before me: I will not keep silence, but will recompense, even recompense into their bosom,
Your iniquities, and the iniquities of your fathers together, saith the Lord, which have burned incense upon the mountains, and blasphemed me upon the hills: therefore will I measure their former work into their bosom.
Thus saith the Lord, As the new wine is found in the cluster, and one saith, Destroy it not; for a blessing is in it: so will I do for my servants' sakes, that I may not destroy them all.
And I will bring forth a seed out of Jacob, and out of Judah an inheritor of my mountains: and mine elect shall inherit it, and my servants shall dwell there.
Isaiah 65:6-9

So...a promise of judgment, but not of complete destruction. God is talking about the wasting of a people from the standpoint of the whole people...He has hinted at death for most, but a saving of a handful from Jacob and Judah. So what of the disobedient?

But ye are they that forsake the Lord, that forget my holy mountain, that prepare a table for that troop, and that furnish the drink offering unto that number.
Therefore will I number you to the sword, and ye shall all bow down to the slaughter: because when I called, ye did not answer; when I spake, ye did not hear; but did evil before mine eyes, and did choose that wherein I delighted not.
Isaiah 65:11-12

What follows is another comparison of the wicked of Israel and those that serve the Lord :

Therefore thus saith the Lord God, Behold, my servants shall eat, but ye shall be hungry: behold, my servants shall drink, but ye shall be thirsty: behold, my servants shall rejoice, but ye shall be ashamed:
Behold, my servants shall sing for joy of heart, but ye shall cry for sorrow of heart, and shall howl for vexation of spirit.
And ye shall leave your name for a curse unto my chosen: for the Lord God shall slay thee, and call his servants by another name:
Isaiah 65:13-15

So those that are faithful to God would certainly be called by the name of Christ, but where are the wicked? They have been utterly slain. What happened to Israel? They were utterly scattered. They lost their identity. One may well argue for that identity (and there are many who do) but the key here is not the racial or cultural identification - the key here is actually the losing of that identification and the taking on of a spiritual identification. The latter part of that chapter speaks of a new heavens and a new earth.

And this leads to a spiritual interpretation of that "new name" - one which gets closer to the heart of what you are implying (those who follow Christ vs. those who reject Him). It's found here :

He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the hidden manna, and will give him a white stone, and in the stone a new name written, which no man knoweth saving he that receiveth it.
Revelation 2:17

This name is not a carnal one.

In those days, and at that time, will I cause the Branch of righteousness to grow up unto David; and he shall execute judgment and righteousness in the land.
In those days shall Judah be saved, and Jerusalem shall dwell safely: and this is the name wherewith she shall be called, The Lord our righteousness.
Jeremiah 33:15-16

So to claim that the old identification (which was partly to do with the scattering of the tribes) misses the mark is correct. To claim the new name has to do with the Lord Himself is correct. But to then quarrel about genealogies and cultural identities is to fall into the same trap. How is that not pharisaical?

What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?
It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.
John 6:62-63

Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except a corn of wheat fall into the ground and die, it abideth alone: but if it die, it bringeth forth much fruiit.
He that loveth his life shall lose it; and he that hateth his life in this world shall keep it unto life eternal.
If any man serve me, let him follow me; and where I am, there shall also my servant be: if any man serve me, him will my Father honour.
John 12:24-26

kayaker
January 16th, 2015, 09:44 AM
I am unaware of Scripture's confirmation of this. In Yeshua we have no differences and He is our distinctive trait.

Thanks for your patience, IMJ.

Messiah was prophesied to be through Judah. Judah sired three sons via his Canaanite wife: Er, Onan, and Shelah. Only Shelah survived to procreate. Following, Judah also sired twin sons via his daughter-in-law, Tamar. Pharez was the eldest twin, and Pharez is found in the lineage of King David and Jesus as Matthew begins the NT in the third verse of the first chapter, Matthew 1:3 KJV. Realizing "Esrom" was "Hezron" of 1Chronicles 4:1 KJV who was the son of Pharez (1Chronicles 2:3, 4, 5)... it becomes clearer still that Jesus was a descendant of Pharez, eldest twin son of Judah and Tamar. Therefore, Yeshua was a Pharzite, and not a Shelanite.

When one associates the title "Jew" with Judah referring to the arrival of Yeshua... one is implying the ancestral component of being a "Jew". I can appreciate the non-ancestral component of being a "Jew", IMJ... to each their own. However, when one refers to the ancestral component of being a "Jew", then such reference demands ancestral clarity. Jesus was therefore a Pharzite descendant of Judah, prophesied progenitor of Yeshua, and He was distinctly not a Shelanite descendant of Judah.

You might imagine the anticipation and rift between the Pharzites and Shelanites as through whom Yeshua would arrive in those days. And, they were the Shelanite descendants of Judah who instigated the crucifixion of Yeshuah, a Pharzite descendant of Judah. Where the delusion comes into play, IMJ... the Shelanites proclaimed Yeshua was an impostor not being in the lineage of Shelah.

I give you full credit there are authentic Israelites in the nation/state of Israel. By the same token, there are Shelanites as well. The Shelanites duped the ancestrally confused Pharzites into surrendering their Israelite heritage as God's chosen, for the ancestrally ambiguous title of "Jew."

I appreciate your distinction worshipping the God of Israel, IMJ. To my distinction, the God of Israel is not wholly worshipped by the Jews. The God of Israel (people, not land) is the God of the Israelites in Deuteronomy 7:6, 7, 8, 9.

We Christians agree wholeheartedly through Yeshua there are no ancestral privileges to spiritual eternity. That was the whole point of Yeshua's dialogue with Nicodemus. Such was emphasized by Paul. However, the notion of divine lineage only applied to, and was fulfilled by, Yeshua, the second Adam. The "generations" of Yeshua, His arrival generation, was illustrated by Luke in 3:23-38, and Luke includes Phares and Esrom (Hezron)... among those generations including David (Luke 3:31, 32, 33). You've heard my rendering that Yeshua's arrival "generation" was prophesied in Genesis 4:24 KJV being "seventy and sevenfold" generations from Almighty God. Jesus was the 77th generation from Almighty God, inclusively. The divinity of Jesus is affirmed in these 77 generation being captured in the 'name' of Jesus. This may hint at the notion, "My father and I are one."

Just because the "Jews" have little respect for ancestry embracing the ancestrally ambiguous title "Jew" doesn't mean Yeshua's arrival was via some random act of God among some random group of people. Many Israelites, Pharzites/Zarhites particularly, were duped into believing Yeshuah would arrive via the Shelanite descendants of Judah. But, the Shelanites were/are NOT ancestrally intact "Jews" (Rev 2:9, 3:9) considering Jesus was a Pharzite Jew. And, the Shelanites instigated Jesus' crucifixion to sequester the very dark truth about their ancestry that also goes all the way back to the first few chapters of Genesis.

If you consider Yeshua to be a Jew, the I consider myself to be an adopted Pharzite Jew!

kayaker

kayaker
January 18th, 2015, 01:06 AM
Please allow me a domestic post to settle some unfinished business, chair…

A) Who, when, where, and by whose divine authority in the OT were God’s chosen to be anyone other than ancestrally intact, Shemite/Hebrew Israelites (Deuteronomy 7:6, 7, 8, 9)?

ANSWER: The Shemite/Hebrew Israelites were all ancestrally diluted by Ezra’s day, except for Ezra’s “remnant” “holy seed” who “escaped” ancestral dilution (Ezra 9:1, 2, Ezra 9:7 KJV, Ezra 9:8 KJV); while appreciating your astute comment, ‘Life is not that simple.’ Neither you, nor I can produce irrefutable birth records to our OT ancestry. The Israelite chosen of God (Deuteronomy 7:6, 7, 8, 9) were purposeful to continue Adam’s genealogy through four thousand years to a generational endpoint, discussed momentarily. The arrival of Yeshua/Messiah fulfilled this purpose for God’s Adamite/Sethite/Shemite/Hebrew Israelite chosen people from the beginning. Since Yeshua/Messiah’s arrival, the chosen of God will now be those who simply recognize Yeshua/Messiah as the fulfilled mission of God’s chosen Shemite/Hebrew Israelites (Deuteronomy 7:1, 2, 3). Since, as you say… “Life is not that simple”, and it hasn’t been since long before Ezra’s day.

B) Who, when, where, and by whose divine authority in the OT was Deuteronomy 7:1, 2, 3 ever rescinded such that Shemite/Hebrew Israelites could marry Canaanites, specifically?

ANSWER: Marriage rebuked within the confines of Deuteronomy was never rescinded. However, Christians being the ‘bride of Christ’ deserves mention. Ezra recognized those rebuked relationships (Ezra 9:1, 2, 7), who were set aside from the congregation of the Lord in Ezra 10:2, 3, as a great trespass. And, that “Life is not that simple” today is a vast understatement, respectfully. Certainly God would provide a way.

The Israelites (less Judah, momentarily; Joseph, a fascinating parallel) transgressed desiring those 32k Midianite (son of Keturah) virgins Moses remorsefully permitted entry into the Israelite congregation of the Lord during the great conquest found in Numbers 31:1, 2, 9, Numbers 31:14 KJV, Numbers 31:17, 18, 35. This possibly supports why Moses never set foot in the Promised Land, a notion worth exploring.

In comparison to the Israelites, Judah transgressed hooking-up with a Canaanitess wife (1Chronicles 2:3), daughter of the Canaanite Shuah (Genesis 38:1, 2), son of Keturah (Genesis 25:1, 2, 3, 4). I proffer Judah’s surviving Canaanite son Shelah, grandson of Shuah, hooked-up with his virgin Midianite cousins (Shuah and Midian were brothers), having witnessed God snuffing out his two elder brothers for their infraction hooking-up with the Israelite, Tamar: Please allow me to introduce you to the ancestral origin of the Shelanites, discussed again momentarily, which brings mother Keturah’s nefarious ancestry into view. If you wish to discuss maternal ancestresses (like Tamar and Ruth), we might also consider Keturah. Another post, perhaps.

C) Please provide OT examples of marital unions explaining how Ezra’s Shemite/Hebrew/Israelite “remnant” “holy seed” “escaped” remaining ancestrally intact to his day.

ANSWER: Consider Abraham’s relationship with his half-sister, Sarah. Consider Abraham’s infamous quest for a wife for Isaac (Genesis 24:2, 3, 4). Consider Isaac’s marriage to his cousin, Rebekah. Consider Isaac’s and Rebekah’s dire concerns for a wife for Jacob (Genesis 28:46, 29:1). Consider Jacob’s marriage to his cousin/sisters Leah and Rachel. Consider Tamar playing the harlot with her father-in-law Judah (already discussed, Genesis 38:24, Leviticus 21:9). Consider Ruth with Boaz (discussed another post, perhaps).

In contrast, please consider the impostor Shelanites’ argument in John 8:41 KJV seeking the crucifixion of the Pharzite Yeshua: Abraham was married to Keturah (Genesis 25:1, 2, 3, 4), grandmother of the Shelanites and Midianites. And, Judah was married to the Canaanite Shuah’s, Canaanitess daughter (Genesis 38:1, 2, 12, 1Chronicles 2:3). Keturah was grandmother of the Shelanites and Midianites, particular to this discussion. Consider the covenant of marriage overriding Deuteronomy 7:1, 2, 3 within Talmudic Judaism (includes Shelanites); and, consider the importance of the mother dictating “Jewishness” from an ancestral perspective in Judaism. Please bend the knee to mother Keturah, the great harlot, and ancestress to the Shelanite/Midianite impostors who also call themselves “Jews”. Keturah is ancestress to those who discount Israelite heritage (John 8:33 KJV, Luke 3:7, 8, Acts 7, Stephen knew), with whom you are sleeping, chair. Do indeed, take note of Yeshua’s end-time prophesy in Matthew 24:32, 33, 34, 35 with particular emphasis on Matthew 24:36, 37, 38, 39… a trip back in time worth re-exploring, btw.

D) How long would Ezra’s “holy seed” “remnant” remain ancestrally intact following the days of Ezra?

ANSWER: The only purpose for the “remnant” “holy seed” (beginning with Adam and Eve via Seth…) to remain intact was to yield God’s second son (Luke 3:38). Yeshua/Messiah was prophesied to arrive 77-fold (“seventy and sevenfold” Genesis 4:24) generations from Almighty God, illustrated by Luke in Luke 3:23-38. Yeshua is the 77th generation from God, inclusively, fulfilling Ezra’s futuristic “remnant” “holy seed” who “escaped” ancestral dilution rebuked in Deuteronomy 7:1, 2, 3. Those who simply recognize Yeshua as the second son of God (Luke 3:38), the 77th from God inclusively (Genesis 4:24), are thereby assimilated into the congregation of the Lord. Beyond this adoption via the simple realization Jesus is Yeshua/Messiah, ancestral records are to no avail, even if we could produce them. And, we are all ancestrally diluted in violation of Deuteronomy, although I cannot say there are no ancestrally intact Shelanites. As you suggested chair, “Life IS not that simple,” life was complicated long before the days of Ezra 9:1, 2, 3, Ezra 9:6 KJV, Ezra 9:7 KJV, Ezra 9: 14 KV.

To the best of my limited knowledge, the only other option for one to remain in compliance with Deuteronomy 7:1, 2, 3, other than through adoption, is for one to not procreate. And, such was the main component of the curse of Cain in Genesis 4:12, 13, 14, 15, KJV, another thread, perhaps. Israelite ancestry and Hebrew birth records were only purposeful to produce and authenticate Yeshua beginning in Genesis 2 with Adam… Seth... Shem… Eber (Hebrew, Genesis 10:21)… Abram/Abraham… Isaac… Jacob-Israel… Judah… Pharez… David… Yeshua/Messiah. Outside and beyond this purpose to produce Yeshuah/Messiah, ancestry is of no significance, other than to the Shelanites who still await their ‘messiah’ from within their likely intact ‘Keturahite’ (Midianite/Shelanite) lineage (Matthew 24:15, 28). Who was Keturah? Another time, perhaps.

kayaker

patrick jane
January 18th, 2015, 01:38 AM
First of all, it looks like the Lord - in that chapter - is talking about the loss of identity of Israel. The masses would be killed (as you quoted in your OP, but some would be saved and would be called by a "new name". Look at what He says earlier in the chapter :

Behold, it is written before me: I will not keep silence, but will recompense, even recompense into their bosom,
Your iniquities, and the iniquities of your fathers together, saith the Lord, which have burned incense upon the mountains, and blasphemed me upon the hills: therefore will I measure their former work into their bosom.
Thus saith the Lord, As the new wine is found in the cluster, and one saith, Destroy it not; for a blessing is in it: so will I do for my servants' sakes, that I may not destroy them all.
And I will bring forth a seed out of Jacob, and out of Judah an inheritor of my mountains: and mine elect shall inherit it, and my servants shall dwell there.
Isaiah 65:6-9

So...a promise of judgment, but not of complete destruction. God is talking about the wasting of a people from the standpoint of the whole people...He has hinted at death for most, but a saving of a handful from Jacob and Judah. So what of the disobedient?

But ye are they that forsake the Lord, that forget my holy mountain, that prepare a table for that troop, and that furnish the drink offering unto that number.
Therefore will I number you to the sword, and ye shall all bow down to the slaughter: because when I called, ye did not answer; when I spake, ye did not hear; but did evil before mine eyes, and did choose that wherein I delighted not.
Isaiah 65:11-12

What follows is another comparison of the wicked of Israel and those that serve the Lord :

Therefore thus saith the Lord God, Behold, my servants shall eat, but ye shall be hungry: behold, my servants shall drink, but ye shall be thirsty: behold, my servants shall rejoice, but ye shall be ashamed:
Behold, my servants shall sing for joy of heart, but ye shall cry for sorrow of heart, and shall howl for vexation of spirit.
And ye shall leave your name for a curse unto my chosen: for the Lord God shall slay thee, and call his servants by another name:
Isaiah 65:13-15

So those that are faithful to God would certainly be called by the name of Christ, but where are the wicked? They have been utterly slain. What happened to Israel? They were utterly scattered. They lost their identity. One may well argue for that identity (and there are many who do) but the key here is not the racial or cultural identification - the key here is actually the losing of that identification and the taking on of a spiritual identification. The latter part of that chapter speaks of a new heavens and a new earth.

And this leads to a spiritual interpretation of that "new name" - one which gets closer to the heart of what you are implying (those who follow Christ vs. those who reject Him). It's found here :

He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the hidden manna, and will give him a white stone, and in the stone a new name written, which no man knoweth saving he that receiveth it.
Revelation 2:17

This name is not a carnal one.

In those days, and at that time, will I cause the Branch of righteousness to grow up unto David; and he shall execute judgment and righteousness in the land.
In those days shall Judah be saved, and Jerusalem shall dwell safely: and this is the name wherewith she shall be called, The Lord our righteousness.
Jeremiah 33:15-16

So to claim that the old identification (which was partly to do with the scattering of the tribes) misses the mark is correct. To claim the new name has to do with the Lord Himself is correct. But to then quarrel about genealogies and cultural identities is to fall into the same trap. How is that not pharisaical?

What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?
It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.
John 6:62-63

Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except a corn of wheat fall into the ground and die, it abideth alone: but if it die, it bringeth forth much fruiit.
He that loveth his life shall lose it; and he that hateth his life in this world shall keep it unto life eternal.
If any man serve me, let him follow me; and where I am, there shall also my servant be: if any man serve me, him will my Father honour.
John 12:24-26


as a casual observer here, and i am NOT disputing or arguing what The Bible says or attacking anyones interpretaion. i don't think i am jewish, but I even get offended by people stressing or emphasising scripture that speaks of the "wickedness and rebellion" of Jews or Hebrews or tribes of Israel. in a broader sense, isn't it ALL OF US ? i mean, isn't God actually speaking to EVERYBODY, EVERY TIME. i also don't care for Jews that act as if theyare "chosen" or "special". why can't some people see past ancestery and all of those details, of which we can never know all of. jew, gentile, this, that and the other. again, i'm not knocking anyone's research and study, or impyling anything in particular. i guess i'm from the church of "what's happening now" - :juggle:

chair
January 18th, 2015, 02:42 AM
Please allow me a domestic post to settle some unfinished business, chair…

A) Who, when, where, and by whose divine authority in the OT were God’s chosen to be anyone other than ancestrally intact, Shemite/Hebrew Israelites (Deuteronomy 7:6, 7, 8, 9)?

ANSWER: The Shemite/Hebrew Israelites were all ancestrally diluted by Ezra’s day, except for Ezra’s “remnant” “holy seed” who “escaped” ancestral dilution (Ezra 9:1, 2, Ezra 9:7 KJV, Ezra 9:8 KJV); ...

1. The Biiblical laws of Deuteronomy did not exist at the time of Jacob and his sons. Trying to apply those laws or what is reported in Ezra's time is anachronistic. It was not even possible for the original 12 sons to marry withing the Israelite nation, and there was no such nation at that point, and they would have had to marry their sisters.

2. Who did Moses marry? Or Joseph?

3. The verses you quote in Deuteronomy refer to a "Holy People"- you have assumed that this means a genetically pure people. You decided up front that this should be a genetic (or racial) thing, and you manage to read it into whatever text is in front of you.

4. At the first glance, it seems that Ezra is talking about some racial purity issue. But that approach to the text doesn't make much sense. We know that Ruth joined the Israelites, and there are reports of people joining in the Book of Esther as well.

I suggest that the problem is one of assimilation. They married foriegn women who did not join the Jewish people (what is called "converting" today in English).

5. I've actually losttrack of what the point of thsi discussion is. I will remind you, however, that we get to decide who we are.

kayaker
January 18th, 2015, 05:23 PM
[QUOTE]1. The Biiblical laws of Deuteronomy did not exist at the time of Jacob and his sons. Trying to apply those laws or what is reported in Ezra's time is anachronistic. It was not even possible for the original 12 sons to marry withing the Israelite nation, and there was no such nation at that point, and they would have had to marry their sisters.

Who did Moses get these laws come from, chair? Who gave Moses the big Ten? Granted, such was written by Moses after the days of Jacob and his sons. Moses established the anachronistic continuity of God the Promise Keeper’s ‘faithfulness’ and “mercy”, yesterday, today, and tomorrow, quite clearly in Deuteronomy 7:8, 9. Ezra clearly inferred Mosaic Law upon the sons of Jacob-Israel”


Ezra 9:7 KJV “Since the days of our fathers have we been in a great trespass unto this day; and for our iniquities have we, our kings, and our priests, been delivered into the hand of the kings of the lands, to the sword, to captivity, and to a spoil, and to confusion of face as it is this day.”

Didn’t Noah find “grace in the eyes of the Lord” being a “just man” “perfect in his generations (HINT!)” who “walked with God”, before Moses ever wrote Genesis, chair (Genesis 6:8, 9)? Didn’t Shem and Japheth walk into Noah’s tent backwards and covered before the laws of Leviticus 18:8 KJV, Leviticus 20:11 KJV, Deuteronomy 27:20 KJV, Leviticus 22:30 were written?

The sons of Jacob were not called Jacobites for a reason, chair. They were a nation of Israelites. More on the wives of Jacob’s sons’ later as you subtly justify Judah hooking up with a Canaanite. The Gentiles (descendants of Japheth, Genesis 9:27, 10:2, 3, 4, Genesis 10:5 KJV) were sanctioned to procreate with the Shemites. So saith Noah in Genesis 9:27 KJV who was a “just man” according to his “generations.” If you don’t believe Ezra, do you believe Noah?


2. Who did Moses marry? Or Joseph?

I encourage you to sharpen your pencil, chair. Moses’ father-in-law was Jethro (Exodus 3:1 KJV), also known as Jether, the son of Gideon (Judges 8:13, 20), who was the son of Joash (Judges 6:29, 7:14, 8:13), who was the son of Becher (1Chronicles 7:6), who was the son of Benjamin, son of Jacob-Israel. Moses’ father-in-law was an Israelite of the tribe of Benjamin, if this means anything to you, as was apostle Paul a Benjamite, the second Moses. Was Moses’ wife “smitten” with “black skin” according to your racist rabbi’s Rab and Samuel, endorsed by Rashi in the Talmud? Aaron and Miriam challenged Moses on account of his wife (Numbers 12:1, 2), and the Lord had a ‘come to Jesus meeting’ with those two! But, you don’t have a problem with Judah’s Canaanitess wife? Furthermore, Moses is not in the lineage of David, or Jesus.

Joseph was ‘christened’ Zaphnath-paaneah by the old Pharaoh who admired, and undoubtedly loved Joseph as a totally trusted, first-born son. The old Pharaoh even selected Joseph’s wife who was the priestess Asenath, daughter of Potipherah, priest of On (Genesis 41:45), the capital of lower Egypt. Who were these people Joseph wound up among, chair? The old Pharaoh didn’t even balk when Joseph spoke of God giving him peace (Genesis 41:15, 16). How did Moses tell the Israelites to deal with the Hittites, Girgashites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and the Jebusites in Deuteronomy 7:5? Well, I suppose who Joseph wound up among weren't any of those folk! LOL! Jacob and the gang seemed quite welcome, too... They seemed to all prosper along fine together (Exodus 1:7, 9), until...

After Joseph died (Exodus 1:6), please contrast this old Pharaoh with the “new king over Egypt, which knew not Joseph” (Exodus 1:8), obviously very new to the area. Who was this new Pharaoh, chair? Ask Ezekiel 31:2, 3, 8, 9… the new Pharaoh/Assyrian was equivalent to the serpent in Eden. I suggest he was Asshur (‘father’ of the Assyrians), the long-lived son of Ham’s wife who was pregnant before the ark launched. For all you know, Joseph’s wife was a Gentile. And, such was likely the ancestral case considering Genesis 9:27, 10:2, 3, 4 Genesis 10:5 KJV as Noah, perfect in his generations, sanctioned Gentile-Shemite procreation in Genesis 9:27 KJV. Do you think Abraham’s vast and extended Hebrew family just fell off the map? Do you think the Gentile descendants of Japheth vanished, too? And, you wonder who Jacob’s sons married? Where did Jacob’s wife come from? That one’s a slam-dunk, don’t you think? Have you ever heard the expression, ‘strain a gnat, and swallow a camel’?


3. The verses you quote in Deuteronomy refer to a "Holy People"- you have assumed that this means a genetically pure people. You decided up front that this should be a genetic (or racial) thing, and you manage to read it into whatever text is in front of you.

It was Ezra, author of Chronicles of all Books, who said:


Ezra 9:1, 2, KJV “Now when these things were done, the princes came to me saying, The people of Israel (Israelites, including Judah), and the priests, and the Levites, have not separated themselves from the people of the lands, doing according to their abominations, even of the Canaanites (think Judah’s wife), the Hittites, the Perizzites, the Jebusites, the Ammonites, the Moabites, the Egyptians, and the Amorites. 2) For they (Israelites) have taken of their daughters for themselves, and for their sons (Deuteronomy 7::1, 2, 3): so that the HOLY SEED (Israelites) have mingled themselves (diluted ancestral integrity) with the peoples of those lands (Moses forbade, Deuteronomy 7:1, 2, 3, 23:3, 6): yea, the hands of the princes and rulers hath been chief in this trespass”

The assumption is yours founded in lack of knowledge, chair. When you get a little sharper in scripture… you might not be so presumptuous as Ezra (author of Chronicles, no less) inferred the Laws of Moses all the way back to Jacob-Israel and his sons in Ezra 9:7 KJV. Meanwhile your Shelanite/Sephardic buddies cling to marriage exonerating Judah’s Canaanitess wife that you are ancestrally indifferent about. Do you rebuke Judah’s relationship with a Canaanitess wife?


4. At the first glance, it seems that Ezra is talking about some racial purity issue. But that approach to the text doesn't make much sense. We know that Ruth joined the Israelites, and there are reports of people joining in the Book of Esther as well.

At face value chair, Ezra is crystal clear. Try a second glance. It is you, and most Christians, who subscribe to the ‘Jewish fable’ that Ruth was a blood Moabitess. I’ll touch on Ruth, momentarily. Ruth is significant being in the lineage of David and Jesus.


I suggest that the problem is one of assimilation. They married foriegn women who did not join the Jewish people (what is called "converting" today in English).

Wasn’t Ezra rebuking marriage with women of those lands in Ezra 9:1, 2, 3, 7 affirming and inferring the command of Moses in Deuteronomy 7:1, 2, 3, 23:3, 6, chair? A leopard cannot change his spots, and an Ethiopian cannot change the color of his skin. You’re talking mindset conversion as Moses said would happen in Deuteronomy 7:4 KJV AFTER hooking-up with those rebuked people of Deuteronomy 7:1, 2, 3, 23:3, 6. Those Israelite trespassers had certainly ‘converted’ (Deuteronomy 7:4 KJV)! And, they ‘converted’ back in Ezra 10:3, 4. Take a look at Psalms 19:7 KJV while you reflect on Deuteronomy 7:1, 2, 3, 23:3, 6, Ezra 9:1, 2, 3, 7.


5. I've actually losttrack of what the point of thsi discussion is. I will remind you, however, that we get to decide who we are.

Most certainly “we get to decide who we are.” Wasn’t Jesus a Jew? That’s why I’m a Pharzite Jew, I follow a Pharzite Jew, I’ve been cut, celebrate Passover, and circumcise that pig before throwing him in the smoker. And, I have more respect for your Israelite heritage than you do. Now, backing up to #1 of your prior post:

kayaker

kayaker
January 23rd, 2015, 08:12 PM
You are making a whole series of assumptions and mistakes. I will try to starighten this out as best as I can:

1. You seem to think that "racial purity" is important. " a "Semite" is an ancestrally undiluted descendant of Shem, son of Noah, other than with a Gentile (Genesis 9:27, 10:2, 3, 4, 5). Otherwise, mixed progeny do not carry the ancestral title of the father". Life is not that simple. Even King David, who you keep mentioning, was of mixed heritage. Look up "Ruth".
2.
3.
4.

So, Talmudic Judaism has convinced folk King David was a mamzer, ‘illegitimate’ being politically correct? Such lies are founded in ancestral ignorance, chair. Uninspired Talmudic Judaism teaches Judah MARRIED Tamar to make an ‘honest woman’ out of her, to ‘white-wash’ David as king, contrary to Genesis 38:26 KJV… but, can’t ‘white-wash’ Jesus as Yeshua/Messiah? Thereby, David’s kingship was only ordained because Talmudist rabbis ‘swept up’ behind a faulty, ‘has been’ Almighty God? Parallel to vicariously slandering the ‘name’ of David via the alleged harlot, Tamar; Talmudic rabbis also slandered Ruth’s ancestry to ‘white-wash’ her as a ‘convert’ into the ancestral abyss, aka a “Jew”. Maybe Almighty God needs to submit to the supreme authority of the sexist and racist rabbis Rab, Samuel, and Rashi. They exhibit supreme divine authority extrapolating Ham sodomized and castrated Noah out of Genesis 9:22 KJV. God missed an opportune moment to institute the covenant of circumcision, LOL! Besides, had Judah married Tamar… it was still after the obvious recorded fact (Genesis 38:24 KJV), think?

I can’t begin to express my admiration for Tamar assuming the risk of death by fire to serve her God of Israel. Meanwhile, Christians gloss over the utter magnitude of Tamar’s endeavor, an Israelite heroine matriarch in the Bible, as Ruth was courageous, btw. It is no wonder Christians and Israelite Jews find difficulty grasping Ezra’s historical Israelite “remnant to escape” ancestral dilution (Ezra 9:8 KJV)… sexist Shelanite ‘Jewish’ fables. Ruth’s case was also quite unique, serving another aspect of her Israelite God’s great plan for salvation (Deuteronomy 7:9 KJV)… through His chosen people of Jacob-Israel, the Israelites.

The notion of “racial purity” actually has a negative Shelanite ‘Jewish’ connotation, chair. Maybe the expression “ancestral integrity” more accurately serves the purpose of this discussion. You at least have a flicker of respect for your Levite/Davidic heritage. Besides… if all my freckles grew together, I don’t think you’d call me a white boy, LOL!

Who went into Egypt, chair (Genesis 46:8 KJV)? Who came out (Exodus 1:5, 6, 7)? Was Moses a racist in Deuteronomy 7:1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, chair? Who was Moses then giving his pre-conquest command to in Deuteronomy 7:1, 2, 3 illuminated in Deuteronomy 7:8 KJV? Were Ezra and the boys sexist in Ezra 10:3 KJV? God forbade ‘discrimination’, chair… might take another look at the mark of Cain in Genesis 4:15 KJV that neither Christians, nor Jews have figured out. Do you suggest Moses was NOT preserving Semite/Hebrew/Israelite ‘ancestral integrity’ in Deuteronomy, reiterated and inferred upon the patriarchs over a thousand years later by Ezra? Then, maybe we need to take a closer look at Ruth, as you suggest.

"Life" WAS "that simple" in Deuteronomy 7:1, 2, 3, 23:3, 6, chair. What happened? It begins with the letter, “MARRIAGE”. Fret not that Christians legitimately mock you for having no birth records for the last couple thousand years, chair. The ancestral integrity of God’s chosen, the Israelites (not ancestrally ambiguous “Jews”) was all but totally diluted by a thousand years after Deuteronomy as Ezra discovered. Within Jewish traditions, do Jews rehearse Ezra’s humbling repentant prayer to the Almighty God of Israel for the Yisreal/Bnei Yisreal MARRIAGE trespasses of Deuteronomy 7:1, 2, 3, 23:3, 6, Ezra 9:1, 2, 3, 7? Listen to Ezra 9:5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, KJV. It’s not complicated.

The vast majority of Christians still echo that ancestrally ambiguous Jewish fable. I very simply repented chair, when such was brought to my attention, after exploring the Scripture, and came to the embarrassingly obvious truth. I maintain “Moabite(ss)” was a geographical title, not an ancestral one. Let's cut to the quick on this one also, chair: Who, where, when, and by whose divine authority in the OT was the Law of Moses in Deuteronomy 23:3, 6, affirmed and inferred by Ezra 9:1, 2, 3, 7 over a thousand years later… who rescinded Mosaic Law, chair? Rabbis Rab, Samuel, and Rashi in their infinite sexist, racist wisdom? Who was the author of the Book of Ruth? And, Jews and Christians hold said unknown author as an authority over Moses and Ezra assuming “Moabite(ss)” was an ancestral title? When did this slanderous lie begin, chair? It was before David’s day, I suggest.

Ruth was a geographical Moabite from that geographic area, born of Israelite parents, most likely a ‘daughter’ of Reuben who inherited that area. Sharpen your pencil and take a look at Deuteronomy 2:9, Numbers 21:24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, Numbers 32, just for starters.

There were most certainly 32k Midiante virgins ‘mingled’ among the Israelites during the time and occupying the homeland of Ruth (Numbers 31:1, 2, 9, 12, 14, 17, 18, 35). I proffer Ruth’s sister-in-law Orpah was such a Midianitess following strange gods (Deuteronomy 7:2, 3, 4). That Midianite-Israelite dilution and corruption compelled the ancestrally intact Israelite widow Ruth to leave, following her Israelite God she saw in Naomi and her husband and sons. The area of Bethelehem-JUDAH where Naomi was from was undoubtedly infiltrated with circumcised, ‘mingled’ Shelanites. Count on it… Ruth depended on the ancestral knowledge of Naomi checking out Boaz. And, Boaz checked Ruth out, too (Ruth 2:10, 11)!

I’m not suggesting there wasn’t a Moabite influx later, chair… Solomon lost a kingdom hooking-up with his Moabite hotties, etc. So, please sit back and ask yourself, chair… considering the dire plight of King Solomon over his Moabite hotties, etc.: Does it not stand to simple reason, in the anachronistic continuity of God’s righteousness for “a thousand generations” (Deuteronomy 7:9 KJV); that Ruth’s wealthy and influential husband Boaz would have met a similar fate as King Solomon? I respectfully submit Israelite Jews and Christians have been long mesmerized over an uninspired Shelanite Jewish fable about ‘converting’ into ancestral abyss. Thereby, Israelite Jews and Christians blindly co-sponsor transgressions against Mosaic Law (Deuteronomy 23:3, 6), and inherently justify the Shelanite ‘Jewish’ self-serving notion the covenant of MARRIAGE is supreme to Deuteronomy 7:2, 3, 23:3, 6, Ezra 9:1, 2, 7.

Think of Judah’s Canaanitess WIFE’s Shelanite descendants who instigated the crucifixion. Consider Shelah’s great-grandmother Keturah’s MARRIAGE to Abraham (Genesis 25:1, 2, 3, 4). Jesus CORROBORATED Mosaic Law revealing the “seed” of Abraham (via Keturah’s sons Midian and Shuah) were NOT “Abraham’s children”, chair (John 8:33 KJV, John 8:37 KJV, John 8:39 KJV). The Shelanites instigated Jesus’ crucifixion to shut Him up for telling your Israelite ancestors the ancestral truth about the Shelanites in John 8:12-47. Christians and Israelite Jews will realize the Shelanites hiding in the ancestral abyss threw the Israelites David and Jesus under the bus when the fog settles.

Furthermore, Boaz (aka, Booz) was the son of Salmon… son of Hezron, son of PHAREZ, of the TRIBE of Judah (1Chronicles 2:3, 4, 5, 4:1). Pharez is ancestor to David and Jesus (Ruth 4:21, 22, Matthew 1:5 KJV, Luke 3:31, 32, 33). Also of extreme importance, Boaz was related to Naomi’s husband’s (Elimelech’s) family (Ruth 2:1). Naomi’s husband Elimelech was an “Ephrathite” (Ruth 1:1,2). Therefore, Boaz was also an Ephrathite in the Shelanite-infested area of Bethlehem-JUDAH. The Ephrathites were related to ‘Elkanah… son of Zuph,’ “an Ephrathite” (1Samuel 1:1 KJV, 1Samuel 1:2 KJV). Samuel’s father Elkanah was in the lineage of the Ephrathites, from “mount Ephraim”. And, the name Ephraim, son of Joseph, is quite significant to the story of Boaz and Ruth (Genesis 48:12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19).

So, the bottom line chair; the Ephrathite-Israelite Boaz, ancestor to David and Jesus, had no legitimate Israelite son, or such would have been found in the infamous Hebrew records. No son of Boaz… no King David… no Jesus, speaking of Ezra’s ‘remnant.’ Boaz was also a descendant of Ephraim, son of Joseph and his priestess wife Asenath (I proffer Gentile), appointed by the “old Pharaoh” (Genesis 41:44, 45) who adored Joseph as a son, and blessed Jacob and sons (Genesis 45:15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25). Therefore, through the marriage of the Israelite Ruth with the Ephrathite-Israelite Boaz, the descendants of Joseph were thereby rejoined with the house of Israel through Boaz’s and Ruth’s Ephrathite-Israelite son Obed, found in the lineage of King David and Jesus (Ruth 4:21, Matthew 1:5 KJV, Luke 3:31, 32, 33).

But, Talmudic Shelanite ‘Jews’ have folks duped that Obed was a mamzer (‘illegitimate’), since they propagated and perpetuate the ‘Jewish fable’ Ruth was a blood Moabitess??? Therefore, David was a mamzer (‘illegitimate’) founded on an assumed ancestral title, from an unknown author of the Book of Ruth, overriding Mosaic Law inspired by the God of Israel, Promise Keeper for a thousand generations? Do you sincerely believe an uninspired Shelanite, of Canaanite maternal ancestry (Canaanite mother, and Keturah), can objectively render Shemite/Hebrew/Israelite/Pharzite/Ephrathite ancestry in Scripture, chair? Whose side do you think the Shelanites are on? They instigated the crucifixion of a Pharzite Jew! David is only king of the Shelanites because they ‘white-washed’ Tamar, and ‘converted’ Ruth by MARRIAGE. Tamar and Ruth are two phenomenal pure Israelite heroines upholding the ancestry of God’s chosen Israelites. They assumed great risks, against all odds, and trusted their God of Israel… speaking of ‘remnant.’

Ruth, a ‘daughter’ of Reuben, courageously and faithfully left her Midianite-‘mingled’ home (Ruth 2:10, 11) trusting HER God of Israel she saw in Naomi. Thereby, Joseph vicariously rejoined Israel through Ruth’s and her Ephrathite husband Boaz’s son Obed, in Bethlehem-Judah, likely infiltrated with circumcised Shelanites. Likewise, the Israelite Levite priestess Tamar courageously and faithfully left her Midianite-‘mingled’ home (Genesis 38:11 KJV) trusting HER God of Israel she saw in Judah, prophesied progenitor of Messiah. Thereby, the patriarchs of Israel were reunited… enter Pharez (1Chronicles 2:3, 4, 5, 4:1) of the TRIBE of Judah, and found in the lineage of David and Jesus (Matthew 1:3, Luke 3:31, 32, 33). Might take a look at Ruth 4:12 KJV, chair. Might also take a look at Ezekiel 37 with particular emphasis on Ezekiel 37:15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21…

With only a mustard seed of faith, chair… Or, is your faith in the likes of the ‘inspired and objective’ ancient sexist, racist rabbis teaching Shelanite replacement theology?

Thanks for your post including your point #1 regarding racial purity (v. ancestral integrity), and Ruth, chair. I may find time to respond to your other points.

kayaker

kayaker
January 24th, 2015, 09:14 AM
So, Talmudic Judaism has convinced folk King David was a mamzer, ‘illegitimate’ being politically correct?

Ruth, a ‘daughter’ of Reuben, courageously and faithfully left her Midianite-‘mingled’ home (Ruth 2:10, 11) trusting HER God of Israel she saw in Naomi. Thereby, Joseph vicariously rejoined Israel through Ruth’s and her Ephrathite husband Boaz’s son Obed, in Bethlehem-Judah, likely infiltrated with circumcised Shelanites. Likewise, the Israelite Levite priestess Tamar courageously and faithfully left her Midianite-‘mingled’ home (Genesis 38:11 KJV) trusting HER God of Israel she saw in Judah, prophesied progenitor of Messiah. Thereby, the patriarchs of Israel were reunited… enter Pharez (1Chronicles 2:3, 4, 5, 4:1) of the TRIBE of Judah, and found in the lineage of David and Jesus (Matthew 1:3, Luke 3:31, 32, 33). Might take a look at Ruth 4:12 KJV, chair. Might also take a look at Ezekiel 37 with particular emphasis on Ezekiel 37:15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21…

With only a mustard seed of faith, chair… Or, is your faith in the likes of the ‘inspired and objective’ ancient sexist, racist rabbis teaching Shelanite replacement theology?

Thanks for your post including your point #1 regarding racial purity (v. ancestral integrity), and Ruth, chair. I may find time to respond to your other points.

kayaker

My apology for an anachronistic error, chair. There were no Midianites where Tamar was from, at that time. Midianite virgins were brought into the Israelite congregation soon after during the great conquest. Tamar left her Israelite home as a Levite Priestess seeking a husband, son of Judah, prophesied progenitor of Messiah. Tamar was trusting her God of Israel following Judah into a strange land that included Canaanites, to say the least (Genesis 38:1, 2).

kayaker

chair
January 24th, 2015, 11:42 AM
So, Talmudic Judaism has convinced folk King David was a mamzer, ‘illegitimate’ being politically correct? Such lies are founded in ancestral ignorance, chair. Uninspired Talmudic ...

I know you spent considerable time writing the above, but frankly, I found it difficult to follow your rather excited presentation. You have decided that the "Shelanites" are an issue, the the Talmud and its Rabbis are bad news and that genetics are what Israel is all about.

I don't think I can convince you to think otherwise. You are always going to cherry pick this or that source to shore up your ideas.

I never even heard of this "Shelanite" issue before you showed up here..

I do suggest that you go back and read some basic Biblical texts, Genesis and Exodus, and try to set aside your fixations. Things are not what you would like them to be.

You might start with this:


Exodus 12
17 “Celebrate the Festival of Unleavened Bread, because it was on this very day that I brought your divisions out of Egypt. Celebrate this day as a lasting ordinance for the generations to come. 18 In the first month you are to eat bread made without yeast, from the evening of the fourteenth day until the evening of the twenty-first day. 19 For seven days no yeast is to be found in your houses. And anyone, whether foreigner or native-born, who eats anything with yeast in it must be cut off from the community of Israel. 20 Eat nothing made with yeast. Wherever you live, you must eat unleavened bread.”

Thanks for your efforts, and my apologies for not responding in detail.

Chair

patrick jane
January 24th, 2015, 11:51 AM
I know you spent considerable time writing the above, but frankly, I found it difficult to follow your rather excited presentation. You have decided that the "Shelanites" are an issue, the the Talmud and its Rabbis are bad news and that genetics are what Israel is all about.

I don't think I can convince you to think otherwise. You are always going to cherry pick this or that source to shore up your ideas.

I never even heard of this "Shelanite" issue before you showed up here..

I do suggest that you go back and read some basic Biblical texts, Genesis and Exodus, and try to set aside your fixations. Things are not what you would like them to be.

You might start with this:


Exodus 12
17 “Celebrate the Festival of Unleavened Bread, because it was on this very day that I brought your divisions out of Egypt. Celebrate this day as a lasting ordinance for the generations to come. 18 In the first month you are to eat bread made without yeast, from the evening of the fourteenth day until the evening of the twenty-first day. 19 For seven days no yeast is to be found in your houses. And anyone, whether foreigner or native-born, who eats anything with yeast in it must be cut off from the community of Israel. 20 Eat nothing made with yeast. Wherever you live, you must eat unleavened bread.”

Thanks for your efforts, and my apologies for not responding in detail.

Chair

the "rules" of that festival mean nothing today

kayaker
January 24th, 2015, 04:25 PM
I know you spent considerable time writing the above, but frankly, I found it difficult to follow your rather excited presentation. You have decided that the "Shelanites" are an issue, the the Talmud and its Rabbis are bad news and that genetics are what Israel is all about.

I don't think I can convince you to think otherwise. You are always going to cherry pick this or that source to shore up your ideas.

I never even heard of this "Shelanite" issue before you showed up here..

Indeed Chair, I do spend considerable time exploring the depths of scripture to compose such posts. As a ‘new kid in town,’ this is not my ‘first rodeo’ having tangoed with MDiv/PhD theologians in my walk, and explored the OT on Jewish sites. “Shelanite” is an official title in the OT, btw (Numbers 26:19 KJV, Num 26:20 KJV). Rest assured, I do appreciate your enduring patience, and the patience of this audience.

The Shelanites are most definitely an issue, chair. They are those who gave your title “Jew” a bad name. And, with all due respect to you and my Christian peers… the significance of the Shelanites is original to my finding, although in the Bible. Most Christians embrace the notion the “Jews” instigated the crucifixion. Such is painting with a large, ancestral brush referencing an ancestrally ambiguous title, throwing you out with the baptismal water.

Examining scriptural ancestry has readily led me to the simple deduction the Shelanite descendants of Judah and his Canaanite wife, who hide in the abyss of the ancestrally ambiguous title, “Jew”… the circumcised Shelanites infiltrated the true synagogues. You wouldn’t know this being less familiar with the NT, as Christians are with the OT. The Shelanites were the instigators sequestering One who knew and spoke the truth of their unqualified ancestry to render the Books of Moshe (Revelation 2:9, 3:9).

The Shelanites, and deluded followers, perpetuate the myth/fable, the utter lie that David was a mamzer (‘illegitimate’) finding Ruth in his ancestry. Meanwhile, Israelite Jews and Christians wander in the dark? The Shelanites exploit the geographical title Moabite, in the Book of Ruth, to drive wedges in patrilineal Israelite heritage. Have you ever heard Judah’s marriage to a Canaanite discredited in Judaism? No wonder… the Shelanites ‘Jews’, your ‘early synagogue fathers’, are only maternally related to David via Judah’s Canaanite wife. I’ve debated with Christians who uphold Judah’s relationship via marriage. All the while, they do not realize, by default, they are casting shadows on Tamar, mother to Pharez, found in the lineage of David and Jesus. David’s arrival wasn’t some coin-toss, good people. David wasn’t the end result of an array of random, sperm of the moment conceptions.

The Shelanite agenda is to denounce paternal Israelite ancestry, focusing on the covenant of marriage as supreme to Deuteronomy 7:2, 3, 23:3, 6, Ezra 9:1, 2, 3, 7. I’m not suggesting there were not deluded Israelite followers of Shelanite replacement theology contributing to the crucifixion conspiracy. Apostle Paul (among others including Stephen and John the Baptist) was a Benjamite who defected from Talmudism.

The Talmud and its Rabbis, who you surrender your God-given Israelite heritage to, do not have exclusive rights space-docking with God; any more than major Christian sects profess, Chair. You hear nothing of Jesus in Talmudism as you’ve offered; and, I say further that you’ll hear even less about “Shelanites” in this great apostasy. To my finding, Shelanite ‘Jews’ harbor the belief your Israelite ancestors forfeited their ‘chosen’ status, particularly as relates to Deuteronomy 7:1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 23:3, 6, Ezra 9:1, 2, 3, 7; and, the Shelanite ‘Jews’ became Ezra’s ‘remnant’ usurping God’s ‘chosen’ status long held by Israel. By discrediting Israelites like Boaz and Ruth, the Shelanites can now offer redemption via ‘conversion’ into the ancestrally ambiguous title, Jew. Are you an Israelite first, and then a Jew? Or, have you forfeited your esteemed Israelite heritage for the ancestrally ambiguous title, Jew?

Unfortunately, you’ll hear nothing of the Shelanites from Christianity, also mesmerized by Shelanite ‘Jewish’ fables, Chair. Coincidentally, you WILL hear the mother establishes “Jewishness” in Judaism… speaking of Judah’s wife, and Abraham’s second wife, Keturah. But, when the subject of ancestry comes up… the discussion fades into the racial abyss, or winds up arguing the absence of Israelite birth records, which were all but non-existent 2,400 years ago in Ezra’s day.

The Shelanites, in relatively benign fashion, assimilated into the OT, and into your ancient synagogues, Chair. God slew Shelah’s two elder brothers Er, and Onan, that should be a huge red flag! Furthermore, Ezra EXCLUDED Shelah (elder to Pharez), AND “The sons of Shelah the son of Judah…” (1Chronicles 4:21, 22, 23) FROM Ezra’s TRIBAL roster of Judah in 1Chronicles 4:1 KJV. I proffer the Shelanites were the original, ancestrally ambiguous “Jews.” The Shelanites, hiding behind the ancestrally ambiguous title, “Jew”, only came into the spotlight in Jesus’ days. Jesus knew who the Shelanites were, Chair (Revelation 2:9, 3:9); but, I sadly doubt you’ll come across a Christian who can document this Shelanite distinction, unfortunately.

You suggest I’m cherry-picking scripture. If I’ve not documented something of concern to you, please let me know, Chair. If I may be so bold: Israelite Jews and Christians are duped and walking in the dark on the origin and significance of the Shelanite “Jews” you guys are sleeping with, who instigated the crucifixion of God’s Messenger of Truth. Am I cherry-picking? Or, are the Israelite Jews and Christians glossing over scripture, wandering in the ancestral abyss?


I do suggest that you go back and read some basic Biblical texts, Genesis and Exodus, and try to set aside your fixations. Things are not what you would like them to be.

You might start with this:
Exodus 12
17 “Celebrate the Festival of Unleavened Bread, because it was on this very day that I brought your divisions out of Egypt. Celebrate this day as a lasting ordinance for the generations to come. 18 In the first month you are to eat bread made without yeast, from the evening of the fourteenth day until the evening of the twenty-first day. 19 For seven days no yeast is to be found in your houses. And anyone, whether foreigner or native-born, who eats anything with yeast in it must be cut off from the community of Israel. 20 Eat nothing made with yeast. Wherever you live, you must eat unleavened bread.”

I appreciate your suggestion to familiarize myself with the Books of Moshe. The OT has been the almost exclusive source of my argument, Chair. I proffer the fixation is yours on the ancestrally ambiguous title “Jew.” Are you not cherry-picking scripture glossing over Deuteronomy 7:1, 2, 3, 23:3, 6, that Ezra inferred “Since the days of our fathers have we (Israelites) been in a great trespass” in Ezra 9:1, 2, 3, 7? Have Israelite Jews and Christians glossed over Noah being “perfect in his generations (HINT!), and Noah walked with God” (Genesis 6:9 KJV)? Do you understand the significance of Noah, God’s first geneticist, drawing a line in the sand: Shemites and Gentiles (Genesis 9:27, 10:2, 3, 4, Gen 10:5 KJV) on one side… and, Ham, et al, on the other? Do you think Cain would have been redeemed eating unleaven bread for the rest of his shortened life (Genesis 4:23 KJV)? Furthermore, a Shelanites can eat unleaven bread ‘till eternity… but, he cannot change his nefarious ancestry, Chair. It would take a divine entity sent by Almighty God the creator of DNA to perform such a genetic miracle… and, Jesus was such a genetic healer.

The Shelanites carry on the traditions of your ‘fathers’ Chair, and call themselves “Jews” as do you. But, they are not Israel… they are Jews.


Thanks for your efforts, and my apologies for not responding in detail.

Chair

Thanks for your candid reply Chair… the pleasure is totally mine. I’ll gladly accept your apology for lack of detail, if you’ll accept my verbosity!

kayaker

kayaker
January 27th, 2015, 06:17 PM
Who specifically instigated the crucifixion of Yeshua/Messiah? I conclude the Shelanite descendants of Judah and his Canaanite wife:


John 8:30, 31, 32, 33, KJV “As he (Yeshua) spake these words, many believed on him. 31) Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye (believers) continue in my word (keep listening), then are ye my disciples indeed; 32) And ye (believers) shall know the truth (Jesus is about to unveil a truth), and the truth shall make you free. 33) They (Yeshua’s detractors among His believers) answered him, We be Abraham’s seed, and were never in bondage to any man: how sayest thou, Ye shall be made free?”

‘They’ are Abraham’s “seed,” yet Abraham sired progeny via Hagar (Ishmael), Sarah (Isaac), and Keturah (Shuah, Genesis 25:1, 2, 3, 4; Judah’s father-in-law Genesis 38:1, 2, particular to this discussion). And, Abraham sired “sons” via concubines while married to Keturah (Genesis 25:6 KJV). Since Yeshua’s maternally elusive detractors said they were never in bondage, ‘they’ were NOT descendants of Sarah =>Isaac => Jacob-Israel => Israelites who were clearly in bondage in Egypt. I’m not suggesting Yeshua’s detractors were never in Egypt among the Israelites; I’m suggesting ‘they’ were never in bondage with the Israelites in Egypt. A simple deduction: Israelite Jews did NOT instigate the crucifixion.

The Ishmaelites were not in bondage in Egypt, yet the Ishmaelites were the ‘seed of Abraham,’ deserving further clarification. Nonetheless, the fundamental point thus far is Yeshua’s detractors were definitely NOT Israelite-Jews.


John 8:37 KJV “I (Yeshua) know that ye (detractors) are Abraham’s seed; but ye seek to kill me, because my word hath no place in you.”

Yeshua affirmed ‘they’ were “Abraham’s seed,” but ‘they’ didn’t want to hear a word He said. Yeshua’s detractors already revealed ‘they’ were not Israelite-Jews never having been in bondage. Speaking of ‘marriage’ rescinding Deuteronomy 7:1, 2, 3, 23:3, 6, Ezra 9:1, 2, 7; this selects out Sarah, and narrows ‘their’ elusive maternal ancestry to either Hagar, Keturah, or concubines (Genesis 25:6 KJV).


John 8:39 KJV “They (detractors) answered and said unto him, Abraham is our father. Jesus saith unto them, If ye were Abraham’s children, ye would do the works of Abraham.”

Yeshua then distinguished between ‘their’ being “Abraham’s seed”, but NOT “Abrahams’ children.” This 1611 KJV seed v. children distinction is not discerned in many NT translations, btw. It is of particular importance here to recall Moses declared Abraham’s progeny via Keturah were “the children of Keturah” (Genesis 25:4 KJV), and NOT the children (sons) of Abraham. Furthermore, Moses’ said Keturah’s ‘son’ Shuah (Genesis 25:1, 2, 3, 4), Judah’s father-in-law, was a “Canaanite” (Genesis 38:1, 2), casting a shadow on the vague ancestry of Keturah. Continuing, Ezra said Judah’s wife, daughter of the Canaanite Shuah, was a “Canaanitess” (1Chronicles 2:3 KJV) affirming Moses’ shadow on Keturah’s origin. Thereby, Yeshua CORROBORATED Moses’ distinction (Genesis 25:4), and Ezra’s (1Chronicles 2:3 KJV), that His detractors were “Abrahams’ seed” (John 8:33 KJV, John 8:37 KJV), but ‘they’ were NOT “Abraham’s children” (John 8:39 KJV). This should be sufficient enough scripture to corroborate “Abraham’s seed,” who conspired Yeshua’s crucifixion, were descendants of Abraham via his wife, Keturah. Let’s continue…


John 8:41 KJV “Ye do the deeds of your father. Then said they to him (Yeshua), We be not born of fornication.”

Yeshua’s direct paternity was not all that was brought into the argument here. David was in the ancestry of Yeshua (Matthew 1:1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6). And, asking only a mustard seed of faith, I’ve already established Ruth was an Israelite, and Boaz was an Ephrathite-Israelite (descendant of Judah, and also of Ephraim, son of Joseph), reuniting the patriarchs via Obed, ancestor to David and Yeshua. Therefore, Yeshua’s ancestor David has been ancestrally vindicated from the accusation he was a mamzer (‘illegitimate’). Although perpetuated in Christianity, such slander did not originate in Christianity, btw. On the implied accusation Yeshua was born of ‘fornication’ (John 8:41 KJV):


a. Abraham was married to his half-sister Sarah, contrary to Leviticus 18:9, 20:17.

b. Isaac was married to his second cousin Rebekah (Genesis 24:15 KJV).

c. Jacob was married to his first cousin/sisters (Genesis 29:13 KJV) Leah (mother of Judah, Genesis 29:35 KJV) and Rachel, contrary to Leviticus 18:18 KJV.

d. David and Jesus were descendants of Pharez via Judah’s widowed daughter-in-law Tamar contrary to Leviticus 18:15, 21:7, 9, 13, 14…

With utmost respect, Israelite ancestry appears riddled with ‘fornication,’ although there is much more in David’s and Yeshua’s ancestry than meets the eye, Chair. Highlighting Ezra’s remnant further still:


a. Abraham’s half-sister wife Sarah was barren and postmenopausal (Genesis 18:11 KJV), and she conceived Isaac via divine intervention (Genesis 14:4, 18:10, 14…)

b. Isaac’s second cousin wife Rebekah was barren, and she conceived Jacob via divine intervention (Genesis 25:21 KJV).

c. Jacob’s first cousin wife Leah was barren, and she conceived Judah via divine intervention (Genesis 29:31 KJV).

d. God the Author of Mosaic Law personally slew Judah’s older Canaanite son Er (Genesis 38:7); and God slew Judah’s middle Canaanite son Onan (Genesis 38:8, 9, 10) as Judah exercised inheritance rights found later in Deuteronomy 25:5, 6. However, Judah’s third and surviving Canaanite son Shelah survived to procreate (Genesis 38:26 KJV): Father of the Shelanites (Numbers 26:20 KJV), via Judah and his “Canaanite” wife (Genesis 38:1, 2), the “Canaanitess” daughter of Shuah (1Chronicles 2:3), who was the ‘son’ of Keturah (Genesis 25:1, 2, 3, 4).

Judah’s father-in-law Shuah was “Abraham’s seed” (John 8:33 KJV, John 8:37 KJV), but NOT one of “Abraham’s children” (John 8:39 KJV). Therefore, Judah’s Canaanite son Shelah was “Abraham’s seed”, but not one of “Abraham’s children.” Furthermore, the Canaanite Shelanites were “Abraham’s seed”, but they were the “children of Keturah” (Genesis 25:4), and not “Abraham’s children” (John 8:39 KJV). God intervened killing Judah’s two elder Canaanite sons, while Shelah was too young to procreate at that time. Therefore, Tamar was ‘inspired’ by Almighty God’s hand to play the harlot: Enter her eldest twin son Pharez (Genesis 38:29 KJV), found in the lineage of David and Jesus (Ruth 4:12, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, Matthew 1:1, 2, 3, 4, Matthew 1:5 KJV, Matthew 1:6).

Also, I proffer Judah’s Canaanite son Shelah hooked-up with his Midianite virgin cousins from Numbers 31:1, 2, 3, 9, 14, 17, 18, 35. Shelah’s grandfather Shuah was Midian’s brother, sons of Keturah, Genesis 25:1, 2, 3, 4. Shelah saw the infamous writing on the wall seeing his two older Canaanite brothers Er and Onan slain by Almighty God. Therefore, Shelah was ‘inspired’ by Almighty God to avoid an Israelite spouse, while his Midianite virgin cousins among the Israelites were abundant (Numbers 31:9, 18, 35). In fact, that Midianite inclusion was also contrary the words of Almighty God in Numbers 31:2 KJV, which is also quite prophetic; another time, perhaps.

Furthermore, there is no provision in Mosaic Law for a ‘surrogate mother’ as was Hagar. The instigators held to strict Mosaic Law (John 8:41 KJV). Moses referred to Ishmael as Abraham’s son (Genesis 17:23 KJV, etc.). Abraham gave no inheritance to his son Ishmael, but Ishmael was blessed directly by Almighty God (Genesis 17:20 KJV). Isaac received all that Abraham had (Genesis 25:5 KJV). Abraham’s “sons” via his concubines received gifts and were sent eastward (Genesis 25:6 KJV). Isaac and Ishmael buried Abraham (Genesis 25:9). Guess who’s missing here, Chair? Keturah’s ‘sons’ received neither inheritance, nor gifts (as did Abraham’s sons via concubines), nor did they attend Abraham’s funeral. Almighty God directly blessed Ishmael, but there is no similar record for Keturah’s ‘sons.’ I proffer Abraham was no more than a sperm donor for mother Keturah, the great harlot, no love lost.

Those who instigated the crucifixion were NOT Israelite Jews. ‘They’ were descendants of Abraham and his wife Keturah. John the Baptist knew this in Luke 3:2, 8, 9. Apostle Paul knew this in Romans 9:6, 7, 8, 9... Now, the final affirming point dictates which of Keturah’s sons’ descendants had a vested interest discounting David’s ancestry AND Yeshua’s. Judah was the prophesied progenitor of Messiah, and Judah’s third and surviving Canaanite son Shelah was the father of the circumcised Shelanites, so named only once in the OT (Numbers 26:20 KJV) hiding behind the ancestrally ambiguous title, “Jew.” The Shelanite “Jews” instigated the crucifixion Chair, and they slandered the maternal ancestry of your King David.

Yeshua clearly understood who these impostor 'Jews' were, Chair (Revelation 2:9, 3:9), as did John the Baptist, even Apostle Paul. But, Jesus could not come right out and say “Shelanite,” without condemning Shelah (John 8:15, 26). The anonymous circumcised Shelanites gave the title “Jew” a bad reputation, Chair. The Shelanites then, and today (knowingly, and not) hide behind the ancestrally ambiguous title “Jew,” persuading Israelites to forfeit their ‘God’s chosen’ name’s sake, for the ancestrally ambiguous title, “Jew.” The Shelanite ‘Jews’ walk anonymously among the Israelite Jews today, and I suspect they are predominately the Sephardic ‘Jews’.

David was not an ancestrally ambiguous Jew, Chair… David was an ancestrally intact Israelite, as was Jesus. Furthermore, both David and Yeshua were Pharzites, NOT Shelanites. When one wishes to refer to David and Jesus as "Jews", then the title "Pharzite Jews" is ancestrally accurate. The Shelanite ‘Jews’ slandered your King David’s Israelite heritage through Ruth's alleged Moabite ancestry, perpetuated in Judaism and Christianity. And the Shelanite 'Jews' instigated the crucifixion of God’s Messenger of Truth, unrealized among Christianity to the best of my knowledge.

Thank you for your enduring patience, Chair… check my homework, much of it is from the NT. I bid you peace, friend…

kayaker

Nazaroo
January 28th, 2015, 01:34 AM
Even so, I am not the one who wrote the scriptures. What do you think of my interpretation?


Short answer: It sucks.

The word "Jew" does not appear in the primary source text you chose
to build your idea.




Isaiah 65:15
You will leave your name to my chosen ones as a curse;(Jew) the Sovereign LORD will put you to death, but to his servants he will give another name. (Christian)

Why would God be mysterious about the intent here in this passage?

The Holy Scriptures have no problem spelling out "Jew" and/or "Israel"
many many times.

Word "Jew" is found in 17 verse(s), 10 chapter(s) and 8 book(s).

Esther (8x) - used to identify the Babylonian captives from Southern Kingdom of Judaea. (no curse, but a rescue).


Jeremiah 34:9 That every man should let his manservant, and every man his maidservant, being an Hebrew or an Hebrewess, go free; that none should serve himself of them, to wit, of a Jew his brother.
(i.e., that Jews should be free and equals of their bretheren, not remain slaves.)

Zechariah 8:23
In those days it shall come to pass, that ten men shall take hold out of all languages of the nations, even shall take hold of the skirt of him that is a Jew, saying, We will go with you: for we have heard that God is with you.
(suggesting that Jews would someday be recognized internationally as wise and guides of Godly wisdom).
(both contemporaries of Isaiah)

On the other hand, the NT usage of "Jew" is also very telling:

John 4:9, - identifies Jesus as a "Jew", not a new name (e.g., "Christian")
John 18:35 - identifies Jesus' nation as "Jews".

You would argue that the name got changed sometime in the period of Acts,
post - resurrection, and outside Judaea/Jeruslaem:



Acts 11:26
and when he found him, he brought him to Antioch. So for a whole year Barnabas and Saul met with the church and taught great numbers of people. The disciples were called Christians first at Antioch.

But PAUL's usage of "Jew" projects an image and status
that is quite different than the one you read into Isaiah:

Romans 10:12 - 'For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek...'
1st Corinthians 9:20 - 'And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews;' (no talk of them being 'cursed' here).



Galatians 2:14 ' If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?'

(Nothing to indicate anything other than a continuing identify for each group,
with differences, but no curses.)
Galatians 3:28
There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.

Colossians 3:11
Where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, Barbarian, Scythian, bond nor free: but Christ is all, and in all.

(a description of a new era in which Jews and Gentiles will be EQUAL,
not one in which "Jews" are cursed.)

Word based mystic
January 28th, 2015, 07:12 AM
Each man individually has the opportunity and responsibility for their own individual response to Gods Grace and salvation. God wills and desires that all men would be saved. not just the gentiles.
romans 1:16 (because it is the power of God that brings salvation to everyone who believes: first to the Jew, then to the Gentile.)

CherubRam
January 28th, 2015, 05:04 PM
Short answer: It sucks.

The word "Jew" does not appear in the primary source text you chose
to build your idea.



Why would God be mysterious about the intent here in this passage?

The Holy Scriptures have no problem spelling out "Jew" and/or "Israel"
many many times.

Word "Jew" is found in 17 verse(s), 10 chapter(s) and 8 book(s).

Esther (8x) - used to identify the Babylonian captives from Southern Kingdom of Judaea. (no curse, but a rescue).


Jeremiah 34:9 That every man should let his manservant, and every man his maidservant, being an Hebrew or an Hebrewess, go free; that none should serve himself of them, to wit, of a Jew his brother.
(i.e., that Jews should be free and equals of their bretheren, not remain slaves.)

Zechariah 8:23
In those days it shall come to pass, that ten men shall take hold out of all languages of the nations, even shall take hold of the skirt of him that is a Jew, saying, We will go with you: for we have heard that God is with you.
(suggesting that Jews would someday be recognized internationally as wise and guides of Godly wisdom).
(both contemporaries of Isaiah)

On the other hand, the NT usage of "Jew" is also very telling:

John 4:9, - identifies Jesus as a "Jew", not a new name (e.g., "Christian")
John 18:35 - identifies Jesus' nation as "Jews".

You would argue that the name got changed sometime in the period of Acts,
post - resurrection, and outside Judaea/Jeruslaem:



But PAUL's usage of "Jew" projects an image and status
that is quite different than the one you read into Isaiah:

Romans 10:12 - 'For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek...'
1st Corinthians 9:20 - 'And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews;' (no talk of them being 'cursed' here).



Galatians 2:14 ' If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?'

(Nothing to indicate anything other than a continuing identify for each group,
with differences, but no curses.)
Galatians 3:28
There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.

Colossians 3:11
Where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, Barbarian, Scythian, bond nor free: but Christ is all, and in all.

(a description of a new era in which Jews and Gentiles will be EQUAL,
not one in which "Jews" are cursed.)

In regards to Isaiah 65:15. The word "Jew" and "Christian" is an interpretation of that verse.

Everyone knows that the Hebrews were called Jews by the people of the world. Everyone knows that Jews and Gentiles converts became know as Christians.

In regards to Zechariah 8:23. That verse is about Yahshua the Messiah whom was called a Jew.

In regards to Romans 10:12. That is about equality among all peoples of the world.

There are many Old Testament scriptures that state Yahwah would curse the Jews for their disobedients to His laws.

Deuteronomy 31:26
Take this book of the law, and put it in the side of the ark of the covenant of the Lord your God, that it may be there for a witness against thee.

Nazaroo
January 28th, 2015, 09:53 PM
In regards to Isaiah 65:15. The word "Jew" and "Christian" is an interpretation of that verse.


yes, an interpretation, and an incorrect one at that,
in which the word "Jew" has been thrust into the text.


Everyone knows that the Hebrews were called Jews by the people of the world.

Since you're avoiding any time reference
this is a worthless blanket statement,
that has no context or checkability.



Everyone knows that Jews and Gentiles converts became know as Christians.
And everyone knows this took place precisely between 30 and 70 A.D.,
and therefore if it fulfilled any prophecies,
these prophecies would be certainly and
irrevocably bound to a key point in time.



In regards to Zechariah 8:23. That verse is about Yahshua the Messiah whom was called a Jew. This was not a messicanic prophecy, and that is another spin,
apparently to AVOID the plaintext meaning of "Jew" in this historical prophecy.


...
There are many Old Testament scriptures that state Yahwah would curse the Jews for their disobedients [sic!] to His laws.
The one you quote below in Deut. is not about "the Jews" which is ambiguous at best,
given that there are six Biblical meanings for "Jew" and at least 4 modern
secular meanings for "Jew", none of which are congruent or substantially overlap.

But rather, its about "the Israelites", a much larger and older group,
who entered the Mosaic Covenant. The "Jews" at the time of Moses
were merely a tribal family among many Israelites.


In modern times, "Jew" is a useless word, even as a translation of
ancient texts.



Deuteronomy 31:26
Take this book of the law,
and put it in the side of the ark of the covenant of the Lord your God,
that it may be there fora witness against thee.By the very text you've quoted,
the book was to be a witness
by being inside the ark.

Since the ark is lost,
it can no longer function as purposed,
and therefore it is not a witness
for the current era.

And again, it was a witness against "the Israelites",
not "the Jews".

wonderingjew
January 29th, 2015, 01:17 AM
Even so, I am not the one who wrote the scriptures. What do you think of my interpretation?


Isaiah 65:15
You will leave your name to my chosen ones as a curse;(Jew) the Sovereign LORD will put you to death, but to his servants he will give another name. (Christian)

Acts 11:26
and when he found him, he brought him to Antioch. So for a whole year Barnabas and Saul met with the church and taught great numbers of people. The disciples were called Christians first at Antioch.

After reading your comments I felt it prudent to examine what you wrote in the context it was written. I believe the reference was to any person (including Christians) and replacement theologists who worship idols, do abominations, lie, cheat, steal but more importantly; refuse to obey the Torah and the prophets. Take a look at verse five and you may understand how you came across with the muslim mantra of death to the Jews! Sounded a little hateful.
Isaiah 65:5

CherubRam
January 29th, 2015, 01:38 AM
yes, an interpretation, and an incorrect one at that,
in which the word "Jew" has been thrust into the text.

Since you're avoiding any time reference
this is a worthless blanket statement,
that has no context or checkability.

And everyone knows this took place precisely between 30 and 70 A.D.,
and therefore if it fulfilled any prophecies,
these prophecies would be certainly and
irrevocably bound to a key point in time.

This was not a messicanic prophecy, and that is another spin,
apparently to AVOID the plaintext meaning of "Jew" in this historical prophecy.

The one you quote below in Deut. is not about "the Jews" which is ambiguous at best,
given that there are six Biblical meanings for "Jew" and at least 4 modern
secular meanings for "Jew", none of which are congruent or substantially overlap.

But rather, its about "the Israelites", a much larger and older group,
who entered the Mosaic Covenant. The "Jews" at the time of Moses
were merely a tribal family among many Israelites.


In modern times, "Jew" is a useless word, even as a translation of
ancient texts.

By the very text you've quoted,
the book was to be a witness
by being inside the ark.

Since the ark is lost,
it can no longer function as purposed,
and therefore it is not a witness
for the current era.

And again, it was a witness against "the Israelites",
not "the Jews".
The Israelites along with other peoples became known as the Jews. My interpretation is correct. Yahwah does not take away His promise to bless the offspring of Abraham. All who are of the faith are the seed of Abraham. The Jews who came under the curse were the Hellenist Jews, they were the wealthy, they were the Mystics, they were Alexandrian philosophers. The covenant has changed.

Deuteronomy 27:26
“Cursed is anyone who does not uphold the words of this law by carrying them out.” Then all the people shall say, “Amen!”



Deuteronomy 28:15
[ Curses for Disobedience ] However, if you do not obey the Lord your God and do not carefully follow all his commands and decrees I am giving you today, all these curses will come on you and overtake you:

CherubRam
January 29th, 2015, 01:42 AM
After reading your comments I felt it prudent to examine what you wrote in the context it was written. I believe the reference was to any person (including Christians) and replacement theologists who worship idols, do abominations, lie, cheat, steal but more importantly; refuse to obey the Torah and the prophets. Take a look at verse five and you may understand how you came across with the muslim mantra of death to the Jews! Sounded a little hateful.
Isaiah 65:5
I do not understand what it is that you are saying.

Isaiah 65:5 New International Version
who say, 'Keep away; don't come near me, for I am too sacred for you!' Such people are smoke in my nostrils, a fire that keeps burning all day.

Ben Masada
January 29th, 2015, 02:47 PM
Each man individually has the opportunity and responsibility for their own individual response to Gods Grace and salvation. God wills and desires that all men would be saved. not just the gentiles.
romans 1:16 (because it is the power of God that brings salvation to everyone who believes: first to the Jew, then to the Gentile.)

Very good! Now, I have a question for you: If what you say above is true, why would Jesus forbid his disciples to take the gospel of salvation to the Gentiles? It is in Mat. 10:5,6. And he did not say "first" to the Jews but to the Jews only. (Mat. 15:24) I do wonder why because as a Jew, he should have known much better that Israel had been assigned as light unto the Gentiles. (Isa. 42:6)

Nazaroo
January 29th, 2015, 03:48 PM
The Israelites along with other peoples became known as the Jews. My interpretation is correct.


Wrong again.

Once again you seem unable to comprehend your own words.

If the Israelites (then plainly known as Israelites: "Jacob", "Israel")
were to later become known by another name, as the prophecy indicates,
then the prophecy is fulfilled by their becoming....brace yourself:

JEWS.

If the prophecy you cited means rather that "Jews" (or rather believing Jews)
would become "Christians", then where is the FIRST prophecy,
that says "Israelites" will become "Jews"??!?!?!?

Are you actually claiming that God Almighty, the LORD of the Universe,
would have prophesied that "Jews" would become "Christians",
but he FORGOT to prophesy that "Israelites" would become "Jews"???!?

What a schmuck God is, in your version of prophecy.

Or maybe you just can't understand the text,
like the Etheopian Eunich that Philip ran into on the road.

Perhaps I can help you with that.

Ben Masada
January 29th, 2015, 03:59 PM
Wrong again.

Once again you seem unable to comprehend your own words.

If the Israelites (then plainly known as Israelites: "Jacob", "Israel")
were to later become known by another name, as the prophecy indicates,
then the prophecy is fulfilled by their becoming....brace yourself:

JEWS.

If the prophecy you cited means rather that "Jews" (or rather believing Jews)
would become "Christians", then where is the FIRST prophecy,
that says "Israelites" will become "Jews"??!?!?!?

Are you actually claiming that God Almighty, the LORD of the Universe,
would have prophesied that "Jews" would become "Christians",
but he FORGOT to prophesy that "Israelites" would become "Jews"???!?

What a schmuck God is, in your version of prophecy.

Or maybe you just can't understand the text,
like the Etheopian Eunich that Philip ran into on the road.

Perhaps I can help you with that.

If you read the books of Ezra, Nehemiah and the two books of the Maccabees, after the exile in Babylon there were no longer Israelites but only Jews. About 10% of the Israelites who had escaped Assyria and joined Judah in the South, had all become and the same under the single denomination of Jews. (Ezek. 37:22)

CherubRam
January 29th, 2015, 04:34 PM
yes, an interpretation, and an incorrect one at that,
in which the word "Jew" has been thrust into the text.

Since you're avoiding any time reference
this is a worthless blanket statement,
that has no context or checkability.

And everyone knows this took place precisely between 30 and 70 A.D.,
and therefore if it fulfilled any prophecies,
these prophecies would be certainly and
irrevocably bound to a key point in time.

This was not a messicanic prophecy, and that is another spin,
apparently to AVOID the plaintext meaning of "Jew" in this historical prophecy.

The one you quote below in Deut. is not about "the Jews" which is ambiguous at best,
given that there are six Biblical meanings for "Jew" and at least 4 modern
secular meanings for "Jew", none of which are congruent or substantially overlap.

But rather, its about "the Israelites", a much larger and older group,
who entered the Mosaic Covenant. The "Jews" at the time of Moses
were merely a tribal family among many Israelites.


In modern times, "Jew" is a useless word, even as a translation of
ancient texts.

By the very text you've quoted,
the book was to be a witness
by being inside the ark.

Since the ark is lost,
it can no longer function as purposed,
and therefore it is not a witness
for the current era.

And again, it was a witness against "the Israelites",
not "the Jews".
Parables need not always be in context.
It is said that Trito-Isaiah / Third Isaiah (chapters 55–66): Is a collection of oracles by unknown prophets in the years immediately after the return from Babylon.
The word Jew was in use in that day, not that it matters. It is you who is pulling rabbits out of the hat.

CherubRam
January 29th, 2015, 04:41 PM
Very good! Now, I have a question for you: If what you say above is true, why would Jesus forbid his disciples to take the gospel of salvation to the Gentiles? It is in Mat. 10:5,6. And he did not say "first" to the Jews but to the Jews only. (Mat. 15:24) I do wonder why because as a Jew, he should have known much better that Israel had been assigned as light unto the Gentiles. (Isa. 42:6)

The disciples were instruct not to go to the Gentiles but to the Jews FIRST. After the rejection of the message, they then took the message to the Gentiles.

Romans 1:16
For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.



Romans 2:10
But glory, honour, and peace, to every man that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile:

Nazaroo
January 29th, 2015, 04:55 PM
If you read the books of Ezra, Nehemiah and the two books of the Maccabees, after the exile in Babylon there were no longer Israelites but only Jews. About 10% of the Israelites who had escaped Assyria and joined Judah in the South, had all become and the same under the single denomination of Jews. (Ezek. 37:22)

No disagreement there.

No relevance to my point.

The historical facts indicate a change of name for the remnant of
those who followed Moses: from Israelites to Jews,
reflecting the fact that the Kingdom split in two,
with the Northern Kingdom of Israel taken by the Assyrians,
and the Souther Kingdom of Judah taken by the Babylonians.

Now the remnant of the Southern Kingdom of Judaea,
consisting of Judahites, Benjaminites, and some Levites,
under Ezra returned to build the temple and restore services,
in preparation for the coming of the Messiah.

Thus, the people following Moses became known in the area as "Jews",
or "Judaeans".

So that fulfills the prophecy of a name change for those following Moses.

That Christians appropriated the same prophecy for the new movement
of Christianity, being called "Christians",
would at best be a SECOND fulfillment of the same prophecy.

But if you can do that, then why not a THIRD fulfillment, in say,
the Mormons, or a FOURTH fulfillment in say the MOONIES.

These other 'fulfillments' involve massive changes at least in the
interpretation and application of the Laws of Moses, even the Ten Commandments.

So It is on the onus of the "Christians" to show how this prophecy
can be applied and fulfilled when Christians no longer follow Moses
or the Law, or the traditions of Israelites or Jews.

Because if this can be proven, the floodgates are open for any group
or sect to use the same prophecy, without any real connection to
either Israel or Moses.

Nazaroo
January 29th, 2015, 04:57 PM
Parables need not always be in context.
It is said that Trito-Isaiah / Third Isaiah (chapters 55–66): Is a collection of oracles by unknown prophets in the years immediately after the return from Babylon.
The word Jew was in use in that day, not that it matters. It is you who is pulling rabbits out of the hat.

Parables are not prophecies, nor Oracles, unless interpreted so.

They are a different literary form and genre.

We were not talking of a parable in any case, but a plain prophecy,
in Isaiah.

So its you who is pulling a rabbit out of a hat.

I'm only interested in seeing how you can apply a prophecy
that fits better for one historical event to another.

CherubRam
January 29th, 2015, 05:34 PM
The disciples were instruct not to go to the Gentiles but to the Jews FIRST. After the rejection of the message, they then took the message to the Gentiles.

Romans 1:16
For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.



Romans 2:10
But glory, honour, and peace, to every man that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile:


Isaiah 42:6
“I, the Lord, have called you in righteousness; I will take hold of your hand. I will keep you and will make you to be a covenant for the people and a light for the Gentiles,...

Isaiah 49:6
he says: “It is too small a thing for you to be my servant to restore the tribes of Jacob and bring back those of Israel I have kept. I will also make you a light for the Gentiles, that my salvation may reach to the ends of the earth.”

Acts 13:26
“Fellow children of Abraham and you God-fearing Gentiles, it is to us that this message of salvation has been sent.

Acts 13:46
Then Paul and Barnabas answered them boldly: “We had to speak the word of God to you first. Since you reject it and do not consider yourselves worthy of eternal life, we now turn to the Gentiles.

Acts 13:47
For this is what the Lord has commanded us: “‘I have made you a light for the Gentiles, that you may bring salvation to the ends of the earth.’”

Acts 13:48
When the Gentiles heard this, they were glad and honored the word of the Lord; and all who were appointed for eternal life believed.

Acts 14:2
But the Jews who refused to believe stirred up the other Gentiles and poisoned their minds against the brothers.

CherubRam
January 29th, 2015, 05:39 PM
Parables are not prophecies, nor Oracles, unless interpreted so.

They are a different literary form and genre.

We were not talking of a parable in any case, but a plain prophecy,
in Isaiah.

So its you who is pulling a rabbit out of a hat.

I'm only interested in seeing how you can apply a prophecy
that fits better for one historical event to another.

Parables are a part of prophecy.

Nazaroo
January 29th, 2015, 10:24 PM
Parables are a part of prophecy.


So you have refused to explain or answer my questions.

Lets try again:

(1) the quote in Isaiah is NOT a parable. its a simple prophecy.

(2) the quote is already fulfilled in the transition from "Israelite" to "Jew".

(3) the quote doesn't fit well recycled as a SECOND name change.

(4) there is no prophecy of a SECOND name change.

(5) the prophecy doesn't predict a revolution in the Mosaic Law and tradition.

(6) the prophecy, if interpreted concerning the name "Christian",
opens the door to unlimited multiple fulfillments in the future,
and no controls or tests.

So my question is, how and why can we make this prophecy
as a prophecy about "Jews" ---> "Christians" plausible?

CherubRam
January 30th, 2015, 05:05 AM
So you have refused to explain or answer my questions.

Lets try again:

(1) the quote in Isaiah is NOT a parable. its a simple prophecy.

(2) the quote is already fulfilled in the transition from "Israelite" to "Jew".

(3) the quote doesn't fit well recycled as a SECOND name change.

(4) there is no prophecy of a SECOND name change.

(5) the prophecy doesn't predict a revolution in the Mosaic Law and tradition.

(6) the prophecy, if interpreted concerning the name "Christian",
opens the door to unlimited multiple fulfillments in the future,
and no controls or tests.

So my question is, how and why can we make this prophecy
as a prophecy about "Jews" ---> "Christians" plausible?

The word "name" is parabolic of a term not then used in Isaiah 65:15. The words Israel and Israelite has never been used as a curse word; however, the name Jew is commonly used as a curse word, even to this day. Because the scriptures reveal that the new name is associated with a New Covenant, that would by reason of history be Christians. Your assertions are not logical.

Word based mystic
January 30th, 2015, 07:58 AM
The Ark is not lost. God knows exactly where it is.
Jesus Bringing the potential for men to be born again, which is a spirit birth.
The presence of God And the Spirit of God is now invested In those that have a born again spirit. We become co-laborers and partners with God on bringing the Glory through Spirit birthed and Spirit led Works. This is a synonym of How God is and will show his glory throughout the earth.

Nazaroo
January 30th, 2015, 03:05 PM
The word "name" is parabolic of a term not then used in Isaiah 65:15. The words Israel and Israelite has never been used as a curse word; however, the name Jew is commonly used as a curse word, even to this day.


your version of history is flawed and apparently Eurocentric.

Go to the Middle East and in over a dozen countries,
you'll find that "ISRAEL" is indeed a curse word, in use for 1500 years.

In case you're even stupider than I think you are,
the word "Jew" wasn't even in existance until the Middle Ages.
It seems to have originated in France as a corruption or Latinization of Judah.

The word ended up in the English Bible due to Anglicization of the Hebrew
and Greek texts, for the King James Version (1611).

Even until the 19th century, people actually spelled it "Jewes",
as evidenced by both Masonic use and what in fact Jack the Ripper
scrawled on a wall in London in 1888.

Even now, Arabs and other Middle Easterners will hardly recognize
the English ('hard - J') version of "Jew", nor will they be spelling it
with Anglicized Latin alphabets.

But live in a bubble if you want to, and ignore historical facts.




Because the scriptures reveal that the new name is associated with a New Covenant, that would by reason of history be Christians. Your assertions are not logical.

The Covenant or rather revival and replacement described in Isaiah 65
is plainly an ETHNIC or Racial one, since God specifically says he'll
be using a righteous remnant of descendants of Israel for the project:


I will bring forth descendants from Jacob, and from Judah those who will possess my mountains; my chosen people will inherit them, and there will my servants live.

- Isaiah 65:9



Thus the passage speaks (before the restoration of the 2nd temple)
of taking a remnant of descendants of Jacob (Israelites) and Judah,
and re-planting them in the land of Israel under a new name,
obviously "Jews" or actually "Judaeans"/"Judahites",
i.e., Babylonian Jews under Ezra who returned, rebuilt the temple,
and restored the Torah worship.

Thus the prophecy had a PRIMARY fulfillment when
"Jews" (and other Israelites) returned to Judaea,
restored the temple, and using available records,
admitted those who could prove they were real descendants of Israelite tribes.

This was not only fulfilled by the return of "the Jews" to the land,
but was necessary in order to prepare conditions for the advent of the Messiah.

For you to leave out "the Jews" as the fulfillment of this prophecy,
destroys both the legitimacy of the Messiah, and the New covenant
which included non-Israelite Gentiles.

The new name spoken of in the prophecy was "the Jews";
who returned as a loyal and righteous remnant of Israel,
to the land as promised in the prophecy,
in order to usher in the New Covenant, first for 'Jews' (and other Israelite
Galileans and Samaritans), and secondly for 'Gentiles'.

That the final group came to be known as "Christians"
doesn't fulfill this prophecy at all,
which is a land-prophecy, concerning the literal descendants of Israel.

CherubRam
January 30th, 2015, 03:14 PM
The term Jew applied to all peoples of the world who worshipped the God of Abraham. The mission of the faith has always been to convert the nations to the faith.

The word "Jew" was a nickname assigned by the Babylonians to anyone who either lived in or came from the area of Judea.

A Jew is a convert to Judaism, and the Hebrews are an ethnic group of people.

Contrary to popular belief, Jews are not a race, but an assembly of people. Hebrews are a race.

A Hebrew may or may not be a Jew.

Esther 8:17
In every province and in every city, wherever the edict of the king went, there was joy and gladness among the Jews, with feasting and celebrating. And many people of other nationalities became Jews because fear of the Jews had seized them.

Zechariah 11:10
Then I took my staff called Favor and broke it, revoking the covenant I had made with all the nations.

Romans 2:28-29.
28 A person is not a Jew who is one only outwardly, nor is circumcision merely outward and physical. 29 No, a person is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is circumcision of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the written code. Such a person’s praise is not from other people, but from God.

Isaiah 62:2
The nations will see your vindication, and all kings your glory; you will be called by a new name that the mouth of the Lord will bestow.

Acts 11:26
and when he found him, he brought him to Antioch. So for a whole year Barnabas and Saul met with the church and taught great numbers of people. The disciples were called Christians first at Antioch.

Isaiah 65:15
You will leave your name (Jew) for my chosen ones to use in their curses; the Sovereign Lord will put you to death, but to his servants he will give another name. (Christian)

Ben Masada
January 30th, 2015, 03:17 PM
The disciples were instruct not to go to the Gentiles but to the Jews FIRST. After the rejection of the message, they then took the message to the Gentiles.

Romans 1:16
For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.

Romans 2:10
But glory, honour, and peace, to every man that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile:

Oh, we are talking about the gospel of Jesus which he forbade to take to the Gentiles and you bring the gospel of Paul. Those gospels were completely antagonistic to each other. Evidence of the fact is in Mat. 5:17-19 when Jesus said, "I did not come to abolish the Law" and Paul referred to this statement of Jesus' by implying that Jesus did not know what he was talking about because the Law was abolished on the cross, being by that the end of the Law. (Rom. 10:4)

CherubRam
January 30th, 2015, 03:25 PM
Oh, we are talking about the gospel of Jesus which he forbade to take to the Gentiles and you bring the gospel of Paul. Those gospels were completely antagonistic to each other. Evidence of the fact is in Mat. 5:17-19 when Jesus said, "I did not come to abolish the Law" and Paul referred to this statement of Jesus' by implying that Jesus did not know what he was talking about because the Law was abolished on the cross, being by that the end of the Law. (Rom. 10:4)

Yahwah's moral laws are not the laws that govern the priesthood and the festivals. When Yahwah revoked the covenant and put an end to the festivals, that is when the old priesthood and festival laws came to an end. We are expected to be smart enough to know the difference.

Ben Masada
January 30th, 2015, 03:26 PM
No disagreement there.

No relevance to my point.

The historical facts indicate a change of name for the remnant of
those who followed Moses: from Israelites to Jews,
reflecting the fact that the Kingdom split in two,
with the Northern Kingdom of Israel taken by the Assyrians,
and the Souther Kingdom of Judah taken by the Babylonians.

Now the remnant of the Southern Kingdom of Judaea,
consisting of Judahites, Benjaminites, and some Levites,
under Ezra returned to build the temple and restore services,
in preparation for the coming of the Messiah.

Thus, the people following Moses became known in the area as "Jews",
or "Judaeans".

So that fulfills the prophecy of a name change for those following Moses.

That Christians appropriated the same prophecy for the new movement
of Christianity, being called "Christians",
would at best be a SECOND fulfillment of the same prophecy.

But if you can do that, then why not a THIRD fulfillment, in say,
the Mormons, or a FOURTH fulfillment in say the MOONIES.

These other 'fulfillments' involve massive changes at least in the
interpretation and application of the Laws of Moses, even the Ten Commandments.

So It is on the onus of the "Christians" to show how this prophecy
can be applied and fulfilled when Christians no longer follow Moses
or the Law, or the traditions of Israelites or Jews.

Because if this can be proven, the floodgates are open for any group
or sect to use the same prophecy, without any real connection to
either Israel or Moses.

I do not understand why all this struggle for an identification with the Jewish prophecies when a much easier way is to join God's Covenant with His People according to Judaism as presented by Isaiah in 56:1-8.

CherubRam
January 30th, 2015, 03:29 PM
I do not understand why all this struggle for an identification with the Jewish prophecies when a much easier way is to join God's Covenant with His People according to Judaism as presented by Isaiah in 56:1-8.

Isaiah 56 New International Version (NIV)

Salvation for Others

56 This is what the Lord says:


“Maintain justice
and do what is right,
for my salvation is close at hand
and my righteousness will soon be revealed.

2
Blessed is the one who does this—
the person who holds it fast,
who keeps the Sabbath without desecrating it,
and keeps their hands from doing any evil.”



3
Let no foreigner who is bound to the Lord say,
“The Lord will surely exclude me from his people.”
And let no eunuch complain,
“I am only a dry tree.”

4 For this is what the Lord says:


“To the eunuchs who keep my Sabbaths,
who choose what pleases me
and hold fast to my covenant—

5
to them I will give within my temple and its walls
a memorial and a name
better than sons and daughters;
I will give them an everlasting name
that will endure forever.

6
And foreigners who bind themselves to the Lord
to minister to him,
to love the name of the Lord,
and to be his servants,
all who keep the Sabbath without desecrating it
and who hold fast to my covenant—

7
these I will bring to my holy mountain
and give them joy in my house of prayer.
Their burnt offerings and sacrifices
will be accepted on my altar;
for my house will be called
a house of prayer for all nations.”

8
The Sovereign Lord declares—
he who gathers the exiles of Israel:
“I will gather still others to them
besides those already gathered.”

God’s Accusation Against the Wicked



9
Come, all you beasts of the field,
come and devour, all you beasts of the forest!

10
Israel’s watchmen are blind,
they all lack knowledge;
they are all mute dogs,
they cannot bark;
they lie around and dream,
they love to sleep.

11
They are dogs with mighty appetites;
they never have enough.
They are shepherds who lack understanding;
they all turn to their own way,
they seek their own gain.

12
“Come,” each one cries, “let me get wine!
Let us drink our fill of beer!
And tomorrow will be like today,
or even far better.”

CherubRam
January 30th, 2015, 03:32 PM
Any convert bound by the New Covenant is a person belonging to Yah.

Ben Masada
January 30th, 2015, 03:37 PM
Yahwah's moral laws are not the laws that govern the priesthood and the festivals. When Yahwah revoked the covenant and put an end to the festivals, that is when the old priesthood and festival laws came to an end. We are expected to be smart enough to know the difference.

I am talking about the Decalogue. The Law of the Ten Commandments. That's what Paul meant if you read Rom. 7:7. In this text, he was talking about the allegory of the widow whose husband had died. That she was no longer under the Law due to her dead husband. That's in Rom. 7:1-7. Where is it written "Thou shall not covet" if not in the Decalogue? That's what Paul meant, with the death of Jesus: That Christians got rid of the Law. Nothing at all to do with sacrifices or festivals. You are simply trying again to stick the gospel of Paul. Paul also said that the Sabbath was only a shadow for things to come; perhaps the things of his gospel. Where is it written, "Thou shall keep the Sabbath holy" if not in the Decalogue? There!

Ben Masada
January 30th, 2015, 03:44 PM
The term Jew applied to all peoples of the world who worshipped the God of Abraham. The mission of the faith has always been to convert the nations to the faith.

The word "Jew" was a nickname assigned by the Babylonians to anyone who either lived in or came from the area of Judea.

A Jew is a convert to Judaism, and the Hebrews are an ethnic group of people.

Contrary to popular belief, Jews are not a race, but an assembly of people. Hebrews are a race.

A Hebrew may or may not be a Jew.

Esther 8:17
In every province and in every city, wherever the edict of the king went, there was joy and gladness among the Jews, with feasting and celebrating. And many people of other nationalities became Jews because fear of the Jews had seized them.

Zechariah 11:10
Then I took my staff called Favor and broke it, revoking the covenant I had made with all the nations.

Romans 2:28-29.
28 A person is not a Jew who is one only outwardly, nor is circumcision merely outward and physical. 29 No, a person is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is circumcision of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the written code. Such a person’s praise is not from other people, but from God.

Isaiah 62:2
The nations will see your vindication, and all kings your glory; you will be called by a new name that the mouth of the Lord will bestow.

Acts 11:26
and when he found him, he brought him to Antioch. So for a whole year Barnabas and Saul met with the church and taught great numbers of people. The disciples were called Christians first at Antioch.

Isaiah 65:15
You will leave your name (Jew) for my chosen ones to use in their curses; the Sovereign Lord will put you to death, but to his servants he will give another name. (Christian)

The Hebrews were not a race. There is only one race, the human race. The Hebrews were only a group of people followers of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. The human race is composed of the Caucasian aka the white, the black and the yellow. These are groups within the human race.

Ben Masada
January 30th, 2015, 03:49 PM
Isaiah 56 New International Version (NIV)

Salvation for Others

56 This is what the Lord says:


“Maintain justice
and do what is right,
for my salvation is close at hand
and my righteousness will soon be revealed.

2
Blessed is the one who does this—
the person who holds it fast,
who keeps the Sabbath without desecrating it,
and keeps their hands from doing any evil.”



3
Let no foreigner who is bound to the Lord say,
“The Lord will surely exclude me from his people.”
And let no eunuch complain,
“I am only a dry tree.”

4 For this is what the Lord says:


“To the eunuchs who keep my Sabbaths,
who choose what pleases me
and hold fast to my covenant—

5
to them I will give within my temple and its walls
a memorial and a name
better than sons and daughters;
I will give them an everlasting name
that will endure forever.

6
And foreigners who bind themselves to the Lord
to minister to him,
to love the name of the Lord,
and to be his servants,
all who keep the Sabbath without desecrating it
and who hold fast to my covenant—

7
these I will bring to my holy mountain
and give them joy in my house of prayer.
Their burnt offerings and sacrifices
will be accepted on my altar;
for my house will be called
a house of prayer for all nations.”

8
The Sovereign Lord declares—
he who gathers the exiles of Israel:
“I will gather still others to them
besides those already gathered.”

God’s Accusation Against the Wicked



9
Come, all you beasts of the field,
come and devour, all you beasts of the forest!

10
Israel’s watchmen are blind,
they all lack knowledge;
they are all mute dogs,
they cannot bark;
they lie around and dream,
they love to sleep.

11
They are dogs with mighty appetites;
they never have enough.
They are shepherds who lack understanding;
they all turn to their own way,
they seek their own gain.

12
“Come,” each one cries, “let me get wine!
Let us drink our fill of beer!
And tomorrow will be like today,
or even far better.”

Good! If you want to join God's Covenant with His People that's what you need to do. Good luck!

Ben Masada
January 30th, 2015, 03:51 PM
Any convert bound by the New Covenant is a person belonging to Yah.

The New Covenant was established with the House of Israel and the House of Judah. No mention of Gentiles if you read Jer. 31:31. I think that the new covenant you mention above must be the NT which is the gospel of Paul.

CherubRam
January 30th, 2015, 05:57 PM
The New Covenant was established with the House of Israel and the House of Judah. No mention of Gentiles if you read Jer. 31:31. I think that the new covenant you mention above must be the NT which is the gospel of Paul.
Matthew 26:28
This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.

Mark 14:24
"This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many," he said to them.


Luke 22:20
In the same way, after the supper he took the cup, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you.

CherubRam
January 30th, 2015, 06:00 PM
The term Jew applied to all peoples of the world who worshipped the God of Abraham. The mission of the faith has always been to convert the nations to the faith.

The word "Jew" was a nickname assigned by the Babylonians to anyone who either lived in or came from the area of Judea.

A Jew is a convert to Judaism, and the Hebrews are an ethnic group of people.

Contrary to popular belief, Jews are not a race, but an assembly of people. Hebrews are a race.

A Hebrew may or may not be a Jew.

Esther 8:17
In every province and in every city, wherever the edict of the king went, there was joy and gladness among the Jews, with feasting and celebrating. And many people of other nationalities became Jews because fear of the Jews had seized them.

Zechariah 11:10
Then I took my staff called Favor and broke it, revoking the covenant I had made with all the nations.

Romans 2:28-29.
28 A person is not a Jew who is one only outwardly, nor is circumcision merely outward and physical. 29 No, a person is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is circumcision of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the written code. Such a person’s praise is not from other people, but from God.

Isaiah 62:2
The nations will see your vindication, and all kings your glory; you will be called by a new name that the mouth of the Lord will bestow.

Acts 11:26
and when he found him, he brought him to Antioch. So for a whole year Barnabas and Saul met with the church and taught great numbers of people. The disciples were called Christians first at Antioch.

Isaiah 65:15
You will leave your name (Jew) for my chosen ones to use in their curses; the Sovereign Lord will put you to death, but to his servants he will give another name. (Christian)


Yahwah's moral laws are not the laws that govern the priesthood and the festivals. When Yahwah revoked the covenant and put an end to the festivals, that is when the old priesthood and festival laws came to an end. We are expected to be smart enough to know the difference.


Any convert bound by the New Covenant is a person belonging to Yah.

Bump

CherubRam
January 30th, 2015, 06:01 PM
The disciples were instruct not to go to the Gentiles but to the Jews FIRST. After the rejection of the message, they then took the message to the Gentiles.

Romans 1:16
For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.



Romans 2:10
But glory, honour, and peace, to every man that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile:
Also

CherubRam
January 30th, 2015, 06:04 PM
your version of history is flawed and apparently Eurocentric.

Go to the Middle East and in over a dozen countries,
you'll find that "ISRAEL" is indeed a curse word, in use for 1500 years.

Do you have a link to where "Israel" is used as a curse word by the people of the world?

CherubRam
January 30th, 2015, 06:08 PM
The New Covenant was established with the House of Israel and the House of Judah. No mention of Gentiles if you read Jer. 31:31. I think that the new covenant you mention above must be the NT which is the gospel of Paul.

Jeremiah 31:31. “The days are coming,” declares the Lord, “when I will make a new covenant with the people of Israel and with the people of Judah.

Different peoples of the world lived in Israel and Judah.

Daniel1611
January 30th, 2015, 08:15 PM
Jeremiah 31:31. “The days are coming,” declares the Lord, “when I will make a new covenant with the people of Israel and with the people of Judah.

Different peoples of the world lived in Israel and Judah.

I am a citizen of Israel. Anyone who is in Christ is a citizen of Israel. See Ephesians 2.

Crowns&Laurels
January 30th, 2015, 08:19 PM
Antisemites are quite skilled at cherry-picking verses out of the Hebrew Bible to shore up their hate.

Jews are quite skilled at masquerading as victims, who don't mind Jesus being called a 'bastard of a whore' but get all butthurt when someone says you all are heretics.

Newsflash: the definition of antisemitism is 'criticizing Jews on any little tiny thing period; they are perfect' :rolleyes:

Nazaroo
January 30th, 2015, 09:03 PM
If you read the books of Ezra, Nehemiah and the two books of the Maccabees, after the exile in Babylon there were no longer Israelites but only Jews. About 10% of the Israelites who had escaped Assyria and joined Judah in the South, had all become and the same under the single denomination of Jews. (Ezek. 37:22)

Part of a larger prophecy of the Return of all remaining Israelites,
in which they all stop idolatry, and follow God's commandments.

That unfortunately is not yet fulfilled in modern secular israel.

But perhaps a spiritual epiphany is coming...

Also, no mention of "Jews", since the word wasn't invented for another millenium and a half.

Nazaroo
January 30th, 2015, 09:05 PM
Do you have a link to where "Israel" is used as a curse word by the people of the world?

And while we're at it,
can you show me an example where "Jew" is used before about 1200 A.D.?

Please don't rely on a modern translation that didn't exist before 1611.

For reference, "Jews" under the Franks called themselves Sephardim,
and "Jews" in Eastern Europe called themselves Yehud or Askenazim.

OCTOBER23
January 30th, 2015, 09:06 PM
NOTICE THAT CHERUBRAM NO LONGER POSTS.

COWARDS ARE MANY

HEROES ARE FEW.

Nazaroo
January 30th, 2015, 09:11 PM
NOTICE THAT CHERUBRAM NO LONGER POSTS.

COWARDS ARE MANY

HEROES ARE FEW.

I'm kinda missing Kayaker.
He had a kind of anal fastidiousness that was almost scholarly.

CherubRam
January 31st, 2015, 05:02 AM
And while we're at it,
can you show me an example where "Jew" is used before about 1200 A.D.?

Please don't rely on a modern translation that didn't exist before 1611.

For reference, "Jews" under the Franks called themselves Sephardim,
and "Jews" in Eastern Europe called themselves Yehud or Askenazim.

History of the word Jew
Anyone who was an inhabitant of Judaea was a "Jew," and a Jew is properly a Judean, and Jewry properly Judaea.
Equivalents used by various chroniclers between the 4th and the 18th century. From the Latin "Iudaeus" to the English "Jew" the evolution of these English forms is: "Gyu," "Giu," "Iu," "Iuu," "Iuw," "Ieuu," "Ieuy," "Iwe," "Iow," "Iewe," "Ieue," "Iue," "Ive," "Iew," and then finally in the 18th century, "Jew." Similarly, the evolution of the English equivalents for "Jews" is: "Giwis," "Giws," "Gyues," "Gywes," "Giwes," "Geus," "Iuys," "Iows," "Iouis," "Iews," and then, finally, in the 18th century, "Jews."

The history of the development of the term "Jew" does not change the (INTERPRETATION.)

Isaiah 65:15
You will leave your name (Judean=Jew) for my chosen ones to use in their curses; the Sovereign Lord will put you to death, but to his servants he will give another name. (Christian)

Your turn!

CherubRam
January 31st, 2015, 05:53 AM
NOTICE THAT CHERUBRAM NO LONGER POSTS.

COWARDS ARE MANY

HEROES ARE FEW.

And liars are plentiful.

If you keep that up no one will listen to you.

CherubRam
January 31st, 2015, 05:54 AM
History of the word Jew
Anyone who was an inhabitant of Judaea was a "Jew," and a Jew is properly a Judean, and Jewry properly Judaea.
Equivalents used by various chroniclers between the 4th and the 18th century. From the Latin "Iudaeus" to the English "Jew" the evolution of these English forms is: "Gyu," "Giu," "Iu," "Iuu," "Iuw," "Ieuu," "Ieuy," "Iwe," "Iow," "Iewe," "Ieue," "Iue," "Ive," "Iew," and then finally in the 18th century, "Jew." Similarly, the evolution of the English equivalents for "Jews" is: "Giwis," "Giws," "Gyues," "Gywes," "Giwes," "Geus," "Iuys," "Iows," "Iouis," "Iews," and then, finally, in the 18th century, "Jews."

The history of the development of the term "Jew" does not change the (INTERPRETATION.)

Isaiah 65:15
You will leave your name (Judean=Jew) for my chosen ones to use in their curses; the Sovereign Lord will put you to death, but to his servants he will give another name. (Christian)

kayaker
January 31st, 2015, 08:48 AM
I'm kinda missing Kayaker.
He had a kind of anal fastidiousness that was almost scholarly.

LOL! You are entirely kind with your words, Nazaroo. My head's still spinning trying to fathom everyone's posts since my last (and before). Much is over my head, rest assured, and with all due respect. I might throw in my two cents worth on an item or two. I tend to think understanding who the Biblical players were, at least around Noah's day, helps clear the air. And, I think Jesus instructed us to this significance in Matthew 24:3, 36, 37, 38, 39.

Virtually everyone assumes the title "Jew" embraces some ancestral (being politically correct v. 'racial') component. When folk debate the ancestral component of the title "Jew", only an individual can make up their own mind being there is utterly no ancestral consensus. While circumventing the ancestral confusion (intended aspect to my finding), we can achieve some consensus discerning who is NOT an ancestral Jew.

Generally speaking, contemporary Jews appear to harbor the rather arrogant notion a Gentile is ANY non-Jew (goyim), by and large. Christians substantially follow suit, less fluent in the OT (as "Jews" are uninspired, btw), having little, if any, respect for the authentic ancestry of the Gentiles. The Gentiles were descendants of Japheth, son of Noah: Genesis 9:27 KJV, Genesis 10:2, 3, 4, Genesis 10:5 KJV (1611 KJV, btw). The lack of ancestral discernment is found in many non-1611 KJV translations. Pay particular attention to the NKJV translation of Genesis 10:5 NKJV v. the 1611 Genesis 10:5 KJV. The NNKJV suggests a literal, uninspired geographic association ('coastland people') with the metaphoric expression "isle of the Gentiles." The Gentiles were 'set aside' (isle of the Gentiles) being 'the story' of the Bible is about the lineage to produce Yeshua (Luke 3:23-38). Japheth is not paternally found in the lineage of Messiah; Noah's son Shem is (Luke 3:36). Our Bible is not about Gentiles... it's about Shemites.

Ben exploits (knowingly, or not) the Christian lack of OT knowledge and discernment. Jesus' disciples were not fluent in OT early in their ministry as found in Acts 4:13, 20. With all due respect, Jesus' disciples were essentially evangelist milk feeders testifying to a population (lost sheep) already fluent in the Books of Moses. The lost sheep were lost following the twisted renderings by the circumcised Shelanite Pharisees: Jesus was a impostor since He was not a descendant of Shelah, son of Judah, prophesied progenitor of Messiah. Unlike Jesus' disciples, Paul was sent predominately to the Gentiles (ostracized from the synagogues) being keenly fluent in the OT. Paul was astutely aware the Gentile descendants of Japheth were long ago blessed to procreate with the Shemites found in Genesis 9:27 KJV. Neither the union, nor the child of a Gentile-Shemite marriage needed the blessing of the synagogue. This union was sanctioned by Noah.

When grasping the notion the Gentiles were the ancestrally distinct 'set aside' descendants of Japheth; evidence of Paul's OT authority can be readily appreciated in 1Corinthians 5:1 KJV. Paul understood, unlike Jesus' disciples (and the vast majority of Christians, btw) what went down in Noah's tent: Leviticus 18:8 KJV, Leviticus 20:11 KJV, Deuteronomy 22:30 KJV, Deuteronomy 27:20 KJV. Meanwhile, Christians debate the magnitude of the flood, approaching the proverbial iceberg in the Atlantic at full throttle (Matthew 24:3, 37, 38, 39).

Ask Christians around... Who is a Gentile? If I may be so presumptuous, the vast majority of Christians will answer something along the lines: Everyone who is NOT a Jew (blindly assuming ancestral consensus in that title), and... who are not Islam/Muslim/Palestinian. Aren't the Ishmaelites descendants of Abraham? Then, why aren't Muslims, "Jews"? The Muslims have clearer ancestral rights than do the Canaanite Shelanites who call themselves Jews, walking anonymously among the ancestrally un-illuminated Israelite descendants of Jacob. The whole rift between the Jews and the Muslims was inspired by the Shelanites. If, respectfully, the title "Israelite" is considered a curse word in the middle east as you suggest... pin the tail on the donkey: Shelanites are responsible. Shelanites are not Israelites, they are Canaanites. Ezra specifically excluded Shelah, and "The sons of Shelah the son of Judah..." (1Chronicles 4:21, 22) from Ezra's tribal roster of Judah in 1Chronicles 4:1. The tribe of Judah began with Pharez (via Tamar), his son Hezron... descendants of Judah and Tamar. The Shelanites are descendants of Judah, prophesied progenitor of Messiah, and his Canaanite wife. Please consider Revelation 2:9, 3:9. The Shelanites trashed the heritage of the Gentiles, they trashed the ancestry of the Ishmaelites, and they trashed the ancestry of the Israelites who they are going to throw under the bus after bulldozing the Muslim al-Aqsa mosque from the temple mount... speaking of the next Big Bang Theory! They ONLY reason Islam hasn't already nuked the place is because their mosque sits there.

Totally appreciating your distinction of Ashkenazi Jews and Sephardim; few Christians understand the origin of the Gentiles. Therefore, few Christians realize the origin of the Ashkenazim. The Ashkenazi Jews were originally Gentile descendants of Japheth via his son Gomer's son, Ashkenaz (Genesis 10:3 KJV). Those Ashkenazi Gentiles were the target population of Nimrod (Genesis 10:10 KJV), 'grandson' of Ham and his wife, who exploited the 'set aside' notion alleging that Gentiles were not loved by Almighty God, as were the Shemites. The mere fact there are Ashkenai Jews today testifies to Paul's selection to preach to the Gentiles: Ashkenazi, particularly. On the other hand, I proffer the Sephardic 'Jews' were/are Shelanites, who have their origin as descendants of Ham (maternally via Keturah) having usurped the Israelite's 'chosen' status hiding behind the ancestrally ambiguous title, 'Jew.'

Anyway... I thought I'd just toss a few fundamentals on the table that hopefully brings this topic into a little more focus. I am honored indeed that you've considered my exhausting prior posts, Nazaroo.

blessings,

kayaker

kayaker
January 31st, 2015, 09:18 AM
Each man individually has the opportunity and responsibility for their own individual response to Gods Grace and salvation. God wills and desires that all men would be saved. not just the gentiles.
romans 1:16 (because it is the power of God that brings salvation to everyone who believes: first to the Jew, then to the Gentile.)

A hearty welcome to TOL, Word based mystic!

Sorry I didn't greet you sooner. I do appreciate your post. "first to the Jew" has rather significant implications.

kayaker

Nazaroo
January 31st, 2015, 12:16 PM
History of the word Jew
Anyone who was an inhabitant of Judaea was a "Jew," and a Jew is properly a Judean, and Jewry properly Judaea.
Equivalents used by various chroniclers between the 4th and the 18th century. From the Latin "Iudaeus" to the English "Jew" the evolution of these English forms is: "Gyu," "Giu," "Iu," "Iuu," "Iuw," "Ieuu," "Ieuy," "Iwe," "Iow," "Iewe," "Ieue," "Iue," "Ive," "Iew," and then finally in the 18th century, "Jew." Similarly, the evolution of the English equivalents for "Jews" is: "Giwis," "Giws," "Gyues," "Gywes," "Giwes," "Geus," "Iuys," "Iows," "Iouis," "Iews," and then, finally, in the 18th century, "Jews."

The history of the development of the term "Jew" does not change the (INTERPRETATION.)

Isaiah 65:15
You will leave your name (Judean=Jew) for my chosen ones to use in their curses; the Sovereign Lord will put you to death, but to his servants he will give another name. (Christian)

Your turn!

Again, I asked for dates and evidence and you give me a load of diarrea.

What you've posted is:


"Just because historically there is no word 'Jew' doesn't change
the fact I can insert it here in my 'interpretation' of an ancient text
written 2000 years before the word "Jew" was invented."

Thanks for playing.

But the real crime here is that you haven't even properly defined "Jew"
as it is used in the Bible, let alone how it is used in the REAL WORLD.

Lets give it a try:

MEANINGS OF "JEW"

I. Biblical Meanings: Literal

(1) Descendant of the Tribe of Judah, one of Jacob's sons through MALE line. (cf. Genesis etc.)

(2) Member of the Southern Kingdom of 'Judah', consisting of 2 1/2 tribes,
Judah, Benjamin, Levi (cf. Books of Kings)

(3) Member of the community of exiles primarily in Babylon,
formed after the conquest of the Southern kingdom of 'Judah'
by Babylon (cf. Esther)

(4) Exile Returning to the land of Judaea who could prove their lineage and descendancy, and member of the community formed under Ezra (cf. Ezra/Nehemiah)

(5) Member of the religious community occupying Palestine and Egypt,
formed under Ezra and having autonomy,
then resisting the Greek occupation under Alexander, and later
existing under occupation by the Romans in Jesus' time, and at times.
(cf. Maccabees etc.)

(6) Member of the 'diaspora' of exiled descendants of Israelite tribes
spread all over the Roman Empire, but self-identifying as Israelites and
practicing Phariseeism (cf. Paul)

(7) Any Person intermarrying with "Jews" (4,5,6) and adopting Jewish
religious practices.
After the advent of Ezra, there was a large split in "Judaism"
with Ezra's community rejecting proselytism and intermarriage,
considering it a violation of the Mosiac Covenant through disobediance,
while "Jews" who did not return but continued intermarriage self-identified
as "Jews" also, with a different set of membership rules.


II. Biblical Meanings: Figurative

(8) Representation of the Southern Kingdom as "Judah", a poetic usage.

(9) Representation of the descendants of the ancient Israelite tribes,
a poetic usage.


III. NON-Biblical Meanings: Racial/Political


(10) A person having or claiming descendancy from the historical tribes of Israel,
i.e., an ethnic definition of "Jew". (as used by many Jews today).

(11) A person practicing some recognized form of "Judaism",
a modern religion evolving out of Phariseeism and surviving sects existing
before the Roman/Jewish Wars, i.e., a religious definition of "Jew".
(as used in the Western nations)

(12) A citizen of modern Israel, a secular state formed on ethnic
and religious lines, out of ethnically "Jewish" survivors and assenters
arising out of the 2nd World War, and Holocaust.
(as used by Arabs and Muslims throughout the Middle East today).


As an important footnote, NONE of the modern meanings of "Jew" (10,11,12)
have any proper or accurate correspondence with the many Biblical meanings
listed above,
but which are often INTERPRETED, TRANSLATED, or INSERTED into
the standard religious texts as "Jew".

So called 'modern' versions of the Bible that insert "Jew" are an obvious FAIL,
and are based on a bigoted, oversimplistic, and religious or propaganda-based
spin that perpetuates racism and anti-Semitism against a modern group
of people which is largely non-religious.

Lets add one more unfortunately prejorative slang usage of "Jew",
in fact used in the very title of this thread:

(13) A derogatory term implying cheapness or cunning in business dealing,
and strongly suggestive of dishonesty and deceit, fraud,
and often used as an adjective or verb:

Examples:

"You got Jewed." (i.e., got ripped off in a business exchange)

"Don't be a Jew." (i.e., don't be stingy, and pay your way or take your economic responsibility).

Such usages are not unique to anti-Semitism, as many racial and tribal groups have derogatory names
which can be used to suggest negative traits as if they were inherited or intrinsic to a nation or culture.


Lets take away one very important point:

There cannot be only one single
meaning for "Jew" at this point in history,

and it is a very poor word to use in the translation of ancient texts without
extensive footnotes and historical explanations.

Daniel1611
January 31st, 2015, 12:39 PM
For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh:
But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.

Nazaroo
January 31st, 2015, 01:09 PM
kayaker Said:

...The Muslims have clearer ancestral rights than do the Canaanite Shelanites who call themselves Jews, walking anonymously among the ancestrally un-illuminated Israelite descendants of Jacob. The whole rift between the Jews and the Muslims was inspired by the Shelanites. If, respectfully, the title "Israelite" is considered a curse word in the middle east as you suggest... pin the tail on the donkey: Shelanites are responsible. Shelanites are not Israelites, they are Canaanites. Ezra specifically excluded Shelah, and "The sons of Shelah the son of Judah..." (1Chronicles 4:21, 22) from Ezra's tribal roster...


I'm glad you are articulate.

However I absolutely must take issue with you on a number of important points:

(1) Muslims have no entitlement to anything in regard to Biblical Covenants
or even land tracts.

Your statements are very disengenious and misleading.

a) Land Contracts

Ultimately and with Eternal Sovereignty,
the LORD God owns all lands everywhere,
and gives them to who He pleases.


Israel/Palestine was originally the land of Canaan.
Those inhabitants were tossed out by God Himself for despicable sins,
such as religous prostitution, abortion and child sacrifice.

That land was given to Israel conditionally,
and we should all be aware of how those conditions have evolved historically,
and how they have been removed and restored on an ongoing basis.


The mixture of peoples who were historically in some cases forced
to move in and work the land of Israel, which was taken by Assyrians and Babylonians,
and any and all other peoples allowed to move in and plant themselves,
and specifically the Philistines, Syrians, Iraqis, Greeks, Romans,
Arabs and Bedouins who were residing there before the formation
of Israel,
have no absolute rights to any land whatsoever,
because it remains the property of the LORD God Almighty,
who gives land to whom He will.

Nor do Israelites or "Jews" have any absolute rights.
On the contrary, all rights are dependent upon the LANDLORD, who is God.


b) Biblical Covenants

However many Covenants are noticed or discovered,
the participating parties identified,
the validity, activity or inactivity historically plotted,
it remains a fact that
only the Abrahamic Covenant has any possible application to Arabs,
but the Holy Scriptures themselves indicate that (based on behaviour),
such covenants, even land covenants are limited, regulated and policed
by the LORD God Himself.
And in any case, the Abrahamic Covenant is INCLUSIVE,
ethnically and racially of the Jews as well as Arabs.

So such a Covenant as the Abrahamic Covenant,
has no relevance in a "Jew"/"Arab" dispute.
That would be an internal dispute similar to
a possible land dispute between say the tribe of Simeon and Ephraim.
It can't be solved by appealing to the Abrahamic Covenant,
or any other covenant.

Religious covenants, such as the Mosaic Covenant,
are only as valid as the participants fulfill the terms,
such as obedience to Mosiac Law, and special instructions from the LORD God.

Religious covenants such as that offered by Jesus the Christ,
do not apply to this world at this time, but refer to Spiritual Rights
and privileges, such as Eternal Life, and inheritance in the future
of a restored heaven and earth.


(2) Blaming the "Shelanites" is just a kind of racial profiling under another name.

Even if the "Shelanites" (the New anti-Semite term for "Jew"?)
are a wicked and despicable gang of thugs,
this changes NOTHING in regards to each and every person's responsibility
for their own sin.

Blaming "the Shelanites" for all the problems of the world,
is like blaming the "the Jews", "the bankers", "the foreigners",
"the muslims", "the communists", "the socialists", "the liberals" etc.
and/or any other semi-fictional autonomous group, gang or regime.

No doubt ALL of these groups of idiots, and perhaps equally,
all individuals too, like serial killers, rapists, thieves, adulterers, liars,
all have their share in the horrific crimes taking place, the innocent victims,
the terrible injustices in the world today.

But targeting ALL sin is the message of God,
and repentance of ALL people is the only doorway for salvation.

I don't doubt there is an Accuser, a Satan, an Adversary,
even a 'people of Cain', or a 'gang of the Devil',
but these are not the excuse or explanation for your sins.

They may be sources of persecution, agents of punishment,
causes of injustice, but in the Biblical worldview,
the blame for sin stops at you.


'Do not be deceived:
God cannot be mocked.
A man reaps what he sows.'

Gal. 6:7

CherubRam
January 31st, 2015, 01:16 PM
Again, I asked for dates and evidence and you give me a load of diarrea.

What you've posted is:


"Just because historically there is no word 'Jew' doesn't change
the fact I can insert it here in my 'interpretation' of an ancient text
written 2000 years before the word "Jew" was invented."

Thanks for playing.

But the real crime here is that you haven't even properly defined "Jew"
as it is used in the Bible, let alone how it is used in the REAL WORLD.

Lets give it a try:

MEANINGS OF "JEW"

I. Biblical Meanings: Literal

(1) Descendant of the Tribe of Judah, one of Jacob's sons through MALE line. (cf. Genesis etc.)

(2) Member of the Southern Kingdom of 'Judah', consisting of 2 1/2 tribes,
Judah, Benjamin, Levi (cf. Books of Kings)

(3) Member of the community of exiles primarily in Babylon,
formed after the conquest of the Southern kingdom of 'Judah'
by Babylon (cf. Esther)

(4) Exile Returning to the land of Judaea who could prove their lineage and descendancy, and member of the community formed under Ezra (cf. Ezra/Nehemiah)

(5) Member of the religious community occupying Palestine and Egypt,
formed under Ezra and having autonomy,
then resisting the Greek occupation under Alexander, and later
existing under occupation by the Romans in Jesus' time, and at times.
(cf. Maccabees etc.)

(6) Member of the 'diaspora' of exiled descendants of Israelite tribes
spread all over the Roman Empire, but self-identifying as Israelites and
practicing Phariseeism (cf. Paul)

(7) Any Person intermarrying with "Jews" (4,5,6) and adopting Jewish
religious practices.
After the advent of Ezra, there was a large split in "Judaism"
with Ezra's community rejecting proselytism and intermarriage,
considering it a violation of the Mosiac Covenant through disobediance,
while "Jews" who did not return but continued intermarriage self-identified
as "Jews" also, with a different set of membership rules.


II. Biblical Meanings: Figurative

(8) Representation of the Southern Kingdom as "Judah", a poetic usage.

(9) Representation of the descendants of the ancient Israelite tribes,
a poetic usage.


III. NON-Biblical Meanings: Racial/Political


(10) A person having or claiming descendancy from the historical tribes of Israel,
i.e., an ethnic definition of "Jew". (as used by many Jews today).

(11) A person practicing some recognized form of "Judaism",
a modern religion evolving out of Phariseeism and surviving sects existing
before the Roman/Jewish Wars, i.e., a religious definition of "Jew".
(as used in the Western nations)

(12) A citizen of modern Israel, a secular state formed on ethnic
and religious lines, out of ethnically "Jewish" survivors and assenters
arising out of the 2nd World War, and Holocaust.
(as used by Arabs and Muslims throughout the Middle East today).


As an important footnote, NONE of the modern meanings of "Jew" (10,11,12)
have any proper or accurate correspondence with the many Biblical meanings
listed above,
but which are often INTERPRETED, TRANSLATED, or INSERTED into
the standard religious texts as "Jew".

So called 'modern' versions of the Bible that insert "Jew" are an obvious FAIL,
and are based on a bigoted, oversimplistic, and religious or propaganda-based
spin that perpetuates racism and anti-Semitism against a modern group
of people which is largely non-religious.

Lets add one more unfortunately prejorative slang usage of "Jew",
in fact used in the very title of this thread:

(13) A derogatory term implying cheapness or cunning in business dealing,
and strongly suggestive of dishonesty and deceit, fraud,
and often used as an adjective or verb:

Examples:

"You got Jewed." (i.e., got ripped off in a business exchange)

"Don't be a Jew." (i.e., don't be stingy, and pay your way or take your economic responsibility).

Such usages are not unique to anti-Semitism, as many racial and tribal groups have derogatory names
which can be used to suggest negative traits as if they were inherited or intrinsic to a nation or culture.


Lets take away one very important point:

There cannot be only one single meaing for "Jew" at this point in history,

and it is a very poor word to use in the translation of ancient texts without
extensive footnotes and historical explanations.

I guess the fact that languages change over a period of time eludes you. The Hebrew word "wind" is also the word for "spirit." A Judean is a Jew no matter how it is spelled.

Nazaroo
January 31st, 2015, 01:16 PM
For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh:
But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.

I'd rep you but I already did before!

so you got "Gypsied" out of a rep.

Nazaroo
January 31st, 2015, 01:18 PM
I guess the fact that languages change over a period of time eludes you.
The Hebrew word "wind" is also the word for "spirit."


Being the only one here to have documented the historical changes,
I guess the change of language over time eluded me.

Thanks for taking credit for MY work.

https://porthosthepirate.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/girls-laughing.jpg






A Judean is a Jew no matter how it is spelled.If a "Judean is a Jew", just tell me which meaning of "Jew" and "Judean"
you are using.

Pick a number from (1) to (13).

Sluffing it off is another cop out from the racist crowd.