| Author |
 Topic  |
|
BatKol
Advanced Member
USA
735 Posts |
 Posted - 26 Dec 2004 : 12:48:24
|
quote:
Originally posted by Cornerstone Foundation
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
Yes, I agree that the scriptures defines the relationship between the Edomites and the Israelites as brothers. This just backs up my original point. An Abrahamic descendent would also be considered a brother to an Israelite, yet the Abrahamic would not be obligated AT ALL to any Covenants that the Israelites were party to. The Bible says that the Israelites went into Egypt. The Abrahamic descendants who did not go to Egypt are not obligated to the Torah.
The only requirement to keep their Abrahamic Covenant was circumcision. If the Gauls were Abrahamic then Paul's message makes perfect sense. Not only Paul's message but the misunderstanding of the believing Jews who thought Paul was preaching against Torah.
To those who are not under the Law, I come as one not under the Law.
Peace,
Steve |
 |
|
|
BatKol
Advanced Member
USA
735 Posts |
Posted - 26 Dec 2004 : 13:32:51
|
Marty said: 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?
Me: Yes. What makes you think that the Gauls are Israelites in light of the context of Paul's
letter to them? Paul makes it clear in the first chapter of Galatians that his message to them (the gospel of the uncircumcision) was revelation knowledge direct from Christ... and cursed be even an angel of heaven who might tell them another. The Judaisers who were 'bewitching' the Gauls were not Pharisees, but those who taught the gospel of the circumcision (calling lost Israel back to Torah). Even Peter was asked by Paul, "how dost thou compel the nations to Judaize?" Surely you don't think Peter followed the Talmud.
As for the Gaul's being Abrahamic and not Israelites consider this statement:
Gal 3:6 Even as Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness.
Gal 3:7 Know then that they that are on the principle of faith, these are Abraham's sons;
Gal 3:8 and the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the nations on the principle of faith, announced beforehand the glad tidings to Abraham: In thee all the nations shall be blessed.
Gal 3:9 So that they who are on the principle of faith are blessed with believing Abraham.
Again, it is very important to see that the non-Israelite Gauls were not obligated to the Torah because it had nothing to do with them in the first place. That is the center piece of Paul's letter to them. This makes perfect sense if they were literally Abrahamic offspring.
Peace,
Steve
|
Edited by - BatKol on 26 Dec 2004 13:37:01 |
|
|
|
Robert-James
Advanced Member
uSA
353 Posts |
Posted - 27 Dec 2004 : 17:12:03
|
Greetings,
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.
Least we forget, the ten tribes of Israel were dispersed among the nations[goyim]...seven hundred years before this time.
Peter was so ignorant of history he had to have a heavenly vision to quit calling the uncircumcision unclean. {What three times???} James {Yacob} knew, and addressed his epistle to the twelve tribes scattered abroad.
Ever see the marble statues of Greek and Roman's? Golly gee, they look just like you and me!!!
Israelites {the lost tribes] were stranger's to the Commonwealth of Israel. Duh, like our modern day born againer's. But for His reason Yahuweh did not cast off Benyamin-Yudah, as a people. It is written upon their hearts...always reserves His "seven thousand"
Look at the numbers in the census taken by David in 1000. b.c. Alot of folk's. "To your tents Oh Israel". i.e. enough of this king crap! Multitudes left Palestine from about 970 b.c.till 721 b.c. Sol-Om-On taxed the stuff out of Israel. And his son's were worse. Same goes today. Anyone want to leave??? Provisions in Law are provided. For the Kingdom is here, now.
Ah, the emerald Isle's. Celtic, Germanic, what we call today, caucasians. Gaulite's.
Holywood did a fine job in their last Gladiator movie...GlADIATOR?
Today we have gentile's {lost Israelites} [Gaul's] fighting once again in a ROMAN WAR in Iraq.
Who is so blind as My servent?
Paul was in jail in Rome...with Royalty from England. Who were descendants from the Tribes of Israel. And knew it.
Ezekiel mention's that only those circumcised in the heart and flesh shall enter.
So sorry that the early believer's missed that one. Surely would have stopped all those arguements! Then again, the original letter's may be hidden under a rock, or in the basement of the VATICAN. Time always tells the tale.
Modern Jewish encyclopedia's state that the likes of the house of Rothschild are in fact, Edomites. Khazar's.
When General Allenby won Yerusalem from the infadel's in 1917, LORD Balfour immediately gave that sand trap to Rothchild and his Zionist friends. This is called the final deception. as promised by The Creator.
But...do nothing against the BEAST system, big Jesus will rapture you and save all the khazar/jews. This story, presented in comic book form, would be shunned by young men today! Unless DAD drilled it into his soul.
Israelites, have been appointed a Kingdom. Hold the fort, help is coming!
David stormed Zion...and took it. Correct me if wrong, but Zion in in Benyamin's territory. Such a fine line here.
The Yoseph story...no blessings till "I" see Benyamin. 153.
153=sons of elohim. |
|
|
|
BatKol
Advanced Member
USA
735 Posts |
Posted - 27 Dec 2004 : 18:06:38
|
Robert-James said:
quote:
Greetings,
shall we consider the Gaul's to be of the LOST house of Israel- ten tribes?...
Steve: No. Because if they were the LOST house of Israel then they would have been recipients of the gospel of the circumcision instead of the gospel of the uncircumcision. If these Gauls were lost Israel then Paul would not have said the specific things concerning the Torah to them. Paul, ever the Jew (or convert), makes it clear to these Gauls that the Torah has nothing to do with them. James gives the non-Israelite believers in Acts what amounts to pre-Noachide laws, while in the verse above promotes the Torah for the Israelite believers.
Also, concerning the Gauls: There is a strong connection not to the Israelites, but to the Aryan Brahmins:
From http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~dee/MA/CELTS.HTM
"Gaulish society, like all of Celtic society, was rigidly divided into a class system. Similar class systems predominated among the Indians as well with largely the same categories. According to Julius Caesar, the three classes of Gaulish society were the druides, equites, and plebs , all Roman words. The druids were the educated among the Gauls and occupied the highest social position, just as the Brahmin class occupied the highest social position among the Indians. The druids were responsible for cultural and religious knowledge as well as the performance of rituals, just as the Brahmins in India."
Also from Encyclopaedia of the Celts:
http://www.isle-of-skye.org.uk/celtic-encyclopaedia/celt_c3b.htm
"The Celts seem to have originated from an area around the Caspian Sea,(See also a theory displayed by # 730 below). Their eruption into the west came at much the same time as a similar migration into India and Persia. It is thought that the Celts and the Hindus shared a common ancestry in a race known as the Battle-Axe People, whose mark was a perforated stone battle-axe and whose home was in southern Russia; the language spoken by the Celts came from the same source as Sanskrit, the classical language of the Hindus. Thus the Celtic language is called Indo-European and it is not too far-fetched to see correspondences between the Indian deities and those of the Celts; and likenesses between the brahmins, the priest-astrologers of India, and the druids, the priest-astronomers of Europe - in fact, much has been written about the links between the two races. It is noticeable, for instance, that Celtic gods are depicted seated in a similar meditation posture to the Hindu deities, and that giant figures are carved on the hillsides of India as well as of Europe. It might even be that the woad which was painted on the bodies of Britons facing the Romans signified their allegiance to a particular god or goddess, just as the white paint on a Hindu forehead indicates a follower of Vishnu. Physically and emotionally, however, the two peoples drifted far apart. The Hindus intermarried with older Indian races and developed a dark skin and eyes, while the Celts became renowned for their fair, reddish hair and piercing blue eyes. They were formidable warriors and were known for their boasting and threats and also for their selfdramatisation. But with great rapidity their moods would change to a dreamy sadness. Plato thought them highly intelligent, although much given to drinking. They divided society into three groups. The druids, who were learned priests, shamans and judges; the military aristocracy, who were the power-holders and the heroes; and the free men, who were farmers and owned cattle. Both men and women were thought to be immensely brave in battle."
quote:
Robert-James said: Who were divorced, though Paul {Benyamin} and Yudah were still of the circumcison? It will all start to make sense then.
Steve: What you are not getting is there are two gospels, just like there are two covenants (Gal 4:24). The gospel of the uncircumcision for non-Israelites which Paul allegedly received as revelation direct from Christ.. for I neither received it from man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.... and the gospel of the circumcision which was headed by James and Peter calling the “lost” sheep Israelites and Talmudic Judahites back to Torah. If the Gauls were lost Israelites then they would have been getting a clear message to get back under the Torah instead of Paul asking them, "who hath bewitched you" or "Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law, do ye not hear the law?". At best the Gauls were Abrahamic or perhaps even more likely linked to the Jebusites who were giving the Israelites fits ever since they failed in chasing them out of Jerusalem.. Even unto this day.
quote:
Robert-James said: Ever see the marble statues of Greek and Roman's? Golly gee, they look just like you and me!!!
Steve: Yes. But that does not prove they were 'lost' Israelites. In fact, the Greeks (2nd Kingdom) and the Romans (4th Kingdom.. still going) are the ENEMIES of the Israelites. If you follow the pattern in the Bible some of the Indo-European types are the ones blamed for leading Israel ‘astray’ with pagan rituals, etc. The New Testament calls these types heathens, nations and gentiles.
quote:
Robert-James said: Paul was in jail in Rome...with Royalty from England. Who were descendants from the Tribes of Israel. And knew it.
Steve: This cannot be proven and is full of many holes.
quote:
Robert-James said: Ezekiel mention's that only those circumcised in the heart and flesh shall enter. So sorry that the early believer's missed that one. Surely would have stopped all those arguements!
Steve: Exactly. FLESH and heart. Both for Israelites and even Abrahamic types. BUT....Paul says no such physical act was needed for the Gauls in his gospel of the uncircumcision (and cursed be even an angel from heaven who says otherwise.. Galatians 1:8). Which makes perfect sense seeing as the Gauls were non-Israelites and had absolutely nothing to do with any Sinai covenants. If they were Abrahamic then I could understand the Israelite believers trying to "spy out their freedom". Clearly Abrahamics must comply to circumcision. However, if the Gauls were not even Abrahamic, then even this would not be required of them.
quote:
Robert-James said: Modern Jewish encyclopedia's state that the likes of the house of Rothschild are in fact, Edomites. Khazar's.
Steve: Edomites were around for centuries upon centuries well before the Khazars so the terms are not synonymous. White racialist professor Glayde Whitney tried to explain this to you years back when we were both at the CCC meeting near Hendersonville. His colleague also explained to you how it is archaeologically and linguistically impossible that the Anglo-Saxons could be descended from the Israelites. As I remember clearly, you were put in checkmate quickly on these topics. I have looked into their claims and the evidence is most certainly on their side. Especially when you identify the Indo-Europeans in the Bible. I will also note that being an Israelite is not a racial thing, per say. It is a people hood thing. They accepted other bloodlines into the fold provided they came like Ruth and said, “Your God is now my God and your people are now my people”. Also look at the bloodlines of some of the Israelites and you will see Hittite, Canaanite and other blood mixed in. BTW, if you feel you are a bloodline Israelite then why not embrace your brothers, the Edomites? Deuteronomy 23:7-8: "You shall not abhor an Edomite; for he is your brother. It is written right there in the Israelite Law book.
quote:
Robert-James said: David stormed Zion...and took it. Correct me if wrong, but Zion in in Benyamin's territory. Such a fine line here
Steve: David might have stormed Zion but he and every other Israelite failed in chasing out the original Jebusite priesthood in Jerusalem.. Jos 15:63 As for the Jebusites the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the children of Judah could not drive them out: but the Jebusites dwell with the children of Judah at Jerusalem unto this day. It is said David hated the Jebusites with his soul (2Sa 5:8 ) You are right about Benjamin’s territory but it is written, Jdg 1:21 "And the children of Benjamin did not drive out the Jebusites that inhabited Jerusalem; but the Jebusites dwell with the children of Benjamin in Jerusalem unto this day." So much for taking Jerusalem. Even in Ezekiel’s time the Jebusite priests had 25 men with their backs to the temple of YHWH and their faces to the east and they worshipped the sun towards the east (Ezek 8:16). Now consider the Court of the Gentiles which the Temple Jews had to suffer for some reason. This is the area Ea-Zeus called "my father's house" and it was known as ancient burial grounds for the Jebusites who inhabited Jerusalem well before the Israelites unsuccessfully tried to take it. These Jebusites were of the same line as the Magi who came from the east offering the traditional pagan gifts at the foot of baby Ea-Zeus. Before there was any such thing as an Israelite or a failed attempt to take Jerusalem from the original inhabitants, Abraham bowed in submission to the King of Salem (Aryan/Brahmin/Jebusite) and paid tribute to this Pagan. Paul even states that Melchizedek's priesthood is superior to that of the "descendants of Levi" (Heb. 7:5). Even Cyrus the pagan Persian king was called “Moshiach” in second Isaiah. Having said that it is worth noting that the Persian Mazda worshippers looked for the birth of a Savior from a virgin mother. Such a fine line, indeed.
Hope you are staying warm and dry!
Peace,
Steve
|
Edited by - BatKol on 28 Dec 2004 13:39:48 |
|
|
|
True North
Advanced Member
USA
163 Posts |
Posted - 28 Dec 2004 : 20:39:41
|
Steve, you present an argument which helps to understand. Where the argument is weak appears in the following quote.
quote:
Steve: What you are not getting is there are two gospels. The gospel of the uncircumcision for non-Israelites which Paul allegedly received as revelation direct from Christ, and the gospel of the circumcision which was headed by James and Peter calling the “lost” sheep Israelites and Talmudic Judahites back to Torah. If the Gauls were lost Israelites then they would have been getting a clear message to get back under the Torah. At best the Gauls were Abrahamic or perhaps even more likely linked to the Jebusites who were giving the Israelites fits ever since they failed in chasing them out of Jerusalem.. Even unto this day.
Why do you believe James and Peter are presenting a gospel to the lost sheep of Israel that is any different than Paul's gospel minus the incorrect assumptions. Torah observance was nothing new to the Hebrew of this period, although the observance had become religious. There is no new gospel by James that is different than Paul was preaching except James and Peter were not preaching the perfect law of liberty I.E. not allowing an entrance into the Kingdom except by Torah observance. Paul corrects the wrong assumption (that Gentile believers need strict observance of Torah) and the follow up is the Noachide covenant re-iterated when James' realizes the error. A simple correction to the wrong mindset of James and Peter, not two gospels. I've not done the chronology but Peter was corrected in the call nothing clean or unclean vision in Acts 10:9.
And this quote is quite unsubstantiated;
quote:
... the King of Salem (Aryan/Brahmin/Jebusite) ... Pagan.
There is no genealogy pertaining to the Melchizedek of Genesis 14:18. Hebrews 7:3 is the Hebrew idiom for missing genealogy. To attribute Melchizedek the title of a pagan is to ignore the priests of the lineage of Seth as a possible source for this genealogy, although this is also unsubstantiated, hence Hebrews 7:3. Melchizedek could have come from pagan background but you have to ignore Hebrews 7 and the call of the Kingdom to justify it.
The 7th chapters of Hebrews can be viewed as no authority, if you don't hold to Luke 22:29 and the Kingdom presented to James, Peter and later Saul as having any validity but heresy. And no authority if you want to reject the resurrection to which Hebrews 7 refers. But if you thinks Paul started Christianity, as a sect completely divorced from the Hebrew concepts of the book of Hebrews then two gospels is feasible but not consistent.
TN |
|
|
|
BatKol
Advanced Member
USA
735 Posts |
Posted - 29 Dec 2004 : 00:13:10
|
TN, thanks for the post.
quote:
You said: Why do you believe James and Peter are presenting a gospel to the lost sheep of Israel that is any different than Paul's gospel minus the incorrect assumptions.
Steve: Here are my main reasons:
1. There is a difference between a heathen and an Israelite. A heathen is not obligated to Torah, the Gauls being such heathens. That Torah is only for Israelites is stated here: Psalm 147:19-20 "He shewith his word unto Jacob, his statutes and his judgments to Israel. He hath not dealt so with any nation: and as for his judgments, they have not known them. Praise ye the LORD."
2. The incorrect assumptions concerning Paul is that he was accused of teaching that Israelites need not follow Torah. That was not true but a misunderstanding of the Israelites who were listening in on the Gospel of the uncircumcision. Heathens need not follow Torah because they have no obligation to it... which makes perfect sense when considering the Gauls.
3. From the Ferrar Fenton: Acts 15:12 - 20..Then all the assembly kept silence whilst they listened to Barnabas and Paul, relating how God had produced through then evidences and deep impressions among the nations. But after they had finished speaking, James arose, and said: “Men, brothers, listen to me. Symeon has been relating how God first turned to choose from among the heathen a people for His own name: and accords with the statements of the prophets, as it has been written:
“After this I will return, and re-elect the fallen tent of David; and I will relay it’s foundations, and rebuild it; so that the rest of mankind may seek out the Lord and all the heathen may take My Name upon them, Says the Lord who effects these events, known from Eternity”
I am therefore of the opinion that we should not harass the heathen; but that we send urging them to keep free from pollution by idols, from fornication, from that which is strangled, and blood…..
24. “Since we have heard that some from among us have disturbed you with statements, unsettling your minds- to whom we gave no instructions - it seemed right for us, being assembled together, to select men and send them to you, together with our friends, Barnabus and Paul, men who have delivered up their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. We have therefore sent Judah and Silas, who themselves will report to you the same facts by word of mouth. For it is the decision of the Holy Spirit, and our own, to lay upon you no greater burden than is necessary; that is, to turn away from idol sacrifices, from blood, and from that which is strangled, and from fornication. Keeping yourself free from these you will do well. Farewell.”.. Acts 21:23 - 25:
(James in response to the false accusations of Paul speaking against the law for Israelites:) “Suppose you do what we advise you: there are four men with us who have taken a vow upon themselves; joining, be purified with them and share the expenses with them, when they shave their heads. Then all will know that there is no truth in the reports concerning you; but that, on the contrary, you yourself keep the directions of the Law. But as for the believing heathen, we have published our decision, that they should keep themselves free from idol-offerings, from blood, from strangulation, and from fornication”.
quote:
TN said: Paul corrects the wrong assumption (that Gentile believers need strict observance of Torah) and the follow up is the Noachide covenant re-iterated when James' realizes the error. A simple correction to the wrong mindset of James and Peter, not two gospels.
Steve: I disagree slightly here. Israelites are obligated to every jot and tittle of the Torah. Paul took the Nazarite vow to prove that he still followed Torah in an effort to clear his name. Gentiles are not at all obligated to Torah and James and the Holy Spirit decided on only Noachide laws for them. As for Israelites, “The scribes and Pharisees sit on the seat of Moses. Whatever thus they tell you to observe, observe and do it; however, do not do according to what they do. For they say it but do not do it.” A heathen Gaul has no connection with the Sinai covenant and is not expected to follow it.
Paul strongly warns the heathen Gauls against following Torah.
quote:
TN said: A simple correction to the wrong mindset of James and Peter, not two gospels.
Steve: I disagree. Every jot and tittle of Moses’ Torah for the Israelites, only Noachide type laws for heathens per James and the Holy Spirit.
quote:
TN said: I've not done the chronology but Peter was corrected in the call nothing clean or unclean vision in Acts 10:9.
Steve: From my understanding this had to do with considering Gentiles unclean because many of the Israelites would not dine with them, etc. So, from my understanding, Peter’s message was that no Gentile believer in Christ was unclean. It makes sense because only Israelites are obligated to follow the Torah.
quote:
TN said: Melchizedek could have come from pagan background but you have to ignore Hebrews 7 and the call of the Kingdom to justify it.
Steve: I just look to the identity of the original inhabitants of Jerusalem. Jerusalem your father was an Amorite and your mother an Hittite. These folk can be traced to the Aryan Brahmins, and from an Israelite perspective, most definitely pagan. Evidently Abraham had no problem with them seeing as he bowed down and gave 10% of his war chest.. but then again this is well before the Torah contract was struck with the disobedient Israelites. A great deal happened between Abraham and the Exodus. Here is a great chapter from a book which tells about the Amorite and Hittites and their connection to the Aryan Brahmins as well as the Britons and Anglo-Saxons.
http://www.jrbooksonline.com/pob/pob_ch01.html
quote:
TN: But if you thinks Paul started Christianity, as a sect completely divorced from the Hebrew concepts of the book of Hebrews then two gospels is feasible but not consistent.
Steve: Again, I would just highlight that Israelites are obligated to every jot and tittle of Torah because of the Sinai covenant and the non-Israelites are only obligated to the Noachide-lite laws per James. This is a very ‘kosher’ arrangement and not in anyway contra to the Hebrew perspective given that Torah is only for Israelites. While there would be two different lifestyles between the Israelite and Gentile believers, they still would have equal standing in the body of Christ. The idea being there is no Jew or Greek, slave of free, etc.
Layla Tov,
Steve
|
Edited by - BatKol on 29 Dec 2004 00:23:58 |
|
|
|
Oneisraelite
Advanced Member
uSA
833 Posts |
Posted - 29 Dec 2004 : 08:50:22
|
This oughta' open up a new can of worms!
New or Renewed, That is the Question
Hebrew 8:8 For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith Yahowah, when I will make a new[G2537] covenant with the house of Yisra’el and with the house of Judah…
G2537
kainos
Thayer Definition:
1) new
Okay, it says that Yahowah will make a new covenant [contract] with the house of Yisra’el and with the house of Yadah [Judah]…two separate houses, right? Now watch what happens two verses later…
Hebrews 8:10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Yisra’el after those days, saith Yahowah; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them an ‘Elohiym (Chief), and they shall be to me a people [nation]…
Where’s Yadah [Judah]?
Some people claim that the “new” covenant should have been translated “renewed” covenant, but is that correct? Had Yahowah meant, “renewed”, He could have said, “renewed”. Here for the edification of the body of messiah [anointed] is the Greek word for “renewed”…
G342
anakainosis
Thayer Definition:
1) a renewal, renovation, complete change for the better
RENOVA'TION, n. [L. renovatio.] 1. The act of renewing; a making new after decay, destruction or depravation; renewal…
RENEW'ED, pp. Made new again; repaired; re-established; repeated; revived; renovated; regenerated.
The word renewed indicates that an old thing is going to be regenerated or made new again, but is that what is said?
Hebrew 8:13 In that he saith, A new[G2537] covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.
Old and decayeth both mean, to make (passively become) worn out, or declare obsolete. Thayer’s says old and decayeth means, “2) to declare a thing to be old and so about to be abrogated”
And we see that it is ready to "vanish away” means, "near disappearance or abrogation", according to Strong's, and Thayer’s says that “vanish away” means, “1) disappearance 2) destruction”
*DISAPPEARANCE, n. Cessation of appearance; a removal from sight.
*ABROGA'TION, n. the act of abrogating; a repeal of authority of the legislative power.
*DESTRUCTION, n. 1. 1. The act of destroying; demolition; a pulling down; subversion; ruin, by whatever means... Destruction consists in the annihilation of the form of any thing; that form of parts which constitutes it what it is...or it denotes a total annihilation; as the destruction of a particular government.. 2. Death; murder; slaughter; massacre. 3. Ruin. 4. Eternal death.
*ANNIHILA'TION, n. 1. The act of reducing to nothing or non-existence; or the act of destroying the form or combination of parts under which a thing exists, so that the name can no longer be applied to it, as the annihilation of a corporation. 2. The state of being reduced to nothing.
Does this sound like it is going to be “renewed”? Hardly! It sounds more like it is about to disappear, for ever and ever!
Then there is this verse of the Scripture to deal with concerning the “new covenant”.
Hebrews 12:24 And to Yahowshua the mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than that of Abel.
Firstly, we note that the words “that of” were added to the Word of Yahowah, i.e. no Strong’s numbers and italicized. Next, notice the strangeness of the phrase “that speaketh better things than Abel”? Abel never “spoke” of a covenant! But here’s a thought, what if the new covenant was written in Hebrew and the Greeks, not understanding the language, thought that was a proper name, like they did with JESUS/Joshua [Yahowshua] in other new covenant verses, rather than an Hebrew word? So what does abel, or rather hebel/habal mean in the Hebrew?
*H1893
hebel
heh'-bel
The same as H1892; Hebel, the son of Adam: - Abel.
*H1892
hebel habel
heh'-bel, hab-ale'
From H1891; emptiness or vanity; figuratively something transitory and unsatisfactory; often used as an adverb: - X altogether, vain, vanity.
*H1891
habal
haw-bal'
A primitive root; to be vain in act, word, or expectation; specifically to lead astray: - be (become, make) vain.
Brown-Driver-Briggs’ Hebrew Definitions starts by saying that Abel means, breath but by the time we get to the root word habal, we are right back to what Dr Strong said of this word.
H1891
habal
BDB Definition:
1) to act emptily, become vain, be vain
1a) (Qal)
1a1) to become vain
1a2) to be utterly vain (with cognate acc)
1b) (Hiphil)
1b1) to cause to become vain
1b2) to fill with vain hopes
Breath was the wrong understanding of this word, in our humble opinion. Vapour, which is what BDB says of #H1892 [the first root word], would have been a more appropriate translation.
VA'POR, n. [L. vapor.] 7. Something unsubstantial, fleeting or transitory.
There’s that word “transitory” again.
TRANS'ITORY, a. [L. transitorius.] Passing without continuance…
Now, what happened to Abel, the original [old covenant]? Was he not transitory, was he not destroyed? Yes, he was replaced by Sheth, the substitute [new covenant]?
In summation, we perceive that it is indeed a new covenant and that the old one was transitory. We further perceive that it was not Yahowah who directly abrogated this covenant. Yahowshua was the bait, and they sprang for it, hook, line and sinker, and shed innocent blood in the land because they saw the power and prestige snatched from their hands.
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 [Gentiles]. For so hath Yahowah commanded us, saying, I have set thee to be a light of the nations [Gentiles], that thou shouldest be for salvation unto the ends of the earth.
Thus, Yahowshua spoke the truth when he said, salvation is of the Jews. Had it not been for their unbelief and their own abrogation of the covenant, the doors of the Kingdom would not have been opened to the nations [ethnos] […unto ends of the earth].
So that servant came, and shewed his lord these things. Then the master of the house being angry said to his servant, Go out quickly into the streets and lanes of the city, and bring in hither the poor, and the maimed, and the halt, and the blind. And the servant said, Lord, it is done as thou hast commanded, and yet there is room. And the lord said unto the servant, Go out into the highways and hedges, and compel [distress] them to come in, that my house may be filled.
…through their fall salvation is come unto the nations [Gentiles], for to provoke them to jealousy. [This is the ultimate cause of the gnashing of teeth, to not only lose your position, but to lose it to non-Yisra'elites!]
It is written however, that if they will say, in truth, for Yahowah knows the hearts [the most inward thoughts] of men, Blessed is he who comes in the name of Yahowah, in other words, those of them who will cease their unbelief and accept His anointed King/Priest [Principal Officer], will be grafted back in.
…if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be graffed in: for Yahowah is able to graff them in again[G3825].
But what do we see them do? We see them still abiding in unbelief and falling back on the Abrahamic covenant, thinking this will save them.
They answered and said unto him, Abraham is our father. Yahowshua saith unto them, If ye were Abraham's children, ye would do the works of Abraham. But now ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the truth, which I have heard of Yahowah: this did not Abraham.
#G3825 Thayer Definition:
1) anew, again
“Again” indicates that these are a people [citizens] who were once “in”, but are now cut off, i.e. they are now “out”, which provided an empty slot, as it were, for the nations [ethnos/goy]. Just as He raised up Pharaoh for His own purpose, it would seem that He may have raised someone else up in a similar fashion, but for a much different purpose, to bring the fullness of the nations [ethnos/goy] in. Why? Because in the end, when all the cards are laid on the table, Yahowah is not a respecter of "persons"!
Be not highminded, but fear: For if Yahowah spared not the natural [lineal descent] branches, take heed lest he also spare not thee.
Thayer Definition of klados, translated branches:
2a) as the Jewish patriarchs are likened to a root, so their posterity are likened to branches
And who does Thayer consider to be “Jewish patriarchs” in this context? Judah!
Thayer Definition:
*G2451
1) Jewish, belonging to the Jewish nation
…from G2448 (in the sense of G2455 as a country)
*G2448
2) the tribe that were the offspring of Judah
3) the region occupied by the tribe
*G2455
Judah or Judas
Wherefore they cried unto Yahowah, and said, We beseech thee, O Yahowah, we beseech thee, let us not perish for this man's life, and lay not upon us innocent blood: for thou, O Yahowah, hast done as it pleased thee.
What Yahowah did, in fact, is allow the rapacious nature of the man to take its course, thus fulfilling His will, but this does not exonerate the man who has this murderous spirit, any more than Pharaoh was absolved of his crimes.
RAPA'CIOUS, a. [L. rapax, from rapio, to seize. See Rap.] 1. Given to plunder; disposed or accustomed to seize by violence; seizing by force; as a rapacious enemy.
…for the wrath is come upon them to the uttermost.
Endnote: All defintions in blue are from Webster's 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language.
fellowcitizen of the commonwealth of Yisra'el, NOT the STATE OF ISRAEL. |
Edited by - Oneisraelite on 29 Dec 2004 09:50:26 |
|
|
|
True North
Advanced Member
USA
163 Posts |
Posted - 29 Dec 2004 : 09:56:36
|
Yep, looks like fun, I will have to take the time to peruse it but I already had this put together so see if it fits.
Steve; my words and disconnected thoughts have led down a path of meaning I did not intend. My words don't indicate it but I see the same thing as you point out. A little expansion follows and I may need clarification to see if this is the way you read it.
quote:
Israelites are obligated to every jot and tittle of the Torah. Paul took the Nazarite vow to prove that he still followed Torah in an effort to clear his name. Gentiles are not at all obligated to Torah and James and the Holy Spirit decided on only Noachide laws for them. As for Israelites, “The scribes and Pharisees sit on the seat of Moses. Whatever thus they tell you to observe, observe and do it; however, do not do according to what they do. For they say it but do not do it.” A heathen Gaul has no connection with the Sinai covenant and is not expected to follow it. Paul strongly warns the heathen Gauls against following Torah.
Exactly so, Israelites are obligated to every jot and tittle of the Torah, and along the same lines ... Israelites need(ed) no savior or moshiach for sanctification/atonement. The Israelites already had Law. The Israelites have had tebilah (immersion) in the mikveh (bath) as well as 02077 zebach (sacrifice) for 03725 kippur (atonement) since the time of Moses and the Levitical priesthood was set up. Yeshua HaNazarit did not come for anyone except the lost sheep and never preached anything 'outside' of the Law (which would logically have to include Torah shebe'al pe as well as shebiktav).
I see a continuation of the existing Levitical covenant (a covenant with no end? I forget the reference) alongside a setting up of a Kingdom (Luke 22:29) for any and all (Mark 16:15) with the only compliance issuue again love (Mark 12:30-31) which in its correct application denotes righteousness. But I don't see two gospels, only a continuation (with correct interpretation in righteousness) of the Law and a covenant for Gentiles which needs a different priesthood (the order of melchizedek) with the shedding of blood for atonement (the Law requires blood or washings and sometimes both).
All/most of Paul's writings are for Gentiles ignorant of Law. There are those that say this (order of Melchizedek) is not necessary because the Gentiles had the Noahidic Covenant but they miss the fact that the Noahchide Laws have no provision for atonement. And a return to Abba is what all this mess is about (atonement).
If you get some time, I would enjoy continuing this exploration of ancient concepts.
P.S. I spent this past sunrise on the solstice getting digital imagery inside a cave that has pretty convincing evidence that there were people in this part of the country with Hebrew roots prior to the current era.
TN |
Edited by - True North on 29 Dec 2004 11:55:33 |
|
|
|
BatKol
Advanced Member
USA
735 Posts |
Posted - 29 Dec 2004 : 10:18:24
|
Hey guys! Excellent thread. I'll have to take time to print everything out instead of looking at this screen. brother Robert, I have some thoughts on your study but I want to organize them first.
It may tie in with my speculations concerning the Jebusites and the ancient feud with the Israelites (mostly with Judah, Benjamin and Levi). I will touch on one thing. You quoted:
Hebrew 8:8 For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith Yahowah, when I will make a new[G2537] covenant with the house of Yisra’el and with the house of Judah…
Notice the Heathens are not mentioned. No need to. They never were party to any agreements made with Israel and Judah. I am also wondering if what Paul was talking about in Hebrews 8:8 is not Jeremiah 31:31-34.
TN, I like where you are going with your thoughts and I have a few things I want to run by you once I figure out how to articulate them. Your cave efforts bring to mind a book I have called "Discovery in Ancient America". I look forward to posting as soon as I get some work done!
Peace,
Steve |
Edited by - BatKol on 29 Dec 2004 10:33:04 |
|
|
|
Oneisraelite
Advanced Member
uSA
833 Posts |
Posted - 29 Dec 2004 : 12:15:29
|
Greetings Steven:
Peace be unto the house.
No offense, but I wish you would quit referring to non-Yisra'elite nations [goy/ethnos] as "people who live on the heath [moors] or in the country", i.e. "heathens"; it is almost as irreproachable as calling "people who live in small villages" pagans. People have the wrong impression of these words so they are very misleading. It is our impression that these are the people the "visible church(es)" could not cajole [to deceive or delude by flattery] into coming under their authority [in-doctrinate] and are, by such use, "religious" terms.
We both live in the "country" and sojourn in or near "small villages", thus you and I are "heathens" and "pagans", I surmise, by strict definitions.
Thank you for your time and attention to this matter. - brother Robert:
fellowcitizen of the commonwealth of Yisra'el, NOT the STATE OF ISRAEL. |
Edited by - Oneisraelite on 30 Dec 2004 01:44:30 |
|
|
|
Cornerstone Foundation
Advanced Member
uSA
254 Posts |
Posted - 29 Dec 2004 : 12:27:49
|
quote:
Originally posted by BatKol
Marty said: 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?
Steven: Yes. What makes you think that the Gauls are Israelites in light of the context of Paul's
letter to them?
Peace,
Steve
Cornerstone Foundation wrote:
1 Kepha(Peter) 1:1 tells us that there were flesh and blood Israylites living in Galatia.
quote:
Kepha, an apostle of Yahshua Messiah, to the sojourners scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia.
The Greek word diaspora (Strongs G 1290) is used.
Strongs says the word means: the Israylites in Gentile countries which are scattered abroad.
The word diaspora is used two other times in the Scriptures. Those times are Yaaqob(James) 1:1 and Yahchanan(John) 7:35. Each time it is used it is clear from the context that those using the word were referring to members of the twelve tribes of the Israylites in Gentile countries which are scattered abroad.
Therefore because many, many, many Scriptures in the Old Writngs prophesied that the Israylites would be scattered into "Gentiles"(nations)....and I Kepha 1:1 tells us that some of them were in Galatia....
When we see in Galatians 1:2 that Paul is writing to the "called out ones in Galatia"...it seems reasonable to believe that those called out ones either are or could be flesh and blood Israylites.
Galatians 4:28 reinforces that belief when it says: Now we, brothers, like Isaac was, are the
children of the promise. We know that Romans 9:3-4 tells us that the promises belong to flesh and blood Israyl.
quote:
For I could pray that I myself were accursed; from Messiah, for my brothers, my kinsmen according to my own race; The people of Israyl. Theirs is the adoption as sons, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the Law, the service, and the promises
.
We believe that Galatians 4:31, when read in context, shows that those Galatian Israylites that the Galatian Epistle was written to are not the children of Ishmael, but of Isaac.
Best Regards,
Marty |
|
|
|
David Merrill
Advanced Member
USA
1147 Posts |
Posted - 29 Dec 2004 : 13:11:39
|
Pardon me butting in without reading for context but within the scope of the Post above I see something.
Gaul, the subject of the Post in the quote, is probably referring to modern day France. Galatia (possibly tied to the word Gaul) is "Asia Minor" of the Bible; modern day Turkey.
Since Gaul is so much further from Israel/Palesine it makes sense that there would be a much lesser settlement of Jewish communities than Galatia, which is much closer to the Jewish homeland. Paul was from Tarsus, Cilicia which according to a Bible map I am referring to, is in the general area called Galatia.
I hope this is accurate as well as helpful.
Regards,
David Merrill.
|
Edited by - David Merrill on 29 Dec 2004 13:21:30 |
|
|
|
BatKol
Advanced Member
USA
735 Posts |
Posted - 29 Dec 2004 : 14:27:17
|
Marty said in response to the question about the Galatians being Israelites:
quote:
1 Kepha(Peter) 1:1 tells us that there were flesh and blood Israylites living in Galatia
Just because Israelites lived in Galatia does not mean the Gauls were Israelites. A good friend of mine used to live in the middle of the ghetto in a mostly black area. He was not black but lived in the ghetto. That the Israelites were living in Galatia is most likely where all the problems started. These Israelites were living amongst the non-Israelite Gauls and heard Paul's gospel of the uncircumcision. Word spread quickly and Paul was misrepresented. Even to the extent that he had to clear his name by taking the Nazarite vow and proving he still followed the Torah. We don't see James writing a letter to the gentile non-Israelite saying to follow Torah. To the contrary, we see him writing in Acts 15:
"I am therefore of the opinion that we should not harass the heathen; but that we send urging them to keep free from pollution by idols, from fornication, from that which is strangled, and blood…..
24. “Since we have heard that some from among us have disturbed you with statements, unsettling your minds- to whom we gave no instructions - it seemed right for us, being assembled together, to select men and send them to you, together with our friends, Barnabus and Paul, men who have delivered up their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. We have therefore sent Judah and Silas, who themselves will report to you the same facts by word of mouth. For it is the decision of the Holy Spirit, and our own, to lay upon you no greater burden than is necessary; that is, to turn away from idol sacrifices, from blood, and from that which is strangled, and from fornication. Keeping yourself free from these you will do well. Farewell.”..
This is so clear . If the Gauls were Israelites James would not be saying this. He would be pointing out that not one jot or tittle will pass from the Law. The mission of the circumcision was to call lost sheep back to the contract made by their ancestors in the desert.
Mandatory for Israelites. Non-Israelites are not party to any of the Sinai contracts.
quote:
When we see in Galatians 1:2 that Paul is writing to the "called out ones in Galatia"...it seems reasonable to believe that those called out ones either are or could be flesh and blood Israylites.
Called out can also be applied to non-Israelites in the body of Christ. James and the Holy Spirit made it clear that Paul's mission to the gentiles requires only the laws outlined in the letter and ruling made in Acts 15 and 21. This is what defines the gospel of the uncircumcision and also explains why Paul makes reference to Abraham and Isaac's covenant. They required almost no performance because they were a promise from YHWH. The Torah between YHWH and Israelites, however, is much more involved.
quote:
Galatians 4:28 reinforces that belief when it says: Now we, brothers, like Isaac was, are the children of the promise. We know that Romans 9:3-4 tells us that the promises belong to flesh and blood Israyl.
Actually Galatians 4:28 reinforces my statements concerning no obligation to the Sinai covenant. Isaac received his covenant passed on by Abraham and YHWH. Very little performance on his part at all. Born into it. This is key. Isaac knew nothing of a Sinai covenant. His son Jacob Israel's acquisition of the covenant passed on to Isaac was not directly received from birth per say but rather by blackmail and deception. That arrangement got seriously amended because of the actions of his progeny resulting in the Torah of Moses to which all Israelites are bound. Paul, by referencing the covenants of Abraham and Isaac instead of Torah, is making a good analogy to the non-Israelites. Isaac's covenant was a promise from YHWH with little stipulations. The non-Israelite's covenant with Christ is also like a gift and a promise so the references to Isaac and Abraham's arrangements make perfect sense in this context. Jacob's progeny does not enjoy that exact type of relationship. They are obligated to Torah and that is the gospel of the circumcision. To bring the lost sheep of Israel back to Torah via Christ. Paul’s mission was different because he was dealing with a different set of circumstances. Non-Israelites who had no obligation to the Sinai covenant. Both the gospel of the uncircumcision and circumcision had the same end result "in Christ" although different paths and obligations along the way. As Paul himself says concerning the Gospel of the circumcision; another Gospel that is not another.
quote:
We believe that Galatians 4:31, when read in context, shows that those Galatian Israylites that the Galatian Epistle was written to are not the children of Ishmael, but of Isaac.
Sure the Galatian Israelites were of Isaac and of course Jacob and definitely obligated to Torah but Galatians was not written to that group of believers. It was written to the non-Israelites in Galatia and that is who the Gospel of the uncircumcision is aimed at. The problems Paul had were because the local Israelites wrongly thought the Gospel of the uncircumcision applied to them. Why else would there be claims that Paul is preaching against the Torah? Acts is very clear about this misunderstanding and James’ letter to straiten out the mess is clear as well. Look into the history concerning the Gauls and you will see that they were not Israelites so it makes perfect sense Paul’s statements recommending that they stay away from the Torah.
quote:
We know that Romans 9:3-4 tells us that the promises belong to flesh and blood Israyl.
I agree. The promises made to flesh and blood Israel are for Israel alone. The prophets, scripture and the law came through them. Promises were made between them and YHWH. For better or for worse.
However, those promises would not make null any promises offered to non-Israelites mentioned in the NT and OT, especially Amos 9:2. The benefits of Acts 15:16 and Amos 9:2 concerning the non-Israelites are a direct result concering the role and covenants of Israel. brother Robert pointed out in his other post something that I had not considered before but gives even more understanding to Paul's Gospel of the uncircumcision.
"Thus, Yahowshua spoke the truth when he said, salvation is of the Jews. Had it not been for their unbelief and their own abrogation of the covenant, the doors of the Kingdom would not have been opened to the nations [ethnos] […unto ends of the earth]."
I think that one paragraph says so much with so little!
Peace,
Steve |
Edited by - BatKol on 29 Dec 2004 16:25:13 |
|
|
|
Robert-James
Advanced Member
uSA
353 Posts |
Posted - 29 Dec 2004 : 18:11:25
|
Now, who are Israelites today. This history stuff is fine and what... sophmoric? Well, depending on the class and school, or chairwork.
Today, now, the wordly, including ceasar CEO George Bush are under the delusion modern Khazar-Edomite-Jews are the sons of the covenant. History discussed besides my hearth would be a wonder for us all. Suffice to say, may True Israel and her princes stand up? Some are, right now. Firstly the set-apart unction {holy unction}, and then a time or two in jail, is a must. Ah, you know, the three hebrew boy's, and or, Daniel, in the Lion's den. There was the son of man, amongst them. This is a here-now experience.
The YHWH made a covenant of salt with David...the Beloved. A here and now experience. With a son of Yudah. The Throne of YHWH is in existance, now. He lets who will sit.The YHWH Promised to raise the tents of David firstly. Israel later. This is a here-now experience.
Josephus stated that the ten tribes "are beyond the Eupharates till now, [75 a.d.] and are an immense multitude, and not to be estimated by numbers.
1 Macabees 12:21...it has been found in writings concerning the Spartians {Greeks} and the Yudians that they are brethern, and that they are of the stock of Abraham. {Lysurgus, ever read of his experiment with Israelites?}
Esdrus {Ezra} says the same.
I have a real hard time conversing with those who do not know the history of their Race.
Cornerstone knows exactly what I mean to say.
Caucasian, that's me, and why do I identify with that name???
YHWH will never sell out His chosen Nation-Race. Other's are to be added, within the Law.
To sell out one's own Family is treason beyond compare. My Father never will do that. We are the Children of His pasture.
In the book of the revelations of Yahushuah messiah, at the end of the Book, twelve gates are opened to the twelve tribes...of Israel.
Not whomsoever, not to denominations, cretins, christians, believers, etc.
The Tribes of Israel, a covenant made by salt to David, and by Himself, The Yahuweh, through Abraham, what Genesis 15:17. The Presence past between the parts.
This covenant superseeds the ten Words.
The YHWH was the Fire...that passed through the parts.
These are Holy things.
Squabble as we do, let Us be about our Father's business...confirming the covenants to the multitudes...one by one.
Oneisraelite is correct...a new covenant. By the shed blood of the Lamb...whereby all ordinances of sacrifice are forever and now, put away.
Was circumcision put away. Me says no. It was Abrahamic, and symbolic. Paul missed Ezekiel 44:9. Does "it" save us? Assurdidly no.
Ezekiel 43:9.
One Israelite,
among many.
How would one like to awake one day, and find out that YOU are the eternal sacrifice? To make the Egyptian passover experience real. Your blood would suffice, way past Abel's attempt. To redeem Israel...from bondage to the world and sin...and to save The Nation.
What a guy! He set his face...like a flint...to that purpose.
Yahushua never 'convereted' a soul, before his death. Yoseph of Arimathea and "the disciple He loved" came close.
It is a lonely Walk, the Hodos...The Way Home. To My Father's House.
You might be lonely, but never alone.
Come with Me.
|
|
|
|
BatKol
Advanced Member
USA
735 Posts |
Posted - 29 Dec 2004 : 18:20:35
|
quote:
Originally posted by True North
Steve; my words and disconnected thoughts have led down a path of meaning I did not intend. My words don't indicate it but I see the same thing as you point out. A little expansion follows and I may need clarification to see if this is the way you read it.
Steve said: Israelites are obligated to every jot and tittle of the Torah. Paul took the Nazarite vow to prove that he still followed Torah in an effort to clear his name. Gentiles are not at all obligated to Torah and James and the Holy Spirit decided on only Noachide laws for them. As for Israelites, “The scribes and Pharisees sit on the seat of Moses. Whatever thus they tell you to observe, observe and do it; however, do not do according to what they do. For they say it but do not do it.” A heathen Gaul has no connection with the Sinai covenant and is not expected to follow it. Paul strongly warns the heathen Gauls against following Torah.
Exactly so, Israelites are obligated to every jot and tittle of the Torah, and along the same lines ... Israelites need(ed) no savior or moshiach for sanctification/atonement. The Israelites already had Law. The Israelites have had tebilah (immersion) in the mikveh (bath) as well as 02077 zebach (sacrifice) for 03725 kippur (atonement) since the time of Moses and the Levitical priesthood was set up.
I would comment at this point that the Moshiach ben David is not scripted as a sin sacrifice in Tanakh but rather a military victor who would destroy the 4th Kingdom. Also set up the Israelite world order and have off spring (literally). The Israelites were instructed to offer prayers with their lips for forgiveness direct to YHWH once they were kicked out of the promised land (Hosea)with no access to the Temple... So I would add that to their list of ways of attonement.
quote:
Yeshua HaNazarit did not come for anyone except the lost sheep and never preached anything 'outside' of the Law (which would logically have to include Torah shebe'al pe as well as shebiktav).
Until his own received him not, then the non-Israelites would be invited. Paul was the main man to this mission with his Gospel of the uncircumcision.
quote:
I see a continuation of the existing Levitical covenant (a covenant with no end? I forget the reference) alongside a setting up of a Kingdom (Luke 22:29) for any and all (Mark 16:15) with the only compliance issuue again love (Mark 12:30-31) which in its correct application denotes righteousness. But I don't see two gospels, only a continuation (with correct interpretation in righteousness) of the Law and a covenant for Gentiles which needs a different priesthood (the order of melchizedek) with the shedding of blood for atonement (the Law requires blood or washings and sometimes both).
I see two gospels in that 1) the Israelites are required to still follow Torah and 2) now the non-Israelites are invited in with very minimal laws but 'all access' none-the-less.
quote:
All/most of Paul's writings are for Gentiles ignorant of Law. There are those that say this (order of Melchizedek) is not necessary because the Gentiles had the Noahidic Covenant but they miss the fact that the Noahchide Laws have no provision for atonement. And a return to Abba is what all this mess is about (atonement).
I assume the Jamesian Noachide laws would not need a provision for attonement since they were written for non-Israelite believers who would have already become a part of the "body of Christ". What is interesting to me is I am seeing an interesting story inbetween the lines which somehow figures in with the Jebusites, Brahmins, Melchezidek, the Magi. An idea is starting to form but it is taking a bit of serious contemplation in putting it all together.
quote:
If you get some time, I would enjoy continuing this exploration of ancient concepts.
It would be a pleasure.
quote:
P.S. I spent this past sunrise on the solstice getting digital imagery inside a cave that has pretty convincing evidence that there were people in this part of the country with Hebrew roots prior to the current era.
TN
Check this out http://www.ancientamerican.com/article30p1.htm
Keep me posted on your findings.
Peace,
Steve |
Edited by - BatKol on 29 Dec 2004 23:33:01 |
|
|
|
BatKol
Advanced Member
USA
735 Posts |
Posted - 29 Dec 2004 : 23:27:50
|
Robert-James said: History discussed besides my hearth would be a wonder for us all.
Steve: A wonder indeed.
Robert-James said: Josephus stated that the ten tribes "are beyond the Eupharates till now, [75 a.d.] and are an immense multitude, and not to be estimated by numbers.
Steve: This could apply to any number of desert dwellers.
Robert-James said: 1 Macabees 12:21...it has been found in writings concerning the Spartians {Greeks} and the Yudians that they are brethern, and that they are of the stock of Abraham.
Steve: Brothers? Just like Edomites are brothers to the Israelites while also not considered Israelites. Your statement does not prove the Greeks to be Israelites. Abraham had several sons. Not only was there Isaac, but there was also Ishmael, Zimran, Jokshan, Medan, Midian, Ishbak and Shuah. And these many sons, with their sons, were to become the progenitors of many nations.
Robert-James said: I have a real hard time conversing with those who do not know the history of their Race.
Steve: Your knowledge of White history is based on wishful thinking that has been proven false by linguistics, archaeology, DNA evidence and most of all... logic. The Celts, one of the earliest peoples that invaded Britain, are said to have first arrived 1,000 BCE and that's more than 200 years before the Northern Kingdom fell. There is even strong evidence that suggests the Celts were in Ireland as early as 3500 BCE given the Newgrange Megalithic Passage Tomb featuring the tri-spiral design which is probably the most famous Irish symbol. Also there is evidence of Northen European DNA in Europe that was around well before there was ever such thing as an Israelite.
Stay warm,
Steve |
Edited by - BatKol on 30 Dec 2004 00:47:27 |
|
|
|
Oneisraelite
Advanced Member
uSA
833 Posts |
Posted - 30 Dec 2004 : 06:02:36
|
Yechezqel [Ezeki'el] 43:9 Now let them put away their infidelity,[2184] and the images[6297] of their kings, far from me, and I will lodge[7931] in the midst of them forever.
King
Is in Scripture very generally used to denote one invested with authority, whether extensive or limited.
This title is applied to Yahowah and to [His] Messiah, the Son of Yahowah. The people of Yahowah are also called "kings" [This is why He is called "the King of kings".]
Yahowah was the sole King of the Yisra'elite nation. But there came a time in the history of that people when a king was demanded, that they might be like other nations. [Infidelity]
The prophet Shama'el [Samuel] remonstrated [argued/reasoned] with them, but the people cried out, "Nay, but we will have a king [a man; the creature, not the Creator (See Romans 1:25)] over us."
The Yisra'elite kings did not rule in their own right, nor in the name [authority] of the people who had chosen them, but partly as servants and partly as representatives of Yahowah, the true King of Yisra'el. The limit of the king's power were prescribed. [Adapted from Easton's Bible Dictionary]
We are not to have a government of, by and for the people; no, that is demo kratia, people rule. Where is Yahowah in that set-up??? No, this is a government of [created by] Yahowah, by [in the Authority of] Yahowah, for [the good of] His people. Rulers that Yahowah sanctions [establishes] are those who are "His representatives", not those doing their own will!
Hosea 8:4 They have set up kings, but not by me...
Psalm 2:2 The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against Yahowah, and against his anointed...
...And what is our [as a nation] answer to this very day?
Luke 19:14 But his citizens hated him, and sent a message after him, saying, We will not have this one to reign over us.
Why? Because we think we are wise within ourselves, we think we can get by with the works of our own hands, with governments of and by the creature; us!! If this is truth, why is the earth in the catastrophic mess it is in? Because it is a Lie!
Ever watch an earthly family fight, squabble and divide over the inheritance when the parents die? We be of Abraham, we be of David, we be of Yadah [Judah]...we be of BULL****, is what we be!! We be greedy little children to this very day, is what we be; squabbling over who gets what and remaining divided as a consequence!! Just what kosmokrator(s) wants, a house divided, for a house divided shall not stand, as it is written!!
fellowcitizen of the commonwealth of Yisra'el, NOT the STATE OF ISRAEL. |
Edited by - Oneisraelite on 30 Dec 2004 07:36:46 |
|
|
|
True North
Advanced Member
USA
163 Posts |
Posted - 30 Dec 2004 : 08:49:18
|
quote:
…if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be graffed in: for Yahowah is able to graff them in again[G3825]. But what do we see them do? We see them still abiding in unbelief and falling back on the Abrahamic covenant, thinking this will save them.
We can put the above quote so that will be inoffensive for most (except the dogmatic religious) with one word.
Government
The ideology of having "absolutes" comes into play for me. There is the "absolute" of (0259 echad) unity in the shema of Deuteronomy 6:4. The problem of government that is inherent with this "absolute(s)" is what kind of government by men was commanded? The early Hebrew knew this government as the man of the house took his place in community (Able, Seth and later Abraham and all his house including the slaves). The Israelites' had the government within the Levitical priesthood and the setting up of tithingmen (Exodus 18:21 & Deuteronomy 1:15) when Moses could not handle the administrative duty and court. The Goy never did get it (Cain) and probably will never get it unless they are forced to confront it head on. Government is about ministering an entrance into liberty (the perfect law of liberty James 1:25) but it is not the way of liberty/HaShem to force/coerce someone.
The results of constant refusal of the government of Yah is death (James 1:15). Civil death, if you will, and then physical death when sin runs its course. So we see the perversion of government by the Levites and the tithing man administration started with Moses re-instituted by the early followers of Yeshua HaNazarit in Act 6 when the disciples couldn't handle the daily administration as the church grew. The concept of government by tens is also seen in Acts 1:15, I.E. 12 disciples and the 120 gathered.
You can see approximately just how long these types of government can last (when headed by goy) before the allure of coercion set in. The appointing of Nicolas a proselyte of Antioch in Act 6:5 has become abomination by the time Revelation 2:15 is written. (You need Schaff's 'History of the Christian Church' for this verification, I'll attempt to find it again if someone needs the reference)
It probably is not necessary to be as dogmatic as I'm guilty of about much of what we discuss but it is crucial to manifestation of the Kingdom of Yah (in each individual personal life) to understand that Law and Government are from Yah not man. Recognition of this (government) give us two absolutes to which we can form community. Mark 12:30-31 provides those absolutes. If you choose to believe that existing governments apply to you and 'should' be obeyed, I offer this caveat.
Notoriously many people believed that man's government (separated from Mark 12:30-31) was ananthema to the community of Yah. Many gave their lives rather than give in to a government that participated in debt money systems, sacrifice to molech (war), etc. etc. (See Foxes Book of Martyrs).
Because each individual can only understand and implement the "absolutes" recorded in Mark 12:30-31 in the context of their individual calling, perhaps this community will indeed be one that exists world wide but spread apart and only dealing along the lines of the curse of Adam. The current statues and codes "allow" this type of community to exist "within" the community of government by man and I hold that Isaiah 60:1 already holds.
When His will is done, His Kingdom comes.
TN |
|
|
|
Oneisraelite
Advanced Member
uSA
833 Posts |
Posted - 30 Dec 2004 : 09:06:12
|
Greetings True North:
Peace be unto the house.
quote:
The Goy never did get it (Cain) and probably will never get it unless they are forced to confront it head on.
Now Yahowah had said unto Abram, Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and from thy father's house, unto a land that I will shew thee: And I will make of thee a great goy… Genesis 12:1-22a
And ‘Elohiym spake unto Yisra’el in the visions of the night, and said, Ya’aqob, Ya’aqob. And he said, Here am I. And he said, I am ‘Elohiym, the ‘Elohiym of thy father: fear not to go down into Egypt; for I will there make of thee a great goy… Genesis 46:3
And Yahowah said unto Moses, I have seen this people, and, behold, it is a stiffnecked people: Now therefore let me alone, that my wrath may wax hot against them, and that I may consume them: and I will make of thee a great goy. Exodus 32:9-10
Judging by that last one you may be right about the goy “never getting it”.
fellowcitizen of the commonwealth of Yisra'el, NOT the STATE OF ISRAEL. |
Edited by - Oneisraelite on 30 Dec 2004 09:09:15 |
|
|
|
BatKol
Advanced Member
USA
735 Posts |
Posted - 30 Dec 2004 : 10:12:58
|
brother Robert said: Judging by that last one you may be right about the goy “never getting it”.
Steve: Indeed. "seven times shall pass over thee, till thou know that the most High ruleth in the kingdom of men, and giveth it to whomsoever he will." Even Jesus told Pilate that he had no power except what was given to him by his Father. |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Biblical Covenants
