| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Oneisraelite |
Posted - 29 Aug 2005 : 19:03:53
Paul a citizen of Rome???
Heaven forbid!
Paul says otherwise here…
…our [#G2257] conversation [#G4175] is in heaven*…
G2257
hemon
Thayer Definition:
1) our, we, us
We believe that everyone will agree, our generally includes the speaker.
Our, a. 1. Pertaining or belonging to us; as our country; our rights; our troops. – Webster’s 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language
G4175
politeuma
Thayer Definition:
1) the administration of civil affairs or of a commonwealth
2) the constitution of a commonwealth form of government and the laws by which it is administered
3) a state, commonwealth
3a) the commonwealth of citizens
…from 4176
G4176
politeuomai
Thayer Definition:
1) to be a citizen
2) to administer civil affairs, manage the state
3) to make or create a citizen
3a) to be a citizen
3b) to behave as a citizen
3b1) to avail one’s self of or recognise the laws
3b2) to conduct one’s self as pledged to some law of life
On the other hand Paul also answers the chief captain this way…
Then the chief captain came, and said unto him, Tell me, art thou a Roman? He said, Yea.
G4514
Rhomaios
Thayer Definition:
1) a resident of the city of Rome, a Roman citizen
(For brother Gregory's perspective on this Greek word rhomaios, go to http://hisholychurch.net/)
If he was saying that he was "a Roman citizen", as opposed to being merely "a resident of the city of Rome", could he have been lying about being "a Roman citizen" to that captain and his underling? Perhaps.
For if the truth of Yahuwah hath more abounded through my lie [#G5582] unto His glory; why yet am I also judged as a sinner?
G5582
pseusma
Thayer Definition:
1) a falsehood, a lie
2) the perfidy by which a man by sinning breaks faith (fidelity) with God (Yahuwah)
We must pay close attention to what kind of lie definition #2 seems to be. Some of MS Word2000’s synonyms for the word perfidy may give us a clue.
"treachery, disloyalty, duplicity, betrayal"
Perfidy, n. [L. perfidia; per and fides, faith.] The act of violating faith, a promise, vow or allegiance; treachery; the violation of a trust reposed. Perfidy is not applied to violations of contracts in ordinary pecuniary transactions, but to violations of faith or trust in friendship, in agency and office, in allegiance, in connubial engagements, and in the transactions of kings. – Webster’s 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language
If this was a lie, how could the truth of Yahuwah abound through this lie?
But the Lord [Yahushua] said unto him [Ananias], Go thy way: for he [Paul] is a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my name before the Gentiles (nations), and kings, and the children of Israel: For I will shew him how great things he must suffer for my name's sake. Ouch!!!
Well, for one thing Paul certainly got to bear his name before "kings", or at least one of them when he "appealed unto [the] caesar".
We hope that no one feels certain that Paul was a Roman citizen because of this next verse.
But Paul said, I am a man which am a Jew of Tarsus, a city in Cilicia, a citizen (townsman) of no mean city [#G4172]: and, I beseech thee, suffer me to speak unto the people.
Citizen here is the Greek word polites [#G4177], which according to Strong's merely means, townsman, from the Greek word polis [#G4172], which simply means city and is translated precisely such in the above verse. But the fact of the matter is, for any of us to try to insist upon a single meaning for the word citizen would most certainly be deceptive.
Citizen, n.
1. The native of a city, or an inhabitant who enjoys the freedom and privileges of the city in which he resides; the freeman of a city, as distinguished from a foreigner, or one not entitled to its franchises.
2. A townsman; a man of trade; not a gentleman.
3. An inhabitant; a dweller in any city, town or place.
4. In general sense, a native or permanent resident in a city or country; as the citizens of London or Philadelphia; the citizens of the United States.
5. In the United States, a person, native or naturalized, who has the privilege of exercising the elective franchise, or the qualifications which enable him to vote for rulers, and to purchase and hold real estate. – Webster’s 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language
We see from Noah's definition above that citizen can indeed mean several different things, including a townsman, an inhabitant, or even a native of a particular city or land.
Since Paul himself declared his (our) citizenship (constitution/commonwealth) to be in Heaven*, we could possibly take him at his word, though admittedly we can certainly speculate on other possibilities, or like some here, even accuse Paul, on [presumably] fabricated evidence, of being lower than a common thief, but let us be straightforward with one another; we may never truly know all the details, so for any of us to state categorically that Paul was, or was not, a Roman citizen would not reflect total honesty.
*Heaven, n. hev'n. 5. The Hebrews acknowledged three heavens; the air or aerial heavens; the firmament in which the stars are supposed to be placed; and the heaven of heavens, or third heaven, the residence (household) of Jehovah (Yahuwah). – Webster’s 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language
Paul declared his (our) citizenship to be of the household of Yahuwah.
Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners,
but fellowcitizens with the saints,
and of the household of Yahuwah
fellowcitizen of the commonwealth of Yisra'el,
NOT the man-made, fictional USA.
Ephesians 2:12 & 19
An act done by me against my will is not my act. |
| 20 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Oneisraelite |
Posted - 15 Sep 2006 : 06:09:05
Greetings and salutations, brother Mark:
Peace be unto the house.
quote:
Originally posted by krone
In the above commentary concerning the temple tax, the presumption is that Peter affirmed that Christ paid the temple tax. When I read the words of scripture precisely, I see it differently. Matt 17:24 "...Doth not your Master pay tribute?" The key word is "not". If the question was "Doth your Master pay tribute?" then Peter's answer would affirm that Christ pays tribute. The way I read it, Peter is affirming that Christ does NOT pay tribute.
The Teacher of you not[G3756] pays drachmae? is the interlinear translation of Mattith'yahu 17:24, according to The Zondervan Parallel New Testament.
G3756
ou
Thayer Definition:
1) no, not; in direct questions expecting an affirmative answer [Emphasis added]
When Peter answered in the affirmative, i.e. yes, "he does" is inferred, which of course explains why our Prime Minister[1] anticipated, i.e. prevented, Simon from taking the drachmae[2] from the purse.
ANTIC'IPATE, v.t. [L. anticipo, of ante, before, and capio, to take.]
1. To take or act, before another, so as to prevent him; to take first possession. ... 4. To prevent by crowding in before; to preclude. [This sense is essentially included in the first.] - Webster's 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language
PRECLU'DE, v.t. [L. proecludo; proe, before, and cludo, claudo, to shut.] 1. To prevent from entering by previously shutting the passage, or by any previous measures; hence, to hinder from access, possession or enjoyment. 2. To prevent from happening or taking place. (Ibid.)
Endnotes:
[1] MIN'ISTER, n. [L.] 2. One to whom a king...entrusts the direction of affairs of state; as minister of state; the prime minister. - Webster's 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language [Emphasis added]
[2] The people were being taxed twice by the parasites, very much like in the modern-day Roman empire, where many PERSONS pay both a FEDERAL INCOME TAX and a STATE INCOME TAX.
parasite - 1539, "a hanger-on, a toady, "person who lives on others," from M.Fr. parasite, from L. parasitus, from Gk. parasitos "person who eats at the table of another," from n. use of adj. meaning "feeding beside," from para- "beside" + sitos "food," of unknown origin... Online Etymology Dictionary
toady - "servile parasite," 1826, apparently shortened from toad-eater "fawning flatterer" (1742), originally referring to the assistant of a charlatan, who ate a toad (believed to be poisonous) to enable his master to display his skill in expelling the poison (1629).
If you'd like to see a toady, a "servile parasite", a "fawning flatterer" at work, simply watch the baby-kissing worldly politicians at election time. Then try to contact him or her personally after the election and see how servile (cringing; fawning; meanly submissive) he or she is.
PER'SONALLY, adv. In person; by bodily presence; not by representative or substitute... Webster's 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language [Emphasis added]
brother Robert: fellowcitizen of the commonwealth of Yisar'el,
NOT the man-made, fictional STATE OF ISRAEL.
Ephesians 2:12 & 19 |
| krone |
Posted - 14 Sep 2006 : 09:18:47
Greetings Brothers,
In the above commentary concerning the temple tax, the presumption is that Peter affirmed that Christ paid the temple tax. When I read the words of scripture precisely, I see it differently. Matt 17:24 "...Doth not your Master pay tribute?" The key word is "not". If the question was "Doth your Master pay tribute?" then Peter's answer would affirm that Christ pays tribute. The way I read it, Peter is affirming that Christ does NOT pay tribute.
Peace
Mark |
| BatKol |
Posted - 17 Aug 2006 : 12:11:01
quote:
Great response!
Thanks.
quote:
I dont know if I am convinced or not which is not your issue but mine to find the truth.
I provided some good starting points to study this item in depth on the last post. Go check out the bit about Holy Week and why the Temple tax would have been collected at that time.
quote:
It does lead me to another though...
If Jesus is saying hey stop paying the temple tax and we would have to understand why He would stop them from doing what God had instituted, was it new covenant coming or something else?
I responded to this question in my last post but let me expand on the idea. There is a very good possibility that the ruling Pharisees and High Priest were not properly judicating the True law. Study the statutes in the OT which the Jews used to impliment the temple tax. Secondly, there is a possibility that “lying pen of the scribes” added this section into the original law. Jeremiah 8:8 makes a charge that the scribes altered the original law. Christ does not have good things to say about the ruling scribes and Pharisees of his day in matters concerning the law. Lots of implications that the Jews turned God's law into a lie. Also, the New Covenant is not like the Old. Christ is the second Moses so to speak, the one Moses spoke about who was coming after him. If you read Christ’s response to Peter with the correct understanding of the two drachma temple tax then His words spell out why He does not like it.
quote:
But my greater question is this!
If Jesus is saying stop paying the temple tax then why if it is ok to stop rendering unto the temple and God's system why would we argue or have problem to stop rendering unto Caesar?
Good thinking and a perfectly logical question. Firstly - concerning your statement about God's system - the book of Hebrews calls the Levitical priesthood “weak and useless” compared to the Melchizedek Priesthood. Hebrews said with a change of Priesthood needs be a change of the law. Christ made the prophecy that the temple was going to be destroyed with not a brick left standing. So I think it is safe to say since Christ’s arrival that the Levitical Temple was no longer God's system aside from the fact that Christ had a problem with the Jew's understanding of the law.
Secondly, Christ sums up the whole Tax debate with his response “render what belongs to Caesar to Caesar and what belongs to God to God.” This is not some clever device but a simple reality. Who do you think gets the SALES TAX, USE TAX, EXCISE TAX, ETC, ETC, ETC TAX? Caesar. Who invented FRN's and what REALM are they GOV'ED by? Caesar who has no authority but that which God gives HIM. GOVT is appointed by God and there is no authority but that which is from God. His throne rules over ALL. Period. If you enter into Caesar’s REALM then Caesar gets paid on his terms according to his STATUTES, plain and simple. If we don’t like paying TAXES we simply don’t go into Caesar’s REALM. Today FRN’s have Caesar’s image and superscription. If you were to melt off that image then what do you have left?
quote:
If it is because the Jews had become corupt we could use the same reasoning with Caesar?
Like I mentioned the Levitical system is obsolete. Christ gave warning concerning the Temple and the Jews hated this. John the Revelator gave warning about the Temple. Temple got destroyed in 70 AD. As for Caesar its all quite simple. Don’t engage in TAXABLE activity if you don’t want to support Caesar.
quote:
As we are called to be good stewards do you suppose that God smiles at us as we hand over the first and second fruits of our labor over to pay for what God calls abominations?
Even this current GOVT recognizes that no TAX is to be paid on doing the real work of God’s kingdom. We have it better than the early Christians did. Better even than Paul did when he wrote Romans 13. None of us have any excuse. Being a good steward is about caring for those in need and there is no law or TAX against this.
|
| BatKol |
Posted - 17 Aug 2006 : 09:10:39
quote:
Originally posted by oneisraelite
Mattith’yahu 17:24 And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Yahushua prevented him, saying,
Here is Yahushua’s response after anticipating and preventing Simon from paying them that received tribute money.
What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom [G5056] or tribute? [G2778] of their own children, or of strangers?
If this was a discussion about a “temple tax” then Yahushua was way off base in his response to Simon. Take a look at “custom [G5056]” and “tribute [G2778]”.
Strong’s Greek Dictionary tells us that the “custom” that was being discussed by the anointed one and Simon was “specifically an impost or levy (as paid)” and Joseph Thayer in his Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament states that this “custom” was a “2) toll, custom (i.e. indirect tax on goods)”.
IM'POST, n. [L. impositum, impono.] 1. Any tax or tribute imposed by authority; particularly, a duty or tax laid by government on goods imported, and paid or secured by the importer at the time of importation. Imposts are also called customs. – Webster’s 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language
TOLL, n. [Gr. toll, custom, and end, exit, from cutting off; Eng. dole; diolam, to sell, to exchange, to pay toll. This is from the root of deal. See Deal.] 1. A tax paid for some liberty or privilege, particularly for the privilege of passing over a bridge or on a highway, or for that of vending goods in a fair, market or the like. (Ibid.)
Does this sound like a “temple tax” to you? Nor to us!
Now, let us examine the tribute [G2778] that is being spoken of.
Strong’s Greek Dictionary tells us that G2778 is “properly an enrolment (“census”), that is, (by implication) a tax”, while Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament gives us this information, “1) census (among the Romans, denoting a register and valuation of property in accordance with which taxes were paid), in the NT the tax or tribute levied on individuals and to be paid yearly. (our capitation or poll tax)”.
And where do we see this "enrollment"?
Luke 2:1 And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that all the world should be enrolled [G583].
G583
apographo
Thayer Definition:
1) to write off, copy (from some pattern)
2) to enter in a register or records
2a) specifically, to enter in public records the names of men, their property and income
2b) to enrol
During his [Cyrenius'] tenure of office, at the time of our Lord's birth (Luk_2:2), a “taxing” (R.V., “enrollment;” i.e., a registration) of the people was “first made;” i.e., was made for the first time under his government. (See TAXING.) - Easton's 1897 Bible Dictionary
And, fortunately for us, there are three other verses where G2778 is also used, so let’s take a look at those before deciding.
Mattith’yahu 22:17 Tell us therefore, What thinkest thou? Is it lawful to give tribute [G2778] unto Caesar, or not?
Mattith’yahu 22:19 Shew me the tribute [G2778] money.
Mark 12:14 And when they were come, they say unto him, Master, we know that thou art true, and carest for no man: for thou regardest not the person of men, but teachest the way of Yahuwah in truth: Is it lawful to give tribute [G2778] to Caesar, or not?
Again, we are forced to ask the question, “Does this sound like a “temple tax” to you?” We vote, no! Moreover, we speculate that it may have been as a direct result of this incidence with Simon that they knew to set the snare for our Wonderful Counsellor with the question “Is it lawful to give tribute [G2778] to Caesar or not?”
GALILE'AN, n. A native or inhabitant of Galilee, in Judea. Also, one of a sect among the Jews, who opposed the payment of tribute to the Romans. - Webster's 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language
Galilean
...All the apostles, with the exception of Judas Iscariot (Act_1:11), were Galileans.
This was also one of the names of reproach given to the early Christians. Julian the Apostate, as he is called, not only used the epithet himself when referring to Christ and his apostles, but he made it a law that no one should ever call the Christians by any other name. - Easton's 1897 Bible Dictionary
"The Zealots absorbed the Galileans, a sect which was charged by Jospehus with causing much sedition and trouble in the Jewish nation. The Galileans taught that all foreign control was unscriptural, and they would neither acknowledge or pray for foreign princes. Their successors, the Zealots, emphasized and broadened these principles." - George H. Sandison, Ph.D.
Pay close attention here, one plus one equals two; [the Galilieans] ...opposed the payment of tribute to the Romans [and] All the apostles, with the exception of Judas Iscariot [the traitor] (Act_1:11), were Galileans.
And, the Galileans, [was] a sect which was charged by Jospehus with causing much sedition [and] All the apostles, with the exception of Judas Iscariot [the traitor] (Act_1:11), were Galileans.
The rational mind begins to see how this all adds up.
We also readily see from George Sandison's study that the "national party" known as the Zealots were even stricter than their predecessors whom they absorbed, the Galilean party, and yet they still had this as their watchword, "No Lord but Yahuwah; no tax but that of the Temple; no friend but the Zealots."
If there was a political faction more zealous than the so-called Zealots, we have yet to hear about them, and even the Zealots, evidently, paid the Temple tax.
P.S. The modern day Romans don't want anyone to know this; thus the very deliberate disinformation concerning it.
disinformation n. deliberately false information leaked by a government, as to confuse another nation's intelligence operations. - Webster's 1988 New World Dictionary of American English, Third College Edition, page 394
brother Robert:
fellowcitizen of the commonwealth of Yisar'el,
NOT the man-made, fictional USA or STATE OF ISRAEL.
Ephesians 2:12 & 19
An act done by me against my will is not my act.
OK. Let's assume that Christ was not making an analogy between God's Temple and Caesar's Temple. By consistently applying your rendering of the passage in question, Christ and the apostles would actually be children of Caesar because - after all - he does not charge tax to his own offspring!
Think this through all the way instead of trying to manufacture more out of context evidence for your position. The correct understanding of this item - and one can easily research the two drachma temple tax - is Christ making an analogy between how kings don't charge their own offspring tax. In a word, "even Caesar does not do this to his children, why would God do this to His?".
Also another point that has been brought up but my detractors will not - nay are not able to - address directly is this below.
Let's keep in up front in hopes that someone will address it head on.
Peter was an x-Zealot who used to be known as Simon the Zealot. Zealots were known for their battle cry which contained the saying, "no tax but the temple tax". Understanding this historic fact it is quite easy to see why Peter would say that his master paid this temple tax. It was the law of second temple Judaism. On the obverse side of this equation - IF Christ was teaching Zealot doctrines - why in the heck would Peter who was quite familiar with Zealot doctrine - so quickly offer the affirmative that his master DID pay ROME'S TAX! Think about it folks. Peter would have breached the core Zealot doctrine had this been anything other than what it really is. The Temple tax. There is no logical reasoning to think that Peter would instantly volunteer Christ for ROME's TAX if Christ's gospel was that of the Zealots. No, the reason why Peter so quickly voluteered Christ for the Temple tax is because that was how the Levitical/Mosaic law was judicated by the Jews. Well, we know what Christ said about them.
Now let's look at the Greek words used in the passage in question.
The error in oneisraelite's theory is that he is not looking at what tax the collector asked for verses what tax Christ referenced in his analogy. The tax originally asked for by the collector is didrachmon.
Here is some info on the Temple Tax (note the last paragraph):
This was the tribute money, an annual temple tax collected from each Jew: required of every male above the age of 20: The origins of the temple tax go way back to Exodus_30:11-16,_and was re-instituted after the Exile, Nehemiah 10:32, with a discount (one third shekel).
During NT times there were three different currencies circulating in Palestine: Roman standard, Greek, and local Jewish. Copper, silver and bronze coins were in use. The most common silver coin was the Greek Tetradrachma and the Roman Denarius. It appears from Matthew 20:1-16 that a denarius was the average daily wage for a labourer. The basic Greek coin was the silver drachme, 6000 to a talent. The exchange rate was one drachme to one denarius. One shekel was equivalent to 4-drachma.
The temple due of half a shekel a head was usually collected in Greek currency: two drachma a person. The tetradrachmon or "stater" was the 4-drachma piece: It was a more common coin than the didrachmon (2-drachma piece), and it was common practice for two men to join together to submit one tetradrachmon coin for temple tribute. The tetradrachmon was probably the coins that formed the 30 pieces of silver that Judas received.
The tribute was usually collected in the month before Passover, and this incidence help to mark the incident in the point of the calendar before holy week.
New poster Servant asked about the Mosaic/Levitical temple tax law. The reason why Christ was not in favor of paying the tax to the temple is mainly because the verses which the Jews used to justify the two drachma tax was based on their own ruling on how it should be applied. Go read them for yourself and see about it. Christ was the new Law Giver and Moses was no longer the authority. The Jews hated this.
As for oneisraelite's last post above I suggest folks go back and read who he is quoting from. These are Jews who were trying to frame Christ and the Apostles with false accusations. oneisraelite is just repeating those trumped up charges of sedition and repackaging them as truth to support his theory. It is worth noting that in ALL INSTANCES these charges were declared false by ROME when examined in COURT. The very COURT the Jews were trying use to get Christ and the Apostles killed for sedition. When that failed they had to resort to social unrest.
What did Paul have to say about the Jews oneisraelite keeps quoting from?
I Thess. 2:14-16 - "For you brethren, are become followers of the churches of God which are in Judea, in Christ Jesus: for you also have suffered the same things from your own countrymen, even as they have from the Jews, who both killed the Lord Jesus, and the prophets, and have persecuted us, and please not God, and are adversaries to all men; prohibiting us to speak to the Gentiles, that they may be saved, to fill up their sins always: for the wrath of God is come upon them to the end."
|
| Oneisraelite |
Posted - 17 Aug 2006 : 07:46:36
Now that you have some ground work, we bring this over from The Kingdom of Yahuwah thread.
Most scholars in the fields of biblical studies and history agree that Jesus [Yahushua]…was accused of sedition against the Roman Empire, and on the orders of Roman Governor Pontius Pilate was sentenced to death by crucifixion. – Excerpted from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Sedition is a term of law to refer to covert conduct such as speech and organization that is deemed by the legal authority as tending toward insurrection against the established order. Sedition often included subversion of a constitution and incitement of discontent (or resistance) to lawful authority. Sedition may include any commotion, though not aimed at direct and open violence against the laws. (Ibid.)
INSURREC'TION, n. [L. insurgo; in and surgo, to rise.] 1. A rising against civil or political authority... It is equivalent to sedition, except that sedition expresses a less extensive rising of citizens. - Webster's 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language
This "less extensive rising of citizens" were, and are, the "called out ones", i.e. the true ekklesia, a political term, if you will forgive the expressions, as opposed to a religious one. In Yahuwah's Kingdom there is no separation of church and state, again, if you will please forgive us for the use of these two words.
It differs from rebellion, for the latter [rebellion] expresses a revolt, or an attempt to overthrow the government, to establish a different one or to place the country under another jurisdiction. (Ibd.)
This is a very important distinction, since we are not attempting "to overthrow the government", nor are we trying to "place the country under another jurisdiciton", but rather we have simply been "called out" from, and have left, the governments, i.e. jurisdictions, of men and have been translated into another jurisdiciton.
Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the Kingdom of his dear Son
Paul joined this “rising” and was, as a consequence, also accused of sedition.
…we have found this man a pestilent fellow, and a mover of sedition among all the Ioudaios throughout the world, and a ringleader of the sect of the Nazoraios…
This “sect of the Nazoraios” was not, and to this day is not, a sect of people from a place called Nazareth (the guarded one), it is exactly what Joseph Thayer defines it as in his Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, Nazarite = “one separated”, though the worldly ones [PERSONS belonging to the STATE] may do everything in their power to try con-vince us into believing otherwise.
While they promise them liberty, they themselves are the servants of corruption: for of whom a man is overcome, of the same is he brought in bondage.
fellowcitizen of the commonwealth of Yisar'el,
NOT the man-made, fictional USA or STATE OF ISRAEL.
Ephesians 2:12 & 19
An act done by me against my will is not my act. |
| Oneisraelite |
Posted - 17 Aug 2006 : 06:38:53
Mattith’yahu 17:24 And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Yahushua prevented him, saying,
Here is Yahushua’s response after anticipating and preventing Simon from paying them that received tribute money.
What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom [G5056] or tribute? [G2778] of their own children, or of strangers?
If this was a discussion about a “temple tax” then Yahushua was way off base in his response to Simon. Take a look at “custom [G5056]” and “tribute [G2778]”.
Strong’s Greek Dictionary tells us that the “custom” that was being discussed by the anointed one and Simon was “specifically an impost or levy (as paid)” and Joseph Thayer in his Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament states that this “custom” was a “2) toll, custom (i.e. indirect tax on goods)”.
IM'POST, n. [L. impositum, impono.] 1. Any tax or tribute imposed by authority; particularly, a duty or tax laid by government on goods imported, and paid or secured by the importer at the time of importation. Imposts are also called customs. – Webster’s 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language
TOLL, n. [Gr. toll, custom, and end, exit, from cutting off; Eng. dole; diolam, to sell, to exchange, to pay toll. This is from the root of deal. See Deal.] 1. A tax paid for some liberty or privilege, particularly for the privilege of passing over a bridge or on a highway, or for that of vending goods in a fair, market or the like. (Ibid.)
Does this sound like a “temple tax” to you? Nor to us!
Now, let us examine the tribute [G2778] that is being spoken of.
Strong’s Greek Dictionary tells us that G2778 is “properly an enrolment (“census”), that is, (by implication) a tax”, while Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament gives us this information, “1) census (among the Romans, denoting a register and valuation of property in accordance with which taxes were paid), in the NT the tax or tribute levied on individuals and to be paid yearly. (our capitation or poll tax)”.
And where do we see this "enrollment"?
Luke 2:1 And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that all the world should be enrolled [G583].
G583
apographo
Thayer Definition:
1) to write off, copy (from some pattern)
2) to enter in a register or records
2a) specifically, to enter in public records the names of men, their property and income
2b) to enrol
During his [Cyrenius'] tenure of office, at the time of our Lord's birth (Luk_2:2), a “taxing” (R.V., “enrollment;” i.e., a registration) of the people was “first made;” i.e., was made for the first time under his government. (See TAXING.) - Easton's 1897 Bible Dictionary
And, fortunately for us, there are three other verses where G2778 is also used, so let’s take a look at those before deciding.
Mattith’yahu 22:17 Tell us therefore, What thinkest thou? Is it lawful to give tribute [G2778] unto Caesar, or not?
Mattith’yahu 22:19 Shew me the tribute [G2778] money.
Mark 12:14 And when they were come, they say unto him, Master, we know that thou art true, and carest for no man: for thou regardest not the person of men, but teachest the way of Yahuwah in truth: Is it lawful to give tribute [G2778] to Caesar, or not?
Again, we are forced to ask the question, “Does this sound like a “temple tax” to you?” We vote, no! Moreover, we speculate that it may have been as a direct result of this incidence with Simon that they knew to set the snare for our Wonderful Counsellor with the question “Is it lawful to give tribute [G2778] to Caesar or not?”
GALILE'AN, n. A native or inhabitant of Galilee, in Judea. Also, one of a sect among the Jews, who opposed the payment of tribute to the Romans. - Webster's 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language
Galilean
...All the apostles, with the exception of Judas Iscariot (Act_1:11), were Galileans.
This was also one of the names of reproach given to the early Christians. Julian the Apostate, as he is called, not only used the epithet himself when referring to Christ and his apostles, but he made it a law that no one should ever call the Christians by any other name. - Easton's 1897 Bible Dictionary
"The Zealots absorbed the Galileans, a sect which was charged by Jospehus with causing much sedition and trouble in the Jewish nation. The Galileans taught that all foreign control was unscriptural, and they would neither acknowledge or pray for foreign princes. Their successors, the Zealots, emphasized and broadened these principles." - George H. Sandison, Ph.D.
Pay close attention here, one plus one equals two; [the Galilieans] ...opposed the payment of tribute to the Romans [and] All the apostles, with the exception of Judas Iscariot [the traitor] (Act_1:11), were Galileans.
And, the Galileans, [was] a sect which was charged by Jospehus with causing much sedition [and] All the apostles, with the exception of Judas Iscariot [the traitor] (Act_1:11), were Galileans.
The rational mind begins to see how this all adds up.
We also readily see from George Sandison's study that the "national party" known as the Zealots were even stricter than their predecessors whom they absorbed, the Galilean party, and yet they still had this as their watchword, "No Lord but Yahuwah; no tax but that of the Temple; no friend but the Zealots."
If there was a political faction more zealous than the so-called Zealots, we have yet to hear about them, and even the Zealots, evidently, paid the Temple tax.
P.S. The modern day Romans don't want anyone to know this; thus the very deliberate disinformation concerning it.
disinformation n. deliberately false information leaked by a government, as to confuse another nation's intelligence operations. - Webster's 1988 New World Dictionary of American English, Third College Edition, page 394
brother Robert:
fellowcitizen of the commonwealth of Yisar'el,
NOT the man-made, fictional USA or STATE OF ISRAEL.
Ephesians 2:12 & 19
An act done by me against my will is not my act. |
| krone |
Posted - 17 Aug 2006 : 00:38:35
Greetings Brothers,
Concerning US citizenship, I have concluded that as a Christian I cannot be a US Citizen. One reason being that all US Citizens testify to the Oath of Citizenship either through recital (through the immigration process) or through presumption put upon those who are natural born.
"I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God."
This oath is specified in Title 8 Part 337 in the Code of Federal Regulations as the "Oath of Allegiance" and is an important aspect US Citizenship.
As a Christian, how can I absolutely and entirely renounce all allegiance to any foreign prince, potentate or sovereign? How can I bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America?
It is not clear to me what Roman Citizenship encompasses or what Paul's situation was, but I do know my situation.
Peace,
Mark |
| krone |
Posted - 17 Aug 2006 : 00:15:44
Greetings Brothers,
I appreciate the respectful dialog in this forum. Concerning baptism, I see from my studies that it is difficult to determine the precise mode. One refute to the immersion mode that I know of is contained in Mark 7:4:
"And <2532> when they come from <575> the market <58>, except <3362> they wash <907> (5672), they eat <2068> (5719) not <3756>. And <2532> many <4183> other things <243> there be <2076> (5748), which <3739> they have received <3880> (5627) to hold <2902> (5721), as the washing <909> of cups <4221>, and <2532> pots <3582>, <2532> brasen vessels <5473>, and <2532> of tables <2825>.
Here we see that tables are washed (909, baptismos) along with cups and pots. It doesn't make sense that tables (couches as some other translators say) would be immersed.
I found an interesting commentary in my bible concerning the difference between bapto (911) and baptizo (907):
Bapto - "Not to be confused with 907, baptizo. The clearest example that shows the meaning of baptizo is a text from the Greek poet and physician Nicander, who lived about 200 B.C. It is a recipe for making pickles and is helpful because it uses both words. Nicander says that in order to make a pickle, the vegetable should first be ‘dipped’ (bapto) into boiling water and then ‘baptised’ (baptizo) in the vinegar solution. Both verbs concern the immersing of vegetables in a solution. But the first is temporary. The second, the act of baptising the vegetable, produces a permanent change."
I have not been able to verify this quote of Nicander's, however, I believe looking at this issue through Nicander's eyes sheds light.
Peace
Mark
|
| Servant |
Posted - 16 Aug 2006 : 22:02:01
quote:
Originally posted by BatKol
quote:
Originally posted by Servant
quote:
Originally posted by BatKol
Christ, Peter and Matt 17:24-27
brother Robert and I discussed this in detail and how it relates to paying taxes today. This bit has been on my mind ever since so I wanted to discuss some items which were not covered before.
On key item is a major issue that, unless it is considered, renders the whole topic of our obligation to taxes useless.
That item is this.
Matt 17:24 is not speaking about a tax to Caesar!
It is speaking about the Temple Tax which was commanded in Exodus which declares that all Israelites must pay (Exodus 21:32). It makes sense that Peter so readily agreed to this. After all it is a law from the Torah.
Now let's read the whole section with this in mind:
Matt 17:24-27
Mat 17:24 When they came to Caper'na-um, the collectors of the half-shekel tax went up to Peter and said, "Does not your teacher pay the tax?"
Mat 17:25 He said, "Yes." And when he came home, Jesus spoke to him first, saying, "What do you think, Simon? From whom do kings of the earth take toll or tribute? From their sons or from others?"
Mat 17:26 And when he said, "From others," Jesus said to him, "Then the sons are free.
Mat 17:27 However, not to give offense to them, go to the sea and cast a hook, and take the first fish that comes up, and when you open its mouth you will find a shekel; take that and give it to them for me and for yourself."
Here is a commentary on the item by Henery:
1. The tribute demanded was not any civil payment to the Roman powers, that was strictly exacted by the publicans, but the church-duties, the half shekel, about fifteen pence, which were required from every person or the service of the temple, and the defraying of the expenses of the worship there; it is called a ransom for the soul, Ex. 30:12, etc. This was not so strictly exacted now as sometimes it had been, especially not in Galilee.
I found this info which deals with the coinage:
Some translations say "didrachma". A didrachma is a Greek silver coin worth 2 drachmas, about as much as 2 Roman denarii, or about 2 days wages. It was commonly used to pay the half-shekel temple tax, because 2 drachmas were worth one half shekel of silver.}
So, in closing, to try to attach Matt 17:24-27 to anything other than the Temple Tax of the Israelites is certainly out of context to the verse.
Why if it is refering to the temple tax as you suppose does Jesus say to Peter, "What do you think, Simon? From whom do kings of the earth take toll or tribute? From their sons or from others?". The kings of the earth do not pay the temple tax but the jews am I correct?
It appears to me that Peter as Jesus points out spoke to quickly about something he knew the truth about. It appears to me that Peter was agreeing to avoid conflict a sin or flaw in him that would show up again when he denies Christ to avoid conflict.
Is it not interesting also that Jesus instructs Peter to go back to his old job of fishing to catch a fish and get the coin and to only pay the tax for Peter and Himself. Was this not because Peter had obligated the both of them by his words and Jesus said lest we cause an offense to what you have spoken and then He chastised him not ot be so foolish again. Jesus also did not mention the other disciples or apostles as needing to have a tax paid for them, why, indeed?
These and more questions need to be asked for what we learn may be great and the Truth will set us free. It is so difficult to discern the Truth through the eyes of the flesh is it not?
These are questions, no assertions to your accuracy are made, I am seeking the Truth as I would believe you are also.
Blessings;
Servant
The money being collected was indeed the Temple tax. In fact, the Jewish zealots of the day used to proclaim, "no tax but the temple tax". Peter used to be called 'Simon the Zealot' so it makes perfect sense how he would immediately say that Christ paid the Temple tax. The Temple tax was considered a commandment of Israelite law. We can find this Temple tax collection in practice back in the Old Testament sections of Neh. 10:37-38; 12:44; 13:5,12 as well as 2 Chron 31:5,6,12 allegedly sanctioned (depending on interpretation) in Deut 12, Lev. 27:30-31 and other places.
Concerning the story in question Christ is using an example. The context of "the King" was the Most High to whom the Temple was built to honor. The children were 'the Israelites' who visited the Temple with all manner of tithes and sacrifices. Basically Christ was saying "Why should YHWH's children be taxed at the Temple if the heathen king does not tax his own children in his temple".
Great response!
I dont know if I am convinced or not which is not your issue but mine to find the truth.
It does lead me to another though...
If Jesus is saying hey stop paying the temple tax and we would have to understand why He would stop them from doing what God had instituted, was it new covenant coming or something else? But my greater question is this!
If Jesus is saying stop paying the temple tax then why if it is ok to stop rendering unto the temple and God's system why would we argue or have problem to stop rendering unto Caesar?
If it is because the Jews had become corupt we could use the same reasoning with Caesar?
As we are called to be good stewards do you suppose that God smiles at us as we hand over the first and second fruits of our labor over to pay for what God calls abominations?
These are questions I ponder, how about you all?
Blessings;;
Servant |
| BatKol |
Posted - 16 Aug 2006 : 17:08:21
quote:
Originally posted by Servant
quote:
Originally posted by BatKol
Christ, Peter and Matt 17:24-27
brother Robert and I discussed this in detail and how it relates to paying taxes today. This bit has been on my mind ever since so I wanted to discuss some items which were not covered before.
On key item is a major issue that, unless it is considered, renders the whole topic of our obligation to taxes useless.
That item is this.
Matt 17:24 is not speaking about a tax to Caesar!
It is speaking about the Temple Tax which was commanded in Exodus which declares that all Israelites must pay (Exodus 21:32). It makes sense that Peter so readily agreed to this. After all it is a law from the Torah.
Now let's read the whole section with this in mind:
Matt 17:24-27
Mat 17:24 When they came to Caper'na-um, the collectors of the half-shekel tax went up to Peter and said, "Does not your teacher pay the tax?"
Mat 17:25 He said, "Yes." And when he came home, Jesus spoke to him first, saying, "What do you think, Simon? From whom do kings of the earth take toll or tribute? From their sons or from others?"
Mat 17:26 And when he said, "From others," Jesus said to him, "Then the sons are free.
Mat 17:27 However, not to give offense to them, go to the sea and cast a hook, and take the first fish that comes up, and when you open its mouth you will find a shekel; take that and give it to them for me and for yourself."
Here is a commentary on the item by Henery:
1. The tribute demanded was not any civil payment to the Roman powers, that was strictly exacted by the publicans, but the church-duties, the half shekel, about fifteen pence, which were required from every person or the service of the temple, and the defraying of the expenses of the worship there; it is called a ransom for the soul, Ex. 30:12, etc. This was not so strictly exacted now as sometimes it had been, especially not in Galilee.
I found this info which deals with the coinage:
Some translations say "didrachma". A didrachma is a Greek silver coin worth 2 drachmas, about as much as 2 Roman denarii, or about 2 days wages. It was commonly used to pay the half-shekel temple tax, because 2 drachmas were worth one half shekel of silver.}
So, in closing, to try to attach Matt 17:24-27 to anything other than the Temple Tax of the Israelites is certainly out of context to the verse.
Why if it is refering to the temple tax as you suppose does Jesus say to Peter, "What do you think, Simon? From whom do kings of the earth take toll or tribute? From their sons or from others?". The kings of the earth do not pay the temple tax but the jews am I correct?
It appears to me that Peter as Jesus points out spoke to quickly about something he knew the truth about. It appears to me that Peter was agreeing to avoid conflict a sin or flaw in him that would show up again when he denies Christ to avoid conflict.
Is it not interesting also that Jesus instructs Peter to go back to his old job of fishing to catch a fish and get the coin and to only pay the tax for Peter and Himself. Was this not because Peter had obligated the both of them by his words and Jesus said lest we cause an offense to what you have spoken and then He chastised him not ot be so foolish again. Jesus also did not mention the other disciples or apostles as needing to have a tax paid for them, why, indeed?
These and more questions need to be asked for what we learn may be great and the Truth will set us free. It is so difficult to discern the Truth through the eyes of the flesh is it not?
These are questions, no assertions to your accuracy are made, I am seeking the Truth as I would believe you are also.
Blessings;
Servant
The money being collected was indeed the Temple tax. In fact, the Jewish zealots of the day used to proclaim, "no tax but the temple tax". Peter used to be called 'Simon the Zealot' so it makes perfect sense how he would immediately say that Christ paid the Temple tax. The Temple tax was considered a commandment of Israelite law. We can find this Temple tax collection in practice back in the Old Testament sections of Neh. 10:37-38; 12:44; 13:5,12 as well as 2 Chron 31:5,6,12 allegedly sanctioned (depending on interpretation) in Deut 12, Lev. 27:30-31 and other places.
Concerning the story in question Christ is using an example. The context of "the King" was the Most High to whom the Temple was built to honor. The children were 'the Israelites' who visited the Temple with all manner of tithes and sacrifices. Basically Christ was saying "Why should YHWH's children be taxed at the Temple if the heathen king does not tax his own children in his temple".
|
| Servant |
Posted - 16 Aug 2006 : 12:45:59
quote:
Originally posted by BatKol
Christ, Peter and Matt 17:24-27
brother Robert and I discussed this in detail and how it relates to paying taxes today. This bit has been on my mind ever since so I wanted to discuss some items which were not covered before.
On key item is a major issue that, unless it is considered, renders the whole topic of our obligation to taxes useless.
That item is this.
Matt 17:24 is not speaking about a tax to Caesar!
It is speaking about the Temple Tax which was commanded in Exodus which declares that all Israelites must pay (Exodus 21:32). It makes sense that Peter so readily agreed to this. After all it is a law from the Torah.
Now let's read the whole section with this in mind:
Matt 17:24-27
Mat 17:24 When they came to Caper'na-um, the collectors of the half-shekel tax went up to Peter and said, "Does not your teacher pay the tax?"
Mat 17:25 He said, "Yes." And when he came home, Jesus spoke to him first, saying, "What do you think, Simon? From whom do kings of the earth take toll or tribute? From their sons or from others?"
Mat 17:26 And when he said, "From others," Jesus said to him, "Then the sons are free.
Mat 17:27 However, not to give offense to them, go to the sea and cast a hook, and take the first fish that comes up, and when you open its mouth you will find a shekel; take that and give it to them for me and for yourself."
Here is a commentary on the item by Henery:
1. The tribute demanded was not any civil payment to the Roman powers, that was strictly exacted by the publicans, but the church-duties, the half shekel, about fifteen pence, which were required from every person or the service of the temple, and the defraying of the expenses of the worship there; it is called a ransom for the soul, Ex. 30:12, etc. This was not so strictly exacted now as sometimes it had been, especially not in Galilee.
I found this info which deals with the coinage:
Some translations say "didrachma". A didrachma is a Greek silver coin worth 2 drachmas, about as much as 2 Roman denarii, or about 2 days wages. It was commonly used to pay the half-shekel temple tax, because 2 drachmas were worth one half shekel of silver.}
So, in closing, to try to attach Matt 17:24-27 to anything other than the Temple Tax of the Israelites is certainly out of context to the verse.
Why if it is refering to the temple tax as you suppose does Jesus say to Peter, "What do you think, Simon? From whom do kings of the earth take toll or tribute? From their sons or from others?". The kings of the earth do not pay the temple tax but the jews am I correct?
It appears to me that Peter as Jesus points out spoke to quickly about something he knew the truth about. It appears to me that Peter was agreeing to avoid conflict a sin or flaw in him that would show up again when he denies Christ to avoid conflict.
Is it not interesting also that Jesus instructs Peter to go back to his old job of fishing to catch a fish and get the coin and to only pay the tax for Peter and Himself. Was this not because Peter had obligated the both of them by his words and Jesus said lest we cause an offense to what you have spoken and then He chastised him not ot be so foolish again. Jesus also did not mention the other disciples or apostles as needing to have a tax paid for them, why, indeed?
These and more questions need to be asked for what we learn may be great and the Truth will set us free. It is so difficult to discern the Truth through the eyes of the flesh is it not?
These are questions, no assertions to your accuracy are made, I am seeking the Truth as I would believe you are also.
Blessings;
Servant |
| Servant |
Posted - 16 Aug 2006 : 12:24:34
Greetings to all in the name of Christ Jesus:
It is so interesting to read all the information and discussion on our brother Paul and his Citizenship status.
However would any of you like to discuss within that topic if Jesus would sign up to be or consider himself to be an American citizen if he were born or naturalized here. By the way a person being born in America does not automatically make them a citizen, in America birth and allegiance are required, I can support that if there are those doubting or interested. So would Jesus give allegiance to America? Would doing so put His ok, acceptance or blessing on their actions? What are the implications?
You see brothers we are to be His body so what the head would do we must do and what it would not we must abstain.
Paul is not our example of perfect action or biblical understanding but like us God sees fit to use him and us in our state of imperfection to complete His perfect will. If Paul was wrong about just one thing how is it we can trust him? We only trust what God reveals to be true and God uses Paul to teach us both of what to do and not to do. He uses Paul to give us hope and to encourage our path.
If some of you were born in Iran would you be eager to be citizens? Would you be able to become a muslim which is a requirement of citizenship and still say that God commands such and there is no serving two master issues?
Every nation has its requirements for citizenship and to renounce any other such allegiances, are you thus prepared, are you asked to deny Him who has called you?
These are questions brothers, some of which you may find of importance and in need to answer for the question of Pauls citizenship is really a question of what should be my or your Citizenship status.
As for me and my house we shall serve the Lord. I am an Embassador of Christ Jesus sent here to the world to deliver a message of peace and reconcilliation to a world that is in darkness and is an enemy to God because of sin. All who have not had there sin washed away by the blood of the lamb are enemies of His. We as Embassadors are to make disciples not converts. We live as foreigners and Embassadors. Though we are aliens to this world I would not be quick to use the term resident or non-resident alien a term which is classic legalesse and has a definition that may be much different than you expect with legal ramifications that are not desired.
blessing in Him.
Servant |
| Servant |
Posted - 16 Aug 2006 : 11:34:40
I have read all of the wonderful input to this forum. I will add a more detailed response later. Some food for thought.
1. Every example in the Bible can at least be seen as either an example of what to do or an example of what not to do or say or think or act...you get the idea. Peter's denial of Christ Jesus was one of those acts of what not to do, agreed.
2. David did terrible things in the eyse of the Lord God just as all of us are guilty, so to use the example that so and so did this or that and was yet described by God as good or holy is a leap that has at best a shaky foundation without more support.
3. John the last of the phrophets before Christ came preaching "Repent for the Kingdom of God is at hand (or present)" Kingdom means jurisdiction or rule of God. In the fullness of Time God sent His Son. It was a new dispensation if you will, the old covenant would be fulfilled and a new established. God being consistent in His direction to accomplish that which was planned or pre-ordained at the creation of the world.
4. Israel is described as God's bride and the Chruch as the bride of Christ Jesus. God forbid Israel to be ruled by heathens by the Torah and the only time they were to my understanding was when they were in disobedience to God, it was as punishment. Read Kings 1 and 2
5. How is it that any of us will think that God who is Holy intends for us to be Holy by submitting to that which is ungodly and unholy?
6. There is much for us to understand, we must pray for wisdom and we must choose this day whom we shall serve and we ought to obey God rather than man but the conclusion is to Love God with all our heart, soul and mind and to love our neighbor as ourselves. We must remember God loves obedience greater than He does our sacrifices.
God bless
His Servant
|
| Uncle Buck |
Posted - 16 Aug 2006 : 08:21:33
Greetings brother Batkol!
Peace be unto the house.
I think the following laymans approach is quite interesting. If we don't have to worry about the prepositions then it must be the word and concept/idea of baptizo is this crucial to understanding "baptism" in scripture.
http://www.thelivingsword.com/truewaterbaptism.htm
EXTRACT from website:
In epistle 75, in the Cyprian epistle collection, Cyprian writing to Magnus about the sacrament of Christian baptism writes,
For in the sacrament of salvation the contagion (contamination) of sins (1) is not in such wise washed away, as the filth of the skin and of the body is washed away in the carnal and ordinary washing, as that there should be need of saltpetre and other appliances also, and a bath and a basin wherewith this vile body must be washed and purified. (2) Otherwise (in a different manner) is the breast of the believer washed; (3) otherwise (in a different manner) is the mind of man purified by the merit of faith. In the sacraments of salvation, when necessity compels, and God bestows His mercy, the divine methods confer the whole benefit on believers; nor ought it to trouble any one that sick people seem to be sprinkled or affused, when (4) they obtain the Lord's grace, when Holy Scripture speaks by the mouth of the prophet Ezekiel, and says, (5) "Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean: from all your filthiness and from all your idols will I cleanse you. And I will give you a new heart, and a new spirit will I put within you:”
Here (if we have eyes to see it and believe it) we see AMAZING things about THE TRUE CHRISTIAN WATER BAPTISM OF THE LORD! And anyone who looks at this should be ABSOLUTELY ASTOUNDED!
For in (1),we see again that the Christian water baptism for salvation IS NOT TO BE DONE IN NATURAL WATER WHERE ONE NEEDS A BASIN, OR OTHER APPLIANCES TO HOLD THE NATURAL WATER WHEREIN THIS VILE NATURAL BODY OF OURS MUST BE WASHED.
In (2),we see that in natural water baptism, the heart (breast) of the person IS NOT WASHED in this natural heretic form of water baptism, but ONLY IN THE TRUE SPIRITUAL WATER OF THE LORD!
In (3),we see that TRUE CHRISTIAN FAITH IS NOT IN THIS NATURAL WATER BAPTISM, BUT ONLY IN THE OTHER SPIRITUAL WATER BAPTISM.
In (4),we see that only in SPIRITUAL WATER BAPTISM, DOES ONE TRULY RECEIVES THE LORD’S GRACE.
In (5),we see that in Ezekiel 36:25-26, it is speaking about THIS ONE AND ONLY TRUE CHRISTIAN WATER BAPTISM. Let us ask, what does it say? Where does this BAPTISMAL WATER COME?
In (5),we see that it says, when Holy Scripture speaks by the mouth of the prophet Ezekiel, and says,(5)"Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean: from all your filthiness and from all your idols will I cleanse you. And I will give you a new heart, and a new spirit will I put within you." Notice it says, when Holy Scripture speaks by the mouth of the prophet Ezekiel. Let us ask, how does THE HOLY SPIRIT SPEAK? By COMPARING spiritual things with spiritual 1Cor. 2:13.
Seekers, The water baptism of the Lord, must be seen for what it truly is! For it is A SPIRITUAL, INVISIBLE WATER BAPTISM THAT ONLY COMES FROM THE LORD!
But let us look what scripture says about this water baptism, Then will “I” sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean: Who is the “I” here if it is not the Lord? Amen! THE LORD BRINGS THE BAPTISMAL WATER! In fact HE comes as water (see Hosea 6:3, 1 John 5:6).
And let us see what Ezekiel 36:25-27 says, for it is written,
"Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean: from all your filthiness and from all your idols will I cleanse you. And I will give you a new heart, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh. (Christ gives us His flesh Eph. 5:30)And I will put my Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, (Divine Spiritual Rom.7:14 Law) and do them”.
Here we see that ONLY IN THIS WATER BAPTISM, does the Lord cause one to walk in His heavenly spiritual Divine law. And because fallen Christianity today DENIES THIS WATER BAPTISM OF THE LORD, this is exactly why fallen Christianity today, has absolutely NO UNDERSTANDING WHATSOEVER ABOUT GOD’S [Yahuwah's] SPIRITUAL HEAVENLY LAWS! They do not keep them, nor do they try to walk in them, nor do they even desire to know them.
*************************
If I have to be like him who is going to be like me?
James 1:25 The Perfect Law of Liberty |
| BatKol |
Posted - 15 Aug 2006 : 13:34:17
quote:
brother BATKOL
Thankyou for inquiring with your greek friend. No disrespect intended to your greek friend but for him to say in authority that"I know this, because I live in Greece and my native language is Greek." does not refute Jay Adams position....It would be like me saying "I know this, because I live in the kingdom of Yahuwah and I am annointed with the Set-Apart Spirit so my native language is the Set-Apart Scriptures/tongues."
brother UNCLE BUCK,
You are welcome for the info. The response was not limited to the claim you quote above.
Also, the language of the Set-Apart Scriptures is written in Greek so I don't see how your 'native language' analogy is pertinent. Are you suggesting that having Greek as your native language is of no use to actualy understanding Greek grammar (not to mention actually being studied in Koine Greek)?
You made a specific assertion about the Greek language and prepositions so I contacted a native Greek who is studied in Koine Greek to comment on your claims.
quote:
nor my belief that getting dunked in a pool of wet water is a condition precedent to salvation.
Thanks for sharing your belief. I had not known it up until this point. Dr. Adams was/is an Anglican so I expect his rendering to be in line with the sprinkling method instead of the complete immersion. The context of Baptism in my earlier posts was the commandment by Christ as well the many connections of that word with literal water(including His own baptism).
quote:
Baptizo is a scriptural idea not a merely a greek word: to plunge; to merse; to merge; to be watered with the Spirit of Truth from above by Yahuwah.
I know. However, you made an assertion about prepositions concerning the Greek language so the response - as well as the links - deals with your last assertions.
quote:
Noah didn't get wet did he when the world was baptised!
Noah was not around when Christ was baptised in the water by John the Baptist, nor was Noah around when Christ commanded to "baptise all nations in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit".
quote:
Just for the record I know many Australians who live IN Australia and whose native tongue is "idiot" and I too speak that fluently!
Well, if I run across any texts that pertain to this topic written in that tounge I'll certainly call on you!
quote:
bless you brother!
Rick
Blessings to you as well!
|
| Uncle Buck |
Posted - 14 Aug 2006 : 17:46:03
quote:
Originally posted by BatKol
Greetings brother Rick,
Here is a response I got to your question concerning Baptism:
Dear Sir,
Concerning your request I can tell you that the analysis of Dr.Adams is false.
Let me explain: the greek verb that is used in the bible is 'baptizo" .
The very meaning of greek verb 'baptizo" is: "to dip in or under water", so there is no need to use any preposition in order to define the immersion. The word "baptizo" by itself has the meaning of immersion into a liquid.
The proper English translation of the Greek word "baptizo" is "to immerse".
I know this, because I live in Greece and my native language is Greek.
I understand that Dr. Adams is completely wrong and his analysis has no ground at all !
Regards,
L. Padopoulos
brother BATKOL
Thankyou for inquiring with your greek friend. No disrespect intended to your greek friend but for him to say in authority that"I know this, because I live in Greece and my native language is Greek." does not refute Jay Adams position nor my belief that getting dunked in a pool of wet water is a condition precedent to salvation. It would be like me saying "I know this, because I live in the kingdom of Yahuwah and I am annointed with the Set-Apart Spirit so my native language is the Set-Apart Scriptures/tongues." Baptizo is a scriptural idea not a merely a greek word: to plunge; to merse; to merge; to be watered with the Spirit of Truth from above by Yahuwah. Noah didn't get wet did he when the world was baptised!
Just for the record I know many Australians who live IN Australia and whose native tongue is "idiot" and I too speak that fluently!
bless you brother!
Rick
*************************
If I have to be like him who is going to be like me?
James 1:25 The Perfect Law of Liberty |
| BatKol |
Posted - 11 Aug 2006 : 15:35:03
The author of the response has also informed me you can find the analysis of the word 'baptizo' at the following links :
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/morphindex?lookup=baptizo%5E&.submit=Analyze+Form&searchText=&lang=greek&formentry=1
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3D%2319319
|
| BatKol |
Posted - 11 Aug 2006 : 09:55:00
Greetings brother Rick,
Here is a response I got to your question concerning Baptism:
Dear Sir,
Concerning your request I can tell you that the analysis of Dr.Adams is false.
Let me explain: the greek verb that is used in the bible is 'baptizo" .
The very meaning of greek verb 'baptizo" is: "to dip in or under water", so there is no need to use any preposition in order to define the immersion. The word "baptizo" by itself has the meaning of immersion into a liquid.
The proper English translation of the Greek word "baptizo" is "to immerse".
I know this, because I live in Greece and my native language is Greek.
I understand that Dr. Adams is completely wrong and his analysis has no ground at all !
Regards,
L. Padopoulos |
| BatKol |
Posted - 09 Aug 2006 : 17:08:12
oneisraelite said:
quote:
They [the Zealots] refused to recognize any human authority, and adopted as a watchword, “No Lord but Jehovah; no tax but that of the Temple; no friend but the Zealots.” – Rev. T.F. Wright, Ph.D.
We put forth that no Zealot would bind himself to a leader who did recognize human authority (authorship).
That's correct concerning Zealots. But you don't do your contextual homework. Christ did not come from a Zealot family seeing as Joseph and Mary are shown going to pay TAXES to in Luke 2:1.
1 In those days a decree went out from Caesar Augustus 2 that the whole world should be enrolled. 2 This was the first enrollment, when Quirinius was governor of Syria. 3 So all went to be enrolled, each to his own town. 4 And Joseph too went up from Galilee from the town of Nazareth to Judea, to the city of David that is called Bethlehem, because he was of the house and family of David, 5 to be enrolled with Mary, his betrothed, who was with child.
quote:
The Galileans taught that all foreign control was unscriptural, and they would neither acknowledge nor pray for foreign princes. – Rev. T.F. Wright, Ph.D.
Well, we see Joseph and Mary went up from Galilee to be enrolled with the GOVT for TAX purposes.
quote:
We put forth that a fellowcitizen of the commonwealth of Yisar'el would not be obedient to a foreign conqueror.
You are wrong. Paul proves you wrong. Also, Christ was found not guilty of the trumped up 'sedition' claims made against him by the Jews. Christ did not preach Zealot doctrines and if he had Pilate would have easily been able to prove this seeing as how much open preaching Christ had done. The Olivet discourse is about as a 180 from Zealot doctrine as you can get. No wonder the Jews did not like Christ. Also, the very war cry of the Zealot does not apply to Christ. He had many friends who were not Zealots so forget applying the , "no friend but the Zealot" to His teachings.
quote:
…these all do contrary to the decrees of Caesar, saying that there is another king…
Again you quote the Jews who sought to frame Christ. Why cherish this verse so much? Read the context and you can see that this statement comes from Christ' enemies! If these bogus claims were true then Pilate would easily have found Christ guilty of sedition. Pilate said point blank that after examining Christ he found Him not guilty of those very charges the Jews made. Why do you keep promoting the same lies about Christ that the Jews did? I still can't understand why you would adopt the Jew's trumped up arguments given the fact that they tried to frame Christ with them???  |
| BatKol |
Posted - 07 Aug 2006 : 09:17:05
The question of how Paul can have both dual citizenship in the Kingdom of Heaven and the ROMAN EMPIRE can be answered by looking at scripture.
Firstly, it must be understood that the Most High and Christ hold supreme authority over all rulers. Nothing is out of His control.
Colossians 1:15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16 For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him. 17 He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.
Psa 103:19 The LORD hath prepared his throne in the heavens; and his kingdom ruleth over all.
Rom 13:1 ¶ Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.
Jhn 19:11 Jesus answered (Pilate) , Thou couldest have no power [at all] against me, except it were given thee from above: therefore he that delivered me unto thee hath the greater sin.
So these verses are quite clear who is in total control. Paul clearly understood this and was able to put his Citizenship of Heaven first. This proper arranging of his priorities enabled him to maintain his Heavenly Citizenship without conflict to his EMPIRE CITIZENSHIP. After all, God rules over all, there is no power but that which is not ordained by God and by Christ all things were created.
What does Paul say about the Kingdom of God?
Rom 14:17 for the kingdom of God is not eating and drinking, but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit.
Rom 14:18 For he that herein serveth Christ is well-pleasing to God, and approved of men.
Paul was able to put the precepts in proper order of the Kingdom of God which is righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit. Obviously these precepts did not conflict with his CITIZENSHIP in the EMPIRE. In fact, what does Paul say in COURT about his conduct?
Act 25:8 While he answered for himself, Neither against the law of the Jews, neither against the temple, nor yet against Caesar, have I offended any thing at all. |
|
|
