| Author |
 Topic  |
|
BatKol
Advanced Member
USA
735 Posts |
 Posted - 23 Dec 2004 : 10:53:51
|
Hi Marty,
You said: Those are some very interesting observations...although we do find this problem with that scenerio:
The Torah contains:
1. Yahweh's Law, Statutes and Judgements which existed prior to the codification of the Mosaic Law at Mount Sinai.
2. Ordinances and perhaps others laws added at Mount Sinai when the Mosaic Law was codified.
Steve: No problem there. These Aryan Jebusites were already in Jerusalem well before the Israelites went to Egypt so they were not party to any of the Covenant after the Exodus. Nothing to do with them.
Marty: That portion of the Torah concerning circumcision appears to have existed prior to the codification of the Mosaic Law at Mount Sinai.
This can be verified at Genesis 17:9-14.
Therefore all of Abraham's descendants who are partakers of Abrahamic Covenant #2 described in Genesis 17 had a requirement for circumcision...not just Israylites...
Steve: Exactly! That's the point. I think this could be the very reason that the legalistic Judaisers were pushing circumcision on the Gauls. It was manditory for both Abrahamic and Israelite peoples. Now I also think they were pushing the rest of the Torah on the Gauls, but if I am correct in my theory, none of the post-Exodus Covenant would apply to them, hence the reason for Paul's speech in Galations. They had their 1st Covenant intact as long as they performed their side of the agreement: the second Abrahamic covenant; circumcision.
Marty: ...or could it be that only Abraham's descendants in the Isaac/Yaaqob-Israyl line are eligible to be partakers of Abrahamic Covenant #2?
Steve: Seeing as the Bible is mostly written from a Judaic perspective tha could be possible. We know that the Jews had problems with the presence of the Jebusites in Jerusalem ever since they tried to chase them out but failed....even unto this day. I am starting to see that perhaps this is why the Jews had a problem with Christ, not as a Moshiach ben David (which he cleary was not), but rather as a redeemer of Jerusalem to put an end to the temple cults' bloody practices... which is exactly what happened. I don't have all of the pieces to this puzzle by a long shot but I'm working on it!
Peace,
Steve |
 |
|
|
Cornerstone Foundation
Advanced Member
uSA
254 Posts |
Posted - 23 Dec 2004 : 13:07:09
|
quote:
Originally posted by BatKol
Steve: No problem there. These Aryan Jebusites were already in Jerusalem well before the Israelites went to Egypt so they were not party to any of the Covenant after the Exodus. Nothing to do with them.
Peace,
Steve
Steve:
We have several questions so that we will know if we are still on the same line of thought as you are in this discussion.
1. In your Batkol Post #490 of 12/18/20004 we understood you to indicate that you believe the brothers in Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia were Gauls. Is that your belief?
In your post of 12/23/2004 at 10:53:51 you are referring to Aryan Jebusites in Jerusalem.
2. Do you believe the Aryan Jebusites you refer to were the Judiazers that were criticizing Paul for the message he was preaching to the so-called "Gentiles"?
If the answer to questions #1 and #2 above is yes...
3. Then haven't we had a short-circuit in this discussion?
4. Shall we (a.)redefine the topic or shall we (b.)get back on the point we were on?
Perhaps we missed something and you can get us back on track.
Thank you for your help in this regard.
Marty |
|
|
|
Cornerstone Foundation
Advanced Member
uSA
254 Posts |
Posted - 23 Dec 2004 : 13:28:29
|
quote:
Originally posted by BatKol
Hi Marty,
You said: Those are some very interesting observations...although we do find this problem with that scenerio:
The Torah contains:
1. Yahweh's Law, Statutes and Judgements which existed prior to the codification of the Mosaic Law at Mount Sinai.
2. Ordinances and perhaps others laws added at Mount Sinai when the Mosaic Law was codified..........
Steve wrote: ......Now I also think they were pushing the rest of the Torah on the Gauls, but if I am correct in my theory, none of the post-Exodus Covenant would apply to them, hence the reason for Paul's speech in Galations.....
Peace,
Steve
Cornerstone Foundation wrote:
Steve,
We would regard the post-Exodus Covenant as being the Mosaic Law Covenant given to Moses by Yahweh at Mount Sinai and codified shorly thereafter.
As stated above...it is our understanding that the Mosaic Law Covenant included:
1. Yahweh's Law, Statutes and Judgements that existed long before the Mosaic Law Covenant was codified.
2. Additional ordinances and perhaps laws that were added at the time of the codification of the Mosaic Law Covenant at Mount Sinai.
Therefore we disagree with your statement that none of the post-Exodus covenant would apply to them.
Did you mean to state that none of the added ordinances and/or law in the post-Exodus covenant would apply to them?
Please clarify this for us.
Thank you,
Marty
|
|
|
|
Cornerstone Foundation
Advanced Member
uSA
254 Posts |
Posted - 23 Dec 2004 : 17:26:07
|
quote:
Originally posted by BatKol
Thanks for the info Marty. I will look into this more closely. I think one of the main differences between us as I am not seeing the ethnos as Israelites.
Here are some other versions Acts 21:24 - 25 which say the same thing:
KJV, KJV
Act 21:24 Them take, and purify thyself with them, and be at charges with them, that they may shave [their] heads: and all may know that those things, whereof they were informed concerning thee, are nothing; but [that] thou thyself also walkest orderly, and keepest the law.
25: As touching the Gentiles which believe, we have written [and] concluded that they observe no such thing, save only that they keep themselves from [things] offered to idols, and from blood, and from strangled, and from fornication.
NASB
Act 21:24 take them and purify yourself along with them, and pay their expenses so that they may shave their heads; and all will know that there is nothing to the things which they have been told about you, but that you yourself also walk orderly, keeping the Law.
Act 21:25 "But concerning the Gentiles who have believed, we wrote, having decided that they should abstain from meat sacrificed to idols and from blood and from what is strangled and from fornication."
Webster's
Act 21:24 Take them, and purify thyself with them, and be at charges with them, that they may shave [their] heads: and all may know that those things of which they were informed concerning thee, are nothing; but [that] thou thyself also walkest orderly, and keepest the law.
Act 21:25 As concerning the Gentiles who believe, we have written [and] concluded that they observe no such thing, save only that they keep themselves from [things] offered to idols, and from blood, and from strangled, and from lewdness.
Young's
Act 21:24 these having taken, be purified with them, and be at expence with them, that they may shave the head, and all may know that the things of which they have been instructed concerning thee are nothing, but thou dost walk -- thyself also -- the law keeping.
Act 21:25 `And concerning those of the nations who have believed, we have written, having given judgment, that they observe no such thing, except to keep themselves both from idol-sacrifices, and blood, and a strangled thing, and whoredom.'
From just these few translations it all seems to say the same thing. I'll have to look into this matter more.......
Peace,
Steve
Cornerstone Foundation wrote:
Steve,
You wrote that all the translations you quoted seem to say the same thing....
We ask ... Do they all say the same thing?
It appears to us that the information you have posted confirms the point that Mr. Hawkins (the translator of the Book of Yahweh) makes in his footnote referenced to Acts 21:25. That footnote which was previously posted reads as follows:
quote:
In many different places in the Holy Scriptures, words were either added or deleted from the original writings, by the TRANSLATORS of these writings, which would effectually mislead the reader. Acts 15:5, Acts 15:24, and Acts 21:25 are three Scriptures in which words have either been added to them, or have been deliberately left untranslated in most versions, which mislead people into thinking that the Laws Yahweh gave should not be obeyed. Any reliable Diaglott, Interlinear, or compilation of the original Hebrew and Greek manuscripts will give you this information.
The Book of Yahweh translated by Mr. Hawkins has Acts 21:25 as follows:
quote:
And concerning the Gentiles who believe, we have written them that they must keep themselves from the defilement of the worship of gods (elohim), from bloodshed by violence, from things cooked with the blood still in them, and from all sexual impurity.
Several of the versions denoted by red above contain the additional words conclude, that they observe no such thing
Both the Book of Yahweh and the [blue]NASB{/blue] do not have those words added.
Are the Book of Yahweh and the NASB properly translated in Acts 21:25?
If so that could mean something quite significant.
It could mean that the translators of this verse in the KJV and other versions have words.... added to them..... which mislead people into thinking that the Laws Yahweh gave should not be obeyed."
Yeremyah (Jeremiah) 8:8 in the Book of Yahweh perhaps sums up this phenomenom:
quote:
How can you say; We are the wise, and the Law of Yahweh is with us? Behold, the lying pen of the scribes has falsified them, and written them wrong!
It is our understanding that Rotherham's, Moffatt, Smith and Goodspeed, Young's literal translation and the Septuagint have Yeremyah 8:8 translated similarly stating that "the lying pen of the scribes has turned it into a lie".
Again in this very verse (Yeremyah 8:8) that would, when properly translated from the Hebrew manuscripts, expose what the scribes/translators had done; the King James translators seem to have confused the wording in their translation thereby preventing the exposing of what they had done in some verses.
Perhaps Isayah 43:27b also stated it:
quote:
from Book of Yahweh, Isayah 43:27b....your interpreters broke My covenant....
Best Regards,
Marty
|
|
|
|
BatKol
Advanced Member
USA
735 Posts |
Posted - 23 Dec 2004 : 20:53:20
|
Hello Marty,
You said: 1. In your Batkol Post #490 of 12/18/20004 we understood you to indicate that you believe the brothers in Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia were Gauls. Is that your belief?
Me: No. I was not speaking about brothers in Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia. I was making a comment about non-Israelite goy in response to True North's comments and mentioned the Gauls.
You said: In your post of 12/23/2004 at 10:53:51 you are referring to Aryan Jebusites in Jerusalem.
2. Do you believe the Aryan Jebusites you refer to were the Judiazers that were criticizing Paul for the message he was preaching to the so-called "Gentiles"?
Me: No. I was saying if the Gauls were Abrahamic then I could see why the Judaisers would be pushing circumcision and maybe even trying to get them to convert. I mentioned the Aryan Jebusites as another thought seeing as they have a long history in sharing the Temple with the Jews.
You said: Did you mean to state that none of the added ordinances and/or law in the post-Exodus covenant would apply to them?
Me: Yes. Going with the idea that the Gauls are non-Israelites but perhaps Abrahamic, then they would have nothing to do with any of the Covenants made exclusively to the Israelites. If they did not come out of Egypt with the Israelites then they have no connection to those agreements, unless of course they converted. If they are Abrahamic, then they have that covenant PLUS whatever they get via Christ.
You said: You wrote that all the translations you quoted seem to say the same thing....
We ask ... Do they all say the same thing?
Me: I see what you are saying. Obviously they "ALL" do not say the same thing seeing as the translation you have does not include those lines. Could you post both Acts 21:24 and 25? I would like to see the whole thought.
Thanks,
Steve
|
|
|
|
Oneisraelite
Advanced Member
uSA
833 Posts |
Posted - 24 Dec 2004 : 10:06:30
|
My good friend and brother, Marty:
Peace be unto you and yours.
quote:
Marty said: It is our understanding that the brothers referred to in Acts 15:23 were flesh and blood Israylites.
Though, of course, you are free to assume whatever you like, concerning the word "brothers", we both know what the repercussions of assuming can be.
Webster's 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language
BROTHER, n. plu. brothers or brethren. [L. frater.]
1. A human male born of the same father and mother. A male by one of the parents only is called a half-brother, or brother of the half blood.
2. Any one closely united; an associate; as a band of brothers.
3. One that resembles another in manners.
He that is slothful in his work is brother to him that is a great waster. Prov 18.
In scripture, the term brother is applied to a kinsman by blood more remote that a son of the same parents; as in the case of Abraham and Lot, Jacob and Laban. Persons of the same profession call each other brother, as judges, clergymen, professors of religion, members of societies united in a common cause, monks and the like.
Kings give to each other the title of brother; address their congregations by the title of brethren. In a more general sense, brother or brethren is used for man in general; all men being children of the same primitive ancestors, and forming one race of beings.
Brother-german is a brother by the father's and mother's side, in contradistinction to a uterine brother, or by the mother only.
Easton's Bible Dictionary
Brother
(1.) In the natural and common sense (Mat_1:2; Luk_3:1, Luk_3:19).
(2.) A near relation, a cousin (Gen_13:8; Gen_14:16; Mat_12:46; Joh_7:3; Act_1:14; Gal_1:19).
(3.) Simply a fellow-countryman (Mat_5:47; Act_3:22; Heb_7:5).
(4.) A disciple or follower (Mat_25:40; Heb_2:11, Heb_2:12).
(5.) One of the same faith (Amo_1:9; Act_9:30; Act_11:29; 1Co_5:11); whence the early disciples of our Lord were known to each other as brethren.
(6.) A colleague in office (Ezr_3:2; 1Co_1:1; 2Co_1:1).
(7.) A fellow-man (Gen_9:5; Gen_19:7; Mat_5:22, Mat_5:23, Mat_5:24; Mat_7:5; Heb_2:17).
(8.) One beloved or closely united with another in affection (2Sa_1:26; Act_6:3; 1Th_5:1).
Brethren of Jesus (Mat_1:25; Mat_12:46, Mat_12:50; Mar_3:31, Mar_3:32; Gal_1:19; 1Co_9:5, etc.) were probably the younger children of Joseph and Mary. Some have supposed that they may have been the children of Joseph by a former marriage, and others that they were the children of Mary, the Virgin's sister, and wife of Cleophas. The first interpretation, however, is the most natural.
fellowcitizen of the commonwealth of Yisra'el, NOT the STATE OF ISRAEL. |
Edited by - Oneisraelite on 24 Dec 2004 10:39:51 |
|
|
|
BatKol
Advanced Member
USA
735 Posts |
Posted - 24 Dec 2004 : 10:43:31
|
Greetings,
Thanks for the dictionary assist oneisraelite.
5.) One of the same faith (Amo_1:9; Act_9:30; Act_11:29; 1Co_5:11); whence the early disciples of our Lord were known to each other as brethren.
This term brother could apply to Israelite and non-Israelite followers
of Christ.
Peace,
Steve |
|
|
|
Cornerstone Foundation
Advanced Member
uSA
254 Posts |
Posted - 24 Dec 2004 : 13:54:44
|
quote:
Originally posted by oneisraelite
My good friend and brother, Marty:
Peace be unto you and yours.
Marty said: It is our understanding that the brothers referred to in Acts 15:23 were flesh and blood Israylites.......
Webster's 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language
BROTHER, n. plu. brothers or brethren. [L. frater.]
......In scripture, the term brother is applied to a kinsman by blood more remote that a son of the same parents; as in the case of Abraham and Lot, Jacob and Laban.......
Easton's Bible Dictionary
Brother
(3.) Simply a fellow-countryman (Mat_5:47; Act_3:22; Heb_7:5).
Cornerstone Foundation wrote:
Robert,
Certainly the word brother, just as many words do, has several word usages.
The question is: Which word usage is used in the Scripture in general and in Acts 15:23 specifically?
Our logic in believing that the word brother is used to refer to flesh and blood Israylite brothers in Acts 15:23 is in part this:
Using the practice of allowing the Scripture to define Scripture we find that: quote:
Dueteronomy 15:12 states....If your brother a Hebrew man or a Hebrew woman, sells himself to you, or is sold to you, and serves you for six years, then in the seventh year you must let him go free from you.
The Book of Dueteronomy in several places seems to follow the pattern that Hebrew men and Hebrew woman are brothers and other people are classified as strangers of one kind or another.
With that in mind...we noticed that Yahshua said: quote:
in Matthew 15:24b.....I was not sent except to the lost sheep of the house of Israyl.
It seems many would prefer that Yahshua had not said those words...but He did speak those words and later....
Yahshua confirmed those words when as: quote:
Matthew 10:5-6 records ... Yahshua sent out and commanded them, saying: Do not go into the way of the nations, and into the cities of the Samaritans, do not enter; But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israyl. And as you go, preach, saying; 'The Kingdom of Yahweh is at hand'....
and then....Yahshua followed that up by saying in reporting to Yahweh, His Ab: quote:
.....as You sent Me into the world so have I also sent them into the world. This is recorded at Yahchanan (John) 17:18.
So in summary....
1. Yahshua was sent to Israyl.
2. Yahshua sent Yahshua's followers "as Yahshua had been sent".
3. The Israylite people were a subset of the more general classification referred to in Deuteronomy as brothers- Hebrew men and Hebrew women.
4. Therefore could it be possible, with all this information in mind that the men and women referred to in Acts 15:23 were indeed brothers, Hebrew men and Hebrew women, and lost sheep of the House of Israyl.
Thank you for considering this.
Marty
|
|
|
|
BatKol
Advanced Member
USA
735 Posts |
Posted - 24 Dec 2004 : 16:13:19
|
Marty said: quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
in Matthew 15:24b.....I was not sent except to the lost sheep of the house of Israyl.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Steve: But then later in the book he said: "Go and make disciples of all nations, baptising them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" (Matthew 28:19).
Marty said:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Matthew 10:5-6 records ... Yahshua sent out and commanded them, saying: Do not go into the way of the nations, and into the cities of the Samaritans, do not enter; But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israyl. And as you go, preach, saying; 'The Kingdom of Yahweh is at hand'....
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Steve: I notice that nations here is ethnos {eth'-nos}. This ethnos {eth'-nos} cannot always mean mean Israelites as this verse shows. I think one of the big factors here is the pattern first to the Jew and then to the Greek. This was the pattern that was followed and after his own received him not, the mission was "who so ever will".
Here is another context in Tanakh where brother is not a flesh and blood Israelite:
Deut 23:7 - Thou shalt not abhor an Edomite; for he is thy brother: thou shalt not abhor an Egyptian; because thou wast a stranger in his land
Peace,
Steve
|
Edited by - BatKol on 24 Dec 2004 16:17:14 |
|
|
|
Cornerstone Foundation
Advanced Member
uSA
254 Posts |
Posted - 24 Dec 2004 : 17:08:02
|
quote:
Originally posted by BatKol
Here is another context in Tanakh where brother is not a flesh and blood Israelite:
Deut 23:7 - Thou shalt not abhor an Edomite; for he is thy brother: thou shalt not abhor an Egyptian; because thou wast a stranger in his land
Peace,
Steve
Cornerstone Foundation wrote:
Steve:
Deuteronomy defines brother as a Hebrew man or a Hebrew woman.
Those of Edom are the descendants of Esau.
Esau was a descendant of Noah, Shem, Eber (Hebrew), Abraham and Isaac. Therefore Esau was a Hebrew man and a brother by the definition given in Deuteronomy.
Esau and his descendants are not descendants of Yaaqob (Jacob)/Israyl and therefore the Esau-Edomites are not Israylites.
In summary:
All Esau-Edomites are our Hebrew brothers but they are not our Israylite Hebrew brothers.
Do you agree?
Best Regards,
Marty |
|
|
|
Cornerstone Foundation
Advanced Member
uSA
254 Posts |
Posted - 24 Dec 2004 : 17:23:17
|
quote:
Originally posted by BatKol
Marty said: quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Matthew 10:5-6 records ... Yahshua sent out and commanded them, saying: Do not go into the way of the nations, and into the cities of the Samaritans, do not enter; But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israyl. And as you go, preach, saying; 'The Kingdom of Yahweh is at hand'....
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Steve: I notice that nations here is ethnos {eth'-nos}. This ethnos {eth'-nos} cannot always mean mean Israelites as this verse shows.
Peace,
Steve
Cornerstone Foundation wrote:
Steve,
We very much agree with you that the word ethnos does not always refer to Israylites.
As you have stated...the passage above and others clearly show that.
However...it is also true that the word ethnos does not always refer to non-Israylites.
That can be just as clearly shown in many passages of Scripture.
It has been our observation that many, many people believe that the word etnos always refers to non-Israylite people....and because they have that faulty belief....their understanding of much of Scripture is greatly impaired.
It is very important, in our opinion, to examine the context each and every time the word ethnos appears to see who or what is being referred to by the author.
Do you agree?
Best Regards,
Marty |
|
|
|
Cornerstone Foundation
Advanced Member
uSA
254 Posts |
Posted - 24 Dec 2004 : 17:58:00
|
quote:
Originally posted by BatKol
Marty said: quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
in Matthew 15:24b.....I was not sent except to the lost sheep of the house of Israyl.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Matthew 10:5-6 records ... Yahshua sent out and commanded them, saying: Do not go into the way of the nations, and into the cities of the Samaritans, do not enter; But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israyl. And as you go, preach, saying; 'The Kingdom of Yahweh is at hand'....
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Peace,
Steve
Cornerstone Foundation wrote:
Steve,
Having acknowledged that the way of the nations referred to in the verse above refers to non-Israylites in Samaria and elsewhere....
We believe it is important to point out that the above verse also makes it very clear that Yahshua was sending his disciples to preach to Israylites in the rural areas of Samaria rather than the cities where the non-Israylites dwelt.
These were some of the lost sheep of Israyl scattered among the the ethnos or nations or Gentiles.
Scripture often refers to such Israylites as ethnos or Gentiles. The above Scripture is not one of the many Scriptures in which the are Israylites are referred to as Gentiles.
Thank you for considering this.
Do you agree?
Marty |
|
|
|
Cornerstone Foundation
Advanced Member
uSA
254 Posts |
Posted - 24 Dec 2004 : 18:10:17
|
quote:
Originally posted by BatKol
Marty said: quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
in Matthew 15:24b.....I was not sent except to the lost sheep of the house of Israyl.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think one of the big factors here is the pattern first to the Jew and then to the Greek. This was the pattern that was followed and after his own received him not, the mission was "who so ever will".
Peace,
Steve
Cornerstone Foundation wrote:
Steve,
We understand that statement in red above could be appropriately expanded to say:
quote:
....first to the Israylites called Judahites (later translated Jew) and then to the Israylites dispersed among the Greeks (and therefore called Greeks).....
Do you agree?
Best Regards,
Marty |
|
|
|
Cornerstone Foundation
Advanced Member
uSA
254 Posts |
Posted - 24 Dec 2004 : 18:37:45
|
quote:
Originally posted by BatKol
Marty said: quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
in Matthew 15:24b.....I was not sent except to the lost sheep of the house of Israyl.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Steve: But then later in the book he said: "Go and make disciples of all nations, baptising them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" (Matthew 28:19).
Peace,
Steve
Cornerstone Foundation wrote:
Steve,
Is it possible that the expanded rendering of Matthew 28:19 properly translated would read as follows?...
quote:
"Go and make disciples of all Israylites dispersed among the nations (and therefore call ethnos), baptizing them in the Name of the Father by the authority of the Son , and through under the direction of the Set-Apart Spirit of Yahweh".
It seems to us that such a rendering would be in harmony with the rest of Scripture.
Also, please note that it is difficult or impossible to baptize a nation...but quite possible to baptize an Adamic Hebrew Israylite man or woman.
Do you agree?
Best Regards,
Marty
|
|
|
|
Cornerstone Foundation
Advanced Member
uSA
254 Posts |
Posted - 24 Dec 2004 : 18:45:05
|
quote:
Originally posted by BatKol
Marty said: quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
in Matthew 15:24b.....I was not sent except to the lost sheep of the house of Israyl.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This was the pattern that was followed and after his own received him not, the mission was "who so ever will".
Peace,
Steve
Cornerstone Foundation wrote:
Steve,
Is it possible that His own who received Him not could be a reference to what occurred when Yahshua visited His own at Nazereth rather than a reference to all the House of Yahdah (Judah) and/or all the House of Israyl?
What do you think?
Best Regards,
Marty |
|
|
|
Cornerstone Foundation
Advanced Member
uSA
254 Posts |
Posted - 24 Dec 2004 : 18:58:17
|
quote:
Originally posted by BatKol
Marty said: quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
in Matthew 15:24b.....I was not sent except to the lost sheep of the house of Israyl.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This was the pattern that was followed and after his own received him not, the mission was "who so ever will".
Peace,
Steve
Cornerstone Foundation wrote:
Steve,
Is it possible that whosever will also refers exclusively or nearly exclusively to Adamic Hebrew Israylite men, women and children?
Please consider Yahchanan (John) 10:4-27....
....and then consider Yahchanan 10:26 specifically.
There is much in Scripture about those who do not have ears to hear.
He who has ears let him hear!
May Yahweh Bless His Sheep.
Marty |
|
|
|
Oneisraelite
Advanced Member
uSA
833 Posts |
Posted - 24 Dec 2004 : 21:01:34
|
Greetings and salutations in the name of the King, brother Marty:
Peace be unto the house.
quote:
Therefore could it be possible, with all this information in mind that the men and women referred to in Acts 15:23 were indeed brothers, Hebrew men and Hebrew women, and lost sheep of the house of Israyl.
Indeed it could. He came for the lost sheep of the house of Yisra’el no doubt…but let us take a look at “lost”…
Thayer’s Greek Definitions:
G622
apollumi
Thayer Definition:
1) to destroy
1a) to put out of the way entirely, abolish, put an end to ruin
1b) render useless
1c) to kill
1d) to declare that one must be put to death
1e) metaphorically to devote or give over to eternal misery in hell
1f) to perish, to be lost, ruined, destroyed
2) to destroy
2a) to lose
When Yahowshua heard it, he marvelled, and said to them that followed, Verily I say unto you, I have not found so great faith, no, not in Israel. And I say unto you, That many shall come from the east and west, and shall sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven. But the children of the kingdom shall be cast out into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
But his citizens hated him, and sent a message after him, saying, We will not have this one to reign over us.
Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Yahowshua of Nazareth, a man approved of Yahowah among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which Yahowah did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know: Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of Yahowah, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain… Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that Yahowah hath made that same Yahowshua, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Messiah.
Then Paul and Barnabas waxed bold, and said, It was necessary that the word of Yahowah should first have been spoken to you: but seeing ye put it from you, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, lo, we turn to the nations.
We wondered, for the longest time, who should have, out of necessity, received the word of everlasting life first…
Yahowah had to keep His end of the Covenant, which He did, by inviting them first…
The kingdom of heaven is like unto a certain king, which made a marriage for his son, And sent forth his servants to call them that were invited to the wedding: and they would not come. Again, he sent forth other servants, saying, Tell them which are invited, Behold, I have prepared my dinner: my oxen and my fatlings are killed, and all things are ready: come unto the marriage. But they made light of it, and went their ways, one to his farm, another to his merchandise: And the remnant took his servants, and entreated them spitefully, and slew them. But when the king heard thereof, he was wroth: and he sent forth his armies, and destroyed those murderers, and burned up their city. Then saith he to his servants, The wedding is ready, but they which were invited were not worthy. Go ye therefore into the highways, and as many as ye shall find, bid to the marriage. So those servants went out into the highways, and gathered together all as many as they found, both bad and good: and the wedding was furnished with guests. And when the king came in to see the guests, he saw there a man which had not on a wedding garment: And he saith unto him, Friend, how camest thou in hither not having a wedding garment? And he was speechless. Then said the king to the servants, Bind him hand and foot, and take him away, and cast him into outer darkness; there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth. For many are called, but few are chosen.
Compare this last verse with the end of the first verse we gave you to find out who “they which were invited” were…his [own] citizens, the “saints”, the so-called “chosen ones”...or at least, some of them.
…but it seems the vast majority of them would rather serve the creature [governments of men] more than the Creator [the Government of Yahowah] who is blessed forever. Amein.
While I was with them in the world, I kept them in thy name: those that thou gavest me I have kept, and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition[#G684]; that the scripture might be fulfilled.
Thayer's Greek Definition:
G684
apoleia
Thayer Definition:
1) destroying, utter destruction
1a) of vessels
2) a perishing, ruin, destruction
2a) of money
2b) the destruction which consists of eternal misery in hell
Part of Speech: noun feminine
A Related Word by Thayer’s/Strong’s Number: from a presumed derivative of G622
...from a presumed derivative of 622...the same word translated "lost", as in lost sheep of Yisra'el.
What was the name of the one who was destroyed? Salvation for the nations is indeed "of the Iews", as it is written...and there was a gnashing of teeth.
fellowcitizen of the commonwealth of Yisra'el, NOT the STATE OF ISRAEL. |
Edited by - Oneisraelite on 24 Dec 2004 21:09:47 |
|
|
|
Cornerstone Foundation
Advanced Member
uSA
254 Posts |
Posted - 24 Dec 2004 : 23:45:06
|
quote:
Originally posted by oneisraelite
Greetings and salutations in the name of the King, brother Marty:
Peace be unto the house.
Therefore could it be possible, with all this information in mind that the men and women referred to in Acts 15:23 were indeed brothers, Hebrew men and Hebrew women, and lost sheep of the house of Israyl.
Indeed it could. He came for the lost sheep of the house of Yisra’el no doubt......
Then Paul and Barnabas waxed bold, and said, It was necessary that the word of Yahowah should first have been spoken to you: but seeing ye put it from you, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, lo, we turn to the nations.
We wondered, for the longest time, who should have, out of necessity, received the word of everlasting life first
Yahowah had to keep His end of the Covenant, which He did, by inviting them first
Compare this last verse with the end of the first verse we gave you to find out who “they which were invited[/purple]” were…his [own] citizens, the “saints”, the so-called “chosen ones”...or at least, some of them.
Cornerstone Foundation wrote:
Robert,
We regard those who were first invited as being the Yahdaim (Judahite) sheep of the House of Yahdah (Judah).
These sheep were men of Israyl and citizens of the Commonwealth of Israyl...they were familiar with and living by the
Mosaic Law Covenant although it had been perverted by then. They were primarily the men of the tribes of Yahdah and Benyamin and the Levites that served them.
In our opinion they are separate and distinct from the "lost sheep of the House of Israyl" who were dispersed among the ethnos-nations-Gentiles-Greeks and therefore at times called the nations or the Gentiles or the Greeks."
These lost sheep of the House of Israyl are the ones the message was taken to when it was said lo, were turn to the nations ethnos.
Do you agree?
Best Regards,
Marty |
|
|
|
Oneisraelite
Advanced Member
uSA
833 Posts |
Posted - 25 Dec 2004 : 08:00:08
|
Yes! Perhaps the only thing we may disagree with you about is that we also believe that due to "his" being "cut off" others not of Melchizedek's fold, not of his ethnos [non-Yisra'elite nations] were invited to the wedding, and that they are, or are to be, "fellowcitizens" with the Yisra'elites [saints] and that "fellowcitizens" means they will be equal to them. In this sense ethnos [nationality] no longer has anything to do with it...
ETH'NICAL, a. [L. ethnicus; Gr. from nation from the root of G. heide, heath, woods, whence heathen. See Heathen.] Heathen; pagan; pertaining to the gentiles or nations... - Webster's 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language [Taken out of context]
...and their salvation is indeed of the Iews, for this cause: because they were "cut off" a "mansion" was made for them in the house of Yahowah, the commonwealth of Yisra'el. We further perceive that it is Yahowah's desire [will] that this will cause those that are "cut off" to be "jealous", and that they [at least some] will cease their "unbelief" and be "grafted" in again. Praise be to Yahowah! ...because in the fashion of our brother Yahu'caph, we still love you dear brother, and you know who you are, you know we are talking to you here.
fellowcitizen of the commonwealth of Yisra'el, NOT the STATE OF ISRAEL. |
Edited by - Oneisraelite on 25 Dec 2004 10:03:18 |
|
|
|
Cornerstone Foundation
Advanced Member
uSA
254 Posts |
Posted - 25 Dec 2004 : 12:35:51
|
quote:
Originally posted by oneisraelite
Yes! Perhaps the only thing we may disagree with you about is that we also believe that due to "his" being "cut off" others not of Melchizedek's fold, not of his ethnos [non-Yisra'elite nations] were invited to the wedding, and that they are, or are to be, "fellowcitizens" with the Yisra'elites [saints] and that "fellowcitizens" means they will be equal to them. In this sense ethnos [nationality] no longer has anything to do with it...
fellowcitizen of the commonwealth of Yisra'el, NOT the STATE OF ISRAEL.
Cornerstone Foundation wrote:
Robert,
Please clarify some things for us.
1. Who does the pronoun "his" in your statement above refer to?
2. What Scripture or Scriptures mention Melchizedek's fold and/or Melchizedek's ethnos?
Best Regards,
Marty |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Biblical Covenants
