PDA

View Full Version : INTO Help Line



intojoy
November 11th, 2015, 05:59 PM
Not dumb enough to think I know it all. But I have a good enough grasp on scripture to answer any questions. So fire away.
Any questions pertaining to scripture is fair game

intojoy
November 11th, 2015, 06:10 PM
Any last questions?

patrick jane
November 11th, 2015, 06:14 PM
Any last questions?

Where in the world is johnny dub ?

intojoy
November 11th, 2015, 06:15 PM
Any final questions?

patrick jane
November 11th, 2015, 06:38 PM
Any final questions?

Nope, I think you've covered everything

intojoy
November 11th, 2015, 07:26 PM
Oh no this isn't over

patrick jane
November 11th, 2015, 07:31 PM
Any final questions?

Hi INTO,

If God loves us so much why doesn't he stop the world and take us to heaven to live with Him ? God can do it right now.

intojoy
November 11th, 2015, 07:33 PM
Hi INTO,

If God loves us so much why doesn't he stop the world and take us to heaven to live with Him ? God can do it right now.

Because the iniquity of man is not yet full. He is enduring with men because He is a merciful God and not willing that any should perish

intojoy
November 12th, 2015, 01:01 AM
Still open

patrick jane
November 12th, 2015, 01:07 AM
Because the iniquity of man is not yet full. He is enduring with men because He is a merciful God and not willing that any should perish

But the iniquity can never be removed until Christ comes again. What's the hold up ? God can include all future people not yet born in His heavenly plan. Why not YET ?

Wednesday Addams
November 12th, 2015, 03:09 AM
Yes I have a question, why is my thread on Paul and the Nazarite Vow in Acts 21 not being approved?!

Wednesday Addams
November 12th, 2015, 05:32 AM
Ok, until my question thread on Paul and the Nazarite Vow in Acts 21 is approved,
why did Paul do the vow? Why did the disciples and the earliest believers do the vow, also?

intojoy
November 12th, 2015, 07:46 AM
Ok, until my question thread on Paul and the Nazarite Vow in Acts 21 is approved,
why did Paul do the vow? Why did the disciples and the earliest believers do the vow, also?


The action was that Paul himself took the purification vow of Numbers 6:13-20 with them. This entailed having his head shaved and offering offerings which he himself paid for. The offerings for each one of them included: a he-lamb, a ewe-lamb, a ram, a meal-offering, and a drink-offering. Next, he went into the Temple Compound and declared to the priest on what day he will be reporting the fulfillment of the vow so the priest would have the sacrifices ready. He went in once for each of the four brethren and once for himself. A lot of people continue to raise the question of whether Paul was right in taking such a vow. They are assuming that it was wrong for him to keep the Law in any case. However, Paul was not wrong as can be seen for six reasons. First, this was a voluntary act on his part, just as it was in Acts 18:18; since it was voluntary, it was not wrong. Secondly, Paul was never ashamed of this later, as shown in Acts 24:17-18. Thirdly, it was in keeping with Paul's policy of I Corinthians 9:20-21: that “to the Jews, he became as a Jew” and “for those under the Law, as he himself under the Law.” Fourthly, not all blood Sacrifices were for atonement purposes, and this was one of them. Fifth, the purpose of his involvement succeeded, for Paul's later troubles came from unbelieving Jews, not from Jewish believers. And sixth, Paul was not accommodating himself to others, but was proving that the rumors and charges against him were false.

ok doser
November 12th, 2015, 07:50 AM
if the action of one man (adam) was sufficient to bring sin upon all men, why wasn't the sacrifice of one man (Jesus) sufficient to free all men from sin?

intojoy
November 12th, 2015, 07:55 AM
But the iniquity can never be removed until Christ comes again. What's the hold up ? God can include all future people not yet born in His heavenly plan. Why not YET ?


Because He doesn't want to do it that way my son

intojoy
November 12th, 2015, 08:00 AM
if the action of one man (adam) was sufficient to bring sin upon all men, why wasn't the sacrifice of one man (Jesus) sufficient to free all men from sin?


Adam's sin is transferred to all humanity by default.

The sacrificial atonement of Messiah rendered all men savable. However, the cross is not the only saving instrumentality since faith is required.

ok doser
November 12th, 2015, 08:06 AM
Adam's sin is transferred to all humanity by default.

The sacrificial atonement of Messiah rendered all men savable. However, the cross is not the only saving instrumentality since faith is required.

you understand the problem with the situation, right?

Adam's sin transferred to all, without choice

Christ's redemption transferred to all, conditional on choice



i'm not a universalist, but i can understand the appeal - among other things, it makes Christ's action as powerful as Adam's

intojoy
November 12th, 2015, 08:12 AM
you understand the problem with the situation, right?

Adam's sin transferred to all, without choice

Christ's redemption transferred to all, conditional on choice



i'm not a universalist, but i can understand the appeal - among other things, it makes Christ's action as powerful as Adam's

It's only a problem from the created being's viewpoint based in human emotions. It may not be problematic from the angelic vantage point and it certainly isn't problematic from the Creator's view.

My attitude is that the fact that God intervened to save some of humanity is the proof of His grace and is the outworking of God's love.

Wednesday Addams
November 12th, 2015, 08:17 AM
The action was that Paul himself took the purification vow of Numbers 6:13-20 with them. This entailed having his head shaved and offering offerings which he himself paid for. The offerings for each one of them included: a he-lamb, a ewe-lamb, a ram, a meal-offering, and a drink-offering. Next, he went into the Temple Compound and declared to the priest on what day he will be reporting the fulfillment of the vow so the priest would have the sacrifices ready. He went in once for each of the four brethren and once for himself. A lot of people continue to raise the question of whether Paul was right in taking such a vow. They are assuming that it was wrong for him to keep the Law in any case. However, Paul was not wrong as can be seen for six reasons. First, this was a voluntary act on his part, just as it was in Acts 18:18; since it was voluntary, it was not wrong. Secondly, Paul was never ashamed of this later, as shown in Acts 24:17-18. Thirdly, it was in keeping with Paul's policy of I Corinthians 9:20-21: that “to the Jews, he became as a Jew” and “for those under the Law, as he himself under the Law.” Fourthly, not all blood Sacrifices were for atonement purposes, and this was one of them. Fifth, the purpose of his involvement succeeded, for Paul's later troubles came from unbelieving Jews, not from Jewish believers. And sixth, Paul was not accommodating himself to others, but was proving that the rumors and charges against him were false.

Thanks for your answer!!!


'assuming that it is wrong for him to keep the Law in any case' - that phrasing can be easily misunderstood. Paul appears in some parts of his writings to teach the law i.e the commandments, but there are other aspects to it such as the Jewish customs. James equates a Jew who does not do the customs as apostatising from Moses in Acts 21. In the same passage he solidifies the sentiment that the kosher laws to gentiles are actually a part of the Law, hence they were coined as 'requirements' in Acts 15. (Paul agreed to this initially in Acts 15, but went away to teach otherwise).

It doesn't matter about the 'voluntary' nature, the fact is that the underlying meaning/value/purpose of the vow no longer holds. That's why Christians have had to say this is but a tribute act to Jesus's sacrifice.

With regards to your second point, that's a disturbing position to hold as it implies deception, which in this context involves the many thousands of the newbie believing Jews who obviously didn't ALL have the right understanding of Law. The problem is exacerbated when James actually speaks of them being zealous in a way in which clearly shows James is proud of it. What we take from this as, because James selected a nazarite vow (out of all of the other customs, he had to go for the expensive one which also should no longer have the same value to the new believers), it's clear James wants Paul to prove he is obedient to the Law to these zealous guys, thus affirming the sentiments of the vow. James then, was deceived by Paul, too.

Why the nazarite vow, that's littered with all of these customs which are full of conditions that you must stick to in order to become purified otherwise you cannot do certain acts of worship because you are unclean - these things have no salvific value in Paul's doctrine. Also, it has a sin-offering in it, too. If it's voluntary, why are James and the new believers under the vow choosing to do something like this vow in the first place? It's clear they uphold it's Torah meaning, they continued to do them.

With regards to your fourth point, there was a 'sin-offering' to conclude nazarite vows. This is the sort of mode created for those under the law. But they go on to affirm the nazarite vow and with it there is a sin offering involved. This is completely against what Paul's doctrine is about, but if he were to stand up against doing it, he would have the disciples brand him an apostate.

Fifth point, again that raises the problem of deception.

Sixth, were they really false? At the end of the day, Paul did speak of the Law in a universal way.

Remember that Paul didn't really meet with Peter, James and John much at all.

SaulToPaul
November 12th, 2015, 08:24 AM
Why are MAD wackos so wacko?

intojoy
November 12th, 2015, 09:33 AM
Thanks for your answer!!!


'assuming that it is wrong for him to keep the Law in any case' - that phrasing can be easily misunderstood. Paul appears in some parts of his writings to teach the law i.e the commandments, but there are other aspects to it such as the Jewish customs. James equates a Jew who does not do the customs as apostatising from Moses in Acts 21. In the same passage he solidifies the sentiment that the kosher laws to gentiles are actually a part of the Law, hence they were coined as 'requirements' in Acts 15. (Paul agreed to this initially in Acts 15, but went away to teach otherwise).

It doesn't matter about the 'voluntary' nature, the fact is that the underlying meaning/value/purpose of the vow no longer holds. That's why Christians have had to say this is but a tribute act to Jesus's sacrifice.

With regards to your second point, that's a disturbing position to hold as it implies deception, which in this context involves the many thousands of the newbie believing Jews who obviously didn't ALL have the right understanding of Law. The problem is exacerbated when James actually speaks of them being zealous in a way in which clearly shows James is proud of it. What we take from this as, because James selected a nazarite vow (out of all of the other customs, he had to go for the expensive one which also should no longer have the same value to the new believers), it's clear James wants Paul to prove he is obedient to the Law to these zealous guys, thus affirming the sentiments of the vow. James then, was deceived by Paul, too.

Why the nazarite vow, that's littered with all of these customs which are full of conditions that you must stick to in order to become purified otherwise you cannot do certain acts of worship because you are unclean - these things have no salvific value in Paul's doctrine. Also, it has a sin-offering in it, too. If it's voluntary, why are James and the new believers under the vow choosing to do something like this vow in the first place? It's clear they uphold it's Torah meaning, they continued to do them.

With regards to your fourth point, there was a 'sin-offering' to conclude nazarite vows. This is the sort of mode created for those under the law. But they go on to affirm the nazarite vow and with it there is a sin offering involved. This is completely against what Paul's doctrine is about, but if he were to stand up against doing it, he would have the disciples brand him an apostate.

Fifth point, again that raises the problem of deception.

Sixth, were they really false? At the end of the day, Paul did speak of the Law in a universal way.

Remember that Paul didn't really meet with Peter, James and John much at all.


Verses 20-25 record the advice of the leaders of the Church of Jerusalem to Paul, beginning with their reaction to Paul's report in verse 20a: And they, when they heard it, glorified God. This showed that the leaders of the Church of Jerusalem were happy over so many Gentiles coming to a saving faith.
They then related to Paul the state of the Church of Jerusalem in verse 20b: and they said unto him, You see, brother, how many thousands there are among the Jews of them that have believed; and they are all zealous for the law. The elders refer to Paul as brother, showing they viewed him as a fellow believer in the ministry, and they point out: how many thousands there are among the Jews.
The Greek word for thousands is the word from which the English word “myriads” comes. What James and the elders said was, “Notice how many myriads of the Jews have become believers.” A single myriad is ten thousand, but James used a plural, meaning “tens of thousands.” There was a minimum of twenty-thousand Jewish believers in the Jerusalem Church alone; it had become a sizable movement. These myriads of Jewish believers were all zealous for the law.
The Greek word does not mean zealous as an adjective, but Zealots. The Jerusalem Church was largely committed to keeping the Law of Moses. This was no longer mandatory , so why did they keep it? They kept it for one of two possible reasons. First, they may have done it as a free option, for freedom from the Law also means one is free to keep it if he so desires.
But secondly , and more likely as known from the overall context, they were still spiritually immature, and, in their immaturity , they still felt they were obligated to keep the Law. But they were not sinning by keeping the Law, they were only wrong in making it mandatory . The Jerusalem Church was composed of Jews who had chosen to keep the Law whether it was for the first or the second reason.

intojoy
November 12th, 2015, 09:38 AM
The false rumor against Paul

and they have been informed concerning you, that you teaches all the Jews who are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children neither to walk after the customs.

Not the leaders, but the myriads have been informed. The Greek word means “to teach orally.” They had heard some oral teachings about Paul, probably a reference to the false rumors spread by the Judaizers. The way this is phrased shows that the leadership of the church did not believe these rumors, but the problem was that many of the congregants did believe them.

Wednesday Addams
November 12th, 2015, 10:57 AM
Verses 20-25 record the advice of the leaders of the Church of Jerusalem to Paul, beginning with their reaction to Paul's report in verse 20a: And they, when they heard it, glorified God. This showed that the leaders of the Church of Jerusalem were happy over so many Gentiles coming to a saving faith.
They then related to Paul the state of the Church of Jerusalem in verse 20b: and they said unto him, You see, brother, how many thousands there are among the Jews of them that have believed; and they are all zealous for the law. The elders refer to Paul as brother, showing they viewed him as a fellow believer in the ministry, and they point out: how many thousands there are among the Jews.
The Greek word for thousands is the word from which the English word “myriads” comes. What James and the elders said was, “Notice how many myriads of the Jews have become believers.” A single myriad is ten thousand, but James used a plural, meaning “tens of thousands.” There was a minimum of twenty-thousand Jewish believers in the Jerusalem Church alone; it had become a sizable movement. These myriads of Jewish believers were all zealous for the law.
The Greek word does not mean zealous as an adjective, but Zealots. The Jerusalem Church was largely committed to keeping the Law of Moses. This was no longer mandatory , so why did they keep it? They kept it for one of two possible reasons. First, they may have done it as a free option, for freedom from the Law also means one is free to keep it if he so desires.
But secondly , and more likely as known from the overall context, they were still spiritually immature, and, in their immaturity , they still felt they were obligated to keep the Law. But they were not sinning by keeping the Law, they were only wrong in making it mandatory . The Jerusalem Church was composed of Jews who had chosen to keep the Law whether it was for the first or the second reason.


The false rumor against Paul

and they have been informed concerning you, that you teaches all the Jews who are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children neither to walk after the customs.

Not the leaders, but the myriads have been informed. The Greek word means “to teach orally.” They had heard some oral teachings about Paul, probably a reference to the false rumors spread by the Judaizers. The way this is phrased shows that the leadership of the church did not believe these rumors, but the problem was that many of the congregants did believe them.

Thanks for the response, it's nice that you go further to look into the greek.

This makes things even more problematic. Sure, they obviously viewed him as a fellow believer because they gave him authority to the gentiles and Paul had previously been nodding his head and approving despite teaching different in regards to the kosher laws to gentiles.
The higher the number of Jews, the bigger the problem as the locum of control for correct message propagation is weaker, and given the great number, what is clear then is that they were 'spiritually immature'. However appeasing them by performing a nazarite vow is to conform to their idea of what the vow entails, i.e the sin-offering is a legitimate one, the customs are important for the vow to work etc. Thus sin offerings were still performed. The church leaders continuing sin sacrifices is going to further mislead the new believers in Christ, yet James out of all of the customs, suggests this.
The meaning behind zealous/zealot nevertheless falls nicely under the umbrella of James's approval and joy of this status.
Doing it as a free option especially to a highly law-focussed Jewish consciousness is unwise. Doing a lengthly and even costly process when it has zero of its original value, is highly implausible and leads to the unnecessary death of God's creatures.
If they were truly new believers, then they should listen to what their belief actually teaches, but instead there is the portrayal that the disciples are now bowing and scraping to appease immature believers, this is not plausible.

With regards to the second post:
Again, the numbers issue makes this problematic. All of the many myriads have been hearing from the Jews among the gentile nations (not just one gentile nation), that Paul is teaching x and y. There's a consistent theme here, and gives off the impression that the letters themselves were the basis, but then Paul's teachings in person could have also been a hyper view, just to throw it out there.
Paul's message is easy to misunderstand in any case, hence why scholarship today are trying to decode him.

intojoy
November 12th, 2015, 12:32 PM
Well, Paul and his fellow apostles taught that there are two sets of believers, the gentile believers and the Israel of God, Jewish believers.

That is why Paul did not circumcise Titus (a gentile) in Acts 15 but Paul does circumcise Timothy.

Because circumcision is not the token of the Mosaic Covenant but it is the token of the Abrahamic Covenant. Jewish believers need to be circumcised in order for them to qualify as members of the Abrahamic Covenant.

The issue facing the Jewish believers in the first century as in the book of Hebrews was the attempt by the Pharisees to gain control of their new sect of Judaism known as the Nazarenes. If the judaizers could enforce circumcision upon the gentile believers this would have led to the enforcing of all of the 613 commandments of the law of Moses and they then would be able to control the movement.

Many of the Jewish believers were intimidated by these men and even Peter was influence by their intimidation - not their teachings.

Paul completely explained why the letter killed. But Paul chose to observe parts of the Mosaic law voluntarily because of his love for Israel. It is not wrong for Jewish believers to obey the Abrahamic Covenant by circumcisions it is not wrong for Jewish believers to worship God from a Jewish frame of reference any more than it being wrong for Americans to worship God thru the ways we do. These are neutral issues.

What is your understanding with the purposes of the Mosaic Law?

Zeke
November 12th, 2015, 04:07 PM
The false rumor against Paul

and they have been informed concerning you, that you teaches all the Jews who are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children neither to walk after the customs.

Not the leaders, but the myriads have been informed. The Greek word means “to teach orally.” They had heard some oral teachings about Paul, probably a reference to the false rumors spread by the Judaizers. The way this is phrased shows that the leadership of the church did not believe these rumors, but the problem was that many of the congregants did believe them.

Paul remarks in Galatians concerning those who wanted to be justified by the works of the law were under a curse and fools, and what to do about it Gal 4:30! Acts is a unreliable letter that tries to make Paul benevolent toward the teaching of the circumcision when Galatians shows he was extremely apposed to it in Galatians. Throw in the Acts contradiction of Paul's Galatians conversion and its pretty easy to see one of them is a fraud, my vote is that Acts is a fraud.

intojoy
November 12th, 2015, 05:18 PM
Paul remarks in Galatians concerning those who wanted to be justified by the works of the law were under a curse and fools, and what to do about it Gal 4:30! Acts is a unreliable letter that tries to make Paul benevolent toward the teaching of the circumcision when Galatians shows he was extremely apposed to it in Galatians. Throw in the Acts contradiction of Paul's Galatians conversion and its pretty easy to see one of them is a fraud, my vote is that Acts is a fraud.


You're missing Israelology just like everyone else on TOL save for steko and a couple others.

You have not understood the purposes of the mosaic law which was multifaceted. Until you define the purposes of the Mosaic law as Paul does we can't move forward. There is no contradiction between Paul and James. Titus no Timothy yes explain that.

intojoy
November 12th, 2015, 07:21 PM
Why are MAD wackos so wacko?


Because they miss the fact that there are Eight Mysteries in the NT

Wednesday Addams
November 13th, 2015, 04:41 AM
Well, Paul and his fellow apostles taught that there are two sets of believers, the gentile believers and the Israel of God, Jewish believers.

That is why Paul did not circumcise Titus (a gentile) in Acts 15 but Paul does circumcise Timothy.

Because circumcision is not the token of the Mosaic Covenant but it is the token of the Abrahamic Covenant. Jewish believers need to be circumcised in order for them to qualify as members of the Abrahamic Covenant.

The issue facing the Jewish believers in the first century as in the book of Hebrews was the attempt by the Pharisees to gain control of their new sect of Judaism known as the Nazarenes. If the judaizers could enforce circumcision upon the gentile believers this would have led to the enforcing of all of the 613 commandments of the law of Moses and they then would be able to control the movement.

Many of the Jewish believers were intimidated by these men and even Peter was influence by their intimidation - not their teachings.

Paul completely explained why the letter killed. But Paul chose to observe parts of the Mosaic law voluntarily because of his love for Israel. It is not wrong for Jewish believers to obey the Abrahamic Covenant by circumcisions it is not wrong for Jewish believers to worship God from a Jewish frame of reference any more than it being wrong for Americans to worship God thru the ways we do. These are neutral issues.

What is your understanding with the purposes of the Mosaic Law?

Well, Paul and his fellow apostles taught that there are two sets of believers, the gentile believers and the Israel of God, Jewish believers.

That is why Paul did not circumcise Titus (a gentile) in Acts 15 but Paul does circumcise Timothy.

Because circumcision is not the token of the Mosaic Covenant but it is the token of the Abrahamic Covenant. Jewish believers need to be circumcised in order for them to qualify as members of the Abrahamic Covenant.

The issue facing the Jewish believers in the first century as in the book of Hebrews was the attempt by the Pharisees to gain control of their new sect of Judaism known as the Nazarenes. If the judaizers could enforce circumcision upon the gentile believers this would have led to the enforcing of all of the 613 commandments of the law of Moses and they then would be able to control the movement.

Many of the Jewish believers were intimidated by these men and even Peter was influence by their intimidation - not their teachings.

Paul completely explained why the letter killed. But Paul chose to observe parts of the Mosaic law voluntarily because of his love for Israel. It is not wrong for Jewish believers to obey the Abrahamic Covenant by circumcisions it is not wrong for Jewish believers to worship God from a Jewish frame of reference any more than it being wrong for Americans to worship God thru the ways we do. These are neutral issues.

What is your understanding with the purposes of the Mosaic Law?

Thanks for the response, it actually isn't the point I'm making but it's a good summary of the landscape of the Judaizers :thumb: But you can't be running off to elaborate concepts just to understand the screaming sentiment of the Acts 21 passage. This is exactly what Trinitarians do to justify unitarian verses like Mark 13:32. i.e the whole 'Any problems with trinity? Go to John 1:1. Let's talk about the word Logos'. When that's a completely flawed approach.

Yeah, the gentile believers didn't have to do the likes of circumcision etc. and if they felt it was necessary to do circumcision for their salvation, then their faith is in vain and they should castrate themselves. With regards to the circumcision of Tim, it would be circular reasoning to suggest that this was because Paul wanted circumcision for Tim for the sake of the covenant, and indeed, Paul's intention is narrated. The same way as Acts 21, Paul wanted Tim to accompany him but the problem was that the Jews knew that his father was Greek.

With regards to the Abrahamic covenant, Paul teaches differently, they don't need to be circumcised anymore because Jew and Gentile alike, true circumcision is that of the spirit, and that anyone is in the Abrahamic promise who accepts Jesus as saviour. That is the clear nuance.

The pharisee's desire to gain control is not related to the issue of Acts 21 per say. I find the event of Peter supposedly being intimidated quite suspicious, but that is a different issue. I do think that it is in Paul's consciousness to opportunistically make a deal of this anyway if I'm granting the truth of the story, to give the impression that he is in line with Jews. But in reality, we don't have the accounts of Peter with regards to this story, just the accounts of a man (Paul) who would agree to Peter to his face and then preach something completely different i.e status of Law to gentiles (food laws), and the Nazarite Vow problem.

The Judaizers should not have been appeased with the nazarite vow just to hide from 'problems', the Christian account of things has the apostles of Christ being weak, intimidated and doing a vow that's original value does away with Jesus's need to save men from sins. My account has James affirming the law as he does in Acts 21, being proud of the zealousness of the Jews as he does in Acts 21 etc.

Sure, it isn't wrong for Jews to circumcise, but Paul wasn't in charge of ministry to Israel, he made it a big deal to go to the ignorant gentiles. If Paul is in strict opposition to circumcision in Israel, he'd have James to answer to, and alas James in Acts 21 believes a Jew is apostatising from the Law of Moses by teaching against circumcision of the Jews. Paul has a PG way of teaching that it isn't necessary. It all adds up why the Jews of the many gentile nations felt Paul was teaching against circumcision - Paul was preaching it had no salvific value, whereas James makes clear it does for Jews as it's a part of their Law.

Hebrews is not authored by Paul, I never really look into Hebrew's for Paul's personal theology, but what it does represent is a theology that takes Paul's to the next level whereas Paul's teaches tended to be a little more open ended. If you believe Hebrews is inspired doctrine, this adds more problems, for sin-offerings would be blasphemous at this point, so can you imagine James's followers (with the permission of James) to go through a voluntary nazarite vow?

Zeke
November 13th, 2015, 07:31 AM
You're missing Israelology just like everyone else on TOL save for steko and a couple others.

You have not understood the purposes of the mosaic law which was multifaceted. Until you define the purposes of the Mosaic law as Paul does we can't move forward. There is no contradiction between Paul and James. Titus no Timothy yes explain that.

I think you have been led astray concerning who,what, and where IS RA EL really originated from.

Plus the contradictions between the two events, Paul's conversion, and what happens "right afterward" is pretty cut and dried if one can step out of the traditional box.

intojoy
November 13th, 2015, 12:06 PM
I think you have been led astray concerning who,what, and where IS RA EL really originated from.

Plus the contradictions between the two events, Paul's conversion, and what happens "right afterward" is pretty cut and dried if one can step out of the traditional box.


20762

intojoy
November 13th, 2015, 12:17 PM
Thanks for the response, it actually isn't the point I'm making but it's a good summary of the landscape of the Judaizers :thumb: But you can't be running off to elaborate concepts just to understand the screaming sentiment of the Acts 21 passage. This is exactly what Trinitarians do to justify unitarian verses like Mark 13:32. i.e the whole 'Any problems with trinity? Go to John 1:1. Let's talk about the word Logos'. When that's a completely flawed approach.



Yeah, the gentile believers didn't have to do the likes of circumcision etc. and if they felt it was necessary to do circumcision for their salvation, then their faith is in vain and they should castrate themselves. With regards to the circumcision of Tim, it would be circular reasoning to suggest that this was because Paul wanted circumcision for Tim for the sake of the covenant, and indeed, Paul's intention is narrated. The same way as Acts 21, Paul wanted Tim to accompany him but the problem was that the Jews knew that his father was Greek.



With regards to the Abrahamic covenant, Paul teaches differently, they don't need to be circumcised anymore because Jew and Gentile alike, true circumcision is that of the spirit, and that anyone is in the Abrahamic promise who accepts Jesus as saviour. That is the clear nuance.



The pharisee's desire to gain control is not related to the issue of Acts 21 per say. I find the event of Peter supposedly being intimidated quite suspicious, but that is a different issue. I do think that it is in Paul's consciousness to opportunistically make a deal of this anyway if I'm granting the truth of the story, to give the impression that he is in line with Jews. But in reality, we don't have the accounts of Peter with regards to this story, just the accounts of a man (Paul) who would agree to Peter to his face and then preach something completely different i.e status of Law to gentiles (food laws), and the Nazarite Vow problem.



The Judaizers should not have been appeased with the nazarite vow just to hide from 'problems', the Christian account of things has the apostles of Christ being weak, intimidated and doing a vow that's original value does away with Jesus's need to save men from sins. My account has James affirming the law as he does in Acts 21, being proud of the zealousness of the Jews as he does in Acts 21 etc.



Sure, it isn't wrong for Jews to circumcise, but Paul wasn't in charge of ministry to Israel, he made it a big deal to go to the ignorant gentiles. If Paul is in strict opposition to circumcision in Israel, he'd have James to answer to, and alas James in Acts 21 believes a Jew is apostatising from the Law of Moses by teaching against circumcision of the Jews. Paul has a PG way of teaching that it isn't necessary. It all adds up why the Jews of the many gentile nations felt Paul was teaching against circumcision - Paul was preaching it had no salvific value, whereas James makes clear it does for Jews as it's a part of their Law.



Hebrews is not authored by Paul, I never really look into Hebrew's for Paul's personal theology, but what it does represent is a theology that takes Paul's to the next level whereas Paul's teaches tended to be a little more open ended. If you believe Hebrews is inspired doctrine, this adds more problems, for sin-offerings would be blasphemous at this point, so can you imagine James's followers (with the permission of James) to go through a voluntary nazarite vow?


Hebrews is not written by Paul since the author identified himself as a second tier apostle, one not having seen the resurrected Christ. - correct.

Tim was a half Jew and therefore as a half Jew had the authority to make a choice of identification. He chose to identify with his Jewish side and was therefore circumcised by Paul.

Paul although sent to the Gentiles kept his policy of "to the Jew first". Everywhere Paul travels he will visit the Jews of that region before going to the Gentiles - always.

The Jew inwardly is the Jewish believer who accepts Yeshua as the Jewish Messiah, a spiritual Jew. I am a spiritual gentile by regeneration.

If you read Galatians correctly, the context is neither Jew not Greek in "how one gets into a right relationship with God" he can be Jew or gentile male or female yet he or she remains who they are, males, females, Jews, or geeks.

As far as the Triunity of the Godhead is concerned, scriptures teach plurality of God and limit that plurality to 3 persons.

intojoy
November 13th, 2015, 09:38 PM
Any final questions?

iouae
November 13th, 2015, 10:37 PM
Any final questions?

When Satan is thrown into the lake of fire, is he burnt UP or will he burn forever?

intojoy
November 13th, 2015, 10:43 PM
When Satan is thrown into the lake of fire, is he burnt UP or will he burn forever?

Both

intojoy
November 14th, 2015, 06:11 PM
Any final last questions?

Ktoyou
November 14th, 2015, 06:15 PM
Yeh, how come two persons with the same IP address are posting in this tread?

intojoy
November 14th, 2015, 06:24 PM
Yeh, how come two persons with the same IP address are posting in this tread?

We wrestle not against flesh and blood

jamie
November 14th, 2015, 07:22 PM
Hebrews is not written by Paul since the author identified himself as a second tier apostle...


Not.

intojoy
November 15th, 2015, 01:24 AM
Not.
20766

intojoy
November 16th, 2015, 01:03 AM
Questions?

intojoy
November 16th, 2015, 01:03 AM
Any biblical questions

intojoy
November 19th, 2015, 06:54 PM
Question: where does it say Yeshua would be a Nazarene in the OT?

patrick jane
November 19th, 2015, 09:17 PM
Question: where does it say Yeshua would be a Nazarene in the OT?

Good question. Did an OT prophet write that ? :think:

intojoy
November 19th, 2015, 09:59 PM
Good question. Did an OT prophet write that ? :think:


No where.
A Nazarene was a negative description in the first century.

The claim that He was called a Nazarene is the product of one of the ways in which the New Testament quotes the Old,
"literal plus summation"

The summary of the prophets was that Messiah would be rejected and despised by His people.

intojoy
May 26th, 2016, 08:31 PM
Any final questions?


Sent from my iPhone using TOL (https://siteowners.tapatalk.com/byo/displayAndDownloadByoApp?rid=78367)

intojoy
May 27th, 2016, 10:46 AM
Any last questions?


Sent from my iPhone using TOL (https://siteowners.tapatalk.com/byo/displayAndDownloadByoApp?rid=78367)

ok doser
May 27th, 2016, 10:56 AM
Any last questions?





yeah - what the heck is this thing?

http://johnschop.nl/images/2011-08/leest.jpg

daqq
May 27th, 2016, 11:34 AM
Question: where does it say Yeshua would be a Nazarene in the OT?

Here is one concerning Messiah ben Yoseph:

Deuteronomy 33:13-17 KJV
13 And of Joseph he said, Blessed of the LORD be his land, for the precious things of heaven, for the dew, and for the deep that coucheth beneath,
14 And for the precious fruits brought forth by the sun, and for the precious things put forth by the moon,
15 And for the chief things of the ancient mountains, and for the precious things of the lasting hills,
16 And for the precious things of the earth and fulness thereof, and for the good will of him that dwelt in the bush: let the blessing come upon the head of Joseph, and upon the top of the head of him that was separated [H5139 naziyr] from his brethren.
17 His glory is like the firstling of his bullock, and his horns are like the horns of unicorns: with them he shall push the people together to the ends of the earth: and they are the ten thousands of Ephraim, and they are the thousands of Manasseh.

Here is another concerning Messiah ben Yoseph:

Jeremiah 31:4-9 [New Covenant Passage!]
4 Again I will build thee, and thou shalt be built, O virgin of Israel: thou shalt again be adorned with thy tabrets, and shalt go forth in the dances of them that make merry.
5 Thou shalt yet plant vines upon the mountains of Samaria: the planters shall plant, and shall eat them as common things.
6 For there shall be a day, that the watchmen [Notzerim/Natzarim] upon the mount Ephraim shall cry, Arise ye, and let us go up to Zion unto the LORD our God.
7 For thus saith the LORD; Sing with gladness for Jacob, and shout among the chief of the nations: publish ye, praise ye, and say, O LORD, save [Hosha/(like Hosha-nah)] thy people, the remnant of Israel.
8 Behold, I will bring them from the north country, and gather them from the coasts of the earth, and with them the blind and the lame, the woman with child and her that travaileth with child together: a great company shall return thither.
9 They shall come with weeping, and with supplications will I lead them: I will cause them to walk by the rivers of waters in a straight way, wherein they shall not stumble: for I am a father to Israel, and Ephraim is my firstborn.


No where.
A Nazarene was a negative description in the first century.

The claim that He was called a Nazarene is the product of one of the ways in which the New Testament quotes the Old,
"literal plus summation"

The summary of the prophets was that Messiah would be rejected and despised by His people.

Neither does Yeshua deny the Natzerim-Zarethan-Samaria connection:

John 8:48-50 KJV
48 Then answered the Jews, and said unto him, Say we not well that thou art a Samaritan, and hast a devil?
49 Jesus answered, I have not a devil; but I honour my Father, and ye do dishonour me.
50 And I seek not mine own glory: there is one that seeketh and judgeth.

See, he says, "I have not a devil", but is notably silent concerning the Samaria connection. :)

intojoy
May 27th, 2016, 11:35 AM
yeah - what the heck is this thing?

http://johnschop.nl/images/2011-08/leest.jpg

That's used to stick a boot up your boohoo


Sent from my iPhone using TOL (https://siteowners.tapatalk.com/byo/displayAndDownloadByoApp?rid=78367)

intojoy
May 27th, 2016, 11:36 AM
Any final last questions?
Come on try me


Sent from my iPhone using TOL (https://siteowners.tapatalk.com/byo/displayAndDownloadByoApp?rid=78367)

Flaminggg
May 28th, 2016, 12:57 PM
Ok, until my question thread on Paul and the Nazarite Vow in Acts 21 is approved,
why did Paul do the vow? Why did the disciples and the earliest believers do the vow, also?

(Commentary in Parenthesis:

REVELATION 17:10 And there are seven kings: five are fallen, and one is, [and] the other is not yet come; and when he cometh, he must continue a short space.
REVELATION 17:11 And the beast that was, and is not, even he is the eighth, and is of the seven, and goeth into perdition.

5 Kings = 5 Months of Star Wormwood (Already Fell in Genesis)
6th King = Jesus Christ (He Always Is)
7th King = The Assyrian/Antichrist of Micah 5:5 (Confirms the Covenant)(Express Image of Jesus)
8th King = The Assyrian/Antichrist of Micah 5:5 (Confirms the Covenant)(Express Image of Jesus)

God did not always allow the "Sons of Man" to be associated with "Joseph the Blessing", this began with King David. Jesse had Eight Sons, but God only called David the Seventh Son, David was not the Antichrist, but God paralleled the language of Micah 5:5, to illustrate that the "Sons of Man" were allowed an association with "Joseph the Blessings" (This is not the same as Moses, Moses and the "Rod of Joseph/Staff", were not inclusive one of another, but God began to associate them with King David).

Because of the Association, Genetic Dan (Four Genetic Lines/Horses of Solomon's Contradiction) ......... Genetic Dan simply committed Suicide by using force against David, the Gospel refers to this incident as David taking the Foreskins of the people. Because Genetic Dan kills itself and causes exceedingly cruelty in the presence of Joseph, now lets go to Acts 21:

Paul is told that his Garment is like the Foreskin that should be circumcised because of his association to Joseph the Blessing. He is essentially told to be faithful, so that God will simply euthanized the people that use force against him, this is an Antichrist equation God later reveals in revelation 11.

Jesus was the son of Joseph, in order to place the 144,000 of Joseph's salvation program that is completed with the events of revelation as primary, this completing the 144,000 of Reuben (before time) and 144,000 of Benjamin (0ld Testament). Each of the Apostles were baptized with "Joseph the Blessings". So they have served as the Antichrist temporarily as apart of an equation, one that is not completed until the end of time, that is this day, and possibly this year.

(God number King David's Lifespan and marked it around the 30 and 34th Year of his life, matching Luke 3:23, but also the 1290 of Daniel which is 12210 Days, and that is apart of a complete pattern of 12210, 42, 3, 150 or 12210 and 195 Days, of which we are in the parallels of this pattern ...................... The Lifespan of the Antichrist is an absolute figure, and there can be no deviation. Love and Blessings (God is indicating Blood Sacrifice of Genetic Dan for repentance by making the association of the Foreskins of David, and the Garment of Paul, now the Sign of Antipas/Antiparticle is as we've stated, a likelyhood approaching the "Three Days of Darkness" ............ 4 Horses/4 Genetic Lines of Genetic Dan, and the 4 Unnamed Kings as a relationship with God as apart of 8 Kings, we don't exactly have that language, but because of this .......... Genetic Dan is not allowed any ability to receive "Joseph the Blessing" it must or be killed only, soon, right now, I do not have the full cooperation of the police departments or the news agencies to do whats necessary, so we must simply wait for a greater expression of Joseph the Blessing, that is, the Sign of Antipas/Antiparticle, this is a matter of public safety ........... Foreskin/Garment/Speaking in a Tong, they were looking for a sign of Joseph the Blessing simply by prayer and fasting, however God shortly put an end to tongs after the Bible was completed ............ as revelation 11 indicates you may see a tong by using force against the Antichrist, but that is only a form of chastisement, it means only that God has already reacted to kill, either a few people, or a great many))

Flaminggg
May 28th, 2016, 01:31 PM
Hi INTO,

If God loves us so much why doesn't he stop the world and take us to heaven to live with Him ? God can do it right now.

(Commentary in Parenthesis:

http://api.ning.com/files/blItuMhGjEf8oLejCyLU1-xwZN4NkWJbKqvrzIhBNPHeV2IBR3t01TH5yqNuZNqeWZSbDZDv Bc5FZv95efbgGw__/center_spine.jpg

3500 Years to the Three and a Half Days of Darkness, That is the Law

II PETER 3:7 But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.
II PETER 3:8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day [is] with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.
ISAIAH 7:20 In the same day shall the Lord shave with a razor that is hired, [namely], by them beyond the river, by the king of Assyria, the head, and the hair of the feet: and it shall also consume the beard.
ISAIAH 7:21 And it shall come to pass in that day, [that] a man shall nourish a young cow, and two sheep;
ISAIAH 7:22 And it shall come to pass, for the abundance of milk [that] they shall give he shall eat butter: for butter and honey shall every one eat that is left in the land.
ISAIAH 7:23 And it shall come to pass in that day, [that] every place shall be, where there were a thousand vines at a thousand silverlings, it shall [even] be for briers and thorns.

God is talking about the Assyrian of Micah 5:5, that is the Antichrist. The Personality that was alive 3500 years ago, that is alive today, is the "Rod of Joseph/Moses's Staff", he is called the Manchild of revelation because he is the "Rod of Iron". Therefore we can summarize the end of this lifespan as follows, in a most simple way:

REVELATION 17:10 And there are seven kings: five are fallen, and one is, [and] the other is not yet come; and when he cometh, he must continue a short space.
REVELATION 17:11 And the beast that was, and is not, even he is the eighth, and is of the seven, and goeth into perdition.

5/7/2016 = "Seven Kings, Five Fallen"
5/7/2016 to 6/18/2016 = "Seven Kings, Five Fallen, Seventh of the Eighth"

"Express Image of Jesus" is an equation based on the length of some tangible actions God performed during the entire process of this judgment program. About 1000 Years as a Spiritual Parable, and 6000 Years the Age of this earth. Divide that in half and you have Jesus Christ = 3500, and Express Image of Jesus = 3500. That is like watching your shadow, God has gauged the gospel in parallels so the conclusion matches the pattern of behavior. ..................... (GMT Coefficient: 584283) Mayan Calendar Created in 3114 B.C., ends 12/21/2012, the correct conclusion equals = 12210 Days Point of Division of 34 Years, or 12210 + 195 Days for the Lifespan of the Antichrist ................. one small public safety notice for your protection, i1112.photobucket.com/albums/k492/psalmsamuel/stateID.jpg ........... now I want to say a few things, I believe I could unify the police departments and the news agencies in illustrating the suicide by confronting the people directly and asking the non-whites about how society has abused them by allowed their kinds to perform the "Lives Don't Matter Campaigns" that promote suicide and murder in their neighbors, just to allow their kinds to speak about the wrong that they have done to themselves, and that society has made sport of, can be very explosive and very deadly, but I believe that is the simplest solution I have with virtually no cooperation of whats necessary, so we need to wait until the Lifespan of the Antichrist expires as a resolution to these people and billions more. Love and Blessings (need to increase the level of force, but otherwise things are good right now with the level of executionary level of force)

Flaminggg
May 28th, 2016, 02:02 PM
if the action of one man (adam) was sufficient to bring sin upon all men, why wasn't the sacrifice of one man (Jesus) sufficient to free all men from sin?

The Question is basic Logic. God did not use Jesus to bring sin upon all men, so Jesus would not be sufficient to free all men from sin. ............. God did not create Adam with "Joseph the Blessing" already introduced, that is a relationship the processes of the Gospel has introduced over time:

HEBREWS 11:21 By faith Jacob, when he was a dying, blessed both the sons of Joseph; and worshipped, [leaning] upon the top of his staff.
HEBREWS 11:22 By faith Joseph, when he died, made mention of the departing of the children of Israel; and gave commandment concerning his bones.

God measures the sufficiency of "Joseph the Blessing" to serve as a mechanism for Jesus to remove sin, based on the introduction of the "Rod of Joseph/Moses Staff/Antichrist", this has been introduced 3500 years ago, and comes to fruition when the 3 and 1/2 Days of Darkness begins. (God allowed Moses to take the Bones of Joseph, to begin his discernment about the release of sin, as a multiple of Joseph that must build to match the multiple that Jesus represents by the completion of the Gospel's Program .......... the most intelligent summation of this way of thinking was called the "Jumping Jesus Phenomenon", which declared that Jesus represented himself in multiples of "Joseph the Blessing", and in 1982 this began the final countdown of the Mayan Calendar's 34 year Period with divisions of 12210 Days and 195 Days, with parallel associations as we've discussed. Love and Blessings .......... 3500 years ago God allowed Joseph to reign over Isreal for 430 years, to choose out of Joseph an "Express Image" to satisfy the Equation that completes the Gospel's Program, which is about 153 Days in Length (with no sign), now come to the events of today, God will call the same personality to bare witnesses of this generation, that has bore witness with Moses and with that generation, that is the law of the gospel. Right now, you have euthanasia of one mass murderer, "Prince", for the ra*e and murder of the body of the Antichrist, but that is only one, all of the races of Genetic Dan, must be deceased and put to rest, soon)

patrick jane
May 28th, 2016, 02:13 PM
The Mayan calender did not end, it was the end of an age. The calendar continues

patrick jane
May 28th, 2016, 02:20 PM
Because He doesn't want to do it that way my son
:rotfl:

Flaminggg
May 28th, 2016, 02:28 PM
You're missing Israelology just like everyone else on TOL save for steko and a couple others.

You have not understood the purposes of the mosaic law which was multifaceted. Until you define the purposes of the Mosaic law as Paul does we can't move forward. There is no contradiction between Paul and James. Titus no Timothy yes explain that.

(Commentary in Parenthesis:

God doesn't use prayer and fasting to reveal a tong/Sign of Antipas/Antiparticle anymore. Paul did not bless Timothy, more than likely, because he was going to minister to the Jewish People. However Paul blessed Titus, more than likely because he ministered to the gentiles. ................ God uses the Jewish People as a point of discernment for "Joseph the Blessing", so that is a conflict, that has pushed the majority of the Jewish population into the USA, where God otherwise intends to reveal the "Sign of Antipas/Antiparticle", however that is not a guaranteed before the "Three and Half Days of Darkness". All that means is the, "City of Philadelphia, USA" is the only place with a legal right to have more mercy given to the people beyond how God will filter all human life outside of this area, that also means removing their right to live in the earth, body and soul, so they will go Away. (America is called the Home of the Jewish People for the Events of Revelation to some Degree, Luke 23:50-51, Lamentation 2:17-19, 1Kings 11:32 = City of David where Ephraim=Jewish People are, begin Revelations, according to Rev. 5:5, 2Samuel 1:16-18, the nation chosen among Judah for the sake of the Jewish People is the USA ........ we must past 6/6/2016 and come closer to 6/18/2016 before we can completely eliminate the idea of a "Sign of Divorce" alerting the nations to this process)


When Satan is thrown into the lake of fire, is he burnt UP or will he burn forever?

144,000 of various that does not belong is burned up because its unprofitable (namely Reuben and Benjamin)
144,000 of Joseph of Revelation are cleansed in the Clear Water

The Lord Jesus is an expression of Equal Potential (1Thessalonians 4:15), it is on that basis that the Gospel can make the claim that the "dead in Christ" will be taken forevermore (1Thessalonians 4:16), and finally those that are "alive in Christ" will be taken forevermore (1Thessalonians 4:17). Love and Blessings (Due process of the Law, that involves, "Suicide by Cop", because there is no viable alternative ......... that is something you need to connect directly to the Antichrist, you see their bodies fall continually, now all you need to do, is show the public, so I don't have the full cooperation of the media or the authorities at this level, but it needs to be seen, whats necessary).

intojoy
May 29th, 2016, 01:31 AM
What the hell is going on in here?
You ask the questions and I answer!

musterion
May 29th, 2016, 03:56 AM
When will you leave TOL like you promised to do?

musterion
May 29th, 2016, 03:58 AM
yeah - what the heck is this thing?

http://johnschop.nl/images/2011-08/leest.jpg

Don't know if it's art but i like it.

patrick jane
May 29th, 2016, 05:02 AM
I think it has something to do with shoes. Yep, it's a cobbler's tool

intojoy
May 29th, 2016, 06:56 PM
When will you leave TOL like you promised to do?

I never promised this.


Sent from my iPhone using TOL (https://siteowners.tapatalk.com/byo/displayAndDownloadByoApp?rid=78367)

musterion
May 29th, 2016, 07:09 PM
I never promised this.

http://theologyonline.com/showthread.php?100642-I-Am-Leaving

intojoy
May 29th, 2016, 07:09 PM
Wasn't me


Sent from my iPhone using TOL (https://siteowners.tapatalk.com/byo/displayAndDownloadByoApp?rid=78367)

intojoy
June 3rd, 2016, 02:00 AM
Any final last questions?


Sent from my iPhone using TOL (https://siteowners.tapatalk.com/byo/displayAndDownloadByoApp?rid=78367)

patrick jane
June 3rd, 2016, 10:39 AM
Any final last questions?


Sent from my iPhone using TOL (https://siteowners.tapatalk.com/byo/displayAndDownloadByoApp?rid=78367)

Why are you still here ?

intojoy
June 6th, 2016, 03:46 PM
You guys are too easy.


Sent from my iPhone using TOL (https://siteowners.tapatalk.com/byo/displayAndDownloadByoApp?rid=78367)

intojoy
June 6th, 2016, 04:09 PM
Ok here's a quiz

Judas hung himself.
Judas bowels gushed out.

Which was true and why?


Sent from my iPhone using TOL (https://siteowners.tapatalk.com/byo/displayAndDownloadByoApp?rid=78367)

Flaminggg
June 6th, 2016, 04:33 PM
Ok here's a quiz

Judas hung himself.
Judas bowels gushed out.

Which was true and why?

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-SbemBnChm_w/VKg8vjReBOI/AAAAAAAAaH8/zmo2Vkesi-4/s1600/Screen%2BShot%2B2015-01-03%2Bat%2B12.01.49%2BPM.png
http://marveluniversity.blogspot.com/2015/01/marvel-collectors-item-classics-30.html

II SAMUEL 1:16 And David said unto him, Thy blood [be] upon thy head; for thy mouth hath testified against thee, saying, I have slain the LORD'S anointed.
II SAMUEL 1:17 And David lamented with this lamentation over Saul and over Jonathan his son:
II SAMUEL 1:18 (Also he bade them teach the children of Judah [the use of] the bow: behold, [it is] written in the book of Jasher.)
II SAMUEL 1:19 The beauty of Israel is slain upon thy high places: how are the mighty fallen!

Jesus anointed all twelve apostles at the last supper, indicating that he was the author and publisher of the work they would perform of their testimony. ....................... BLAH BLAH BLAH, Judas was hung and his bowels gushed out .......................... this does not mean anything literal, because it is a parable for the work God performed when he finished the testimony of Judas. (Right now I really don't want to say anything that will stop these non-whi*tes from their pleasure of in***t, r*pe, and m**der, they do to me continually ... took down two of their notable kinds based on the level force recently, going for three, nightly walk tonight).

After Jesus allowed Judas to betray him, inorder to reveal the glory of Joseph the Blessing. This eliminated the Roman resistance to the Jewish People's sin of the murder of Jesus. The short answer is the Romans were a representation of "Judah - that tribe that would get the title of "Head of the Tribes" (as the title of head of the tribes and head of the priest hood was divided in the events of the new testament). The Jewish people may not of been witnesses of the conclusion of the testimony of Judas. (1 Samuel 15:17, Samuel had falsely claimed that the title of "Head of the Tribes", and "Head of the Priesthood", was divided in the days of David. This took place with Judas, or that is when God announced this division with the conclusion of the testimony of Judas) Love and Blessings (As I've stated, two of their notable non-wh**** are deceased based on the level of force recently, now tonight after dark, I'm going for number 3, it is that simple).

intojoy
June 6th, 2016, 04:49 PM
Flamingnigg,
That's wrong. Someone else's turn


Sent from my iPhone using TOL (https://siteowners.tapatalk.com/byo/displayAndDownloadByoApp?rid=78367)

Flaminggg
June 6th, 2016, 04:55 PM
Flamingnigg,
That's wrong. Someone else's turn

(FALSE ... They put a gun to Abraham Lincoln's Head and Blew his Brains out, nightly walk tonight. God is explaining something like spontaneous combustion, to identify with the second resurrection. God abandoned the practice of speaking in tongs, so, we'll just have to wait for the Antichrist to Die ... as I've stated, I'm handling a public threat of the highest degree of magnitude)

intojoy
June 6th, 2016, 10:38 PM
Jewish law stated that if someone commits suicide in Jerusalem that their body must be thrown over the wall to cleanse the city for Passover


Sent from my iPhone using TOL (https://siteowners.tapatalk.com/byo/displayAndDownloadByoApp?rid=78367)

intojoy
June 6th, 2016, 10:39 PM
So judas hung himself and then his body was taken and thrown over the wall of the city causing his bowels to gush out.


Sent from my iPhone using TOL (https://siteowners.tapatalk.com/byo/displayAndDownloadByoApp?rid=78367)