ECCLESIASTIC COMMONWEALTH COMMUNITY
ECCLESIASTIC COMMONWEALTH COMMUNITY
Home | Profile | Register | Active Topics | Members | Search | FAQ
Username:
Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?

 All Forums
 The Roman World
 CITIZENSHIP
 Was Paul a Roman Citizen???
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly
Previous Page | Next Page
Author Previous Topic Topic Next Topic
Page: of 4

BatKol
Advanced Member

USA
735 Posts

Posted - 14 Sep 2005 :  08:19:15  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Greetings,
After sleeping on the claim concerning the alleged Zealot doctrine of Christ I wanted to put forth this rebuttal:

A simple reading of Christ's "Sermon on the Mount" should be sufficient to debunk the zealot claim. It is hard to imgine a more anti-zealot position than Christ's words during the "Sermon on the Mount"!! Love your enemies is not one of their doctrines.

brother Robert is completely on target with his post showing the connection between the Pharisees and the Zealots. The problem that this presents, however, is Christ's continual claims against the same as "a generation of vipers", "Blind", "Children of the devil", etc, etc.






Edited by - BatKol on 15 Sep 2005 14:16:36
Go to Top of Page

Oneisraelite
Advanced Member

uSA
833 Posts

Posted - 16 Sep 2005 :  08:11:02  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Greetings and salutations in the name of our King:

Peace be unto the house.

Let’s make this simple.

Thou shalt have no other ‘elohiym [H430] before (above, over, upon, against) me.

H430 ‘elohiym
Strong’s Definition: gods in the ordinary sense


So just what is the ordinary sense? Brown-Driver-Briggs’ Hebrew Lexicon elucidates it for us.

H430 ‘elohiym
BDB Definition: 1a) rulers, judges


No servant is able to serve two lords/masters/gods [G2962]; for either he will hate the one, and he will love the other; or he will cleave to one, and he will despise the other.

The Greek word kurios [G2962] was, in the New Testament/Covenant, translated master, lord and God and literally means, he to whom a person or thing belongs and can alternately refer to:

1a2) in the state: the sovereign, prince, chief, the Roman emperor, or whatever other masque (title) they may wish to hide behind; or

in the commonwealth of Yisra’el/Kingdom of heaven/Kingdom of God : God (Yahuwah) and His Messiah (anointed 1a) priest-king (Melchizedek, Messiah)).

and He "put all things under His feet" and gave Him to be Head over all things to the gathering of citizens called out (ekklesia)

I would have you know that the head of every man is Messiah, and the head of the woman is the man, and the head of Messiah is Yahuwah.

Does this mean we are accusing you, or anyone else who prefers to stay in Babylon, of breaking the First Commandment? We believe it may not even pertain to those people; the key to this understanding is the lead-in to the First Commandment:

And ‘Elohiym spoke all these words, saying, I am Yahuwah your ‘Elohiym, who has brought you out from the land of Egypt, from the house of bondage.

It very well may be that He is only the ‘Elohiym (god in the ordinary sense, i.e. ruler, judge) of those whom He has brought out of bondage; makes perfect sense when one thinks about it; those still in bondage (oppression) are under other ‘elohiym (gods in the ordinary sense, i.e. rulers, judges), and his or its burdensome, grievous colorable law, which of course is how they oppress their citizens.

Oppress, v.t. [L. appressus, from opprimo; ob and premo, to press.] 1. To load or burden with unreasonable impositions; to treat with unjust severity, rigor or hardship; as, to oppress a nation with taxes or contributions; to oppress one by compelling him to perform unreasonable service.

brother Steven, if you, or anyone else, truly believe that you are commanded by Yahuwah to remain in bondage (oppression) then that is what you must obviously do.

But for those of us who believe otherwise, for those of us who truly believe we must choose this day whom we will serve, it is quite a different story, as you can no doubt see.

as for me and my house, we will serve Yahuwah.

We thank you all for your time and attention.


fellowcitizen of the commonwealth of Yisra'el,
NOT the man-made, fictional USA.
Ephesians 2:12 & 19
An act done by me against my will is not my act.

Edited by - Oneisraelite on 16 Sep 2005 08:20:03
Go to Top of Page

BatKol
Advanced Member

USA
735 Posts

Posted - 17 Sep 2005 :  07:38:03  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
brother robert: Greetings and salutations in the name of our King:

Peace be unto the house.


Steve: Greetings and peace to your house as well

brother Robert: Let’s make this simple.

Thou shalt have no other ‘elohiym [H430] before (above, over, upon, against) me.

H430 ‘elohiym
Strong’s Definition: gods in the ordinary sense…

H430 ‘elohiym
BDB Definition: 1a) rulers, judges


Steve: brother Robert, I’ll make it even more simple. if you go to www.blueletterbible.org and look up H430 it will tell you every time H430 is used as “judges”. You can’t just insert the definition you like from the list without considering how the word is used in context. Let me show you when H430 is used as “judges”. You will see that it only refers to Israelites who hold the appointed office as defined from the Torah.

Exd 21:6 Then his master 0113 shall bring 05066 him unto the judges 0430; he shall also bring 05066 him to the door 01817, or unto the door post 04201; and his master 0113 shall bore 07527 his ear 0241 through with an aul 04836; and he shall serve 05647 him for ever 05769.

Exd 22:8 If the thief 01590 be not 03808 found 04672 , then the master 01167 of the house 01004 shall be brought 07126 unto the judges 0430, [to see] whether he have put 07971 his hand 03027 unto his neighbour's 07453 goods 04399.

Exd 22:9 For all manner 01697 of trespass 06588, [whether it be] for ox 07794, for ass 02543, for sheep 07716, for raiment 08008, [or] for any manner of lost thing 09, which [another] challengeth 0559 to be his, the cause 01697 of both parties 08147 shall come 0935 before the judges 0430; [and] whom the judges 0430 shall condemn 07561 , he shall pay 07999 double 08147 unto his neighbour 07453.

1Sa 2:25 If one man 0376 sin 02398 against another 0376, the judge 0430 shall judge 06419 him: but if a man 0376 sin 02398 against the LORD 03068, who shall intreat 06419 for him? Notwithstanding they hearkened 08085 not unto the voice 06963 of their father 01, because the LORD 03068 would 02654 slay 04191 them.

Psa 82:1 [[A Psalm 04210 of Asaph 0623.]] God 0430 standeth 05324 in the congregation 05712 of the mighty 0410; he judgeth 08199 among 07130 the gods 0430.

Brother Robert, have you been able to find me even ONE example where the word H430 is used for a flesh body that is NOT an Israelite? George Bush would not be considered an H430.


brother Robert: No servant is able to serve two lords/masters/gods [G2962]; for either he will hate the one, and he will love the other; or he will cleave to one, and he will despise the other.

The Greek word kurios [G2962] was, in the New Testament/Covenant, translated master, lord and God and literally means, he to whom a person or thing belongs and can alternately refer to:

1a2) in the state: the sovereign, prince, chief, the Roman emperor, or whatever other masque (title) they may wish to hide behind; or


Steve: Once again you do not post the full verse. This is a consistant feature with your assertions. The verse you are listing is not talking about ‘the state‘. You are adding that in to support your theory.

Here’s the full verse which includes the last sentence you failed to add:

Mat 6:24 No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.

What is mammon?

1) mammon
2) treasure
3) riches (where it is personified and opposed to God)

If you would have included the last sentence the statement would have been clear. One cannot live for money, treasure, riches as their life’s focus. It puts them in direct opposition to God. Daniel, even though he was a high ranking BABYL official, kept this rule as well as the first commandment. He also followed every BABYL law until that law demanded him to break the first commandment. Same with SHADRACH, MESSHACK, and ABEDNEGO. You know the rest of the story. No, the first commandment was not “suspended” during the exile.


brother Robert: in the commonwealth of Yisra’el/Kingdom of heaven/Kingdom of God : God (Yahuwah) and His Messiah (anointed 1a) priest-king (Melchizedek, Messiah)).

…and He "put all things under His feet" and gave Him to be Head over all things to the gathering of citizens called out (ekklesia)


I would have you know that the head of every man is Messiah, and the head of the woman is the man, and the head of Messiah is Yahuwah.


Steve: Again, I would point you to a few rock solid scriptures which you have been avoiding. Paul’s group of believers had the Messiah as their head, received the Holy Spirit, and were considered complete equals with the Israelite converts. Please address this below which you have avoided. It deals directly with the question of which laws these believers should follow being part of the body of Christ:

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:

brother Robert, why is James and the Holy Spirit not instructing the new followers in your version of the first commandment as well as your version of "serving two masters"? Keep in mind James wrote this letter for Paul to deliver AFTER Christ's death and resurrection. It seems, according to your theory, that James and the Holy Spirit, missed the kernal of Christ's work. The letter was specifically written to clear up the confusion concerning what laws they were to follow. No hint of your doctrine in such a crucial letter on what is demanded of the Gentile believers.

Please address this item for the list and all who are tuned in.


brother Robert: Does this mean we are accusing you, or anyone else who prefers to stay in Babylon, of breaking the First Commandment?

Steve: Your rendering of the first commandment or 'serving two masters' does not hold water when we apply it to plain scripture, in context. I have proven this in detail and you refuse to address the same details. You avoid them. You dodge them. The very few that you are willing to address forces you to make outlandish statements like "the first commandment was suspended" or "Paul was lying" or other such assertions.

brother Robert: We believe it may not even pertain to those people; the key to this understanding is the lead-in to the First Commandment:

And ‘Elohiym spoke all these words, saying, I am Yahuwah your ‘Elohiym, who has brought you out from the land of Egypt, from the house of bondage.

It very well may be that He is only the ‘Elohiym (god in the ordinary sense, i.e. ruler, judge) of those whom He has brought out of bondage; makes perfect sense when one thinks about it; those still in bondage (oppression) are under other ‘elohiym (gods in the ordinary sense, i.e. rulers, judges), and his or its burdensome, grievous colorable law, which of course is how they oppress their citizens.

Oppress, v.t. [L. appressus, from opprimo; ob and premo, to press.] 1. To load or burden with unreasonable impositions; to treat with unjust severity, rigor or hardship; as, to oppress a nation with taxes or contributions; to oppress one by compelling him to perform unreasonable service.

brother Steven, if you, or anyone else, truly believe that you are commanded by Yahuwah to remain in bondage (oppression) then that is what you must obviously do.


Steve: You are under the same “bondage” as I am. Neither you nor I own land. We rent and let somebody else prosper by our agreement. We are both under the FRN system which we willfully use (which, by the way, consists only of an "image and superscription" with no gold or silver backing it). We both have to wake up and go to work for these same FRNs so that our familes can eat and live. We both pay all of the CONSUMER TAXES we despise. Yeah, I have a DRIVERS LICENSE and you don’t. You call that bondage? Respectfully, I travel across this country on a regular basis with out looking over my shoulder to feed my family while you rarely leave your local area once you are settled. It is not expedient for me to use a moped which requires no DL to drive. Bottom line is, we both use the FRN system and the CONSUMER GOODS system for our day to day living. Have you considered that all of the TRUCKERS who deliver the CONSUMER GOODS both you and I enjoy are all guilty of breaking the first commandment and serving two masters according to your theory?
I thought Christ's burden was an easy one!


brother Robert: But for those of us who believe otherwise, for those of us who truly believe we must choose this day whom we will serve, it is quite a different story, as you can no doubt see.

…as for me and my house, we will serve Yahuwah.

We thank you all for your time and attention.


Steve: What you fail to digest is that the Israelites broke that statement and punishments came forth. In fact, their whole city was destroyed in 70 AD which fulfilled many scriptures. You make the grave and serious mistake of claiming that one cannot be a CITIZEN and serve YHWH while scripture clearly shows otherwise both pre and post Christ. I have shown you time and again where key figures in the Bible were called righteous, etc. while being CITIZENS. When we apply your theory to these key figures we see that your theory is impossible or the whole Bible, as it is plainly written so that even a child could understand it, is wrong. I have shown you every time elohim is used in scripture where the definition is "judges". You claim that you are right with out of context scripture renderings and that the Bible, plainly written, is the delusion! Mary and Joseph were TAXPAYERS (certainly NOT Zealots) and were breaking the first commandment according to your theory. EMPIRE CITIZENS Paul and Silas, out preaching the Gospel that was entrusted to them, were actually first commandment breakers and serving two masters according to your theory. Cornelius, according to your theory, could not have really “worshipped God with his whole household”, as the Bible says, while at the same time being an EMPIRE CENTURION. James and the Holy Spirit, when instructing the Gentile believers in Christ on what laws they should follow, forgot the essence of the whole Gospel story and gave the "uncircumcision" false council.

We will be watching this thread to see if you will address that which has been avoided previously. If you respond to nothing else, please explain why James and the Holy Spirit failed to give your version of what is commanded for being a part of the Body of Christ. If your theory is correct then James and the Holy Spirit gave the "uncircumcision" bad instructions for leaving out the main ingredient of "the Way". Aside from the long list of other key Bible figures which stand in opposition to your theory, Acts 15:12-20 is a serious problem for your line of thinking.

Our best to you and yours!

Also, we both get a pat on the back for taking this topic as far as we have with out "devouring each other"


Edited by - BatKol on 17 Sep 2005 16:14:23
Go to Top of Page

Oneisraelite
Advanced Member

uSA
833 Posts

Posted - 18 Sep 2005 :  07:04:45  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Steve: The very few that you are willing to address forces you to make outlandish statements like…"Paul was lying"

Outlandish, a. ...vulgar; rustic; rude; clownish. [This is the sense in which the word is among us most generally used.] – Webster’s 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language

How could I have been so clownish?!?

For if the truth of Yahuwah hath more abounded through my lie [G5582] unto his glory; why yet am I also judged as a sinner?

G5582
pseusma
psyoos'-mah
From G5574; a fabrication, that is, falsehood


What kind of a fabrication, that is, falsehood?

G5582
pseusma
Thayer Definition:
1) a falsehood, a lie
2) the perfidy by which a man by sinning breaks faith
[fidelity] with God

Perfidy, n. [L. perfidia; per and fides, faith.] The act of violating faith, a promise, vow or allegiance; treachery; the violation of a trust reposed. Perfidy is not applied to violations of contracts in ordinary pecuniary transactions, but to violations of faith or trust in friendship, in agency and office, in allegiance, in connubial engagements, and in the transactions of kings. – Webster’s 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language

Treachery, n. trech'ery. Violation of allegiance... This is perfidy. (Ibid.)

Please forgive my outlandish statement.


fellowcitizen of the commonwealth of Yisra'el,
NOT the man-made, fictional USA.
Ephesians 2:12 & 19
An act done by me against my will is not my act.

Edited by - Oneisraelite on 18 Sep 2005 07:32:29
Go to Top of Page

BatKol
Advanced Member

USA
735 Posts

Posted - 18 Sep 2005 :  09:21:59  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
The outlandish statement is that Paul lied about his CITIZENSHIP. This is impossible because the benefits he enjoyed were only given to CITIZENS. There was no lying about it. The proof is in the treatment he got at all levels. Think of what is at stake. Non-CITIZENS got beat first and questioned later.

Why do you refuse to address this below?

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

brother Robert, why is James and the Holy Spirit not instructing the new followers in your version of the first commandment as well as your version of "serving two masters"? Keep in mind James wrote this letter for Paul to deliver AFTER Christ's death and resurrection. It seems, according to your theory, that James and the Holy Spirit, missed the kernal of Christ's work. The letter was specifically written to clear up the confusion concerning what laws they were to follow. No hint of your doctrine in such a crucial letter on what is demanded of the Gentile believers.

Don't you think it would be fair to address this having come so far on this topic?? Why dodge this point blank statement by James, the ecclesia, and the Holy Spirit??

Best,
Steve
Go to Top of Page

Oneisraelite
Advanced Member

uSA
833 Posts

Posted - 18 Sep 2005 :  09:25:01  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Dear Steve:

Steve: The very few that you are willing to address forces you to make outlandish statements like…"the first commandment was suspended".

Outlandish, a. ...vulgar; rustic; rude; clownish. [This is the sense in which the word is among us most generally used.] – Webster’s 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language

How could I have been so clownish?!?

Who in times past suffered all nations to walk in their own ways.

What do you suppose “in times past” or “in generations or ages past” means? What do you assume “suffered all nations to walk in their own ways” means? Could it possibly mean that not only the First Commandment was suspend “in times past” but perhaps all of them may have been suspended for a time? Or could it be that we may not have been held accountable in “the times of this ignorance” and that “Yahuwah winked” (overlook, not punish)…“but now commands all men every where to repent”.

Repent, v.i. …5. In theology, to sorrow or be pained for sin, as a violation of God's holy law, a dishonor to his character and government, and the foulest ingratitude to a Being of infinite benevolence. – Webster’s 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language

Dishonor to his…government?

Thou shalt make no covenant with…their gods (‘elohiym).

Consecrate, v.t. [L., to consecrate, sacred. See Sacred.] 2. …to enroll among the gods, as a Roman emperor. – Webster’s 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language

God, n.

1. The Supreme Being; Jehovah; the eternal and infinite spirit, the creator, and the sovereign of the universe.

2. A false god; a heathen deity; an idol.

3. A prince; a ruler; a magistrate or judge; an angel.

4. Any person or thing exalted too much in estimation, or deified and honored as the chief good.
(Ibid.)

If old Noah Webster perceived that the word “god”, and thus 'elohiym, could mean all those things, then perhaps “your theory” may not be an accurate phraseology.

Please forgive all my outlandish statements.

Did any of you ever just know a thing, way down deep inside, but not yet be able to prove it to everyone else’s satisfaction?


fellowcitizen of the commonwealth of Yisra'el,
NOT the man-made, fictional USA.
Ephesians 2:12 & 19
An act done by me against my will is not my act.
Go to Top of Page

BatKol
Advanced Member

USA
735 Posts

Posted - 18 Sep 2005 :  10:06:12  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
brother Robert said:
Who in times past suffered all nations to walk in their own ways.

What do you suppose “in times past” or “in generations or ages past” means? What do you assume “suffered all nations to walk in their own ways” means? Could it possibly mean that not only the First Commandment was suspend “in times past” but perhaps all of them may have been suspended for a time? Or could it be that we may not have been held accountable in “the times of this ignorance” and that “Yahuwah winked” (overlook, not punish)…“but now commands all men every where to repent”.


Steve: Firstly, YHWH certainly did not "wink" at Israel's walking in their own ways "until that time". He destroyed their kingdoms and spread dung on their face in exile hundreds of years before Paul ever made this statement. Secondly, if you were to read the WHOLE context from which you have taken this verse, the questions would be answered before you asked.

Let's look at the whole section and the answers to your questions above will be clear:

Act 14:11 And when the people saw what Paul had done, they lifted up their voices, saying in the speech of Lycaonia, The gods are come down to us in the likeness of men.
Act 14:12 And they called Barnabas, Jupiter; and Paul, Mercurius, because he was the chief speaker.
Act 14:13 Then the priest of Jupiter, which was before their city, brought oxen and garlands unto the gates, and would have done sacrifice with the people.
Act 14:14 [Which] when the apostles, Barnabas and Paul, heard [of], they rent their clothes, and ran in among the people, crying out,
Act 14:15 And saying, Sirs, why do ye these things? We also are men of like passions with you, and preach unto you that ye should turn from these vanities unto the living God, which made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all things that are therein:
Act 14:16 Who in times past suffered all nations to walk in their own ways.

Who did Paul make this statement to?
Non-Israelite pagan priests of Jupiter and their followers. Gentiles.

Why did Paul make this statement?
Because the priests were going to make a sacrifice to Paul and Barnabus who they mistook as "gods who came down in the likeness of men". These sacrificial practices to pagan gods YHWH suffered until Christ. Keep in mind we are talking about non-Israelite Gentiles here. Very important. They were not party to the Sinai Covenant.

What did Paul proclaim in response to this?
And saying, Sirs, why do ye these things? We also are men of like passions with you, and preach unto you that ye should turn from these vanities unto the living God,

These were not Israelites. They were Pagans to whom Paul was preaching the gospel of the uncircumcision. These people had absolutely NO connection to the Sinai Covenant so trying to argue from Act 14:16 that this verse shows that the first commandment was some how suspended is a blatent non-sequitur.


brother Robert

God, n.

1. The Supreme Being; Jehovah; the eternal and infinite spirit, the creator, and the sovereign of the universe.

2. A false god; a heathen deity; an idol.

3. A prince; a ruler; a magistrate or judge; an angel.

4. Any person or thing exalted too much in estimation, or deified and honored as the chief good. (Ibid.)

If old Noah Webster perceived that the word “god”, and thus 'elohiym, could mean all those things, then perhaps “your theory” may not be an accurate phraseology.

Please forgive all my outlandish statements.


Steve: Again, you ignore context. Certainly “old Noah Webster” would not be so careless to assert that Elohim could mean every one of the definitions listed at the same time. Elohim, when used to describe Jehovah in #1, cannot also mean at the same time #2 false god, heathen deity. One must ALWAYS look to the context to see which definition applies. Also, definition #4 does not mean one cannot be a CITIZEN as long as any person or thing is not deified. Daniel was able to follow all of BABYL’s laws and YHWH’s laws until they interfered with his commitment to YHWH which he put above BABYL’s law. He would not be guilty of definition #4. He refused to worship their idol. In fact, the BABYL magistrates had to invent a law which would cause Daniel to break YHWH's Laws to frame him. That's Daniel keeping both the first and second commandments in opposition to BABYL so we can see that none of these laws were "suspended".

Let me show you when H430 is used as “judges”. You will see that it only refers to Israelites who hold the appointed office as defined from the Torah.

Exd 21:6 the judges 0430;

Exd 22:8 the judges 0430

Exd 22:9 the judges 0430 .

1Sa 2:25 the judge 0430

Psa 82:1 the gods 0430 (as in ruling Israelites).

Brother Robert, have you been able to find me even ONE example where the word H430 is used for a 'flesh body' that is NOT an Israelite?


brother Robert said: Did any of you ever just know a thing, way down deep inside, but not yet be able to prove it to everyone else’s satisfaction?

Steve: Prove it to everyone else's satisfaction? You are pulling verses out of context to make your assertions while disgarding the basic storyline including what is said about the folks in the same stories! I am trying to apply your assertions to direct scenarios in the Bible and they don't add up. Why not simply show the list how your assertions fit with:

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

If you are correct in your assertion concerning the first commandment and serving two masters, then James, the ecclesia, and the Holy Spirit are giving false council when trying to clear up what laws the Gentile believers are to follow as members of the Body of Christ! This section in Acts 15 directly addresses the issue at hand in clear language. According to your assertion they all missed the essense of the Gospel.

Please elaborate on Acts 15! Is that too much to ask having come so far???


Eyptomology without usage and context is speculation. Word usage in context is reality.





Edited by - BatKol on 18 Sep 2005 16:28:20
Go to Top of Page

Oneisraelite
Advanced Member

uSA
833 Posts

Posted - 19 Sep 2005 :  04:51:56  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
We find in Exodus 23 that Yahuwah’s messenger sends the Yisra’elites in to the Amorite, and the Hittite, and the Perizzite, and the Canaanite, and the Hivite, and the Jebusite…and Yahuwah said, I will deliver the inhabitants of the land into your hand; and thou shalt drive them out before thee. Thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor with their ‘elohiym [gods].

Thou shalt make no covenantwith their ‘elohiym [gods].

(1) The Amorites (one of the Canaanitish tribes), the Hittites (the descendants of an aboriginal Canaanite), the Perizzites (one of the Canaanitish tribes), the Canaanites, the Hivites (one of the aboriginal tribes of Palestine) and the Jebusites (aborigines of Yebus) are obviously not Yisra’elite citizens. If they were Yisra’elites then there would be no need to give the directive; “thou shalt drive them out before thee”.

(2) A covenant can be a contract, treaty, promise, or pledge but in its most basic sense it is an agreement, i.e. a meeting of minds. What are the ‘elohiym [gods] of the Amorites, the Hittites, the Perizzites, the Canaanites, the Hivites and the Jebusites if one is able make a covenant, contract, treaty, promise, pledge or an agreement, i.e. a meeting of minds with them?

The ‘elohiym that the Yisra’elites are warned not to make agreements with are:
a) wood
b) rock
c) gold
d) silver
e) rulers (non-Yisra’elite)

Resistance to tyranny is obedience to God.

fellowcitizen of the commonwealth of Yisra'el,
NOT the man-made, fictional USA.
Ephesians 2:12 & 19
An act done by me against my will is not my act.

Edited by - Oneisraelite on 19 Sep 2005 04:58:26
Go to Top of Page

BatKol
Advanced Member

USA
735 Posts

Posted - 19 Sep 2005 :  10:33:58  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Steve: Since brother Robert is not able to address Acts 15 and other ‘problem spots’ that plainly contradict his theory I will keep refuting every point he brings up to show his misuse of the word
“elohim” to represent non-Israelite rulers
.

brother Robert: We find in Exodus 23 that Yahuwah’s messenger sends the Yisra’elites in to the Amorite, and the Hittite, and the Perizzite, and the Canaanite, and the Hivite, and the Jebusite…and Yahuwah said, I will deliver the inhabitants of the land into your hand; and thou shalt drive them out before thee. Thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor with their ‘elohiym [gods].

“Thou shalt make no covenant…with their ‘elohiym [gods].”


Steve: Notice how brother Robert has edited out "them" in his last sentence? For his purposes he is only going to highlight “elohim” but we can’t ignore the use of the word “them” if we want to understand how the above verse fits in with the history of Israel in the promised land.

brother Robert: (1) The Amorites (one of the Canaanitish tribes), the Hittites (the descendants of an aboriginal Canaanite), the Perizzites (one of the Canaanitish tribes), the Canaanites, the Hivites (one of the aboriginal tribes of Palestine) and the Jebusites (aborigines of Yebus) are obviously not Yisra’elite citizens. If they were Yisra’elites then there would be no need to give the directive; “thou shalt drive them out before thee”.

Steve: All fine here. It is obvious that the seven nations greater than Israel are not Israelite citizens. Make note here, however, that the Israelites did destroy the governments of these inhabitants. This will be important later.

brother Robert: (2) A covenant can be a contract, treaty, promise, or pledge but in its most basic sense it is an agreement, i.e. a meeting of minds. What are the ‘elohiym [gods] of the Amorites, the Hittites, the Perizzites, the Canaanites, the Hivites and the Jebusites if one is able make a covenant, contract, treaty, promise, pledge or an agreement, i.e. a meeting of minds with them?

The ‘elohiym that the Yisra’elites are warned not to make agreements with are:
a) wood
b) rock
c) gold
d) silver
e) rulers (non-Yisra’elite)


Steve: First of all, the Israelites destroyed all of the “rulers” and their government structures when taking the promised land so “e” is not the definition of “elohim” when it comes to the Canaanites. The problem is that the Israelites did not “utterly destroy” the inhabitants of the land but instead made covenants with them of tribute and slavery which is a direct breach of Moses’ instructions. Simply put, there were no foreign rulers of foreign goverments left in the promised land! Their governments and ruling structure was destroyed. There were, however, defeated peoples which were spared for tribute and slave labor. Putting these defeated peoples under servitude and tribute is not making a covenant with 'their gods', it is making a covenant or agreement with them. Not only did the Israelites fail in “utterly destroying” the inhabitants like they should have, they even left some of their alters in place that the enemy used for worshipping their 'elohim'. This is key when looking later to Israel whoring after 'strange elohim' when there were no Canaanite "rulers" left in the land.

What brother Robert refuses to accept when dealing with the word "elohim", as it is used addressing non-Israelite context, is that other ememy nations had deities/gods which they viewed as having the same position as YHWH in their cultures! These “cosmic” (for lack of a better word) gods were believed by these other nations to have created the earth, the sky, animals, etc. These other nations, like the Israelites with their Elohim YHWH, made alters to their “cosmic” deities, prayed to these “cosmic” deities, and made sacrifices to them. The enemy peoples Israel would face had "covenant relationships" with their "cosmic" creator gods, just like the Israelites did with YHWH.(only the Israelites' "cosmic" God was real). What is also not factored into brother Robert's rendering of "elohim" is the context is that Israelites allowed the slaves and tributaries to continue in worshipping their own gods after they took the promised land. The first commandment is all about the Israelites not abandoning YHWH for the 'creator gods' of the Canaanites or anyone else. One of the features that set apart the Israelites’ worship of their “Elohim” YHWH was that they were forbidden to make any idols to represent Him. That stricture is represented in the second commandment. The Canaanites made idols of wood, rock, gold, silver, etc to represent their ‘elohim’ in worship and ritual.

Let’s have an example of the Israelites making a covenant, or pledge, with one of non-Israelite cosmic creator "elohim". Note in the previous chapters to the example given below Israel had been defeating their foes so this example of non-Israelite "elohim" is not "rulers". It will be plain to anyone reading this example that these were not flesh and blood rulers but rather “cosmic” deities who the Canaanites worshipped as the creators of the universe:

Numbers 25
1 And Israel abode in Shetim, and the people began to commit whoredom with the daughters of Moab.
2 And they called the people unto the sacrifices of their godsH430: and the people did eat, and bowed down to their godsH430.
3 And Israel joined himself unto Baalpeor: and the anger of YHWH was kindled against Israel.
4 And YHWH said unto Moses, Take all the heads of the people, and hang them up before the LORD against the sun, that the fierce anger of the LORD may be turned away from Israel.

This act was mentioned again in the NT:

Revelation 2:14 - Nevertheless, I have a few things against you: You have people there who hold to the teaching of Balaam, who taught Balak to entice the Israelites to sin by eating food sacrificed to idols and by committing sexual immorality.

Who or what is Baal-peor, the "elohim" of the Moabite?

Baal-peor: Master of the generative organ; a Moabitish idol in whose worship females prostituted themselves.

Baal-peor is a god who appears both as a male sun-god and a female moon-goddess.

The act with the women of Moab does not describe submiting to a foreign government but rather a pagan ritual complete with sex, animal sacrifice and idol worship. These acts are a clear breach of the first and second commandment. Israel joining into such a ritual with Baalpeor would be considered making a covenant or pledge with that creator "elohim". This is just one of many examples I can provide to show that "elohim", when used in a non-Israelite context, is the 'creator gods' of the defeated peoples in the promised land as well as in "exile".

OK. So let’s look for an example of when the Israelites made a covenant with “them” the defeated flesh and blood peoples of the land of Canaan.

Judges 1 -
(27-29) Ephraim and Manasseh make tributaries of the Canaanites

(30) The tribe of Zebulun make tributaries of the Canaanites.

(33) The tribe of Naphtali makes tributaries of the Canaanites.

(34-36) The tribe of Dan fails in taking full possession of their land but later the tribe of Joseph helps and defeats the Amorites and makes a deal putting defeated peoples under tribute and giving them a section of land within the boundaries of the promised land.

The above is a perfect example of the sin of Israel in making a covenant with “them”, the defeated peoples of the land. Because the Israelites failed in following Moses’ instructions that all inhabitants of the land should be “utterly destroyed” and “shown no mercy” the same inhabitants eventually lead Israel into worshipping their “elohim”. Their "creator gods". For those who can think on their feet it is plain to see that there were no “rulers” of the enemy in the promised land to make covenants with seeing as the enemies' goverments were toppled. The Israelites broke their own Covenant by making slaves and tributaries of the defeated peoples. The ruling bodies and govenments of the Canaanites were destroyed and the Israelites were now the government of that region. The covenants were made with those defeated peoples whom the Israelites kept around for tribute and slaves.


"I will deliver the inhabitants of the land into your hand; and thou shalt drive them out before thee. Thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor with their ‘elohiym"

"Them" is the defeated peoples who were not "utterly destroyed" who Israel made covenants with and "elohim" is their 'creator gods' who Israel made covenants with when they left YHWH and began worshipping these strange gods in their own promised land.





Edited by - BatKol on 19 Sep 2005 14:37:00
Go to Top of Page

BatKol
Advanced Member

USA
735 Posts

Posted - 19 Sep 2005 :  19:57:11  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Was Paul saying he was a liar?

Steve: The very few that you are willing to address forces you to make outlandish statements like…"Paul was lying"

brother Robert said:
Outlandish, a. ...vulgar; rustic; rude; clownish. [This is the sense in which the word is among us most generally used.] – Webster’s 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language

How could I have been so clownish?!?

For if the truth of Yahuwah hath more abounded through my lie [G5582] unto his glory; why yet am I also judged as a sinner?


Steve: How could you have been so clownish? Because, true to form, you are lifting just one sentence out of a full discourse. Paul is having a discussion and you need to read the whole section to see that Paul is not claiming to be a liar.

Here is the whole section from the Ferrar Fenton which shows this discussion:

Romans 3:1-18

(Jewish Opponent) Then what advantage has the Jews? Or What is the benefit of the circumcision?”

(Paul) “Great in all respects; for first, indeed, they were entrusted with the intentions of God”.

(Jew) “What for? If some were unfaithful, would not their unfaithfulness destroy God’s trust?”

(Paul) “It would not. God must be true, although every man were false; as it is written: So that you might be justified in your designs, and triumphant when examined.”

(Jew) “But if our wickedness confirms the righteousness of God, then should we not conclude that the anger-bearing God is unjust? I speak humanly.”

(Paul) “Never! For then how could God judge the world? For if God could by my falsehood be exalted to His honour, how could I be condemned as a wrong-doer? And should we not, as we are libelled, and as certain people accuse us of teaching, do evil that good might come? Their reprobation is right.”

(Jew) “Well, then, we are the superior?”

(Paul) “Not at all! For we have all, both Jew and Greek, decided to serve sin, as it written:

That there is not one righteous - not one. No one is intelligent, none is seeking out God. All have left the ranks; quite inefficient; None are of use - not even one. Their throat is a yawning grave; They deceive by their words; A viper’s venom is under their tounge, their mouth is full of bitterness. Their feet swift to shed blood; destruction and misery are in their ways; and they will not recognize a peaceful path. There is no fear of God before their eyes.


Here is the NIV version of the same bit. It does not have the back and forth seperation between Paul and the Jew but the sum total is the same:

1What advantage, then, is there in being a Jew, or what value is there in circumcision? 2Much in every way! First of all, they have been entrusted with the very words of God.

3What if some did not have faith? Will their lack of faith nullify God's faithfulness? 4Not at all! Let God be true, and every man a liar. As it is written:
"So that you may be proved right when you speak
and prevail when you judge."[a]

5But if our unrighteousness brings out God's righteousness more clearly, what shall we say? That God is unjust in bringing his wrath on us? (I am using a human argument.) 6 Certainly not! If that were so, how could God judge the world? 7. Someone might argue, "If my falsehood enhances God's truthfulness and so increases his glory, why am I still condemned as a sinner?" 8Why not say—as we are being slanderously reported as saying and as some claim that we say—"Let us do evil that good may result"? Their condemnation is deserved.


The bottom line is, from which ever translation this section is being read, one must read the whole story and not just pick out one line which suits their argument. All versions I have checked clearly say in so many words "as we are being slanderously reported as saying and as some claim that we say"







Edited by - BatKol on 19 Sep 2005 20:49:13
Go to Top of Page

Oneisraelite
Advanced Member

uSA
833 Posts

Posted - 20 Sep 2005 :  04:34:13  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
We find in Exodus 23 that Yahuwah’s messenger sends the Yisra’elites in to the Amorite, and the Hittite, and the Perizzite, and the Canaanite, and the Hivite, and the Jebusite…and Yahuwah said, I will deliver the inhabitants of the land into your hand; and thou shalt drive them out before thee. Thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor with their ‘elohiym [gods].

[Thou shalt] make no covenant[with their] ‘elohiym [gods].

Had brother Steve rightly divided the word he would have seen that “them” (and more) was added to the Word of Yahuwah; kârath lo beriyth ‘elohiym and thus, in keeping with truth, we left out that which was added by the scribes when we separated that sentence. [M]ake no covenant(s) [with their] gods means that these non-Yisra’elite gods, i.e. non-Yisra’elite ‘elohiym were capable of making covenants.

Brown-Driver-Briggs’ says of the word translated covenant:
1) covenant, alliance, pledge
1a) between men
1a1) treaty, alliance, league (man to man)
1a2) constitution, ordinance (monarch to subjects)
1a3) agreement, pledge (man to man)
1a4) alliance (of friendship)
1a5) alliance (of marriage)
1b) between God and man
1b1) alliance (of friendship)
1b2) covenant (divine ordinance with signs or pledges)


According to the above definition it would seem that one can only make covenants, i.e. a meeting of minds, between men or between Yahuwah [God] and man; that being truth we simplify the question for you brother Steve…

The non-Yisra’elite ‘elohiym, translated gods, that the Yisra’elites are warned not to make agreements with are:

a) between men; man to man; monarch to subjects
3. A prince; a ruler; a magistrate or judge; an angel (messenger; deputy).
4. Any person
(assuming this is a living being)...exalted too much in estimation, or deified and honored as the chief good (benefactor).

b) between Yahuwah [God] and man
1. The Supreme Being; Jehovah [sic]

c) between men and imaginary creatures, i.e. fictions (that which is feigned, invented or imagined [by men])
2. A false god; a heathen deity; an idol.
Any thing...exalted too much in estimation, or deified and honored as the chief good
(benefactor).

Or, conj. A connective that marks an alternative.

And Yahushua said to them, The kings of the nations lord it over them, and those exercising authority over them are called benefactors. But you be not so

He that runs after vanities is void of understanding. – Shalom’oh)

Resistance to tyranny is obedience to God.

fellowcitizen of the commonwealth of Yisra'el,
NOT the man-made, fictional USA.
Ephesians 2:12 & 19
An act done by me against my will is not my act.

Edited by - Oneisraelite on 20 Sep 2005 06:48:48
Go to Top of Page

BatKol
Advanced Member

USA
735 Posts

Posted - 20 Sep 2005 :  08:38:54  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
LaHeM (to them) VeLa'elohai-hem (and to their gods).

brother Robert said:
“[Thou shalt] make no covenant…[with their] ‘elohiym [gods].”

Had brother Steve rightly divided the word he would have seen that “them” (and more) was added to the Word of Yahuwah; kârath lo beriyth ‘elohiym and thus, in keeping with truth, we left out that which was added by the scribes when we separated that sentence. [M]ake no covenant(s) [with their] gods means that these non-Yisra’elite gods, i.e. non-Yisra’elite ‘elohiym were capable of making covenants.


Steve: You claim your rendering is "in keeping with truth"? Sir, you have just butchered up scripture to support your assertion! . "kârath lo beriyth ‘elohiym" is utter nonsense and a complete falsehood. Clearly you do not know of what you speak. The "scribes" did not add 'that' in. In fact, the scribal error is on you! Strong's does not have every word listed in the Massoretic Text nor does it have the prefixes, etc. which are important.

Let me show you what the original source text you are butchering really reads like from the Massoretic text that was used to create the translation of the Bible you read:

Lo-TeKiRoT LaHeM Ve'La'eLoHiYHeM BeRiYT.


That's the complete verse of Exodus 23:23. "Them" is most certainly there.

You are "under a strong delusion" indeed if you think what you have rendered above is "the truth" of the source text. I can tell by your attempt at the Hebrew you are just stringing the basic words in Strong's on top of the English. You don't realize that the source, the Massoretic text, is not even structured the way you are rendering the verse. You have no use of prefixes in the original which give you the other words that make up those Strong's does not list. You have no use of the inner workings in the original Hebrew that also account for words that Strong's does not list. Because you do not understand this your error causes you to promote a blatent falsehood. Then, thinking yourself to be wise in your falsehood you proclaim "He that runs after vanities is void of understanding." You should heed your own advice, sir.

My refutation still stands solid and your "kârath lo beriyth ‘elohiym" is noting short of "cooking the books" into saying what you want them to say.

Sorry if this comes across as sharp but one cannot just change the source text to fit their argument when backed into a corner.


brother Robert says:

According to the above definition it would seem that one can only make covenants, i.e. a meeting of minds, between men or between Yahuwah [God] and man; that being truth we simplify the question for you brother Steve…


Steve: Firstly, the main definitions are "covenant, alliance, pledge" and they certainly cover heathen deities. You refuse to understand that the rulers and their goverments of the seven nations greater than Israel were destroyed. Israel was the political power in the land after each tribe possesed their inheritance. The only "things" left were the defeated peoples (them) who worshipped heathen deities (their gods). Israel eventually got mixed up in worshipping these heathen deities in their own land that they themselves ruled because they did not smash down their alters (Jdg 2:2) and made covenants of servitude and tribute with the heathens instead of "utterly destroying them". Baalpeor was not a government official. Asheroth was not a government official. Chemosh was not a government official. These were 'demonic', heathen gods to which sick rituals were performed. When you sacrifice an animal or make a prayer to one of these idolistic heathen deities a covenant is made. 'You do this for me, I do this for you' type agreement. Kinda like Voodoo. Various heathen gods were believed to control the weather, the fertility of the land, etc and the heathens and Israelites made sacrifices to them to seek favor. The definitions you listed certainly do account for this but you are unable to accept this fact lest your theory fall apart at the seems.

BTW, why will you not address Acts 15?


Edited by - BatKol on 20 Sep 2005 16:59:55
Go to Top of Page

Oneisraelite
Advanced Member

uSA
833 Posts

Posted - 21 Sep 2005 :  07:43:57  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Well, thank you Steve, this should bring the snake(s) out from underneath the floorboards.

Steve: LaHeM (to them) VeLa'elohai-hem (and to their gods).
You claim your rendering is "in keeping with truth"? Sir, you have just butchered up scripture to support your assertion! . "kârath lo beriyth ‘elohiym" is utter nonsense and a complete falsehood. Clearly you do not know of what you speak. The "scribes" did not add 'that' in. In fact, the scribal error is on you! Strong's does not have every word listed in the Massoretic Text nor does it have the prefixes, etc. which are important.


You falsely accuse me of butchering up the Scripture to support my assertion! The scribal error, if the Massoretes are to be believed, was on Dr Strong; and what saddens me most, Steve, is that you knew that I had done this in good faith even as you wrote your scandalous tirade!!

Steve: My refutation still stands solid and your "kârath lo beriyth ‘elohiym" is noting [sic] short of "cooking the books" into saying what you want them to say.

Again, judging by your own words, i.e. Strong's does not have every word listed in the Massoretic Text nor does it have the prefixes, etc. which are important, you knew full well that it was evidently Dr Strong’s error and not an intentional “cooking of the books” on my part, which means that again you KNOWINGLY accuse me falsely.

First, if what you show as the first line on your post is true and correct, we thank you for the correction. Secondly, we point out that your refutation does not stand solid, we would only have to amend our prior post by pointing out to you that, by the Massoretic Text that you so graciously supplied for us, that it says VeLa'elohai-hem (and to their gods), and then reiterate the balance of what was said. And sadly, because of your feigned attack, neither does your reputation doesn’t stand as solid as it used to with some people here.

Steve: Lo-TeKiRoT LaHeM Ve'La'eLoHiYHeM BeRiYT.
That's the complete verse of Exodus 23:23. "Them" is most certainly there.
You are "under a strong delusion" indeed if you think what you have rendered above is "the truth" of the source text.


We find it most interesting that you evidently believe that your Massoretic Text are ABSOLUTELY, POSITIVELY COMPLETE AND WITHOUT ERROR. If you believe this, then perhaps we are both “under a strong delusion”.

Steve: I can tell by your attempt at the Hebrew you are just stringing the basic words in Strong's on top of the English. You don't realize that the source, the Massoretic text, is not even structured the way you are rendering the verse.

Again, you show everyone reading this your true colors by admitting that you knew full well that my error was an honest one, an ignorant one perhaps, but most certainly an honest one that did not deserve the public berating you are delivering here.

Steve: You have no use of prefixes in the original which give you the other words that make up those Strong's does not list. You have no use of the inner workings in the original Hebrew that also account for words that Strong's does not list.

You are correct, and you obviously have full knowledge of “the inner workings of the ancient Hebrew” and all its idioms; and <singing> “I got some ocean front property for sale in Arizona, from my front porch you can see the sea, I got some ocean front property for sale in Arizona, and if you’ll buy that I’ll throw the Golden Gate in free.”

Steve: Sorry if this comes across as sharp but one cannot just change the source text to fit their argument when backed into a corner.

We have a hard time believing that you are truly sorry since you knew at the outset that the words of your attack were unfounded and unnecessary, i.e. that I did not "change the source text", but if you are serious about the apology, we forgive you.

brother Robert says:
According to the above definition it would seem that one can only make covenants, i.e. a meeting of minds, between men or between Yahuwah [God] and man; that being truth we simplify the question for you brother Steve…


Steve: Firstly, the main definitions are "covenant, alliance, pledge" and they certainly cover heathen deities.

And your point is?

Steve: Baalpeor was not a government official. Asheroth was not a government official. Chemosh was not a government official. [Are you absolutely, positively certain?] These were 'demonic', heathen gods to which sick rituals were performed. When you sacrifice an animal or make a prayer to one of these idolistic heathen deities a covenant is made. 'You do this for me, I do this for you' type agreement. Kinda like Voodoo. Various heathen gods were believed to control the weather, the fertility of the land, etc and the heathens and Israelites made sacrifices to them to seek favor. The definitions you listed certainly do account for this but you are unable to accept this fact lest your theory fall apart at the seems [sic].

All ‘elohiym/gods created by men are fictitious, it is a mask they wear, a carved or graven image, a personage, and their governments are of that same material; the very same material that the image and superscription of [the] Caesar was made of, nothing (For those who do not know, when the silver is rendered unto Yahuwah [Haggai 2:8] there is nothing left for Caesar.) Governments that are not based on the words of Yahuwah’s original covenant are also the vain imaginings of men. And, people still seek favors of them with, 'You do this for me, I do this for you' type agreement.

“I’ll get a chattel number, under false pretenses; I will encourage my children, by demon-strating that I have and use one, that they too should become chattel property, and I will get a driver license, that I know in truth I do not need, I will pray (apply) to you for almost everything I wish to do or possess and I will follow all of your sixty-million-plus rules, regulations and public policies that apply to me (another intentional lie) if you will just promise not persecute/prosecute me, too much, so help me God.”

Steve: BTW, why will you not address Acts 15?

When and if I get good and ready. LOL Actually, I had it all done, or pretty nearly all done, had it saved on a floppy, which I can now no longer access (it went bad). All was lost, so now it is back to the beginning to try and retrace my steps.


fellowcitizen of the commonwealth of Yisra'el,
NOT the man-made, fictional USA.
Ephesians 2:12 & 19
An act done by me against my will is not my act.

Edited by - Oneisraelite on 21 Sep 2005 07:54:46
Go to Top of Page

BatKol
Advanced Member

USA
735 Posts

Posted - 21 Sep 2005 :  09:25:02  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Steve: You have no use of prefixes in the original which give you the other words that make up those Strong's does not list. You have no use of the inner workings in the original Hebrew that also account for words that Strong's does not list.

brother Robert said: You falsely accuse me of butchering up the Scripture to support my assertion! The scribal error, if the Massoretes are to be believed, was on Dr Strong; and what saddens me most, Steve, is that you knew that I had done this in good faith even as you wrote your scandalous tirade!!

Steve: Yes, you did butcher the scripture. That’s no false accusation no matter if you refuse to accept it.. Reading from a concordance linked to a Bible is not the same as actually reading the source text. Dr. Strong did not create Bible programs for his work which links it to the MSS. Dr. Strong is only providing the basic definitions and does not claim to have an exact rendering of the entire Massoretic text. A concordance is simply not the source text. IT DOES NOT CLAIM TO BE! The error is on you because you trotted out YOUR version of what you think the text says, claiming it as "truth" reparing the "error" of the scribes on this verse. Dr. Strong was obviously aware of the prefixes, etc. but that is not what he created the concordance for. It is just to give the reader a basic understanding of the basic word. You can't shift your error on to Dr. Strong. This is on you! What you call "good faith" was actually you not understanding the correct function of Dr. Strong's work, which BTW, was created well before any computers were around to link his work to Massoretic text. You strung your butchered version together from hitting links on a Bible program thinking that it was an accurate reflection of the original source text. That’s squarely on you for not knowing what you were working with.

brother Robert: Again, judging by your own words, i.e. Strong's does not have every word listed in the Massoretic Text nor does it have the prefixes, etc. which are important, you knew full well that it was evidently Dr Strong’s error and not an intentional “cooking of the books” on my part, which means that again you KNOWINGLY accuse me falsely.

Steve: Utter nonsense! Again, you can't wiggle out of this and put the error on Dr. Strong. It is not Dr. Strong's error because a concordance is not pretending to be the exact source text. He is only giving basic definitions and roughly where to find the words in the Bible. That's it. You do not understand this so you use Dr. Strong's work in error. Then, wrongly thinking you have "in truth" repaired "the word of YHWH" proclaim "He that runs after vanities is void of understanding." Please!

brother Robert: First, if what you show as the first line on your post is true and correct, we thank you for the correction.

Steve: No problem. I might have gotten some of the vowel points wrong but there is some debate over them anyway .

brother Robert: Secondly, we point out that your refutation does not stand solid, we would only have to amend our prior post by pointing out to you that, by the Massoretic Text that you so graciously supplied for us, that it says VeLa'elohai-hem (and to their gods), and then reiterate the balance of what was said.

Steve: Yes, my refutation still does stand solid. I showed you in detail the support for my position complete with the scripture and context. You have repeatedly avoided many of my rebuttals, taken verses out of context and regularly leave out key parts of verses you quote to make your assertions.

brother Robert: And sadly, because of your feigned attack, neither does your reputation doesn’t stand as solid as it used to with some people here.

Steve: Feigned attack? More hollow posturing from you. The response was correct because you fail to understand what a concordance is for while acting like you are putting 'the Truth' back into YHWH's word. You trying to put off your error on Dr. Strong puts the icing on the cake. BTW, I am not here for a popularity contest. I won't be loosing sleep over what anyone thinks of me. Instead of whining and blame shifting on Dr. Strong how about not dodging key items I present?

brother Robert said: We find it most interesting that you evidently believe that your Massoretic Text are ABSOLUTELY, POSITIVELY COMPLETE AND WITHOUT ERROR. If you believe this, then perhaps we are both “under a strong delusion”.

Steve: Again you are wrong with your ‘evident’ assumption. I don’t believe the MSS is absolutely, positively complete and without error. The scribes made notes of the changes they made.

brother Robert said:
You are correct, and you obviously have full knowledge of “the inner workings of the ancient Hebrew” and all its idioms; and <singing> “I got some ocean front property for sale in Arizona, from my front porch you can see the sea, I got some ocean front property for sale in Arizona, and if you’ll buy that I’ll throw the Golden Gate in free.”


Steve: I never once said that 'I have full knowledge of the inner working of the ancient Hebrew'. Never once. You just said that! I do know how words and sentences are constructed. You would do well to learn this yourself.

Steve: Sorry if this comes across as sharp but one cannot just change the source text to fit their argument when backed into a corner.

brother Robert: We have a hard time believing that you are truly sorry since you knew at the outset that the words of your attack were unfounded and unnecessary, i.e. that I did not "change the source text", but if you are serious about the apology, we forgive you.

Steve: The only thing that I was sorry for was the sharpness. Look at it from my perspective. Here I am giving you detailed rebuttals explaining my positions. Post after post on this thread I have brought up sensible items in response to your claims that you barely will even address, if at all. When you do respond, you avoid the points that present obvious problems to your position. Perfect example is Cornelius. You joyfully leap forth with a response that skips right over the fact that this CENTURION was clearly considered a man “who worshipped God with all his house hold” well before his baptism. That simple fact puts a serious blow to your argument concerning his status. I bring this point up and you refuse to touch it. I post full sections of scripture that surround the verses you use showing how you are clearly using them out of context. No rebuttals showing why your position is correct after I post these responses. Now, after another detailed rebuttal I posted in response to your assertions concerning Exodus 23:32, I am faced with your “truth” post which proclaims “if brother Steven would have divided the scripture properly” and other such posturing. Well it seems to be you who is not correctly dividing the scriptures. Now we also learn that, in spite of you not understanding the proper function of a concordance as it relates the source text, you take to building your own scripture verses to rescue them from the errors of the scribes and restore “the truth“. Yet no regard to sentence structure, word placement or even how the words relate to one another. It’s no wonder you are coming to many of your non-sequiturs . I am sorry I was sharp but your blunder is a perfect summary of how this thread is going. Out of context verses, conclusions which render the basic storyline of the Bible out of whack to accommodate your theories. You consistently use the very arguments to support your theory that were put forth by the Jews to frame Christ with the Romans. Same with Paul!

Steve: Firstly, the main definitions are "covenant, alliance, pledge" and they certainly cover heathen deities.

brother Robert: And your point is?

Steve: Let me spell it out for you. When the Israelites engaged in the heathen rituals with the heathen gods, complete with animal sacrifices that is certainly making a covenant.

Steve: Baalpeor was not a government official. Asheroth was not a government official. Chemosh was not a government official.

brother Robert: Are you absolutely, positively certain?

Steve: Go study the subject. We have archaeological evidence of ritual sacrificies, idols, writings about ceremonies, etc.

Brother Robert: All ‘elohiym/gods created by men are fictitious, it is a mask they wear, a carved or graven image, a personage, and their governments are of that same material; the very same material that the image and superscription of [the] Caesar was made of, nothing (For those who do not know, when the silver is rendered unto Yahuwah [Haggai 2:8] there is nothing left for Caesar.) Governments that are not based on the words of Yahuwah’s original covenant are also the vain imaginings of men. And, people still seek favors of them with, 'You do this for me, I do this for you' type agreement.

Steve: The gods of the heathen are based on demonic spirits. They make idols to them for worship and perform sick rituals to them. I have shown you this from the scriptures, in detail. Israel engaged in this type of worship when they were the super-power of the Levant. There were no “rulers” left. They were destroyed. What was left were the defeated peoples and their religions.

Steve: BTW, why will you not address Acts 15?

brother Robert: When and if I get good and ready. LOL Actually, I had it all done, or pretty nearly all done, had it saved on a floppy, which I can now no longer access (it went bad). All was lost, so now it is back to the beginning to try and retrace my steps.

Steve: I’ll be very anxious to see how you deal with it... If you can. Maybe you will come up with something like you did for Daniel. Maybe James, the council and the Holy Spirit were worshipping a false god.




Edited by - BatKol on 21 Sep 2005 21:48:03
Go to Top of Page

Oneisraelite
Advanced Member

uSA
833 Posts

Posted - 21 Sep 2005 :  21:46:04  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
"The Massoretes were slaves to Massorah and handed down one and one only text. Even textual peculiarities clearly due to error or accident, were perpetuated by rabbis who puzzled their brains to ferret out mystical interpretations of these peculiarities. Broken and inverted letters, consonants that were too small or too large, dots that were out of place -- all such vagaries were slavishly handed down as if God-intended and full of Divine meaning."

"The big problem is that we "know" that the Old Testament was written in Hebrew, while the main Hebrew version (the Massoretic Text) is very late (it is even younger than the Aramaic NT and Greek NT, let alone the Septuagint and the Pe****ta OT), and is full of corruptions.
The Massoretic text is well known for its numerical inconsistencies. The Septuagint (Greek OT, LXX) and Aramaic OT (Pe****ta OT, POT) solve many of these problems. This already heavily indicates that the Massoretic is a corrupted version (whether intentional or not) while the LXX and POT, though translations, are more reliable - because they stem from an OLDER Hebrew version (perhaps even the original Hebrew itself).
There are also other problems with the Massoretic text, from whence most of our OT translations (KJV, NIV etc) come from. Many Messianic prophecies seem to have been "played around with" in the Massoretic text (such as "pierced my hands and feet" and "virgin"). How do we know? Because the LXX and POT retain the Messianic prophecies, as fulfilled in the New Testament. Since the Massoretic was produced in the Middle Ages, and since there is evidence of "anti-Messianic conspiracies" in ancient times (i.e. read up on Aquila), it seems easy to come to a certain conclusion... Keeping in mind that the LXX was primarily produced BEFORE Yeshua [sic] came to us in the flesh, so there was no incentive when the Septuagint was produced to tamper with the Messianic prophecies."

"(a) Pre-Massoretic text
The earliest Hebrew manuscript is the Nash papyrus. There are four fragments, which, when pieced together, give twenty-four lines of a pre-Massoretic text of the Ten Commandments and the shema (Ex., xx, 2-17; Deut., v, 6-19; vi, 4-5). The writing is without vowels and seems palæographically to be not later than the second century. This is the oldest extant Bible manuscript (see Cook, "A Pre-Massoretic Biblical Papyrus" in "Proceed. of the Soc. of Bib. Arch.", Jan., 1903). It agrees at times with the Septuagint against the Massorah."

Another pre-Massoretic text is the Samaritan Pentateuch. The Samaritan recension is probably pre-exilic; it has come down to us free from Massoretic influences, is written without vowels and in Samaritan characters. The earliest Samaritan manuscript extant is that of Nablûs…"

The form of the letters in the manuscript copies of the Samaritan Pentateuch, called the Samaritan alphabet, is different from that of the Hebrew copies, and is probably the same as that which was in general use before the Babylonian captivity.

"There are important differences between the Hebrew and the Samaritan copies of the Pentateuch in the readings of many sentences. In about two thousand instances in which the Samaritan and the Jewish texts differ, the Septuagint (LXX) agrees with the former. The New Testament also, when quoting from the Old Testament, agrees as a rule with the Samaritan text, where that differs from the Jewish [Massoretic Text]." – Easton’s 1897 Bible Dictionary


fellowcitizen of the commonwealth of Yisra'el,
NOT the man-made, fictional USA.
Ephesians 2:12 & 19
An act done by me against my will is not my act.
Go to Top of Page

BatKol
Advanced Member

USA
735 Posts

Posted - 21 Sep 2005 :  21:55:31  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by oneisraelite

"The Massoretes were slaves to Massorah and handed down one and one only text. Even textual peculiarities clearly due to error or accident, were perpetuated by rabbis who puzzled their brains to ferret out mystical interpretations of these peculiarities. Broken and inverted letters, consonants that were too small or too large, dots that were out of place -- all such vagaries were slavishly handed down as if God-intended and full of Divine meaning."

"The big problem is that we "know" that the Old Testament was written in Hebrew, while the main Hebrew version (the Massoretic Text) is very late (it is even younger than the Aramaic NT and Greek NT, let alone the Septuagint and the Pe****ta OT), and is full of corruptions.
The Massoretic text is well known for its numerical inconsistencies. The Septuagint (Greek OT, LXX) and Aramaic OT (Pe****ta OT, POT) solve many of these problems. This already heavily indicates that the Massoretic is a corrupted version (whether intentional or not) while the LXX and POT, though translations, are more reliable - because they stem from an OLDER Hebrew version (perhaps even the original Hebrew itself).
There are also other problems with the Massoretic text, from whence most of our OT translations (KJV, NIV etc) come from. Many Messianic prophecies seem to have been "played around with" in the Massoretic text (such as "pierced my hands and feet" and "virgin"). How do we know? Because the LXX and POT retain the Messianic prophecies, as fulfilled in the New Testament. Since the Massoretic was produced in the Middle Ages, and since there is evidence of "anti-Messianic conspiracies" in ancient times (i.e. read up on Aquila), it seems easy to come to a certain conclusion... Keeping in mind that the LXX was primarily produced BEFORE Yeshua [sic] came to us in the flesh, so there was no incentive when the Septuagint was produced to tamper with the Messianic prophecies."

"(a) Pre-Massoretic text
The earliest Hebrew manuscript is the Nash papyrus. There are four fragments, which, when pieced together, give twenty-four lines of a pre-Massoretic text of the Ten Commandments and the shema (Ex., xx, 2-17; Deut., v, 6-19; vi, 4-5). The writing is without vowels and seems palæographically to be not later than the second century. This is the oldest extant Bible manuscript (see Cook, "A Pre-Massoretic Biblical Papyrus" in "Proceed. of the Soc. of Bib. Arch.", Jan., 1903). It agrees at times with the Septuagint against the Massorah."

Another pre-Massoretic text is the Samaritan Pentateuch. The Samaritan recension is probably pre-exilic; it has come down to us free from Massoretic influences, is written without vowels and in Samaritan characters. The earliest Samaritan manuscript extant is that of Nablûs…"

The form of the letters in the manuscript copies of the Samaritan Pentateuch, called the Samaritan alphabet, is different from that of the Hebrew copies, and is probably the same as that which was in general use before the Babylonian captivity.

"There are important differences between the Hebrew and the Samaritan copies of the Pentateuch in the readings of many sentences. In about two thousand instances in which the Samaritan and the Jewish texts differ, the Septuagint (LXX) agrees with the former. The New Testament also, when quoting from the Old Testament, agrees as a rule with the Samaritan text, where that differs from the Jewish [Massoretic Text]." – Easton’s 1897 Bible Dictionary


fellowcitizen of the commonwealth of Yisra'el,
NOT the man-made, fictional USA.
Ephesians 2:12 & 19
An act done by me against my will is not my act.




None of this changes the fact that it is not Dr. Strong's error concerning your translation. It’s no wonder you are coming to many of your non-sequiturs . I am sorry I was sharp but your blunder is a perfect summary of how this thread is going. Out of context verses, conclusions which render the basic storyline of the Bible out of whack to accommodate your theories. You consistently use the very arguments to support your theory that were put forth by the Jews to frame Christ with the Romans. Same with Paul!

When you are able to deal with Acts 15, in which ever translation you prefer, I'll be ready.


Go to Top of Page

Oneisraelite
Advanced Member

uSA
833 Posts

Posted - 22 Sep 2005 :  06:27:26  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
The thing you are not digesting” Steve, is that I was merely trying to mirror the very same pompous attitude you put forth towards me in virtually all your posts. Furthermore, if it doesn’t stop immediately, I shall terminate all discussion with you; we are both sick and tired of your condescending, self-righteous attitude.

And when ye come into an house, salute it. And if the house be worthy, let your peace come upon it: but if it be not worthy, let your peace return to you.

Act 15

Act 15:1 And certain men which came down from Judaea taught the brethren, and said, Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved.

This whole chapter, we perceive, is about whether or not to put the so-called Mosaic law on disciples to the Kingdom, and/or people who had already been reverted, i.e. brothers already in the Kingdom.

And he said, Woe unto you also, ye lawyers! for ye lade men with burdens grievous to be borne, and ye yourselves touch not the burdens with one of your fingers. Woe unto you, lawyers! for ye have taken away the key of knowledge: ye entered not in yourselves, and them that were entering in ye hindered.

G1485
ethos
Thayer Definition:
1) custom
2) usage prescribed by law, institute, prescription, rite


Act 15:3 And being aided in travel by the ekklesia, they passed through Phenice and Samaria, declaring the conversion [G1995] of the nations: and they caused great joy unto all the brethren.

G1995 epistrophe; Strong’s Definition: reversion

Revert, v.i.
In law, to return to the proprietor, after the determination of a particular estate.
Webster’s 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language

Reversion, n. [L. reversio.] 1. In general sense, a returning; appropriately, in law, the returning of an estate to the grantor or his heirs, after a particular estate is ended.Webster’s 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language

For as many as are led by the Spirit of Yahuwah, they are the sons of Yahuwah. For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father. The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of Yahuwah: And if children, then heirs; heirs of Yahuwah, and joint-heirs with The Anointed One

Another witness that this was about the so-called Mosaic law:

Act 15:5 But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses.

This was what was nailed to the stauros.

Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances [G1378] that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross

G1378
dogma
Thayer Definition:
1) doctrine, decree, ordinance
1a) of public decrees
1b) of the Roman Senate
1c) of rulers
2) the rules and requirements of the law of Moses


By going back to Act’s fifteen we can verify this was not only about circumcision.

Act 15:10 Now therefore why tempt ye Yahuwah, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?

They were about to be persecuted/prosecuted by the world-at-large for returning to the rightful King and His government and that is burden enough to bear.

Act 15:19 Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the nations are reverted to Yahuwah.

Epistrepho (G1994) was also correctly translated convert (v.t.) which can mean to change from one state to another.

Convert, n. …applied particularly to those who change their religious opinions, but applicable to political and philosophical sects.

We hope this has been helpful.

Peace


fellowcitizen of the commonwealth of Yisra'el,
NOT the man-made, fictional USA.
Ephesians 2:12 & 19
An act done by me against my will is not my act.

Edited by - Oneisraelite on 22 Sep 2005 07:40:31
Go to Top of Page

BatKol
Advanced Member

USA
735 Posts

Posted - 27 Sep 2005 :  10:47:40  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
brother Robert: “The thing you are not digesting” Steve, is that I was merely trying to mirror the very same pompous attitude you put forth towards me in virtually all your posts.

Steve: Well that plan did not work out too good for you. You ended up having to wear the very accusations you pointed at me. Then you try to blame your ‘scribal’ error on Dr. Strong. Let's just get over this and move on!

brother Robert: Furthermore, if it doesn’t stop immediately, I shall terminate all discussion with you; we are both sick and tired of your condescending, self-righteous attitude.

Steve: You might want to check yourself on this one. Don’t confuse my polemics as self-righteous when I am addessing your exotic use of context. If you want to stop conversing with me, that’s on you. If you still want to discuss this item then that's fine too.

brother Robert: And when ye come into an house, salute it. And if the house be worthy, let your peace come upon it: but if it be not worthy, let your peace return to you.

Steve: LOL. This gives you license to rewrite scripture to your liking, add in your favorite dictionary definition, and then those who call you out on it are considered “not worthy”??

brother Robert:

Act 15

Act 15:1 And certain men which came down from Judaea taught the brethren, and said, Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved.

This whole chapter, we perceive, is about whether or not to put the so-called Mosaic law on disciples to the Kingdom, and/or people who had already been reverted, i.e. brothers already in the Kingdom.


Steve: We are dealing ONLY with Gentile disciples who had absolutely no part in the Sinai covenant so there was nothing for them to “return to" in relation to Israelite law. The Gentiles were given the gift of the Holy Spirit regardless of the fact that they had nothing to do with the Israelite Covenant including the ten commandments therein. IF the Gentiles were Israelites they would be obligated to every jot and tittle. They were not.

brother Robert: Act 15:3 And being aided in travel by the ekklesia, they passed through Phenice and Samaria, declaring the conversion [G1995] of the nations: and they caused great joy unto all the brethren.

G1995 epistrophe; Strong’s Definition: reversion


Steve: The definition I have listed for G1995 is
1) conversion (of the Gentiles from idolatry to the true God)”. .

There is no mention of the word ‘reversion’ in the Strong's definition of the word used in the source text (I looked on both the Strongest Strongs as well as the version on blueletterbible). Where are you getting this??? True to context and story line, much of the NT is about Paul ‘converting’ the non-Israelite pagans from idolatry to ‘the Way‘. ROMAN CITIZENS participated in 'the Way' along side Israelites.



brother Robert:

Revert, v.i.
In law, to return to the proprietor, after the determination of a particular estate. – Webster’s 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language

Reversion, n. [L. reversio.] 1. In general sense, a returning; appropriately, in law, the returning of an estate to the grantor or his heirs, after a particular estate is ended. – Webster’s 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language


Steve: Firstly, I find no such word "revert" even listed in the Strong's for G1995. G1995 is very clear about "convert" and fits perfectly with the context and story line. The Gentiles did not “revert” as in come back to any Israelite law. They “converted” from paganism to ‘the Way’ and did not need any Israelite laws for this experience what-so-ever. Gentiles would not be “returning” to anything from the Israelite covenant since it had absolutely nothing to do with them.

Example: If I lived in another country and signed up for a set of encyclopedias the publishers cannot come to you, in another country, with the contract and try to collect payment. Why? Because you did not make the agreement.

Same with the Gentiles. They are not party to the Israelite covenant. That was an exclusive deal with the tribes of Israel. A deal which they broke. Not only did they break the covenant, they killed the prophets sent to warn them!


brother Robert quotes: For as many as are led by the Spirit of Yahuwah, they are the sons of Yahuwah. For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father. The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of Yahuwah: And if children, then heirs; heirs of Yahuwah, and joint-heirs with The Anointed One

Steve: That scripture was written by a ROMAN CITIZEN! We see that the Holy Spirit came upon Cornelius, the CENTURION even before he was Baptized. He was also considered to be one who “worshipped God with all his house” while also being a CENTURION. It is written that the circumsized marveled at how the Spirit came upon a Gentile! They became sons of YHWH not by the Israelite covenant but by the Spirit. No desert contract involved. Paul was an EMPIRE CITIZEN even after he was Baptized. Paul did not teach rebellion to ROME. You are correct in identifying this doctrine with the Zealots but, again, I would have to stress that Christ himself taught doctrines which were 180 degrees from their beliefs. Indeed, the Israel people choose Bar Abbas, the Zealot, over Christ when Pilate granted them return of one of their countrymen from prison. Evidently that refusal cost them. Their “system” was destroyed in 70 CE fulfilling many prophecies put against these tribes.

brother Robert quotes: Another witness that this was about the so-called Mosaic law:

Act 15:5 But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses.

This was what was nailed to the stauros.

Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances [G1378] that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross…

G1378
dogma
Thayer Definition:
1) doctrine, decree, ordinance
1a) of public decrees
1b) of the Roman Senate
1c) of rulers
2) the rules and requirements of the law of Moses.


Steve: The ten commandments or any other Israelite laws were not given to the Gentiles. All laws, not just the ten commandments, were given to Moses by YHWH. None of them had anything to do with the Gentiles to begin with. Simple logic. You are not bound to any contracts that I sign. Gentiles are not obligated to any contracts Israelites agreed to.

brother Robert: By going back to Act’s fifteen we can verify this was not only about circumcision.

Act 15:10 Now therefore why tempt ye Yahuwah, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?

They were about to be persecuted/prosecuted by the world-at-large for returning to the rightful King and His government and that is burden enough to bear.


Steve: Not by the world at large. Mostly by Jews who were always trying to frame Christ and the followers of ’the Way’ in an attempt to get Rome to murder them. These Jews did this by falsely claiming Christ and his followers were breaking ROMAN law. I don't think we will ever get anywhere if you won't recognize this part of the story.

Really, don’t you think it rather strange that the Holy Spirit, James and the elders, in a letter clearing up what ‘lawful OT behavior’ is expected of the Gentile believers, does not mention any of the ‘resist Rome’ doctrines you assert are mandatory for being part of the body of Christ? That letter, written to finalize what is expected of the Gentiles, would have been a perfect opportunity to set the record strait concerning ROMAN CITIZENSHIP. You are right about the Gentiles hearing more than just the circumcision laws. I am sure the Gentiles got the whole “believing Pharisee” doctrine, complete with the Zealot perspective and how it applies to ‘the covenant‘. The Jerusalem council is very clear on what “OT laws” the Gentiles are obligated to. Those given to Noah. No greater burden should be put upon the Gentiles than those listed in the letter. The language is so clear that even a child can understand it. The Jerusalem council also recognized that the Gentiles had attained the very essence of “the Way” without being party to the Israelite covenant. That essence being the Indwelling of the Holy Spirit who did not discriminate concerning political CITIZENSHIP. Slave or free. James, the Holy Spirit and the elders all recognized that. Paul pleads with the Gauls about not getting tangled up with the Torah. It makes perfect sense when one considers the fact that the Gentiles had absolutely no obligations to any agreement YHWH made with Israel. Thinking along these lines the Jerusalem council did agree that the Gentiles were obligated to what was commanded to Noah. Of course. From one man came all of the Nations upon the earth. Makes sense.


brother Robert quotes:

Act 15:19 Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the nations are reverted to Yahuwah.

Epistrepho (G1994) was also correctly translated convert (v.t.) which can mean to change from one state to another.


Steve:

G1994

1) transitively
a) to turn to
1) to the worship of the true God


This is very clear. The Gentiles left their pagan ways to join “the Way” via Paul’s gospel of the uncircumcision. They did not “revert” or “return to” the Israelite covenant or Zealot doctrine. They received the Holy Spirit without being party to any Israelite covenant made in the desert. The NT shows that the Holy Spirit came upon believing CITIZENS as well as believing Israelites (some of whom were CITIZENS as well). Also slaves and free people. Greeks and Jews. Who so ever will. Paul and Silas, apostles in this mission to the Gentiles, were themselves CITIZENS of the EMPIRE. Paul did not lie about his CITIZENSHIP because the benefits he enjoyed were only available to CITIZENS. Acts is chock full of examples. Yes, some did claim that Paul was a liar but he noted that those people were the ones who slandered him. Why base your position on the claims of the slanderers and schemers? You are doing this not only with Paul but also with the claims made against Christ and the followers of “the Way” by the Jews who sought to kill them!


If you can recieve this, the kingdom "not of this world" which flesh and blood cannot enter is a "state of being" called the "indwelling of the Holy Spirit". Paul was a Citizen in that Heavenly Kingdom as well as a CITIZEN of the EMPIRE. Clearly, no conflict.

We can agree to disagree on all of this and leave it at that.






Edited by - BatKol on 27 Sep 2005 15:50:21
Go to Top of Page

BatKol
Advanced Member

USA
735 Posts

Posted - 28 Sep 2005 :  08:50:12  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Christ, Peter and Matt 17:24-27

brother Robert and I discussed this in detail and how it relates to paying taxes today. This bit has been on my mind ever since so I wanted to discuss some items which were not covered before.

On key item is a major issue that, unless it is considered, renders the whole topic of our obligation to taxes useless.

That item is this.

Matt 17:24 is not speaking about a tax to Caesar!

It is speaking about the Temple Tax which was commanded in Exodus which declares that all Israelites must pay (Exodus 21:32). It makes sense that Peter so readily agreed to this. After all it is a law from the Torah.

Now let's read the whole section with this in mind:

Matt 17:24-27

Mat 17:24 When they came to Caper'na-um, the collectors of the half-shekel tax went up to Peter and said, "Does not your teacher pay the tax?"
Mat 17:25 He said, "Yes." And when he came home, Jesus spoke to him first, saying, "What do you think, Simon? From whom do kings of the earth take toll or tribute? From their sons or from others?"
Mat 17:26 And when he said, "From others," Jesus said to him, "Then the sons are free.
Mat 17:27 However, not to give offense to them, go to the sea and cast a hook, and take the first fish that comes up, and when you open its mouth you will find a shekel; take that and give it to them for me and for yourself."

Here is a commentary on the item by Henery:

1. The tribute demanded was not any civil payment to the Roman powers, that was strictly exacted by the publicans, but the church-duties, the half shekel, about fifteen pence, which were required from every person or the service of the temple, and the defraying of the expenses of the worship there; it is called a ransom for the soul, Ex. 30:12, etc. This was not so strictly exacted now as sometimes it had been, especially not in Galilee.

I found this info which deals with the coinage:

Some translations say "didrachma". A didrachma is a Greek silver coin worth 2 drachmas, about as much as 2 Roman denarii, or about 2 days wages. It was commonly used to pay the half-shekel temple tax, because 2 drachmas were worth one half shekel of silver.}

So, in closing, to try to attach Matt 17:24-27 to anything other than the Temple Tax of the Israelites is certainly out of context to the verse.






Edited by - BatKol on 28 Sep 2005 08:54:00
Go to Top of Page

Surveyor
Regular Member

USA
31 Posts

Posted - 28 Sep 2005 :  13:48:34  Show Profile  Visit Surveyor's Homepage  Reply with Quote
Assuming that the money being collected here was not tribute does not fit the context of the story. Jesus was clearly referring to what was being collected as tribute money and treated it as such.

Although I have not read much on this lately, I believe at the time of Christ the collection of the temple tax was a special privilege allowed to the Jews and
collected with the permission of the Roman government. Herod may also have been exercising some authority over this. There were also questions raised at the time about whether the temple tax was voluntary or compulsory.

The idea that this was even the temple tax is at least, questionable.

The words of Jesus reveals the context of this account and I see the context of the words of Jesus is clearly about tribute money that was being collected in the name of a king, not the temple tax or certainly the tax being collected was not the temple tax according to the original guidelinges and purpose given to the nation of Israel.

Clarence
Go to Top of Page
Page: of 4 Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  
Previous Page | Next Page
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly
Jump To:
ECCLESIASTIC COMMONWEALTH COMMUNITY © MMXVII Ecclesiastic Commonwealth Community Go To Top Of Page
This page was generated in 0.19 seconds. Snitz Forums 2000