| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| BatKol |
Posted - 19 May 2004 : 08:46:15
Greetings,
I have a topic concerning Biblical Covenants. When the Abrahmic Covenant was passed on to Isaac and then on to Jacob, what effect did this passing have on the continuing seed of Abraham and Isaac thereafter? From what I can tell, the bloodline of Abraham would still be able to enjoy the promises given to their families even after the bloodline of Isaac and Jacob was added into the equation. If so, all of Abraham's offspring would still have Covenant promises that did not have any of the numerous "if" stipulations that are through out the Sinai Covenant. As I read the promises given at each step by YHWH, it seems He requires nothing in return from the recipients whereas when we come to the Sinai Covenant there are many 'if's' stipulated in the 'fine print'.
Peace,
Steve
"I am YHWH, and there is no other; apart from me there is no Elohim."
(Isa 45:5, Deut 4:35 1 King 8:60, Isa 45:18, Isa 45:14, Isa 46:9) |
| 20 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| BatKol |
Posted - 26 Jun 2005 : 06:48:00
quote:
Robert-James said: shall we consider the Gaul's to be of the LOST house of Israel- ten tribes?... Who were divorced, though Paul {Benyamin} and Yudah were still of the circumcison? It will all start to make sense then.
Seven months later.... still.... a huge, resounding NO! I have so much more to back up my reply than when this topic was originally being discussed. |
| BatKol |
Posted - 21 Jan 2005 : 12:15:09
For those who go the route that Yahoshua, Jesus, or (insert favorite name version here) was YHWH in the flesh, here is a good verse that sums up that YHWH creates not only all governments but all things.
Col 1:16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: 17 And he is before all things, and by him all things consist. |
| BatKol |
Posted - 02 Jan 2005 : 20:18:23
brother Robert,
Peace to you and the family.
When did this scripture get fulfilled?
Dan 11:45 And he (4th kingdom king) shall plant the tabernacles of his palace between the seas in the glorious holy mountain; yet he shall come to his end, and none shall help him.
Last I checked this verse was still going strong:
Dan 11:39 And he hath dealt in the fortresses of the strongholds with a strange god whom he hath acknowledged; he multiplieth honour, and hath caused them to rule over many, and the ground he apportioneth at a price.
Peace,
Steve
|
| Oneisraelite |
Posted - 02 Jan 2005 : 19:02:06
Greetings Steven:
Peace be unto the house.
quote:
...no freedom until the 4th kingdom is destroyed. Like I have been saying all along, this what we get until Daniel 12:1. There's the end to it.
As we knew that this would be your answer and to that we let Scripture respond for us.
(113) His disciples said to him, “When will the Kingdom come?” Yahu’shua said, “It will not come by waiting for it. It will not be a matter of saying ‘Here it is’ or ‘There it is.’ Rather, the Kingdom of the Father is spread out upon the earth, and men do not see it.”
fellowcitizen of the commonwealth of Yisra'el, NOT the STATE OF ISRAEL. |
| BatKol |
Posted - 02 Jan 2005 : 12:59:18
quote:
brother Robert said: Greetings and salutations in the name of the King, brother Steven:
Peace be unto the house.
Peace to you all.
quote:
brother Robert said concerning FRN’s: As I said in the beginning, I see no end to it.
LOL… As soon as I posted my comments I had a feeling you would respond with something like this! Given your assessment you might agree there is no freedom until the 4th kingdom is destroyed. Like I have been saying all along, this what we get until Daniel 12:1. There's the end to it.
quote:
brother Robert: Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it…
I don't read that as meaning to circulate FICTIONAL SCRIP. FICTION is FICTION. If participating in FICTION is sin, then would not all FICTION be sin? That's what I am getting at.
quote:
brother Robert: Even the gold and silver coins were deceitful weights and measures, for it seems that the king’s treasury keepers were instructed to shave the coins [inflation], which is why virtually all the ancient coins found are out of round and have scalloped edges. Hence, we would have to weigh and assay, with "perfect" equipment, each and every coin proffered to us to be certain of their purity and weight so as to ensure that they were not deceitful weights and measures.
Steve: I would highly recommend checking the weight of any gold or silver seeing as the king’s treasury would be up to no good as you have pointed out. I don't know anybody who likes to get shorted.... so it's user beware.
quote:
brother Robert: Or was it the "intent to deceive" that Yahowah was against? The manufacturers of FRN's are certainly guilty of this, but the end users?
Steve: If we end users are taking advantage of their SCHEME instead of refusing them, then we benefit from the FRN and the CORPS and pay their tax. Plain and simple. You and I both know the how’s and why’s of FRN although we don’t agree on the seriousness of it. If the whole idea is to come out of Babylon and not want even a shoe lace from them, then it does just not make any sense to get rid of many attachments, yet still depend on Babylon’s CORPS and FRN’s.. seeing as those items are cornerstones of what Babylon is built upon. We can agree to disagree but I can’t see how someone can be ‘out of the system’ yet still use the system.
quote:
Brother Robert:Steven, concerning the accusation: "You use FRN's!"
Steve: I accuse myself first and foremost. You know this.
quote:
brother Robert: in fact, I surmise, the more they are used, the faster they may collapse under the preponderance of their own [deceitful] weights and measures. By putting off the price that must, and will, be paid for this deceit, when it finally comes, it will be more than the economy can bear!
Steve: Actually, the more they are used, the better the economy, the more TAX is generated. The FICTION continues if we continue it. If the FRN does not get circulated the economy suffers and they get less tax.
quote:
brother Robert quotes: And the merchants of the earth shall weep and mourn over her…weeping and wailing, saying, Alas, alas, that great city, wherein were made rich all that had ships in the sea by reason of her costliness! for in one hour is she made desolate.
Steve: Enter Daniel 12:1... And then the people are free.
Peace,
Steve |
| Oneisraelite |
Posted - 02 Jan 2005 : 06:23:33
Greetings and salutations in the name of the King, brother Steven:
Peace be unto the house.
Yahowah willing, I will answer your other post, but it may be some time, as I am currently working on the "stranger issue" with brother Marty on another thread, and it is a long convoluted trail following and understanding the seven [perhaps not eight] words translated stranger(s) in the Scripture.
As far as the turkey being non-GMO, who can say, they eat the corn that the farmers put out for their cattle, which is virtually all GMO. And as to it being tax-free, FRN-free, I see no end to that discussion. That turkey cannot be called tax-free or FRN-free since we do not yet have our own smelting factory for ore extraction of the iron to make the steel used in the shotgun barrel, so I purchased one with FRN's at sixteen or so years old, and I presume it had sales tax [though it may not have]. We do not yet have mining operations for the lead in the pellets and the brass for the casing, nor do we yet manufacture our own plastic, paper or gun powder, in fact, believe it or not, we do not even have a munitions factory, so we must regretfully admit that the shell used to bring him down to our table was also purchased with FRN's at K-Mart [if memory serves me correctly], which probably wouldn't take gold "nuggets", which we don't have anyway, ‘cause as I have stated, we haven't any mining operations yet. We couldn't use any gold coins or gold bars 'cause the irony of that is, that those too would have to have been purchased with FRN's from a factory purchased with and run by FRN's, so what would be the point in converting them; and not even one of the farmers we do work for seems to have pure gold and silver "nuggets" with which to pay us for our labour. What’s the difference, converting FRN’s into food, clothing and shelter, or converting them into gold? None that we can see, except that one is merely for living, while the other may be for greed purposes, not believing Yahowah when He says that they will cast their gold and silver into the streets. Of course then there's the clothing, the gloves, the boots etc. we were wearing while hunting...all manufactured and purchased with FRN's, with sales tax included. Even if we bartered for all of the above, it would still be FRN produced, FRN purchased and taxed, who knows how many times, before we received it? Perhaps next time we should go naked with clubs or hand-made bows and arrows not cut, of course, with axe or saw, nor whittled with a store-bought knife, which would all have to be purchased with the dreaded FRN’s…but even then…we have the earth shattering dilemma that the people have “purchased” all the land we hunt on, with FRN’s, and no doubt, pay property taxes on same, so I suppose we might still be found guilty by some judges of breaking the 11th commandment, Thou shalt not use FRN’s, for eating this turkey, which is probably not non-GMO, and is obviously not tax-free or FRN-free! As I said in the beginning, I see no end to it.
Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it…
Even the gold and silver coins were deceitful weights and measures, for it seems that the king’s treasury keepers were instructed to shave the coins [inflation], which is why virtually all the ancient coins found are out of round and have scalloped edges. Hence, we would have to weigh and assay, with "perfect" equipment, each and every coin proffered to us to be certain of their purity and weight so as to ensure that they were not deceitful weights and measures. Or was it the "intent to deceive" that Yahowah was against? The manufacturers of FRN's are certainly guilty of this, but the end users? Most either do not know, or do not believe they are, even when we tell them. We are still looking for the verse that says, "and ye shall mint all your own monies" and will let everyone know when we have found it.
All we can do now, Steven, concerning the accusation: "You use FRN's!", is throw ourselves on the mercy of His Court and say, "It was never our intent to deceive any one with them and we did not use them for greed purposes, but if it be a crime to try to survive the only way we know how, livng in the midst of, but not part of, a foreign jurisdiction, we plead "guilty, guilty, guilty", to that charge. May Yahowah, who is our only Judge, Lawgiver and Supreme Suveran, have mercy on us." And to all others who would say that we are guilty of High Treason against our King for using them, we say, "Let him who is without sin, cast the first stone." [And we would expect you to say the same to any of your would-be accusers.]
Those debt-based monetary systems have always self-destructed [look at Germany for a prime example] and nothing we think, do or say will halt their built-on-sand-ledger-entry-only-demise, in fact, I surmise, the more they are used, the faster they may collapse under the preponderance of their own [deceitful] weights and measures. By putting off the price that must, and will, be paid for this deceit, when it finally comes, it will be more than the economy can bear!
And the merchants of the earth shall weep and mourn over her…weeping and wailing, saying, Alas, alas, that great city, wherein were made rich all that had ships in the sea by reason of her costliness! for in one hour is she made desolate.
fellowcitizen of the commonwealth of Yisra'el, NOT the STATE OF ISRAEL. |
| BatKol |
Posted - 01 Jan 2005 : 16:43:48
Greetings! I will be doing the same. We are all trying to figure this mystery out and sometimes the computer gets in the way of the feeling. Never any hard ones between us, regardless of our working through these topics. Enjoy that TAX/FRN free , non-GMO, blessed turkey!
Peace,
Steve |
| Oneisraelite |
Posted - 01 Jan 2005 : 09:12:27
Good morning, Steven:
Peace be unto the house.
We greatfully accept your offer of peace and as requested will also watch the words that come out of our own "fingertips". Thank you for the gentle admonishment.
- brother Robert:
fellowcitizen of the commonwealth of Yisra'el, NOT the STATE OF ISRAEL. |
| BatKol |
Posted - 01 Jan 2005 : 08:59:33
Greetings and salutations in the name of the King, brothers and sisters:
Peace be unto the house.
And peace to you as well.
quote:
brother Robert said: Steven you, indeed, make a strong argument for your side of this issue. Brother Marty and I have kicked this one around a bit as well.
I am glad to discuss it in detail here.
quote:
A gentle warning, dear friend, do not ever ass-u-me that others “are not getting the big picture” or that they “are not understanding a key element”, when just perhaps it may be you that these words fit. My daddy use to say every time you point one finger at someone else, three are pointed right back at you. I will not portray you as ignorant if you do not depict me as ignorant, fair enough?
Fair indeed. Let me take this opportunity to give you a gentile warning as well my dear friend. Before you call me slippery you best check yourself. As you yourself say. One finger pointing at me is three pointing back at yourself. BTW, ignorant is not a bad thing. All of us have or are guilty of this and it can be cured. Stupid, however, cannot…. and I would never be ‘stupid’ enough to EVER attach that word to anybody on this board. So let’s put this aside and take a look at Daniel’s words. So I offer you peace. We are heading into 'fragile' waters so let's proceed on this topic with caution, lest we devour each other.
quote:
quote by Steve:
brother Robert what do you make of this?
"the most High ruleth in the kingdom of men, and giveth it to whomsoever he will."
brother Robert: Here is what I have to say about that:
Dani’el 4:17 …the most High ruleth in the kingdom of men, and giveth it to whomsoever he will, and setteth up over it the basest [H8215] of men.
H8215
shephal
BDB Definition:
1) low, lowliest (of station)
Webster's 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language
BASE, a.
1. Low in place. Obs.
2. Mean; vile; worthless; that is, low in value or estimation; used of things.
3. Of low station; of mean account; without rank, dignity or estimation among men; used of persons. The base shall behave proudly against the honorable. Isa 3.
4. Of mean spirit; disingenuous; illiberal; low; without dignity of sentiment; as a base and abject multitude.
Generally speaking, I think that it meant “humblest” in the verse we have posted, which, to the best of our knowledge, cannot be said of any of the earthly leaders of today. But, taking into consideration the meaning we find from Noah Webster we perhaps see another side to it. We'll get back to these definitions of "base" in a moment.
Now we ask who is this “most High, that rules in the kingdom of men"? Or to rephrase the question, "who is the prince of the world"?
Let’s not rephrase it but instead look to see how the “most High” is used in the context of Daniel to identify who this phrase is talking to and can it apply to that who is known as ‘the prince of the world” in the NT. I will demonstrate below that the most High in the book of Daniel is 180 degrees from the prince of the world character in the NT.
Dan 3:26 Then 0116 Nebuchadnezzar 05020 came near 07127 to the mouth 08651 of the burning 03345 fiery 05135 furnace 0861, [and] spake 06032 , and said 0560 , Shadrach 07715, Meshach 04336, and Abednego 05665, ye servants 05649 of the most high 05943 God 0426, come forth 05312 , and come 0858 [hither]. Then 0116 Shadrach 07715, Meshach 04336, and Abednego 05665, came forth 05312 of 04481 the midst 01459 of the fire 05135.
Daniel and his brothers were well known through out the kingdom as men faithful to the Elohim of their forefathers. Upon entering Babylon they strait away refused to break Torah and eat the king’s food. For this act Elohim granted Daniel and his three brothers favor and mercy. Nebuchanezzar recognized that Daniel and the three brothers were ten times better than all of the necromancers and astrologers that were in his entire kingdom. Their faithfulness was well known. Now we see Nebbuchadnezzar recognizing them as servants of the most High Elohim (not small g) because Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego were saved from the fire. If they were worshiping Heylel, surely they would have been burned up.
Dan 4:2 I thought 06925 it good 08232 to shew 02324 the signs 0852 and wonders 08540 that the high 05943 God 0426 hath wrought 05648 toward 05974 me.
If we try to connect `illay with Heylel then we have Daniel getting his revelation from the Devil. Given the story line up to this point, the most High being the Devil does not compute.
Dan 7:25 And he shall speak 04449 [great] words 04406 against 06655 the most High 05943, and shall wear out 01080 the saints 06922 of the most High 05946, and think 05452 to change 08133 times 02166 and laws 01882: and they shall be given 03052 into his hand 03028 until 05705 a time 05732 and times 05732 and the dividing 06387 of time 05732.
This verse really gives detail to who the Most High is including the saints of the Most High as well. Surely this cannot be speaking about Heylel and his saints.
quote:
Yahu’hanan [John] 14:30 Hereafter I will not talk much with you: for the prince [archon, first (in rank or power), i.e. "most high"] of this world ["in the kingdom of men"] cometh, and hath nothing in me.
Luke 4:6 And the devil [the traducer, i.e. false “accuser”] said unto him, All this power will I give thee, and the glory of them: for that is delivered unto me; and to whomsoever I will I give it.
Where have we heard that phrase before, ah yes, “and giveth it to whomsoever he will”; Dani’el 4:17! Why did Yahowshua not deny this?
ACCU'SER, n. One who accuses or blames; an officer who prefers an accusation against another for some offense, in the name of the government, before a tribunal that has cognizance of the offense. – Webster’s 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language
Now let us take a look at the word which was translated “most High” in Dani’el 4:17; it is the word ‘illay, which comes from the word ’illiy, which in turn comes from ‘alah.
What is wrong with describing Elohim as most upper or most ascending? There is none Higher than the Elohim of Daniel so this would be a perfect fit. Describing YHWH as the most High is a common thread through out scripture as I am sure you know. Now it is being done in Aramaic in Daniel. I can't see how this could be a problem given the context in how the term is used in the text.
quote:
This word ’illay is never used anywhere else in the Scripture except Dani’el, chapters four through seven and is not ever seen again in the remaining five chapters; ’illiy is used twice, once in Yahowshua [Joshua] 15:19 and Judges 1:15, but not in reference to Yahowah; and ’alah is used eight hundred and ninety times…and not once is it used in the context in which we see it in this verse from Dani’el.
Remember that a good part of Daniel was written in Aramaic so there is good reason you will not see that word used elsewhere. What needs to be kept in mind is that the word is describing Elohim. Most High. The very highest.
quote:
We do however see it in these verses of the Set-Apart Scripture:
Yasha’yahu [Isaiah] 14:13 For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend [‘alah] into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of Yahowah: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north: I will ascend [‘alah] above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High [‘elyon].
But we also see that same word being used here:
Gen 35:13 And God 0430 went up [‘alah] 05927 from him in the place 04725 where he talked 01696 with him.
Also note that even Heylel recognized YHWH as being the most High. I will be “Like” the Most high. Again, most High is used all through out scripture as a title to YHWH. We must look to the context to see if the most High spoken of in Daniel is the same as Heylel. I have demonstrated from the context that that would be impossible… especially in light of Daniel 7:25 which speaks of the most High and his saints.
quote:
Read the first eight chapters of the book of Dani’el, then imagine if what we are speculating on here is correct, what you, the reader, would feel if you found out that the “most high” that was helping you was not Yahowah, but Yahowah’s mortal enemy, His alter-ego if you will. Would you too not faint and be sick for days? I have often wondered why the name of Yahowah does not show up until the ninth book of Dani’el; perhaps this is why?
I believe the 'why' is speaking about the whole of the exile. The exile is what the visions of Daniel explain. Also, I would point you to the verses I listed above. You would have Heylel bringing salvation to Shadrach, Meshach, Abednego. You would have Heylel being the most High in Daniel 7:25. Respectfully, this makes no sense.
quote:
The rub is, dear Steven, it is not what we proclaim with our lips [lip service]…it is what we do. Show me your faith without works, and I will show you my faith by my works. “A man created for evil probably will not be pondering this, unless YHWH has it written in his script and he has an awakening and 'repents'.”
Here we go into the definition of works. Remembering the poor, helping widows and orphans, giving charity etc. are considered works to some, while it is considered lowly and ‘racking leaves’ to others (not you). Some think having no tag, etc is works and perhaps it is on a certain level. Let each be called in the order YHWH has scripted for them. But make no mistake. When we perform the act of circulating FRN’s and measure our labor with FRN’s and discharge them through the CORPS complete with a TAX for the service, all of that helps the SYSTEM, the ECONOMY, and the value of the FRN…we are all guilty of the same thing on that level. slave or Free
Peace to you on a fine morning,
Steve |
| Oneisraelite |
Posted - 31 Dec 2004 : 21:46:42
Greetings and salutations in the name of the King, brothers and sisters:
Peace be unto the house.
Steven, you indeed make a strong argument for your side of this issue. Brother Marty and I have kicked this one around a bit as well.
A gentle warning, dear friend, do not ever ass-u-me that others “are not getting the big picture” or that they “are not understanding a key element”, when just perhaps it may be you that these words fit. My daddy use to say every time you point one finger at someone else, three are pointed right back at you. I will not portray you as ignorant if you do not depict me as ignorant, fair enough? Now, let’s kiss and make up.
You ask:
quote:
brother Robert what do you make of this?
"the most High ruleth in the kingdom of men, and giveth it to whomsoever he will."
Here is what I have to say about that:
Dani’el 4:17 …the most High ruleth in the kingdom of men, and giveth it to whomsoever he will, and setteth up over it the basest [H8215] of men.
H8215
shephal
BDB Definition:
1) low, lowliest (of station)
Webster's 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language
BASE, a.
1. Low in place. Obs.
2. Mean; vile; worthless; that is, low in value or estimation; used of things.
3. Of low station; of mean account; without rank, dignity or estimation among men; used of persons. The base shall behave proudly against the honorable. Isa 3.
4. Of mean spirit; disingenuous; illiberal; low; without dignity of sentiment; as a base and abject multitude.
Generally speaking, I thought that it meant “humblest” in the verse we have posted, which, to the best of our knowledge, cannot be said of any of the earthly leaders of today. But, taking into consideration the meaning we find from Noah Webster we perhaps see another side to it. We'll get back to these definitions of "base" in a moment.
Now we ask who is this “most High, that rules in the kingdom of men"? Or to rephrase the question, "who is the prince of this world"?
Yahu’hanan [John] 14:30 Hereafter I will not talk much with you: for the prince [archon, first (in rank or power), i.e. "most high"] of this world ["in the kingdom of men"] cometh, and hath nothing in me.
Luke 4:6 And the devil [the traducer, i.e. false “accuser”] said unto him, All this power will I give thee, and the glory of them: for that is delivered unto me; and to whomsoever I will I give it.
Where have we heard that phrase before, ah yes, “and giveth it to whomsoever he will”; Dani’el 4:17! Why did Yahowshua not deny this?
ACCU'SER, n. One who accuses or blames; an officer who prefers an accusation against another for some offense, in the name of the government, before a tribunal that has cognizance of the offense. – Webster’s 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language
Now let us take a look at the word which was translated “most High” in Dani’el 4:17; it is the word ‘illay, which comes from the word ’illiy, which in turn comes from ‘alah. This word ’illay is never used anywhere else in the Scripture except Dani’el, chapters four through seven and is not ever seen again in the remaining five chapters; ’illiy is used twice, once in Yahowshua [Joshua] 15:19 and Judges 1:15, but not in reference to Yahowah; and ’alah is used eight hundred and ninety times…and not once is it used in the context in which we see it in this verse from Dani’el.
We do however see it in these verses of the Set-Apart Scripture:
Yasha’yahu [Isaiah] 14:13 For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend [‘alah] into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of Yahowah: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north: I will ascend [‘alah] above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High [‘elyon].
Could there be a correlation, since he [Heylel, erroneously known as Lucifer] was cut down to the earth and did overthrow [prostrate] the nations? If he prostrated [overthrew] the nations, is he now the one who rules as “most high in the kingdom of men", "the prince of this world"? Is this why he quoted, only slightly out of context, Dani’el 4:17 to Yahowshua, with no denial of his contentions from the Anointed One? If we are to emulate the Anointed One then it might be wise when he or his minions offer us benefits, privileges, and advantages to say to him or them what Yahowshua said to him: Get thee behind me, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship Yahowah thy ‘Elohiym, and him only shalt thou serve.
Perhaps Yahowah allowed the “basest” one he could find; the meanest, vilest (most depraved), most worthless, disingenuous (dishonest, deceitful, insincere), illiberal (parochial, proscriptive), one without dignity of sentiment (feeling), as head of the governments of men. Do not these words pretty much describe the majority of politicians in this country and perhaps even the world? Could it be as our beloved brother Gordon once stated, “People get the government they deserve?” Maybe Yahowah not only put this kind of “person” in authority over the governments of men but also gave him the delegated authority to give it to, “whomsoever I will” just exactly as we see it stated in Dani'el 4:17 and Luke 4:6.
It is written that Yahowah is the ‘Elohiym of the living…so who is the ‘elohiym of the dead?
Yasha’yahu [Isaiah] 14:15a Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell…
“Hell” in the above verse is the Hebrew word sheol, which means, “the world of the dead”. Does this help to explain why the governments of men only rule over “dead” things, like CORPORATIONS and PERSONS and such?
Ever wonder why Dani’el said:
Dani’el 8:27 And I Dani’el fainted, and was sick certain days; afterward I rose up, and did the king's business; and I was astonished at the vision, but none understood it.
Read the first eight chapters of the book of Dani’el, then imagine, if what we are speculating on here is correct, what you, the reader, would feel if you found out that the “most high” that was helping you was not Yahowah, but Yahowah’s mortal enemy, His alter-ego if you will. Would you too not faint and be sick for days? I have often wondered why the name of Yahowah does not show up until the ninth book of Dani’el; perhaps this is why?
What will it take to get people to come to the “wedding”, to come to Yahowah’s government, a government whose constitution is the perfect Law of liberty? Yahowah told his servant to “distress” (anagkazo; necessitate [by imposed circumstances]) them so that they would come to the wedding. Could it be that the governments of men, headed by Heylel ([the]Irrational [one]], that are the “imposed circumstances” which will bring people to the “wedding”?
But what think ye? A certain man had two sons; and he came to the first, and said, Son, go work to day in my vineyard.
He answered and said, I will not: but afterward he repented, and went.
And he came to the second, and said likewise. And he answered and said, I go, sir: and went not.
Whether of them twain did the will of his father? They say unto him, The first. Yahowshua saith unto them, Verily I say unto you, That the publicans and the harlots go into the kingdom of Yahowah before you.
The rub is, dear Steven, it is not what we proclaim with our lips [lip service]…it is what we do. Show me your faith without works, and I will show you my faith by my works. “A man created for evil probably will not be pondering this, unless YHWH has it written in his script and he has an awakening and 'repents'.”
fellowcitizen of the commonwealth of Yisra'el, NOT the STATE OF ISRAEL. |
| Oneisraelite |
Posted - 31 Dec 2004 : 19:48:51
Greetings Steven and brothers and sisters:
Just a quick note to let you know that Robert has been working on your reply of such a sensitive and important matter, since yesterday evening. We just didn't want you to think that you were being ignored. He and brother Kevin took a break this afternoon to go hunting. Yah has seen fit to provide us with a 10 lb wild turkey for food. He will be posting his reply soon, Yahweh willing. Hope all are well and happy. Tell the children we all said to say "Praise Yahweh"! We miss hearing them say that. Have a wonderful evening, sister Kathleen
fellowcitizen of the commonwealth of Yisra'el, NOT the STATE OF ISRAEL. |
| BatKol |
Posted - 31 Dec 2004 : 13:33:20
Thanks for the kind words Marty. We are hitting on some deep topics, no doubt, so we might not agree on everything... and that's OK. I am also not saying that "I" have everything figured out either. No way. I just see what I see and reason the best I can. I am just happy to have these conversations in a peacefull and productive manner. That is a joy to me seeing as these issue can get real personal. So I thanks everybody for this alone!
Peace to all,
Steve |
| Cornerstone Foundation |
Posted - 31 Dec 2004 : 12:47:41
quote:
Originally posted by BatKol
Steve: You are not understanding a key element. YHWH creates some vessels for honor and some for dishonor.
He creates the evil man for his day.... and yes He does cause some to break His commandments.
I don't have the exact scripture right this second but I have it somewhere where it is written YHWH causes the Israelites to break "My commandments" just as He puts lies in some of the prophet's mouths to deceive./
brother Robert: By your reckoning, if we are not mistaken, Yahowah delivered him unto Pontius Pilate, and thus “hath the greater sin”, since by your reasoning; Judas Iscariot had no choice in the matter.
Steve: Correct. The evil man was made for the day of evil to fulfill YHWH's plan. Both Pilate and Judas were scripted for their parts.
brother Robert said: The "good tidings" in all of this is that if you are correct, then none of us is guilty of anything because, an act done by me against my will, is not my act, which only makes sense. GOD made me do it, according to Steven, ought to always be our plea!
Steve: NO. The response should be "not my will, but thy will". Here's the rub. If one is even awake enough to even proclaim this, then YHWH is moving one closer to Himself for some express purpose. Perhaps a higher calling in His mission.
A man created for evil probably will not be pondering this, unless YHWH has it written in his script and he has an awakening and 'repents'.
Paul would be a good example here. What happens to the evil man after his purpose is done? The grave and no after life. Think of it like tossing away a spent tool after it's purpose was fulfilled and it's usefulness has run it's course. YHWH will do his good pleasure.
By the grace of YHWH some are chosen not to be evil and blessed with good service. For those who are chosen for evil, as it were, they were never selected for a good roll in His script. When YHWH says I make the evil man for his day, do you think that man has a choice? Can the clay pot say to the potter, "why have you made me thus"? YHWH does the choosing in context to the big picture.
YHWH will never make you go against your will, but He will make you willing to go. See the paradox?
Proverbs 16:4 - YHWH hath made every things for His own purpose, yea, even the wicked for the day of evil.
Daniel..."the most High ruleth in the kingdom of men, and giveth it to whomsoever he will."
Peace to you,
Steve
Cornerstone Foundation wrote:
Steven,
We perceive that you have pointed out some important aspects of Yahweh's will and way in your quotes above.
This shows maturity and a willingness on your part to be (at least at times) what we call an honest thinker. We appreciate that.
We encourage you and us to be, at all times, honest thinkers.
We are not certain, at this point that we agree with everything, exactly as you have stated it, but neither are we certain that we disagree.
Thank you both Steven and Brother Robert for your discussion of these matters.
Marty |
| BatKol |
Posted - 31 Dec 2004 : 10:07:47
Good morning dear friend:
quote:
brother Robert says: You are as slippery as an eel, my friend!
Steve: LOL. This is because you are not getting the big picture. BTW, what about you 'slipping away' from the request to answer my questions after answering your questions? However I will address, once again, your statements expecting you to no longer avoid mine. That's more than fair.
quote:
You said: Yahowah “caused them to do this”? That's your answer???? Then Yahowah ought to punish Himself for their behavior, not them!!
Steve: You are not understanding a key element. YHWH creates some vessels for honor and some for dishonor. He creates the evil man for his day.... and yes He does cause some to break His commandments. I don't have the exact scripture right this second but I have it somewhere where it is written YHWH causes the Israelites to break "My commandments" just as He puts lies in some of the prophet's mouths to deceive.
quote:
brother Robert: By your reckoning, if we are not mistaken, Yahowah delivered him unto Pontius Pilate, and thus “hath the greater sin”, since by your reasoning; Judas Iscariot had no choice in the matter.
Steve: Correct. The evil man was made for the day of evil to fulfill YHWH's plan. Both Pilate and Judas were scripted for their parts.
quote:
brother Robert said: The "good tidings" in all of this is that if you are correct, then none of us is guilty of anything because, an act done by me against my will, is not my act, which only makes sense. GOD made me do it, according to Steven, ought to always be our plea!
Steve: NO. The response should be "not my will, but thy will". Here's the rub. If one is even awake enough to even proclaim this, then YHWH is moving one closer to Himself for some express purpose. Perhaps a higher calling in His mission. A man created for evil probably will not be pondering this, unless YHWH has it written in his script and he has an awakening and 'repents'. Paul would be a good example here. What happens to the evil man after his purpose is done? The grave and no after life. Think of it like tossing away a spent tool after it's purpose was fulfilled and it's usefulness has run it's course. YHWH will do his good pleasure.
By the grace of YHWH some are chosen not to be evil and blessed with good service. For those who are chosen for evil, as it were, they were never selected for a good roll in His script. When YHWH says I make the evil man for his day, do you think that man has a choice? Can the clay pot say to the potter, "why have you made me thus"? YHWH does the choosing in context to the big picture. YHWH will never make you go against your will, but He will make you willing to go. See the paradox?
NOW, here's some for you:
Proverbs 16:4 - YHWH hath made every things for His own purpose, yea, even the wicked for the day of evil.
brother Robert what do you make of this?
"the most High ruleth in the kingdom of men, and giveth it to whomsoever he will."
brother Robert, what does Daniel mean by this?
Here's one I have put to you many times and you have NEVER responded to it. I'd like your words on this:
If people are evil it is because YHWH has decreed to make them evil (Rom 1:24-28) and caused them to not believe in him (Rom 11:32). If they do not understand YHWH's message it is because He has blocked their understanding (Rom 11:8) and caused them to be stubborn (Rom 9:18). YHWH prevents the Plan from being preached in certain regions (Act 16:6-7) and He decides well before it will happen when someone will be born and when he or she will die (Act 17:26, Isaiah 46:9-10). Those who were going to be saved were chosen by YHWH before the beginning of time (2 Tim 1:9, Eph 1:11, Isaiah 46:9-10). If someone has faith and is thereby saved, their faith comes from YHWH, not from any works on their part (Eph 2:9-10). However, one may present the question. "If one can only do what YHWH predetermines them to do, how can He hold them responsible for their actions?" Still another question remains, "If this is so, how can YHWH find fault with anyone? For who can go against His decree?" First ask yourself this question: Who am I to answer YHWH back? Paul deals with this point blank: A clay pot does not ask the man who made it: "Why did you make me so?" After all, the One who makes the pot has the right to use the clay as he wishes, and to make two pots from one lump of clay, one for special occasions and one for ordinary use. And the same is true of what YHWH has done (Rom 9:15-22).
Peace to you,
Steve
|
| Oneisraelite |
Posted - 31 Dec 2004 : 08:09:05
Greetings Steven:
Peace be unto the house.
You are as slippery as an eel, my friend!
quote:
This was spoken to the Northen Kingdoms who did not follow the Torah government outline. YHWH caused them to do this. There is NO power but of Elohim.[Emphasis added]
Yahowah “caused them to do this”? That's your answer???? Then Yahowah ought to punish Himself for their behaviour, not them!!
Hosea 8:4 (KJV) They have set up kings, but not by me: they have made princes, and I knew it not [I recognize it not].
(HNV) They have set up kings, but not by me. They have made princes, and I didn't approve.
If He “caused them to do this", as you say, then why on earth does He say that it is “not by me” and “I didn’t approve”? What part of "not by me", that is to say, I am not the cause of it, are we having trouble with?
Some might say that because what you say and what I say seem opposite that the Set-Apart Scripture contradicts itself. Not so, we say...
Act 14:16 Who in times past suffered [G1439] all nations to walk in their own ways.
G1439
eao
Thayer Definition:
1) to allow, permit, let
2) to allow one to do as he wishes, not to restrain, to let alone
3) to give up, let go, leave
Just because he suffered it, i.e. "did not hinder it", does not mean that He "set up [all] kings”. But it does mean that He could have stopped it at any time, as He has proved on many occasions, hence One might truthfully say, by Me kings reign.
Come let us reason together; how can we be held responsible, how can we be judged righteously if we have no free choice? If a married woman is raped against her will, is she guilty of adultery? Would that be just? This Maxim of Law says otherwise.
Actus me invito factus, non est meus actus. An act done by me against my will, is not my act.
We ought to obey Yahowah, rather than men, certainly suggest we have a choice in the matter. Choose you this day whom ye will serve, certainly suggests that we have a choice. Do that which is good, certainly suggests that we have a choice. If thou do evil, certainly suggests that we have a choice. Why go to the bother of giving men the Eternal Moral Law, Yahowah’s Ten Commandments, if they have no choice in whether to obey or not? Shall we go on? And on? And on? Logic should tell a sentient man that he cannot be held responsible for things he has done if he has no control over his actions. This is why a True insanity plea holds water. I mean, why have any laws at all, if we have no choice? This premise we are talking about seems so basic as to make this discussion absurd, in my humble opinion.
Yahu’hanan [John] 19:11 Yahowshua answered, 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.
By your reckoning, if we are not mistaken, Yahowah delivered him unto Pontius Pilate, and thus “hath the greater sin”, since by your reasoning; Judas Iscariot had no choice in the matter.
The "good tidings" in all of this is that if you are correct, then none of us is guilty of anything because, an act done by me against my will, is not my act, which only makes sense. GOD made me do it, according to Steven, ought to always be our plea!
fellowcitizen of the commonwealth of Yisra'el, NOT the STATE OF ISRAEL. |
| BatKol |
Posted - 30 Dec 2004 : 22:54:15
Greetings Marty,
Here is a good site: http://www.earlyjewishwritings.com/2esdras.html
I will be looking forward to discussing this with you. This has been a topic of study of mine for quite a while.
You said: The tribes of Israyl were scattered as the Scriptures often had stated they would be...but they were not lost and are not lost...at least not in the sense that we perceive you were using the word "lost".
Steve: I was mentioning "lost" because of our earlier posts which spoke about the Gospel of circumcision being targeted to the "lost" sheep of the house of Israel. Your point is taken but I might add that just because James, Peter and John addressed them does not mean the Anglo-Saxons descended from the Israelites. The bigger point I would like to make is, as you point out, these ten tribe members were known. Many were still in Jerusalem. There was no mystery as to who they were. Having said that the Anglo-Israel theory is at best 350 years old. There is no white history which even hints that we descended from the Israelites until then... and that's counting the bogus myths and poems made up by the early British Israel promoters which cannot be traced back past their own books. As the topic advances I will address these points in context as they come up.
You said: We are not certain that this can be proven conclusively...but the preponderance of evidence when it is gathered together tips the scale significantly, in our opinion ....Perhaps beyond a reasonable doubt.
Steve: I look forward to addressing each piece of evidence brought to the thread concerning this matter.
Kindest regards,
Steve |
| Cornerstone Foundation |
Posted - 30 Dec 2004 : 20:56:48
quote:
Originally posted by BatKol
[brown]Marty,
Thanks for responding.
Here are the problems: 2 Esdras was written in three parts from the 1st century to mid-2nd century A.D. with no original Greek or Hebrew to back it up. Our current version comes from “translations“. That’s not so much a problem for me, else I’d have no Bible at all to even discuss. However, here are serious historical inaccuracies. Esdras 3:1 records that "In the thirtieth year after the destruction of our city, I Salathiel, who am called Ezra, was in Babylon. ..." The problem with this verse is that thirty years after the destruction of Jerusalem in 585 B.C., Ezra had not yet been born and would not appear for another hundred years when he led a small remnant back in 458 B.C by the permission of Cyrus, the Persian king (also called Moshiach in Tanakh, BTW). You can see for yourself how this would be a serious problem when trying to cite 2 Esdras as any proof. Also in 2 Esdras 13 after the transport of the ten tribes to a distant land are described, we read in 13:46: "Then they dwelt there until the last times; and now, when they are about to come again, the Most High will stop the channels of the river again, so that they may be able to pass over." This verse indicates that the tribes were coming back soon in the time of Ezra. This conflicts with “identity“ theory which sees the ten tribes being lost and remaining in a distant land.. “Christian identity” is clear about the tribes NOT making a return back to the well defined desert “promised land“ spoken of widely in the Tanakh. If we were to take 2 Esdras seriously and forget the glaring historical error, then you would still have a major flaw in your theory seeing as the passage has them ready to return back to the desert,"and now".
Peace,
Steve
Cornerstone Foundation wrote:
Steven,
We don't currently have a copy of II Esdras available to us.
Do you or anyone in the Ecclesia know of a link where we can view it online to examine the context of the quotes you have made from II Esdras above.
Thank you for helping us with this.
Marty |
| Cornerstone Foundation |
Posted - 30 Dec 2004 : 20:51:46
quote:
Originally posted by BatKol
Marty,
Thanks for responding.
Here are the problems:.......
quote:
[Josephus'] writings contained in Book XI, Chapter V, of the Antiquities of the Jews, tell us the following:
"Wherefore, there are but two tribes in Asia and Europe subject to the Romans, while the ten tribes are beyond the Euphrates till now, and are an immense multitude and not to be estimated by numbers."
This does not prove the racial make up of anything and also shows that Josephus does not think the ten tribes are “lost“......
Peace,
Steve
Cornerstone Foundation wrote:
We agree that Josephus did not think the ten tribes were lost.
1. He knew where they were and that is why he wrote where they were. (Please see the quotation above.)
2. The Yahdaim (Judahites) quoted in Yahchanan(John) 7:35 knew where they were and that is why the said what they are quoted as saying.
3. Kepha (Peter) knew where they were and that is why he wrote what he did in I Peter 1:1.
4. Yaaqob(James) knew where they were and that is why he wrote what he did in Yaaqob 1:1.
5. Yahshua Messiah knew where they were and that is why he said what he did in Yahchanan(John)10:16.
Please review the discussion above in this topic concerning the Greek word diaspora and its application in the New Writings of Scripture.
The tribes of Israyl were scattered as the Scriptures often had stated they would be...but they were not lost and are not lost...at least not in the sense that we perceive you were using the word "lost".
They, in part, consist of the Anglo-Saxon, Scandanavian, Germanic, Celtic and kindred people.
You raise many issues each time you respond.
Some of them in our opinion are very pertinent and allude to "the rest of the story" which if Yahweh is willing we shall provide line upon line, line upon line, precept upon precept, precept upon precept, here a little...there a little to the extent that we have knowledge of it.
We are not certain that this can be proven conclusively...but the preponderance of evidence when it is gathered together tips the scale significantly, in our opinion ....Perhaps beyond a reasonable doubt.
Respectfully submitted,
Marty
|
| BatKol |
Posted - 30 Dec 2004 : 18:59:16
Marty,
Thanks for responding.
Here are the problems: 2 Esdras was written in three parts from the 1st century to mid-2nd century A.D. with no original Greek or Hebrew to back it up. Our current version comes from “translations“. That’s not so much a problem for me, else I’d have no Bible at all to even discuss. However, here are serious historical inaccuracies. Esdras 3:1 records that "In the thirtieth year after the destruction of our city, I Salathiel, who am called Ezra, was in Babylon. ..." The problem with this verse is that thirty years after the destruction of Jerusalem in 585 B.C., Ezra had not yet been born and would not appear for another hundred years when he led a small remnant back in 458 B.C by the permission of Cyrus, the Persian king (also called Moshiach in Tanakh, BTW). You can see for yourself how this would be a serious problem when trying to cite 2 Esdras as any proof. Also in 2 Esdras 13 after the transport of the ten tribes to a distant land are described, we read in 13:46: "Then they dwelt there until the last times; and now, when they are about to come again, the Most High will stop the channels of the river again, so that they may be able to pass over." This verse indicates that the tribes were coming back soon in the time of Ezra. This conflicts with “identity“ theory which sees the ten tribes being lost and remaining in a distant land.. “Christian identity” is clear about the tribes NOT making a return back to the well defined desert “promised land“ spoken of widely in the Tanakh. If we were to take 2 Esdras seriously and forget the glaring historical error, then you would still have a major flaw in your theory seeing as the passage has them ready to return back to the desert,"and now". There is no indication that the ten tribes were lost or that they became the Anglo-Saxons.
quote:
His writings contained in Book XI, Chapter V, of the Antiquities of the Jews, tell us the following:
"Wherefore, there are but two tribes in Asia and Europe subject to the Romans, while the ten tribes are beyond the Euphrates till now, and are an immense multitude and not to be estimated by numbers."”
This does not prove the racial make up of anything and also shows that Josephus does not think the ten tribes are “lost“. This is backed up by another statement made by Josephus, "So when Esdras had delivered these things to the priests, he gave to God, as the appointed sacrifices of the whole burnt offerings, twelve bulls on account of the common preservation of the people." Note the words "common preservation of the people."
Comperet is just filling in the blanks around one sentence and not looking to other statements made by Josephus which would be problematic for the identity theory.
Let's look at what we do have evidence for:
The history of the Celts and the archaeological fact that they were in Ireland hundreds of years before the destruction of the Northern Kingdom is just one example that disproves the Christian Identity yarn. Consider what we can prove with archaeology and DNA evidence: Our ancestors had already built Stonehenge over 1,000 years before there ever was an Israelite and we have evidence of our people farming and mining in Europe before even Abraham is said to have lived.. Even Victorian historians such as Houston Stuart Chamberlain viewed the Teutons, Celts and Slavs as branches of a northern European race. We have Northern European DNA evidence in Europe before there ever was such a thing as an Israelite preserved in the Tirolian Iceman found in the Alps estimated at 5,000 BCE.
Peace,
Steve
|
| Cornerstone Foundation |
Posted - 30 Dec 2004 : 16:18:50
quote:
Originally posted by BatKol
Cornerstone Foundation wrote:
Steve, Is it true that the statement by Josephus could mean anything other than what Josephus clearly states?
It is our understanding that Josephus is a highly regarded historian among both theological and secular scholars.
Josephus was addressing the issue of "what became of the 9 1/2 tribes of the Abraham/Isaac/Israyl line that were taken north at the time of the Assyrian Captivity."
"Taken North". Does he say where? Does he say how far? You need to give me more that just "taken north"..
Peace,
Steve
Cornerstone Foundation wrote:
quote:
II Kings 15:29 states:
During the reign of Pekah king of Israyl,Tiglath-Pileser, the king of Assyria, attacked and captured Iyon, Abel Beth Maacah, Yanoah, Kedesh, Hazor, Gilead, and the Galilee-all the land Naphtali-then took the inhabitantscaptive to Assyria.
quote:
II Kings 17 states....
at verses 5 & 6:
Then the king of Assyria invaded all the land, advanced on Samaria, and beseiged it for three years.
In the ninth year of Hoshea, the king of Assyria captured Samaria, and carried the inhabitants of Israyl away to Assyria. The king of Assyria settled them in Halah, by the Habor River in Gozan, and in the cities of the Medes.
quote:
II Kings 17:18 states...
Because of these sins, Yahweh's wrath burned against Israyl, and He removed them from His sight. Only the tribe of Yahdah(Judah) remained.
quote:
The footnote in the Geneva Scriptures for II Kings 17:18 states.....
No whole tribe remained but Yahdah, and they of Benyamin and Levi which remained and were counted with Yahdah.
quote:
II Kings 18:11 states....
The king of Assyria carried Israyl away captive to Assyria, and settled them in Halah, in Gozan by the Habor River, and in the cities of the Medes;...
quote:
The historian Josephus, who lived in the days of Yahshua Messiah's walk among men, tells us that the Israylites who had been carried away existed at that time in great number....
His writings contanined in Book XI, Chapter V, of the Antiquities of the Jews, tell us the following:
"Wherefore, there are but two tribes in Asia and Europe subject to the Romans, while the ten tribes are beyond the Euphrates till now, and are an immense multitude and not to be estimated by numbers."
Bertrand L. Comparet in his essay entitled THE CAMOUFLAGED NATION states that the [Israylites] were quote:
"deported and resettled around the southern end of the Caspian Sea by 715 B.C.
From this time on, [Canonical Scriptural] history does not trace the further progress of Israyl (by name), [the Apocrypha, however] in II Edras 13:40-45 traces their movements as far as ar-Sareth, valley of the Sereth river, which still bears that name in Romania."
Thank you for considering this.
Respectfully submitted,
Marty |
|
|
