Keep the sabbath holy

Discussion in 'Abrahamic Religions' started by wil, Sep 4, 2019.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. RabbiO

    RabbiO הרב יונה בן זכריה

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2012
    Messages:
    243
    Likes Received:
    188
    Except for the fact that this one sentence of yours so elegantly exposes your arrogance and your ignorance, I might be upset.

    Truth be told, you're not worth the effort to get angry.
     
    Last edited: Jan 2, 2021
  2. Miken

    Miken Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2020
    Messages:
    244
    Likes Received:
    103
    In 4th century Rome a caesar was not a king, merely an heir apparent to an Emperor. The title Caesar stopped being used by Emperors in the mid 2nd century. By the 3rd century it had become common practice to name one’s successor with the title caesar. But this title carried no authority in itself. When an emperor died, his heir apparent would take over the position of Emperor. Unless murdered by rivals of course, which was common practice. Constantine designated no less than three sons as caesars in a specific order, presumably in hopes that at least one would survive.

    After Licinius I was defeated in battle by Constantine, he surrendered the office of Emperor and retired to northern Greece as a private citizen. His son Licinius II technically lost his status as caesar at that point but he was officially stripped of the title anyway. To make sure, Constantine had first the father and then the son executed.

    Licinius I was still an Emperor when defeated in battle, and so counts as a subdued king. But Licinius II was never a king, only a caesar, and never participated in any of his father’s business being only seven years old when his father was defeated.

    Constantine still only subdued two kings. Keep trying.

    It is the contention that the Roman Empire is the fourth beast that is bunk. A contention that you have made. Apologists try to justify this kind of claim by ignoring the existence of the Seleucid Empire, and its counterpart the Ptolemaic Empire, both being among the fragments resulting from the breakup of the Alexandrian Empire. The Ptolemaic Empire appears in Daniel. Also ignored is the Hasmonean Kingdom ruled from Jerusalem from 146 BCE to 37 BCE when it finally became part of the Roman Empire.

    The events in Daniel are presented as prophecies made in the Neo-Babylonian era during the Babylonian Exile. Yet the great accuracy of the details of actual events portrayed in Daniel occurring in the time of the Seleucid occupation followed by a series of utterly failed prophecies supposedly happening immediately aftr those, points squarely at post eventum prophecy. That is a prophecy purporting to have been made before a certain event but actually made after that event. It is clear that Daniel was written in the midst of the conflict with the Seleucid forces after the accurate details had taken place, with the totally inaccurate prophecies being what Daniel wanted to happen.

    A clear purpose can be found as well. The Book of Daniel was written to assure the people of victory against the enemy. The long string of prophecies wrapped up in mystical language in three ways (Daniel chapters 2, 7 and 8) require the reader to put some thought into their meaning. Uncovering that meaning three times in a row leads not just realizing they are all true but accepting the subsequent future prophecy about being victorious and being encouraged.

    The prince of Greece would be Alexander, who conquered Babylon and a whole lot more. It makes perfect sense to have a prophecy ostensibly given to Nebuchadnezzar to mention Alexander as the third beast. But the Seleucid Empire followed the Alexandrian Empire in that region and was sometimes at war with other parts that came about after the breakup, mostly notably the Ptolemaic Empire in Egypt. The events described in Daniel match the events that really took place in Jerusalem causing the Maccabees to rebel. After the string of ‘broken’ prophecies that culminates in the death of the evil king who caused all the problems in Jerusalem, there is no mention of any events that might be associated with Rome. The Seleucid Empire is the fourth beast.

    Here is what you said it means the Kingdom of God means.

    The Kingdom of God is the destination of those who pass muster at the white throne judgment. John of Patmos gives a detailed description in Revelation 21. Why should I need to describe something we are clearly already in agreement about? Or is this just an attempt to divert attentions from you being unable to address the arguments.

    BTW Daniel 12:10 says the wise will understand but Matthew 11:25 says the wise will not understand. Did you really want to say that?

    Your never responded to me pointing out to you that in Matthew 19 (same chapter!) Jesus says that the kingdom of heaven and the kingdom of God are the same thing. Neither have you ever provided any substantive supporting evidence for your claim that the kingdom of heaven is something in this life. It was said to be coming soon. Did people have to wait for it to arrive before they could enter it? If you had to enter the kingdom of heaven in this life or you could not enter the kingdom of God (heaven), then what if you did everything Jesus had said but died before the kingdom of heaven got here?

    And then there is this.

    Matthew 8:11 I tell you, many will come from east and west and recline at table with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven

    Abraham, Isaac and Jacob are reclining at table in the kingdom of heaven. But Abraham, Isaac and Jacob are, what’s that word again, oh yes dead. Very obviously the kingdom of heaven is not in this life. It is, as Matthew says in Matthew 19, the same thing as the kingdom of God. Or does it not strike you as strange that something called the kingdom of heaven is not in heaven?

    Where does it say that the kingdom of heaven is in this life and not in heaven? Give specific explicit quotes to support your case.

    As I have already pointed out, to sell what one has and give to the poor does not work as a universal injunction. If everyone is expected to follow this who do you expect to buy your stuff and why should that have any money left to pay you? Also, it is plain from Luke 12 that this is not for everybody, only those he expects to be following him on the road and spread his word with no other commitments or distractions in the way,

    There were 13 collection ‘trumpets’ as they were called, with wide mouths and narrow throats. Most of them for the various kinds of obligatory offerings. Others were for voluntary offerings. None were explicitly earmarked for the poor. There was another small room, called the chamber of the silent, which was explicitly for the poor. Jesus never mentions what the poor woman’s offering was for. To make this voluntary donation somehow indicate that the poor can best support the poor and that this is connected in some way to an imaginary universal requirement for a rich man to give everything to the poor is simply ludicrous.

    I don’t believe in any sort of messianic age. My interest in scriptures concerns what the various authors meant to be understood and why. I was talking about the beliefs of the Synoptic Gospel writers. They all say that the end of days will come after the destruction of the Temple (70 CE) but before everyone who heard Jesus speak around 30 CE was dead. Mark leaves it at that. Matthew and Luke add various hedges about how soon it will really be. Matthew even says that the gospel must be preached to all nations first. This is despite Matthew (Luke as well) retaining the Temple destruction and the ‘not taste death’ and ‘this generation’ qualifiers. But Matthew has a number of internal inconsistencies already. John drops the whole idea of an imminent eschaton it being too late to believe it anymore.

    Revelation is chock full of references to earlier scriptures as part of its purpose of ‘proving’ that the end of days is happening very soon. Revelation uses the image of Jesus as the Lamb of God many times. The only other place that image appears is in the Gospel of John and appears only a few times. John was written after the other Gospels and omits any reference to the Olivet Discourse. In fact it has several references to the ‘not taste death’ meme in the Synoptic Gospels but turned around to change the meaning. Revelation was written well after Titus was Emperor.

    If Daniel was written in the 6th century BCE and is genuine prophecy, why does it get everything right up to a precisely identifiable point in time and then run completely off the rails, with totally wrong prophecies? I have detailed these earlier. It is post eventum prophecy written during the Maccabean revolt to assure the people that they will win that cause.

    The last Augustus Caesar was Hadrian in the early 2nd century. The Caesar title was then dropped, Julius no longer being seen as much of a role model. Augustus was the heir of Julius Caesar and used his name, starting a relatively short-lived custom. I do not see very much sense in your assignment of the heads to various Emperors, especially you having to assign one head to a very long chain of Emperors in order to get up to Constantine, your favorite target. Although your shots at him keep missing.

    I have no interest in talking about Paul here. To me there are no true prophets.
     
    Thomas and RJM Corbet like this.
  3. Miken

    Miken Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2020
    Messages:
    244
    Likes Received:
    103
    Oops, I missed responding to that. The story of Lazarus and the rich man incorporates the worldview of the Book of the Watchers, the first and oldest part of 1 Enoch. The influence of 1 Enoch can be seen here and there in some Rabbinic writings speculating about the nature of the afterlife. What that is like is something we will find out soon enough. Or not as the case may be.

    Personally I do not get angry. I just get writing. :)
     
    Thomas and RJM Corbet like this.
  4. Miken

    Miken Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2020
    Messages:
    244
    Likes Received:
    103
    @2ndpillar

    I missed responding to a point in your previous post. Yes, Daniel 11 and Daniel 12 are a continuous narrative.

    Daniel 11 ends with:

    Daniel 11: 45 And he shall pitch his palatial tents between the sea and the glorious holy mountain. Yet he shall come to his end, with none to help him.

    Daniel 12 begins with:

    Daniel 12
    1 “At that time shall arise Michael, the great prince who has charge of your people. And there shall be a time of trouble, such as never has been since there was a nation till that time. But at that time your people shall be delivered, everyone whose name shall be found written in the book. 2 And many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt.

    Does it get any plainer than this?
     
    Thomas likes this.
  5. A Cup Of Tea

    A Cup Of Tea Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2011
    Messages:
    3,310
    Likes Received:
    566
    @Miken I'm enjoying the theology, but the history lessons are great!
     
    Thomas and RJM Corbet like this.
  6. 2ndpillar

    2ndpillar Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2013
    Messages:
    163
    Likes Received:
    6
    I don't follow your thought process. Who was "he" of Daniel 11:45, and who was "Michael" of Daniel 12:1, and what were the time stamps of each event? And who was the "beast" of Daniel 7:11, who was "slain" (Revelation 13:3), who ruled 42 months, and who were the "rest of the beasts" whose "dominion was taken away, but an extension of life was appointed to them for an appointed time"? And what was that "extension of time", and when does it end, such as "the appointed time"? You seem to be reading from some kind of script which is full of presumptions but with no real actual relevant details.
    More later when I get time.
     
  7. Thomas

    Thomas Administrator Admin

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2003
    Messages:
    11,413
    Likes Received:
    1,965
    Hi 2ndpillar –

    Can we retrace some old ground?

    I'd like to ask the question RJM Corbet asked:
    You replied:
    Does that include the 'new commandment' of John 13:34?

    Regarding Gospels:
    Nowhere in The Gospel of Matthew does the scribe claim to be a first person witness. The Book is an anonymous work, the 'according to Matthew' was added in the 2nd century. The tradition begins with Papias, but his 'Gospel of Matthew' seems to be different than the book we have today.

    If you're going to dismiss Mark, Luke, John and Paul, then you really can't defend Matthew, so you've dismissed almost the entire NT?

    I'm confused ...
     
  8. 2ndpillar

    2ndpillar Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2013
    Messages:
    163
    Likes Received:
    6
    Matthew, the tax collector, would be a first person witness, which is required to establish any truth (Deuteronomy 19:15 & Matthew 18:16 & John 8:17). As for John 13:34, keeping the commandments is how one loves God and his neighbor. If you murder, rob, or make false witness against your neighbor, you are not loving your neighbor. (1 John 5:3) As for you saying things were added to your bible, I agree, and those adding and deleting from the testimony of Yeshua will be held accountable (Revelation 22:18). That Matthew is divorced from the gospel of Matthew is a point you haven't proved. What is important is that anything said in Matthew must be supported by others, such as Matthew 18:16 is supported by Deuteronomy 19:15 and John 8:17. As for Paul, his root message, his gospel of the cross, is not supported by Scripture, nor the testimony of Yeshua. It is in fact antithetical to the testimony of Yeshua. That you are "confused" is a result of you apparently following the purveyor of you "surely shall not die" (Genesis 3:4), if you follow the rantings of the self professed apostle Paul, who falls under the category of the "false prophets" of Matthew 7:15. According to Scripture, Jeremiah 31:30, your surely shall die.
     
  9. 2ndpillar

    2ndpillar Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2013
    Messages:
    163
    Likes Received:
    6
    There are two types of "wise". The elites, who think their education makes them wise, and those given wisdom by God (Matthew 11:27). The wise of Daniel 12:10 would refer to those who were given their insight by God. The "wicked" went on in their delusions (Daniel 12:10), and would not understand. If you don't understand the term "wicked", reading Matthew 13:49-50 & Matthew 7 might be a glimpse into unknown regions.
    What you might want to keep in mind, is that the beginning of wisdom is the fear of God (Proverbs 9:10). When the coming kingdom of God is founded on the ruler being named the "Word of God" (Revelation 19:13), I think you are not on firm footing when being free and loose with your presumptions.
     
  10. Miken

    Miken Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2020
    Messages:
    244
    Likes Received:
    103
    @A Cup Of Tea
    Attention: History Lessons

    The ‘he’ of Daniel 11:45 was Antiochus IV Epiphanes.

    Daniel 11
    3 Then a mighty king shall arise, who shall rule with great dominion and do as he wills. 4 And as soon as he has arisen, his kingdom shall be broken and divided toward the four winds of heaven, but not to his posterity, nor according to the authority with which he ruled, for his kingdom shall be plucked up and go to others besides these.

    Alexander III (the Great) conquered the Persian Empire. (332 BCE) But his Macedonian Empire did not survive all that long, with multiple internal and external wars splitting it up and usurpers grabbing parts and establishing their own kingdoms. One of those parts was the Seleucid Empire. (312 BCE) which in time occupied Judea and Samaria.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macedonia_(ancient_kingdom)

    Daniel 11
    5 “Then the king of the south shall be strong, but one of his princes shall be stronger than he and shall rule, and his authority shall be a great authority. 6 After some years they shall make an alliance, and the daughter of the king of the south shall come to the king of the north to make an agreement. But she shall not retain the strength of her arm, and he and his arm shall not endure, but she shall be given up, and her attendants, he who fathered her, and he who supported her in those times.

    The daughter would be Berenice, daughter of Ptolemy II, who sent her to be married to Antiochus I (252 BCE) Seleucid king as part of a peace agreement. Antiochus divorced his first wife and married Berenice. But when her father Ptolemy died, Antiochus had Berenice and her son killed (246 BCE) and got back together with his first wife. This prevented Egypt from having any rights of Seleucid succession.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berenice_(Seleucid_queen)

    Daniel 11
    7 “And from a branch from her roots one shall arise in his place. He shall come against the army and enter the fortress of the king of the north, and he shall deal with them and shall prevail. 8 He shall also carry off to Egypt their gods with their metal images and their precious vessels of silver and gold, and for some years he shall refrain from attacking the king of the north. 9 Then the latter shall come into the realm of the king of the south but shall return to his own land.
    10 “His sons shall wage war and assemble a multitude of great forces, which shall keep coming and overflow and pass through, and again shall carry the war as far as his fortress. 11 Then the king of the south, moved with rage, shall come out and fight against the king of the north. And he shall raise a great multitude, but it shall be given into his hand. 12 And when the multitude is taken away, his heart shall be exalted, and he shall cast down tens of thousands, but he shall not prevail. 13 For the king of the north shall again raise a multitude, greater than the first. And after some years he shall come on with a great army and abundant supplies. 14 “In those times many shall rise against the king of the south, and the violent among your own people shall lift themselves up in order to fulfill the vision, but they shall fail.

    When Antiochus died, there was a succession dispute. Berenice’s brother, now king of Egypt, went with an army to invade Syria and support his sister’s claim. (246 BCE) He would be quite successful in his campaign. But when he discovered his sister and her son had been murdered, he decided the best way to ensure peace was to conquer the Seleucids. He was on the way to doing this, when he got word that there was a major rebellion going on back in Egypt and had to bring his army home to suppress it.

    This describes the Third Syrian War.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ptolemy_III_Euergetes#Third_Syrian_War_(246-241_BC)

    BTW these passages identify the king of the north as the Seleucid Empire and the king of the south as the Ptolemaic Empire.

    Daniel 11
    15 Then the king of the north shall come and throw up siegeworks and take a well-fortified city. And the forces of the south shall not stand, or even his best troops, for there shall be no strength to stand. 16 But he who comes against him shall do as he wills, and none shall stand before him. And he shall stand in the glorious land, with destruction in his hand. 17 He shall set his face to come with the strength of his whole kingdom, and he shall bring terms of an agreement and perform them. He shall give him the daughter of women to destroy the kingdom, but it shall not stand or be to his advantage. 18 Afterward he shall turn his face to the coastlands and shall capture many of them, but a commander shall put an end to his insolence. Indeed, he shall turn his insolence back upon him. 19 Then he shall turn his face back toward the fortresses of his own land, but he shall stumble and fall, and shall not be found.

    This describes the Fourth Syrian War (219-217 BCE) in which the Seleucids took advantage of chaos in Egypt to attack Egypt. The well-fortified city is Panium. The ‘glorious land’ is Palestine, which the Seleucids took, The Egyptian forces were being beaten back along the coast during this war, until the new army was created by Ptolemy’s minister Sosibius separately from Ptolemy IV, who was an ineffective king. The new army turned the Seleucids back. Antiochus III was forced back to his own land. In trying to expand to the west, he ran into conflict with the growing power of Rome (not yet an empire) and got pushed back again. Trying to go east instead he was killed in battle. 187 BCE

    Daniel 11
    20 “Then shall arise in his place one who shall send an exactor of tribute for the glory of the kingdom. But within a few days he shall be broken, neither in anger nor in battle. 21 In his place shall arise a contemptible person to whom royal majesty has not been given. He shall come in without warning and obtain the kingdom by flatteries. 22 Armies shall be utterly swept away before him and broken, even the prince of the covenant. 23 And from the time that an alliance is made with him he shall act deceitfully, and he shall become strong with a small people. 24 Without warning he shall come into the richest parts of the province, and he shall do what neither his fathers nor his fathers' fathers have done, scattering among them plunder, spoil, and goods. He shall devise plans against strongholds, but only for a time. 25 And he shall stir up his power and his heart against the king of the south with a great army. And the king of the south shall wage war with an exceedingly great and mighty army, but he shall not stand, for plots shall be devised against him. 26 Even those who eat his food shall break him. His army shall be swept away, and many shall fall down slain. 27 And as for the two kings, their hearts shall be bent on doing evil. They shall speak lies at the same table, but to no avail, for the end is yet to be at the time appointed. 28 And he shall return to his land with great wealth, but his heart shall be set against the holy covenant. And he shall work his will and return to his own land.

    Seleucus IV replaced Antiochus III in 187 BCE and as of a result of the failed war against Rome (192-188 BCE) was required to pay tribute of grain to Rome, Seleucus was murdered (175 BCE) and Antiochus IV replaced him. Antiochus IV is the ‘contemptible person’. Antiochus would have been the rightful heir if he had not been a hostage in Rome to ensure peace treaty compliance when his father died. But when Seleucus got the throne, Antiochus was released by the Romans, thought to be no longer a legitimate heir. Antiochus thought otherwise.

    Egypt thought that the Seleucids would be divided because of intrigue. Ptolemy VI attacked the Seleucids but was defeated and almost all of Egypt conquered. (170=168 BCE) Ptolemy was allowed to act as a puppet king, a wise bit of politics on the part of Antiochus to keep the Romans out of the mix. In Alexandria, which had never been defeated, a new king was chosen (170 BCE) Ptolemy VII, brother of the current king Ptolemy VI. The ‘two brothers’ agreed to rule jointly, but were always scheming against each other for total control. A revolt started in Palestine over the abuses of Antiochus IV against the Jews, who resisted his campaign of extreme Hellenization. (167 BCE)

    29 “At the time appointed he shall return and come into the south, but it shall not be this time as it was before. 30 For ships of Kittim shall come against him, and he shall be afraid and withdraw, and shall turn back and be enraged and take action against the holy covenant. He shall turn back and pay attention to those who forsake the holy covenant. 31 Forces from him shall appear and profane the temple and fortress, and shall take away the regular burnt offering. And they shall set up the abomination that makes desolate. 32 He shall seduce with flattery those who violate the covenant, but the people who know their God shall stand firm and take action. 33 And the wise among the people shall make many understand, though for some days they shall stumble by sword and flame, by captivity and plunder. 34 When they stumble, they shall receive a little help. And many shall join themselves to them with flattery, 35 and some of the wise shall stumble, so that they may be refined, purified, and made white, until the time of the end, for it still awaits the appointed time.

    Antiochus later invaded Egypt again (168 BCE) but was forced to withdraw by threat of war from Rome. Kittim is on Cyprus. The attempts by Antiochus to abolish Jewish worship, previously respected by everyone, the destruction of Jerusalem, the desecration of the Temple and the revolt of the Maccabees is described in detail elsewhere in Daniel. During this revolt, there was fighting and many Jewish rebels were killed. But they were seen as martyrs and the revolt spread. Notice that there is no mention of any outcome of the revolt. This places the time of writing as 166 BCE.

    Daniel 11
    36 “And the king shall do as he wills. He shall exalt himself and magnify himself above every god, and shall speak astonishing things against the God of gods. He shall prosper till the indignation is accomplished; for what is decreed shall be done. 37 He shall pay no attention to the gods of his fathers, or to the one beloved by women. He shall not pay attention to any other god, for he shall magnify himself above all. 38 He shall honor the god of fortresses instead of these. A god whom his fathers did not know he shall honor with gold and silver, with precious stones and costly gifts. 39 He shall deal with the strongest fortresses with the help of a foreign god. Those who acknowledge him he shall load with honor. He shall make them rulers over many and shall divide the land for a price.

    Antiochus IV Epiphanes had himself described as a god on his coins, which is what the Epiphanes means. He also fostered the ruler cult. Where he was worshipped instead of the traditional Greek gods.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antiochus_IV_Epiphanes

    Daniel 11
    40 “At the time of the end, the king of the south shall attack him, but the king of the north shall rush upon him like a whirlwind, with chariots and horsemen, and with many ships. And he shall come into countries and shall overflow and pass through. 41 He shall come into the glorious land. And tens of thousands shall fall, but these shall be delivered out of his hand: Edom and Moab and the main part of the Ammonites. 42 He shall stretch out his hand against the countries, and the land of Egypt shall not escape. 43 He shall become ruler of the treasures of gold and of silver, and all the precious things of Egypt, and the Libyans and the Cushites shall follow in his train. 44 But news from the east and the north shall alarm him, and he shall go out with great fury to destroy and devote many to destruction. 45 And he shall pitch his palatial tents between the sea and the glorious holy mountain. Yet he shall come to his end, with none to help him.

    “The king of the south shall attack him” Still only a pronoun so this is not any new person. This is Antiochus IV Epiphanes, However, none of the things described in this section ever happened. All of the details are spot on until this point.

    This is the end of Daniel 11, the anticipated death of Antiochus IV. Daniel 12 begins with “At this time” and proceeds to describe the end pf days and the resurrection. Daniel was saying that when Antiochus UV is finally defeated, then it is the appointed time for the end of days. This is encouragement for the Jewish rebels to continue the fight and win.



    I will answer your other questions when I get around to it. It is late and I personal business pending.
     
    A Cup Of Tea, Thomas and RJM Corbet like this.
  11. RJM Corbet

    RJM Corbet God Feeds the Ravens Admin

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2016
    Messages:
    5,313
    Likes Received:
    1,068
    Miken likes this.
  12. Thomas

    Thomas Administrator Admin

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2003
    Messages:
    11,413
    Likes Received:
    1,965
    Hi 2ndpillar —
    OK. But that's one man. You need two or more ...

    Also, we have no evidence to believe that the Gospel 'according to Matthew' was written by Matthew. It's not an eye-witness account, and it shows agreement, if not dependence, on Mark, for example, whom you discredit?

    You're not answering the question. Does 'love thy neighbour' stand as a commandment, not as a commentary on the Decalogue.

    OK, but by that argument, is Revelations 22:18 an addition? and if not, how do you know not?

    I'm sorry, but it's a given that the disciple Matthew did not write the gospel attributed to him, I am not required to 'prove' anything. Rather, the requirement is upon you to prove that it was, something I would have thought tricky, as that depends on the Tradition which you seem to reject – it was Papias who said Matthew wrote a gospel, in Hebrew, a sayings gospel, but the Matthew of the Bible was written in Greek, and it's not really a sayings Gospel, and it depends heavily on Mark.

    On the whole, it seems to me it's not a question of prophets, true or false, it's a question of your reading of the texts, and as it's been demonstrated that you have made a number of factual errors of interpretation and a series of flawed assumptions, the most likely case is that you've got the wrong end of the stick...
     
    RJM Corbet likes this.
  13. 2ndpillar

    2ndpillar Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2013
    Messages:
    163
    Likes Received:
    6
    You have gotten the cart before the horse. What is important is that there are multiple witnesses to any fact. Whether that be Matthew or John, to what Yeshua is reported to have said. What is important is the testimony of Yeshua, which shines a light onto the Law and the prophets, for which Paul has verbally nailed to the cross. The Torah reads that you must have two witnesses, and even the US criminal law is based on two or more witnesses to prove a case. You can choose to believe the self professed apostle Paul, who self professes on his own dime, whereas Yeshua said if I witness myself, it is a lie. (John 5:31) As for Revelation, it is confirmed by Daniel and other prophets as a second witness of the same events shown from a different viewpoint. As for Mark, who is Mark, except he may be a toady to Peter, the "worthless shepherd" of Zechariah 11:17. If he doesn't confirm or shine a light onto Scripture, then where is the provenance. Yeshua came as a light to shine into the darkness, to pull the curtain back from the Scriptures, and to explain the kingdom of heaven, which is the bulk of the Law and the prophets. As for you inferring a tax collector could not understand Greek or write Greek is a bit of a stretch. That he also could write write in Hebrew would be assumed. That your singular "tradition" of Papias reading a singe version of Matthew in Greek establishes not much. What is important is what was written in the gospel of Matthew, whether it had additions or subtractions will be determined on how it lines up with Scripture and shines a light on that Scripture. Your light appears to be the darkness coming from the self professed apostle/prophet (someone professing to speak for God), Paul. According to Matthew 7:13-15, that would put you on a path to "destruction". As for a summation for the commandments, that would be how you love God and your neighbor. In today's word, a diversion from that model would be epitomized by the opening Congressional prayer ending with Amen, and Awoman. You get off the narrow path, and the road to destruction becomes very wide.
     
  14. Thomas

    Thomas Administrator Admin

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2003
    Messages:
    11,413
    Likes Received:
    1,965
    Cart and Horse, chum.

    Yeshua is the Light that illuminates from within. Yeshua is the Law and the Prophets. That's what Paul rocked Paul's world, that's the whole point of Matthew's Gospel! It's there at the Transfiguration (Matthew 17:1–8, Mark 9:2–8, Luke 9:28–36, John 1:14 and 2 Peter 1:16–18) — Yeshua appears with Moses (The Law) and Elias (Prophecy) who bear witness to Him.

    You see? You don't see Him at all!
     
    RJM Corbet likes this.
  15. 2ndpillar

    2ndpillar Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2013
    Messages:
    163
    Likes Received:
    6
    Yeshua came not to "abolish the law", but to "fulfill" (Matthew 5:17). Anyone who tries to "annul" the least of the "commandments" will be called "least", such as Paul means "little", and as Paul wants to be known as the greatest, such as the greatest/foremost sinner, and least means the "smallest extent" or the foremost of those who are least, Paul would be the name for the foremost of those who push annulment of the Law. According to John 1, the Word had a beginning, and all things came through him, and his witness was John the Baptist, and Yeshua was the light which was to enlighten every man. Those who believed in his name (Word of God) (Revelation 19:13), were able to become "children of God", as Yeshua was a son of God, and walked in God's spirit. Keep in mind, God had no beginning, which is to say God and Yeshua are not the same, and the Trinity doctrine which most "Christian" religions are founded, is false. Yeshua simply said he was to fulfill the Law and the prophets. Well, they have not been fulfilled as of this day. The kingdom where he who is named the "Word of God", whereas he will "smite the nations" with a sharp sword from his mouth, and rule the them with a rod of iron (Revelation 19:15) (Zechariah 14:16-18), has not come about. As for Paul, what he saw according to a singular varied account from Acts, was apparently an angel of light, who either blinded or made everyone deaf, or both, and according to Paul, Satan comes as an angel of light. As Yeshua is in heaven at the right hand of God, no one sees him, nor do they see his mother who is buried in the ground. He went to heaven so the Spirit of God could come for the anointing of the Children of God, and teach them all things. The "many" (Matthew 7) have chosen to follow the "evil one", who sowed the tare seeds, the seed of lawlessness (Matthew 7:13-15) & (Matthew 13).

    Have you noticed the new code word from the elite (wise and intelligent/educated) (Matthew 11:25) for the deplorables (bible thumpers and gun lovers) is chump. I am afraid when the bible thumpers go into their rooms, and shut the door (Isaiah 26:20), the elite will be stuck inside of their dying cities (Revelation 16:9).
     
    Last edited: Jan 6, 2021
  16. RJM Corbet

    RJM Corbet God Feeds the Ravens Admin

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2016
    Messages:
    5,313
    Likes Received:
    1,068
    But not The Son of God? The Christ? The culmination of all preceding avatars and sons of God? Who has come after him?

    https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John 14:9&version=KJV
    Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Show us the Father?


    Not?

    What is your opinion about blood sacrifice -- the need for blood upon the horns of the altar?
     
    Last edited: Jan 6, 2021
  17. RJM Corbet

    RJM Corbet God Feeds the Ravens Admin

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2016
    Messages:
    5,313
    Likes Received:
    1,068
    The Christ often taught in parables and contradictions. Spiritual law may not conform with Natural law or natural logic. So a person can pick one saying there and a different saying there?

    But perhaps the structure is far more layered and subtle?

    It speaks directly to the heart of everyone from begger to king, and from fool to wisest?
     
    Last edited: Jan 6, 2021
  18. 2ndpillar

    2ndpillar Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2013
    Messages:
    163
    Likes Received:
    6
    Whom ever does the will of God is a child of God, and a brother and sister to Yeshua. Whom ever does the will of God is the sanctuary of the Holy Spirit, and a son or daughter of God. The house of Israel is destined to be washed clean, receive a new heart and Spirit, and become the sanctuary of God, with David as king, living on the land given to Jacob (Ezekiel 37). The nations/Gentiles will be under the thumb of the "Word of God" (Revelation 19:15 & Zechariah 11:14), and be reigned over by those without the mark of the beast (Revelation 20:4). As for sacrifice, God prefers justice and righteousness. see Proverbs 21:3 The unleavened bread and wine of the last supper represents the bread of life without the leaven (hypocrisy of the Pharisees), and the wine/blood, which represents the Holy Spirit. As for the term "Christ", its meaning is the anointed one, and all the kings, judges, and prophets of Israel are considered anointed. Yeshua was the prophet to come prophesized by Moses, for whom Israel was to listen to. The Gentiles were introduced into the equation for "many days" to make Israel jealous (Hosea 3). The price paid for the harlot/Gentiles was the equivalent of 30 pieces of silver in the form of silver and barley. (Hosea 3:2)

    New American Standard Bible Proverbs 21:3
    To do righteousness and justice Is preferred by the LORD more than sacrifice.

    Matthew 12:50

    “For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother.”
     
  19. 2ndpillar

    2ndpillar Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2013
    Messages:
    163
    Likes Received:
    6
    Natural law has its roots in spiritual law. Yeshua spoke in parables so that "you will keep on seeing, but will not perceive", and "you will keep on hearing, but will not understand" (Matthew 13:14 & Isaiah 6:9-10) The beginning of wisdom resides with those who fear God, a fool would not be found under that category.
     
  20. RJM Corbet

    RJM Corbet God Feeds the Ravens Admin

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2016
    Messages:
    5,313
    Likes Received:
    1,068
    Yes. But it is through a glass darkly. It is Plato's cave, shadows on the wall?

    Spirit weaves nature. Spirit surrounds and contains and permeates nature. If our dimension of nature is a room, then Spirit is the house. There are perhaps many other dimensions -- perhaps infinite other dimensions -- within the house of Spirit?

    'My Father's house has many mansions.'
    The greater wheel of Spirit turns the lesser wheel of nature, and is not turned by it.

    Scriptures are a map. There are several maps but the truth is the same truth for all humble seekers, any time, any place, any religion or faith. God meets us where we are. IMO
    Yes. But sacrifice is also giving a part of ourselves to God. It is taking the one step that God requires, before taking the other nine towards us. It used to be that sacrificing a lamb meant giving to God a valuable animal, a part of one's wealth. Later it became the mere act of spilling blood upon the altar. The meaning was lost.

    Christ's sacrifice was the last blood sacrifice, to take away the need for the blood sacrifice by which the people had fallen into error.
    Did they heal the sick, and give sight to the blind, and raise the dead? Did they forgive sin? Did they sacrifice themselves upon a cross, and descend into hell, to harrow hell, and then rise again from the dead?

    Are they with us now?

    Also that his teachings would remain universal and timeless, and so that people could not abuse his words by taking selective examples literally and fixing them a single meaning and interpretation?

    That wouldn't be a problem. But Christians believe Christ as the Messiah. This is where I am confused.

    Is Jesus just another prophet? Did Christ rise from the grave? Who has come after Jesus?

    But also the bridge between God and man, come to show man the way, to clear up the mess of blood sacrifice and empty ritual once and for all? The actual son of God?
     
    Last edited: Jan 7, 2021
    Thomas likes this.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page