PDA

View Full Version : The Truth About Melchizedek



Pages : [1] 2

Ben Masada
July 27th, 2015, 06:50 AM
The Truth About Melchizedek

Here is a column which I consider will crack under the building of Christianity. Who was Melchizedek? This man was a pagan Canaanite king, who happened to be the king of Salem, ancient name for Jerusalem.

Abram had just returned from a battle with five kings, and, on his way to Beersheba, he paused in Jerusalem for a repast. He and his men were tired and weary of the military campaign. Melchizedek, afraid perhaps that Abram would take on him too and conquer Jerusalem out of his hands, immediately brought forth bread and wine to him and his troops. For Abram, it was a relieve. He didn't have to fight another king.

Now, please, I must remind you that I am reading from the originals in Hebrew and not from the Gentile adulterated version of the KJV. Why would Melchizedek prefer to feed Abram and his army instead of fighting him? Because he, Abram, and not Melchizedek was the priest of God most High, whose seed would be of a nation of priests and kings. (Exod. 19:6; Isa. 61:6)

Then, as Melchizedek served the food and drink, he blessed Abram. Please focus on how he blessed Abram. "Blessed be Abram of God Most High." It means that Melchizedek would recognize that Abram was the one Priest of God the Most High. Creator of the universe." Then, for all the bread and wine, and that blessing of recognition of who Abram really was, Abram shared with him a tenth of the spoils taken from the kings in battle.

Now, let us check Psalm 110:4, which in the KJV says, "The Lord has sworn and will not repent, you are a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek." This is a Christian gloss plagiarized by Paul and grossly forged by the Church in the 4th Century under the excuse of pious forgery.

Here is what Psalm 110:4 says in the originals in Hebrew: "The Lord has sworn and will not relent, you are a priest forever; a rightful king by My decree." As you can see, it has nothing to do with king Melchizedek, king of Salem, but rather to David in the type level of interpretation, which points to the archetype level of Israel, the seed of Abraham as a nation of priests and kings. (Exod. 19:6; Isa. 61:6) Obviously, only the High Priest of the Most High would produce a generation of priests and kings through Israel.

Interplanner
July 27th, 2015, 07:34 AM
and so what does the NT letter Hebrews say about this?

Ben Masada
July 27th, 2015, 08:20 AM
and so what does the NT letter Hebrews say about this?

Sorry, but that's for you to tell me.

Danoh
July 27th, 2015, 09:28 AM
An old article on this issue that I found handled the subject very well, despite its writer:

http://www.bibletools.org/index.cfm/fuseaction/Library.sr/CT/HWA/k/745/Mystery-Melchizedek-Solved.htm

The Mystery of Melchizedek Solved!

by Herbert W. Armstrong (1892-1986)
1972


FEW MYSTERIES of the Bible have attracted more interest than the mystery of the identity of Melchizedek. Who is he?

You will read in Hebrews 6:19-20 that Jesus Christ, after His resurrection, is High Priest "after the order of Melchizedek." The plainer English of the Moffatt translation words it: ". . with the rank of" that is, equal status with "Melchizedek."

Melchizedek Was God's Priest


First, notice from both Old and New Testaments that the man of mystery, Melchizedek, was a priest of the Most High God. Turn 'low to the account in Genesis 14. During the war between a number of ancient city-states in Canaan and Mesopotamia, Abraham's nephew Lot had been captured. He and his family and goods were carted off.

One of their number escaped and brought the news to Abraham, who armed 318 of his own servants and pursued the invaders to what was later named Dan and beyond. Abraham rescued Lot and his family and returned them safely to the Canaanite cities.

On Abraham's return a man of mystery bursts upon the scene. Abraham was ministered to by Melchizedek.

Here is the account:

"And Melchizedek king of Salem brought out bread and wine; he was priest of God Most High. And he [Melchizedek] blessed him [Abraham] and said, 'Blessed be Abram by God Most High, maker of heaven and earth; and blessed be God Most High, who has delivered your enemies into your hand!' And Abram gave him [Melchizedek] a tenth of everything" that is, a tithe of all, for a tithe means a tenth (Genesis 14:18-20, RSV).

Notice that Melchizedek was king of Salem. That is the city of Jerusalem. "Salem" comes from the Hebrew word meaning "peace." That would make Melchizedek the "King of Peace" (Hebrews 7:2). The Hebrew name Melchizedek itself means "King of Righteousness" (Hebrews 7:2). The same individual is mentioned in Psalm 110:4. Speaking prophetically of Christ, David stated: "The Eternal hath sworn, and will not repent, Thou art a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek." This verse is quoted again in Hebrews 5:6, 10.

Before we turn to Hebrews for the identification of Melchizedek, remember that this mystery figure is a mystery only to us. Abraham and the King of wicked Sodom knew exactly who he was. They must have seen him before. He could not have been a Canaanite, for they were steeped in pagan customs. And furthermore Canaan was a descendant of Ham, whereas God basically chose the descendants of Shem to accomplish His work.

Then who is the mystery man Melchizedek?

One other hint before we proceed. The land of Canaan from ancient time, before the days of Moses, was known among the Gentiles as "the divine land" the Holy land" the land of the place of worship!" Why? Was there someone in the Holy Land who was divine, holy, worthy of worship?

The Mystery Clears


Coming to Hebrews 7, we find Melchizedek identified:

"For this Melchizedek, king of Salem, priest of the most high God, who met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings, and blessed him; to whom also Abraham gave a tenth part of all; first being by interpretation King of righteousness, and after that also King of Salem, which is, King of peace" (Hebrews 7:1-2).

Since God names individuals what they are, that, then is what this man is.. "King of Righteousness."

Think of it! King of Righteousness.

Jesus Himself said: "There is none good but one, that is, God" (Matthew 19:17). Human self-righteousness is, before God, as filthy rags. None can be righteous but God—or one made righteous by God's power—Christ in a person! And certainly none but One of the Godhead the divine Kingdom of God would be King of Righteousness. Such an expression, applied to any but God, would be blasphemous. Why?

Righteousness is obedience to God's Law. Since God made all laws (James 4:12), He is Supreme Ruler or King. He determines what righteousness is. "All thy commandments are righteousness" (Psalm 119:172). When speaking of one of the points of that Law, Jesus placed Himself superior to it. He is Lord of the Sabbath (Mark 2:28). No man is Lord or King over God's Law. Only God could be! All human beings have sinned and broken that Law of righteousness (Romans 3:23).

To continue with Hebrews 7. Note, too, that this man was King of peace. "Salem" from which Jerusalem was named means "peace." And remember, Jesus is called the Prince of peace! No human being could be King of Peace. Men know not the way of peace. Read Romans 3:10 and 17: "There is none righteous, no, not one.... And the way of peace have they not known."

Observe further: Melchizedek was "without mother, without father, without descent," or as the Phillips translation renders it: "He had no father or mother and no family tree." He was not born as human beings are. He was without father and mother. This does not mean that Melchizedek's records of birth were lost. Without such records human priests could not serve (Ezra 2:62). But here Melchizedek had no genealogy. He must not have been an ordinary mortal. He had no descent or pedigree from another, but was self-existent. Notice Paul's own inspired interpretation of this fact: "Having neither beginning of days, nor end of life" (Hebrews 7:3). Therefore He has always existed from eternity! He was not even created, like angels. But He is now eternally self-existing. And that is true only of GOD deity, not humanity!

Not the Father Nor the Holy Spirit


Yet Melchizedek cannot be God the Father. He was the "priest of that Most High God." Scripture says no man has ever seen the Father (John 1:18, 5:37), but Abraham saw Melchizedek. He cannot be God the Father, but rather, "made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually" (Hebrews 7:3).

And there it is! In the days of Abraham, He was not the Son of God, for He had not yet been born of the virgin Mary but He was made like unto the Son of God in His manifestation to the ancients.

Notice again: Melchizedek, this scripture reveals, abides that is, remains permanently, continually, a priest. God the Father is not the Priest of God, but Christ the Son is! Yet, in the days when the Apostle Paul lived and wrote, shortly after Jesus ascended to heaven as High Priest, the scripture states that even then Melchizedek "abideth "—which means does now abide—"a priest continually." The Moffatt translation states it: "continues to be priest permanently" even while Jesus Christ is High Priest!

And notice that the order of Christ's Priesthood is named after Melchizedek. It is the High Priest's name that is placed upon an order just as Aaron's name was upon the Aaronic priesthood. Thus Melchizedek was then High Priest, in Paul's day, and even now, and He will rule forever! And at the same time Christ was, is today, and shall be forever High Priest!

Are there two High Priests'? No! Impossible! The conclusion is inescapable. Contrary to many cherished man-thought-out ideas, Melchizedek and Christ are one and the same! Some people have stumbled on the statement that Melchizedek has no "end of life." They contend that since Christ died, He had an end of life! If that be true then Christ is still dead! But Christ is not dead. He is alive. It was not possible for Christ to be held by death (Acts 2:24). Melchizedek would never have fulfilled His office of High Priest if He had not died for the sins of the people and risen again. It is the function of the High Priest to lead the way to salvation.

Indeed, Jesus Christ is the author and finisher of our salvation (Hebrews 5:9; 12:2). He is "called of God an high priest after the order of Melchizedek" (Hebrews 5:10).

And no wonder. Melchizedek and Christ are one and the same Person!

Interplanner
July 27th, 2015, 09:28 AM
Why? it's to the Hebrews. Did I mention that it was "to the Hebrews"?

Puppet
July 27th, 2015, 09:44 AM
Danoh, the puritans defended their end time views saying that God come in the clouds 5+ times in the Old Testament. So Jesus is God and He came multple of times. Did melchizedek come in the clouds?

RevTestament
July 27th, 2015, 11:02 AM
The Truth About Melchizedek

Here is a column which I consider will crack under the building of Christianity. Who was Melchizedek? This man was a pagan Canaanite king, who happened to be the king of Salem, ancient name for Jerusalem.
Not this again - why do you attack Hebrew scripture? Who was Abram? Abram was the son of an idol worshiper from Ur. So? Your point is?


Now, please, I must remind you that I am reading from the originals in Hebrew and not from the Gentile adulterated version of the KJV. Why would Melchizedek prefer to feed Abram and his army instead of fighting him? Because he, Abram, and not Melchizedek was the priest of God most High, whose seed would be of a nation of priests and kings. (Exod. 19:6; Isa. 61:6)
Nope. You have never established that you are reading from the "Hebrew originals." Really, all we have left of those are the Masoretic text and the dead sea scrolls. Your version is different. It must come from the Talmud or something. The Masoretic text plainly refers to Melchizedek as a High priest of God.

Then, as Melchizedek served the food and drink, he blessed Abram. Please focus on how he blessed Abram. "Blessed be Abram of God Most High." It means that Melchizedek would recognize that Abram was the one Priest of God the Most High. Creator of the universe." Um. NO it doesn't. It means Melchizedek honored Abram as a fellow believer in the Most High God, El Elyon. Where did Abram allegedly get this priesthood from? His idolatrous father? He ended up receiving the priesthood from the very man you rail against, Melchizedek.
Then, for all the bread and wine, and that blessing of recognition of who Abram really was, Abram shared with him a tenth of the spoils taken from the kings in battle.
Abram paid a tithe to Melchizedek, because he knew Melchizedek was God's high priest.

Now, let us check Psalm 110:4, which in the KJV says, "The Lord has sworn and will not repent, you are a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek." This is a Christian gloss plagiarized by Paul and grossly forged by the Church in the 4th Century under the excuse of pious forgery.

Here is what Psalm 110:4 says in the originals in Hebrew: "The Lord has sworn and will not relent, you are a priest forever; a rightful king by My decree."As you allege. What is your source? I have posted from the Masoretic text before, and it clearly disagrees with you. You are not only a non-believer in Christ, but a non-believer of the Tanakh as preserved by the Masoretes. You are fraudulent.

Yoḥanon-benYaʿăqov
July 27th, 2015, 03:54 PM
B’réshiyt 14:18:



וּמַלְכִּי־צֶדֶק מֶלֶךְ שֶׁלֵם הוֹצִיא לֶחֶם וָיָיִן וְהוּא כֹהֵן לְאֵל עֶלְיוֹן׃


Umal’kiy-tzedeq meleḵ’ shelém hotziyʾ leḥem vayayin v’huʾ ḵohén l’Él ʿEl’yon:

“And My righteous king, king of Salem, brought out bread and wine. And he was a servant to the Most High God.”

To begin with – מַלְכִּי־צֶדֶק– malkiy-tzedeq is not only not a name, but it is not even a single word; it is two words connected by a maqaf, which is the Hebrew form of a hyphen.

The first word – מַלְכִּי– mal’kiy is the Hebrew word – מֶלֶךְ– meleḵ’, which means “king,” suffixed with the Ḥiriq – Yod suffix, which is the First Person Possessive Pronoun “my.” Therefore mal’kiy is literally “my king.”

The second word – צֶדֶק– tzedeq is a masculine noun which means “rightness,” “justness,” “fairness,” “righteousness,” etc. When the two words are connected with the maqaf, they become “my righteous king.”

Additionally, anyone whom is at all familiar with Jewish Literature should know that the Righteous King of Salem is actually Shem, the son of Noah. In his commentary on B’réshiyt 14:18 the Jewish commentator Rabbi Shlomoh Yitzḥaqiy, aka Rashi, stated:



ומלכי־צדק׃ מדרשׁ אגדה הוא שׁם בּן נח׃
“And Malkiy-tzedeq: Midrash Aggadah states that he was Shem son of Noah.”

Targum pseudo-Jonathan, which is an interpretive paraphrase of the Hebrew Scriptures written in Aramaic, Interprets B’réshiyt 14:18 as:



ומלכא צדיקא הוא שׁם בּר נח מלכא דירושׁלים נפק לקדמות אברם ואפיק ליה לחים וחמר ובההיא זימנא הוה משׁמשׁ קדם אלקא עילאה׃

“And the Righteous King, who was Shem son of Noah, King of Jerusalem, came out to meet Av’ram, and brought bread and wine to him; and in that time he ministered before the Most High God.”

The Babylonian Talmud in Tractate N’darim Chapter 3 Folio 32b Paragraph 4 states:

“R. Zechariah said on R. Ishmael’s authority: The Holy One, blessed be He, intended to bring forth the priesthood from Shem, as it is written, and he [sc. Mal’kiy-tzedeq] was the priest of the Most High God. But because he gave precedence in his blessing to Abraham over God, He brought it forth from Abraham; as it is written, And he blessed him and said: Blessed be Abram of the Most High God, possessor of heaven and earth, and blessed be the Most High God. Said Abraham to him, ‘Is the blessing of a servant to be given precedence over that of his master?’ Straightway it [the priesthood] was given to Abraham, as it is written: ‘The word of HaShem to my master; Wait for My right hand; until I make your enemies a footstool at your feet;’ which is followed by: ‘HaShem has sworn, and will not repent; You are a priest forever because of the speech of My righteous King,’ meaning ‘because of the words of the righteous king.’ Hence it is written: ‘And he was a priest of the Most High God,’ implying that he was a priest, but not his seed.”

Jews have known that the “righteous King” of B’réshiyt 14:18 was in fact Shem, son of Noah, for millennia; and any observant, educated Jew should know it today.

RevTestament
July 27th, 2015, 04:30 PM
B’réshiyt 14:18:



וּמַלְכִּי־צֶדֶק מֶלֶךְ שֶׁלֵם הוֹצִיא לֶחֶם וָיָיִן וְהוּא כֹהֵן לְאֵל עֶלְיוֹן׃


Umal’kiy-tzedeq meleḵ’ shelém hotziyʾ leḥem vayayin v’huʾ ḵohén l’Él ʿEl’yon:

“And My righteous king, king of Salem, brought out bread and wine. And he was a servant to the Most High God.”
Hi. I'm curious as to why kohen is translated as "servant" here when it is traditionally used to refer to priests?
You even quote the Talmud as calling this Melchizedek a priest:


The Babylonian Talmud in Tractate N’darim Chapter 3 Folio 32b Paragraph 4 states:

“R. Zechariah said on R. Ishmael’s authority: The Holy One, blessed be He, intended to bring forth the priesthood from Shem, as it is written, and he [sc. Mal’kiy-tzedeq] was the priest of the Most High God. But because he gave precedence in his blessing to Abraham over God, He brought it forth from Abraham; as it is written, And he blessed him and said: Blessed be Abram of the Most High God, possessor of heaven and earth, and blessed be the Most High God. Said Abraham to him, ‘Is the blessing of a servant to be given precedence over that of his master?’ Straightway it [the priesthood] was given to Abraham, as it is written: ‘The word of HaShem to my master; Wait for My right hand; until I make your enemies a footstool at your feet;’ which is followed by: ‘HaShem has sworn, and will not repent; You are a priest forever because of the speech of My righteous King,’ meaning ‘because of the words of the righteous king.’ Hence it is written: ‘And he was a priest of the Most High God,’ implying that he was a priest, but not his seed.”



To begin with – מַלְכִּי־צֶדֶק– malkiy-tzedeq is not only not a name, but it is not even a single word; it is two words connected by a maqaf, which is the Hebrew form of a hyphen.

The first word – מַלְכִּי– mal’kiy is the Hebrew word – מֶלֶךְ– meleḵ’, which means “king,” suffixed with the Ḥiriq – Yod suffix, which is the First Person Possessive Pronoun “my.” Therefore mal’kiy is literally “my king.”

The second word – צֶדֶק– tzedeq is a masculine noun which means “rightness,” “justness,” “fairness,” “righteousness,” etc. When the two words are connected with the maqaf, they become “my righteous king.”

Additionally, anyone whom is at all familiar with Jewish Literature should know that the Righteous King of Salem is actually Shem, the son of Noah. In his commentary on B’réshiyt 14:18 the Jewish commentator Rabbi Shlomoh Yitzḥaqiy, aka Rashi, stated:



ומלכי־צדק׃ מדרשׁ אגדה הוא שׁם בּן נח׃
“And Malkiy-tzedeq: Midrash Aggadah states that he was Shem son of Noah.”

Targum pseudo-Jonathan, which is an interpretive paraphrase of the Hebrew Scriptures written in Aramaic, Interprets B’réshiyt 14:18 as:



ומלכא צדיקא הוא שׁם בּר נח מלכא דירושׁלים נפק לקדמות אברם ואפיק ליה לחים וחמר ובההיא זימנא הוה משׁמשׁ קדם אלקא עילאה׃

“And the Righteous King, who was Shem son of Noah, King of Jerusalem, came out to meet Av’ram, and brought bread and wine to him; and in that time he ministered before the Most High God.”

Jews have known that the “righteous King” of B’réshiyt 14:18 was in fact Shem, son of Noah, for millennia; and any observant, educated Jew should know it today.
While I can agree that the name refers to a title or "My Righteous King," I will have to take the interpretation that it refers to Shem under advisement. Thank you for helping to clear up Ben Masada's representations. :)
So I gather from what you have said that it is the traditional Jewish view that Abram received the priesthood from the king of Salem?

Interplanner
July 27th, 2015, 07:45 PM
Is anyone going to take the letter of Hebrews interp?

What is obvious about it being Shem? The spelling?

intojoy
July 27th, 2015, 08:02 PM
Shem was alive at this time in history

Where did Shem worship?

Why doesn't the Hebrew bible tell us about those who knew Jehovah at the same time as Abram?

RevTestament
July 27th, 2015, 10:38 PM
Shem was alive at this time in history

Where did Shem worship?

Why doesn't the Hebrew bible tell us about those who knew Jehovah at the same time as Abram?

It would make Shem quite old...since Noah lived approx 1000 years before Abraham, and was already more than 500 years old at the time of the flood, and had already begotten Shem. This would make Shem around 500-1000 yrs old at the time of Abraham.

Gen 11: 10 ¶These are the generations of Shem: Shem was an hundred years old, and begat Arphaxad two years after the flood:
11 And Shem lived after he begat Arphaxad five hundred years, and begat sons and daughters.

The subsequent genealogy does seem to suggest Abram could have been born within these 500 years Shem lived on

nonanomanon
July 27th, 2015, 11:05 PM
The Question is not who was Melchisedec, the Question is what does Melchisedec Establish as a Parable ......... Before we can answer the Question we need to Establish a background as to why the Jewish People attacked Melchisedec, as recorded in the New Testament.

Marriage by Fire - Background

10 Wise Virgins of Genesis 5 - Adam to Noah
10 Foolish Virgins of Genesis 11 - Shem to Abram

MENE MENE TEKEL UPHARSIN

God rebukes the marriage between, Babylon/Nineveh and the Hebrews that happened when God allowed them to over take Solomon's Temple (2Chron28:8-9 ... God names Judah as the Bride, instead of the Hebrews) (The next time God allows the Marriage to take place it is between India (medes and persians/mene mene) of Esther 1:1-3, and Europe (pig shape countries/Pisgah) of Acts 12:20-21 (tyre sidon/tekel upharsin), Moses identified in Deu. 34:1.)

5 Wise Virgins of Matthew 25
5 Foolish Virgins of Matthew 25

God tells us that he has to kill, "A Portion of Dan", God also tells us that he has to Kill, "A Portion of Aaron", by making this adjustment for the "Three and a Half Days". To accommodate the "Marriage by Fire". Article Link - Sacrifice of Bozrah (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=111881). The Jewish People had this adjustment in view, when they observed the accounts of the genealogies of Matthew and Luke, so they wondered if "Melchisedec", the declaration of their Separatist Inheritance* of a New Planet of their own, was still in effect, see below:

New Testament Melchisedec Concern

70 Angels of Luke Genealogy in Luke 3 = 70 Angels of Daniel 9, Completing the Gospel's Program
42 Angels of Matthew's Genealogy in Matthew 1 = 42 Parallel Generations of Hebrews which is concluded with the Crucifixion of Jesus (Mary is counted to identify with the Hebrews)

God is making an adjustment, in which the Hebrew Generations will no longer parallel the Generations of the Sons of Man. So you can understand the Jewish concern we will address, but first there is a piece of information we must call to your attention: God declares the Jewish people are to mark the "Heart of Judah", so they can not parallel the Sons of Man anymore. Article Link - The Disciple Whom Jesus Loved (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=111706&page=4).

Hebrews ask Jesus are we still Forever Yours after the Order of Melchisedec, response

JOHN 3:4 Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?
JOHN 3:7 Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.
JOHN 3:8 The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.

The Jewish people observed that they would no longer be counted with the Sons of Man, for 28 more Generations. They did not want to be divorced from Christ, like God already indicated a similar change equaled the divorce of a portion of the "10 Wise and 10 Foolish" Virgins. ................. Jesus would use the Jewish people to mark the "Heart of Judah", so he has indicated there wouldn't be a divorce in his response. Since the Jewish people, would still be counted as a curse in the earth. This takes us to the follow up response by the Apostle John:

REVELATION 2:6 But this thou hast, that thou hatest the deeds of the Nicolaitans, which I also hate.

The Apostle John does not use the name Nicodemus because Jesus did not rebuke the Jewish people under that pronunciation. Instead he rebukes the Jewish people under the name Nicolaitans, to imply that when they are being cardinal, they will be cursed by the earth. This language only continues to satisfy the language of Marriage, as the Jews being the Bride to Jesus.

God does not tell Abram to kill until, God changes his name to Abraham. Then God tells Abraham to kill his son. Abram can simply be a parable for a spiritual being, a parable about Satan. Obviously if Melchisedec is Immortal, he cannot be a human being, he can only be a spiritual being or a parable .............. that is the parable of Ephraim's Separatist Inheritance* of a New Planet of their own.

daqq
July 28th, 2015, 01:30 AM
B’réshiyt 14:18:



וּמַלְכִּי־צֶדֶק מֶלֶךְ שֶׁלֵם הוֹצִיא לֶחֶם וָיָיִן וְהוּא כֹהֵן לְאֵל עֶלְיוֹן׃


Umal’kiy-tzedeq meleḵ’ shelém hotziyʾ leḥem vayayin v’huʾ ḵohén l’Él ʿEl’yon:

“And My righteous king, king of Salem, brought out bread and wine. And he was a servant to the Most High God.”

To begin with – מַלְכִּי־צֶדֶק– malkiy-tzedeq is not only not a name, but it is not even a single word; it is two words connected by a maqaf, which is the Hebrew form of a hyphen.

The first word – מַלְכִּי– mal’kiy is the Hebrew word – מֶלֶךְ– meleḵ’, which means “king,” suffixed with the Ḥiriq – Yod suffix, which is the First Person Possessive Pronoun “my.” Therefore mal’kiy is literally “my king.”

The second word – צֶדֶק– tzedeq is a masculine noun which means “rightness,” “justness,” “fairness,” “righteousness,” etc. When the two words are connected with the maqaf, they become “my righteous king.”

Additionally, anyone whom is at all familiar with Jewish Literature should know that the Righteous King of Salem is actually Shem, the son of Noah. In his commentary on B’réshiyt 14:18 the Jewish commentator Rabbi Shlomoh Yitzḥaqiy, aka Rashi, stated:



ומלכי־צדק׃ מדרשׁ אגדה הוא שׁם בּן נח׃
“And Malkiy-tzedeq: Midrash Aggadah states that he was Shem son of Noah.”

Targum pseudo-Jonathan, which is an interpretive paraphrase of the Hebrew Scriptures written in Aramaic, Interprets B’réshiyt 14:18 as:



ומלכא צדיקא הוא שׁם בּר נח מלכא דירושׁלים נפק לקדמות אברם ואפיק ליה לחים וחמר ובההיא זימנא הוה משׁמשׁ קדם אלקא עילאה׃

“And the Righteous King, who was Shem son of Noah, King of Jerusalem, came out to meet Av’ram, and brought bread and wine to him; and in that time he ministered before the Most High God.”

The Babylonian Talmud in Tractate N’darim Chapter 3 Folio 32b Paragraph 4 states:

“R. Zechariah said on R. Ishmael’s authority: The Holy One, blessed be He, intended to bring forth the priesthood from Shem, as it is written, and he [sc. Mal’kiy-tzedeq] was the priest of the Most High God. But because he gave precedence in his blessing to Abraham over God, He brought it forth from Abraham; as it is written, And he blessed him and said: Blessed be Abram of the Most High God, possessor of heaven and earth, and blessed be the Most High God. Said Abraham to him, ‘Is the blessing of a servant to be given precedence over that of his master?’ Straightway it [the priesthood] was given to Abraham, as it is written: ‘The word of HaShem to my master; Wait for My right hand; until I make your enemies a footstool at your feet;’ which is followed by: ‘HaShem has sworn, and will not repent; You are a priest forever because of the speech of My righteous King,’ meaning ‘because of the words of the righteous king.’ Hence it is written: ‘And he was a priest of the Most High God,’ implying that he was a priest, but not his seed.”

Jews have known that the “righteous King” of B’réshiyt 14:18 was in fact Shem, son of Noah, for millennia; and any observant, educated Jew should know it today.

Thank you for your post. :)

Curious, and curious, and more curious, and that is to know if, and if so, how you might understand Psalm 2:6 with its context together with what you have posted?

jamie
July 28th, 2015, 07:33 AM
...but he whose genealogy is not derived from them received tithes from Abraham and blessed him who had the promises. Now beyond all contradiction the lesser is blessed by the better. Here mortal men receive tithes, but there he receives them, of whom it is witnessed that he lives. (Hebrews7:6-8 NKJV)

It is witnessed that he (Melchizedek) lives.

Tambora
July 28th, 2015, 08:48 AM
Abraham was 50 years old when Shem died.
Abraham didn't leave Haran till he was 75 years old (which was long before he met Melchizedek).

The Melchizedek that Abraham met after the battle with the 5 kings couldn't have been Shem. Shem died when Abraham was 50 years old.

Not to mention that Hebrews says that there is no genealogy record of Melchizedek. Shem has a genealogy record.
So, again, it could not be Shem.

Tambora
July 28th, 2015, 08:53 AM
Just to show that Shem was already dead when Abe met Mel.




The green numbers (*1, *2, *3, *4)are notes listed at bottom explaining how some of the dates were arrived at.





After 1st set of "...." --- (age of father at birth + year father was born) = birth year of person




After 2nd set of "...." --- (birth year of person + how many years he lived) = year died



1.Adam……….…….........................0………….0 + 930(GEN 5:5) = 930
2.Seth.......……..130(GEN 5:3) +0=130………..130+912(GEN 5:8) =1042
3.Enos ………..105(GEN 5:6) +130=235……...235+905(GEN 5:11) =1140
4.Cainan ……….90(GEN 5:9) +235=325………325+910(GEN 5:14) =1235
5.Mahalalel....….70(GEN 5:12) +325=395…….395+895(GEN 5:17) =1290
6.Jared............65(GEN5:15) +395=460……..460+962(GEN 5:20) =1422
7.Enoch ........…162(GEN 5:18) +460=622……622+365(GEN 5:23) = 987*1
8.Methuselah .….65(GEN 5:21)+622=687…….687+969(GEN 5:27) =1656*2
9.Lamech ……...187(GEN 5:25) +687=874……874+777(GEN 5:31) =1651

(Notice that all of the above were born before Adam died. All were capable of hearing 1st hand knowledge of the garden of Eden.)

10.Noah ........…...182(GEN 5:28) +874=1056……....1056+950(GEN 9:29) = 2006
11.Shem............ 502(GEN 5:32)*3 +1056=1558…...1558+600(GEN 11:11) =2158
12.Arphaxad ..... 100(GEN 11:10) +1558=1658…...1658+438(GEN 11:13) =2096
13.Salah ............…35(GEN 11:12) +1658=1693…..1693+433(GEN 11:15) =2126
14.Eber ..............…30(GEN 11:14) +1693=1723…..1723+464(GEN 11:17) =2187
15.Peleg ............….34(GEN 11:16) +1723=1757… .1757+239(GEN 11:19) =1966
16Reu ................….30(GEN 11:18) +1757=1787…..1787+239(GEN 11:21) =2026
17.Serug ............…32(GEN11:20) +1787=1819……1819+230(GEN 11:23) =2049
18.Nahor ............…30(GEN 11:22) +1819=1849…..1849+148(GEN 11:25) =1997
19.Terah ....…….….29(GEN 11:24) +1849=1878…...1878+205(GEN 11:32) =2083
20.Abram ........130(GEN 11:26 *4) +1878=2008…...2008+175(GEN 25:7) =2183

(Notice that all of the above were born before Noah’s son died. All were capable of hearing 1st hand knowledge of the flood.)

21.Isaac…………100(GEN 21:5) +2008=2108…..2108+180(GEN 35:28) =2288
22.Jacob…………60(GEN 25:26) +2108=2168….2168+147(GEN 47:28) =2315





*1
Dispute of whether Enoch actually died or was translated to heaven (GEN 5:23-24).
Either way, he was gone from the earth.







* 2
YEAR OF FLOOD - 1656

Gen 7:6 And Noah was six hundred years old when the flood of waters was upon the earth.

(Noah was born in the year 1056. 600 years after his birth was the flood. 1056 + 600 = 1656.)

Gen.11: 10. These are the generations of Shem: Shem was an hundred years old, and begat Arphaxad two years after the flood:

Arphazad was born in the year 1658. His birth was 2 years after the flood.
1658 – 2 = 1656.)







*3
GEN 5:32 says Noah was 500 when he begot Shem, Ham, and Japheth.
GEN 10:21 says Japheth was the elder.
GEN 9:24 says that Ham was the youngest.
So we can conclude that they were not triplets all born at the same time.
Added to GEN 11:10 which says that Shem was 100 when he begot his son Arphaxad, and this was 2 years AFTER the flood, we can conclude that Noah had the elder Japheth at age 500, then Shem at age 502, then Ham after that.







*4
Gen 11:26 And Terah lived seventy years, and begat Abram, Nahor, and Haran.

(Though Abram is listed first, he was not the first son of Terah)

Gen 11:32 And the days of Terah were two hundred and five years: and Terah died in Haran.

Terah had first son when he was 70 years old.
Abram was not his first son.
He was 130 years old when he had Abram.

Abram stayed in Haran until his father died at age 205.
Actc 7
3 And said unto him, Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and come into the land which I shall show thee.
4 Then came he out of the land of the Chaldeans, and dwelt in Haran: and from thence, when his father was dead, he removed him into this land, wherein ye now dwell.

How old was Abram when he left?
Gen 12:4 So Abram departed, as the LORD had spoken unto him; and Lot went with him: and Abram [was] seventy and five years old when he departed out of Haran.

75 years old.
205 – 75 = 130

Caino
July 28th, 2015, 09:46 AM
The Truth About Melchizedek

Here is a column which I consider will crack under the building of Christianity. Who was Melchizedek? This man was a pagan Canaanite king, who happened to be the king of Salem, ancient name for Jerusalem.

Abram had just returned from a battle with five kings, and, on his way to Beersheba, he paused in Jerusalem for a repast. He and his men were tired and weary of the military campaign. Melchizedek, afraid perhaps that Abram would take on him too and conquer Jerusalem out of his hands, immediately brought forth bread and wine to him and his troops. For Abram, it was a relieve. He didn't have to fight another king.

Now, please, I must remind you that I am reading from the originals in Hebrew and not from the Gentile adulterated version of the KJV. Why would Melchizedek prefer to feed Abram and his army instead of fighting him? Because he, Abram, and not Melchizedek was the priest of God most High, whose seed would be of a nation of priests and kings. (Exod. 19:6; Isa. 61:6)

Then, as Melchizedek served the food and drink, he blessed Abram. Please focus on how he blessed Abram. "Blessed be Abram of God Most High." It means that Melchizedek would recognize that Abram was the one Priest of God the Most High. Creator of the universe." Then, for all the bread and wine, and that blessing of recognition of who Abram really was, Abram shared with him a tenth of the spoils taken from the kings in battle.

Now, let us check Psalm 110:4, which in the KJV says, "The Lord has sworn and will not repent, you are a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek." This is a Christian gloss plagiarized by Paul and grossly forged by the Church in the 4th Century under the excuse of pious forgery.

Here is what Psalm 110:4 says in the originals in Hebrew: "The Lord has sworn and will not relent, you are a priest forever; a rightful king by My decree." As you can see, it has nothing to do with king Melchizedek, king of Salem, but rather to David in the type level of interpretation, which points to the archetype level of Israel, the seed of Abraham as a nation of priests and kings. (Exod. 19:6; Isa. 61:6) Obviously, only the High Priest of the Most High would produce a generation of priests and kings through Israel.

In my religion, from the Urantia Revelation, Melchizedek was an incarnate celestial, Son of God who himself made the covenant with Abram. Mel. represented God. He was priest of El Elyon, the one and only God. From Salem Melchizedek taught and sent out missionaries of monotheism which influenced other religions around the world.

As a reformer much in the same way Moses was, Mel. substituted "bread and wine" for the blood sacrifices in order to seal the covenant with Abraham.

By the time the OT books were written they no longer believed the story of Mel. so they had God come down and make the deal with Abram.

nonanomanon
July 28th, 2015, 10:49 AM
MENE MENE TEKEL UPHARSIN = Hosea 1:1-5, Jeroboam a picture of Judah takes Diblaim a picture of Dan to wife, and the "Bow of Isreal is Broken" (Hosea 1:5). ................ That is because Ephraim (Hebrews) are no longer a picture of the Bride of Judah, since God is finished using them to mark the "Heart of Judah".

ELOI, ELOI, LAMA SABAHTHANI = Hebrews 7:3-7, God commands the Jewish People to serve as the Bride of Judah to mark the "Heart of Judah" (Judah's Separatist Inheritance*, Zion). Therefore, the Genealogy of Matthew 1, no longer counts the Hebrews, it ends with Mary the Mother of Jesus at the 42nd Generation of 70 Generations total (which Luke describes 70 Generations). ............... ELOI is Christ as the Husband of the Hebrews (Mark 15:34), where as ELI is Christ as the Bride for the Saved (Matt 27:46).

Christ does not Issue a divorce in both statements that concerned Judah to some level. God issues a correction, the Jewish People are to be the outcasts for Christ, as a picture of the Bride of Judah, this begins with Jesus in his day at the 42nd Generation, and continues until the "3 Days of Darkness", in which only the "Heart of Judah is Left Alive on Earth". Shortly before this time, God judges the "Marriage by Fire" between, "Judah and Dan", and the Sacrifice by Fire between A Portion of Aaron.

.................
.................

Sons of God come from the Tribe of the Levites (Not a Genetic Line based Tribe)
REVELATION 7:7 Of the tribe of Simeon [were] sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Levi [were] sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Issachar [were] sealed twelve thousand.

Adam to Jared = 12,000 Days (930 - 962) (Issachar, before the Flood a Picture of God)
Salah to Eber = 12,000 Days (433 - 464) (Simeon, after the Flood a Picture of Melchisedec)
Terah to Abram = 12,000 Days (205 - 175) (Levites, Son of God)

The Groupings of the other tribes in Revelation 7, contain either Genetic Line Based Tribes, or it contains Benjamin the Tribe associated with Heavenly Salvation, so they cannot apply to this argument. .................... Some how, the 10 Wise Virgins of Genesis 5 were all born at the same time, and God only measures the 12,000 Day division. ......................... Some how, the 10 Foolish Virgins of Genesis 11 were all born at the same time, and God only measures the 12,000 Day Division.

The Antichrist Moses, which is of the Levites as a Son of God, will live only to be 12,000 Days in Length before dies, and the "3 days of Darkness" begins. God says in Luke 3:23, the Antichrist will live to be only 12,000 Days ........... this corresponds to the divisions observed in Rev. 7, also the specific division of the Levites observed with Abraham of 12,000 Days.

God's Truth
July 28th, 2015, 11:01 AM
The Truth About Melchizedek

Here is a column which I consider will crack under the building of Christianity. Who was Melchizedek? This man was a pagan Canaanite king, who happened to be the king of Salem, ancient name for Jerusalem.

Abram had just returned from a battle with five kings, and, on his way to Beersheba, he paused in Jerusalem for a repast. He and his men were tired and weary of the military campaign. Melchizedek, afraid perhaps that Abram would take on him too and conquer Jerusalem out of his hands, immediately brought forth bread and wine to him and his troops. For Abram, it was a relieve. He didn't have to fight another king.

Now, please, I must remind you that I am reading from the originals in Hebrew and not from the Gentile adulterated version of the KJV. Why would Melchizedek prefer to feed Abram and his army instead of fighting him? Because he, Abram, and not Melchizedek was the priest of God most High, whose seed would be of a nation of priests and kings. (Exod. 19:6; Isa. 61:6)

Then, as Melchizedek served the food and drink, he blessed Abram. Please focus on how he blessed Abram. "Blessed be Abram of God Most High." It means that Melchizedek would recognize that Abram was the one Priest of God the Most High. Creator of the universe." Then, for all the bread and wine, and that blessing of recognition of who Abram really was, Abram shared with him a tenth of the spoils taken from the kings in battle.

Now, let us check Psalm 110:4, which in the KJV says, "The Lord has sworn and will not repent, you are a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek." This is a Christian gloss plagiarized by Paul and grossly forged by the Church in the 4th Century under the excuse of pious forgery.

Here is what Psalm 110:4 says in the originals in Hebrew: "The Lord has sworn and will not relent, you are a priest forever; a rightful king by My decree." As you can see, it has nothing to do with king Melchizedek, king of Salem, but rather to David in the type level of interpretation, which points to the archetype level of Israel, the seed of Abraham as a nation of priests and kings. (Exod. 19:6; Isa. 61:6) Obviously, only the High Priest of the Most High would produce a generation of priests and kings through Israel.

You are giving up the Greatest Love ever known. You are going against the Holy Bible, the written Word of God. You are doing all this because you do not want to accept the Truth, and that Truth is that God came as a Man and died for the sins of the whole world.

John 15:13 Greater love has no one than this: to lay down one's life for one's friends.

Danoh
July 28th, 2015, 11:10 AM
You are giving up the Greatest Love ever known. You are going against the Holy Bible, the written Word of God. You are doing all this because you do not want to accept the Truth, and that Truth is that God came as a Man and died for the sins of the whole world.

John 15:13 Greater love has no one than this: to lay down one's life for one's friends.

Never mind, GT; who the "friends" is a reference to there.

Misunderstand away, GT...

nonanomanon
July 28th, 2015, 11:26 AM
Now, please, I must remind you that I am reading from the originals in Hebrew and not from the Gentile adulterated version of the KJV. Why would Melchizedek prefer to feed Abram and his army instead of fighting him? Because he, Abram, and not Melchizedek was the priest of God most High, whose seed would be of a nation of priests and kings. (Exod. 19:6; Isa. 61:6)

Then, as Melchizedek served the food and drink, he blessed Abram.

God gave Noah a big fat Ark (Noah a picture of Satan as a Spiritual Being), full of the promise of Noah obtaining spiritual authority. Then God revealed that he had finally blessed the Ark when it had landed, with a great Bow in the skies.

God is making the same promise to Abraham which began the Modern Homosapiens on Earth (Satan now as a Physical Being). Now God gives Abraham, a big fat feast full of food and drink ... but God comes to Abraham as a Man, not as the Ark. God comes as a Man this time, because he is not going to Give Abraham Spiritual Authority, instead, God revives his Promise to give Satan Spiritual Authority, once the Judgement of Abraham, the Homosapien is completed at the end of time.

God places an immediate limitation on Satan when he is incarnated into the Flesh, which he had momentarily removed after the events of the Flood, in which Satan had some momentary sense of Spiritual Authority.
...............
...............
When Moses was born he was placed in to a literal Ark, just like Noah's Ark. When Moses became the High Priest over Isreal, God allowed Moses to "Smote the Rock of Joseph, which is revealed as the Body of Benjamin" .............. God acted out giving Satan the blessing of Spiritual Authority under Moses .................... God completes his promise to give Satan spiritual authority when he appoints Moses as the Antichrist to confirm his covenant, and then to finally serve as the High Priest during 150 days in which he reigns over the "Heart of Judah called Zion, which is the USA".

whitestone
July 28th, 2015, 11:30 AM
It's odd that the very things that were misconceived way back then are again misconceived today,,, http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0114.htm

God's Truth
July 28th, 2015, 11:31 AM
Never mind, GT; who the "friends" is a reference to there.

Misunderstand away, GT...

You are a Calvinist and do not understand that anyone can change and become a friend. We have to start by becoming an obedient child.

Matthew 18:3 And he said: "Truly I tell you, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.


You have your soul so intertwined with the spirit of Calvin, you have no idea about the Truth.

whitestone
July 28th, 2015, 11:41 AM
here's another letter from Ignatious where he gives a very good description of Jesus the way they were taught to believe,,, http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0109.htm

RevTestament
July 28th, 2015, 12:47 PM
Terah had first son when he was 70 years old.
Abram was not his first son.
He was 130 years old when he had Abram.


Thanks Tambora
Where do you find or how do you get the above information?

Danoh
July 28th, 2015, 02:25 PM
You are a Calvinist and do not understand that anyone can change and become a friend. We have to start by becoming an obedient child.

Matthew 18:3 And he said: "Truly I tell you, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.

You have your soul so intertwined with the spirit of Calvin, you have no idea about the Truth.

You poor, confused wretch - Mid Acts Dispensationalism [Acts 9:6, to be exact] is neither Calvinist, nor Arminian.

Because the choosing is not unilateral, rather; bilateral.

You choose to believe, He then chooses to put you in His Son; in what He predestinated to do in His Son.

You choose not to believe, He chooses not to put you in His Son; in what He predestinated to do in His Son.

whitestone
July 28th, 2015, 02:34 PM
Thanks Tambora
Where do you find or how do you get the above information?


be very careful at that point,,, Joshua 24:2 KJV

whitestone
July 28th, 2015, 03:04 PM
be very careful at that point,,, Joshua 24:2 KJV



here is why https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6bekli_Tepe ,,,,,take maps and look real close at where Haran is,,notice where Abraham sends his servant to find Isaac an wife "from his own tribe",,,look close,,thats why Joshua points this out,,,

God's Truth
July 28th, 2015, 07:05 PM
You poor, confused wretch

You can't defend your false doctrines without insulting.



- Mid Acts Dispensationalism [Acts 9:6, to be exact] is neither Calvinist, nor Arminian.


Because the choosing is not unilateral, rather; bilateral.

You choose to believe, He then chooses to put you in His Son; in what He predestinated to do in His Son.

You choose not to believe, He chooses not to put you in His Son; in what He predestinated to do in His Son.

Acts 10:35 but accepts from every nation the one who fears him and does what is right.

Jesus chooses whom he saves, and he saves those who believe and obey him.

Ben Masada
July 29th, 2015, 07:11 AM
In my religion, from the Urantia Revelation, Melchizedek was an incarnate celestial, Son of God who himself made the covenant with Abram. Mel. represented God. He was priest of El Elyon, the one and only God. From Salem Melchizedek taught and sent out missionaries of monotheism which influenced other religions around the world.

As a reformer much in the same way Moses was, Mel. substituted "bread and wine" for the blood sacrifices in order to seal the covenant with Abraham.

By the time the OT books were written they no longer believed the story of Mel. so they had God come down and make the deal with Abram.

Now, please, produce the Biblical quotes to confirm what you have mentioned above.

Ben Masada
July 29th, 2015, 07:18 AM
You are giving up the Greatest Love ever known. You are going against the Holy Bible, the written Word of God. You are doing all this because you do not want to accept the Truth, and that Truth is that God came as a Man and died for the sins of the whole world.

John 15:13 Greater love has no one than this: to lay down one's life for one's friends.

This could never be true because it is akin to the Greek Mythology of the kind of idolatry bordering with the Greek, myth of the demigod which is the son of a god with an earthly woman. (Mat. 1:18)

Ben Masada
July 29th, 2015, 07:26 AM
God gave Noah a big fat Ark (Noah a picture of Satan as a Spiritual Being), full of the promise of Noah obtaining spiritual authority. Then God revealed that he had finally blessed the Ark when it had landed, with a great Bow in the skies.

God is making the same promise to Abraham which began the Modern Homosapiens on Earth (Satan now as a Physical Being). Now God gives Abraham, a big fat feast full of food and drink ... but God comes to Abraham as a Man, not as the Ark. God comes as a Man this time, because he is not going to Give Abraham Spiritual Authority, instead, God revives his Promise to give Satan Spiritual Authority, once the Judgement of Abraham, the Homosapien is completed at the end of time.

God places an immediate limitation on Satan when he is incarnated into the Flesh, which he had momentarily removed after the events of the Flood, in which Satan had some momentary sense of Spiritual Authority.
...............
...............
When Moses was born he was placed in to a literal Ark, just like Noah's Ark. When Moses became the High Priest over Isreal, God allowed Moses to "Smote the Rock of Joseph, which is revealed as the Body of Benjamin" .............. God acted out giving Satan the blessing of Spiritual Authority under Moses .................... God completes his promise to give Satan spiritual authority when he appoints Moses as the Antichrist to confirm his covenant, and then to finally serve as the High Priest during 150 days in which he reigns over the "Heart of Judah called Zion, which is the USA".

Are you kind of creating a Mythology out of the Tanach? That's what it sound like to me. If you want me to reconsider, at least provide me with the Biblical quotes.

Caino
July 29th, 2015, 07:32 AM
Originally Posted by Caino View Post
In my religion, from the Urantia Revelation, Melchizedek was an incarnate celestial, Son of God who himself made the covenant with Abram. Mel. represented God. He was priest of El Elyon, the one and only God. From Salem Melchizedek taught and sent out missionaries of monotheism which influenced other religions around the world.

As a reformer much in the same way Moses was, Mel. substituted "bread and wine" for the blood sacrifices in order to seal the covenant with Abraham.

By the time the OT books were written they no longer believed the story of Mel. so they had God come down and make the deal with Abram.


Now, please, produce the Biblical quotes to confirm what you have mentioned above.

Ben, I find it sad and frustrating that my fellow brothers and sisters of the God of Abraham have been taken into the belief or teaching that the writings of Holy men are that of God. Religious, racial and ancestral pride is the most stubborn of all tyrants!

You already know that what I posted isn't in the Bible. The Bible as we know it is a series of retrospectives, it begins with Moses, who was a reformer of previous beliefs and practices.

But then again you disagree with half the Bible yourself, if only you could see the potential for imperfection in Judaism's writings that you so clearly see in Christianity's writings, then your mind would truly open, you could become reachable.

Ben Masada
July 29th, 2015, 11:22 AM
Ben, I find it sad and frustrating that my fellow brothers and sisters of the God of Abraham have been taken into the belief or teaching that the writings of Holy men are that of God. Religious, racial and ancestral pride is the most stubborn of all tyrants!

You already know that what I posted isn't in the Bible. The Bible as we know it is a series of retrospectives, it begins with Moses, who was a reformer of previous beliefs and practices.

But then again you disagree with half the Bible yourself, if only you could see the potential for imperfection in Judaism's writings that you so clearly see in Christianity's writings, then your mind would truly open, you could become reachable.

I might disagree with some Jews who do not read the Bible as a Jew should and come to me with Christian interpretations of the Bible. You claim above that I disagree with half the Bible. Would you like to mention something in the Bible which I disagree in your opinion?

Caino
July 29th, 2015, 11:43 AM
I might disagree with some Jews who do not read the Bible as a Jew should and come to me with Christian interpretations of the Bible. You claim above that I disagree with half the Bible. Would you like to mention something in the Bible which I disagree in your opinion?

Well, I assume you don' agree in principle with the New Testament? The fundamental claims of Jesus etc? Is that accurate?

Ben Masada
July 29th, 2015, 11:50 AM
Well, I assume you don' agree in principle with the New Testament? The fundamental claims of Jesus etc? Is that accurate?

Not only myself but, no other Jew believes in the NT. There is no more than 20% about Jesus or from Jesus in the NT that's worth something to learn from. The other 80% is made out of Christian anti-Jewish interpolations with the purpose to promote the Pauline policy of Replacement Theology.

nonanomanon
July 29th, 2015, 12:13 PM
In my religion, from the Urantia Revelation, Melchizedek was an incarnate celestial, Son of God who himself made the covenant with Abram. Mel. represented God. He was priest of El Elyon, the one and only God. From Salem Melchizedek taught and sent out missionaries of monotheism which influenced other religions around the world.

As a reformer much in the same way Moses was, Mel. substituted "bread and wine" for the blood sacrifices in order to seal the covenant with Abraham.

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2011/04/02/article-1372741-0B6C6FCF00000578-804_306x471.jpg
70 Ancient Jewish Books discovered - Article Link (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1372741/Hidden-cave-First-portrait-Jesus-1-70-ancient-books.html)

1. Melchisedec = Jesus as the Messiah (MENE MENE, Abolishing the Marriage between the Hebrews and Samaria, when the Temple of Solomon was destroyed) (Burning Bush, a Picture of Melchisedec, as well as Star Wormwood)
1. 70 Angels of Daniel = Daniel 9:24 (Ending with Moses)
2. Melchisedec = Jewish, "Separatist Inheritance*" (of a New Planet) (Star with dot in center, in the Plate Picture above, Star Wormwood)
2. 70 Generations of Mankind = Exodus 1:5 (Ending with Moses)
3. Melchisedec = Moses as the Antichrist (Let My People Go) (The Pyramid, as a picture of "New Jerusalem", Star Wormwood)
3. 70 Sons of Man = Genealogy of Luke 3 (Ending with Moses)

Moses the Antichist, fulfilling the Covenant of Abraham bestowed by Melchisedec

EXODUS 13:19 And Moses took the bones of Joseph with him: for he had straitly sworn the children of Israel, saying, God will surely visit you; and ye shall carry up my bones away hence with you.
LUKE 3:23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed ) the son of Joseph, which was [the son] of Heli,
MATTHEW 19:8 He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.
REVELATION 15:3 And they sing the song of Moses the servant of God, and the song of the Lamb, saying, Great and marvellous [are] thy works, Lord God Almighty; just and true [are] thy ways, thou King of saints.

Moses is equated to Melchisedec the "King of Saints", in Revelation 15:3. This is because God completes the "Divorce" described in Matthew 19:8. In which the Covenant of Abraham under Melchisedec is completed to give, "Satan Spiritual Authority". This completes the "70th Son of Man", which is "Joseph", the fact that Moses took the bones of Joseph, means Moses is identified as "Joseph". This satisfies the description of the "Two Witnesses" provided in Luke 9:30, of "Moses and Elias".

1. The 69th Angel of Daniel that is Slain would have to happen during the "3 Days of Darkness", in which the "Body of Benjamin" is finally Separated.
2. The 69th the Generation of man would have to happen during the 12 Hours (which comes before teh "3 Days of Darkness, in the Heart of the Earth"), when the Earth's Moon opens up and "Every Eye Shall See", the "Body of Benjamin" when Moses is delivered at the end of the 12,000th Day of Joseph.
3. The 69th Son of Man, is already happening as Moses is born as the Antichrist to confirm the covenant. Moses must return as the Antichrist to lead the remnant of Judah (Heart of Judah or Zion), into the New Universe

Moses does not come as an Angel, the Angels God is killing are not the same as the Sons of Man, who come as pictures of the Messiah for mankind. The Generations of Man or of the Hebrews have been divided from the count in the New Testament recorded in the difference between the genealogies of Matthew and Luke. However, all of these figures will be unified when Moses returns for the 150 Days in which he will reign over Judah, as the 70 Angel will be slain (Jesus the Messiah), the 70 Generation of Man takes place (the last remnant of Judah), the 70 Son of Man is revealed as Moses after the order of Joseph, instead of Benjamin (which was completed when the 12,000 Days were completed).

Caino
July 29th, 2015, 01:17 PM
Not only myself but, no other Jew believes in the NT. There is no more than 20% about Jesus or from Jesus in the NT that's worth something to learn from. The other 80% is made out of Christian anti-Jewish interpolations with the purpose to promote the Pauline policy of Replacement Theology.

Yea, that's kind of what I thought you believed, about half the Christian Bible.

My point was that the Old Testament is the same way, a lot of anti-Canaanite (and other various Gentile dog meat) history revisionism written under the pressure of nationalistic embarrassment when the Israelites were once again in bondage in Babylon.

I'm oddly sympathetic with the Jews as they were a despised and misunderstood people....but I don't even think they understood themselves or the whole point behind Abrahams agreement with God. Much, very much human speculation is woven into Judaism.

But I will also assume that you don't agree with me on that either, you have that belief that the original OT Hebrew writing was inspired by God, unassailable and that's that.

Ben Masada
July 31st, 2015, 02:24 AM
1 - Yea, that's kind of what I thought you believed, about half the Christian Bible.

2 - My point was that the Old Testament is the same way, a lot of anti-Canaanite (and other various Gentile dog meat) history revisionism written under the pressure of nationalistic embarrassment when the Israelites were once again in bondage in Babylon.

3 - I'm oddly sympathetic with the Jews as they were a despised and misunderstood people but I don't even think they understood themselves or the whole point behind Abrahams agreement with God. Much, very much human speculation is woven into Judaism.

4 - But I will also assume that you don't agree with me on that either, you have that belief that the original OT Hebrew writing was inspired by God, unassailable and that's that.

1 - As I can see, you don't think straight enough. When is 20% of something half of that thing?

2 - At least we are not vandalizing or trying to replace the Theology of the NT to build credit for Judaism.

3 - Would you like to try with me whatever you have learned about Abraham's agreements with God? We could have a word or two to learn from each other.

4 - And if you have any doubt about it, let me know.

Caino
July 31st, 2015, 04:36 AM
1 - As I can see, you don't think straight enough. When is 20% of something half of that thing?

2 - At least we are not vandalizing or trying to replace the Theology of the NT to build credit for Judaism.

3 - Would you like to try with me whatever you have learned about Abraham's agreements with God? We could have a word or two to learn from each other.

4 - And if you have any doubt about it, let me know.

Ok, I would be glad to discuss Gods agreement with Abraham with you, at least from my perspective being the 5th epochal revelation.

God's Truth
July 31st, 2015, 05:40 AM
This could never be true because it is akin to the Greek Mythology of the kind of idolatry bordering with the Greek, myth of the demigod which is the son of a god with an earthly woman. (Mat. 1:18)

Satan and his angels were thrown down to earth. Satan knew the Messiah would come, and he made many copy-cat messiahs/gods, before Jesus came to earth in the flesh. When Satan came to earth, he made copy-cat stories, and promoted gods of stone and wood. These ‘gods’ are really demons, and believing in these gods is the worship of demons.

We see in the Bible where people worshiped goat and calf idols. In the book of Ezekiel we read about the image of jealousy set up at the gate of the altar Ezekiel 8:5, and 6, to provoke God of Israel to anger.

1 Corinthians 10:20 No, but the sacrifices of pagans are offered to demons, not to God, and I do not want you to be participants with demons.

Ben Masada
July 31st, 2015, 06:04 AM
Ok, I would be glad to discuss Gods agreement with Abraham with you, at least from my perspective being the 5th epochal revelation.

Okay, so, what's the question? If it is about the Abrahamic Covenant with HaShem, that Covenant was with the Jews only. The Lord agreed with Sara to get rid of Ishmael with presents and blessings by his Father but the Covenant with the Lord would be made with Judah only. (Gen. 17:13,21) We can start from there and other questions will come along.

Ben Masada
July 31st, 2015, 06:13 AM
Satan and his angels were thrown down to earth. Satan knew the Messiah would come, and he made many copy-cat messiahs/gods, before Jesus came to earth in the flesh. When Satan came to earth, he made copy-cat stories, and promoted gods of stone and wood. These ‘gods’ are really demons, and believing in these gods is the worship of demons.

We see in the Bible where people worshiped goat and calf idols. In the book of Ezekiel we read about the image of jealousy set up at the gate of the altar Ezekiel 8:5, and 6, to provoke God of Israel to anger.

1 Corinthians 10:20 No, but the sacrifices of pagans are offered to demons, not to God, and I do not want you to be participants with demons.

Are you talking to me! If you have forgotten, I am a Jew just like Jesus and not a Christian to believe in god-demons which according to Judaism are only symbols to illustrate the evil inclination in men.

God's Truth
July 31st, 2015, 06:57 AM
Are you talking to me! If you have forgotten, I am a Jew just like Jesus and not a Christian to believe in god-demons which according to Judaism are only symbols to illustrate the evil inclination in men.

You are the one who goes against Jesus and compares him to false gods.

It is not beyond the Jews to get into false gods.

We see in the Bible where people worshiped goat and calf idols. In the book of Ezekiel we read about the image of jealousy set up at the gate of the altar Ezekiel 8:5, and 6, to provoke God of Israel to anger.

Ben Masada
July 31st, 2015, 07:43 AM
You are the one who goes against Jesus and compares him to false gods.

It is not beyond the Jews to get into false gods.

We see in the Bible where people worshiped goat and calf idols. In the book of Ezekiel we read about the image of jealousy set up at the gate of the altar Ezekiel 8:5, and 6, to provoke God of Israel to anger.

Why do I have to care? We don't have any thing to do with the sins of our fathers. If you read Jer. 31:30 and Ezek. 18:20, we shall bear nothing for the sins of our fathers nor our fathers for those of ours. So, I think that Christians are about the time to drop this habit to blame us for the sins of our fathers. Then, accusing our fathers for their sins won't help nothing either. What about if I condemn Christians for crimes their fathers have committed against the Jews throughout History by means of pogroms, blood libels, Crusades, Inquisition and the Holocaust? But I don't want to enter that area because I know it won't help neither of us.

Caino
July 31st, 2015, 08:07 AM
Okay, so, what's the question? If it is about the Abrahamic Covenant with HaShem, that Covenant was with the Jews only. The Lord agreed with Sara to get rid of Ishmael with presents and blessings by his Father but the Covenant with the Lord would be made with Judah only. (Gen. 17:13,21) We can start from there and other questions will come along.

As you know Abram wasn't a Jew, the term "Jew" derives from the tribe of Judah and would not have been used until after Exodus, after the splitting of the United Kingdom of Israel.

* Abram from Ur would have been a Chaldean and worshiper of many Gods from his fathers religion.

* In my religion Abram and his father learned of the "One God" from missionaries of Melchizedek's school in Salem.

* Abram's family set out in search of Melchizedek eventually finding him.

* Melchizedek taught Abram, he became a solid believer in the One God and in that faith made he agreement with God but by way of Melchizedek. The agreement was sealed with "bread and wine."


* The entire reason Abraham was chosen was the latent potential for leadership in his descendants as well as the prophetic foresight that a superior people would inhabit the land of Israel and be blessed with the incarnation of The Son of God. These descendants would become the light of the world, they would carry the gospel to the 4 corners of the earth. But they rejected the gospel and tried to destroy Jesus.

Caino
July 31st, 2015, 08:37 AM
Are you talking to me! If you have forgotten, I am a Jew just like Jesus and not a Christian to believe in god-demons which according to Judaism are only symbols to illustrate the evil inclination in men.

Jewish Encylopedia

http://jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/5085-demonology#anchor6

Tambora
July 31st, 2015, 09:48 AM
Sorry, I did not see this till today.


Thanks Tambora
Where do you find or how do you get the above information?
When Abe's dad (Terah) died in Haran, Abe left Haran.
We know how old Terah was when he died in Haran, cause scripture outright tells us.


Gen 11:32 And the days of Terah were two hundred and five years: and Terah died in Haran.
205 (Age of Terah when he died in Haran.)

And we know how old Abe was when he left Haran after Terah died, cause scripture tells us.


Actc 7
3 And said unto him, Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and come into the land which I shall show thee.
4 Then came he out of the land of the Chaldeans, and dwelt in Haran: and from thence, when his father was dead, he removed him into this land, wherein ye now dwell.


Gen 12:4 So Abram departed, as the LORD had spoken unto him; and Lot went with him: and Abram [was] seventy and five years old when he departed out of Haran.
75 (Age of Abraham when his father died and he left Haran.)

205-75=130
Terah was 130 when Abe was born.

But we know from scripture that Terah began having children at age 70, so Abe could not have been his firstborn.


Gen 11:26 And Terah lived seventy years, and begat Abram, Nahor, and Haran.

RevTestament
July 31st, 2015, 10:55 AM
Sorry, I did not see this till today.


When Abe's dad (Terah) died in Haran, Abe left Haran.
We know how old Terah was when he died in Haran, cause scripture outright tells us.


Gen 11:32 And the days of Terah were two hundred and five years: and Terah died in Haran.
205 (Age of Terah when he died in Haran.)

And we know how old Abe was when he left Haran after Terah died, cause scripture tells us.


Actc 7
3 And said unto him, Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and come into the land which I shall show thee.
4 Then came he out of the land of the Chaldeans, and dwelt in Haran: and from thence, when his father was dead, he removed him into this land, wherein ye now dwell.


Gen 12:4 So Abram departed, as the LORD had spoken unto him; and Lot went with him: and Abram [was] seventy and five years old when he departed out of Haran.
75 (Age of Abraham when his father died and he left Haran.)

205-75=130
Terah was 130 when Abe was born.

But we know from scripture that Terah began having children at age 70, so Abe could not have been his firstborn.


Gen 11:26 And Terah lived seventy years, and begat Abram, Nahor, and Haran.

OK, sorry I see that now. I missed the Acts link.

But I seem to have run into a discrepancy. According to your chart Shem died 2158 yrs after Adam's creation, and Abram was born 2008 yrs after, which would make Abram 150 yrs old when Shem died - well old enough to have met Mel after leaving Haran around age 75.

Ben Masada
July 31st, 2015, 11:49 AM
1 - As you know Abram wasn't a Jew, the term "Jew" derives from the tribe of Judah and would not have been used until after Exodus, after the splitting of the United Kingdom of Israel.

2 - * Abram from Ur would have been a Chaldean and worshiper of many Gods from his fathers religion.

3 - * In my religion Abram and his father learned of the "One God" from missionaries of Melchizedek's school in Salem.

4 - * Abram's family set out in search of Melchizedek eventually finding him.

5 - * Melchizedek taught Abram, he became a solid believer in the One God and in that faith made he agreement with God but by way of Melchizedek. The agreement was sealed with "bread and wine."

6 - * The entire reason Abraham was chosen was the latent potential for leadership in his descendants as well as the prophetic foresight that a superior people would inhabit the land of Israel and be blessed with the incarnation of The Son of God.

7 - These descendants would become the light of the world, they would carry the gospel to the 4 corners of the earth. But they rejected the gospel and tried to destroy Jesus.

1 - Abraham could not ethnically have been a Jew but we reserve the right to call him the first Jew as he was the father of our People as the Jews came out from the triune root of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

2 - But things did turn out to be so hypothetical.

3 - Abraham would not waste his time to learn any thing from a pagan priest.

4 - Prove your assertion with a quote from the Tanach.

5 - If it is not in the Tanach , it is as good as rubbish.

6 - I knew the gospel of Paul was around with the idolatry of the son of God. (Acts 9:20)

7 - The Jews never tried to destroy the life of Jesus. The Pharisees for instance tried to save his life twice, first from Herod if you read Luke 13:31, and second from Pilate if you read Luke 19:37-40.

God's Truth
July 31st, 2015, 12:43 PM
Why do I have to care? We don't have any thing to do with the sins of our fathers. If you read Jer. 31:30 and Ezek. 18:20, we shall bear nothing for the sins of our fathers nor our fathers for those of ours. So, I think that Christians are about the time to drop this habit to blame us for the sins of our fathers. Then, accusing our fathers for their sins won't help nothing either. What about if I condemn Christians for crimes their fathers have committed against the Jews throughout History by means of pogroms, blood libels, Crusades, Inquisition and the Holocaust? But I don't want to enter that area because I know it won't help neither of us.

You are the one who lied and said the Jesus in the Holy Bible is false.

You are the one who claimed to be a Jew and would not follow the practices of pagans.

You are the one who said Gentiles changed the New Testament and copied stories from false gods.

Ben Masada
July 31st, 2015, 12:55 PM
You are the one who lied and said the Jesus in the Holy Bible is false.

You are the one who claimed to be a Jew and would not follow the practices of pagans.

You are the one who said Gentiles changed the New Testament and copied stories from false gods.

You have described exactly the truth about the NT, except that Jesus was false. False was Paul and all the other writers who wrote about Jesus as if he was a Christian. What does it take to convince you all that Jesus was a loyal Jew whose Faith was Judaism?

God's Truth
July 31st, 2015, 01:12 PM
You have described exactly the truth about the NT, except that Jesus was false. False was Paul and all the other writers who wrote about Jesus as if he was a Christian. What does it take to convince you all that Jesus was a loyal Jew whose Faith was Judaism?

Christian means Christ-like.

God's Truth
July 31st, 2015, 01:14 PM
Ben Masada, you do not understand Paul. Stop judging Paul according to Christians that were taught wrong.

Caino
July 31st, 2015, 02:42 PM
1 - Abraham could not ethnically have been a Jew but we reserve the right to call him the first Jew as he was the father of our People as the Jews came out from the triune root of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

2 - But things did turn out to be so hypothetical.

3 - Abraham would not waste his time to learn any thing from a pagan priest.

4 - Prove your assertion with a quote from the Tanach.

5 - If it is not in the Tanach , it is as good as rubbish.

6 - I knew the gospel of Paul was around with the idolatry of the son of God. (Acts 9:20)

7 - The Jews never tried to destroy the life of Jesus. The Pharisees for instance tried to save his life twice, first from Herod if you read Luke 13:31, and second from Pilate if you read Luke 19:37-40.

You, a Jew, are STILL trying to destroy Christ, so no, spare me the pity party. Caiaphas & company deeply resented Jesus' Liberal spirituality as it hurt their racial pride and even worse their wealth. But it's not fair to continue to discriminate against the Jews, they paid a terrible price for putting Jesus through a trumped up trial and pressuring Pilate to give in to their demands.

Why would Abram be opposed to a Pagan priest???? Abram was from Pagan roots.





Joshua 24:2

2 And Joshua said to all the people, “Thus says the Lord, the God of Israel, ‘Long ago, your fathers lived beyond the Euphrates,1 Terah, the father of Abraham and of Nahor; and gthey served other gods.

Grosnick Marowbe
July 31st, 2015, 03:02 PM
You, a Jew, are STILL trying to destroy Christ, so no, spare me the pity party. Caiaphas & company deeply resented Jesus' Liberal spirituality as it hurt their racial pride and even worse their wealth. But it's not fair to continue to discriminate against the Jews, they paid a terrible price for putting Jesus through a trumped up trial and pressuring Pilate to give in to their demands.

Why would Abram be opposed to a Pagan priest???? Abram was from Pagan roots.





Joshua 24:2

2 And Joshua said to all the people, “Thus says the Lord, the God of Israel, ‘Long ago, your fathers lived beyond the Euphrates,1 Terah, the father of Abraham and of Nahor; and gthey served other gods.


He may be a Jew, however, you are a "Uratian cultist."

Caino
July 31st, 2015, 07:31 PM
He may be a Jew, however, you are a "Uratian cultist."

There's nothing wrong with being Jewish or a UB reader, but thank God neither one of us have been voted TOL's #1 Troll (thread pest).:first::wave2::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

nonanomanon
July 31st, 2015, 08:36 PM
1. Abram spoke to Melchisedek after the Slaughter of the Kings
2. God walked with Enoch and he was the Seventh from Adam

The Book of Enoch often uses the term "watchers". As if to imply that Enoch was somehow the King of Kings, or the King of Righteousness. In otherwords, after the order of Melchisedec.

DANIEL 4:16 Let his heart be changed from man's, and let a beast's heart be given unto him; and let seven times pass over him.
DANIEL 4:17 This matter [is] by the decree of the watchers, and the demand by the word of the holy ones: to the intent that the living may know that the most High ruleth in the kingdom of men, and giveth it to whomsoever he will, and setteth up over it the basest of men.

The phrase "Watchers", is equated to "King of Kings", or "King of Righteousness". Matching Enoch's description as the Seventh from Adam. If this is true, then this indicates that God finished his Heavenly Salvation Program in 6 Creation Days, or before Enoch the Seventh Day was created. Which is before Christ was created as the Messiah. Indicating that when Abraham spoke to Melchisedek, Jesus Christ announced even before the New Testament, that man's walk of faith, was invested in his Church on earth, to receive the New Heaven at the end of time.

(So you know how the story goes, around the Solstice Precessional Alignment (1980, 1998, 2012, 2016), in 1998 the Antichrist was told something from the Fallen Angels. Because he was told that truth and understood it, God struck him down with thunder, and many witnessed that his body had been dead a few days and had risen. There were even reports of a body that had been struck by thunder and arose. ................... Somehow the truth that Moses the Antichrist was constituted as a Fallen Angel had gotten out, and some people attempted to castrate the Antichrist, as evidence that God would not come to destroy the nations when he came at the end of time (since the Sons of God are a picture of the Body of Christ, if this is proven false, illustrated by God, then God does not condemn the Body of Satan or the nations or the people ... which the gospel claims the people are divided, the devil divided from satan), and revealed his body which is pictured by Star Wormwood. ..................... but God rebuked the castration of the Antichrist as an illustration of his judgment ................... and 3 years later or just about, the Son of Perdition laid his claim to the nations since death is the glory of the Son of Perdition, and from then on, we are where we are now, ofcourse the entire account is fictitious but that is what I was told to say, because I have no credibility)

Ben Masada
August 1st, 2015, 04:49 AM
Christian means Christ-like.

According to Paul, Christian means the one who believes that Jesus was Christ. That's why Christians started being called Christians for the first time after a whole year that Paul was teaching about Jesus as "Christ." (Acts 11:26)

Ben Masada
August 1st, 2015, 04:53 AM
Ben Masada, you do not understand Paul. Stop judging Paul according to Christians that were taught wrong.

Well, if you have been taught right, why don't you teach me about Jesus and Paul? If it makes sense to me, we will shake hands and become one as you are. Perhaps, you don't feel ready for the task. Is that so?

Ben Masada
August 1st, 2015, 05:05 AM
You, a Jew, are STILL trying to destroy Christ, so no, spare me the pity party. Caiaphas & company deeply resented Jesus' Liberal spirituality as it hurt their racial pride and even worse their wealth. But it's not fair to continue to discriminate against the Jews, they paid a terrible price for putting Jesus through a trumped up trial and pressuring Pilate to give in to their demands.

Why would Abram be opposed to a Pagan priest???? Abram was from Pagan roots. Joshua 24:2

2 And Joshua said to all the people, “Thus says the Lord, the God of Israel, ‘Long ago, your fathers lived beyond the Euphrates,1 Terah, the father of Abraham and of Nahor; and gthey served other gods.


What does it have any thing to do with the ancestors of Abraham serving gods beyond the Euphrates? We are not to blame for the sins of ours fathers nor they of ours. (Jer. 31:30; Ezek. 18:20)

I did not say that Melchizedek was from pagan roots. I said that he was a pagan priest offering the firstborns of the Canaanites at his time on the altar for a burn offering to Baal Molech. Just happened that the expression "after the order of Melchizedek" was a Jewish expression to mean the opposite to "after the order of Aaron." That's all. Nothing to do with the pagan priest of the same name.

daqq
August 1st, 2015, 05:18 AM
Christian means Christ-like.


According to Paul, Christian means the one who believes that Jesus was Christ. That's why Christians started being called Christians for the first time after a whole year that Paul was teaching about Jesus as "Christ." (Acts 11:26)

It does not mean either of those things exclusively. To become "Christianos" one must have Messiah being formed within, which by the Scripture demands first and foremost the water immersion of Yochanan toward repentance and the sending away of sins, (the washing of water in the Word: an immersion into Torah, Prophets, and Writings, which are essentially "the name" of the Father) and then at the very least a full year of intense immersion into the Testimony of Yeshua which is now given in the Gospel accounts, (which is why Acts 11:26 says what it says).


Well, if you have been taught right, why don't you teach me about Jesus and Paul? If it makes sense to me, we will shake hands and become one as you are. Perhaps, you don't feel ready for the task. Is that so?

Haha, if you truly knew what Paul teaches you would call him an ascetic Gnostic as would probably 90% of so-called mainstream Christianity. :crackup:

Caino
August 1st, 2015, 05:45 AM
What does it have any thing to do with the ancestors of Abraham serving gods beyond the Euphrates? We are not to blame for the sins of ours fathers nor they of ours. (Jer. 31:30; Ezek. 18:20)

I did not say that Melchizedek was from pagan roots. I said that he was a pagan priest offering the firstborns of the Canaanites at his time on the altar for a burn offering to Baal Molech. Just happened that the expression "after the order of Melchizedek" was a Jewish expression to mean the opposite to "after the order of Aaron." That's all. Nothing to do with the pagan priest of the same name.

I don't have a problem with Pagan Gods in evolutionary religions per say, or Abraham having had former beliefs, Judaism contains Pagan roots itself such as blood sacrifices. Moses was a reformer of the previous practices of his followers.

Just like you attempt to discredit Jesus now you attempt to rewrite your own history. Melchizedek was Priest of the most high God, Abram was a believer in Melchizedek.




17 And the king of Sodom went out to meet him after his return from the slaughter of Chedorlaomer, and of the kings that were with him, at the valley of Shaveh, which is the king's dale.

18 And Melchizedek king of Salem brought forth bread and wine: and he was the priest of the most high God.

19 And he blessed him, and said, Blessed be Abram of the most high God, possessor of heaven and earth:

20 And blessed be the most high God, which hath delivered thine enemies into thy hand. And he gave him tithes of all.


Abram was a follower of Melchizedek who was the priest of the would be God of the Israelites. He gave tithes to Melchizedek. Where did you get "pagan priest offering the firstborns of the Canaanites at his time on the altar for a burn offering to Baal Molech"???

Ben Masada
August 1st, 2015, 06:09 AM
1. Abram spoke to Melchisedek after the Slaughter of the Kings
2. God walked with Enoch and he was the Seventh from Adam

The Book of Enoch often uses the term "watchers". As if to imply that Enoch was somehow the King of Kings, or the King of Righteousness. In otherwords, after the order of Melchisedec.

DANIEL 4:16 Let his heart be changed from man's, and let a beast's heart be given unto him; and let seven times pass over him.
DANIEL 4:17 This matter [is] by the decree of the watchers, and the demand by the word of the holy ones: to the intent that the living may know that the most High ruleth in the kingdom of men, and giveth it to whomsoever he will, and setteth up over it the basest of men.

The phrase "Watchers", is equated to "King of Kings", or "King of Righteousness". Matching Enoch's description as the Seventh from Adam. If this is true, then this indicates that God finished his Heavenly Salvation Program in 6 Creation Days, or before Enoch the Seventh Day was created. Which is before Christ was created as the Messiah. Indicating that when Abraham spoke to Melchisedek, Jesus Christ announced even before the New Testament, that man's walk of faith, was invested in his Church on earth, to receive the New Heaven at the end of time.

(So you know how the story goes, around the Solstice Precessional Alignment (1980, 1998, 2012, 2016), in 1998 the Antichrist was told something from the Fallen Angels. Because he was told that truth and understood it, God struck him down with thunder, and many witnessed that his body had been dead a few days and had risen. There were even reports of a body that had been struck by thunder and arose. ................... Somehow the truth that Moses the Antichrist was constituted as a Fallen Angel had gotten out, and some people attempted to castrate the Antichrist, as evidence that God would not come to destroy the nations when he came at the end of time (since the Sons of God are a picture of the Body of Christ, if this is proven false, illustrated by God, then God does not condemn the Body of Satan or the nations or the people ... which the gospel claims the people are divided, the devil divided from satan), and revealed his body which is pictured by Star Wormwood. ..................... but God rebuked the castration of the Antichrist as an illustration of his judgment ................... and 3 years later or just about, the Son of Perdition laid his claim to the nations since death is the glory of the Son of Perdition, and from then on, we are where we are now, ofcourse the entire account is fictitious but that is what I was told to say, because I have no credibility)

Nothing of the above has any thing at all to do with whatever you wish it did. That's my opinion.

Ben Masada
August 1st, 2015, 06:15 AM
It does not mean either of those things exclusively. To become "Christianos" one must have Messiah being formed within, which by the Scripture demands first and foremost the water immersion of Yochanan toward repentance and the sending away of sins, (the washing of water in the Word: an immersion into Torah, Prophets, and Writings, which are essentially "the name" of the Father) and then at the very least a full year of intense immersion into the Testimony of Yeshua which is now given in the Gospel accounts, (which is why Acts 11:26 says what it says).

Haha, if you truly knew what Paul teaches you would call him an ascetic Gnostic as would probably 90% of so-called mainstream Christianity. :crackup:

Paul no longer teaches any thing to any one. He has been dead for about 2,000 years already. There is no life in the afterlife and in death there is no consciousness and that's forever.

oatmeal
August 1st, 2015, 06:34 AM
Mel was an individual who chose to serve God.

He had no genealogy recorded in scripture.

As Jesus pointed out to the religious elite who were biological progeny of Abraham, being the progeny of Abraham does not a believer make.

John 8:37,39-40

I know that ye are Abraham's seed; but ye seek to kill me, because my word hath no place in you.

They 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.

But now ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the truth, which I have heard of God: this did not Abraham.

Mel's ancestorage does not determine his standing with God.

Even as our parents, our ancestors, our genealogy does not determine our standing with God.

Mel was a believer by his own choice.

Even as we are believers solely by our own choice.

No one, no one, no human needs a particular heritage, nationality, geographic location or any other human method of measuring greatness to seek and to serve God.

Believe God, put God first, keep God first and God will see to it that your desire to serve God well shall be fulfilled, even as He did for Mel

daqq
August 1st, 2015, 06:42 AM
Paul no longer teaches any thing to any one. He has been dead for about 2,000 years already. There is no life in the afterlife and in death there is no consciousness and that's forever.

Testimony is SPIRIT.

And again: your one-eighth-sect opinion was not the majority in first century Judaism. The Essenes, (which were also Zadokites) and both houses of the Pharisees vehemently disputed the understanding of the "inner city" Zadokite priesthood under Ananus who did not confess a resurrection. Your opinion is merely the one-eighth opinion of the Zadokite-Sadduc priesthood. :crackup:

RevTestament
August 1st, 2015, 09:58 AM
OK, sorry I see that now. I missed the Acts link.

But I seem to have run into a discrepancy. According to your chart Shem died 2158 yrs after Adam's creation, and Abram was born 2008 yrs after, which would make Abram 150 yrs old when Shem died - well old enough to have met Shem, if he was Mel, after leaving Haran around age 75.

God's Truth
August 1st, 2015, 11:24 AM
It does not mean either of those things exclusively. To become "Christianos" one must have Messiah being formed within, which by the Scripture demands first and foremost the water immersion of Yochanan toward repentance and the sending away of sins, (the washing of water in the Word: an immersion into Torah, Prophets, and Writings, which are essentially "the name" of the Father) and then at the very least a full year of intense immersion into the Testimony of Yeshua which is now given in the Gospel accounts, (which is why Acts 11:26 says what it says).

You have not disproved what I said. You prove you are against Christ when you go against those he has saved.

God's Truth
August 1st, 2015, 11:26 AM
Paul no longer teaches any thing to any one. He has been dead for about 2,000 years already. There is no life in the afterlife and in death there is no consciousness and that's forever.

You are unstable and ignorant...that is what Peter says you are...that is what Peter says about those who misunderstand Paul. See 2 Peter 3:16 and 17.

Nick M
August 1st, 2015, 11:28 AM
Now, please, I must remind you that I am reading from the originals in Hebrew and not from the Gentile adulterated version of the KJV.

The Hebrew version that was used at the time of Jesus the Nazarene?

God's Truth
August 1st, 2015, 11:29 AM
Well, if you have been taught right, why don't you teach me about Jesus and Paul? If it makes sense to me, we will shake hands and become one as you are. Perhaps, you don't feel ready for the task. Is that so?

Are you ready to listen?

Nick M
August 1st, 2015, 11:30 AM
Here is what Psalm 110:4 says in the originals in Hebrew: "The Lord has sworn and will not relent, you are a priest forever; a rightful king by My decree." As you can see, it has nothing to do with king Melchizedek, king of Salem, but rather to David in the type level of interpretation, which points to the archetype level of Israel, the seed of Abraham as a nation of priests and kings. (Exod. 19:6; Isa. 61:6) Obviously, only the High Priest of the Most High would produce a generation of priests and kings through Israel.

So how does this make the Son of David, not the Son of David?

God's Truth
August 1st, 2015, 11:36 AM
Well, if you have been taught right, why don't you teach me about Jesus and Paul? If it makes sense to me, we will shake hands and become one as you are. Perhaps, you don't feel ready for the task. Is that so?

Paul does not teach "Believe and do nothing else", as most Christians wrongly teach.

Paul teaches that the ceremonial works no longer clean anyone, as they used to do.

Now only Jesus' blood cleans us...just by faith...just by believing it does.

We no longer have to circumcise ourselves, observe special days, adhere to a dietary law, do various external washings, and sacrifice animals.

Jesus now cleans us, by our faith that he does.

Are you with me?

Tambora
August 2nd, 2015, 07:47 PM
OK, sorry I see that now. I missed the Acts link.

But I seem to have run into a discrepancy. According to your chart Shem died 2158 yrs after Adam's creation, and Abram was born 2008 yrs after, which would make Abram 150 yrs old when Shem died - well old enough to have met Mel after leaving Haran around age 75.
I see it!

Abe leaves Haran in Genesis chapter 12 at age 75.
Abe met Mel in Genesis chapter 14.
Abe begets Ishmael in chapter 16 at age 86.

So, somewhere between the age of 75 (when he left Haran) & the age of 86 (when Ishmael was born), Abe met Mel.

Ben Masada
August 3rd, 2015, 12:07 AM
Mel was an individual who chose to serve God.

He had no genealogy recorded in scripture.

As Jesus pointed out to the religious elite who were biological progeny of Abraham, being the progeny of Abraham does not a believer make.

John 8:37,39-40

I know that ye are Abraham's seed; but ye seek to kill me, because my word hath no place in you.

They 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.

But now ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the truth, which I have heard of God: this did not Abraham.

Mel's ancestors does determine his standing with God.

Even as our parents, our ancestors, our genealogy does not determine our standing with God.

Mel was a believer by his own choice.

Even as we are believers solely by our own choice.

No one, no one, no human needs a particular heritage, nationality, geographic location or any other human method of measuring greatness to seek and to serve God.

Believe God, put God first, keep God first and God will see to it that your desire to serve God well shall be fulfilled, even as He did for Mel

I would like to remind you Oatmeal, that either for a great coincidence or on purpose, you missed three very important verses in your quotation above of John 8:37,39-40. I am referring to verses 31, 41 and 44.

In verse 31, John reminds us that Jesus was speaking to the Jews who had believed in him. Then in verse 44 he called the Jews who had believed in him children of the Devil.

Why, for heaven's sake! Some thing must have happened in verse 41 for Jesus to call the Jews who had believed in him, children of the Devil. Yes, you can bet your last pence that something did happen to make Jesus call the Jews who had believed in him children of the Devil.

It tuned out that those Jews who had believed in Jesus had probably grown up with him from youth and were aware of some thing about Jesus that the other Jews were not. They implied that Jesus had been born out of fornication as a result of a rape case by a Roman soldier. That's what to be born of fornication is all about.

That revelation must have been catastrophic to Mary since Joseph had probably already died and been spared that pain. Children! How could children keep a secret! But you don't have to worry about this find of mine in John 8:41 because I believe only 20% of the NT and that chapter of John is among the 80% I expurgate. I blame the Fathers of the Church in charge to select the proper text for the Canon of the NT for having missed such a big mine on the road.

Ben Masada
August 3rd, 2015, 12:29 AM
Testimony is SPIRIT.

And again: your one-eighth-sect opinion was not the majority in first century Judaism. The Essenes, (which were also Zadokites) and both houses of the Pharisees vehemently disputed the understanding of the "inner city" Zadokite priesthood under Ananus who did not confess a resurrection. Your opinion is merely the one-eighth opinion of the Zadokite-Sadduc priesthood.

I don't know, if you ask me, where you guys got this idea from to define whom among the Jews confessed to believe in bodily resurrection and who didn't. Daqq, no Jew in Israel would confess to believe in bodily resurrection; and if you ask me, Jews of then and of today, except of the time of the witches because they also had to make a living, hence the witch of Endor of the time of king Saul. You guys are confusing literal bodily resurrection with metaphorical resurrection which is the return from the graves of the nation and back to the Land of Israel. That's the resurrection of the
"Dry Bones" quoted in the prophecy of Ezekiel in 37:12.

The point is that, according to Isa. 53:8,9 when Jews are forced into exile it is as if they have been cut off from the land of the living aka the Land of Israel and graves are assigned to them among the nations. Now, for the metaphorical resurrection of Ezek. 37:12, the Lord opens up those graves and brings them back to the Land of Israel. That's all folks! Nothing miraculous to the truth. Then Paul came and added the resurrection doctrine to make it literal and to mess up with the Theology of Judaism. (II Tim. 2:8)

Ben Masada
August 3rd, 2015, 12:44 AM
You are unstable and ignorant...that is what Peter says you are...that is what Peter says about those who misunderstand Paul. See 2 Peter 3:16 and 17.

You don't even know the degree of how messed up you are. Peter never said such a thing and do you know why? Because he did not write that letter attributed to him. Paul himself wrote it. Do you wanna know how I caught Paul's with the pen in the pot? Thus: If you read I Peter 5:12, he is said to have used Silvanus, the scribe of Paul to write his letter. To believe that, you will only show that you don't know any thing about the real character of Paul. Paul would never allow his scribe to take dictation from an apostle of the circumcision! Now, for Silvanus as the scribe of Paul, you can read
II Cor. 1:19; I Thess. 1:1 and II Thess. 2:1. And good luck my friend!

Ben Masada
August 3rd, 2015, 12:57 AM
The Hebrew version that was used at the time of Jesus the Nazarene?

No Nick, I meant from a Hebrew edition according to Judaism and not from an English edition according to the KJV. And we have all the right in the world to the preference of the readers because we are talking about the Tanach and a Jewish text written by Jews and we are not intruding into nothing of another religion.

Ben Masada
August 3rd, 2015, 12:59 AM
Are you ready to listen?

Are you kidding! Shoot! I am ready since yesterday.

Ben Masada
August 3rd, 2015, 01:30 AM
So how does this make the Son of David, not the Son of David?

There are two applications for the expression "Son of David" in Israel. One is related to the size of the good one makes to another in Israel, homage is paid to him by addressing him as "Son of David" no matter which Tribe he comes from.

The other application is more to the literal character of the expression. Whether someone comes from the Tribe of Judah or becomes a king or Prime Minister of Israel according to modern times when the Tribal system has been canceled in the History of Israel.

Now, to be a High Priest according to the order of Melchizedek was a Jewish expression to distinguish from being a High Priest according to the order of Aaron. It just happened that Melchizedek the pagan priest of the Canaanites was called Melchizedek but he had personally nothing to do with the Jewish meaning of being a Priest according to the order of Melchizedek. See how simple is the truth when it is out?

Ben Masada
August 3rd, 2015, 01:47 AM
1 - Paul does not teach "Believe and do nothing else", as most Christians wrongly teach.

2 - Paul teaches that the ceremonial works no longer clean anyone, as they used to do.

3 - Now only Jesus' blood cleans us...just by faith...just by believing it does.

4 - We no longer have to circumcise ourselves, observe special days, adhere to a dietary law, do various external washings, and sacrifice animals.

5 - Jesus now cleans us, by our faith that he does.

6 - Are you with me?

1 - Paul does not do any thing at all. He is dead. So stick him in the past because today even his memory is supposed to be forgotten. (Eccles. 9:5,6)

2 - No, they never did. Otherwise the prophets would not teach that the only way to set things right with God so that our sins from scarlet red become as white as snow is by repentance and return to the obedience of God's Law. (Isa. 1:18,19)

3 - No, it does not. If it did, Ezek. and Jer. would not say that no one can die for the sins of another. (Ezek. 18:20; Jer. 31:30)

4 - You never had to get circumcised, observe special days, keep Kashrut or any other thing of the Jews. You are not Jewish, remember?

5 - Yes, faith; that's the only thing you have. Otherwise, you can't verify any thing you say.

6 - All the way! Do you have any thing else coming?

Caino
August 3rd, 2015, 04:43 AM
I would like to remind you Oatmeal, that either for a great coincidence or on purpose, you missed three very important verses in your quotation above of John 8:37,39-40. I am referring to verses 31, 41 and 44.

In verse 31, John reminds us that Jesus was speaking to the Jews who had believed in him. Then in verse 44 he called the Jews who had believed in him children of the Devil.

Why, for heaven's sake! Some thing must have happened in verse 41 for Jesus to call the Jews who had believed in him, children of the Devil. Yes, you can bet your last pence that something did happen to make Jesus call the Jews who had believed in him children of the Devil.

It tuned out that those Jews who had believed in Jesus had probably grown up with him from youth and were aware of some thing about Jesus that the other Jews were not. They implied that Jesus had been born out of fornication as a result of a rape case by a Roman soldier. That's what to be born of fornication is all about.

That revelation must have been catastrophic to Mary since Joseph had probably already died and been spared that pain. Children! How could children keep a secret! But you don't have to worry about this find of mine in John 8:41 because I believe only 20% of the NT and that chapter of John is among the 80% I expurgate. I blame the Fathers of the Church in charge to select the proper text for the Canon of the NT for having missed such a big mine on the road.

Jesus was speaking directly to those Jews who become aligned against him, not the general population of Israel. The common people tended to favor the comforting words and ministry of Jesus.

No, it was those in authority who persistently sought to make trouble for Jesus, sending out spies, quibbling lawyers and such. Their father was "the devil". It was those in authority who used whatever political leverage they had at the time to convince Pilate to find some reason to condemn Jesus, just as the same kinds of people made trouble for every other prophet of "truth" who came before Jesus.

In short, those who sought the destruction of Christ then and work to undermine him today, are doing the "will" of the evil ones.

nonanomanon
August 3rd, 2015, 11:19 AM
http://www.savingcatsanddogs.org/wp-content/uploads/male-lion-face-web-featured-speciesiStock_000012088835Large-lion-15-c.compassandcamera-.jpg

(God Saves 144,000 of Reuben before the Foundation of the Earth (66 Souls from Luke 3's Genealogy), and saves 1290 from the 144,000 of the Body of Benjamin (6000 Total)
1290 = 130 + 65 + 595 + 500
1. Man lived in the likeness of God for 130 Years (Gen 5:1), Gen 5:3 says Adam see's his own likeness after 130 years, so he is no longer in the likeness of God.
2. Enoch Walked with God for 65 Years (When he had his son, like Adam he was no longer in the likeness of God)
3. Lamech is in the likeness of the "Son of God", Noah for 595 Years (Gen 5:30) ... when Lamech has Noah, it is a picture of returning to the likeness of God.
4. Noah is already in the likeness of God, as a "Son of God", when Noah has his children at 500 Years of Age, this is a picture of returning mankind to the likeness of God.

Genesis 5 Genealogy are the Wise Virgins
Genesis 11 Genealogy are the Foolish Virgins, and are not Counted

God Saves 1335 from the 144,000 of Benjamin when God puts the 144,000 of Reuben into the Earth with Moses
1335 = 133 x 10 Commandments + 5 Months of Star Wormwood
EXODUS 6:18 And the sons of Kohath; Amram, and Izhar, and Hebron, and Uzziel: and the years of the life of Kohath [were] an hundred thirty and three years.
NUMBERS 26:10 And the earth opened her mouth, and swallowed them up together with Korah, when that company died, what time the fire devoured two hundred and fifty men: and they became a sign.
DEUTERONOMY 4:13 And he declared unto you his covenant, which he commanded you to perform, [even] ten commandments; and he wrote them upon two tables of stone.
NUMBERS 26:11 Notwithstanding the children of Korah died not.

the 144,000 of Reuben was cast into the earth, that is why the Gospel appears to invalidate the numbering of Korah in Num 26:11 which is numbered in Num 26:10 (which can be another name for Judah), because God is using this as a parable for the 144,000 of Reuben. This explains to us that the 1335 of Daniel 12:12, is a figure for heavenly salvation.

Moses Killed a Man (the 144,000 of Reuben in bringing them to the Earth)
Until Jesus is resurrected the 144,000 of Reuben remain dead in the Earth

God saves 1600 from the 144,000 of Benjamin (6000 Total), when Jesus returned to the Father in Heaven, returning the 144,000 of Reuben
1600 = 40 x 40
LUKE 9:33 And it came to pass, as they departed from him, Peter said unto Jesus, Master, it is good for us to be here: and let us make three tabernacles; one for thee, and one for Moses, and one for Elias: not knowing what he said.
LUKE 9:34 While he thus spake, there came a cloud, and overshadowed them: and they feared as they entered into the cloud.

God appears as a fire for the 40 days that Moses goes up the Mountain, and Jesus appears as God, for the 40 days after he is resurrected after the Cruxifixion. God reveals that the 144,000 of Reuben that is recounted in the Genealogy of Luke 3, does not count, God the Father (Luke 9:34), Jesus the Son, Elias (Melchisedek or Christ as a High Priest, or Enoch), and Moses is not counted as a representation of the 144,000 of Reuben.

FOREVER AFTER THE ORDER OF MELCHISEDEK (God takes 666, both the 144,000 of Reuben and the 144,000 of Benjamin, 666, or 66 for Reuben and 6000 for Benjamin)

(God takes 1775 of the 144,000 of Benjamin Completing the 6000 of Benjamin when the "Two Witnesses are Slain)
1775 = Melchisedek Giving Seed in the place of Abraham
LUKE 20:28 Saying, Master, Moses wrote unto us, If any man's brother die, having a wife, and he die without children, that his brother should take his wife, and raise up seed unto his brother

Moses took the 144,000 of Reuben ........ so he took a Wife, but he did not put any seed into that Wife, because Moses is not the Christ, or is he capable of producing Heavenly Salvation. Now Melchisedek/Christ took the 144,000 of Reuben after he arose from the tomb after the crucifixion, in order to bare seed. ................. Going back to Genesis to the creation account of the 144,000 of Reuben. Adam giving seed was counted as a sin, but Noah giving seed was counted as a blessing to the Lord. ..................... Now the Jewish people ask, that since the First Husband is dead (Moses), and the Second Husband is also dead (Christ Crucified), and behold there is a Wife, the 144,000 of Benjamin: THEREFORE IN THE RESURRECTION AT THE END OF DAYS, WHO'S WIFE IS SHE??????????? Jesus answers them and says, from the beginning I am the Husband, but because I will divorce the 144,000 in the name of Joseph, I suffered Moses to give a bill of divorce. SO WHEN I RETURN TO TAKE THE 144,000 OF BENJAMIN, I will return Moses to give the bill of divorce. (Jesus said he rebuked Moses for giving the Divorce in the Old Testament, but Jesus does not rebuke Moses anylonger for giving the bill of divorce at the end of time .......... we have less then 25 days remaining until more then 95% of human life on earth is terminated)

Revelation 15:3 says, Moses completes the Divorce between the 144,000 and Melchisedek, so that Moses is able to reign as a Fallen Angel in the place of Christ, and complete the Divorce of the 144,000 ......... which are attributed to Joseph or the 144,000 of Joseph when the 153 days begins. Article Link (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=111898&page=3). Abraham's Age of 175 years because he had spoken to Melchisedek, and this was a picture of MARRIAGE ............. this completes the last figure needed to complete the 6000 that are saved from the 144,000 of Benjamin.


The point is that, according to Isa. 53:8,9 when Jews are forced into exile it is as if they have been cut off from the land of the living aka the Land of Israel and graves are assigned to them among the nations. Now, for the metaphorical resurrection of Ezek. 37:12, the Lord opens up those graves and brings them back to the Land of Israel. That's all folks! Nothing miraculous to the truth. Then Paul came and added the resurrection doctrine to make it literal and to mess up with the Theology of Judaism. (II Tim. 2:8)

The Jewish people knew that Jesus saved people before the foundation of the earth under one program, which ended when he came as a "High Priest after the order of Melchisedek (to take the sacrifice and the offering of the lord, and to give in its place, the Bread and Wine of blessing).

The Jewish people also knew that Jesus had one program of salvation since creation had began ... ... ... ... if Jesus came as a "High Priest", when he came as a Man, then it would be the conclusion of the program under this creation, but instead Jesus denounces this conclusion (Luke 22:50-51, by restoring the position of the "High Priest" ... a position the Apostle Peter thought he was going to take) ... ... ... ... Jesus comes only as the Lamb Slain or the "Temple Stones" for "HALF A DAY, that is a part of the 3 days of darkness, to show the "Body of Benjamin", which he is now, or them made, at that time the he is placed the "High Priest" over. Before more then 95% of human life on earth is terminated. (Marriage by Fire is one of the mechanism in the end time, God uses to be more merciful to balance the books, but this apparently falls on deaf ears ... in the very least I believe we should be having a tsunami soon, to destroy a considerable level of people in that certain place, they have not repented of the sin of blasphemy of the Flight 370, so it will be time soon to obtain some level of recompense) (I believed previously that when the International Space Station fell into the earth, it would be a sign to the nations that the Marriage by Fire which entails Nuclear War would be satisfied, but, I've come to believe, the tsunami is more likely and soon to be done ... based on the fact that the multitude of Judah simply wants to cease, and be unprofitable, and God I believe will illustrate this fact to them ... ... ... ... tsunami is simply my version of a parable for Star Wormwood ... ... ... ... we have less then 25 days until this is done). (so we in part know what level of distaste, from the Gospel's implication of inc***, castration, the list goes on, so there are people motivated by their sin to imitate these as solution for putting the Antichrist down, whoever he is ............ we must not be ignorant of the fact that the lord uses the sin of the nations, to divide the Heart of Judah, and it will be too late soon, so we must give a small degree of blessing to the lord and forbear their sin).

God's Truth
August 3rd, 2015, 12:26 PM
You don't even know the degree of how messed up you are.
You describe your condition exactly.



Peter never said such a thing and do you know why? Because he did not write that letter attributed to him. Paul himself wrote it.

You really are unstable and ignorant if you think that I will believe you over God the Creator preserving His Word in the Holy Bible.




Do you wanna know how I caught Paul's with the pen in the pot? Thus: If you read I Peter 5:12, he is said to have used Silvanus, the scribe of Paul to write his letter. To believe that, you will only show that you don't know any thing about the real character of Paul. Paul would never allow his scribe to take dictation from an apostle of the circumcision!
There is only one gospel. What you say about Paul being a liar who deceived others into believing Peter wrote a letter in which he stands up for Paul is just insane.

God's Truth
August 3rd, 2015, 12:27 PM
Are you kidding! Shoot! I am ready since yesterday.

You do not sound ready to listen, because you are still lying about the Holy Bible and Paul.

God's Truth
August 3rd, 2015, 12:37 PM
1 - Paul does not do any thing at all. He is dead. So stick him in the past because today even his memory is supposed to be forgotten. (Eccles. 9:5,6)

You are ignorant, just as Peter says, 2 Peter 3:16, and 17.



2 - No, they never did. Otherwise the prophets would not teach that the only way to set things right with God so that our sins from scarlet red become as white as snow is by repentance and return to the obedience of God's Law. (Isa. 1:18,19)

Obedience was obeying God, even obeying the ceremonial works as God gave to Moses.




3 - No, it does not. If it did, Ezek. and Jer. would not say that no one can die for the sins of another. (Ezek. 18:20; Jer. 31:30)

Those scriptures are about unwillingly being held responsible for another's sin.

Jesus is the Sacrificial Lamb of God.

God came as a Son of Man to die for those who would believe.



4 - You never had to get circumcised, observe special days, keep Kashrut or any other thing of the Jews. You are not Jewish, remember?
First, you do not know if I am Jew or not.

Second, if ANYONE, Jew or Gentile wanted to be a child of God, all they had to do was get circumcised and follow the ceremonial works of the law.

Stop pretending that you are a Jew when you reject Jesus and are not forgiven because you have not come through Jesus.


5 - Yes, faith; that's the only thing you have. Otherwise, you can't verify any thing you say.

6 - All the way! Do you have any thing else coming?

You have not been cleaned, your sins are not forgiven, you are not reconciled to God, you are not an obedient Jew, and you are not a child of God.

If you reject Jesus then you reject the one who sent him, Luke 10:16.

You reject Jesus so you are condemned, John 3:18.

You must have faith that Jesus' blood washes you clean and reconciles you to God, 1 Corinthians 6:11.

Ben Masada
August 4th, 2015, 07:58 AM
You describe your condition exactly.

You really are unstable and ignorant if you think that I will believe you over God the Creator preserving His Word in the Holy Bible.

There is only one gospel. What you say about Paul being a liar who deceived others into believing Peter wrote a letter in which he stands up for Paul is just insane.

From this post and on, I can no longer reply a post of yours with ad hominem. You are breaking the Golden Rule that says not to do unto others what you would not like they did unto yourself. The Golden Rule covers the whole second part of the Decalogue. I hope you should know about this personal insult.

God's Truth
August 4th, 2015, 09:57 AM
From this post and on, I can no longer reply a post of yours with ad hominem. You are breaking the Golden Rule that says not to do unto others what you would not like they did unto yourself. The Golden Rule covers the whole second part of the Decalogue. I hope you should know about this personal insult.

I am not doing anything wrong. You are basing your whole beliefs on Paul being a liar, a homosexual, and a con man. That is what you have said about Paul and why you will not believe him.

nonanomanon
August 4th, 2015, 03:30 PM
Why Melchisedek had to Die, Why Jesus had to die, and why the "Two Witnesses" have to also die

http://i1112.photobucket.com/albums/k492/psalmsamuel/Moralized%20Bible%201220-30_zpsye4hngnx.jpg
God as architect of the world, folio 1 verso of a moralized Bible 1220 A.D.Article Link (http://artartartartartartartartartart.blogspot.com/)

Lets continue with a summary: The 144,000 of Reuben were saved all 66 souls by the "God Head", at the same time God took the 144,000 of Benjamin, and saved 1290 Souls recorded in the Genealogy of Genesis 5. However, God had to create Jesus, to complete salvation of the 1290 souls under the "144,000 of Benjamin". Which God had done, but in order to finished the process for those 1290 souls, God had to go on to make Jesus a "High Priest" .......... that is Jesus had to be the mechanism to translate the, redemption and sacrifice to the Lord, to a Blessing for the "Remnant of the 144,000". Jesus had to die as a "High Priest" in order to complete the heavenly salvation of 1290 before the beginning of time.

So when does the Gospel record that Melchisedek or Jesus as the "High Priest" had died the very first time?

I CHRONICLES 5:1 Now the sons of Reuben the firstborn of Israel, (for he [was] the firstborn; but, forasmuch as he defiled his father's bed, his birthright was given unto the sons of Joseph the son of Israel: and the genealogy is not to be reckoned after the birthright.
GENESIS 11:18 And Peleg lived thirty years, and begat Reu:
GENESIS 10:25 And unto Eber were born two sons: the name of one [was] Peleg; for in his days was the earth divided; and his brother's name [was] Joktan.

God finished the Heavenly Salvation of 1290, and God repents of this positions because he had to take the entire "144,000 of Benjamin" in order to do that, and he also had to appoint Christ as a "High Priest/Melchisedek". However, God is not finished with the "144,000 ... which are all the tribes, the "Body of Christ, which is the 144,000 of Benjamin and the 144,000 of Joseph (Star Wormwood) ............. So God establishes the Earth's Moon to represent the "12,000 of Joseph" or the "About 30" that overtakes the 144,000 of Benjamin. That is how God repented and in order to complete that Melchisedek had to die when the 1290 were taken, and a figure of 1260 is produced when you take away "about thirty from Eber", as a reference to the Earth's Moon, the "Month of Healing for the Nations", that is revealed when the 144,000 of Benjamin is completed. (paraphrasing 1Chronicles 5:1, the 144,000 of Reuben defiled God's Heaven, when God took the 144,000 of Benjamin to complete the first branch of the Heavenly Salvation program, but the Genealogy of the 144,000 of Benjamin does not go to Joseph, the blessing/birthright eventually goes to Joseph. When God created the Homosapien, the first batch of 1290 from Benjamin was already saved, before time as we know it began).

So When does the Gospel record that God appointed Moses as a High Priest in order to die, to save the second batch of souls?

EXODUS 2:12 And he looked this way and that way, and when he saw that [there was] no man, he slew the Egyptian, and hid him in the sand.
REVELATION 11:8 And their dead bodies [shall lie] in the street of the great city, which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt, where also our Lord was crucified.

(we have to distance ourselves from the human waste, we see parading about the righteousness of acts of terrorism or their alleged roots, in order to briefly lift up the Old Testament as the place of the Lord) Moses was a representation of the 144,000 of Reuben just like Christ was a representation of the 144,000 of Reuben, and Christ had to die to complete the 1290. Moses had to die as a "High Priest" over Egypt to complete the 1335, the next batch of Heavenly Salvation, because God appointed him to identify with the 144,000 of Reuben ............ which God placed into the Earth at the time of Moses's crucifixion and death, when God did that he had taken 1335 Souls from the 144,000 of Benjamin. ............. God repents from this position because the judgment of the 144,000 is not completed, by having Moses go on to live for 120 Years, thus satisfying the language of Judges 20:31, that says the 144,000 of Benjamin was repented of by "about thirty" ............... a figure linking the Earth's Moon of Joseph's 12,000 which is about 30 years to the completion of the 144,000 which happens at the end of time. (Moses could not deliver the Hebrews out of Egypt until God finished the judgment of the 1335 Souls by casting the 144,000 of Reuben into the Earth, at Moses's crucifixion ............ at the end of Moses 120th year, God simply takes Moses, and leaves him in the Earth).

So What did Jesus accomplish by coming as a "Son of Man", concluding with his crucifixion?

MATTHEW 3:11 I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and [with] fire:
MATTHEW 12:31 Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy [against] the [Holy] Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men.
MATTHEW 27:3 Then Judas, which had betrayed him, when he saw that he was condemned, repented himself, and brought again the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and elders,

Jesus did not come as a "High Priest", or as Melchisedek, because this would mean automatically the 144,000 of Benjamin was completed. Instead, Jesus has to die, he has to be crucified in order to return the 144,000 of Reuben. God had placed into the earth when Moses was originally crucified, when he had to step down as the Pharoah of Egypt. When Jesus is crucified and 1600 Souls are saved from the 144,000 of Benjamin, and the 144,000 of Reuben are returned to God. God continues to repent of this position, and uses Judas to give the "about 30" shekels of the 12,000 of Joseph which is "about 30", to the Church of Christ. Instead of repenting and acknowledging that the Earth's Moon is not time to transform, they throw the money back at Judas, and quickly put him to death, so as to concealed what happened, but what happened had leaked.

So When does Jesus finally return as a "High Priest" to claim the 144,000 of Benjamin ... ... ... ... and when does Jesus kill Moses to return the 144,000 of Reuben that has been place in the Earth since his Birth, to complete the 1775 Souls of the 144,000 of Benjamin?

1. (This Question is worth more the putting down a few thousands in a day walk or a night walk) Does Jesus claim the Body of Moses when the 12 Hours begins or when the 12 Hours ends?

Luke 2:42-43, says the 144,000 Body of Benjamin is revealed that is taken up with the saints, because the 144,000 of Joseph is not in view ............. John 7:22-23, says that this is the circumcision of Moses, because God appoints Moses as a "High Priest", to reconcile the "Marriage by Fire" and the "Sacrifice by Fire" at the end of time involving Nuclear Weapons.

2. Does Jesus Claim the Body of Moses when the "Three Days of Darkness Begins", since Moses has remained in the Heart of the Earth for the sake of Reuben, that is needed to complete Benjamin, and begin the final process to complete the 144,000 of Joseph?

1Thessalonians 5:1-2, says Jesus returns as a "High Priest", when the "times" of darkness begins. The "Half a Time" is not mentioned, therefore the "3 Days in the Heart of Darkness" of Matt 12:40 is in view, not the 12 Hours of Rev. 11:9 ................ it is for this reason that Rev. 11:9 says the bodies are not buried, simply because God allows a portion of Dan and Aaron to be killed, but God does not remove the Genetic Lines associated with Dan and Aaron as well as the other Genetic Line based tribes, and all human life outside the "Heart of Judah" at this time. Rev. 11:11 states, that the spirit of Star Wormwood comes down, to claim the bodies of the dead and to restore the bodies of the "Two Witnesses". The 12 Hours are disputed, that is why contradictory statement are made, this is to be done soon.

We have less then 22 days until Moses the Antichrist reaches 12,000 Days, or "about 30" of Joseph, and God begins to pour out the blessing, God does not repent anymore, or forever, of giving the blessing. (the level of force was better then the last time, there will be another 10 hour walk on friday or saturday this week, we talked about a tsunami, still no results yet, but at least we can perhaps destroy a few countries, based on the murder that is done, or otherwise the level of force that is done to the antichrist, whoever he is, we don't know) (if the 95% of human life on earth, truely will vanish soon, but if this is judged not to be important then they are simply blindsided, therefore in our continual provisions to them, based on the force, we should be with the nightly walks within 2 to three days after this week, to be consistent, but not over bearing).

Ben Masada
August 4th, 2015, 11:10 PM
I am not doing anything wrong. You are basing your whole beliefs on Paul being a liar, a homosexual, and a con man. That is what you have said about Paul and why you will not believe him.

You do not understand what an ad hominem is. A personal insult, and a personal insult is what a poster says about another. Any thing against the religion of another is not considered an ad hominem; unless it is said with verbal indication that a poster means to offender another. I have nothing personal against you and you have for more than several times offended me with verbal ad hominem.

Ben Masada
September 4th, 2015, 08:51 AM
The whole motif about Melchizedek originated in the proverb "After the Order of Melchizedek." If you read Psalm 110:4, the Lord has sworn and will not repent; you are a priest forever "After the order of Melchizedek." David was not from the Tribe of Levi wherefrom priests were made after the Order of Aaron. Since the Lord had sworn to make of David a priest forever, a proverb had been formed because he could not be after the order of Aaron. Hence, after the order of Melchizedek but only to distinguish his priesthood from the Order of Aaron. Hence, after the order of Melchizedek. Absolutely nothing to do with the pagan priest of the Canaanites who just happened to be called Melchizedek.

Why King David would be a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek if he died? Because he was only the type pointing to the archetype in his People of Judah that would be to the Lord a kingdom of priests and a Holy nation. (Exod. 19:6) So, what the Lord really sworn was that in David, his Tribe of Judah would be a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek. David died alright but Judah has remained as a People before the Lord forever. (Jer. 31:36)

Bottom line is that, "After the Order of Melchizedek" was only a proverb to distinguish from after the order of Aaron which
was what the Tribe of David could not be.

RBBI
September 4th, 2015, 10:13 AM
@ nonanomanon......WHERE are you getting all this stuff???

God's Truth
September 4th, 2015, 10:50 AM
You do not understand what an ad hominem is. A personal insult, and a personal insult is what a poster says about another. Any thing against the religion of another is not considered an ad hominem; unless it is said with verbal indication that a poster means to offender another. I have nothing personal against you and you have for more than several times offended me with verbal ad hominem.

What you said here is an illogical defense for slandering the Apostle Paul.

Apple7
September 4th, 2015, 08:49 PM
An old article on this issue that I found handled the subject very well, despite its writer:

http://www.bibletools.org/index.cfm/fuseaction/Library.sr/CT/HWA/k/745/Mystery-Melchizedek-Solved.htm

The Mystery of Melchizedek Solved!

by Herbert W. Armstrong (1892-1986)
1972


FEW MYSTERIES of the Bible have attracted more interest than the mystery of the identity of Melchizedek. Who is he?

You will read in Hebrews 6:19-20 that Jesus Christ, after His resurrection, is High Priest "after the order of Melchizedek." The plainer English of the Moffatt translation words it: ". . with the rank of" that is, equal status with "Melchizedek."

Melchizedek Was God's Priest


First, notice from both Old and New Testaments that the man of mystery, Melchizedek, was a priest of the Most High God. Turn 'low to the account in Genesis 14. During the war between a number of ancient city-states in Canaan and Mesopotamia, Abraham's nephew Lot had been captured. He and his family and goods were carted off.

One of their number escaped and brought the news to Abraham, who armed 318 of his own servants and pursued the invaders to what was later named Dan and beyond. Abraham rescued Lot and his family and returned them safely to the Canaanite cities.

On Abraham's return a man of mystery bursts upon the scene. Abraham was ministered to by Melchizedek.

Here is the account:

"And Melchizedek king of Salem brought out bread and wine; he was priest of God Most High. And he [Melchizedek] blessed him [Abraham] and said, 'Blessed be Abram by God Most High, maker of heaven and earth; and blessed be God Most High, who has delivered your enemies into your hand!' And Abram gave him [Melchizedek] a tenth of everything" that is, a tithe of all, for a tithe means a tenth (Genesis 14:18-20, RSV).

Notice that Melchizedek was king of Salem. That is the city of Jerusalem. "Salem" comes from the Hebrew word meaning "peace." That would make Melchizedek the "King of Peace" (Hebrews 7:2). The Hebrew name Melchizedek itself means "King of Righteousness" (Hebrews 7:2). The same individual is mentioned in Psalm 110:4. Speaking prophetically of Christ, David stated: "The Eternal hath sworn, and will not repent, Thou art a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek." This verse is quoted again in Hebrews 5:6, 10.

Before we turn to Hebrews for the identification of Melchizedek, remember that this mystery figure is a mystery only to us. Abraham and the King of wicked Sodom knew exactly who he was. They must have seen him before. He could not have been a Canaanite, for they were steeped in pagan customs. And furthermore Canaan was a descendant of Ham, whereas God basically chose the descendants of Shem to accomplish His work.

Then who is the mystery man Melchizedek?

One other hint before we proceed. The land of Canaan from ancient time, before the days of Moses, was known among the Gentiles as "the divine land" the Holy land" the land of the place of worship!" Why? Was there someone in the Holy Land who was divine, holy, worthy of worship?

The Mystery Clears


Coming to Hebrews 7, we find Melchizedek identified:

"For this Melchizedek, king of Salem, priest of the most high God, who met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings, and blessed him; to whom also Abraham gave a tenth part of all; first being by interpretation King of righteousness, and after that also King of Salem, which is, King of peace" (Hebrews 7:1-2).

Since God names individuals what they are, that, then is what this man is.. "King of Righteousness."

Think of it! King of Righteousness.

Jesus Himself said: "There is none good but one, that is, God" (Matthew 19:17). Human self-righteousness is, before God, as filthy rags. None can be righteous but God—or one made righteous by God's power—Christ in a person! And certainly none but One of the Godhead the divine Kingdom of God would be King of Righteousness. Such an expression, applied to any but God, would be blasphemous. Why?

Righteousness is obedience to God's Law. Since God made all laws (James 4:12), He is Supreme Ruler or King. He determines what righteousness is. "All thy commandments are righteousness" (Psalm 119:172). When speaking of one of the points of that Law, Jesus placed Himself superior to it. He is Lord of the Sabbath (Mark 2:28). No man is Lord or King over God's Law. Only God could be! All human beings have sinned and broken that Law of righteousness (Romans 3:23).

To continue with Hebrews 7. Note, too, that this man was King of peace. "Salem" from which Jerusalem was named means "peace." And remember, Jesus is called the Prince of peace! No human being could be King of Peace. Men know not the way of peace. Read Romans 3:10 and 17: "There is none righteous, no, not one.... And the way of peace have they not known."

Observe further: Melchizedek was "without mother, without father, without descent," or as the Phillips translation renders it: "He had no father or mother and no family tree." He was not born as human beings are. He was without father and mother. This does not mean that Melchizedek's records of birth were lost. Without such records human priests could not serve (Ezra 2:62). But here Melchizedek had no genealogy. He must not have been an ordinary mortal. He had no descent or pedigree from another, but was self-existent. Notice Paul's own inspired interpretation of this fact: "Having neither beginning of days, nor end of life" (Hebrews 7:3). Therefore He has always existed from eternity! He was not even created, like angels. But He is now eternally self-existing. And that is true only of GOD deity, not humanity!

Not the Father Nor the Holy Spirit


Yet Melchizedek cannot be God the Father. He was the "priest of that Most High God." Scripture says no man has ever seen the Father (John 1:18, 5:37), but Abraham saw Melchizedek. He cannot be God the Father, but rather, "made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually" (Hebrews 7:3).

And there it is! In the days of Abraham, He was not the Son of God, for He had not yet been born of the virgin Mary but He was made like unto the Son of God in His manifestation to the ancients.

Notice again: Melchizedek, this scripture reveals, abides that is, remains permanently, continually, a priest. God the Father is not the Priest of God, but Christ the Son is! Yet, in the days when the Apostle Paul lived and wrote, shortly after Jesus ascended to heaven as High Priest, the scripture states that even then Melchizedek "abideth "—which means does now abide—"a priest continually." The Moffatt translation states it: "continues to be priest permanently" even while Jesus Christ is High Priest!

And notice that the order of Christ's Priesthood is named after Melchizedek. It is the High Priest's name that is placed upon an order just as Aaron's name was upon the Aaronic priesthood. Thus Melchizedek was then High Priest, in Paul's day, and even now, and He will rule forever! And at the same time Christ was, is today, and shall be forever High Priest!

Are there two High Priests'? No! Impossible! The conclusion is inescapable. Contrary to many cherished man-thought-out ideas, Melchizedek and Christ are one and the same! Some people have stumbled on the statement that Melchizedek has no "end of life." They contend that since Christ died, He had an end of life! If that be true then Christ is still dead! But Christ is not dead. He is alive. It was not possible for Christ to be held by death (Acts 2:24). Melchizedek would never have fulfilled His office of High Priest if He had not died for the sins of the people and risen again. It is the function of the High Priest to lead the way to salvation.

Indeed, Jesus Christ is the author and finisher of our salvation (Hebrews 5:9; 12:2). He is "called of God an high priest after the order of Melchizedek" (Hebrews 5:10).

And no wonder. Melchizedek and Christ are one and the same Person!

:up:

RevTestament
September 4th, 2015, 10:14 PM
:up:

Nope. Wrong. Melchizedek was "the king of Salem" which was Jerusalem before being so named. Hebrews says he was made like unto the Son of God. What do people not understand about "like?" Why do they think God does not know what that word means? Jesus didn't say He was one like unto the Son of man. He said He was the Son of man. Just fyi, Moses was also a high priest, and no one is going to get away with saying he was Jesus - a type of Jesus in many ways, but not Jesus.

daqq
September 5th, 2015, 06:17 AM
I don't know, if you ask me, where you guys got this idea from to define whom among the Jews confessed to believe in bodily resurrection and who didn't. Daqq, no Jew in Israel would confess to believe in bodily resurrection; and if you ask me, Jews of then and of today, except of the time of the witches because they also had to make a living, hence the witch of Endor of the time of king Saul. You guys are confusing literal bodily resurrection with metaphorical resurrection which is the return from the graves of the nation and back to the Land of Israel. That's the resurrection of the
"Dry Bones" quoted in the prophecy of Ezekiel in 37:12.

The point is that, according to Isa. 53:8,9 when Jews are forced into exile it is as if they have been cut off from the land of the living aka the Land of Israel and graves are assigned to them among the nations. Now, for the metaphorical resurrection of Ezek. 37:12, the Lord opens up those graves and brings them back to the Land of Israel. That's all folks! Nothing miraculous to the truth. Then Paul came and added the resurrection doctrine to make it literal and to mess up with the Theology of Judaism. (II Tim. 2:8)

You appear to be lumping me with the rest of mainstream Christianity. Where did I say bodily resurrection as you appear to mean it in the sense of a physical body? Surely you have read how Moshe and Eliyahu appeared in glory with Yeshua in the holy mount? That was before the resurrection of Yeshua. And how is it that Moshe was then in the land if he appeared in glory with Yeshua in the holy mount before the resurrection of Yeshua? And again, surely you have read also where Yeshua says to the Tsaddukim, "In the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of Elohim in heaven. But as touching the resurrection of the dead, have you not read that which was spoken to you of Elohim, saying, "I am Elohey Abraham, and Elohey Yitschak, and Elohey Yakob"? He is not Elohim of the dead but of the living." (And the multitude were astonished at his doctrine; and for very good reason if one understands what he said). :)

jamie
September 5th, 2015, 07:12 AM
Just fyi, Moses was also a high priest...


Only the high priest went behind the veil on Yom Kippur and there was only one high priest.

Scripture says that Malkiy Tsedeq is the King of Righteousness who blessed Abraham.


Now beyond all contradiction the lesser is blessed by the better. Here mortal men receive tithes, but there he receives them, of whom it is witnessed that he lives. (Hebrews 7:7-8 NKJV)

The word "lives" is present tense.

oatmeal
September 5th, 2015, 07:30 AM
Mel was an individual who chose to serve God.

He had no genealogy recorded in scripture.

As Jesus pointed out to the religious elite who were biological progeny of Abraham, being the progeny of Abraham does not a believer make.

John 8:37,39-40

I know that ye are Abraham's seed; but ye seek to kill me, because my word hath no place in you.

They 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.

But now ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the truth, which I have heard of God: this did not Abraham.

Mel's ancestorage does not determine his standing with God.

Even as our parents, our ancestors, our genealogy does not determine our standing with God.

Mel was a believer by his own choice.

Even as we are believers solely by our own choice.

No one, no one, no human needs a particular heritage, nationality, geographic location or any other human method of measuring greatness to seek and to serve God.

Believe God, put God first, keep God first and God will see to it that your desire to serve God well shall be fulfilled, even as He did for Mel

Abraham tithed of his stuff to Melchizedek because Melchizedek was the greater of the two for it was Melchizedek that was the priest of the most high God

Genesis 14:18

And Melchizedek king of Salem brought forth bread and wine: and he was the priest of the most high God.

Therefore Mel blessed Abram as a action of Mel's priestly duties to a believer.

Genesis 14:19

And he blessed him, and said, Blessed be Abram of the most high God, possessor of heaven and earth:

And in response, Abram gave tithes of all to Melchizedek.

Genesis 14:20

And blessed be the most high God, which hath delivered thine enemies into thy hand. And he gave him tithes of all.

That may help clarify the issue of who was who.

The Amplified version should be noted.

Melchizedek king of Salem [later called Jerusalem] brought out bread and wine [for their nourishment];

he was the priest of God Most High,

And he blessed him and said, Blessed (favored with blessings, made blissful, joyful) be Abram by God Most High,

Possessor and Maker of heaven and earth,

Who has given your foes into your hand!

And [Abram] gave him a tenth of all [he had taken].

Caino
September 5th, 2015, 07:54 AM
Melchizedek was an incarnate celestial being, a priest of Salem who established a monotheistic community as the forerunner of Christ.

Interplanner
September 5th, 2015, 07:55 AM
He was Christ.

daqq
September 5th, 2015, 09:31 AM
Just fyi, Moses was also a high priest, and no one is going to get away with saying he was Jesus - a type of Jesus in many ways, but not Jesus.


Only the high priest went behind the veil on Yom Kippur and there was only one high priest.

Ahron is nowhere called High Priest, (neither Kohen Gadol nor more properly haKohen haGadol). However Ahron the Priest did go behind the veil and the writer of Hebrews admonishes his readers likewise to do the same in the new supernal way through Messiah, now that he has opened up the way before us, (Hebrews 10:19-22) for Messiah has after all made us a kingdom of priests unto his God and our God. But to enter one will need to become wood of the olive tree kind, and one will need to buy gold having been tried in the fire, (from the Master, as he says in Revelation 3:18) for the Cherubim are olive wood and overlain with hammered pure gold tried in the fire. Psalm 99 states that Moshe is indeed a Kohen: if therefore he also is a Priest then who is of the higher order between Moshe or Ahron?

Psalm 99:6 KJV
6. Moses and Aaron among his priests, and Samuel among them that call upon his name; they called upon the Lord, and he answered them.

And who stood between the Father and the people at Mount Sinai as Priest between God and man? Such is the duty of the office of the one who is High Priest, that is, to "stand in gap" between God and man. This was Moshe:

Deuteronomy 5:1-6 KJV
1. And Moses called all Israel, and said unto them, Hear, O Israel, the statutes and judgments which I speak in your ears this day, that ye may learn them, and keep, and do them.
2. The Lord our God made a covenant with us in Horeb.
3. The Lord made not this covenant with our fathers, but with us, even us, who are all of us here alive this day.
4. The Lord talked with you face to face in the mount out of the midst of the fire,
5. ( I stood between the Lord and you at that time, to shew you the word of the Lord: for ye were afraid by reason of the fire, and went not up into the mount; ) saying,

And who anointed the Mishkan-Tabernacle with all its vessels, and the altar with all its vessels, and Ahron and his sons in their garments? This was Moshe, the man of Elohim, High Priest after the order of the Melki-Tzedek-Elohim priesthood. The line probably begins at Enosh, for it was in his days that men began to herald-preach-cry out in the Name of the Most High, (Genesis 4:26, and likewise Noach is the eighth herald or preacher of righteousness, 2 Peter 2:5). :)

Wick Stick
September 5th, 2015, 12:57 PM
The Truth About Melchizedek
Now, let us check Psalm 110:4, which in the KJV says, "The Lord has sworn and will not repent, you are a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek." This is a Christian gloss plagiarized by Paul and grossly forged by the Church in the 4th Century under the excuse of pious forgery.

Here is what Psalm 110:4 says in the originals in Hebrew: "The Lord has sworn and will not relent, you are a priest forever; a rightful king by My decree." As you can see, it has nothing to do with king Melchizedek, king of Salem, but rather to David in the type level of interpretation, which points to the archetype level of Israel, the seed of Abraham as a nation of priests and kings. (Exod. 19:6; Isa. 61:6) Obviously, only the High Priest of the Most High would produce a generation of priests and kings through Israel.
This can be disproved.

The site linked below contains images from the Dead Sea scrolls, manuscript 11Q13. The pictured manuscript is a Pesher on Psalms 110:4. This is provided online in partnership with the Israeli Antiquities Authority. According to the site:


This is a collection of “pesher” commentaries on verses from the Hebrew Bible. It focuses on Melchizedek, an enigmatic figure who is mentioned only twice in the Hebrew Bible: in Genesis 14:18–20 and in Psalm 110:4. Whereas the Bible describes him as a priest and a king, this text portrays him as a heavenly savior figure who will rescue the righteous at the final judgment.

The Dead Sea scrolls are dated from the 3rd century BCE to the 1st century CE, and are thought to be written by Essene Jews. This is published by a Jewish source; not a Christian one.

Do you see the problem?

"Melichizedek" in Psalms 110 cannot possibly be a 4th century Christian gloss, if 1st century Jews were already discussing Melichizedek in relation to this verse.

http://www.deadseascrolls.org.il/explore-the-archive/manuscript/11Q13-1?locale=en_US

Jarrod

jamie
September 5th, 2015, 01:46 PM
Psalm 99 states that Moshe is indeed a Kohen: if therefore he also is a Priest then who is of the higher order between Moshe or Ahron?


Moses was a priest of the order of Aaron his brother.


Therefore, if perfection were through the Levitical priesthood (for under it the people received the law) what further need was there that another priest should rise according to the order of Melchizedek and not be called according to the order of Aaron?
(Hebrews 7:11 NKJV)

Wick Stick
September 5th, 2015, 02:20 PM
The whole motif about Melchizedek originated in the proverb "After the Order of Melchizedek." If you read Psalm 110:4, the Lord has sworn and will not repent; you are a priest forever "After the order of Melchizedek." David was not from the Tribe of Levi wherefrom priests were made after the Order of Aaron. Since the Lord had sworn to make of David a priest forever, a proverb had been formed because he could not be after the order of Aaron. Hence, after the order of Melchizedek but only to distinguish his priesthood from the Order of Aaron. Hence, after the order of Melchizedek. Absolutely nothing to do with the pagan priest of the Canaanites who just happened to be called Melchizedek.

Why King David would be a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek if he died? Because he was only the type pointing to the archetype in his People of Judah that would be to the Lord a kingdom of priests and a Holy nation. (Exod. 19:6) So, what the Lord really sworn was that in David, his Tribe of Judah would be a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek. David died alright but Judah has remained as a People before the Lord forever. (Jer. 31:36)

Bottom line is that, "After the Order of Melchizedek" was only a proverb to distinguish from after the order of Aaron which
was what the Tribe of David could not be.
My understanding is that King David accorded himself priestly privileges. He is recorded as eating the shewbread, entering the Holy place, and interceding on behalf of the nation at various points.

This is common-sensical... a king is a representative of his city or tribe, so he ought to be able to negotiate or intercede on their behalf.

The "order of Melchizedek" then is an order of priesthood outside the order of Aaron (as you also said) which is recognized as legitimate.

The sole requirement to be part of the order of Melchizedek is that one is the king of Jerusalem.

The New Testament (Hebrews) uses this as an argument for Jesus' legitimacy as a priest.

Jarrod

daqq
September 5th, 2015, 03:12 PM
Moses was a priest of the order of Aaron his brother.
Therefore, if perfection were through the Levitical priesthood (for under it the people received the law) what further need was there that another priest should rise according to the order of Melchizedek and not be called according to the order of Aaron?
(Hebrews 7:11 NKJV)

Not so and this is why Yhoshua is placed BEFORE Eleazar and the people:

Numbers 27:18-23 KJV
18. And the Lord said unto Moses, Take thee Joshua the son of Nun, a man in whom is the spirit, and lay thine hand upon him;
19. And set him before Eleazar the priest, and before all the congregation; and give him a charge in their sight.
20. And thou shalt put some of thine honour upon him, that all the congregation of the children of Israel may be obedient.
21. And he shall stand before Eleazar the priest, who shall ask counsel for him after the judgment of Urim before the Lord: at his word shall they go out, and at his word they shall come in, both he, and all the children of Israel with him, even all the congregation.
22. And Moses did as the Lord commanded him: and he took Joshua, and set him before Eleazar the priest, and before all the congregation:
23. And he laid his hands upon him, and gave him a charge, as the Lord commanded by the hand of Moses.

Also YHWH gave Yhoshua the charge:

Deuteronomy 31:14-15 KJV
14. And the Lord said unto Moses, Behold, thy days approach that thou must die: call Joshua, and present yourselves in the tabernacle of the congregation, that I may give him a charge. And Moses And Joshua went, and presented themselves in the tabernacle of the congregation.
15. And the Lord appeared in the tabernacle in a pillar of a cloud: and the pillar of the cloud stood over the door of the tabernacle.

And Yhoshua the son of Perpetuity was full of the Spirit of Wisdom:

Deuteronomy 34:8-9 KJV
8. And the children of Israel wept for Moses in the plains of Moab thirty days: so the days of weeping and mourning for Moses were ended.
9. And Joshua the son of Nun was full of the spirit of wisdom; for Moses had laid his hands upon him: and the children of Israel hearkened unto him, and did as the Lord commanded Moses.

And therefore it is Yhoshua bin Nun whom YHWH commands concerning the setting up of the sanctuary cities and the release at the death of the High Priest, for the next Kohen Gadol after Moshe was Yhoshua whom Moshe had laid his hands upon and given the charge, setting him BEFORE Eleazar and the congregation:

Joshua 20:1-2, 6 KJV
1. The Lord also spake unto Joshua, saying,
2. Speak to the children of Israel, saying, Appoint out for you cities of refuge, whereof I spake unto you by the hand of Moses:
6. And he shall dwell in that city, until he stand before the congregation for judgment, and until the death of the high priest that shall be in those days: then shall the slayer return, and come unto his own city, and unto his own house, unto the city from whence he fled.

And therefore this Yhoshua is NOT Jeshua though he also was a Kohen Gadol:

Zechariah 3:1-2 KJV
1. And he shewed me Joshua the high priest standing before the angel of the Lord, and Satan standing at his right hand to resist him.
2. And the Lord said unto Satan, The Lord rebuke thee, O Satan; even the Lord that hath chosen Jerusalem rebuke thee: is not this a brand plucked out of the fire?

The above vision concerns the event recorded in Joshua 5:13-15

Joshua 5:15-13 KJV
13. And it came to pass, when Joshua was by Jericho, that he lifted up his eyes and looked, and, behold, there stood a man over against him with his sword drawn in his hand: and Joshua went unto him, and said unto him, Art thou for us, or for our adversaries?
14. And he said, Nay; but as captain of the host of the Lord [Sar tsaba YHWH, Daniel 8:11] am I now come. And Joshua fell on his face to the earth, and did worship, and said unto him, What saith my lord unto his servant?
15. And the captain of the Lord's host said unto Joshua, Loose thy shoe from off thy foot; for the place whereon thou standest is holy. And Joshua did so.

Miykael rebukes the Satan concerning "the Body of Moshe", according to the Jude passage quoted below, which is not the physical body of Moshe but the TaNaK Body of all the faithful until the advent of Messiah and the transition into "the Body of Messiah" in the Brit Chadashah writings:

Jude 1:9 KJV
9. Yet Michael the archangel, when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of Moses, durst not bring against him a railing accusation, but said, The Lord rebuke thee.

The quote from Jude 1:9 is from Zkaryah 3:2 above and concerns not the physical body of Moshe, as most assume, but rather concerns all of the "body of Moshe" throughout all of the Tanach time period until the advent of Messiah, which Tanach body was known as the body of Moshe, (and not the "body of Ahron" because Moshe is of the greater order of Priesthood and therefore Yhoshua also is the second Kohen Gadol even though he was of Ephraim). It is a hidden priesthood. Moshe is the first Kohen Gadol after the order of Melki-Tzedek to hold office under the giving of the Torah, he is the greater even though he is the younger of he and Ahron because he is Priest after the order of Melki-Tzedek. This is likewise revealed in the fact that Moshe married into the line through Yithrow Raguel by his daughter Tsipporah, (one of "seven little birdies" [of the clean kind] :)).

Body of Moshe ~ TaNaK Body of the Saints
Body of Messiah ~ Brit Chadashah Body of the Saints

RevTestament
September 5th, 2015, 10:57 PM
Ahron is nowhere called High Priest, (neither Kohen Gadol nor more properly haKohen haGadol). However Ahron the Priest did go behind the veil and the writer of Hebrews admonishes his readers likewise to do the same in the new supernal way through Messiah, now that he has opened up the way before us, (Hebrews 10:19-22) for Messiah has after all made us a kingdom of priests unto his God and our God.


Hebrews 5: 1 For every high priest taken from among men is ordained for men in things pertaining to God, that he may offer both gifts and sacrifices for sins:

2 Who can have compassion on the ignorant, and on them that are out of the way; for that he himself also is compassed with infirmity.

3 And by reason hereof he ought, as for the people, so also for himself, to offer for sins.

4 And no man taketh this honour unto himself, but he that is called of God, as was Aaron.

RevTestament
September 5th, 2015, 11:03 PM
Not so and this is why Yhoshua is placed BEFORE Eleazar and the people:

Numbers 27:18-23 KJV
18. And the Lord said unto Moses, Take thee Joshua the son of Nun, a man in whom is the spirit, and lay thine hand upon him;
19. And set him before Eleazar the priest, and before all the congregation; and give him a charge in their sight.
20. And thou shalt put some of thine honour upon him, that all the congregation of the children of Israel may be obedient.
21. And he shall stand before Eleazar the priest, who shall ask counsel for him after the judgment of Urim before the Lord: at his word shall they go out, and at his word they shall come in, both he, and all the children of Israel with him, even all the congregation.
22. And Moses did as the Lord commanded him: and he took Joshua, and set him before Eleazar the priest, and before all the congregation:
23. And he laid his hands upon him, and gave him a charge, as the Lord commanded by the hand of Moses.

Also YHWH gave Yhoshua the charge:

Deuteronomy 31:14-15 KJV
14. And the Lord said unto Moses, Behold, thy days approach that thou must die: call Joshua, and present yourselves in the tabernacle of the congregation, that I may give him a charge. And Moses And Joshua went, and presented themselves in the tabernacle of the congregation.
15. And the Lord appeared in the tabernacle in a pillar of a cloud: and the pillar of the cloud stood over the door of the tabernacle.

And Yhoshua the son of Perpetuity was full of the Spirit of Wisdom:

Deuteronomy 34:8-9 KJV
8. And the children of Israel wept for Moses in the plains of Moab thirty days: so the days of weeping and mourning for Moses were ended.
9. And Joshua the son of Nun was full of the spirit of wisdom; for Moses had laid his hands upon him: and the children of Israel hearkened unto him, and did as the Lord commanded Moses.

And therefore it is Yhoshua bin Nun whom YHWH commands concerning the setting up of the sanctuary cities and the release at the death of the High Priest, for the next Kohen Gadol after Moshe was Yhoshua whom Moshe had laid his hands upon and given the charge, setting him BEFORE Eleazar and the congregation:

Joshua 20:1-2, 6 KJV
1. The Lord also spake unto Joshua, saying,
2. Speak to the children of Israel, saying, Appoint out for you cities of refuge, whereof I spake unto you by the hand of Moses:
6. And he shall dwell in that city, until he stand before the congregation for judgment, and until the death of the high priest that shall be in those days: then shall the slayer return, and come unto his own city, and unto his own house, unto the city from whence he fled.

And therefore this Yhoshua is NOT Jeshua though he also was a Kohen Gadol:

Zechariah 3:1-2 KJV
1. And he shewed me Joshua the high priest standing before the angel of the Lord, and Satan standing at his right hand to resist him.
2. And the Lord said unto Satan, The Lord rebuke thee, O Satan; even the Lord that hath chosen Jerusalem rebuke thee: is not this a brand plucked out of the fire?

The above vision concerns the event recorded in Joshua 5:13-15

Joshua 5:15-13 KJV
13. And it came to pass, when Joshua was by Jericho, that he lifted up his eyes and looked, and, behold, there stood a man over against him with his sword drawn in his hand: and Joshua went unto him, and said unto him, Art thou for us, or for our adversaries?
14. And he said, Nay; but as captain of the host of the Lord [Sar tsaba YHWH, Daniel 8:11] am I now come. And Joshua fell on his face to the earth, and did worship, and said unto him, What saith my lord unto his servant?
15. And the captain of the Lord's host said unto Joshua, Loose thy shoe from off thy foot; for the place whereon thou standest is holy. And Joshua did so.

Miykael rebukes the Satan concerning "the Body of Moshe", according to the Jude passage quoted below, which is not the physical body of Moshe but the TaNaK Body of all the faithful until the advent of Messiah and the transition into "the Body of Messiah" in the Brit Chadashah writings:

Jude 1:9 KJV
9. Yet Michael the archangel, when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of Moses, durst not bring against him a railing accusation, but said, The Lord rebuke thee.

The quote from Jude 1:9 is from Zkaryah 3:2 above and concerns not the physical body of Moshe, as most assume, but rather concerns all of the "body of Moshe" throughout all of the Tanach time period until the advent of Messiah, which Tanach body was known as the body of Moshe, (and not the "body of Ahron" because Moshe is of the greater order of Priesthood and therefore Yhoshua also is the second Kohen Gadol even though he was of Ephraim). It is a hidden priesthood. Moshe is the first Kohen Gadol after the order of Melki-Tzedek to hold office under the giving of the Torah, he is the greater even though he is the younger of he and Ahron because he is Priest after the order of Melki-Tzedek. This is likewise revealed in the fact that Moshe married into the line through Yithrow Raguel by his daughter Tsipporah, (one of "seven little birdies" [of the clean kind] :)).

Body of Moshe ~ TaNaK Body of the Saints
Body of Messiah ~ Brit Chadashah Body of the Saints
Moshe is not the first after the order of Melke-Tzedek though. He received it from Jethro. Do you agree?

daqq
September 6th, 2015, 03:19 AM
Moshe is not the first after the order of Melke-Tzedek though. He received it from Jethro. Do you agree?

Yes, by way of marriage to Tsipporah, (a clean bird) one of the seven daughters of Yithrow Raguel, ("His Excellency" Raguel). Yithrow or Jethro is probably is not a name but rather a title, "His Excellency", Raguel. Moshe is the first to hold the office under the giving of Torah, (and the Torah was given through the instrumentality of the holy Angels). Yithrow Raguel was a Priest before the Torah was given at Mount Sinai.

Grosnick Marowbe
September 6th, 2015, 04:05 AM
Daqq are you Jewish, Christian, of otherwise? What belief
do you represent?

daqq
September 6th, 2015, 04:07 AM
This can be disproved.

The site linked below contains images from the Dead Sea scrolls, manuscript 11Q13. The pictured manuscript is a Pesher on Psalms 110:4. This is provided online in partnership with the Israeli Antiquities Authority. According to the site:



The Dead Sea scrolls are dated from the 3rd century BCE to the 1st century CE, and are thought to be written by Essene Jews. This is published by a Jewish source; not a Christian one.

Do you see the problem?

"Melichizedek" in Psalms 110 cannot possibly be a 4th century Christian gloss, if 1st century Jews were already discussing Melichizedek in relation to this verse.

http://www.deadseascrolls.org.il/explore-the-archive/manuscript/11Q13-1?locale=en_US

Jarrod

:thumb: Thanks for posting this. :)

RevTestament
September 6th, 2015, 10:56 AM
Yes, by way of marriage to Tsipporah, (a clean bird) one of the seven daughters of Yithrow Raguel, ("His Excellency" Raguel). Yithrow or Jethro is probably is not a name but rather a title, "His Excellency", Raguel. Moshe is the first to hold the office under the giving of Torah, (and the Torah was given through the instrumentality of the holy Angels). Yithrow Raguel was a Priest before the Torah was given at Mount Sinai.

Jethro had at least two titles. Kayaker and I actually went over this very subject. It appears at least one was inherited. He probably wasn't Midianite at all, but held a title inferring lordship of the Midianites through Gideon.

Ben Masada
September 7th, 2015, 03:07 AM
What you said here is an illogical defense for slandering the Apostle Paul.

What do you care, as long as I do not slander you? You can offend Moses all the way to the Bank. I'll have no reason to get upset.

Ben Masada
September 7th, 2015, 03:12 AM
Moses was a priest of the order of Aaron his brother.

Therefore, if perfection were through the Levitical priesthood (for under it the people received the law) what further need was there that another priest should rise according to the order of Melchizedek and not be called according to the order of Aaron?
(Hebrews 7:11 NKJV)

Hey Jamie! Cal hakavod lady! Go ahead honey and tell them. I agree with you.

Ben Masada
September 7th, 2015, 03:37 AM
1 - You appear to be lumping me with the rest of mainstream Christianity.
2 - Where did I say bodily resurrection as you appear to mean it in the sense of a physical body?
3 - Surely you have read how Moshe and Eliyahu appeared in glory with Yeshua in the holy mount? That was before the resurrection of Yeshua. And how is it that Moshe was then in the land if he appeared in glory with Yeshua in the holy mount before the resurrection of Yeshua? And again, surely you have read also where Yeshua says to the Tsaddukim, "In the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of Elohim in heaven. But as touching the resurrection of the dead, have you not read that which was spoken to you of Elohim, saying, "I am Elohey Abraham, and Elohey Yitschak, and Elohey Yakob"? He is not Elohim of the dead but of the living." (And the multitude were astonished at his doctrine; and for very good reason if one understands what he said). :)

1 - You are lumped up already with all the others. What are you trying to prove? Are you implying that Jesus did not resurrect physically? If so, how did he spend 40 days eating with his disciples?
(Acts 1:3)

2 - Please Daqq, stop it! All Christians believe in bodily resurrection.

Ben Masada
September 7th, 2015, 03:50 AM
1 - You appear to be lumping me with the rest of mainstream Christianity. Where did I say bodily resurrection as you appear to mean it in the sense of a physical body?
2 - Surely you have read how Moshe and Eliyahu appeared in glory with Yeshua in the holy mount? That was before the resurrection of Yeshua. And how is it that Moshe was then in the land if he appeared in glory with Yeshua in the holy mount before the resurrection of Yeshua? And again, surely you have read also where Yeshua says to the Tsaddukim, "In the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of Elohim in heaven. But as touching the resurrection of the dead, have you not read that which was spoken to you of Elohim, saying, "I am Elohey Abraham, and Elohey Yitschak, and Elohey Yakob"? He is not Elohim of the dead but of the living." (And the multitude were astonished at his doctrine; and for very good reason if one understands what he said). :)

1 - Como on Daqq, whom are you trying to fool? All Christians believe in bodily resurrection. If you don't, you will be denying all the four gospels plus the book of Acts and all the letters of Paul.

Ben Masada
September 7th, 2015, 04:09 AM
1 - You appear to be lumping me with the rest of mainstream Christianity. Where did I say bodily resurrection as you appear to mean it in the sense of a physical body?
2 - Surely you have read how Moshe and Eliyahu appeared in glory with Yeshua in the holy mount? That was before the resurrection of Yeshua. And how is it that Moshe was then in the land if he appeared in glory with Yeshua in the holy mount before the resurrection of Yeshua?
3 - And again, surely you have read also where Yeshua says to the Tsaddukim, "In the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of Elohim in heaven.
4 - But as touching the resurrection of the dead, have you not read that which was spoken to you of Elohim, saying, "I am Elohey Abraham, and Elohey Yitschak, and Elohey Yakob"? He is not Elohim of the dead but of the living." (And the multitude were astonished at his doctrine; and for very good reason if one understands what he said). :)

1 - Como on Daqq, whom are you trying to fool? All Christians believe in bodily resurrection. If you don't, you will be denying all the four gospels plus the book of Acts and all the letters of Paul.

2 - Are you talking about Jesus up on the Mount Tabor with his 3 disciples, Peter, John and James? You are definitely joking! The whole time they were up there, the disciples were slumbering and dreaming about seeing Jesus between Moses and Elijah. Every thing is possible in a dream, even for a cow to fly. Didn't you know that?

3 - No neither Jesus, nor the Sadducees or the Pharisees believed in bodily resurrection. The resurrection of Judaism is the metaphorical resurrection from the graves of the exile and back to the Land of Israel. That's what Jewish resurrection is. (Ezek. 37:12)

4 - Yes, Elohim is not a God of the dead but of the living. It has absolutely nothing to do with the Christian doctrine of resurrection. Paul made it very clear that he was the one who fabricated the idea that Jesus had resurrected. Read II Tim. 2:8. All according to his gospel as he said. It means that there was another gospel being preached at the time in whose agenda Jesus was not preached as the Messiah and that he had resurrected. Read it! It is all down in your own NT.

Ben Masada
September 7th, 2015, 04:45 AM
[quote]Abraham tithed of his stuff to Melchizedek because Melchizedek was the greater of the two for it was Melchizedek that was the priest of the most high God.

No, Abraham did not tithe Melchizedek, the Baal priest of the Canaanites. The origin of the Jewish tithe comes from Gen. 28:22 when Jacob had a dream in Bethel and promised the tithe of every thing to return to the Lord. To say that Abraham paid the tithe to a pagan priest of the Canaanites would be a dishonor to Abraham; let alone an act of idolatry. Abraham simply gave Melchizedek a random part of ten of the loot to pay for his hospitality. That's all.


Genesis 14:18 And Melchizedek king of Salem brought forth bread and wine:and he was the priest of the most high God.

Perhaps he was afraid that Abraham, returning from a war with 5 kings could take Jerusalem too, just as David did later.


Therefore Mel blessed Abram as a action of Mel's priestly duties to a believer.

Abraham a Canaanite believer of a pagan priest! Please, that's an act of idolatry.


Genesis 14:19 And he blessed him, and said, Blessed be Abram of the most high God possessor of heaven and earth.

See what I mean? Abraham was the one Priest of the Most High God who produced a Kingdom of priests and a Holy Nation from among his descendants in Israel. (Exod. 19:6)


That may help clarify the issue of who was who.

To Christians maybe who can look at this as open season to interpolate Jesus into the text.


he was the priest of God Most High,

Yes, he, Abraham who produced a nation of priest and kings. (Exod. 19:6)


And he blessed him and said, Blessed (favored with blessings, made blissful,) be Abram by God Most High.

The text almost says literally, Abraham, the Priest of the Most High. The Priest that brought about a kingdom of priests and a Holy Nation.(Exod. 19:6)

Ben Masada
September 7th, 2015, 06:24 AM
1 - My understanding is that King David accorded himself priestly privileges. He is recorded as eating the shewbread, entering the Holy place, and interceding on behalf of the nation at various points.

2 - This is common-sensical... a king is a representative of his city or tribe, so he ought to be able to negotiate or intercede on their behalf.

3 - The "order of Melchizedek" then is an order of priesthood outside the order of Aaron (as you also said) which is recognized as legitimate.

4 - The sole requirement to be part of the order of Melchizedek is that one is the king of Jerusalem.

5 - The New Testament (Hebrews) uses this as an argument for Jesus' legitimacy as a priest.

Jarrod

1 - The taken of the showbread by David and eating with his men was an act of "Pichuach Nephesh." I don't think that his title of Priest of the Most High after the order of Melchizedek had anything to do with that priestly freedom but with the fact that his Tribe would be chosen to be a Kingdom of priests and a Holy Nation. (Exod. 19:6) That's the same reference to Abraham a High Priest after the order of Melchizedek.

2 - Possibly but I don't see why.

3 - That stands the reason.

4 - Not necessarily but, if you are correct, Jesus lost his chance because he never became a king in Jerusalem. The opposite is rather true that in Jerusalem, he was arrested, taken to Court before Pilate and condemned to the cross.

5 - Illogical reference because of #4.

Ben Masada
September 7th, 2015, 06:29 AM
Deleted for doubly posting

Ben Masada
September 7th, 2015, 06:47 AM
Moshe is not the first after the order of Melke-Tzedek though. He received it from Jethro. Do you agree?

Absolutely not! Moshe was not a priest after the order of Melchizedek but after the order of Aaron. Moshe was from the Tribe of Levi. Even Jethro aka Reuel was a pagan priest of the Midianites. (Exod. 2:16) He couldn't even be said to be after the order of Melchizedek because he was not an Israelite. I High Priest after the Order of Melchizedek must have been an Israelite not from the Tribe of Levi. Any other Tribe but an Israelite. During the Hasmonian Dynasty, the head of the Government was a Zadokite from the Tribe of Levi. Therefore, he would accumulate both positions of King and High Priest. But he was a priest after the order of Aaron.

Wick Stick
September 7th, 2015, 03:59 PM
4 - Not necessarily but, if you are correct, Jesus lost his chance because he never became a king in Jerusalem. The opposite is rather true that in Jerusalem, he was arrested, taken to Court before Pilate and condemned to the cross.

5 - Illogical reference because of #4.
Are you quite sure of that? What are the requirements to become the legitimate king?

Davidic descent? The books of Matthew and Luke go to some lengths to establish this.

The main one would seem to be that they were anointed. But the gospels record an anointing.

Judging in the gates of the city? That's there too.

Presentation before the people and acclamation by the people? Palm Sunday.

Receiving a crown? Check. In fact, the trial and crucifixion as written show that the Romans apparently enacted a mock coronation and procession.

Jarrod

Ben Masada
September 8th, 2015, 01:15 AM
1 - Are you quite sure of that? What are the requirements to become the legitimate king?

2 - Davidic descent? The books of Matthew and Luke go to some lengths to establish this.

3 - The main one would seem to be that they were anointed. But the gospels record an anointing.

4 - Judging in the gates of the city? That's there too.

5 - Presentation before the people and acclamation by the people? Palm Sunday.

6 - Receiving a crown? Check. In fact, the trial and crucifixion as written show that the Romans apparently enacted a mock coronation and procession.

Jarrod

1 - First and foremost, to be of the lineage of David, and Jesus was only according to the gospel of Paul in II Tim. 2:8. Not good for two reasons: First, who was Paul? and second, the NT has exonerated Jesus from being of the lineage of David by denying his biological affiliation with Joseph was the one from the Tribe of Judah.

2 - Perhaps, do you mean the opposite? According to Mat. 1:18, Jesus' father was not Joseph and Joseph was the one from the lineage of David; God could not be.

3 - Whatever you mean by that, Prophet Habakkuk says that Israel was the anointed one of the Lord aka the Messiah. (Hab. 3:13)

4 - According to you or to the NT? If the NT where is the quote?

5 - That's the precise reason why Jesus was arrested and condemned to the cross on the charge of insurrection. INRI. (Luke 23:38)

6 - Now, you are making a joke of your own savior-to-be.

God's Truth
September 8th, 2015, 12:12 PM
What do you care, as long as I do not slander you? You can offend Moses all the way to the Bank. I'll have no reason to get upset.

I care if you slander the Word of God.

I care if you slander a person and bear false witness.

Ben Masada
September 8th, 2015, 10:50 PM
I care if you slander the Word of God.

I care if you slander a person and bear false witness.

You wish you could honor the Word of God as we, the Jews do.

daqq
September 9th, 2015, 10:23 AM
1 - You are lumped up already with all the others. What are you trying to prove? Are you implying that Jesus did not resurrect physically? If so, how did he spend 40 days eating with his disciples?
(Acts 1:3)

2 - Please Daqq, stop it! All Christians believe in bodily resurrection.


1 - Como on Daqq, whom are you trying to fool? All Christians believe in bodily resurrection. If you don't, you will be denying all the four gospels plus the book of Acts and all the letters of Paul.


1 - Como on Daqq, whom are you trying to fool? All Christians believe in bodily resurrection. If you don't, you will be denying all the four gospels plus the book of Acts and all the letters of Paul.

2 - Are you talking about Jesus up on the Mount Tabor with his 3 disciples, Peter, John and James? You are definitely joking! The whole time they were up there, the disciples were slumbering and dreaming about seeing Jesus between Moses and Elijah. Every thing is possible in a dream, even for a cow to fly. Didn't you know that?

3 - No neither Jesus, nor the Sadducees or the Pharisees believed in bodily resurrection. The resurrection of Judaism is the metaphorical resurrection from the graves of the exile and back to the Land of Israel. That's what Jewish resurrection is. (Ezek. 37:12)

4 - Yes, Elohim is not a God of the dead but of the living. It has absolutely nothing to do with the Christian doctrine of resurrection. Paul made it very clear that he was the one who fabricated the idea that Jesus had resurrected. Read II Tim. 2:8. All according to his gospel as he said. It means that there was another gospel being preached at the time in whose agenda Jesus was not preached as the Messiah and that he had resurrected. Read it! It is all down in your own NT.

You may reject the mainstream idea but you still see resurrection in the sense of a physical body and it is therefore you who is really no different from most of mainstream Christianity, even though you reject the idea of a physical bodily resurrection, because you still believe that is what the apostolic writings are speaking about on this subject. It is you that has lumped yourself with the carnal minded while Yeshua clearly says that the flesh profits you nothing. There are different kinds of flesh and different kinds of bodies. Likewise there are two temples even in the apostolic writings and those two temples are the individual body-temple and the great congregation body-temple of Messiah which was formerly the Tanach body of Moshe, (which Tanach body of the saints was folded into Messiah at Golgotha in Matthew 27:51-53).

Which body-temple does Yeshua speak of in the following passage?

John 2:13-21
13. And the Passover of the Jews was at hand, and Yeshua went up to Yerushalaim.
14. And found in the temple those that sold oxen and sheep and doves, and the changers of money sitting:
15. And when he had made a scourge of small cords, he drove them all out of the temple, and the sheep, and the oxen; and poured out the money of the changers, and overthrew the tables;
16. And said unto them that sold doves, Take these things hence; make not the house of my Father an house of merchandise!
17. And his talmidim remembered that it was written, The tkelet-zeal of thine house hath eaten me up.
18. Then answered the Jews and said unto him, What sign show you unto us, seeing that you do these things?
19. Yeshua answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up!
20. Then said the Jews, Forty and six years was this temple in building, and wilt you rear it up in three days?
21. But he spake of the temple of his body.

If you say Yeshua speaks of raising his own physical body in the above passage then you are no different than most of the mainstream and you neither understand nor believe his doctrine because you see it as carnal in meaning just as those whom you lump me together with.

1 Kings 8:10-14
10. And it came to pass, when the priests were come out of the holy place, that the cloud filled the house of YHWH,
11. So that the priests could not stand to minister because of the cloud: for the glory of YHWH had filled the house of YHWH.
12. Then spoke Sholomoh, YHWH has said that He would dwell in the `araphel.
13. I have surely built thee an house to dwell in, a settled place for thee to abide olamim.
14. And the king turned his countenance about, and blessed all the congregation of Yisrael, and all the congregation of Yisrael stood:

Check the record and perhaps you might notice that king Solomon never turns himself back to face the temple made with the hands of men, for he knows that the great congregation are the people-temple of the Creator, and this is likewise how Yeshua speaks at the same location and of the same congregation people-temple in John 2:19-21.

RBBI
September 9th, 2015, 11:17 AM
AMEN

God's Truth
September 9th, 2015, 08:37 PM
You wish you could honor the Word of God as we, the Jews do.

The Jews do not honor God.

John 5:23 that all may honor the Son just as they honor the Father. Whoever does not honor the Son does not honor the Father, who sent him.

Ben Masada
September 10th, 2015, 07:27 AM
The Jews do not honor God.

John 5:23 that all may honor the Son just as they honor the Father. Whoever does not honor the Son does not honor the Father, who sent him.

This post of yours above is for the Greeks, not for the Jews. Our God does not have a son without a biological human father. Our only reference to a son of God is according to the collective concept of the People, not of the individual. (Exod. 4:22,23) "Israel is My son..."

Ben Masada
September 10th, 2015, 09:28 AM
[quote]You may reject the mainstream idea but you still see resurrection in the sense of a physical body and it is therefore you who is really no different from most of mainstream Christianity, even though you reject the idea of a physical bodily resurrection, because you still believe that is what the apostolic writings are speaking about on this subject.

I neither can see evidence for bodily resurrection nor can you. This is beside the evidence of the written word. You are not having this discussion with Greeks but Jews. Body resurrection is a Hellenistic doctrine, not Jewish. Jesus was a Jew and not Greek.


Which body-temple does Yeshua speak of in the following passage? John 2:13-21 And the Passover of the Jews was at hand, and Yeshua went up to Yerushalaim. And found in the temple those that sold oxen and sheep and doves, and the changers of money sitting: And when he had made a scourge of small cords, he drove them all out of the temple, and the sheep, and the oxen; and poured out the money of the changers, and overthrew the tables; And said unto them that sold doves, Take these things hence; make not the house of my Father an house of merchandise! And his talmidim remembered that it was written, The tkelet-zeal of thine house hath eaten me up. Then answered the Jews and said unto him, What sign show you unto us, seeing that you do these things? Yeshua answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up! Then said the Jews, Forty and six years was this temple in building, and wilt you rear it up in three days? But he spake of the temple of his body.

The above never happened in the life of Jesus. Jews do not adopt the Christian doctrine of bodily resurrection. BTW, I accept only 20% of the NT as worthy learning something from Jesus or about him. The other 80% is made up of anti-Jewish interpolations to promote the Pauline gospel of Replacement Theology.


If you say Yeshua speaks of raising his own physical body in the above passage then you are no different than most of the mainstream and you neither understand nor believe his doctrine because you see it as carnal in meaning just as those whom you lump me together with.

I have studied enough of the NT to understand that their claim about the resurrection of Jesus was bodily and that Jesus showed by several evidences when appearing to his disciples and eating and drinking with them. Spirits do not partake of these things of mortals.


Check the record and perhaps you might notice that king Solomon never turns himself back to face the temple made with the hands of men, for he knows that the great congregation are the people-temple of the Creator, and this is likewise how Yeshua speaks at the same location and of the same congregation people-temple in John 2:19-21.

The text is about the resurrection of Jesus. That's not Jewish. Paul made it very clear that it was all according to his gospel that Jesus resurrected. (II Tim. 2:8) That's a Christian doctrine fabricated by Paul. Nothing Jewish about it.

Wick Stick
September 10th, 2015, 10:17 AM
1 - First and foremost, to be of the lineage of David, and Jesus was only according to the gospel of Paul in II Tim. 2:8. Not good for two reasons: First, who was Paul? and second, the NT has exonerated Jesus from being of the lineage of David by denying his biological affiliation with Joseph was the one from the Tribe of Judah.
Then why go to the trouble of documenting a genealogy of Joseph? (It is clear that neither genealogy pertains to Mary.) I believe there is a precedent for adopted children being considered legitimate that ought to be considered here.


2 - Perhaps, do you mean the opposite? According to Mat. 1:18, Jesus' father was not Joseph and Joseph was the one from the lineage of David; God could not be.This doesn't really hold, in light of my response above...


3 - Whatever you mean by that, Prophet Habakkuk says that Israel was the anointed one of the Lord aka the Messiah. (Hab. 3:13)
There were many anointed ones. All the high priests and kings were messiahs. Looking for THE singular special messiah is a misrepresentation of the question (though probably based on a common Christian misconception). The question is simply whether Jesus was A messiah (an anointed one) - that is, was He legitimate in succession to be king?


4 - According to you or to the NT? If the NT where is the quote?According to my imperfect memory of the NT, of course. But, Matthew 21 recommends itself when I perform a search.


5 - That's the precise reason why Jesus was arrested and condemned to the cross on the charge of insurrection. INRI. (Luke 23:38)It seems we are in agreement on this point.


6 - Now, you are making a joke of your own savior-to-be.A joke was definitely intended, though not by me, and perhaps the joke is not on me, either.

Jarrod

Wick Stick
September 10th, 2015, 10:23 AM
[QUOTE=daqq;4445035]
I neither can see evidence for bodily resurrection nor can you. This is beside the evidence of the written word. You are not having this discussion with Greeks but Jews. Body resurrection is a Hellenistic doctrine, not Jewish. Jesus was a Jew and not Greek.
Are you sure you don't mean the opposite? Resurrection was explicitly a Pharisee doctrine, to the extent that it was a point of contention with the Saducees. (Can we call them Zadokites? I struggle with the crappy transliteration the NT provides.)

On the other hand, nothing of Hellenism believes in a resurrection in the same body. They believed in transmigration - which is a rebirth (not a resurrection) in a DIFFERENT body, and that without any memory of the prior lives.

Jarrod

daqq
September 10th, 2015, 11:20 AM
BTW, I accept only 20% of the NT as worthy learning something from Jesus or about him.

You shall break none of his bones. You shall take of the blood and strike it on the two side post-arms and on the upper forehead-beam of your house-body-temple. You shall eat the flesh in your night of passage roasted with fire, and with unleavened bread, and with the bitterness that comes withall. You shall not eat of it raw, nor boiled with water, but roasted with fire: his head, with his legs, and with the inward parts thereof. You shall let nothing remain until your morning come, (when the Day Star arises in your heart).


The text is about the resurrection of Jesus. That's not Jewish. Paul made it very clear that it was all according to his gospel that Jesus resurrected. (II Tim. 2:8) That's a Christian doctrine fabricated by Paul. Nothing Jewish about it.

Resurrection may not be "Jewish" according to your understanding of what is "Jewish" but it is indeed Jewish, (and moreover of the Hebrews) as has been argued already with you several times over. Your rejection of a resurrection is merely your opinion based on the one eighth sect of the ruling half of the Sadducs, (which one eighth opinion was hotly disputed by the other sects including both houses of the Pharisees). In the Third Day the earth brings forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed is in itself, after his kind: and except a kernel of wheat fall into the ground and die, it abides alone; but if it dies, it brings forth much fruit. And so is the kingdom of Elohim, like a man who cast seed into the soil, and sleeping and rising, night and day, and how the seed should germinate, sprout, and grow up, he knows not; for the earth brings forth fruit of herself: first the garden, (which is feminine) then the stalk, (which is masculine) then the full head of grain in the stalk. But when the fruit is brought forth, immediately the sickle is thrust in because the harvest stands ready.

God's Truth
September 10th, 2015, 11:33 AM
This post of yours above is for the Greeks, not for the Jews.

You do not know the scriptures, because that scripture is when Jesus walked the earth and spoke only to the Jews.




Our God does not have a son without a biological human father. Our only reference to a son of God is according to the collective concept of the People, not of the individual. (Exod. 4:22,23) "Israel is My son..."

A person has to ignore and deny many scriptures to believe as you do.

Ben Masada
September 10th, 2015, 11:17 PM
[quote]Then why go to the trouble of documenting a genealogy of Joseph?

The name is pious forgery to document Christianity.


It is clear that neither genealogy pertains to Mary.

Even if it did, it wouldn't help Jesus. The only thing Mary would contribute with was the Jewish identity of Jesus.


I believe there is a precedent for adopted children being considered legitimate that ought to be considered here.

Adopted children were legitimate in all accounts but one, the Tribal identification which was processed through the father. An adopted child in Israel would never belong to the Tribe of the new father.


There were many anointed ones. All the high priests and kings were messiahs. Looking for THE singular special messiah is a misrepresentation of the question (though probably based on a common Christian misconception).

We are not talking about any of the other Messiahs but the special one that Jesus is claimed to have been.


The question is simply whether Jesus was A messiah (an anointed one) -

No, he was not. Neither any Messiah nor the special one. An individual could not be the real Messiah. The individual is born, lives his span of life and dies. Are we to expect a new Messiah in every generation? Obviously not. The Messiah is not supposed to die but to remain as a people before the Lord forever. (Jer. 31:36)


that is, was He legitimate in succession to be king?

No, he was not. He would have to be of the lineage of David and, the word of Paul cannot be taken for granted. (II Tim. 2:8) And to be of the lineage of David, he had to be from the Tribe of Judah and, he was not because Joseph was not his biological father, according to Matthew 1:18


According to my imperfect memory of the NT of course. But Matthew 21 recommends itself when I perform a search.

Mat. 21 rather shows the real reason why Jesus was crucified; because his disciples were acclaiming him king of the Jews in Jerusalem, a Roman province at the time. Besides, that Jesus was a sinner for having broken the Golden Rule in his treatment of the moneychangers.

Ben Masada
September 11th, 2015, 02:59 AM
[QUOTE=Ben Masada;4446248]
Are you sure you don't mean the opposite? Resurrection was explicitly a Pharisee doctrine, to the extent that it was a point of contention with the Saducees. (Can we call them Zadokites? I struggle with the crappy transliteration the NT provides.)

On the other hand, nothing of Hellenism believes in a resurrection in the same body. They believed in transmigration - which is a rebirth (not a resurrection) in a DIFFERENT body, and that without any memory of the prior lives.

Jarrod

I am 100% sure; only that to stand for that certainty, I cannot accept evidences given by Paul as he was the one who revealed the secret to his disciple Timothy that the resurrection of Jesus was according to his own gospel - the gospel of Paul. (II Tim. 2:8)

Regarding the Pharisees, I'll become a Christian like you if you prove to me that they believed in bodily resurrection. They didn't my friend, you are confusing some thing with something else. Even the apostles of Jesus did not believe in bodily resurrection. When the women went to them to report about the empty tomb and said that someone had removed Jesus from there and took him to another place. None of the apostles believed in them and took them as talking about an idle tale of nonsense. (Luke 24:11) Why couldn't they think of the resurrection? Because Jesus had never spoke a word to them about resurrection. Why! Because they were Jewish and the doctrine of the resurrection has never been part of the gospel of Jesus which was Judaism.

There was no point of contention between Pharisees and Sadducees. The whole contention was between Paul and the Jewish authorities. And, BTW, that contention was one of Paul's lies to defend himself from the charge that he had been arrested for preaching against Moses, the Law and the Temple. (Acts 21:21,27,28 and 23:6)

Transmigration or reincarnation is the same as resurrection to me. For someone to transmigrate he must resurrect first. So, what's the point?

Ben Masada
September 11th, 2015, 03:30 AM
[quote]You shall break none of his bones. You shall take of the blood and strike it on the two side post-arms and on the upper forehead-beam of your house-body-temple. You shall eat the flesh in your night of passage roasted with fire, and with unleavened bread, and with the bitterness that comes withall. You shall not eat of it raw, nor boiled with water, but roasted with fire: his head, with his legs, and with the inward parts thereof. You shall let nothing remain until your morning come, (when the Day Star arises in your heart).

Now, where on earth has this any thing to do with Jesus? When I am proving the collective concept of the Messiah, I mention the evidences on the text by name. Do you know why you cannot do the same with Jesus, because Jesus has nothing to do with the text. If you read Habakkuk 3:13, "The Lord goes forth to save His PEOPLE, to save His anointed one." That's what the Messiah is, the anointed one of the Lord.

One more, when HaShem sent Moses to redeem Israel from Egypt, Moses reported God's command to Pharaoh and he asked, why should I do that? "Because Israel is My son; said the Lord. So let My son go that he may serve Me." (Exod. 4:22,23)

Just one more when the Lord commanded Moses to say to Israel: "And you shall be to Me a Kingdom of priests and a Holy Nation. These are the words which you shall speak to the children of Israel." (Exod. 19:6) As you can see, the Messiah is to be a Kingdom of Priests and a Holy Nation. Now, do this with Jesus every time you are challenged to prove that Jesus was the Messiah. It will cause a much better impression on you.


Resurrection may not be "Jewish" according to your understanding of what is "Jewish" but it is indeed Jewish, (and moreover of the Hebrews) as has been argued already with you several times over. Your rejection of a resurrection is merely your opinion based on the one eighth sect of the ruling half of the Sadducs, (which one eighth opinion was hotly disputed by the other sects including both houses of the Pharisees). In the Third Day the earth brings forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed is in itself, after his kind: and except a kernel of wheat fall into the ground and die, it abides alone; but if it dies, it brings forth much fruit. And so is the kingdom of Elohim, like a man who cast seed into the soil, and sleeping and rising, night and day, and how the seed should germinate, sprout, and grow up, he knows not; for the earth brings forth fruit of herself: first the garden, (which is feminine) then the stalk, (which is masculine) then the full head of grain in the stalk. But when the fruit is brought forth, immediately the sickle is thrust in because the harvest stands ready.

Never mind the parable above and let us get real for a change. Use the Scriptures that Jesus always referred to as the Word of God and bring to the light the evidences of bodily resurrection. Just don't mention the gospel of Paul aka the NT because Jesus never even dreamed that both, Paul and the NT would ever rise. On the other hand, if you decide that Jesus was not a Jew but a Greek, you don't have to prove any thing else for I don't have any business interfering with the gospel of Paul.

I think I understand a little more than you what resurrection is. If you prove to me resurrection in the Tanach, I'll commit myself to the gospel of Paul without question. Sadducees as well as Pharisees never adopted the Christian doctrine of bodily resurrection.

Ben Masada
September 11th, 2015, 03:46 AM
1 - You do not know the scriptures, because that scripture is when Jesus walked the earth and spoke only to the Jews.

2 - A person has to ignore and deny many scriptures to believe as you do.

1 - Wrong! That scripture is part of the 80% of anti-Jewish interpolations with the intent at promoting the Pauline policy of Replacement Theology.

2 - Wrong again! A person has to walk by sight to understand what he is talking about. The opposite would be to walk by faith and to leave the understanding with Paul. (II Cor. 5:7)

Aimiel
September 11th, 2015, 04:42 AM
I think I understand a little more than you what resurrection is. If you prove to me resurrection in the Tanach, I'll commit myself to the gospel of Paul without question.And at that time shall Michael stand up, the great prince which standeth for the children of thy people: and there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time: and at that time thy people shall be delivered, every one that shall be found written in the book. And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt. And they that be wise shall shine as the brightness of the firmament; and they that turn many to righteousness as the stars for ever and ever.

Ben Masada
September 11th, 2015, 05:35 AM
And at that time shall Michael stand up, the great prince which standeth for the children of thy people: and there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time: and at that time thy people shall be delivered, every one that shall be found written in the book. And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt. And they that be wise shall shine as the brightness of the firmament; and they that turn many to righteousness as the stars for ever and ever.

That's a reference to the concept of a guardian of a specific nation which in this case was Michael the angel standing for Israel. Nothing literal about the text. The time of trouble was the time in exile. At the end of the time of exile which is akin to sleeping in the graves of the nations, many would wake up, some to everlasting life which would be the return to the land of the living aka the Land of Israel and some to shame and everlasting contempt for not responding to the call of freedom by returning to Israel. (Dan. 12:2)

Aimiel
September 11th, 2015, 05:36 AM
:rolleyes:

No, it's a reference to the Great Tribulation that shall come upon all the earth and to the rapture.

Ben Masada
September 11th, 2015, 07:20 AM
:rolleyes:

No, it's a reference to the Great Tribulation that shall come upon all the earth and to the rapture.

According to whom Aimiel, do you care quoting a reference? Thanks.

God's Truth
September 11th, 2015, 09:22 AM
1 - Wrong! That scripture is part of the 80% of anti-Jewish interpolations with the intent at promoting the Pauline policy of Replacement Theology.

That scripture is Jesus' words according to John. How do you get it is a Pauline policy?

Paul explains that Jews and Gentiles are now included, everyone. You are the one with a replacement theology. You are trying to replace the Gentiles back out of being reconciled to God.

The Jews are blood related to Abraham, and through Abraham's Seed the Messiah would come.

God promised Abraham that because Abraham believed and obeyed God.

Since the Savior came, it does not matter to whom we are blood related anymore; it only matters if we have come to God through Jesus' shed blood on the cross.




2 - Wrong again! A person has to walk by sight to understand what he is talking about. The opposite would be to walk by faith and to leave the understanding with Paul. (II Cor. 5:7)

Walk by faith is about being sure that we are going to be with Jesus after we die, and that we are with him now.

Ben Masada
September 12th, 2015, 11:14 AM
[quote]That scripture is Jesus' words according to John. How do you get it is a Pauline policy?

John never even saw Jesus. You are deluded to think that John the apostle of Jesus wrote any thing of the NT. Not a single page. It was all written by a Hellenist former disciple of Paul.


Paul explains that Jews and Gentiles are now included, everyone. You are the one with a replacement theology. You are trying to replace the Gentiles back out of being reconciled to God.

How? Jews and Gentiles are all included as what, Jews or Gentiles? Gentiles if you ask Paul. All Gentiles can be reconciled with God but according to Isa. 56:1-8.


The Jews are blood related to Abraham, and through Abraham's Seed the Messiah would come.

The Messiah who came from Abraham is Israel. "The Lord goes forth to save His People; to save His anointed one." (Hab. 3:13) That's what the Messiah is, the anointed one of the Lord. Exod. 19:6 is another evidence of the Messiah being Israel.


God promised Abraham that because Abraham believed and obeyed God.

That's the only thing true you have said in this post.


Since the Savior came, it does not matter to whom we are blood related anymore; it only matters if we have come to God through Jesus' shed blood on the cross.

Jesus never shed his blood on the cross for us in contradiction to the Prophets of the Lord. (Jer. 31:30; Ezek. 18:20)


Walk by faith is about being sure that we are going to be with Jesus after we die, and that we are with him now.

Let me know when you get there. That's the only way to prove which one of us was right.

Wick Stick
September 12th, 2015, 02:47 PM
The name is pious forgery to document Christianity.
I realize this is a stock answer from you, but really? Put in a little effort.

Textual criticism points out that this is one of the least likely chapters in the Bible to have been altered. Why? Because even though it has a direct contradiction in the problematic competing genealogy in Luke, that problem apparently was never "fixed."

Not to mention, we're talking about the one book of the NT originally written in Aramaic, and written to Jews specifically, and a section of the book that we can easily see is modeled on another Jewish source.


Adopted children were legitimate in all accounts but one, the Tribal identification which was processed through the father. An adopted child in Israel would never belong to the Tribe of the new father.
This argument has a logical fallacy: it assumes that how the rules work today, is how they have always worked. Unless you have some ancient source you can cite from that time period? I don't think you can produce one.

Papyrii from that period record traditions of Pharisee proselytism. A major feature thereof is that the proselytes were baptized in the name of Abraham, specifically as a way of changing their paternity, station, and destiny. That's basically the polar opposite of what you're saying.


We are not talking about any of the other Messiahs but the special one that Jesus is claimed to have been.Except, I am.


An individual could not be the real Messiah. The individual is born, lives his span of life and dies. Are we to expect a new Messiah in every generation? Obviously not. The Messiah is not supposed to die but to remain as a people before the Lord forever. (Jer. 31:36)
You're arguing individualism? That's some western philosophy. Your questions are wrong-headed.

A new messiah in every generation? The right way to look at it is... there is a messiah who continues from generation to generation - a succession of men who are not individuals, but rather the latest iterations of their ancestor.

The messiah doesn't die? On the contrary he dies all the time, and yet continues. The king is dead; long live the king.


No, he was not. He would have to be of the lineage of David and, the word of Paul cannot be taken for granted. (II Tim. 2:8)
Why not? You've tossed Paul aside in every other part of this conversation. I don't believe in any kind of infallibility or canonicity for the pastoral epistles and neither do you. I say we continue down that path and ignore 2Tim entirely.


And to be of the lineage of David, he had to be from the Tribe of Judah and, he was not because Joseph was not his biological father, according to Matthew 1:18This all falls under my argument above about the chronological problem with your argument. But I'm curious, if not Judah, what tribe do you say Jesus was from? Is there such thing as an Israelite without a tribe?


Mat. 21 rather shows the real reason why Jesus was crucified; because his disciples were acclaiming him king of the Jews in Jerusalem, a Roman province at the time.
I think there's more than one reason, but I'll happily admit this as one of the reasons.

To my mind, the major one was he broke the Gold Rule. No, not the Golden Rule; the Gold Rule. Namely: don't mess with the Gold! If you disrupt lending and trade by turning over the tables, you've gone and messed with the money!

Want to find a murderer? Follow the money...


Besides, that Jesus was a sinner for having broken the Golden Rule in his treatment of the moneychangers.Not so! The NT teaches us that we should want to be chastened. Revelation 3:19. And, all reports indicate that He took a whipping. You'll have to find a different rule to appeal to. This appears to be exactly how He would want to be treated.

Jarrod

Wick Stick
September 12th, 2015, 03:25 PM
Regarding the Pharisees, I'll become a Christian like you if you prove to me that they believed in bodily resurrection. They didn't my friend, you are confusing some thing with something else.
Will you allow me an extended quotation? From Christopher Rollston (2012):


The fact of the matter is that within various segments of Late Second Temple Judaism, as well as within Early Post-Biblical Judaism, the notion of a resurrection was warmly embraced by many. The locus classicus in the Hebrew Bible is arguably the following text from the mid-2nd century BCE: “Many of those sleeping in the dust of the earth shall awaken, some to everlasting life and some to everlasting peril” (Dan 12:2; notice here that the correlative of “damnation” or “hell” is also present in some fashion, of course). Within the Old Testament Apocrypha, the notion of a resurrection is embraced at times as well, with the narrative about the martyrdom of “the mother and her seven sons” being a fine exemplar of this. Thus, according to the narrative, one of the sons said during the torture that preceded his death: “the King of the universe will raise us up to an everlasting renewal of life, because we have died for his laws” (2 Macc 7:9). Similarly, the mother herself says within the narrative, as an exhortation to her martyred sons: “the Creator of the world…will in his mercy give life and breath back to you again” (2 Macc 7:23). 2 Maccabees arguably hails from the first half of the 1st century BCE. Regarding the dead, the Wisdom of Solomon also affirms that the dead “seemed to have died,” but “they are at peace,” and “their hope is full of immortality,” and they will ultimately “shine forth” and “will govern nations and ruler over peoples” (Wisdom 3:2-8 passim, with the Greek future tense being used here). The Wisdom of Solomon arguably hails from the second half of the 1st century BCE. Significantly, all of these texts antedate the rise of Christianity and they all affirm a belief in a resurrection. In short, many Jewish people believed in a resurrection long before Christianity came along. To be sure, a belief in a resurrection was not universally accepted by all Jewish people in the Second Temple period.

Read the rest of the article here: http://www.rollstonepigraphy.com/?p=440

There were many branches of Judaism prior to 90AD - Zadokites, Pharisees, Essenes, and Bathers, and that doesn't even take into account political affiliations (Zealots, Sicarii, Roman and Seleucid loyalists) or those who had entirely apostatized into Hellenism.

There were divisions even within those branches. For instance, the bathers were split into daily bathers and one-time bathers. The Pharisees had courtly disagreement between Hillelites and Shammaites.

To treat Judaism as if it were always united in its doctrine is false. Judaism has (almost) always been tolerant of alternative and minority viewpoints. Is not the Jewish spirit one of debate and inquisitiveness?

I continue to say that it is a shame that Akiba ostracized all but one tradition of one branch of Judaism. If you hack 6 branches off of a menorah, is it still a menorah?


Transmigration or reincarnation is the same as resurrection to me. For someone to transmigrate he must resurrect first. So, what's the point?
Transmigration doesn't require any resurrection; only a regular, natural birth. This isn't subjective, that you should say "to me."

Jarrod

God's Truth
September 12th, 2015, 10:16 PM
John never even saw Jesus. You are deluded to think that John the apostle of Jesus wrote any thing of the NT. Not a single page. It was all written by a Hellenist former disciple of Paul.



How? Jews and Gentiles are all included as what, Jews or Gentiles? Gentiles if you ask Paul. All Gentiles can be reconciled with God but according to Isa. 56:1-8.



The Messiah who came from Abraham is Israel. "The Lord goes forth to save His People; to save His anointed one." (Hab. 3:13) That's what the Messiah is, the anointed one of the Lord. Exod. 19:6 is another evidence of the Messiah being Israel.



That's the only thing true you have said in this post.



Jesus never shed his blood on the cross for us in contradiction to the Prophets of the Lord. (Jer. 31:30; Ezek. 18:20)



Let me know when you get there. That's the only way to prove which one of us was right.

The only way you can defend your false beliefs is to say the New Testament did not happen.

Denial is no defense.

Ben Masada
September 13th, 2015, 06:50 AM
[quote]I realize this is a stock answer from you, but really? Put in a little effort.

If you check the evidences I supply you with the quotes, I need no more effort than which I put in as usual.


Textual criticism points out that this is one of the least likely chapters in the Bible to have been altered. Why? Because even though it has a direct contradiction in the problematic competing genealogy in Luke, that problem apparently was never "fixed."


Easy! Luke was a Greek daily companion of Paul. Why would he care to verify the cultural way of the Jews as genealogy was concerned?


Not to mention, we're talking about the one book of the NT originally written in Aramaic, and written to Jews specifically, and a section of the book that we can easily see is modeled on another Jewish source.

No book of the NT was written to this or that people discriminately but to all readers. The time was for Christianity and the Jews were to be replaced.


This argument has a logical fallacy: it assumes that how the rules work today, is how they have always worked. Unless you have some ancient source you can cite from that time period? I don't think you can produce one.

No fallacy at all. That was from the Jewish culture and Christianity could not change it.


Papyrii from that period record traditions of Pharisee proselytism. A major feature thereof is that the proselytes were baptized in the name of Abraham, specifically as a way of changing their paternity, station, and destiny. That's basically the polar opposite of what you're saying.

We are all circumcised in the name of Abraham.


You're arguing individualism? That's some western philosophy. Your questions are wrong-headed.

Am I to expect you to say that my questions are right according to the Scriptures? I didn't think so.


A new messiah in every generation? The right way to look at it is... there is a messiah who continues from generation to generation - a succession of men who are not individuals, but rather the latest iterations of their ancestor.

The Messiah is supposed to remain as a People before the Lord forever. (Jer. 31:36) And "the Lord goes forth to save His People; to save His anointed one." (Hab. 3:13) That's what the Messiah is, the anointed one of the Lord.


The messiah doesn't die? On the contrary he dies all the time, and yet continues. The king is dead
long live the king.

Jesus was not a king. So, the kink remains dead to this day.


Why not? You've tossed Paul aside in every other part of this conversation. I don't believe in any kind of infallibility or canonicity for the pastoral epistles and neither do you. I say we continue down that path and ignore 2Tim entirely.

Not so fast! Your Paul committed that mistake and I am not ready to let you go without it.


This all falls under my argument above about the chronological problem with your argument. But I'm curious, if not Judah, what tribe do you say Jesus was from? Is there such thing as an Israelite without a tribe?

That's exactly what Jesus was thanks to the Church: A Jew because of Mary but a Jew without a Tribe in Israel. And there is something else. Also thanks to the Church: A new light has shone upon John 8:41 which has become an evidence that Mary was raped by a Roman soldier and Jesus was born as a result of it. What a disservice to Jesus and his mother; not to talk about his father.


To my mind, the major one was he broke the Gold Rule. No, not the Golden Rule; the Gold Rule. Namely: don't mess with the Gold! If you disrupt lending and trade by turning over the tables, you've gone and messed with the money! Want to find a murderer? Follow the money...

I think you are joking about your Messiah.


Not so! The NT teaches us that we should want to be chastened. Revelation 3:19. And, all reports indicate that He took a whipping. You'll have to find a different rule to appeal to. This appears to be exactly how He would want to be treated.

And the joke continues. Now, you describe Jesus as a masochist.

Ben Masada
September 13th, 2015, 07:24 AM
Will you allow me an extended quotation? From Christopher Rollston (2012):

Yes but, no commitment on my part as a result of an extra-Biblical quotation.

[quote]There were many branches of Judaism prior to 90AD - Zadokites, Pharisees, Essenes, and Bathers, and that doesn't even take into account political affiliations (Zealots, Sicarii, Roman and Seleucid loyalists) or those who had entirely apostatized into Hellenism.

There were only three official ones: Pharisees, Sadducees and the Sect of the Nazarenes aka "The New Way" based on the fact that the Sect of the Nazarenes was the most recent Jewish Sect in the First Century. Zadokites and Essenes were one and the same with the Sadducees. The Zadokites were the original ones who fought the Hasmonians and lost because the Hasmonians were Levites that governed the Country as kings and priests. Then the Zadokites escaped to the Negev desert qua Essenes who later acquired the political power granted by Rome qua Sadducees. Now, Zealots and Sicarii were one and the same who operated as fundamentalist hostile groups not quite organized.


There were divisions even within those branches. For instance, the bathers were split into daily bathers and one-time bathers. The Pharisees had courtly disagreement between Hillelites and Shammaites.

Hillelites and Shammaites were cultural-philosophical branches, not sects.


Transmigration doesn't require any resurrection; only a regular, natural birth. This isn't subjective, that you should say "to me."

Please, spare me! Once dead, NOTHING of the dead will ever return. (Isa. 26:14; II Sam. 12:23; Job 10:21) Nothing of the dead will ever be born again.

Ben Masada
September 13th, 2015, 07:37 AM
The only way you can defend your false beliefs is to say the New Testament did not happen.

Denial is no defense.

The NT happened but we must read it with understanding and not by faith in the hope to live the understanding with Paul. Otherwise we will be entangled in the same web of those who are called by faith.(II Cor. 5:7)

God's Truth
September 13th, 2015, 10:02 AM
The NT happened but we must read it with understanding and not by faith in the hope to live the understanding with Paul. Otherwise we will be entangled in the same web of those who are called by faith.(II Cor. 5:7)

All your beliefs about God and Jesus are based on denying the books that contain the written Word of God.

Your defense IS denial.

You have a made up fictional religion.

You pick and choose what you want to believe, and you throw out the rest. Then you add things that came to the imagination of men.

You have a fictional god and a made up story.

Read and believe the Holy Bible.

Wick Stick
September 13th, 2015, 02:13 PM
Textual criticism points out that this is one of the least likely chapters in the Bible to have been altered. Why? Because even though it has a direct contradiction in the problematic competing genealogy in Luke, that problem apparently was never "fixed."
Easy! Luke was a Greek daily companion of Paul. Why would he care to verify the cultural way of the Jews as genealogy was concerned?You missed/ignored the point, which is not WHY there is a contradiction in the first place, but rather that nobody corrected it. If nobody corrected it, then there is no gloss here.




Not to mention, we're talking about the one book of the NT originally written in Aramaic, and written to Jews specifically, and a section of the book that we can easily see is modeled on another Jewish source.
No book of the NT was written to this or that people discriminately but to all readers. The time was for Christianity and the Jews were to be replaced.Give me a break! Most of the books of the New Testament are addressed to some specific group. e.g. Romans 1:7

You claim you wish to evaluate the New Testament logically and impartially, but your scholarship is lacking. If you had any idea of textual criticism or hermeneutics, you would know that one of the first, most important considerations of any book is that of audience.

The Biblical books are NOT written to nebulous "Christianity," but rather each has a specific audience.




This argument has a logical fallacy: it assumes that how the rules work today, is how they have always worked. Unless you have some ancient source you can cite from that time period? I don't think you can produce one.
No fallacy at all. That was from the Jewish culture and Christianity could not change it.
No - that is part of modern Jewish culture. Ancient Jewish culture did not contain that feature. It was added in Europe during the Dark Ages out of necessity due to the Inquisitions. You have projected modern traditions into the past, where they do not exist.





Papyrii from that period record traditions of Pharisee proselytism. A major feature thereof is that the proselytes were baptized in the name of Abraham, specifically as a way of changing their paternity, station, and destiny. That's basically the polar opposite of what you're saying.
We are all circumcised in the name of Abraham.
Circumcision is beriyth, a covenant but not an adoption. Baptism is tabal, an adoption ceremony showing forth death and re-birth.


The Messiah is supposed to remain as a People before the Lord forever. (Jer. 31:36) And "the Lord goes forth to save His People; to save His anointed one." (Hab. 3:13) That's what the Messiah is, the anointed one of the Lord.
Yes, just not exclusively so. As I said before, Messiah simply means "Anointed." Since Israel is God's people, set apart for priestly function, they are indeed "messiah" - anointed.

But that does nothing to remove the "messiach" - anointing - from any others. The high priest is anointed. The king is anointed. Thus they are all "messiah."



The messiah doesn't die? On the contrary he dies all the time, and yet continues. The king is dead; long live the king.
Jesus was not a king. So, the king remains dead to this day.
You are missing the point. What I am arguing here isn't even about Jesus in a specific sense. It is about the institution of the monarchy.



Why not? You've tossed Paul aside in every other part of this conversation. I don't believe in any kind of infallibility or canonicity for the pastoral epistles and neither do you. I say we continue down that path and ignore 2Tim entirely.
Not so fast! Your Paul committed that mistake and I am not ready to let you go without it.Arguments against Biblical infallibility don't make any difference to me. I don't believe in it anyway.



This all falls under my argument above about the chronological problem with your argument. But I'm curious, if not Judah, what tribe do you say Jesus was from? Is there such thing as an Israelite without a tribe?
That's exactly what Jesus was thanks to the Church: A Jew because of Mary but a Jew without a Tribe in Israel.
Question - does that also work the other way round as well? I mean, if the mother is not Jewish, but the father is a Levite? The child is not Jewish by rule, but does he hold the possibility of passing on his Levitical lineage? If he marries a Jewish woman, would the child be viable as a priest?

I suppose that all sounds a little odd. Call it a personal question.


And there is something else. Also thanks to the Church: A new light has shone upon John 8:41 which has become an evidence that Mary was raped by a Roman soldier and Jesus was born as a result of it. What a disservice to Jesus and his mother; not to talk about his father.Scant evidence. It seems they meant to insult His paternity, but that doesn't make it true. I have an alternate theory, but it is a bit long to try to explain here.




To my mind, the major one was he broke the Gold Rule. No, not the Golden Rule; the Gold Rule. Namely: don't mess with the Gold! If you disrupt lending and trade by turning over the tables, you've gone and messed with the money! Want to find a murderer? Follow the money...
I think you are joking about your Messiah.I find it possible to express viable truths and incorporate humor at the same time.




Not so! The NT teaches us that we should want to be chastened. Revelation 3:19. And, all reports indicate that He took a whipping. You'll have to find a different rule to appeal to. This appears to be exactly how He would want to be treated.
And the joke continues. Now, you describe Jesus as a masochist.Not at all. Tell me, do you still hold a grudge against your parents for the spankings you received? Please feel free to apply that logic here.

Ben Masada
September 14th, 2015, 11:45 PM
All your beliefs about God and Jesus are based on denying the books that contain the written Word of God.

Your defense IS denial.

You have a made up fictional religion.

You pick and choose what you want to believe, and you throw out the rest. Then you add things that came to the imagination of men.

You have a fictional god and a made up story.

Read and believe the Holy Bible.

If you read John 17:17, once Jesus said that the Truth is the Word of God. Probably, his statement comes from having read Psalm 147:19,20 where it says that the Word of God was given to the Jews only and to no other people on earth. Prophet Isaiah so much believed what I do that he said, "And many people shall go and say, 'come you and let us go up to the Mountain of the Lord, to the House of the God of Jacob; and He will teach us of His way, and we will walk in His paths; for out of Zion shall go forth the Law and the Word of the Lord from Jerusalem.'" (Isa. 2:3)

Now, tell me, checking the Biblical quotes I have shown above, what in your mind I am denying or is fictional? Please, don't give me your word for I can't take it for granted. Show me evidences that what I have learned is fictional. If you do, it will be proved that both the NT and the Tanach are fictional.

Ben Masada
September 15th, 2015, 12:46 AM
[quote]You missed/ignored the point, which is not WHY there is a contradiction in the first place, but rather that nobody corrected it. If nobody corrected it, then there is no gloss here.

That's what is called appeal to authority. "If it was not corrected is because it is true." Show me your own understanding of the Scriptures and not the understanding of another.


Give me a break! Most of the books of the New Testament are addressed to some specific group. e.g. Romans 1:7

Yea, groups of Jews in previous synagogues that Paul overturned into Christian churches. That's what he chose to do while claiming that he had assigned as an apostle to the Gentiles.


You claim you wish to evaluate the New Testament logically and impartially, but your scholarship is lacking. If you had any idea of textual criticism or hermeneutics, you would know that one of the first, most important considerations of any book is that of audience.

Oh! I am aware of that Christian strategy: You want me to evaluate the NT as a Christian and not as a Jew. It doesn't go that way.


The Biblical books are NOT written to nebulous "Christianity" but rather each has a specific audience.

I know, former Jewish audiences. Since Paul's first station in Damascus and until his last one in Rome, he never left the Jews in peace. (Acts 9:1,2 and 28:17)


No - that is part of modern Jewish culture. Ancient Jewish culture did not contain that feature. It was added in Europe during the Dark Ages out of necessity due to the Inquisitions. You have projected modern traditions into the past, where they do not exist.

Very convenient! You are of the opinion that what was added to ease up the crimes of the Inquisition should remain as a feature of Judaism. Nice try though! The concept of Pichuach Nephesh is allowed to be used but not to remain as a feature of Judaism.


Circumcision is beriyth, a covenant but not an adoption. Baptism is tabal, an adoption ceremony showing forth death and re-birth.

Circumcision was adopted by Judaism as part of the EVERLASTING Abrahamic Covenant. (Gen. 17:13)


Yes, just not exclusively so. As I said before, Messiah simply means "Anointed." Since Israel is God's people, set apart for priestly function, they are indeed "messiah" - anointed.

They are not "simply" a Messiah but the Messiah, special Messiah. (Exod. 19:6; Hab. 3:13; Jer. 31:36; Psalm 78:67-70)


But that does nothing to remove the "messiach" - anointing - from any others. The high priest is anointed. The king is anointed. Thus they are all "messiah."

I have gone through this with you, even specifying the kinds of Messiah we have. Any anointed by any other as in the case of Jesus by Christians has no consequence as the Jewish Messiah is concerned.


You are missing the point. What I am arguing here isn't even about Jesus in a specific sense. It is about the institution of the monarchy.

Your reference to Jesus when talking about the institution of Monarchy is a non-sequitur. There is no relation either as an anointed or as a king which he was neither, except for his anointing as part of the People of Israel. (Exod. 4:22,23) "Israel is My son; let My son go that he may serve Me." And here, one won't be in error to add, "To serve Me as My Messiah aka as a kingdom of priest and a Holy Nation." (Exod. 19:6)


Arguments against Biblical infallibility don't make any difference to me. I don't believe in it anyway.

That's not what you convey when talking about the NT.


Question - does that also work the other way round as well? I mean, if the mother is not Jewish, but the father is a Levite? The child is not Jewish by rule, but does he hold the possibility of passing on his Levitical lineage? If he marries a Jewish woman, would the child be viable as a priest?

No, he does not an will not. Judaism is not for Gentiles, unless he or she converts according to Halacha. (Isa. 56:1-8) I mean, if the mother is not Jewish, even if the father was the High Priest, the child is a goy in need of conversion if he wants to join.


I suppose that all sounds a little odd. Call it a personal question.

Okay, a personal question.


Scant evidence. It seems they meant to insult His paternity, but that doesn't make it true. I have an alternate theory, but it is a bit long to try to explain here.

Jesus' paternity was insulted by Paul and all Christianity to the day when Christians exonerate Joseph from having been Jesus' biological father. Hence, John 8:41.


I find it possible to express viable truths and incorporate humor at the same time.

Do you consider John 8:41 the incorporation of humor? If you ask me, it was a sad choice of a stand up comedian.


Not at all. Tell me, do you still hold a grudge against your parents for the spankings you received? Please feel free to apply that logic here.

Absolutely not!

Wick Stick
September 16th, 2015, 06:01 PM
That's what is called appeal to authority. "If it was not corrected is because it is true." Show me your own understanding of the Scriptures and not the understanding of another.
You aren't quite getting it. The formal logical argument should be stated as: If the passage shows considerable contradiction with other Scriptures, then it isn't a gloss. That says nothing about whether it is true or not. Glosses are always made in order to "correct" the text; they never create new contradictions.


Yea, groups of Jews in previous synagogues that Paul overturned into Christian churches. That's what he chose to do while claiming that he had assigned as an apostle to the Gentiles.Your scholarship is lacking here.

No synagogue was ever overturned or changed, except that perhaps some Jews amongst the congregation moved from one sect of Judaism to another.

Churches are not and were not synagogues:

Churches were modeled after Greek koinonia; not the Jewish assembly. As such, they were primarily economic and political institutions, at least originally.
Church was not held on the same day as synagogue, and this was done specifically for the reason that it should not conflict with it, and that Jewish members of the church should be able to attend both.
Church was, by rule, held outside the city at a Pnux or amphitheatre (except when done in private homes as a matter of safety from Roman persecutions), and never in a building of its own.


Of course, over the years, specially after the Roman toleration of Christianity, "church" took on the form of pagan worship, and became hostile to Judaism. But that isn't a Pauline theology problem, so much as a problem of creeping paganism.


Oh! I am aware of that Christian strategy: You want me to evaluate the NT as a Christian and not as a Jew. It doesn't go that way.
Actually, I'd prefer you evaluated it as though you were neither. Studying a text for original meaning is best done with scientific detachment. Fervor has its place, and that place is not within the scope of academia.


I know, former Jewish audiences. Since Paul's first station in Damascus and until his last one in Rome, he never left the Jews in peace. (Acts 9:1,2 and 28:17)
No. Current Jewish audiences, as well as anyone who was willing to listen in the agora.


Very convenient! You are of the opinion that what was added to ease up the crimes of the Inquisition should remain as a feature of Judaism. Nice try though! The concept of Pichuach Nephesh is allowed to be used but not to remain as a feature of Judaism.
I really have no idea what you are trying to argue here. I simply said that the rule was added during the Dark Ages, and did not exist before that.


Circumcision was adopted by Judaism as part of the EVERLASTING Abrahamic Covenant. (Gen. 17:13)I agree. It has little to do with what I said, but I do agree.


They are not "simply" a Messiah but the Messiah, special Messiah. (Exod. 19:6; Hab. 3:13; Jer. 31:36; Psalm 78:67-70)
Sorry, no such thing exists.


I have gone through this with you, even specifying the kinds of Messiah we have. Any anointed by any other as in the case of Jesus by Christians has no consequence as the Jewish Messiah is concerned.
I understand your point. I just don't agree with it.


Your reference to Jesus when talking about the institution of Monarchy is a non-sequitur. There is no relation either as an anointed or as a king which he was neither, except for his anointing as part of the People of Israel. (Exod. 4:22,23) "Israel is My son; let My son go that he may serve Me." And here, one won't be in error to add, "To serve Me as My Messiah aka as a kingdom of priest and a Holy Nation." (Exod. 19:6)
It's not non-sequitur, it's abstraction. If I can prove a principle to be true, apart from any particular example, then I can take my understanding of that principle and apply it elsewhere.


That's not what you convey when talking about the NT.Yes it is. There are 8 books in the current canon which I think ought to be tossed out. If not do away with the concept of canon entirely.

You're just looking at me through the prism of your worldview, in which too many people have attempted to bludgeon you to death with Biblical infallibility of one shade or another.


No, he does not an will not. Judaism is not for Gentiles, unless he or she converts according to Halacha. (Isa. 56:1-8) I mean, if the mother is not Jewish, even if the father was the High Priest, the child is a goy in need of conversion if he wants to join.

Okay, a personal question.
Nah... I'm not much interested in converting to your flavor of Judaism. You haven't anything in it that I haven't already, and you lack some things I do have.


Jesus' paternity was insulted by Paul and all Christianity to the day when Christians exonerate Joseph from having been Jesus' biological father. Hence, John 8:41.
So do you then think that Joseph was the father?


Do you consider John 8:41 the incorporation of humor? If you ask me, it was a sad choice of a stand up comedian.No, the joke was about the "gold rule" as opposed to the "golden rule." But if you have to explain the jokes...

Jarrod

Ben Masada
September 17th, 2015, 07:15 AM
1 - Glosses are always made in order to "correct" the text; they never create new contradictions.

2 - No synagogue was ever overturned or changed, except that perhaps some Jews amongst the congregation moved from one sect of Judaism to another.

3 - Churches are not and were not synagogues:

4 - Of course, over the years, specially after the Roman toleration of Christianity, "church" took on the form of pagan worship, and became hostile to Judaism. But that isn't a Pauline theology problem, so much as a problem of creeping paganism.

5 - Actually, I'd prefer you evaluated it as though you were neither. Studying a text for original meaning is best done with scientific detachment. Fervor has its place, and that place is not within the scope of academia.

6 - I really have no idea what you are trying to argue here. I simply said that the rule was added during the Dark Ages, and did not exist before that.

7 - Yes it is. There are 8 books in the current canon which I think ought to be tossed out. If not do away with the concept of canon entirely.

8 - You're just looking at me through the prism of your worldview, in which too many people have attempted to bludgeon you to death with Biblical infallibility of one shade or another.

9 Nah... I'm not much interested in converting to your flavor of Judaism. You haven't anything in it that I haven't already, and you lack some things I do have.

10 - So do you then think that Joseph was the father?

11 - No, the joke was about the "gold rule" as opposed to the "golden rule." But if you have to explain the jokes...

Jarrod

1 - Glosses usually create new contradictions.

2 - The Nazarene synagogue of Galatia was overturned by Paul into a Christian church. Galatian 1:6-8 is about the Nazarenes who had become Christians with Paul and were contemplating to return to the gospel of the Nazarenes which set Paul really upset. The "other gospel" Paul referred to was the gospel of the Apostles of Jesus which Paul condemned as being the preachers accursed and considered as false apostles. (II Cor. 11:4-6, 13)

3 - Read Gal. 1:6; and Acts 11:25, 26. The whole Nazarene synagogue of Antioch had been overturned by Paul during a whole year he was there preaching his gospel, invited by Barnabas, a VIP Nazarene.

4 - It was all about the Pauline policy of Replacement Theology.

5 - "I would prefer" is only a wish thinking. I also wish you could drop Jesus from using him, a Jew, to preach against His Faith which was Judaism.

6 - I meant to be aware of rules added during persecutions of Jews qua "Pichuach Nephesh to alleviate the sufferings of Jews but not to remain as doctrines of Judaism.

7 - Another wish thinking. We have got to do with what we have. I wish it could be this or that way does not move mountains.

8 - I am Jewish; what's new?

9 - You don't have to. You could at least stop using Jews to preach against Judaism. That's what Replacement Theology means.

10 - Yes, but you don't. So, get ready to answer about the contradictions in the NT.

11 - The Golden Rule has nothing to do with gold but with not doing unto others what you would no like they did unto yourself. A rule Jesus broke more than several times if we are to believe Mat. 23:13-33.

Wick Stick
September 17th, 2015, 03:27 PM
1 - Glosses usually create new contradictions.No - glosses are usually entered in order to resolve existing contradictions.

You might benefit from a book, or class. Here's one: https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=textual+criticism+bible&tbm=shop&spd=12423210293596434018



2 - The Nazarene synagogue of Galatia was overturned by Paul into a Christian church. Galatian 1:6-8 is about the Nazarenes who had become Christians with Paul and were contemplating to return to the gospel of the Nazarenes which set Paul really upset. The "other gospel" Paul referred to was the gospel of the Apostles of Jesus which Paul condemned as being the preachers accursed and considered as false apostles. (II Cor. 11:4-6, 13)
No. The Galatian synagogue continued existing right alongside the Galatian church. The two came into conflict because the synagogue recognized that Paul was making converts to Judaism and therefore wanted them fully converted to Moses, while Paul only preached a conversion to Abraham.



3 - Read Gal. 1:6; and Acts 11:25, 26. The whole Nazarene synagogue of Antioch had been overturned by Paul during a whole year he was there preaching his gospel, invited by Barnabas, a VIP Nazarene.
I don't see how you get that out of those verses at all. You are anchored on this myth that synagogues were converted, when the fact of the matter is that churches were installed alongside synagogues, not in place of them.


4 - It was all about the Pauline policy of Replacement Theology.
Replacement Theology is not taught in the Bible. It is only a misunderstanding of what is written there.

What is taught both by Jesus and Paul, is that the people who claimed to be Israelite were a combination of true and false Israelites, and that they were about to be separated/purified through tribulation.


9 - You don't have to. You could at least stop using Jews to preach against Judaism. That's what Replacement Theology means.
I'm not a proponent of RT. There are plenty of things to pick on in Judaism, but most of them pertain to the changes made to it by its kings, well before Christianity even existed.


10 - Yes, but you don't. So, get ready to answer about the contradictions in the NT.
I'm happily undecided. Disregarding the science (and I usually do), there are significant reasons both within the text, and within history/mythology to interpret the account as something other than parthenogenesis.


11 - The Golden Rule has nothing to do with gold but with not doing unto others what you would no like they did unto yourself. A rule Jesus broke more than several times if we are to believe Mat. 23:13-33.
I'm aware of the golden rule.

The "gold rule" is named similarly as a matter of irony. The rule itself could not be farther from the golden rule in its intent. Just say you understand the joke, and let's move on from this one.

Jarrod

Ben Masada
September 17th, 2015, 10:23 PM
[quote]No. The Galatian synagogue continued existing right alongside the Galatian church. The two came into conflict because the synagogue recognized that Paul was making converts to Judaism and therefore wanted them fully converted to Moses, while Paul only preached a conversion to Abraham.

Because Paul was making converts TO Judaism or FROM Judaism and into Christianity? Paul then was no longer a Jew but a Christian, an anti-Jewish religion-to-become.


I don't see how you get that out of those verses at all. You are anchored on this myth that synagogues were converted, when the fact of the matter is that churches were installed alongside synagogues, not in place of them.

And you are anchored into the myth that Paul continued making converts to Judaism which may make sense but only to you. How could Judaism coexist alongside an anti-Jewish church? Wake up from that, WS! Paul became the root of all anti-Semitism against the Jews throughout History with the NT. So much so that, when the Dictator Assad in Syria on the TV was wandering why Americans were so friendly with Israel when the Jews had killed their god. Where did he got that anti-
Jewish idea if not from the NT?


Replacement Theology is not taught in the Bible. It is only a misunderstanding of what is written there.

Read Gal. 4:24-31 and tell me if it is only a misunderstanding by the reader. It is Replacement Theology taught by Paul.


What is taught both by Jesus and Paul, is that the people who claimed to be Israelite were a combination of true and false Israelites, and that they were about to be separated/purified through tribulation.

That's what I meant to stop using Jesus to preach against His own Faith which was Judaism; but you are back on your saddle again.


I'm not a proponent of RT. There are plenty of things to pick on in Judaism, but most of them pertain to the changes made to it by its kings, well before Christianity even existed.

Prove it! I am right here. Let us see what you mean by RT in the Tanach. Changes made by kings! These yes, are glosses of Christianity to hide the truth with its slanders against Judaism.


I'm aware of the golden rule. The "gold rule" is named similarly as a matter of irony. The rule itself could not be farther from the golden rule in its intent. Just say you understand the joke, and let's move on from this one.

"Similarly!" What does it mean, that the Golden Rule was named as a joke? Mind you that the Golden Rule covers more than the second part of the Decalogue. So much so that when Jesus said that if one comes to the Temple to plead for salvation and, suddenly comes to his mind that he has offended someone else, he should leave every thing behind and go settle things right with his neighbor first and then return to his prayers in the Temple. I wonder why he didn't forgive him of his sins right there and then instead of reminding him of the Golden Rule. (Mat. 5:23,24)

Wick Stick
September 19th, 2015, 08:30 PM
Because Paul was making converts TO Judaism or FROM Judaism and into Christianity? Paul then was no longer a Jew but a Christian, an anti-Jewish religion-to-become.Definitely TO. Are you not aware of the chronology of the split of Judaism and Christianity?

"The Way" was a sect of Judaism. Efforts to segregate this sect and exclude it from Judaism did not begin in earnest until AFTER the destruction of Herod's temple. Rabbi Akiva began the efforts to "purify" Judaism of all its sects other than the Pharisees. "The Way" was not completely separated from Judaism until Akiva proclaimed Simon bar Kochba to be "the messiah," and all who would not swear allegiance to be enemies. That time frame is 90-135 CE.

Paul died around 67-68 CE. Whatever converts he made, were converts to Judaism, albeit of a sect other than Pharisee.


And you are anchored into the myth that Paul continued making converts to Judaism which may make sense but only to you.The problem is that you do not see that early Christianity IS Judaism. It's just a different sect than what you are used to.


How could Judaism coexist alongside an anti-Jewish church?The church wasn't anti-Jewish until the mid-2nd century. Anti-Semitism became widespread in the 2nd century, having been spread by Roman soldiers who had fought in the two insurgencies in 70 and 135 CE.

How could a church which WAS Jewish possibly be anti-Jewish?


Paul became the root of all anti-Semitism against the Jews throughout History with the NT. So much so that, when the Dictator Assad in Syria on the TV was wandering why Americans were so friendly with Israel when the Jews had killed their god. Where did he got that anti-Jewish idea if not from the NT?Generations of Muslim teaching, perhaps?


Read Gal. 4:24-31 and tell me if it is only a misunderstanding by the reader. It is Replacement Theology taught by Paul.It's a paradigm issue. You view Judaism as synonymous with Moses. Paul views it as synonymous with Abraham.

Paul endeavors to adopt his proselytes "ben Abraham" but without Moses, which in his view was "added afterwards because of transgressions." Galatians 3:19.

From your perspective, Paul has departed from Judaism, because Judaism equates with Moses, and Paul's proselytes are without Moses.

From my perspective, Judaism equates with Abraham, and practice of the Abrahamic covenant constitutes practice of Judaism.

Yes - that is not Pharisee Judaism. It's a different sect; a different "Way."


Prove it! I am right here. Let us see what you mean by RT in the Tanach. Changes made by kings! These yes, are glosses of Christianity to hide the truth with its slanders against Judaism.
I didn't say there was RT in the Tanach. I said that there was corruption within Judaism by the kings. A separate thread, perhaps? Give me a day or so to put together a post.

Jarrod

God's Truth
September 19th, 2015, 10:38 PM
If you read John 17:17, once Jesus said that the Truth is the Word of God. Probably, his statement comes from having read Psalm 147:19,20 where it says that the Word of God was given to the Jews only and to no other people on earth. Prophet Isaiah so much believed what I do that he said, "And many people shall go and say, 'come you and let us go up to the Mountain of the Lord, to the House of the God of Jacob; and He will teach us of His way, and we will walk in His paths; for out of Zion shall go forth the Law and the Word of the Lord from Jerusalem.'" (Isa. 2:3)

Now, tell me, checking the Biblical quotes I have shown above, what in your mind I am denying or is fictional? Please, don't give me your word for I can't take it for granted. Show me evidences that what I have learned is fictional. If you do, it will be proved that both the NT and the Tanach are fictional.

You deny the fact that God gave Moses commands that included animal sacrifices, among other such commands along with circumcision and the observance of special days.

You speak with ignorance about Jesus. You would have to obey Jesus to receive knowledge. However, you keep speaking about the New Testament as if your worthless opinions mean something.

Ben Masada
September 20th, 2015, 06:21 AM
1 - You deny the fact that God gave Moses commands that included animal sacrifices,
2 - among other such commands along with circumcision and the observance of special days.
3 - You speak with ignorance about Jesus.
4 - You would have to obey Jesus to receive knowledge. However, you keep speaking about the New Testament as if your worthless opinions mean something.

1 - I deny nothing. Read Jeremiah 7:22. That's a major prophet of the Lord saying that the Lord never commanded concerning burn offerings or sacrifices. The Lord simply agreed with Moses because he had to use of pichuach nephesh to make the Exodus of the Israelites from Egypt easier to happen.

2 - Circumcision yes, it had become the token of the Abrahamic Covenant. Since then Circumcision remained as an everlasting command throughout all Jewish generations to this day. (Gen. 17:13)

3 - You assume that I speak with ignorance of Jesus as if he had been a Christian and not a Jew. If Jesus had not been a Jew, we would not be here today engulfed in this debate.

4 - I obey the same Law that Jesus used to obey and said himself that's the only way to escape hell-fire: To listen to "Moses" aka the Law.(Luke 16:31)

Ben Masada
September 20th, 2015, 07:01 AM
[quote]Definitely TO.

How could Paul convert Jews to Judaism? He was converting Jews to Christianity. BTW, all his life since his first station in Damascus and until his last in Rome he never left the Jews in peace. (Acts 9:1,2; and 28:17)


Are you not aware of the chronology of the split of Judaism and Christianity?

No. The only split I am aware of is the split between the Tribes of Israel.(I kings 12:16)


"The Way" was a sect of Judaism. Efforts to segregate this sect and exclude it from Judaism did not begin in earnest until AFTER the destruction of Herod's temple. Rabbi Akiva began the efforts to "purify" Judaism of all its sects other than the Pharisees. "The Way" was not completely separated from Judaism until Akiva proclaimed Simon bar Kochba to be "the messiah" and all who would not swear allegiance to be enemies. That time frame is 90-135 CE.

"The Way" was also called the Sect of the Nazarenes. The most recent Jewish Sect in the First Century. (Acts 9:1,2)


Paul died around 67-68 CE. Whatever converts he made, were converts to Judaism, albeit of a sect other than Pharisee.

Prove it with a quote from your own NT.


The problem is that you do not see that early Christianity IS Judaism. It's just a different sect than what you are used to.

Judaism never had any thing to do with Christianity. The only other Jewish sect was of the Nazarenes which Paul persecuted before he founded Christianity. (Acts 9:1,2; 11:26)


The church wasn't anti-Jewish until the mid-2nd century. Anti-Semitism became widespread in the 2nd century, having been spread by Roman soldiers who had fought in the two insurgencies in 70 and 135 CE.

The Church was anti-Jewish from the onset when Paul founded it. (Acts 11:26) The insurgency of 70 ACE was in the First Century, not 2nd.


How could a church which WAS Jewish possibly be anti-Jewish?

Please, prove it with your own NT that Christianity was ever Jewish?


Generations of Muslim teaching, perhaps?

Where did they get the idea that the Jews had killed Jesus?


It's a paradigm issue. You view Judaism as synonymous with Moses. Paul views it as synonymous with Abraham.

If Paul had viewed Judaism as synonymous with Abraham he would not have preached against circumcision, the token of the Abrahamic Covenant. (Acts 21:21)


Paul endeavors to adopt his proselytes "ben Abraham" but without Moses, which in his view was "added afterwards because of transgressions." Galatians 3:19.

I have no idea what you are talking about.


From your perspective, Paul has departed from Judaism, because Judaism equates with Moses, and Paul's proselytes are without Moses.

Not me. Jesus who equated Judaism with Moses. Read Luke 16:31. He said that to escape hell-fire one must listen to "Moses" aka the Law.


From my perspective, Judaism equates with Abraham, and practice of the Abrahamic covenant constitutes practice of Judaism.

And from my perspective, Judaism equates to both, Abraham and Moses. (Luke 16:31)


Yes - that is not Pharisee Judaism. It's a different sect; a different "Way."

That's the Sect of the Nazarenes; the Sect Paul used to persecute. (9:1,2)


I didn't say there was RT in the Tanach. I said that there was corruption within Judaism by the kings. A separate thread perhaps? Give me a day or so to put together a post.

You have all the time in the world.

God's Truth
September 20th, 2015, 07:43 AM
1 - I deny nothing. Read Jeremiah 7:22. That's a major prophet of the Lord saying that the Lord never commanded concerning burn offerings or sacrifices. The Lord simply agreed with Moses because he had to use of pichuach nephesh to make the Exodus of the Israelites from Egypt easier to happen.

2 - Circumcision yes, it had become the token of the Abrahamic Covenant. Since then Circumcision remained as an everlasting command throughout all Jewish generations to this day. (Gen. 17:13)

3 - You assume that I speak with ignorance of Jesus as if he had been a Christian and not a Jew. If Jesus had not been a Jew, we would not be here today engulfed in this debate.

4 - I obey the same Law that Jesus used to obey and said himself that's the only way to escape hell-fire: To listen to "Moses" aka the Law.(Luke 16:31)

You deny the truth that God commanded Moses the sacrificing of animals.

You speak as if you know Jesus but you do not. Jesus tells us how to know him and you have not done that.

Wick Stick
September 20th, 2015, 07:34 PM
How could Paul convert Jews to Judaism? He was converting Jews to Christianity. BTW, all his life since his first station in Damascus and until his last in Rome he never left the Jews in peace. (Acts 9:1,2; and 28:17)
He couldn't; he didn't. He made converts of the Gentiles - hence that whole "apostle to the Gentiles" thing.

He retained the habit of attending synagogue and debating with Jews as to the meanings of Scripture. Maybe that is what you are thinking? But debating Scripture... that's a Jewish thing to do.




Are you not aware of the chronology of the split of Judaism and Christianity?
No. The only split I am aware of is the split between the Tribes of Israel.(I kings 12:16)Then perhaps you ought to educate yourself on the matter. Try search strings "Akiva" "bar Kochba rebellion" "council of Jamnia," and follow the links from there.



Paul died around 67-68 CE. Whatever converts he made, were converts to Judaism, albeit of a sect other than Pharisee.Prove it with a quote from your own NT. I just proved it using scripture, logic and chronology. Why do I need to prove it again?


Judaism never had any thing to do with Christianity. The only other Jewish sect was of the Nazarenes which Paul persecuted before he founded Christianity. (Acts 9:1,2; 11:26)Seriously? :jawdrop: I think you're the first person I've ever seen try to make that argument. I mean, the whole of history says just exactly the opposite.


The Church was anti-Jewish from the onset when Paul founded it. (Acts 11:26)
I don't think it was first called "Christianity" because Paul founded it. That would take some bass-ackwards logics.


The insurgency of 70 ACE was in the First Century, not 2nd.You seem to have missed this -
...and 135 CE.


Please, prove it with your own NT that Christianity was ever Jewish?...

How does citing verses prove anything? You keep inviting me to a duel of proof-texting. Why? Can we evaluate it using ALL of the resources instead? Logic? History? Textual Criticism?

Beyond that, though... how can you fail to see this? "Salvation is of the Jews" and "all Israel shall be saved." And that's Paul, talking to Gentiles! Other books are either expressly written to Jews (Matthew, Jude, 1Peter). The apocalypse builds on Daniel in a way that makes it incomprehensible to anyone who isn't Jewish, and well-acquainted with Jewish history. Linguistically, all the books are written in a Koine dialect which presumes knowledge of Aramaic.

You have some ideas that take a staggering amount of willful ignorance to maintain.


Where did they get the idea that the Jews had killed Jesus?I am not familiar enough with Islam to cite from the Quran or its traditions or other writings.


If Paul had viewed Judaism as synonymous with Abraham he would not have preached against circumcision, the token of the Abrahamic Covenant. (Acts 21:21)He didn't. If you will read down 3 verses farther in the same chapter...

"All may know that those things, whereof they were informed concerning thee, are nothing; but that thou thyself also walkest orderly, and keepest the law."

It was a false accusation. Why then do you cite it, as though it had substance?


Not me. Jesus who equated Judaism with Moses. Read Luke 16:31. He said that to escape hell-fire one must listen to "Moses" aka the Law.Re-read Luke 16:31. That isn't what it says at all. Not to mention that chapter isn't remotely related to the topic at hand.


And from my perspective, Judaism equates to both, Abraham and Moses. (Luke 16:31)Good. What do you do with the promise to make Abraham a "father of Goyim?" Genesis 17:4-5

Jarrod

Ben Masada
September 20th, 2015, 10:24 PM
1 - You deny the truth that God commanded Moses the sacrificing of animals.

2 - You speak as if you know Jesus but you do not. Jesus tells us how to know him and you have not done that.

1 - And you are implying that Jeremiah, a major prophet of the Lord, was a liar. (Jer. 7:22) But I do not blame you because you seem not to understand what "Picuach Nephesh" is even after I have explained it to you. It means you don't want to understand. You prefer to walk by faith and leave the understanding with Paul. See II Cor. 5:7.

2 - I know Jesus much better than you think you do. He was Jewish just as I am and not of the religion of Christianity you belong to. I know Jesus for what he was. You know him as a Greek demigod according to the gospel of Paul. See Acts 9:20.

Ben Masada
September 20th, 2015, 10:54 PM
He couldn't; he didn't. He made converts of the Gentiles - hence that whole "apostle to the Gentiles" thing.

He retained the habit of attending synagogue and debating with Jews as to the meanings of Scripture. Maybe that is what you are thinking? But debating Scripture... that's a Jewish thing to do.


Then perhaps you ought to educate yourself on the matter. Try search strings "Akiva" "bar Kochba rebellion" "council of Jamnia," and follow the links from there.

I just proved it using scripture, logic and chronology. Why do I need to prove it again?

Seriously? :jawdrop: I think you're the first person I've ever seen try to make that argument. I mean, the whole of history says just exactly the opposite.


I don't think it was first called "Christianity" because Paul founded it. That would take some bass-ackwards logics.

You seem to have missed this -

...

How does citing verses prove anything? You keep inviting me to a duel of proof-texting. Why? Can we evaluate it using ALL of the resources instead? Logic? History? Textual Criticism?

Beyond that, though... how can you fail to see this? "Salvation is of the Jews" and "all Israel shall be saved." And that's Paul, talking to Gentiles! Other books are either expressly written to Jews (Matthew, Jude, 1Peter). The apocalypse builds on Daniel in a way that makes it incomprehensible to anyone who isn't Jewish, and well-acquainted with Jewish history. Linguistically, all the books are written in a Koine dialect which presumes knowledge of Aramaic.

You have some ideas that take a staggering amount of willful ignorance to maintain.

I am not familiar enough with Islam to cite from the Quran or its traditions or other writings.

He didn't. If you will read down 3 verses farther in the same chapter...

"All may know that those things, whereof they were informed concerning thee, are nothing; but that thou thyself also walkest orderly, and keepest the law."

It was a false accusation. Why then do you cite it, as though it had substance?

Re-read Luke 16:31. That isn't what it says at all. Not to mention that chapter isn't remotely related to the topic at hand.

Good. What do you do with the promise to make Abraham a "father of Goyim?" Genesis 17:4-5

Jarrod

Jarrod, I am sorry but I have arrived to the conclusion that we are wasting the time of each other. You seem to want me to take your word for it and not to accept Biblical quotes even of the NT which is your own Bible. I can't walk that way. Even the Jewish war of 70 ACE you mention of having been in the Second Century and refuse to accept any correction. It is impossible to discuss something in such an illogical manner.

patrick jane
September 20th, 2015, 11:02 PM
Jarrod, I am sorry but I have arrived to the conclusion that we are wasting the time of each other. You seem to want me to take your word for it and not to accept Biblical quotes even of the NT which is your own Bible. I can't walk that way. Even the Jewish war of 70 ACE you mention of having been in the Second Century and refuse to accept any correction. It is impossible to discuss something in such an illogical manner.

Gut Shabbes and have an easy feast -

Wick Stick
September 20th, 2015, 11:25 PM
Even the Jewish war of 70 ACE you mention of having been in the Second Century and refuse to accept any correction. It is impossible to discuss something in such an illogical manner.
Before you go correcting, you ought to make sure you understand what is being said. What I actually said that anti-Semitism was prevalent in the 2nd century. I then referred to the two revolts (70 AD and 135 AD) as laying the groundwork for resentment against Jews. But :carryon:


Jarrod, I am sorry but I have arrived to the conclusion that we are wasting the time of each other.
The point isn't to convert each other, is it? I've enjoyed the debate, and opportunity to understand and evaluate someone else's viewpoint. If you haven't, then perhaps you're doing it wrong.


You seem to want me to take your word for it and not to accept Biblical quotes even of the NT which is your own Bible. I can't walk that way.
I think you're saying that you don't want to deal with my beliefs because they don't fit closely enough with your expectation of what cookie-cutter Christianity believes. It's cool.

Jarrod

Ben Masada
September 23rd, 2015, 08:22 AM
The point isn't to convert each other, is it? I've enjoyed the debate, and opportunity to understand and evaluate someone else's viewpoint. If you haven't, then perhaps you're doing it wrong.

Jarrod

Jarrod, Jews are not allowed to proselytize even if it becomes open-season throughout the forums. Our prohibition comes from higher Jewish sources. True, that forum rules maintain a slight prohibition but we all know that it does not work as Christians are concerned. They are not only allowed but demanded that conversions be encouraged. All depends on a personal decision. Not so with the Jews though.

God's Truth
September 23rd, 2015, 11:41 AM
1 - And you are implying that Jeremiah, a major prophet of the Lord, was a liar. (Jer. 7:22) But I do not blame you because you seem not to understand what "Picuach Nephesh" is even after I have explained it to you. It means you don't want to understand. You prefer to walk by faith and leave the understanding with Paul. See II Cor. 5:7.

2 - I know Jesus much better than you think you do. He was Jewish just as I am and not of the religion of Christianity you belong to. I know Jesus for what he was. You know him as a Greek demigod according to the gospel of Paul. See Acts 9:20.

You have to change the whole Old Testament to try and prove Jesus wrong.

Jews know that God commanded Moses to do animal sacrifices. That is a main reason why the Jews want the temple rebuilt.

However, you know the sacrifice of animals will be wrong, because Jesus is the last Sacrificial Lamb of God.

God's Truth
September 23rd, 2015, 11:46 AM
Jarrod, Jews are not allowed to proselytize even if it becomes open-season throughout the forums. Our prohibition comes from higher Jewish sources. True, that forum rules maintain a slight prohibition but we all know that it does not work as Christians are concerned. They are not only allowed but demanded that conversions be encouraged. All depends on a personal decision. Not so with the Jews though.

God does not care who you are blood related to anymore, because his Son's blood is all that matters. Be cleaned and reconciled to God by the blood of the Lamb.

Ben Masada
September 25th, 2015, 06:38 AM
1 - You have to change the whole Old Testament to try and prove Jesus wrong.

2 - Jews know that God commanded Moses to do animal sacrifices. That is a main reason why the Jews want the temple rebuilt.

3 - However, you know the sacrifice of animals will be wrong, because Jesus is the last Sacrificial Lamb of God.

1 - I am changing nothing. Prophet Jeremiah revealed that truth before I was born for many years. About two thousand and a half years. Besides, I am not trying to prove Jesus wrong. He was as right as I am. You are the one whom I have already proved wrong.

2 - Jews know that Moses had to use of "Pichuach Nephesh" to add the sacrifices to be able to effect the Exodus. Otherwise, he would never be able to take the Israelites out of Mitzraim.

3 - Now, you are playing funny with me. No one was ever a sacrificial lamb of God. It would be an act of contradiction against Jeremiah and Ezekiel. (Jer. 31:30 and Ezek. 18:20)

Ben Masada
September 25th, 2015, 06:50 AM
God does not care who you are blood related to anymore, because his Son's blood is all that matters. Be cleaned and reconciled to God by the blood of the Lamb.

That's not what HaShem said to Isaiah to teach us. He said that whenever we want to set things right with God so that our sins from scarlet red become as white as snow, we must repent and return to the obedience of the Lord. (Isa. 1:18,19) Why didn't He say to accept the blood of the Lamb on the altar? Because HaShem would not go according to the gospel of Paul. That's all. See how easy is to prove the truth?

Omniskeptical
September 26th, 2015, 03:16 AM
Ben Masada, I noticed Jews to this day, Jews call their religion a name after Judah, not Israel, while not even reproducing the other 11 tribes. The NT assumes no new religion, and an Enochian ascension of the Christ's ecclesia, and the persistence of the other 11 tribes including Manasseh.

In your version of the OT, God has abandoned Israel. Why doesn't the NT agree with your version?

Ben Masada
September 26th, 2015, 10:50 AM
Ben Masada, I noticed Jews to this day, Jews call their religion a name after Judah, not Israel, while not even reproducing the other 11 tribes. The NT assumes no new religion, and an Enochian ascension of the Christ's ecclesia, and the persistence of the other 11 tribes including Manasseh.

In your version of the OT, God has abandoned Israel. Why doesn't the NT agree with your version?

I challenge you to produce the text in the Tanach that God has abandoned Israel. I have never claimed such a version in the Tanach that God has abandoned Israel. I have no idea where you have got this one from. The opposite is rather true that, "Of the other nations, the Lord will eventually get rid of them but of Israel He will only chastise us as we deserve. (Jer. 46:28) This sounds rather that the Lord will abandon the Gentiles and never Israel. He will rather make of Israel a Kingdom of priests and a Holy Nation. (Exod. 19:6)

Omniskeptical
September 26th, 2015, 11:52 AM
I challenge you to produce the text in the Tanach that God has abandoned Israel. I have never claimed such a version in the Tanach that God has abandoned Israel. I have no idea where you have got this one from. The opposite is rather true that, "Of the other nations, the Lord will eventually get rid of them but of Israel He will only chastise us as we deserve. (Jer. 46:28) This sounds rather that the Lord will abandon the Gentiles and never Israel. He will rather make of Israel a Kingdom of priest and a Holy Nation. (Exod. 19:6)He must have, since the OT is used to prove only Judah survived and came out of exile. I find the notion ludicrous aswell.

jamie
September 26th, 2015, 11:58 AM
According to Israeli law Judah was a Gentile as were his father and mother.

The Law of Return
July 5, 1950

Amendment No. 2 5730-1970*
1. In the Law of Return, 5710-1950**, the following sections shall be inserted after section 4:

4B. For the purposes of this Law, "Jew" means a person who was born of a Jewish mother or has become converted to Judaism and who is not a member of another religion."

God's Truth
September 26th, 2015, 01:32 PM
That's not what HaShem said to Isaiah to teach us. He said that whenever we want to set things right with God so that our sins from scarlet red become as white as snow, we must repent and return to the obedience of the Lord. (Isa. 1:18,19) Why didn't He say to accept the blood of the Lamb on the altar? Because HaShem would not go according to the gospel of Paul. That's all. See how easy is to prove the truth?

Do you think that Isaiah did not have to obey God?

Tell me, what was God going to do to Moses when Moses was not going to circumcise his son?

I am waiting so please tell me.

God's Truth
September 26th, 2015, 01:40 PM
Ben Masada, God commanded Moses to teach the people about making animal sacrifices, burnt offerings,offerings, incense, New Moons, Sabbaths, and convocations.

HOWEVER, God did NOT like those things from the people, WHEN and BECAUSE they gave and did THOSE things but continued to do evil, and they were NOT sorry for their sins! Read Isaiah 1.

Ben Masada
September 27th, 2015, 02:19 AM
He must have, since the OT is used to prove only Judah survived and came out of exile. I find the notion ludicrous aswell.

Oh! Now I understand what you mean. My apologies! After the removal of the "Ten Tribes" aka Ephraim from the Land of Israel by the Assyrians in 622 BCE, Judah became the new Israel in possession of the whole Land of Israel. That's the Israel I am referring to that the Lord has never rejected. (Psa. 78:67-70; I Kings 11:36) My view of the new Israel from the waters of Judah was prophesied by Prophet Isaiah in 48:1.

Ben Masada
September 27th, 2015, 02:39 AM
1 - According to Israeli law Judah was a Gentile as were his father and mother. The Law of Return - July 5, 1950 - Amendment No. 2 5730-1970In the Law of Return, 5710-1950**, the following sections shall be inserted after section 4:

4B - For the purposes of this Law, "Jew" means a person who was born of a Jewish mother or has become converted to Judaism and who is not a member of another religion."

1 - You must be misreading this text of the Law of Return. The father of Judah was Jacob, the son of Isaac, son of Abraham. I don't recall such an Israeli law. None could be more Jewish than Judah.

4B - As you can see, were Paul around today, he could not use the law of return to get citizenship in the State of Israel. Paul had ceased to be a Jew when he founded another religion aka Christianity. (Acts 11;26)

Ben Masada
September 27th, 2015, 03:44 AM
1 - Do you think that Isaiah did not have to obey God?
2 - Tell me, what was God going to do to Moses when Moses was not going to circumcise his son?
3 - I am waiting so please tell me.

1 - No one has to obey God; only those who want.We have Freewill.

2 - God would remove him from the mission to effect the Exodus.

3 - I have told you.

Ben Masada
September 27th, 2015, 03:57 AM
1 - Ben Masada, God commanded Moses to teach the people about making animal sacrifices, burnt offerings,offerings, incense, New Moons, Sabbaths, and convocations.

2 - HOWEVER, God did NOT like those things from the people, WHEN and BECAUSE they gave and did THOSE things but continued to do evil, and they were NOT sorry for their sins! Read Isaiah 1.

1 - Are you implying that Prophet Jeremiah was a liar?

2 - Yes, God allowed the use of Pichuach Nephesh to add the sacrifices but went disgusting so to speak that they stuck to the sacrifices and continued in the disobedience of the other laws.

jamie
September 27th, 2015, 08:40 AM
1 - You must be misreading this text of the Law of Return. The father of Judah was Jacob, the son of Isaac, son of Abraham. I don't recall such an Israeli law. None could be more Jewish than Judah.


You missed the point, if Judah wanted to return to Israel today he would be denied since Judah's mother was not a Jew and Judah was not of the Jewish religion.

Abraham was an uncircumcised Gentile when God made a covenant with him. Circumcision of the flesh does not make one a Jew.


Muslims are still the largest single religious group to circumcise boys. In Islam circumcision is also known as tahara, meaning purification.
(www.bbc.co.uk/.../religions/islam/islamethics/malecircumcision.shtml)

God's Truth
September 27th, 2015, 11:13 AM
1 - No one has to obey God; only those who want.We have Freewill.

2 - God would remove him from the mission to effect the Exodus.

3 - I have told you.

God was going to kill Moses for not circumcising his son.

You have to give up everything you think you know and obey Jesus, then he will reveal the Truth to you.

God's Truth
September 27th, 2015, 11:16 AM
1 - Are you implying that Prophet Jeremiah was a liar?

No, but you are.



2 - Yes, God allowed the use of Pichuach Nephesh to add the sacrifices but went disgusting so to speak that they stuck to the sacrifices and continued in the disobedience of the other laws.

You will say any lie to defend your imagination, which comes from the devil. Tell me why God killed Aaron's sons.

Ben Masada
September 28th, 2015, 03:15 AM
1 - You missed the point, if Judah wanted to return to Israel today he would be denied since Judah's mother was not a Jew and Judah was not of the Jewish religion.

2 - Abraham was an uncircumcised Gentile when God made a covenant with him. Circumcision of the flesh does not make one a Jew.

3 - Muslims are still the largest single religious group to circumcise boys. In Islam circumcision is also known as tahara, meaning purification.

1 - No, not that I missed the point per se but that I did not find necessary to explain that the Law for the Jewish identity to be transferred to the mother happened when the Jews returned to the Land of Israel from exile in Babylon as an item of the Jewish New Covenant mediated by Ezra/Nehemiah. (Jer. 31:31) Till then, the method of "Jewish" identity was still, under the patriarchal system through the father.

2 - Not really. Abraham was Divinely chosen when he escaped his pagan land and family and chose the Divine by becoming a Monotheistic servant of HaShem. Then he developed a Monotheistic religion with his seed through Isaac and Jacob. That was the time of the Patriarchs. Then circumcision was adopted into the religion of Israel through Divine revelations by means of HaShem's Prophets during dreams and visions. (Numb. 12:6) There were no Gentiles before Abraham, considering that God's People had not risen yet.

3 - Muslims do honor the memory of Abraham by circumcising their sons at 13 but, God's Covenant with Abraham whose token would be the circumcision was not made with Ishmael but with Isaac only. (Gen. 17:20,21)

Ben Masada
September 28th, 2015, 03:45 AM
1 - God was going to kill Moses for not circumcising his son.

2 - You have to give up everything you think you know and obey Jesus, then he will reveal the Truth to you.

1 - I am aware of that, GT. The Arameans circumcised their boys at 13 and knew that the Jews also did it, whereas at a much younger age. Moses had grown up among pagans and realized that Moses had missed that point. So, it is not down in the page but one won't err to assume that Zippora, his wife, had a dream when the God of the holy mountain aka Sinai was trying to kill Moses and she knew the reason why for she had wondered the night before. Then, to remind him of his religious duty, she circumcised their child herself with horror. (Exod. 4:24-26)

2 - We already obey the same Law that Jesus used to. (Mat. 5:17-19; Luke 16:31) Then, as the Truth is concerned, Jesus knew that it is the Word of God if you read John 17:17 and that the Word of God was given to Israel only and to no other people on earth. (Psa. 147:19,20)

God's Truth
September 28th, 2015, 10:40 AM
1 - I am aware of that, GT. The Arameans circumcised their boys at 13 and knew that the Jews also did it, whereas at a much younger age. Moses had grown up among pagans and realized that Moses had missed that point. So, it is not down in the page but one won't err to assume that Zippora, his wife, had a dream when the God of the holy mountain aka Sinai was trying to kill Moses and she knew the reason why for she had wondered the night before. Then, to remind him of his religious duty, she circumcised their child herself with horror. (Exod. 4:24-26)

2 - We already obey the same Law that Jesus used to. (Mat. 5:17-19; Luke 16:31) Then, as the Truth is concerned, Jesus knew that it is the Word of God if you read John 17:17 and that the Word of God was given to Israel only and to no other people on earth. (Psa. 147:19,20)

GOD commanded the ceremonial law of circumcision and the sacrifice of animals.

God was going to kill Moses for not circumcising his son.

His wife did circumcise their son.

Jesus is the Savior of the world and the reason the Jews, those blood related to Abraham were important because the Savior to come would be blood related to Abraham.

Jesus came and only those who confess to God through Jesus and his shed blood on the cross will be saved.

Jesus' blood cleans us because he is the Sacrificial Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world once and for all.

Ben Masada
September 28th, 2015, 10:22 PM
No, but you are.

You will say any lie to defend your imagination, which comes from the devil. Tell me why God killed Aaron's sons.

Did you read Jeremiah 7:22? I am sure you didn't. If you had read it, you would not make up the charge of imagination and the slander that I am lying. You are back at replying my posts with anti-Jewish hostility without checking for the evidences.

God killed no one. The sons of Aaron killed themselves by doing what they knew they were not supposed to. It is called law of cause & effect.

Ben Masada
September 28th, 2015, 10:36 PM
1 - GOD commanded the ceremonial law of circumcision and the sacrifice of animals.

2 - God was going to kill Moses for not circumcising his son.

3 - His wife did circumcise their son.

4 - Jesus is the Savior of the world and the reason the Jews, those blood related to Abraham were important because the Savior to come would be blood related to Abraham.

5 - Jesus came and only those who confess to God through Jesus and his shed blood on the cross will be saved.

6 - Jesus' blood cleans us because he is the Sacrificial Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world once and for all.

1 - Read Jeremiah 7:22.

2 - God kills no one. Zipporah had a dream from "above."

3 - Finally, one right.

4 - Jesus could not save himself while alive, how could he save the world dead?

5 - Read Jeremiah 31:30 and Ezekiel 18:20.

6 - Why is the world more sinful today than before Jesus was crucified? Obviously, not a good work he did.

God's Truth
September 28th, 2015, 11:46 PM
Did you read Jeremiah 7:22? I am sure you didn't. If you had read it, you would not make up the charge of imagination and the slander that I am lying. You are back at replying my posts with anti-Jewish hostility without checking for the evidences.

God killed no one. The sons of Aaron killed themselves by doing what they knew they were not supposed to. It is called law of cause & effect.

You say Moses made up things for the people to do.

God commanded Moses what to have the people do.

God killed Aaron's sons because they added things that God did not tell them to do.

You claim that Moses did what Aaron's sons were killed for doing.

Numbers 26:61
And there went out fire from the LORD, and devoured them, and they died before the LORD.

God's Truth
September 28th, 2015, 11:52 PM
Did you read Jeremiah 7:22?

22 For when I brought your forefathers out of Egypt and spoke to them, I did not just give them commands about burnt offerings and sacrifices, 23 but I gave them this command: Obey me, and I will be your God and you will be my people. Walk in all the ways I command you, that it may go well with you.

God's Truth
September 29th, 2015, 12:25 AM
1 - Read Jeremiah 7:22.
God gave the ceremonial law to Moses. You are calling Moses a liar.

The Burnt Offering
Leviticus 1:1 The LORD called to Moses and spoke to him from the Tent of Meeting. He said, 2 "Speak to the Israelites and say to them: 'When any of you brings an offering to the LORD, bring as your offering an animal from either the herd or the flock. 3 " 'If the offering is a burnt offering from the herd, he is to offer a male without defect. He must present it at the entrance to the Tent of Meeting so that it will be acceptable to the LORD.


2 - God kills no one. Zipporah had a dream from "above."
You heard me right. God was going to kill Moses. That is what the Bible says.

Exodus 4:24 At a lodging place on the way, the LORD met [Moses] and was about to kill him.




3 - Finally, one right.

4 - Jesus could not save himself while alive, how could he save the world dead?
The Sacrifice is just that, a sacrifice.




5 - Read Jeremiah 31:30 and Ezekiel 18:20.
Those scriptures are about not punishing a father or son for the sins of the other without their wanting.

It is about if a father did wrong and was killed, they could not also kill the son because his father did wrong.



6 - Why is the world more sinful today than before Jesus was crucified? Obviously, not a good work he did.

That is just your evil opinion.

Ben Masada
September 29th, 2015, 04:04 AM
1 - You say Moses made up things for the people to do.
2 - God commanded Moses what to have the people do.
3 - God killed Aaron's sons because they added things that God did not tell them to do.
4 - You claim that Moses did what Aaron's sons were killed for doing.
5 - Numbers 26:61 And there went out fire from the LORD, and devoured them, and they died before the LORD.

1 - Moses was a Jew, not a Christian. You don't know about Jewish culture. Every Jew has the power to use of "Pichuach Nephesh" to wave a commandment in order to observe another more relevant like to save the life of someone else or of his own.

2 - Like to obey the commandment in the Decalogue which Paul said was abolished. (Rom. 7:7; 10:4; Ephes. 2:15; Heb. 7:12)

3 - You don't know what you are talking about.

4 - Now, you are speaking nonsense.

5 - The Creator of the universe would not kill some one because he did not offer the right fire before the Lord. To take what happened literally would be to compare the religion of Israel with pagan worshiping.

Ben Masada
September 29th, 2015, 04:14 AM
22 For when I brought your forefathers out of Egypt and spoke to them, I did not just give them commands about burnt offerings and sacrifices, 23 but I gave them this command: Obey me, and I will be your God and you will be my people. Walk in all the ways I command you, that it may go well with you.

The Lord approved Moses' use of "Pichuach Nephesh" to add the sacrifices to the religion of Israel. That does not mean He commanded. Why would the great Prophet Jeremiah lie? (Jer. 7:22) The problem is that the People started using the sacrifices as acts of personal redemption just like the pagan nations of the time.

Ben Masada
September 29th, 2015, 04:42 AM
1 - God gave the ceremonial law to Moses. You are calling Moses a liar.
2 - The Burnt Offering Leviticus 1:1 The LORD called to Moses and spoke to him from the Tent of Meeting. He said, 2 "Speak to the Israelites and say to them: 'When any of you brings an offering to the LORD, bring as your offering an animal from either the herd or the flock. 3 " 'If the offering is a burnt offering from the herd, he is to offer a male without defect. He must present it at the entrance to the Tent of Meeting so that it will be acceptable to the LORD.
3 - You heard me right. God was going to kill Moses. That is what the Bible says.
4 - Exodus 4:24 At a lodging place on the way, the LORD met [Moses] and was about to kill him.
5 - The Sacrifice is just that, a sacrifice.
6 - Those scriptures are about not punishing a father or son for the sins of the other without their wanting.
7 - It is about if a father did wrong and was killed, they could not also kill the son because his father did wrong.

8 - That is just your evil opinion.

1 - I said, read Jer. 7:22.

2 - In a dream or vision. (Numb. 12:6)

3 - Zipporah had a dream.

4 - In a dream of Zipporah.

5 - As well as the sacrifices of the pagans.

6 - You are not reading right. Read again Jer. 31:29,30. V. 29 was proverb no longer in use. V. 30 is about personal responsibility.

7 - That proverb had long fallen in disuse. Since the establishment of the New Covenant, the responsibility would be personal. (Jer. 31:31)

8 - That's just your anti-Jewish attitude.

God's Truth
September 29th, 2015, 09:08 AM
1 - Moses was a Jew, not a Christian. You don't know about Jewish culture. Every Jew has the power to use of "Pichuach Nephesh" to wave a commandment in order to observe another more relevant like to save the life of someone else or of his own.

2 - Like to obey the commandment in the Decalogue which Paul said was abolished. (Rom. 7:7; 10:4; Ephes. 2:15; Heb. 7:12)

3 - You don't know what you are talking about.

4 - Now, you are speaking nonsense.

5 - The Creator of the universe would not kill some one because he did not offer the right fire before the Lord. To take what happened literally would be to compare the religion of Israel with pagan worshiping.

You are speaking nonsense contradictions and crooked denials.

You have in the Torah where God tells Moses what to tell the people about sacrifices and burnt offerings, but you pretend it is not there in writing.

You also have the scriptures that plainly say God killed someone, and another scripture where God was going to kill someone else, but you just deny it, and the rest you contradict by admitting it happened but that it was not literal.

You know nothing about the Christian religion, and nothing about the Jewish religion, and nothing about God. You are a fake.

God's Truth
September 29th, 2015, 09:27 AM
The Lord approved Moses' use of "Pichuach Nephesh" to add the sacrifices to the religion of Israel. That does not mean He commanded. Why would the great Prophet Jeremiah lie? (Jer. 8:22) The problem is that the People started using the sacrifices as acts of personal redemption just like the pagan nations of the time.

Jeremiah 8:8 How can you say, "We are wise! We have the law of the LORD"? The truth is, those who teach it have used their writings to make it say what it does not really mean.

God's Truth
September 29th, 2015, 09:39 AM
1 - I said, read Jer. 7:22.

2 - In a dream or vision. (Numb. 12:6)

3 - Zipporah had a dream.

4 - In a dream of Zipporah.

5 - As well as the sacrifices of the pagans.

6 - You are not reading right. Read again Jer. 31:29,30. V. 29 was proverb no longer in use. V. 30 is about personal responsibility.

7 - That proverb had long fallen in disuse. Since the establishment of the New Covenant, the responsibility would be personal. (Jer. 31:31)

8 - That's just your anti-Jewish attitude.

The scripture does not say that Zipporah had a dream, but even if it was a dream, God was going to kill Moses.

Moses and the others had to clean themselves before entering the tent, where God's Spirit was.

You are anti Jew, for you compare the Jewish law as that of pagans.

False Prophet
September 29th, 2015, 12:38 PM
Melchizedek came from Salem which later became Jerusalem.

Ben Masada
October 2nd, 2015, 01:45 PM
You are speaking nonsense contradictions and crooked denials.

You have in the Torah where God tells Moses what to tell the people about sacrifices and burnt offerings, but you pretend it is not there in writing.

You also have the scriptures that plainly say God killed someone, and another scripture where God was going to kill someone else, but you just deny it, and the rest you contradict by admitting it happened but that it was not literal.

You know nothing about the Christian religion, and nothing about the Jewish religion, and nothing about God. You are a fake.

And I bet you are a saint, aren't you?

God's Truth
October 2nd, 2015, 01:51 PM
And I bet you are a saint, aren't you?

That is what Jesus' blood does.

Ben Masada
October 2nd, 2015, 01:56 PM
Jeremiah 8:8 How can you say, "We are wise! We have the law of the LORD"? The truth is, those who teach it have used their writings to make it say what it does not really mean.

The Law makes us wise. Read Psalm 119.

Ben Masada
October 2nd, 2015, 02:03 PM
1 - The scripture does not say that Zipporah had a dream, but even if it was a dream, God was going to kill Moses.

2 - Moses and the others had to clean themselves before entering the tent, where God's Spirit was.

3 - You are anti Jew, for you compare the Jewish law as that of pagans.

1 - In many instances one has a spiritual dream when it is not mentioned in the Scriptures.

2 - God's Spirit is everywhere. In the Temple in a special way.

3 - No comments on slanders.

Ben Masada
October 2nd, 2015, 02:05 PM
Melchizedek came from Salem which later became Jerusalem.

So what, did that make of him a high priest of the Most High? I don't think so.

Ben Masada
October 2nd, 2015, 02:16 PM
That is what Jesus' blood does.

Have you ever read Rev. 14:12? It says, "Here is the patience of the saints; here are they that keep the commandments of God and the Faith of Jesus."

The commandments of God and the Faith of Jesus, don't forget! Do you happen to know what was the Faith of Jesus? Obviously not! Since he was a religious Jew, his Faith was Judaism.

Do you keep the commandments of God aka the Decalogue and practice the Faith of Jesus which was Judaism? I don't think so. How then could Jesus' blood have made you a saint against the words of the Prophets of the Lord that no one can shed his blood for another? (Jer. 31:30 and Ezek. 18:20)

RBBI
October 2nd, 2015, 06:43 PM
Have you ever read Rev. 14:12? It says, "Here is the patience of the saints; here are they that keep the commandments of God and the Faith of Jesus."

The commandments of God and the Faith of Jesus, don't forget! Do you happen to know what was the Faith of Jesus? Obviously not! Since he was a religious Jew, his Faith was Judaism.

Do you keep the commandments of God aka the Decalogue and practice the Faith of Jesus which was Judaism? I don't think so. How then could Jesus' blood have made you a saint against the words of the Prophets of the Lord that no one can shed his blood for another? (Jer. 31:30 and Ezek. 18:20)

That's easy......Pichuach Nephesh. Peace

God's Truth
October 2nd, 2015, 07:29 PM
The Law makes us wise. Read Psalm 119.
I gave scripture.

Jeremiah 8:8 How can you say, "We are wise! We have the law of the LORD"? The truth is, those who teach it have used their writings to make it say what it does not really mean.

God's Truth
October 2nd, 2015, 07:30 PM
1 - In many instances one has a spiritual dream when it is not mentioned in the Scriptures.

2 - God's Spirit is everywhere. In the Temple in a special way.

3 - No comments on slanders.

The scripture does not say that Zipporah had a dream, but even if it was a dream, God was going to kill Moses.

2 - Moses and the others had to clean themselves before entering the tent, where God's Spirit was.

3 - You are anti Jew, for you compare the Jewish law as that of pagans.

God's Truth
October 2nd, 2015, 07:33 PM
Have you ever read Rev. 14:12? It says, "Here is the patience of the saints; here are they that keep the commandments of God and the Faith of Jesus."

The commandments of God and the Faith of Jesus, don't forget! Do you happen to know what was the Faith of Jesus? Obviously not! Since he was a religious Jew, his Faith was Judaism.

Do you keep the commandments of God aka the Decalogue and practice the Faith of Jesus which was Judaism? I don't think so. How then could Jesus' blood have made you a saint against the words of the Prophets of the Lord that no one can shed his blood for another? (Jer. 31:30 and Ezek. 18:20)

Jesus is the Sacrificial Lamb of God. You must believe that Jesus' blood washes away your sins or they are not washed away.

You have to be born again.

Wick Stick
October 2nd, 2015, 09:42 PM
...against the words of the Prophets of the Lord that no one can shed his blood for another? (Jer. 31:30 and Ezek. 18:20)
Those verses both say that a sinner dies for his own sins. Since Jesus is not a sinner, they do not apply.

Jarrod

Ben Masada
October 3rd, 2015, 12:18 PM
You say Moses made up things for the people to do.

God commanded Moses what to have the people do.

God killed Aaron's sons because they added things that God did not tell them to do.

You claim that Moses did what Aaron's sons were killed for doing.

Numbers 26:61
And there went out fire from the LORD, and devoured them, and they died before the LORD.

You do not want to understand any thing I say which is only a waste
of our time.

Ben Masada
October 3rd, 2015, 12:21 PM
That's easy......Pichuach Nephesh. Peace

How about a back to this thread? This has nothing to do with the truth about Melchizedek.

Ben Masada
October 3rd, 2015, 12:24 PM
I gave scripture.

Jeremiah 8:8 How can you say, "We are wise! We have the law of the LORD"? The truth is, those who teach it have used their writings to make it say what it does not really mean.

Okay, now be wise and let's go back to the original thread. We have been way off for too long.

Ben Masada
October 3rd, 2015, 12:27 PM
The scripture does not say that Zipporah had a dream, but even if it was a dream, God was going to kill Moses.

2 - Moses and the others had to clean themselves before entering the tent, where God's Spirit was.

3 - You are anti Jew, for you compare the Jewish law as that of pagans.

Right, every thing is possible in a dream, even for God going to kill Moses.

Ben Masada
October 3rd, 2015, 12:29 PM
Jesus is the Sacrificial Lamb of God. You must believe that Jesus' blood washes away your sins or they are not washed away.

You have to be born again.

It is not in the Hebrew Scriptures and I cannot take your word for it.

Ben Masada
October 3rd, 2015, 12:38 PM
Those verses both say that a sinner dies for his own sins. Since Jesus is not a sinner, they do not apply.

Jarrod

For two reasons Jesus was also a sinner. The first is according to Ecclesiastes 7:20 which says that it has never been a man upon earth who has done only good and never sinned. Jesus was a man upon earth for 35 years of his short life but even so. And the second reason is that only in the text of Mat. 23:13-33 Jesus broke the Golden Rule for about 15 times. Grave transgressions of the Law because the Golden Rule covers the whole second part of the Decalogue. The Golden Rule says "Never to do unto others what you would not like they did unto yourself." If we are to believe that text of Matthew, Jesus cursed the Jewish authorities with being hypocrites and brood of vipers. Would you like to be cursed as such? I don't think so and neither did they.

God's Truth
October 3rd, 2015, 03:44 PM
You do not want to understand any thing I say which is only a waste
of our time.

I understand everything you say.

God's Truth
October 3rd, 2015, 03:45 PM
It is not in the Hebrew Scriptures and I cannot take your word for it.

It is not my word, it is the Word of God.

God's Truth
October 3rd, 2015, 03:53 PM
It is not in the Hebrew Scriptures and I cannot take your word for it.

God would say it was a dream if it were a dream.

Wick Stick
October 4th, 2015, 01:43 AM
For two reasons Jesus was also a sinner. The first is according to Ecclesiastes 7:20 which says that it has never been a man upon earth who has done only good and never sinned.
Have you read Ecclesiastes? It's about (a) Solomon's wisdom, and (b) the futility of human wisdom.

Basically, Ecclesiastes imparts a bunch of human wisdom, and then takes a giant crap on all human wisdom, thereby calling into question every other point made in the book. You can't cite it to prove anything. Nobody can.



And the second reason is that only in the text of Mat. 23:13-33 Jesus broke the Golden Rule for about 15 times. Grave transgressions of the Law because the Golden Rule covers the whole second part of the Decalogue. The Golden Rule says "Never to do unto others what you would not like they did unto yourself." If we are to believe that text of Matthew, Jesus cursed the Jewish authorities with being hypocrites and brood of vipers. Would you like to be cursed as such? I don't think so and neither did they.We already had this argument earlier in the thread, so let's not re-hash it.

Jarrod

bybee
October 4th, 2015, 07:18 AM
Have you read Ecclesiastes? It's about (a) Solomon's wisdom, and (b) the futility of human wisdom.

Basically, Ecclesiastes imparts a bunch of human wisdom, and then takes a giant crap on all human wisdom, thereby calling into question every other point made in the book. You can't cite it to prove anything. Nobody can.


We already had this argument earlier in the thread, so let's not re-hash it.

Jarrod

That is an offensive way to express oneself about Scripture.
The point of Ecclesiastes is to finally understand that there is a Wisdom beyond human wisdom and within that Wisdom one may find meaning and peace.
No doubt there is more.

God's Truth
October 4th, 2015, 10:41 AM
For two reasons Jesus was also a sinner. The first is according to Ecclesiastes 7:20 which says that it has never been a man upon earth who has done only good and never sinned. Jesus was a man upon earth for 35 years of his short life but even so. And the second reason is that only in the text of Mat. 23:13-33 Jesus broke the Golden Rule for about 15 times. Grave transgressions of the Law because the Golden Rule covers the whole second part of the Decalogue. The Golden Rule says "Never to do unto others what you would not like they did unto yourself." If we are to believe that text of Matthew, Jesus cursed the Jewish authorities with being hypocrites and brood of vipers. Would you like to be cursed as such? I don't think so and neither did they.

Jesus was no mere man. Jesus is God come in the flesh as a Son.

Wick Stick
October 4th, 2015, 10:57 AM
That is an offensive way to express oneself about Scripture.
I don't mean to offend. My point remains, apart from the vocabulary I chose to express it. Here are the final verses in Ecclesiastes:

Ecc 12:11-14 11 The words of the wise are as goads, and as nails fastened [by] the masters of assemblies, which are given from one shepherd. 12 And further, by these, my son, be admonished: of making many books there is no end; and much study is a weariness of the flesh. 13 Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this [is] the whole [duty] of man. 14 For God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether [it be] good, or whether [it be] evil.

Solomon basically says that all the study and writing in the world amounts to a hill of beans, and we would be better off just practicing Moses.

Jarrod

bybee
October 4th, 2015, 11:02 AM
I don't mean to offend. My point remains, apart from the vocabulary I chose to express it. Here are the final verses in Ecclesiastes:

Ecc 12:11-14 11 The words of the wise are as goads, and as nails fastened [by] the masters of assemblies, which are given from one shepherd. 12 And further, by these, my son, be admonished: of making many books there is no end; and much study is a weariness of the flesh. 13 Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this [is] the whole [duty] of man. 14 For God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether [it be] good, or whether [it be] evil.

Solomon basically says that all the study and writing in the world amounts to a hill of beans, and we would be better off just practicing Moses.

Jarrod

And yet, there are seasons to all things. I am now in the most comfortable season of life. My body is losing its abilities and my mind is not so sharp as once it was but my spiritual well being increases. I love more and judge less, share more and acquire less.

God's Truth
October 4th, 2015, 11:37 AM
I don't mean to offend. My point remains, apart from the vocabulary I chose to express it. Here are the final verses in Ecclesiastes:

Ecc 12:11-14 11 The words of the wise are as goads, and as nails fastened [by] the masters of assemblies, which are given from one shepherd. 12 And further, by these, my son, be admonished: of making many books there is no end; and much study is a weariness of the flesh. 13 Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this [is] the whole [duty] of man. 14 For God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether [it be] good, or whether [it be] evil.

Solomon basically says that all the study and writing in the world amounts to a hill of beans, and we would be better off just practicing Moses.

Jarrod

Ecclesiastes is saying the only thing that matters is to obey God, whatever He says to do.

Whether it just be don't eat from this tree, or obey this law, or obey Jesus.

We have to obey to be saved.

Ben Masada
October 6th, 2015, 10:54 AM
It is not my word, it is the Word of God.

The Word of God is in the Scriptures aka the Tanach.

Ben Masada
October 6th, 2015, 10:56 AM
God would say it was a dream if it were a dream.

You err for not knowing the Scriptures and the power of God.

Ben Masada
October 6th, 2015, 11:08 AM
1 - Have you read Ecclesiastes? It's about Solomon's wisdom, and the futility of human wisdom.

2 - Basically, Ecclesiastes imparts a bunch of human wisdom, and then takes a giant crap on all human wisdom, thereby calling into question every other point made in the book. You can't cite it to prove anything. Nobody can.

3 - We already had this argument earlier in the thread, so let's not re-hash it.

Jarrod

1 - Solomon's wisdom was human wisdom. Solomon was human.

2 - Great! And you can cite the Pauline wisdom that Jesus was a son of God without a biological father on earth. (Acts 9:20) You have fallen into the same trap that you think I had.

3 - By repeating that Jesus was without sin, I took that you were asking for a repetition of the sins of Jesus.

Ben Masada
October 6th, 2015, 11:14 AM
Jesus was no mere man. Jesus is God come in the flesh as a Son.

This is pure idolatry according to Jesus whose Faith was Judaism. (Deut. 4:15,16)

God's Truth
October 6th, 2015, 06:56 PM
This is pure idolatry according to Jesus whose Faith was Judaism. (Deut. 4:15,16)

Those scripture are about not making statues.

If you want knowledge about Jesus Christ, then you have to get his teachings from the Holy Bible and do what he says; you will get saved and be given knowledge.

God's Truth
October 6th, 2015, 06:57 PM
You err for not knowing the Scriptures and the power of God.

Don't add or subtract to God's written word. Nowhere anywhere does it say Moses' wife was dreaming. However, the scriptures say do not add or subtract...look what happened to Aaron's sons.

Ben Masada
October 7th, 2015, 10:44 AM
Those scripture are about not making statues.

If you want knowledge about Jesus Christ, then you have to get his teachings from the Holy Bible and do what he says; you will get saved and be given knowledge.

That's not the way to get saved. Jesus himself said that if you come to the Temple to plead for salvation and remember all of a sudden that you have an issue with a neighbor, you must leave all behind and go to set things right with your neighbor first and only then return to the Temple. (Mat. 5:23 24)

If you want Prophet Isaiah, he says that if we want to set things right with God so that our sins from scarlet red become as white as snow, we must repent and return to the obedience of God's Law. (Isa. 1:18,19)

Ben Masada
October 7th, 2015, 10:50 AM
Don't add or subtract to God's written word. Nowhere anywhere does it say Moses' wife was dreaming. However, the scriptures say do not add or subtract...look what happened to Aaron's sons.

Read Numbers 12:7.

God's Truth
October 7th, 2015, 11:03 AM
That's not the way to get saved. Jesus himself said that if you come to the Temple to plead for salvation and remember all of a sudden that you have an issue with a neighbor, you must leave all behind and go to set things right with your neighbor first and only then return to the Temple. (Mat. 5:23 24)

If you want Prophet Isaiah, he says that if we want to set things right with God so that our sins from scarlet red become as white as snow, we must repent and return to the obedience of God's Law. (Isa. 1:18,19)

God's law says to sacrifice a lamb.

You do not obey and will not be saved until you come to Him through Jesus.

God's Truth
October 7th, 2015, 11:08 AM
Read Numbers 12:7.

Why are you trying to nullify scripture with scripture? It will not work for you.

Ben Masada
October 7th, 2015, 12:19 PM
God's law says to sacrifice a lamb.

You do not obey and will not be saved until you come to Him through Jesus.

God's Law is in the Decalogue and I didn't find the commandment to sacrifice a lamb. See now how much you know of God's Word? Amazing! Isn't it? BTW, I found Jeremiah 7:22 that says that the Lord never commanded that sacrifices be part of the religion of Israel. How do you suggest to me to sacrifice a lamb?

Have you reread what you wrote above? You are giving me the alternative to either sacrifice a lamb or come to God through Jesus. I did not know that Christianity offered that option.

Ben Masada
October 7th, 2015, 12:23 PM
Why are you trying to nullify scripture with scripture? It will not work for you.

Neither for you.

God's Truth
October 7th, 2015, 01:47 PM
Neither for you.

I do not nullify scripture with scripture; but you do.

God's Truth
October 7th, 2015, 01:49 PM
God's Law is in the Decalogue and I didn't find the commandment to sacrifice a lamb. See now how much you know of God's Word? Amazing! Isn't it? BTW, I found Jeremiah 7:22 that says that the Lord never commanded that sacrifices be part of the religion of Israel. How do you suggest to me to sacrifice a lamb?

Exodus 29:38 “This is what you are to offer on the altar regularly each day: two lambs a year old. 39 Offer one in the morning and the other at twilight. 40 With the first lamb offer a tenth of an ephah of the finest flour mixed with a quarter of a hin of oil from pressed olives, and a quarter of a hin of wine as a drink offering. 41 Sacrifice the other lamb at twilight with the same grain offering and its drink offering as in the morning—a pleasing aroma, a food offering presented to the Lord.

42 “For the generations to come this burnt offering is to be made regularly at the entrance to the tent of meeting, before the Lord. There I will meet you and speak to you;




Have you reread what you wrote above? You are giving me the alternative to either sacrifice a lamb or come to God through Jesus. I did not know that Christianity offered that option.

Jesus is the Sacrificial Lamb of God.

RBBI
October 8th, 2015, 10:09 AM
Actually no, he wasn't. He was as Isaac in type, because HaShem provided the offering. The offering was His Seed; Yeshua is to be praised as our example of what to do, because he agreed to go along with the sacrifice when he could have gone against the Spirit, as the flesh wars with the Spirit continually, which is the battle we saw recorded in the garden between the will of the flesh man and the will of the Spirit man. If the flesh of Him was of the same substance as HaShem, which the Seed was/is, there would have been no battle to record.

The Holy Seed IS the firstfruits offering, who came to show us the way to the Father. You can't return to a place you've never been before and Yeshua had never been to the Father. But He who ascended is He who first descended, and He who descended was not flesh and blood of man.

If you can't SEE the offering, you can't give the offering. It's vital that you see the difference between the flesh and the Spirit, IN HIM, as well as in yourself. The Spirit divides asunder the flesh and spirit, even in Him. Press in.

Melchisedek was obviously the Seed, in another form. No one else has no beginning and no end. Peace

Ben Masada
October 9th, 2015, 12:56 PM
I do not nullify scripture with scripture; but you do.

Prove it!

Ben Masada
October 9th, 2015, 01:06 PM
Exodus 29:38 “This is what you are to offer on the altar regularly each day: two lambs a year old. 39 Offer one in the morning and the other at twilight. 40 With the first lamb offer a tenth of an ephah of the finest flour mixed with a quarter of a hin of oil from pressed olives, and a quarter of a hin of wine as a drink offering. 41 Sacrifice the other lamb at twilight with the same grain offering and its drink offering as in the morning—a pleasing aroma, a food offering presented to the Lord.

42 “For the generations to come this burnt offering is to be made regularly at the entrance to the tent of meeting, before the Lord. There I will meet you and speak to you;

Jesus is the Sacrificial Lamb of God.

Are you implying that Jesus was lying when he said that he had come to confirm the Law and the Prophets down to the letter as we have in Mat. 5:17-19 and now making of himself a sacrifice in contradiction to the Prophets who said that no one can be a sacrifice for the sins of anyone else? (Jer. 31:30; and Ezek. 18:20)

Wick Stick
October 9th, 2015, 01:16 PM
Melchisedek was obviously the Seed, in another form. No one else has no beginning and no end. Peace
If you read the chapter in Hebrews with full comprehension, it is talking about recorded geneologies and bloodlines, specifically as regards legitimacy of priestly lines.

You are missing what is implied in the verses:

Without (a record of) father or mother, without (recorded) descent, having neither (a recorded) beginning of days nor end of life. He has become a facsimile of the Son of God; remaining a priest in perpetuity.

Ben Masada
October 9th, 2015, 01:19 PM
Actually no, he wasn't. He was as Isaac in type, because HaShem provided the offering. The offering was His Seed; Yeshua is to be praised as our example of what to do, because he agreed to go along with the sacrifice when he could have gone against the Spirit, as the flesh wars with the Spirit continually, which is the battle we saw recorded in the garden between the will of the flesh man and the will of the Spirit man. If the flesh of Him was of the same substance as HaShem, which the Seed was/is, there would have been no battle to record.

The Holy Seed IS the firstfruits offering, who came to show us the way to the Father. You can't return to a place you've never been before and Yeshua had never been to the Father. But He who ascended is He who first descended, and He who descended was not flesh and blood of man.

If you can't SEE the offering, you can't give the offering. It's vital that you see the difference between the flesh and the Spirit, IN HIM, as well as in yourself. The Spirit divides asunder the flesh and spirit, even in Him. Press in.

Melchisedek was obviously the Seed, in another form. No one else has no beginning and no end. Peace

And Melchizedek had a beginning and an end; only HaShem has no beginning and no end.

How could have Jesus agreed to go along with the sacrifice when he prayed for three times in the Gethsemane not to be sacrificed? Then he said, "Let thy will be done; not mine." Not mine! What was Jesus' will? Not to be sacrificed for no one, exactly according to the word of HaShem to His prophets that no one is allowed to sacrifice himself for another. (Jer. 31:30; and Ezek. 18:20)

RBBI
October 9th, 2015, 02:00 PM
And Melchizedek had a beginning and an end; only HaShem has no beginning and no end.

How could have Jesus agreed to go along with the sacrifice when he prayed for three times in the Gethsemane not to be sacrificed? Then he said, "Let thy will be done; not mine." Not mine! What was Jesus' will? Not to be sacrificed for no one, exactly according to the word of HaShem to His prophets that no one is allowed to sacrifice himself for another. (Jer. 31:30; and Ezek. 18:20)

What you're seeing is the flesh warring against the Spirit, but the Spirit won. And no flesh man can sacrifice himself for another, but the Son Seed CAN. The act of creation was HaShem "lowering" Himself similar to a death, to create something lower than Himself. The Seed Son was simply following the pattern.

It was said we are gods, but we die like men. His point was not that we are "gods", but that we are dying like men. How then does a god die? No greater love has any man than this, that he lay down his life for his friend. Peace

God's Truth
October 9th, 2015, 05:12 PM
Prove it!

That is easy to prove.

The Bible says God gave Moses the commands about sacrificing animals. You say Moses made up the commands.

God's Truth
October 9th, 2015, 05:13 PM
Are you implying that Jesus was lying when he said that he had come to confirm the Law and the Prophets down to the letter as we have in Mat. 5:17-19 and now making of himself a sacrifice in contradiction to the Prophets who said that no one can be a sacrifice for the sins of anyone else? (Jer. 31:30; and Ezek. 18:20)

Jesus came and gave the guidelines for a new blood covenant.