The Pauline Paradox

showme

Well-Known Member
Messages
73
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Ben, I was just reading some more responses in the Coocoo bird thread, and I came across your response to Mary Kay.
Something must be done! Something must be done to solve this problem of people continually thinking that God can break a promise yet be honest. That I agree with, but I'm not sure what just yet. If you ask me, that is a continuing source of lots of problems.

No, I agree that invading other people's religious space and forcing opinions on them or pushing them out of their space is disrespectful. What I think is that your arguments against Paul have both a strength and a flaw. The strength is "Evil has happened, so cut off its head and let the body die," but the weakness is you are relying upon an argument "after this, therefore because of this." Its usually quoted in Latin 'Ergo hoc propter hoc' (I think). In doing so you seem to be retooling or re-purposing Judaism or its approach to evil, not that I'm an expert but that's how it appears.

One of the great things your prophets have said is Isaiah 42:3, which I will quote though I have an imperfect knowledge of it. "A bruised reed he will not break, and a smoldering wick he will not snuff out." This is talking about the servant of the L_RD trying to preserve good things by through slow effort extracting bad things out, and I personally think this represents a huge chunk of thought that has influenced Jewish theology and its various approaches to issues down through the centuries. Probably not this particular verse but this idea of not breaking a bruised reed is the reason that Jewish people have not attacked Paul with any regularity over the last two millenniums. Your focus is on long suffering and preserving what good you find, therefore you have excepted that in Paul's case "after this, therefore because of this" is insufficient reason to totally destroy him. You say "After all, perhaps something good is coming from his ministry? What if by destroying Paul we would be destroying something good along with him?" So until now you have let him be, for the most part. So the strength of your argument is that, Yes, Paul may be causing a lot of problems even if it is because he is misunderstood; but the weakness is that you are upturning centuries of policy by pretty much all rabbinic Jews everywhere. What is going to happen next once you have obliterated Paul? Are you also going to do away with psychologists since they try to preserve worthless souls of men that have gone astray? What about other flawed religions that have some negative component?

I think that if you want to more actively oppose Paul, you are going to have to take a tip from Maccoby. If you remove Paul violently, can you patch the hole that it will leave?

You discount the timing of Ben's dialogue. With respect to Paul, there is a time for the tares to be pulled out by the roots, and that time is the "end of the age". (Mt 13:38-40) Now, no one knows the day or the hour of the end, but the signs seem somewhat evident. Paul has to be yanked out by the roots eventually, it is just a matter of timing.

The "harlot", the Roman church, also has to be devoured (Rev 17:16), which seems to be starting in the fact that Italy is now going to tax the church. The other 10 former Roman colonies will probably start to tax the church in short order.

As Yeshua said in Rev 18:4, the elect need to flee Babylon in short order, or "receive of her plagues". Paul is one of the pillars of the Roman church, who is a current stand in, and daughter, for Babylon the Great.
 

Dream

Well-Known Member
Messages
3,677
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Location
Eastern USA
Hi Showme. It has been some time since I posted that, so I've forgotten some dialogue in that thread.

With respect to Jesus illustration -- not Paul's -- there is no good time to pull up tares by their roots, because all grow up together until 'Harvest time' (Matthew 18:29) If you judge you will destroy the wheat with the tares; so instead of a reduced harvest there will be none.

Revelation 18:4 -- Whatever bad things the Roman Church has done, it hasn't done nearly enough to be the great harlot of Revelation 18:4. Look at verse 18:24 which says that in the 'Great harlot' was found the blood of 'All' of those who have ever been slain, not merely a sampling of them. Long before Babylon or Rome existed, Cain had killed his own brother. The term 'Great harlot' is not even about sex or prostitutes but is referring to the ancient goddess who required human sacrifice. Its not even about her specifically, because she only can account for a small number of total murders. In humanity, amongst all people are found murderers; so its the principle in us which causes us to murder that must be the Great Harlot. All other evils are associated with this principle, the opposite of loving others.

Revelation 18:4 is not an excuse for you to nitpick other believers or to judge them and exclude them from your fellowship. Jesus would probably point you to reread Luke 6:36 and its surrounding verses "Be merciful, even as your Father is merciful."
 

showme

Well-Known Member
Messages
73
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Hi Showme. It has been some time since I posted that, so I've forgotten some dialogue in that thread.

With respect to Jesus illustration -- not Paul's -- there is no good time to pull up tares by their roots, because all grow up together until 'Harvest time' (Matthew 18:29) If you judge you will destroy the wheat with the tares; so instead of a reduced harvest there will be none.

Revelation 18:4 -- Whatever bad things the Roman Church has done, it hasn't done nearly enough to be the great harlot of Revelation 18:4. Look at verse 18:24 which says that in the 'Great harlot' was found the blood of 'All' of those who have ever been slain, not merely a sampling of them. Long before Babylon or Rome existed, Cain had killed his own brother. The term 'Great harlot' is not even about sex or prostitutes but is referring to the ancient goddess who required human sacrifice. Its not even about her specifically, because she only can account for a small number of total murders. In humanity, amongst all people are found murderers; so its the principle in us which causes us to murder that must be the Great Harlot. All other evils are associated with this principle, the opposite of loving others.

Revelation 18:4 is not an excuse for you to nitpick other believers or to judge them and exclude them from your fellowship. Jesus would probably point you to reread Luke 6:36 and its surrounding verses "Be merciful, even as your Father is merciful."

The "harlot" of Rev 17:16 is simply the final daughter of Babylon. The one that will be consumed by the kings (horns) that supported her perviously.

As per the pulling of the tares, the wheat is not damaged because it has become ripe and ready to harvest.

As per Luke 6:36, mercy is not going to be the basis for the happenings at the "end of the age". It will be a "day of distress" (Jer 16:19), whereas the nations will say, "Our fathers have inherited nothing but falsehood, futility and things of no profit."

What Yeshua says in Mt 13:30, to first gather the tares and burn them and then put the wheat in the barn.

Mt 13:41," The son of man will send forth his angels, and they will gather out of his kingdom all stumbling blocks, and those who commit lawlessness." I would assume that that would include those who teach lawlessness as well.
 

Dream

Well-Known Member
Messages
3,677
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Location
Eastern USA
The "harlot" of Rev 17:16 is simply the final daughter of Babylon. The one that will be consumed by the kings (horns) that supported her perviously.
Chapter 17 seems complex and one might be tempted to try to summarize it as an accounting of historical events, and grasp any 10 kings group. There's never going to be a perfect match between history and Rev., because it has not given enough detail to match anything. Even if there appears to be a match, if the prophecy is not relevant to your life every day then its not a real prophecy. If there are literally 10 kings, then perhaps these were the 10 germanic barbarian kings who invaded the Holy Roman Empire in Europe? If that were the case then you could put this chapter to rest and stop thinking about its impact on your own life and what the prophet tried to say to encourage you. How can it describe 10 barbarian invaders and still speak a message to you, today?

As per the pulling of the tares, the wheat is not damaged because it has become ripe and ready to harvest.
...conveniently allowing you the luxury of rejecting people on the basis of whether they see eye to eye with you. This was a luxury Jesus did not have, so why should you have it?

As per Luke 6:36, mercy is not going to be the basis for the happenings at the "end of the age". It will be a "day of distress" (Jer 16:19), whereas the nations will say, "Our fathers have inherited nothing but falsehood, futility and things of no profit."
Jeremiah 16:19 is fulfilled anytime when Jewish people are living like they are supposed to as models of righteous living. Abraham gathered people to himself. Moses converted Caleb. David impressed Hiram King of Tyre, not by his goods but by his life. Solomon impressed Sheba the same way. Proverbs 11:30 shows that this is the meaning of Jeremiah 16:19, most likely. Its not about the day of distress but the promise of better days after a 'Day of distress'.

What Yeshua says in Mt 13:30, to first gather the tares and burn them and then put the wheat in the barn.
He wasn't telling you to gather the tares. He was telling you not to judge. You know, 'Judge not, lest ye be judged.'



user_online.gif
 

showme

Well-Known Member
Messages
73
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Chapter 17 seems complex and one might be tempted to try to summarize it as an accounting of historical events, and grasp any 10 kings group. There's never going to be a perfect match between history and Rev., because it has not given enough detail to match anything. Even if there appears to be a match, if the prophecy is not relevant to your life every day then its not a real prophecy. If there are literally 10 kings, then perhaps these were the 10 germanic barbarian kings who invaded the Holy Roman Empire in Europe? If that were the case then you could put this chapter to rest and stop thinking about its impact on your own life and what the prophet tried to say to encourage you. How can it describe 10 barbarian invaders and still speak a message to you, today?

...conveniently allowing you the luxury of rejecting people on the basis of whether they see eye to eye with you. This was a luxury Jesus did not have, so why should you have it?

Jeremiah 16:19 is fulfilled anytime when Jewish people are living like they are supposed to as models of righteous living. Abraham gathered people to himself. Moses converted Caleb. David impressed Hiram King of Tyre, not by his goods but by his life. Solomon impressed Sheba the same way. Proverbs 11:30 shows that this is the meaning of Jeremiah 16:19, most likely. Its not about the day of distress but the promise of better days after a 'Day of distress'.

He wasn't telling you to gather the tares. He was telling you not to judge. You know, 'Judge not, lest ye be judged.'


user_online.gif

Everyone has to make judgements. In Rev 2:2, the only good thing the church of Ephesus was given credit for was to test people who called themselves apostles, and determining them to being false apostles.

Per Matthew 7:15-18, Yeshua tells how to discern false prophets. In this you have to look at their fruit. This is a judgement call. Is the fruit of the Roman church good. Is their burning of books, the burning of supposed heretics, the torturing of suspected heretics, the forced excile of the jews in Spain, the child abuse of the Roman priest, considered by you as good fruit? If not then you would have to look at the prophets which this church is pillared.

As for your Germanic princes, that is nonsense. Rev 17:16 is about the eighth head of the beast, one of the seven. Revelation was written in the period of the 6th head of the beast. The 8th head was with respect to end of times, mirroring the Daniel 2 whereas the feet were of iron (Roman) mixed with potters clay.

And there is no 10 king group per se. There are 10 kings who receive authority with the beast for one hour. (Rev 17:11)

As for Jeremiah 16:19, the nations have not confessed, "Our fathers have inherited nothing but falsehood,.." And the lost tribes of Israel have not all been hunted down and returned to "their own land". (Jer 16:15) And as far as Proverbs 11:30, "the fruit of the righteous is the tree of life,..", the fruit of righteousness and the tree of life is "love", and it is not the message of Jer 16:19. The "day of distress", is about the Lord showing his power, and bringing the nations under control, whereas all the nations will then send emmisaries to keep the "Feast of booths", or go without rainfall. (Ze 11:16)

The day of distress will not be a day of mercy. Malachi 4:1," For behold, the day is coming, burning like a furnace; and all the arrogant and every evildoer will be chaff; and the day is coming will set them ablaze," says the Lord of hosts, "so that it will leave them neither root nor branch."...."and you will tread down the wicked, for they shall be ashes under the soles of your feet on the day which I am preparing."
You can show your mercy to the rapist, the murderer, the liar and the thief, but do not expect them to excape justice by your mercy. Now if your entire family is brutally murdered, and you forgive the killer, that is fine, but the state will demand justice. If you murder your neighbor, don't expect to escape justice.

As for Yeshua judging people, I think he made it clear he didn't like the hypocricy of the Pharisees, of which Paul is a self described Pharisee of Pharisees. Yeshua also judged those Pharisees who went from city to city persecuting and killing the saints. They would be held accountable for all the blood of the saints. (Mt 23:25-35) That would include Paul as well.

The parable about the tares is not about man's judgement, it is about God's judgement. The parallel parable about "Stumbling blocks, and those who commit lawlessness", is about God's judgement, not man's judgement.

As for heeding what Yeshua says, you can take it or leave it, but I like what he says in Rev 22:11," let the one who does wrong, still do wrong; and let the one who is filthy, still be filthy; and let the one who is righteous, still practice righteousness; and let the one who is holy, still keep himself holy."
 

Dream

Well-Known Member
Messages
3,677
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Location
Eastern USA
Showme said:
The day of distress will not be a day of mercy.
All I wanted to point out is that that Jeremiah 16:19 is after a day of distress, not during. Its about the good times. Often when Jeremiah's predicting bad times and rejections then he mentions how in the future things will get better. This is exactly what happened, too; since Zerubbabel was permitted to lead an expedition to restore Jerusalem. There was a day or time ('Yom') of distress, but it was followed by a time of restoration, and the Gentiles did exactly as 16:19 said they would in that restoration.

Everyone has to make judgements. In Rev 2:2, the only good thing the church of Ephesus was given credit for was to test people who called themselves apostles, and determining them to being false apostles.
The Ephesians were commended for how they tested the false apostles; and they tested those who claimed to be apostles and found out the false ones through toil and patient endurance, by fruits as you have confessed. The Ephesians worked tirelessly, and they were patient. The fruits of those false apostles were used to test those false apostles, not their arguments. So rejecting people simply because they disagree with you remains inexcusable. If Paul is who you respect, then Paul says "Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?" (I Cor 1:20)

Is the fruit of the Roman church good. Is their burning of books, the burning of supposed heretics, the torturing of suspected heretics, the forced excile of the jews in Spain, the child abuse of the Roman priest, considered by you as good fruit? If not then you would have to look at the prophets which this church is pillared.
It doesn't make them 'The Great Harlot'. That's just somebody's ploy to ignore the patient endurance that is preached throughout Revelation. All those who believe through Jesus and his obedient death share responsibility for each other, and that means patience and toil is required as with any long term relationship. As an individual you may think you have spiritual fruit but you no longer an individual, only. You also are part of the entire body of Christians. I encourage you that Jesus said "If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me." Self denial means among other things that you no longer are only responsible for yourself. Your good fruit also came from those people in the Roman church in the sense that you are connected with them. You are not unconnected. You have been called out but not out of a church organization (or into one). You cannot 'Leave the great harlot' by changing your denomination.

You can show your mercy to the rapist, the murderer, the liar and the thief,
That isn't the same as when Christians cut each other off to force agreement over theological artifacts. In his discourse on unity, Jesus says if you can agree on any one thing you can pray together, but you must forgive a brother's offense 70 * 7, meaning an infinite number of times. (Matthew 18:19,22) How is it that you can summarily cut off all Catholics and assign the great harlot to them only? The inquisition was over 300 years ago, and I recall Jesus says that the spirit goes wherever it will. You don't know where it comes from or where its going. Perhaps it can even blow through the home of a Catholic, and there is probably at least one thing you could agree on with at least one Catholic long enough to pray.
 

showme

Well-Known Member
Messages
73
Reaction score
0
Points
0
All I wanted to point out is that that Jeremiah 16:19 is after a day of distress, not during. Its about the good times. Often when Jeremiah's predicting bad times and rejections then he mentions how in the future things will get better. This is exactly what happened, too; since Zerubbabel was permitted to lead an expedition to restore Jerusalem. There was a day or time ('Yom') of distress, but it was followed by a time of restoration, and the Gentiles did exactly as 16:19 said they would in that restoration.

The Ephesians were commended for how they tested the false apostles; and they tested those who claimed to be apostles and found out the false ones through toil and patient endurance, by fruits as you have confessed. The Ephesians worked tirelessly, and they were patient. The fruits of those false apostles were used to test those false apostles, not their arguments. So rejecting people simply because they disagree with you remains inexcusable. If Paul is who you respect, then Paul says "Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?" (I Cor 1:20)

It doesn't make them 'The Great Harlot'. That's just somebody's ploy to ignore the patient endurance that is preached throughout Revelation. All those who believe through Jesus and his obedient death share responsibility for each other, and that means patience and toil is required as with any long term relationship. As an individual you may think you have spiritual fruit but you no longer an individual, only. You also are part of the entire body of Christians. I encourage you that Jesus said "If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me." Self denial means among other things that you no longer are only responsible for yourself. Your good fruit also came from those people in the Roman church in the sense that you are connected with them. You are not unconnected. You have been called out but not out of a church organization (or into one). You cannot 'Leave the great harlot' by changing your denomination.

That isn't the same as when Christians cut each other off to force agreement over theological artifacts. In his discourse on unity, Jesus says if you can agree on any one thing you can pray together, but you must forgive a brother's offense 70 * 7, meaning an infinite number of times. (Matthew 18:19,22) How is it that you can summarily cut off all Catholics and assign the great harlot to them only? The inquisition was over 300 years ago, and I recall Jesus says that the spirit goes wherever it will. You don't know where it comes from or where its going. Perhaps it can even blow through the home of a Catholic, and there is probably at least one thing you could agree on with at least one Catholic long enough to pray.

You kind of need to get real. Jeremiah 16:16 refers to the base Scripture which Yeshua used to send "fishers of men" to the lost sheep of Israel. The hunters (Jer 16:16) have not finished returning the "lost sheep" to Israel, whereas in Ez 11:16 they would be returned to the "land of Israel", and be given "one heart" and a new Spirit. This has not been completed, and we are way past Zerubbabel. Israel does not have "one heart" and a "new Spirit" and a heart of flesh. And they did not have "one heart" and a "new Spirit" in the day of Zerubbabel.

As for Paul, he is the one who accurses people who disagree with him. (Gal 1:8) I simply heed Yeshua's testimony and look at the deeds of Roman church. The bad fruit continues to this day in the form of child abuse, financial impropriety within the Vatican bank, etc.

As for being connected specifically with the Roman church, that is a problem. Everyone is somewhat connected, and when the plagues come down upon the Roman church, it will affect the innocent as well. The only ones who might get a pass would be the the "church of Philadelphia (Rev 3:10), and this because they have kept "my Word", and have a "little power", which would exclude the Roman church.

As for forgiving the Roman church, it is not mine to forgive. They have burned others but not me. I am sure if they had the state power which they formerly held, they would certainly have tried to suppress any dissent in more a more forceful manner.

Until the nations and the survivors of "hour of testing" (Rev 3:1), confess that they have "inherited nothing but falsehood", then Jer 16:19 hasn't been completed.

Paul is simply the staff "Favor" (Ze 11:10) who was taken to pature the "flock doomed to slaughter" (Ze 11:7) The sheep in that flock need to head for the hills, and disassociate themselves(Rev 18:4) before God "has remembered her iniquities" (Rev 18:5)
 

Dream

Well-Known Member
Messages
3,677
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Location
Eastern USA
A little background on Jeremiah and Ezekiel for reader's sakes: Both Jeremiah and Ezekiel live and prophesy during the reign of King Jehoiachin, before the Babylonians conquer Jerusalem, long before Jesus lives and long after kings Saul and David. Both prophets are priestly descendents. Subsequently to their prophecies, Jerusalem is captured, the temple is destroyed, the Jews live in captivity for 70 years before some Jews are allowed to return to Jerusalem and a new temple is built again.

Ezekiel anticipates the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple but promises a new beginning and new temple. It has little background about Ezekiel and doesn't have much 'Story' compared with Jeremiah. It has many weird visions.
Jeremiah predicts that Jews will be captives in Babylon for a while but will return. The book talks about various politicians who oppose Jeremiah as a result of his prophesying as well as describes an attempt by the Jerusalem folk to 'Return to Egypt', which fails. Jerusalem is captured. There are some weird visions but mostly it is dialogue.

Showme said:
You kind of need to get real. Jeremiah 16:16 refers to the base Scripture which Yeshua used to send "fishers of men" to the lost sheep of Israel. The hunters (Jer 16:16) have not finished returning the "lost sheep" to Israel, whereas in Ez 11:16 they would be returned to the "land of Israel", and be given "one heart" and a new Spirit. This has not been completed, and we are way past Zerubbabel. Israel does not have "one heart" and a "new Spirit" and a heart of flesh. And they did not have "one heart" and a "new Spirit" in the day of Zerubbabel.
That is complicated. Ezekiel 12:27-28 the 'Lord' says that since the Israelites always think that prophecies are about far off events that from then on any prophecy would be fulfilled right away. The destruction of Jerusalem happens shortly thereafter. After being captive for 70 years there is a very strong effect on those Jews, and we read that afterwards Ezra read the book of the law in Jerusalem and all of the people said 'Amen' to it and worshiped by putting their faces to the ground. (Neh 8:6) I could argue that this was the 'One heart' moment that was prophesied.

As for Paul, he is the one who accurses people who disagree with him. (Gal 1:8) I simply heed Yeshua's testimony and look at the deeds of Roman church. The bad fruit continues to this day in the form of child abuse, financial impropriety within the Vatican bank, etc.
You should object to those things, and I'm not saying you should give money to the Vatican or serve it, but its not the great harlot of revelation. I said this, because the book Revelation is not intended to predict a series of historical events but is intended to encourage you to be brave and to tirelessly work. Don't reduce Revelation to something less than it is. Identifying a particular organization as the 'Great harlot' is like saying you can 'Bomb' evil or 'Shoot' hate. The whole problem with the Great Harlot is that its internal, so there is a long process of heart circumcision to get rid of it.

"If I or someone preaches another gospel let him be accursed" is not a magical formulation but an appeal to justice. One of the most telling things is that he includes himself in the judgement. Also, if Paul is actually rejecting people for disagreeing, then I object to that. I don't think he is doing that: 1. It goes against his theme and the whole NT theme. 2. My understanding of a curse is that it means to call down scrutiny upon the person by God. -- Its like when David says "The LORD judge between you and me.(1 Sam 24:12)" When Jesus was upon the cross he was cursed, meaning his life was examined for imperfections.

As for being connected specifically with the Roman church, that is a problem. Everyone is somewhat connected, and when the plagues come down upon the Roman church, it will affect the innocent as well. The only ones who might get a pass would be the the "church of Philadelphia (Rev 3:10), and this because they have kept "my Word", and have a "little power", which would exclude the Roman church.
I think that the plagues have been with us for a long time indicating our troubled status. I don't think they are future tense but present tense.

Until the nations and the survivors of "hour of testing" (Rev 3:1), confess that they have "inherited nothing but falsehood", then Jer 16:19 hasn't been completed.
It depends, because Jeremiah probably isn't talking about the entire globe but just Israel, which is often the 'Earth' when reading Psalms and other references. For him Israel is Earth. After Jews returned from captivity in Babylon they actually did become very famous and attracted converts from all over, so I could argue that Jeremiah 16:19 was fulfilled.

Paul is simply the staff "Favor" (Ze 11:10) who was taken to pature the "flock doomed to slaughter" (Ze 11:7) The sheep in that flock need to head for the hills, and disassociate themselves(Rev 18:4) before God "has remembered her iniquities" (Rev 18:5)
Zechariah is a vision/prophecy. In it Time is fluid and the tenses can confuse you as to whether its future talk, present talk or past talk. In Zech 14:4 you see the LORD standing on the Mt. Olives, and it splits into two. This should instantly be seen as interchangeable with Deuteronomy 27:12,13 in which half the people stand on Ebal and half on Gerizim, two mountains with one representing blessings and one cursings. These two mountains are your two staffs of 'Favor' and 'Disfavor' that Zechariah is talking about! More than that, at times Zechariah is not even prophesying about the future but about the past, as can be seen in Zech 11:14. He is recounting all of Israel's history, but its confusing since he uses his tenses strangely. He never intended for his words to be translated into English and then used as source material. He would have expected you to first be thoroughly familiar with the Law and with Israel's history and to recognize all of his symbols instantly as if you were a native. Time is very fluid in prophesy and can go forwards but also backwards. It can also be about a time that exists outside of our timelines.
 

Sam Albion

akaFrancisKing:ViveLeRoi!
Messages
350
Reaction score
9
Points
18
Location
in hell, Liverpool, UK
Well, Servetus, my policy about gay people is, if they don't bother me, I don't bother them. This that Moses established as a law that homosexuality be punishable with death, we cannot erase it from the Bible. I neither defend the law, nor promote the punishment. It is just not of my concern if some men choose to live their lives the way they please. The law of cause and effect is quite clear. AIDS has been the salary of homosexuality. But we cannot compare the Jewish genocide with the killing of gay men. It is not a sin to be Jewish.
Ben

wtf? AID's the salary of homosexuality? Nice! By that rationale, only queers would ever get AID's, but that's not the case. Women, heterosexual women, usually poor and without access to free Johnny's, these are the biggest risk-group for AID's, right now. Not gays. AID's does not discriminate against black-white, rich-poor, gay-straight. AID's isn't God's punishment for taking it up the bum. Man, that annoys me.

Although, you're right when you say that "It's not a sin to be Jewish". Yet I'd have to add the caveat: "unless you're not a Jew"...
 

showme

Well-Known Member
Messages
73
Reaction score
0
Points
0
A little background on Jeremiah and Ezekiel for reader's sakes: Both Jeremiah and Ezekiel live and prophesy during the reign of King Jehoiachin, before the Babylonians conquer Jerusalem, long before Jesus lives and long after kings Saul and David. Both prophets are priestly descendents. Subsequently to their prophecies, Jerusalem is captured, the temple is destroyed, the Jews live in captivity for 70 years before some Jews are allowed to return to Jerusalem and a new temple is built again.

Ezekiel anticipates the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple but promises a new beginning and new temple. It has little background about Ezekiel and doesn't have much 'Story' compared with Jeremiah. It has many weird visions.
Jeremiah predicts that Jews will be captives in Babylon for a while but will return. The book talks about various politicians who oppose Jeremiah as a result of his prophesying as well as describes an attempt by the Jerusalem folk to 'Return to Egypt', which fails. Jerusalem is captured. There are some weird visions but mostly it is dialogue.

That is complicated. Ezekiel 12:27-28 the 'Lord' says that since the Israelites always think that prophecies are about far off events that from then on any prophecy would be fulfilled right away. The destruction of Jerusalem happens shortly thereafter. After being captive for 70 years there is a very strong effect on those Jews, and we read that afterwards Ezra read the book of the law in Jerusalem and all of the people said 'Amen' to it and worshiped by putting their faces to the ground. (Neh 8:6) I could argue that this was the 'One heart' moment that was prophesied.

Showme wrote: You can always twist any bible quote into any interpretation one wants, but the question is does it make sense and is it in tune with the entire prophecies of the bible. Ez 11:19, not only has Israel given "one heart", but a new Spirit is put within them, and and heart of flesh. This is in alignment with the the testimony that the last shall be first and the first shall be last. It is the House of Judah which will be the last to have a new Spirit put within them. This has not been completed. For every physical representation in the bible, there is a Spiritual happening. The physical event precedes the Spiritual event.

You should object to those things, and I'm not saying you should give money to the Vatican or serve it, but its not the great harlot of revelation. I said this, because the book Revelation is not intended to predict a serious of historical events but is intended to encourage you to be brave and to tirelessly work. Don't reduce Revelation to plans for an exit strategy. Identifying a particular organization as the 'Great harlot' is like saying you can 'Bomb' evil or 'Shoot' hate. The whole problem with the Great Harlot is that its internal, so there is a long process of heart circumcision to get rid of it.

Showme wrote: The Roman church is simply a harlot daughter of Babylon.(Rev 17:5) As for what Revelation is, I will let it speak for itself. Rev 1:1," The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show to his bond-servants, the things which must shortly take place; and he sent and communicated it by his angel to his bond-servant John." As of the writing of Revelation 17:10, two of the heads of the beast had yet to appear.

Also, if Paul is actually rejecting people for disagreeing, then I object to what he is doing. I don't think he is, and it goes against his theme and the whole NT theme. My understanding of a curse is that it means to call down scrutiny upon the person by God. Its like when David says "The LORD judge between you and me.(1 Sam 24:12)" When Jesus was upon the cross he was cursed, meaning his life was examined for imperfections. "If I or someone preaches another gospel let him be accursed" is not a magical formulation but an appeal to justice. One of the most telling things is that he includes himself in the judgement.

Showme wrote: Paul was all things to all people. What he wrote depended upon whom he was speaking to.

I think that the plagues have been with us for a long time indicating our troubled status. I don't think they are future tense but present tense.

Show me wrote: Let us see what Yeshua says about those times. Mt 24:21-22,"for then there will be a great tribulation, such as has not occurred since the beginning of the world until now, nor ever shall. And unless those days had been cut short, no life would have been saved; but for the sake of the elect those days shall be cut short." As for the Roman church currently suffering plagues, sure, because they have no power to heal.

It depends, because Jeremiah probably isn't talking about the entire globe but just Israel, which is often the 'Earth' when reading Psalms and other references. For him Israel is Earth. After Jews returned from captivity in Babylon they actually did become very famous and attracted converts from all over, so I could argue that Jeremiah 16:19 was fulfilled. You might argue for a second fulfillment.

Showme wrote: Jeremiah 16:19 wrote that the nations will come from the ends of the earth". This means from the "ends of the earth"

Zechariah is a vision/prophecy. In it Time is fluid and the tenses can confuse you as to whether its future talk, present talk or past talk. In Zech 14:4 you see the LORD standing on the Mt. Olives, and it splits into two. This should instantly be seen as interchangeable with Deuteronomy 27:12,13 in which half the people stand on Ebal and half on Gerizim, two mountains with one representing blessings and one cursings. These two mountains are your two staffs of 'Favor' and 'Disfavor' that Zechariah is talking about! More than that, Zechariah is not even prophesying about the future but about the past, as can be seen in Zech 11:14. He is recounting all of Israel's history, but its confusing since he uses his tenses strangely. He never intended for his words to be translated into English and then used as source material. He would have expected you to first be thoroughly familiar with the Law and with Israel's history and to recognize all of his symbols instantly as if you were a native. Time is very fluid in prophesy and can go forwards but also backwards. It can also be about a time that exists outside of our timelines. In this case, I have to say that neither you nor I are trained to really talk much about this book.

Showme wrote: The prophecy of Ze 11 is about 3 shepherds who die in the same generation. One of those shepherds, Judas Iscariot, in Ze 11:12, is pointed out in Mt 26:15.
 

bananabrain

awkward squadnik
Messages
2,749
Reaction score
4
Points
36
Location
London, UK, Malkhut she'be'Assiyah
Ben Masada said:
Moses established as a law that homosexuality be punishable with death, we cannot erase it from the Bible.
that is more arguable than you might think - i myself consider it to be referring to "punishment rapes" as still widely practiced in war and prisons. also, breaking Shabbat is equally punishable - even the same form of death. yet, for some reason, we seem to have managed to avoid executing anyone, for reasons to do with the practicality of capital punishment among others. ask yourself why the sages thought this necessary.

I neither defend the law, nor promote the punishment.
er... isn't that just ducking the issue? surely the issue should be how do we, as jews, respond to this? is it not a test of our humanity?

It is just not of my concern if some men choose to live their lives the way they please. The law of cause and effect is quite clear.
no, it really, really isn't. that is why it is in maimonides' 13 principles; specific cause and effect (and therefore providence, or "hashgachah pratit") is a matter of belief - because there is no consistent evidence that the good are rewarded or the bad punished - at least not before "the world to come", which you for some odd reason reject.

AIDS has been the salary of homosexuality.
no, it has been the result of poor behaviours, by both heterosexuals and homosexuals. that is a daft statement.

But we cannot compare the Jewish genocide with the killing of gay men. It is not a sin to be Jewish.
it is a sin to kill someone who doesn't deserve it; it is a most unjewish point of view to minimise the deaths of innocents.

an unnatural behavior
so unnatural, apparently, that it can be observed in 1500+ species in the natural world.

Servetus said:
However, my sometimes nevertheless bothersome ex-Jewish now gay friend tells me that your "live and let live" attitude is not enough: he wants reparations for in excess of two thousand years of Jewish (via Laws of Moses) persecution, defamation and destruction of gay people.
ach, he can get in the queue behind mojobadshah. reparations, my fat sephardi arse. practical much, like all radicals?

b'shalom

bananabrain
 

Dream

Well-Known Member
Messages
3,677
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Location
Eastern USA
Showme said:
Showme wrote: You can always twist any bible quote into any interpretation one wants, but the question is does it make sense and is it in tune with the entire prophecies of the bible.
That is what concerns you the most but also me the most. Do you think that I would want to twist the Bible from its proper use? I wouldn't anymore than you would. By the way I'm not Catholic myself. I've no family that are Catholics either.

Showme wrote: The Roman church is simply a harlot daughter of Babylon.(Rev 17:5)
Its done some deeds and could be what you are saying, but you should still guard against having a Jonah vs. Nineveh attitude (or from letting other people give you one). Recall from Jonah that Nineveh was a city destined to be destroyed, but that ruling was reversed for the sake of saving some cows and farmers. (For cows?) There are many, many valuable people in the Catholic church. God doesn't think about it the same way as you necessarily --> which I think you admit. That is really what is most important, admitting that God is ultimately right while everyone else is wrong in comparison. Then we can begin to communicate with each other.

A lot of people say RC is the great harlot, and they get that from Martin Luther or just from what people tell them. For a long time people told children that as long as they weren't Catholic everything would be fine, that Catholics were evil and so forth. Rumors flew and grew. Because of this protestants share some responsibility for the state of catholicism today. There should be diligent compassionate understanding and offered fellowship without demands. If people must come out then that is the only way to call them out.
Showme wrote: Paul was all things to all people. What he wrote depended upon whom he was speaking to.
He did say that he was all things to all people, didn't he? That was always hard for me to consider, and I still haven't decided what he meant. I don't think that lying about who you are is ideal, and I think its impossible to truly understand someone who you are not.

Show me wrote: Let us see what Yeshua says about those times. Mt 24:21-22,"for then there will be a great tribulation, such as has not occurred since the beginning of the world until now, nor ever shall. And unless those days had been cut short, no life would have been saved; but for the sake of the elect those days shall be cut short." As for the Roman church currently suffering plagues, sure, because they have no power to heal.
Looking at the world and wondering why it isn't perfect, we tend to want to find the cause; and sometimes the first person we see is the one who gets the blame.

I don't know how many people you've discussed Matthew 24 with, but people go round & round arguing the several major interpretations of what it means. God has the correct point of view, and that is good enough for God. Its not nearly as important as, for one, the Beatitudes. In the Be attitudes Christians are taught to stay in the position of being hungry for righteousness, and in that position there is little time to worry about how evil someone else is.

Showme wrote: Jeremiah 16:19 wrote that the nations will come from the ends of the earth". This means from the "ends of the earth"
I must have made a mistake. Do you think that I have blasphemed the Holy Spirit? I honor that spirit. I only would blaspheme if I insisted that I must be absolutely correct, because that would be claiming equality with God. Or if I deliberately deceived. For a Christian there is a constant challenge of remaining humble before God while trying to learn and share. The challenge is one of the more difficult ones.

Showme wrote: The prophecy of Ze 11 is about 3 shepherds who die in the same generation. One of those shepherds, Judas Iscariot, in Ze 11:12, is pointed out in Mt 26:15.
This is where humility comes in for me, because you and I are equal before God. I'm not allowed to simply chuck out your interpretation which God has given you. There are several reasons why I think this, one being I Corinthians 14:26. I am required to honor what you've said by thinking about it and even putting a hold on the ideas I've been getting. Aren't we both dwarfed by God's intelligence, and why should I assume that God must only provide intelligent answers through me?

In thinking about what you've said I notice that Matthew 26:15 mentions 30 coins and so does Zechariah 11:12. I understand that Judas gets 30 coins for his labors. Zechariah is playing a bad shepherd and gets 30 coins for his bad shepherding after doing all kinds of bad things to his sheep. Further down in Zech 11:17 there is something about right eyes. Its not obvious why the right eye would be considered any better than the left. In a similar reference there was a city saved by king Saul which had been threatened, and the besieging army said it would let the people live if they surrendered and if it could pluck out their right eyes.(I Sam 11:2) What an odd thing to say.
 

Servetus

Well-Known Member
Messages
343
Reaction score
1
Points
0
ach, he can get in the queue behind mojobadshah. reparations, my fat sephardi arse. practical much, like all radicals?

My anonymous ex-Jewish now gay friend, whom I shall call Trotsky with a woody, or, better yet, Woody Trotsky, is annoying, but also sometimes very funny. What's more, he says that you, personally, owe him 175 quid.

But seriously, I wasn't joking when I said that the Torah and its correlative (at least in respect of repeating Moses' law against homosexuality), the New Testament, seem increasingly targeted for immobilization as "hate" literature. Although, as I understand, he was released, I see a street preacher (quoting Paul who quotes Moses) was recently arrested in England for including homosexuality in a list of sins in one of his public sermons.


Serv
 

bananabrain

awkward squadnik
Messages
2,749
Reaction score
4
Points
36
Location
London, UK, Malkhut she'be'Assiyah
My anonymous ex-Jewish now gay friend, whom I shall call Trotsky with a woody, or, better yet, Woody Trotsky, is annoying, but also sometimes very funny. What's more, he says that you, personally, owe him 175 quid.
ok, now you made me laugh.

But seriously, I wasn't joking when I said that the Torah and its correlative (at least in respect of repeating Moses' law against homosexuality), the New Testament, seem increasingly targeted for immobilization as "hate" literature.
yeah.... a productive way to deal with that, i'm sure. as you know, i take the view that anyone who actually understands the verse concerned let alone how halakhah works could not reasonably interpret it in the way that christian fundamentalists do, let alone act on it.

Although, as I understand, he was released, I see a street preacher (quoting Paul who quotes Moses) was recently arrested in England for including homosexuality in a list of sins in one of his public sermons.
yes, i would probably put that under the heading "there is no right not to be offended"; incitement to murder is one thing, but merely offending someone, however gratuitously and nastily, is another.

b'shalom

bananabrain
 

koranist

Interfaith Forums
Messages
28
Reaction score
0
Points
0
The Pauline Paradox

When Paul started preaching about Jesus as the Messiah and son of God, he never realized that he had created a huge paradox.

You see, for Jesus to be the Messiah, he had to be a biological son of Joseph's, who was the one from the Tribe of Judah, whose Tribe the Messiah was supposed to come from. Mary was from the Tribe of Levi. She was of the family of Elizabeth, a descendant of Aaron the Levite. (Luke 1:5,36)

Since Jesus is also claimed to be the son of God, he could not be the Messiah, because God is not subject to human genealogies.

On the other hand, if Christians decided to grab the chance of at least to make of Jesus the Messiah by agreeing to drop the tale of the virgin birth, and to admit that he was indeed Joseph's biological son, he could not be son of God; and here the situation would get worse because even the doctrine of the Trinity would colapse.

That's indeed a huge paradox that can be accepted only by faith, which requires no explanation. But then again, where faith begins, knowledge ends. And for lack of knowledge, People perish. (Hosea 4:6)

Now, if there is anyone out there with enough wisdom to unriddle this paradox, I'll be more than happy to take my hat off to him or her. If not, the Sphynx will keep waiting patiently beside the Egyptian piramids for the passers-by.

Good luck!

Ben

The Dead Sea Scrolls reveal that the Jewish communities at that time , referred to their religous leaders as the ‘Priests of Aaron’. It is also revealed that they were expecting the arrival of TWO messiahs, known as the Messiah of Aaron and the Messiah of David (see scroll 1QS IX 9–11).

Another quotation from Dead Sea Scrolls (Community Rules Document) spoke of:


“In the society of the Yahad there shall be twelve laymen and three priests who are blameless in the light of all that has been revealed from the whole Law, so as to work truth, righteousness, justice, living-kindness, and humility, one with another. They are to preserve faith in the land with self-control and a broken spirit, atoning for sin by working justice and suffering affliction. They are to walk with all by the standard of truth and the dictates proper to the age.”

“When such men as these come to be in Israel, then shall the society of the Yahad truly be established, an ‘eternal planing’ (Jubilees 16:26), a temple for Israel, and – mystery! – a Holy of Holies for Aaron; true witnesses to justice, chosen by God’s will to atone for the land and to recompense the wicked their due. They will be ‘the tested wall, the precious cornerstone’ (Isa. 28:16) whose foundations shall neither be shaken nor swayed, a fortress, a Holy of Holies for Aaron, all of them knowing the Covenant of Justice and thereby offering a sweet savor. They shall be a blameless and true house in Israel, ‘upholding the covenant of eternal statutes. They shall be an acceptable sacrifice, atoning for the land and ringing in the verdict against evil, so that perversity ceases to exist.”


Quran 19.27-29 At length she brought the (babe) to her people, carrying him (in her arms). They said: "O Mary! truly an amazing thing hast thou brought! "O sister of Aaron! Thy father was not a man of evil, nor thy mother a woman unchaste!" But she pointed to the babe. They said: "How can we talk to one who is a child in the cradle?"
 

showme

Well-Known Member
Messages
73
Reaction score
0
Points
0
That is what concerns you the most but also me the most. Do you think that I would want to twist the Bible from its proper use? I wouldn't anymore than you would. By the way I'm not Catholic myself. I've no family that are Catholics either.

Showme replies in blue: Your bible was compiled and canonized by the Roman church. Your Tinity doctrine was established by the Roman church. Your Pagan feast of Astarte (Easter), queen of heaven, was instituted by the Roman church at Nicene. Your creeds no doubt originate with the Roman church.

Its done some deeds and could be what you are saying, but you should still guard against having a Jonah vs. Nineveh attitude (or from letting other people give you one). Recall from Jonah that Nineveh was a city destined to be destroyed, but that ruling was reversed for the sake of saving some cows and farmers. (For cows?) There are many, many valuable people in the Catholic church. God doesn't think about it the same way as you necessarily --> which I think you admit. That is really what is most important, admitting that God is ultimately right while everyone else is wrong in comparison. Then we can begin to communicate with each other.

90% of my family is Catholic. They all pay taxes and mow their yards. They are nice people, but like Protestants, they think they are saved by following some useless traditions. For the Protestants, it is making a altar call, or whatever. For the Catholics, simply have a priest make a chant at their death bed before they are ice cold, and they are saved in heaven. The problem being is that the "saved" of the OT is being saved in the "Day of the Lord". If you are an "elect', and aren't like the church of Philadelphia (Rev 3:10), then most likely, one will be refined with fire in the Tribulation.

A lot of people say RC is the great harlot, and they get that from Martin Luther or just from what people tell them. For a long time people told children that as long as they weren't Catholic everything would be fine, that Catholics were evil and so forth. Rumors flew and grew. Because of this protestants share some responsibility for the state of catholicism today. There should be diligent compassionate understanding and offered fellowship without demands. If people must come out then that is the only way to call them out.
He did say that he was all things to all people, didn't he? That was always hard for me to consider, and I still haven't decided what he meant. I don't think that lying about who you are is ideal, and I think its impossible to truly understand someone who you are not.

The Roman church is not the great harlot, she is just one of the daughters. Luther was only close. The "great harlot" sat on the seven heads of the scarlet beast. The first three heads were Nebachnezzar of Babylon, Cyrus of Persia, and Alexander of Macedonia. These had nothing to do with Rome. It wasn't until the 7th head of the beast, Constantine the king of Rome, that the Roman church was established.

Looking at the world and wondering why it isn't perfect, we tend to want to find the cause; and sometimes the first person we see is the one who gets the blame.

Read a little about history. Look at the Roman church in France. King Phillip wiped out the Templars because he owed them money. He simply used his puppet Pope Clement to have them destroyed by the Inquisition.

500,000 Cathars, including women and children were destroyed by way of the Inquisition for heresy. One of their worst heretical beliefs was to not pay tighes to the the church.

Look at Pope Clement the "Magnificent", who had parties, one which they served 1000 sheep, 900 goats, a 100 cows, a 100 calves, 60 pigs, 10,000 chickens, 1400 geese, and 300 fish, 50,000 cheeses, and 50,000 tarts, and this for kings , queens, dukes, cardinals, bishops, etc.

Francisan monks were burned at the stake by Pope John the 22 for condemning the gross misuse of papal power, such as having mistresses, having heir own mint, and having armies. I think this all comes under the category of bad fruit.

I don't know how many people you've discussed Matthew 24 with, but people go round & round arguing the several major interpretations of what it means. God has the correct point of view, and that is good enough for God. Its not nearly as important as, for one, the Beatitudes. In the Be attitudes Christians are taught to stay in the position of being hungry for righteousness, and in that position there is little time to worry about how evil someone else is.

If someone, or institution is evil, then it would be best to stay away, or to "come out of her", if you are indeed affiliated with an evil institution. Of course if you think it is okay to be double minded, and say one thing and do another, then you of course you would have to explain that to God, not me.

I must have made a mistake. Do you think that I have blasphemed the Holy Spirit? I honor that spirit. I only would blaspheme if I insisted that I must be absolutely correct, because that would be claiming equality with God. Or if I deliberately deceived. For a Christian there is a constant challenge of remaining humble before God while trying to learn and share. The challenge is one of the more difficult ones.

You need to be more explicit. Where did you see the word "blaspheme"? You lost me in your last paragraph.

This is where humility comes in for me, because you and I are equal before God. I'm not allowed to simply chuck out your interpretation which God has given you. There are several reasons why I think this, one being I Corinthians 14:26. I am required to honor what you've said by thinking about it and even putting a hold on the ideas I've been getting. Aren't we both dwarfed by God's intelligence, and why should I assume that God must only provide intelligent answers through me?

You choose to have Paul as your teacher, whereas I follow the testimony of Yeshua. Yeshua testified that you have only one teacher, that being the Spirit of God.(Mt 23:8)(John 14:26) Paul's message is that anyone is accursed if they don't follow his message.

In thinking about what you've said I notice that Matthew 26:15 mentions 30 coins and so does Zechariah 11:12. I understand that Judas gets 30 coins for his labors. Zechariah is playing a bad shepherd and gets 30 coins for his bad shepherding after doing all kinds of bad things to his sheep. Further down in Zech 11:17 there is something about right eyes. Its not obvious why the right eye would be considered any better than the left. In a similar reference there was a city saved by king Saul which had been threatened, and the besieging army said it would let the people live if they surrendered and if it could pluck out their right eyes.(I Sam 11:2) What an odd thing to say.

Zechariah 11 is about 3 shepherds, two of whom are referred to as "staffs". Judas is the 3rd shepherd (Ze 11:13), and it is the 2nd staff "Union" (Ze 11:14)(John 21:16) who did not feed the sheep. All these 3 shepherds died in the same generation. (Ze 11:8) The 2nd staff is Peter, for he is the "worthless shepherd", because he "leaves the flock" (Ze 11:17) He left the flock in Jerusalem. He has a sword on his right arm because he used his sword to cut off the ear of the servant. By his visions he broke the brotherhood between the House of Israel, which is lost among the nations (Jer 16:15), and the House of Judah, which are called jews. The House of Isreal, which lives among the nations, believes they are gentile, and live according to a different law than their brother Judah, which supposedly keeps God's law. This is a break in the brotherhood.(Ze 11:14)
 

Ben Masada

Well-Known Member
Messages
999
Reaction score
1
Points
0
wtf? AID's the salary of homosexuality? Nice! By that rationale, only queers would ever get AID's, but that's not the case. Women, heterosexual women, usually poor and without access to free Johnny's, these are the biggest risk-group for AID's, right now. Not gays. AID's does not discriminate against black-white, rich-poor, gay-straight. AID's isn't God's punishment for taking it up the bum. Man, that annoys me.

Although, you're right when you say that "It's not a sin to be Jewish". Yet I'd have to add the caveat: "unless you're not a Jew"...


AIDS has nothing to do with punishment of God. AIDS is one of the items that comes as a result of the law of cause and effect. One suffers the consequences of his or her own ways to live. When I said that AIDS is the salary of homosexuality, I had in mind that, if a Doctor traces back AIDS acquired by any other means, it will, eventually, lead him or her to AIDS as a result of homosexual behavior.
Ben
 

Ben Masada

Well-Known Member
Messages
999
Reaction score
1
Points
0
so unnatural, apparently, that it can be observed in 1500+ species in the natural world.

b'shalom

bananabrain


Your response above is to my statement that homosexuality is an unnatural behavior. Now, allow me to tell you what I mean by that. My point in stating that human homosexuality is an unnatural behavior is due to the fact that we have been granted the attributes of Intellect and free will. What becomes unnatural about human homosexuality is the choice not to use one's intellect and free will to control one's emotions. Then comes the excuse to compare oneself with the irrational animal that practices homosexuality. That's natural of the irrational animal but not of humans. We have the power to control our emontions, which some just choose not to use it.
Ben
 

Ben Masada

Well-Known Member
Messages
999
Reaction score
1
Points
0
The Dead Sea Scrolls reveal that the Jewish communities at that time , referred to their religous leaders as the ‘Priests of Aaron’. It is also revealed that they were expecting the arrival of TWO messiahs, known as the Messiah of Aaron and the Messiah of David (see scroll 1QS IX 9–11).

Hey Koranist, here is what I understand about the two Messiahs you mention above:

Messiah ben Joseph versus Messiah ben David

The whole chapter 53 of Isaiah is about the dramatic epic of two Messiahs: Messiah ben Joseph and Messiah ben David. The drama that culminated in the "death" of Messiah ben Joseph for the sins of Messiah ben David. Properly speaking, Messiah ben Joseph is Ephraim or Israel, the Ten Tribes of the Northern Kingdom. And Messiah ben David is Judah, the Southern Kingdom.

The sins of Judah had filled the Divine cup, and in God's judgment, the day had arrived for the removal of Judah. (Isa. 9:8) But according to I Kings 11:36, God had promised David that Judah, whose Tribe he had come from, would stay as a Lamp in Jerusalem forever. Therefore, according to Isaiah 9:8, the final judgment that was supposed to come upon Judah fell upon Israel instead, and Messiah ben Joseph had to go instead of Judah, or Messiah ben David.

But Isaiah says in 53:9 that the Suffering Servant was without guile, and sinless. That's exactly what Israel was: Pure of the sins he died for, since they were the sins of Judah and not his. Messiah ben Joseph therefore, did not die for his sins but for the sins of Messiah ben David. Therefore, Israel was removed because of the sins of another. He was pierced so to speak, by the sins of Judah. The sacrifice of Israel or Messiah ben Joseph meant the salvation of Judah or Messiah ben David. That's why Zechariah in 12:10 says that they (Judah) shall look upon him (Israel) whom they (Judah) had pierced with their sins, and mourn for him (Israel) as the one who mourns for his firstborn.

Now, let me explain by way of an analogy how Israel, or Messiah ben Joseph, who was the Suffering Servant died innocent of the sins of Judah or Messiah ben David:

"A" and "B". "A" has committed a crime punishable with death, and "B", by mistake was condemned for that crime. It doesn't matter how evil is "B" in his life or how bad are his sins. The point is that he was condemned to die for the crime of "A". Therefore "B" was killed innocent and pure of the crimes and sins of "A". "A" got saved by the death of "B". So, "B" was the Suffering Servant that brought salvation to "A". Now matching the analogy to reality, "A" was Judah that pierced "B" with his crimes and sins.

Now, with the removal of Messiah ben Joseph, according to Psalm 78:67-70, Messiah be David occupied the place of Messiah ben Joseph, but as the Triumphant Servant with reference to the rest of Mankind, because of God's promise to Noah that humanity would never be destroyed again in an universal manner. (Gen. 8:21) The People-redeemer was the pledge and on his way in the near future with the choice of Abraham through Isaac. That's what sustains the world and allows it to keep going. Now, there is a small detail worthy keeping in mind. The blood of the Suffering Servant was shed once and for all. Now, Mankind is kept safe with the existence of Judah, the Triumphant Servant, according to Jeremiah 31:35-37.

Ben
 

bananabrain

awkward squadnik
Messages
2,749
Reaction score
4
Points
36
Location
London, UK, Malkhut she'be'Assiyah
Your response above is to my statement that homosexuality is an unnatural behavior. Now, allow me to tell you what I mean by that. My point in stating that human homosexuality is an unnatural behavior is due to the fact that we have been granted the attributes of Intellect and free will. What becomes unnatural about human homosexuality is the choice not to use one's intellect and free will to control one's emotions. Then comes the excuse to compare oneself with the irrational animal that practices homosexuality. That's natural of the irrational animal but not of humans. We have the power to control our emotions, which some just choose not to use it.
you're begging a question, namely:

"how is it clear that exercising either your intellect or your free will leads one to conclude that homosexual feelings should not be acted upon?"

in other words, there are plenty of very, very rational homosexuals. look at lord browne, for one - used to be the ceo of bp. is elton john irrational? is peter mandelson not exercising his intellect and free will? why, exactly do you assume that one's intellect must always rule one's emotions? if you have kids, are you always intellectual about how you feel about them?

this isn't a terribly good argument, i'm afraid.

b'shalom

bananabrain
 
Top