| Author |
 Topic  |
|
BatKol
Advanced Member
USA
735 Posts |
 Posted - 06 Nov 2006 : 19:59:00
|
quote:
Originally posted by oneisraelite
No man can serve two mastersG2962: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other.
G2962
kurios
koo'-ree-os
From kuros (supremacy); supreme in authority, that is, (as noun) controller; by implication Mr. (as a respectful title): - God, Lord, master, Sir.
Thus, we can see by this that no man can serve supreme authorities. If one is a citizen of the UNITED STATES, who or what, according to its law, is the "supreme law of the land"?
Please, put down the scaple and step away from the buffett!
As usual, while picking about in the kitchen there was not enough room on your plate for last sentence of Christ's statement. Not quite to your tastes?
Here is what He said:
24 "No one can serve two masters, for either he will hate the one and love the other; or else he will be devoted to one and despise the other. You can't serve both God and Mammon.
Had you accepted Christ's complete statement - as He said it and not tinkered with it - the gist of what He is saying is quite clear.
Word games and your 'corrupt scripture theory' aside, by your speculations you render key figures in the NT as 'serving two masters'. After you make a trip to the buffet you fix your plate in such a way that much of the foundational sections in the NT are backward! The Jews' trumped up claims against Christ were actually on target. Paul, Joseph, Mary and many others were actually serving two masters and breaking the big number one. The council of the Jerusalem in Acts 15 which included James and the Holy Spirit actually failed to tell the Gentiles that they were obligated to your teaching when instructing them in what OT laws they were to follow.
Heck even Samuel in the OT - considered a righteous judge of Israel - was in error because according to your teaching it was impossible for the Israelites to follow his advice to continue serving and not turn away from YHWH. They already turned away from YHWH if we apply your theory! Had Samuel been blessed with your 'cook book', he would have advised the Israelites that to continue on with their 1 Sam 8 king would be serving two masters. Of course, Paul - who also was not privy to your recipes - clearly would have understood that he could not be a citizen of both Heaven and ROME. The NT with out your corrections has Paul 'serving two masters'. Nothing that can't be fixed with a little snipping and recontextualizing by the master Chef. Then there's that part about Joseph being called "righteous" (defined as following divine law) yet registered for the ROMAN census. Let's chop that out too. Let's forget those other ROMAN citizens such as Paul's preaching partner Silus, Roman centurion Cornelius and proconsul Sergius Paulus. They are not 'Zealot kosher'. In fact, Cornelius really has to go. Especially that part that says the centurion was a devout man who feared God with all his house. Perhaps you should rewrite Barabbas as taking care of those Romans. That would win the Zealot seal of approval!
|
Edited by - BatKol on 12 Nov 2006 17:19:29 |
 |
|
|
Oneisraelite
Advanced Member
uSA
833 Posts |
Posted - 07 Nov 2006 : 06:58:47
|
“We're a secular Country, by our constitution.” – BILLY GRAHAM speaking of the UNITED STATES in an interview with DAVID FROST on May 30, 1997
brother Robert: fellowcitizen of the commonwealth of Yisar'el,
NOT the man-made, fictional STATE OF ISRAEL.
Ephesians 2:12 & 19 |
|
|
|
Oneisraelite
Advanced Member
uSA
833 Posts |
Posted - 07 Nov 2006 : 07:27:56
|
Titus 2:14 Who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar [G4041] people, zealous of good works.
G4041
periousios
Thayer Definition:
1) that which is one’s own, belonging to one’s possessions
1a) a people selected by God from the other nations for his own possession [Emphasis added]
1Peter 2:9 But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy [consecrated] nation, a peculiar [G4047] people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light…
G4047
peripoiesis
Thayer Definition:
1) a preserving, a preservation
2) possession, one’s own property
3) an obtaining [Emphasis added]
CONSECRATED, pp. ...separated from a common to a sacred use; devoted or dedicated to the service and worship of God... - Webster's 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language
...separated from common...use...devoted or dedicated to the service...of God...
brother Robert: fellowcitizen of the commonwealth of Yisar'el,
NOT the man-made, fictional STATE OF ISRAEL.
Ephesians 2:12 & 19 |
|
|
|
Oneisraelite
Advanced Member
uSA
833 Posts |
Posted - 07 Nov 2006 : 09:48:36
|
Let's just "face" it...we don't all see the same picture.
https://www.artifactsgallery.com/art.asp?!=W&ID=12810
We posted the wrong picture the first time, this is the right one.
brother Robert: fellowcitizen of the commonwealth of Yisar'el,
NOT the man-made, fictional STATE OF ISRAEL.
Ephesians 2:12 & 19 |
Edited by - Oneisraelite on 07 Nov 2006 18:53:47 |
|
|
|
Oneisraelite
Advanced Member
uSA
833 Posts |
Posted - 07 Nov 2006 : 18:17:08
|
Greetings and salutations, brother Steven:
Peace be unto the house.
Click on this, then play the YouTube...this is for you.
http://www.spontaneouscreation.org/index.htm
brother Robert: fellowcitizen of the commonwealth of Yisar'el,
NOT the man-made, fictional STATE OF ISRAEL.
Ephesians 2:12 & 19 |
|
|
|
BatKol
Advanced Member
USA
735 Posts |
Posted - 07 Nov 2006 : 18:44:46
|
The ecclesia is commanded to all see the same picture!
Through out the NT there are pleas that the ecclesia be "likeminded", "of one accord", "all believing the same thing", "with one spirit and one mind", "with unity of faith", etc. etc. Christ Himself prayed that He wants us all to be One with Him just as He is One with the Father. Forget the Zealots, the Faith and Doctrine of the Ecclesia has already been set by Christ and the Apostles. In the same NT we are also strongly warned "from among your own selves men will arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after them." Based on what you have taught here many of the key foundations of the NT - and some of the OT -are destroyed. Paul - who confesses and shows himself to be both a citizen of Heaven and the Roman Empire - is made to be 'serving two masters' with your assertions. Joseph, called righteous, was not righteous. Mary, not so blessed after all. The Jew's claims against Christ were actually true. To follow your line of thinking, the Bible - as we have it - is actually a "strong delusion" and needs heavy redacting and editing. Sorry, there are just too many warnings in the Bible against what you are doing. I spent a good chunk of time and money studying these doctrines you put forth. I almost lost my Faith over the 'buffet method' you promote. What brought me back is finally accepting the book exactly as it is written.
Having said that I will refute your methods, continue to present items you can't answer while at the same time trying to fulfill the commandment of loving both my neighbors and enemies. Pray for my success on the last point, debate me on the rest for the edification of our readers.
|
|
|
|
BatKol
Advanced Member
USA
735 Posts |
Posted - 07 Nov 2006 : 18:50:36
|
quote:
Originally posted by oneisraelite
Greetings and salutations, brother Steven:
Peace be unto the house.
Click on this, then play the YouTube...this is for you.
http://www.spontaneouscreation.org/index.htm
brother Robert: fellowcitizen of the commonwealth of Yisar'el,
NOT the man-made, fictional STATE OF ISRAEL.
Ephesians 2:12 & 19
Nice! How do we work out the many pleas through out the NT to "all believe the same thing"? |
|
|
|
Oneisraelite
Advanced Member
uSA
833 Posts |
Posted - 09 Nov 2006 : 07:42:17
|
One of the things we should always keep in mind when reading the New Testament writings is that at the time that these were reportedly documented, c. 40 A.D. through 140 A.D., the followers of the Messiah’s teachings were being systematically, and horrifically, murdered by the governments of men.
Tacitus’ Annals XV.44 record: "...a vast multitude, were convicted, not so much of the crime of incendiarism as of hatred of the human race. And in their deaths they were made the subjects of sport; for they were wrapped in the hides of wild beasts and torn to pieces by dogs, or nailed to crosses, or set on fire, and when day declined, were burned to serve for nocturnal lights." – Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_persecution
This persecution/prosecution of the followers of the Anointed King of the commonwealth of Yisra’el did not “officially” end until 313 A.D. when Emperor [commander-in-chief] Constantine created a syncretized[1] "religion", called Christianity, and made it the STATE RELIGION.
Keeping the foregoing in mind, how overt[2] do we think the New Testament writers would have been?
But beware of men: for they will deliver you up to the councils [courts [3]], and they will scourge you in their synagogues [assemblies[4]]; And ye shall be brought before governors and kings for my sake, for a testimony against them and the nations.
But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment. For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned.
How explicit (See Endnote #3) was even the Wonderful Counsellor himself, for that matter!
And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables?
He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the Kingdom of Yahuwah, but to them it is not given. For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance: but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath. Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand. And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Yasha’yahu [Isaiah], which saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive: For this people's heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.
I cried my eyes out when I read that in Yasha’yahu [Isaiah].
Do many even know that one of the definitions Joseph Thayer, in his Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, gives for the Greek word parabole, translated as parables in the above verses is: 5) an act by which one exposes himself or his possessions to danger?
Endnotes:
[1] syncretism n. 1. a combination, reconciliation, or coalescence of varying, often mutually opposed beliefs, principles, or practices, esp. those of various religions, into a new conglomerate whole typically marked by internal inconsistencies. – Webster’s 1988 New World Dictionary of American English, Third College Edition, page 1358
The bolded and underlined portion of that definition may help us to understand why there are reportedly over 9,000 denominations, and why we don't all see the "same picture".
[2] Some synonyms for overt are: obvious, unconcealed, explicit, evident, open, clear, plain, and blatant. (Source: MSWord2000 Thesaurus)
[3] Thayer Definition: 1) any assembly (especially of magistrates, judges, ambassadors), whether convened to deliberate or pass judgment [Emphasis added]
[4] G4964 sunagoge ...an assemblage of persons; specifically a Jewish “synagogue” (the meeting or the place); by analogy a Christian church
brother Robert: fellowcitizen of the commonwealth of Yisar'el,
NOT the man-made, fictional STATE OF ISRAEL.
Ephesians 2:12 & 19 |
Edited by - Oneisraelite on 10 Nov 2006 06:51:35 |
|
|
|
BatKol
Advanced Member
USA
735 Posts |
Posted - 10 Nov 2006 : 13:49:10
|
quote:
Originally posted by oneisraelite
[One of the things we should always keep in mind when reading the New Testament writings is that at the time that these were reportedly documented, c. 40 A.D. through 140 A.D., the followers of the Messiah’s teachings were being systematically, and horrifically, murdered by the governments of men.
Tacitus’ Annals XV.44 record: "...a vast multitude, were convicted, not so much of the crime of incendiarism as of hatred of the human race. And in their deaths they were made the subjects of sport; for they were wrapped in the hides of wild beasts and torn to pieces by dogs, or nailed to crosses, or set on fire, and when day declined, were burned to serve for nocturnal lights." – Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_persecution
Thanks for advancing the topic. Now we are getting somewhere. Note that the snip you post does not say that these people were being killed for not paying taxes or refusing to recognize the GOVT. In fact, I have studied this very topic of the early ecclesia in depth for over a year now. The pagans wrote in detail about why they hated the persecuted Christians. Nowhere is it even suggested that the earliest pre-nicene Christians were getting killed for the doctrines you put forth. One consistent claim against the early Christians, for instance, is that they were cannibals (Pagans simply misunderstood the 'body and blood' practice of "the last supper" and the Christians exercising John 6:53-56). The underground Christians could not meet in public for obvious reasons so their worship was 'members only' and secret making them subject to much well documented speculation and gossip. Their doctrines, however, were well known and pagans thought them to be rediculas. Also, are you aware that the man who burned Christians as torches was named Nero Caesar and that his name equals 666 (as well as 616 in Greek)?
quote:
This persecution/prosecution of the followers of the Anointed King of the commonwealth of Yisra’el did not “officially” end until 313 A.D. when Emperor [commander-in-chief] Constantine created a syncretized[1] "religion", called Christianity, and made it the STATE RELIGION.
I used to make this same argument right here on this list a few years ago after reading "the Jesus Mysteries" and others titles like this (my library is actually littered with such books). Those arguments do not hold water for many reasons (not that I did'nt try to debate my guts out in asserting those arguments). One reason is the individual epistles and gospels - and their teachings - were well established before 313AD, 325AD. Just because the 'offical' canon was not fixed until a later date does not mean the individual texts were not in existence. What I was unaware of then - and apparently so are you now - is that 'Christianity' was not syncretically created in 313AD... nor was Christianity 'after' the council of Nicea 'radically' different from the earliest Faith. It's just the Faith was mostly underground and subject to obvious limitations. After the 'smoke cleared' so to speak the various communities could now meet openly without fear of being killed. Now the various communities could share their individual letters and texts with each other as well as discuss tamperings that had arisen from break away members.... "from among your own selves men will arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after them." We have a good history of the early ecclesia addressing such splinter groups. In fact, some of the earlist writings from the ecclesia are on this point.
This is a deep topic and key to this discussion. One that ultimately leads to the question of when exactly did the Roman Catholic Church come into power. To answer this question we have to research the earliest Eastern Christian communities such as those of Syria and Antioch around the first and second centuries. Keep in mind the apostles appointed a whole body of leaders in many different areas and history can trace the growth of these communities. The RCC claims headship over these early limbs of the ecclesia but that is impossible.
quote:
Keeping the foregoing in mind, how overt[2] do we think the New Testament writers would have been?
We know who they were. We know what books were around and when they were written. One thing that needs to be understood is the actual climate in which the persecuted Christian underground existed in for over two hundred years before the 'open season' ended with Constantine. These underground communities all did not have the exact same Christian writings at all times. Obviously, letters written to the Roman sect were not delivered to the Corinthians, etc. Actually, the original need to verify the authenticity of the various early Gospels and Epistles was after 140AD when a wealthy, break away Christian named Marcion, (influenced by Gnosticism) started editing the Christian writings to get rid of the all references to "the Lord" (who he said was the "evil, lesser god" compared to Christ, the "good Father") as well as all references to the Old Testament. Kinda like what Thomas Jefferson did but even worse. Marcion said that all references to the OT were added in and not authentic much like how you say that all of the points I bring up in scripture that argue against your teaching are "corrupt scripture". Anyway, Marcion was a wild success and forced the early Christians to recognize the need for authentic writings. Indeed, Christ and Paul warned exactly of such people. Note also this was well before Constantine. There were many others after Marcion. Also note that OT canon was not even fixed until AFTER the rise of Christianity! When I learned this it about knocked me over. Anyway, to make a long story shorter the Christian writings found in the final NT canon were individually well established in their respective communities years and years before Constantine's council of Nicea making it practically impossible to get away with the type of changes you assert were made. The writings were just too well known.
All of this leads to a couple of big questions. What does history tell us about the doctrines of the early underground ecclesia and when did the RCC come into the picture (much later than 325 AD, btw).... and what changes did THEY bring?
quote:
Endnotes:
[1] syncretism n. 1. a combination, reconciliation, or coalescence of varying, often mutually opposed beliefs, principles, or practices, esp. those of various religions, into a new conglomerate whole typically marked by internal inconsistencies. – Webster’s 1988 New World Dictionary of American English, Third College Edition, page 1358
The bolded and underlined portion of that definition may help us to understand why there are reportedly over 9,000 denominations, and why we don't all see the "same picture".
Most of those 9,000 denominations all use the same book and do not make the argument that "scripture is corrupted" as their charter. They are looking at the same picture in respect to scripture. Very few doubt the authenticity of the canon or the texts. For good reason. Their differences lie mostly in how they apply the texts - or for no other reason then they splinter off on one minor point so that they can lead their own church. Splinters within splinters. Also, most of the 1,900 came after 1600AD with the reformation.
The big questions here are what was the identity and doctrines of the earliest underground ecclesia before the RCC, before there were any 'denominations', before even Nicea 325AD? One has to look East... not West as the RCC would have us do.
|
Edited by - BatKol on 11 Nov 2006 10:09:15 |
|
|
|
Oneisraelite
Advanced Member
uSA
833 Posts |
Posted - 13 Nov 2006 : 06:22:40
|
First of all, we sincerely thank you for your input. There are some things we would, however, like to point out.
First, just to get it out of the way, “Christ” is a title; it is not a LAST NAME. It apparently comes from the Greek verb chrio, which means to smear or rub with oil, that is, (by implication) to consecrate to an office…, and should, in virtually all instances, be translated “the Christ”, “the Messiah”, “the Anointed”, or as some sources claim, “the Anointed One”, when referring to the Messiah, Yahushua. Thus beginning a sentence with "Christ said..." is akin to starting a sentence with "Anointed said..."
"Kings...were set apart or consecrated to their offices by the use of oil."
Christ ... originally a title (Jesus the Christ), later used as part of the name (Jesus Christ) – Webster’s 1988 New World Dictionary of the English Language, Third College Edition, page 249
[Note: "later" means someone, or some group of ones, changed at least some of the "inerrant translations" or "inerrant versions" to make Christ "part of the name". Makes some of us wonder if, just on the outside chance, they could have "changed" other things as well.]
Secondly, during your obviously extensive studies, you may have discovered that the party of the Pharisees (Pharisaios) and the party of the Nazarenes (Nazoraios), as well as others, did apparently have at least a couple of things in common…
G5330
Pharisaios
Thayer Definition: …In opposition to the usurped dominion of the Herods and the rule of the Romans, they stoutly upheld the theocracy and their country’s cause, and possessed great influence with the common people.
…the party of the Pharisees (Pharisaios) and the party of the Nazarenes (Nazoraios) were both “in opposition to...the rule of the Romans” and “ they both stoutly upheld the theocracy”, though admittedly, and obviously, it was mere "lip service" by the party of the Pharisaios. (See Yirm'yahu [Jeremiah] 3:10; Mattith'yahu [Matthew] 15:7-9; Mark 7:6-8; Yahu'hanan [John] 19:15)
“No Lord but Yahuwah…”
(The beginning of the party line of the Zealots)
THEOC'RACY, n. [Fr. theocracie; It. Teocrazia; Sp teocracia; Gr. theos, God, and kratos power; krateo to hold.] Government of a state by the immediate direction of God; or the state thus governed. Of this species the Israelites furnish an illustrious example… – Webster’ 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language
Theocracy
A word first used by Josephus to denote that the Jews <sic> were under the direct government of God himself. The nation was in all things subject to the will of their invisible King. All the people were the servants of Jehovah, who ruled over their public and private affairs, communicating to them his will through the medium of the prophets. They were the subjects of a heavenly, not of an earthly, king. They were Jehovah's own subjects, ruled directly by him (compare 1Sa_8:6-9). – Easton’s 1897 Bible Dictionary
theo-
PREFIX: God - The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition. Copyright © 2000
-cracy
SUFFIX: Government; rule… (Ibid.)
Or, as we have pointed out so many times we have lost count, a theocracy is a government of Yahuwah [“God himself”], by Yahushua [His Anointed Prime Minister], for His people. (See 1Cor. 11:3)
The conflict between these theocratic political parties, particularly the Pharisaios and the Nazoraios was, and remains, primarily three-fold, (1) the Pharisaios knew the Rightful Heir (Shiyloh[2]) to the Throne had arrived (See Matt. 21:38; Mar. 12:7; Luke 20:14) and they did not want to lose the “scepter”, i.e. their “great influence with the common people” (See Gen. 49:10; Matt. 27:18; Mar. 15:10), and (2) as a consequence of his arrival they also knew that they were about to lose their “free ride”, since they too were plundering the people, their own people, via the so-called “temple tax” (forced tithing), and (3) because our Wonderful Counsellor was teaching that the citizens of the commonwealth of Yisra’el didn’t have to pay tribute (protection money) to the caesar (See Matt. 17:26), a king who was not their own, the party of the Pharisaios greatly feared reprisal by their conquerors (See Yahu’hanan [John] 11:50).
One simply cannot be a citizen of a Democracy (Gr. demokratia) and a Theocracy (Gr. theokratia) simultaneously…for what should be manifest reasons.
In a demokratia the people, collectively (majority rule), are the Supreme Sovereign, whilst in a theokratia, God, or more appropriately Yahuwah, is the Supreme Sovereign.
But I want you to know that the head of every man is the Anointed, the head of woman is man, and the head of the Anointed is Yahuwah.
Choose you this day whom ye will serve...
Endnotes:
[1]TRIB'UTE, n. [L. tributum, from tribuo, to give, bestow or divide.] 1. An annual or stated sum of money or other valuable thing, paid by one prince or nation to another, either as an acknowledgment of submission, or as the price of peace and protection, or by virtue of some treaty. The Romans made all their conquered countries pay tribute, as do the Turks at this day; and in some countries the tribute is paid in children. – Webster’s 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language
[2] Gen 49:10 The sceptre shall not depart from Yahudah [the Jews], nor a lawgiver from between his feet, until Shiyloh come…
H7886 shiyloh BDB Definition: 1) he whose it is, that which belongs to him…
brother Robert: fellowcitizen of the commonwealth of Yisar'el,
NOT the man-made, fictional STATE OF ISRAEL.
Ephesians 2:12 & 19 |
Edited by - Oneisraelite on 15 Nov 2006 06:49:32 |
|
|
|
BatKol
Advanced Member
USA
735 Posts |
Posted - 13 Nov 2006 : 14:02:44
|
quote:
Originally posted by oneisraelite
[First of all, we sincerely thank you for your input. There are some things we would, however, like to point out.
You are most welcomed. I wish you would have addressed many of the points I mentioned in my last post because key in all of this is the question when did the RCC come in and claim headship over the ecclesia. I'll put it aside and just answer your post.
quote:
First, just to get it out of the way, “Christ” is a title; it is not a LAST NAME. It apparently comes from the Greek verb chrio, which means to smear or rub with oil, that is, (by implication) to consecrate to an office…, and should, in virtually all instances, be translated “the Christ”, “the Messiah”, “the Anointed”, or as some sources claim, “the Anointed One”, when referring to the Messiah, Yahushua. Thus beginning a sentence with "Christ said..." is akin to starting a sentence with "Anointed said..."
I thought that was a given but to make you more at ease I'll henceforth use "The Christ" because it does not change any point on the NT position.
quote:
"Kings...were set apart or consecrated to their offices by the use of oil."
Christ ... originally a title (Jesus the Christ), later used as part of the name (Jesus Christ) – Webster’s 1988 New World Dictionary of the English Language, Third College Edition, page 249 [Note: "later" means someone, or some group of ones, changed at least some of the "inerrant translations" or "inerrant versions" to make Christ "part of the name". Makes some of us wonder if, just on the outside chance, they could have "changed" other things as well.]
"Later" means someone changed the name? Prove it. You are taking some wild liberties based on vague speculation. For instance, do you mean "changed" in context to translations into english? You are making some pretty strong statements in your speculating so we would hope you give us something more than just guess work.
quote:
Secondly, during your obviously extensive studies, you may have discovered that the party of the Pharisees (Pharisaios) and the party of the Nazarenes (Nazoraios), as well as others, did apparently have at least a couple of things in common…
G5330
Pharisaios
Thayer Definition: …In opposition to the usurped dominion of the Herods and the rule of the Romans, they stoutly upheld the theocracy and their country’s cause, and possessed great influence with the common people.
Yes, that is correct on the Pharisees. They were quite tied in with the Zealots as history shows. However, the most harsh words spoken by The Christ in the NT are made against the Pharisees. Christ's doctrines could not be more anti-Zealot!
quote:
…the party of the Pharisees (Pharisaios) and the party of the Nazarenes (Nazoraios) were both “in opposition to...the rule of the Romans” and “ they both stoutly upheld the theocracy”, though admittedly, and obviously, it was mere "lip service" by the party of the Pharisaios. (See Yirm'yahu [Jeremiah] 3:10; Mattith'yahu [Matthew] 15:7-9; Mark 7:6-8; Yahu'hanan [John] 19:15)
“No Lord but Yahuwah…”
(The beginning of the party line of the Zealots)
THEOC'RACY, n. [Fr. theocracie; It. Teocrazia; Sp teocracia; Gr. theos, God, and kratos power; krateo to hold.] Government of a state by the immediate direction of God; or the state thus governed. Of this species the Israelites furnish an illustrious example… – Webster’ 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language
Theocracy
A word first used by Josephus to denote that the Jews <sic> were under the direct government of God himself. The nation was in all things subject to the will of their invisible King. All the people were the servants of Jehovah, who ruled over their public and private affairs, communicating to them his will through the medium of the prophets. They were the subjects of a heavenly, not of an earthly, king. They were Jehovah's own subjects, ruled directly by him (compare 1Sa_8:6-9). – Easton’s 1897 Bible Dictionary
theo-
PREFIX: God - The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition. Copyright © 2000
-cracy
SUFFIX: Government; rule… (Ibid.)
Or, as we have pointed out so many times we have lost count, a theocracy is a government of Yahuwah [“God himself”], by Yahushua [His Anointed Prime Minister], for His people. (See 1Cor. 11:3)
Slow down brother! You are passing over a few major points that should be factored into this equation. Matt 2:23 tells us that Christ came to dwell in a city called Nazareth. A Nazarene is certainly defined as "one from the city of Nazareth". Also it means "one set apart" which certainly ties in with the branch prophecy. Branch in Hebrew is "nezer" and we know Jesus was not a Nazarite because he came eating and drinking (even though He was wrongly accused of being a wine bibber). Here's another very important point. I will grant you that the word Nazarene can be used in connection with the Zealots as well as simply to mean "one from the city of Nazareth". HOWEVER - The word "Nazarenes" used in context of a Zealot implication in the NT was put forth against Paul by the informer Tertullus who accompanied the Jews in Acts 24:5 during their attempt to - surprise! - frame him with the Romans! Now where have we seen this ploy before? Just like the Jews trying - and failing - to frame Christ with sedition we see them once again trying this with Paul. Paul denying the frame-up tells the Romans, "Neither can they prove the things whereof they now accuse me." What you are consistently doing through out your teaching is taking the claims made against Christ and the apostles as true. Clearly Jesus' doctrines through out the NT were not Zealot. Especially since He spoke against the Temple Tax. Something the Pharisees and Zealots would never do. Jesus' positions were completely opposite the Zealot views on mostly everything.
quote:
The conflict between these theocratic political parties, particularly the Pharisaios and the Nazoraios was, and remains, primarily three-fold, (1) the Pharisaios knew the Rightful Heir (Shiyloh[2]) to the Throne had arrived (See Matt. 21:38; Mar. 12:7; Luke 20:14) and they did not want to lose the “scepter”, i.e. their “great influence with the common people” (See Gen. 49:10; Matt. 27:18; Mar. 15:10),
Not correct. History shows the Pharisees supporting the Zealots and other Messianic hopefuls who tried and failed. The Pharisees supported these Zealots for the opposite reason you suggest. That they would gain the bigger "scepter" of world control once the awaited Messiah destroyed Rome and instituted an Israelite World Order. Jesus was repugnant to the Pharisees because he taught the opposite of the Zealot party line. As I have outlined before Jesus' doctrines were about as anti-Zealot as you can get. Love your enemies? Not Kosher!
quote:
and (2) as a consequence of his arrival they also knew that they were about to lose their “free ride”, since they too were plundering the people, their own people, via the so-called “temple tax” (forced tithing), and
You have this backwards. The Torah does support the Temple Tax. This is why the Zealots had as their battle cry "no tax but the temple tax." Jesus speaking againt the Temple tax is very anti-Zealot.
quote:
(3) because our Wonderful Counsellor was teaching that the citizens of the commonwealth of Yisra’el didn’t have to pay tribute (protection money) to the caesar (See Matt. 17:26), a king who was not their own, the party of the Pharisaios greatly feared reprisal by their conquerors (See Yahu’hanan [John] 11:50).
Again, you have this backwards as well. Yet again you are taking for truth the claims made by the "vipers" who said exactly what you repeat here to frame our Wonderful Counsellor. Pilate saw through the Jew's ploy and could not find The Christ guilty of any of the trumped up charges. History shows that Pilate was not a very forgiving figure so the claims of the Jews - which you consistently promote as truth to make our Wonderful Counsellor out to be a Zealot -
must have been quite weak.
quote:
One simply cannot be a citizen of a Democracy (Gr. demokratia) and a Theocracy (Gr. theokratia) simultaneously…for what should be manifest reasons.
I have given you verse upon verse and example upon example which proves you wrong here. All you can say to these so far is, "corrupt scripture". What's more is you don't even give us any solid proof of this other than speculations and the "lying pen of the scribes" quote about OT law. Nothing more.
quote:
In a demokratia the people, collectively (majority rule), are the Supreme Sovereign, whilst in a theokratia, God, or more appropriately Yahuwah, is the Supreme Sovereign.
YHWH is in total control of everthing without exception. Yes, even a demokraria:
Dan 2:20-21: Daniel answered and said, Blessed be the name of God for ever and ever: for wisdom and might are his: And he changeth the times and the seasons: he removeth kings, and setteth up kings: he giveth wisdom unto the wise, and knowledge to them that know understanding:
Dan 4:17 This matter [is] by the decree of the watchers, and the demand by the word of the holy ones: to the intent that the living may know that the most High ruleth in the kingdom of men, and giveth it to whomsoever he will, and setteth up over it the basest of men.
Dan 4:25 That they shall drive thee from men, and thy dwelling shall be with the beasts of the field, and they shall make thee to eat grass as oxen, and they shall wet thee with the dew of heaven, and seven times shall pass over thee, till thou know that the most High ruleth in the kingdom of men, and giveth it to whomsoever he will.
Dan 5:21 And he was driven from the sons of men; and his heart was made like the beasts, and his dwelling [was] with the wild asses: they fed him with grass like oxen, and his body was wet with the dew of heaven; till he knew that the most high God ruled in the kingdom of men, and [that] he appointeth over it whomsoever he will.
Colossians 1:15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16 For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him. 17 He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.
Psa 103:19 The LORD hath prepared his throne in the heavens; and his kingdom ruleth over all.
Rom 13:1 - Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.
I Timothy 6:15 ...Which in his times he shall shew, who is the blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings, and Lord of lords
Prov 16:4 - The LORD hath made every things for His own purpose, yea, even the wicked for the day of evil.
|
|
|
|
Oneisraelite
Advanced Member
uSA
833 Posts |
Posted - 14 Nov 2006 : 08:57:18
|
It is a remarkable fact that the first instance upon record in which the bishop of Rome attempted to rule the Christian church was by AN EDICT IN BEHALF OF SUNDAY. It had been the custom of all the churches to celebrate the passover, but with this difference: that while the eastern churches observed it upon the fourteenth day of the first month, no matter what day of the week this might be, the western churches kept it upon the Sunday following that day; or rather, upon the Sunday following Good Friday. Victor, bishop of Rome, in the year 196,[36] took upon him to impose the Roman custom upon all the churches; that is, to compel them to observe the passover upon Sunday. "This bold attempt," says Bower, "we may call the first essay of papal usurpation."[37] And Dowling terms it the "earliest instance of Romish assumption."[38]
36 Bower`s History of the Popes, vol. 1. pp. 18, 19;
Rose's Neander, pp. 188-190;
Dowling`s History of Romanism, book 1, chap. 2. sec. 9.
37 History of the Popes, vol. 1. p. 18.
38 History of Romanism, heading of page 32.
BatKol wrote: I thought that was a given but to make you more at ease I'll henceforth use "The Christ"...
We thank you for thinking of our comfort, but the truth of it is, we do not find all that much solace in calling our Messiah by any name other than that which his Father gave him.
BatKol: "Later" means someone changed the name? Prove it.
You have got to be joking. Read this once more, please, this time paying closer attention to who is saying it.
Christ ... originally a title (Jesus the Christ), later used as part of the name (Jesus Christ) – Webster’s 1988 New World Dictionary of the English Language, Third College Edition, page 249
Why don't you write to VICTORIA NEUFELDT, Editor in Chief, and/or DAVID B. GURALNIK, Editor in Chief Emeritus, the purported editors of this particular 1988 edition of Webster's Dictionary demanding that they "prove it".
What we said was, "someone, or some group of ones, changed at least some of the "inerrant translations" or "inerrant versions" to make Christ "part of the name"." What we should have said, is, it APPEARS from this 1988 Webster's Dictionary definition that "someone, or some group of ones, changed at least some of the "inerrant translations" or "inerrant versions" to make Christ "part of the name"." Maybe this would have made you more at ease.
BatKol: "Later" means someone changed the name?
Hello? We already know that someone changed his name, that is a given. The Yisra'elites of that time and place were not so enamored with the Greeks that they would think to name their children by Greek names.
Oh, and by the way, I do not believe that we have EVER said that Yahushua was a member of the party of the Zelotes ( (specifically) partisan for Jewish political independence)). If you believe that we have, we put your own words back to you, "prove it". According to our source, they evidently invited him to join them, but we see from the Scripture that the reverse seems to have been the result, i.e. some of them joined themselves to the party of the Nazoraios, instead.
We wonder openly, if their "positions were completely opposite" to each other, as you teach, why some of the partisans of the Zelotes would join themselves to the party of the Nazoraios? It is because their "positions" were not "completely opposite" each other, as you lead people to believe, rather it was their methods of achieving independence that were quite different.
BatKol wrote: Again, you have this backwards as well.
Why do you feel compelled to continually use such an ostentatious, rude and disrespectful tone? Do you think this advances your cause? Do you think it makes you look more intelligent? Do you think that you have it all figured out? It does not, it does not, and you don't. And neither do we; we simply do the best we can with what He has given us to work with, just like everyone else.
brother Robert: fellowcitizen of the commonwealth of Yisar'el,
NOT the man-made, fictional STATE OF ISRAEL.
Ephesians 2:12 & 19 |
Edited by - Oneisraelite on 14 Nov 2006 09:32:45 |
|
|
|
Oneisraelite
Advanced Member
uSA
833 Posts |
Posted - 15 Nov 2006 : 08:08:47
|
Theocracy
A word first used by Josephus to denote that the Jews <sic> were under the direct government of God himself[1]. The nation was in all things subject to the will of their invisible King. All the people were the servants of Jehovah, who ruled over their public and private affairs, communicating to them his will through the medium of the prophets. They were the subjects of a heavenly, not of an earthly, king. They were Jehovah's own subjects, ruled directly by him (compare 1Sa_8:6-9). – Easton’s 1897 Bible Dictionary
Men, desiring to lord it over their brothers and sisters, soon learned to either call themselves gods (benefactors, i.e. good givers. See Luke 22:25) or created false gods, i.e. graven images, which they stood behind claiming to be their sole prophets/spokesmen[1].
(YirmeYahuw [Jeremiah] 14 RNS) {14} And Yahuwah said to me, "The prophets prophesy lies in My name. I have not sent them, commanded them, nor spoken to them. They prophesy to you a false vision, divination, a worthless thing, and the deceit of their heart.
This unlawful transformation can be seen when we look at meaning number two for theocracy from our Webster's 1988 New World Dictionary of the English Language, Third College Edition, page 1387, 2. Government by a person or persons claiming to rule with divine authority. [Emphasis added]
Can you say, "Divine Right of Kings"?
In fact, The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Lanuage, Fourth Edition, no longer even gives the original meaning evidently intended for this word by its purported creator, Josephus, they now only say it is, 1. A government ruled by or subject to religious authority. 2. A state so governed.
Enter the religions of the world! Can you say, "one nation under God"? Oh, really? Apparently one of their best known religious leaders doesn't belive that this is the case.
“We're a secular Country, by our constitution.” – BILLY GRAHAM speaking of the UNITED STATES in an interview with DAVID FROST on May 30, 1997
Maybe that's one of the reasons that the UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT is reportedly trying to do away with the Pledge of Allegiance.
Endnotes:
[1] It is the Yisra'elites who are under the direct government of Yahuwah.
[2] A prophet (Ibriy nabiy) is a spokesman
Brown-Driver-Briggs' Hebrew Lexicon
brother Robert: fellowcitizen of the commonwealth of Yisar'el,
NOT the man-made, fictional STATE OF ISRAEL.
Ephesians 2:12 & 19 |
Edited by - Oneisraelite on 15 Nov 2006 08:51:24 |
|
|
|
BatKol
Advanced Member
USA
735 Posts |
Posted - 15 Nov 2006 : 13:53:31
|
quote:
It is a remarkable fact that the first instance upon record in which the bishop of Rome attempted to rule the Christian church was by AN EDICT IN BEHALF OF SUNDAY. It had been the custom of all the churches to celebrate the passover, but with this difference: that while the eastern churches observed it upon the fourteenth day of the first month, no matter what day of the week this might be, the western churches kept it upon the Sunday following that day; or rather, upon the Sunday following Good Friday. Victor, bishop of Rome, in the year 196,[36] took upon him to impose the Roman custom upon all the churches; that is, to compel them to observe the passover upon Sunday. "This bold attempt," says Bower, "we may call the first essay of papal usurpation."[37] And Dowling terms it the "earliest instance of Romish assumption."[38]
36 Bower`s History of the Popes, vol. 1. pp. 18, 19;
Rose's Neander, pp. 188-190;
Dowling`s History of Romanism, book 1, chap. 2. sec. 9.
37 History of the Popes, vol. 1. p. 18.
38 History of Romanism, heading of page 32.
And you tell me to pay closer attention? Firstly, notice that I stated we must look EAST instead of WEST in my previous post. Here you are looking WEST to try to rebut my last post but that's not a big deal on this one. This item you post is mostly concerning observing the Sunday Sabbath in place of the Saturday Sabbath kept by the Jews. Secondly - and most importantly - these are Gentiles you are talking about NOT Jews. Gentiles are not at all obligated to Sinai strictures. PERIOD. I don't endorse "Romanism" but on this issue I don't see a problem at all, especially since the object was to seperate the ecclesia from the Judiasers. Paul was very, very clear that the Gentiles should not adopt Israelite laws. He compared the Sinai covenant to a bondwoman! On point:
What did Paul tell the Genilte Galatians?
Galatians 4:9 - But now, after that ye have known God, or rather are known of God, how turn ye again F7 to the weak and beggarly elements, whereunto ye desire again to be in bondage? 10 Ye observe days, and months, and times, and years.
What did Paul tell the Gentile Romans?
Romans 14:5 - one man considers one day more sacred than another; another man considers every day alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind.
What did Paul tell the Gentile Colossians?
Colossians 2:16 Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:
brother Robert, key in all of this is understanding that the Gentiles - who were never obligated to the Sinai covenant to begin witn - are advised against getting mixed with with the Sinai Covenant by Paul. Also James, the Jerusalem church and the Holy Spirit in Acts 15 do not command the Gentiles in keeping the Israelite Sabbath, do they?
Also, if it were a crime, don't you think you are guilty of the same thing you point your finger at this Roman bishop for concerning the Sabbath? You don't support a Saturday Sabbath and have changed it too! I completely support your right to do this but keep in mind you can't change from Saturday and then turn around and blast this guy for changing from Saturday!!
quote:
quote:
BatKol wrote: I thought that was a given but to make you more at ease I'll henceforth use "The Christ"...
We thank you for thinking of our comfort, but the truth of it is, we do not find all that much solace in calling our Messiah by any name other than that which his Father gave him.
Well then I’ll go back to Christ for simplicities sake. Also, where are you getting the idea that Jesus’ proper name is actually Yahushua? What text from antiquity - older than the oldest Greek text - do you have which shows His name to be what you claim? Just curious.
quote:
quote:
BatKol: "Later" means someone changed the name? Prove it.
You have got to be joking. Read this once more, please, this time paying closer attention to who is saying it.
Christ ... originally a title (Jesus the Christ), later used as part of the name (Jesus Christ) – Webster’s 1988 New World Dictionary of the English Language, Third College Edition, page 249
Why don't you write to VICTORIA NEUFELDT, Editor in Chief, and/or DAVID B. GURALNIK, Editor in Chief Emeritus, the purported editors of this particular 1988 edition of Webster's Dictionary demanding that they "prove it".
What we said was, "someone, or some group of ones, changed at least some of the "inerrant translations" or "inerrant versions" to make Christ "part of the name"." What we should have said, is, it APPEARS from this 1988 Webster's Dictionary definition that "someone, or some group of ones, changed at least some of the "inerrant translations" or "inerrant versions" to make Christ "part of the name"." Maybe this would have made you more at ease.
Now wait a minute! You claim the NT has been corrupted as a rebuttal to the volumes of verses I provide which argue against your theory. What you offer up in response has nothing to do with the original Greek source texts, does it? It just says "later". "Later" when, what, how? Perhaps I should have spelled it out better. The point is the many, many verses I am presenting are found in the Greek source text. Please explain how what you post shows the Greek source text to be “corrupt”. It doesn’t.
quote:
quote:
BatKol: "Later" means someone changed the name?
Hello? We already know that someone changed his name, that is a given. The Yisra'elites of that time and place were not so enamored with the Greeks that they would think to name their children by Greek names.
It is not a given across the board seeing as the Greek Septuagint was the scripture used by the Apostles as well as Christ when quoting OT. Not too Kosher! Yes, Pharisees were not too keen on Greek but ... then again .. what does the scriptures consistently say about the Pharisees? Not good. In fact, Christ does not have too much positive to say about the Israelites themselves, does he? Indeed, He came to His own but His own received Him not. The Kingdom got taken away from "the Children". Not too kosher!
quote:
Oh, and by the way, I do not believe that we have EVER said that Yahushua was a member of the party of the Zelotes ( (specifically) partisan for Jewish political independence)). If you believe that we have, we put your own words back to you, "prove it".
Well, in my last post I said Christ’s doctrines are very anti-zealot. Which they are. You have strongly implied that Christ’s doctrines ARE in line with the Zealots by posting bits on the Galileans which connect with the Zealots.. In fact, here you are - Posted - Aug 17 2006 : 06:38:53 AM and Nov 03 2006 : 05:56:54 AM - trying to speculate against the fact that Christ was speaking against the Temple Tax .
GALILE'AN, n. A native or inhabitant of Galilee, in Judea. Also, one of a sect among the Jews, who opposed the payment of tribute to the Romans. - Webster's 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language
Galilean
...All the apostles, with the exception of Judas Iscariot (Act_1:11), were Galileans.
This was also one of the names of reproach given to the early Christians. Julian the Apostate, as he is called, not only used the epithet himself when referring to Christ and his apostles, but he made it a law that no one should ever call the Christians by any other name. - Easton's 1897 Bible Dictionary
"The Zealots absorbed the Galileans, a sect which was charged by Jospehus with causing much sedition and trouble in the Jewish nation. The Galileans taught that all foreign control was unscriptural, and they would neither acknowledge or pray for foreign princes. Their successors, the Zealots, emphasized and broadened these principles." - George H. Sandison, Ph.D.
Pay close attention here, one plus one equals two; [the Galilieans] ...opposed the payment of tribute to the Romans [and] All the apostles, with the exception of Judas Iscariot [the traitor] (Act_1:11), were Galileans.
And, the Galileans, [was] a sect which was charged by Jospehus with causing much sedition [and] All the apostles, with the exception of Judas Iscariot [the traitor] (Act_1:11), were Galileans.
The rational mind begins to see how this all adds up.
We also readily see from George Sandison's study that the "national party" known as the Zealots were even stricter than their predecessors whom they absorbed, the Galilean party, and yet they still had this as their watchword, "No Lord but Yahuwah; no tax but that of the Temple; no friend but the Zealots."
If there was a political faction more zealous than the so-called Zealots, we have yet to hear about them, and even the Zealots, evidently, paid the Temple tax.
P.S. The modern day Romans don't want anyone to know this; thus the very deliberate disinformation concerning it.
disinformation n. deliberately false information leaked by a government, as to confuse another nation's intelligence operations. - Webster's 1988 New World Dictionary of American English, Third College Edition, page 394
Again here on Posted - Nov 03 2006 : 05:56:54 AM
Ever hear of the party of the Galileans? “The Zealots absorbed the Galileans, a sect which was charged by Josephus with causing much sedition…The Galileans taught that all foreign control was unscriptural, and they would neither acknowledge nor pray for foreign princes”
"This was also one of the names of reproach given to the early Christians."
Ever hear of the party of the Zealots? “…the Zealots emphasized and broadened these principles [of the Galileans]…they were famed for their undying love of liberty…They resisted the Roman power to the utmost, and opposed the census…they refused to pay tribute and defied the Roman governors. They refused to recognize any human authority, and adopted as a watchword, “No Lord but Jehovah [Yahuwah]; no tax but that of the Temple; no friend but the Zealots.”
quote:
According to our source, they evidently invited him to join them, but we see from the Scripture that the reverse seems to have been the result, i.e. some of them joined themselves to the party of the Nazoraios, instead.
I just got through posting to you the differences between somebody being “from the town of Nazareth” vs. name the Jews gave the Christians - Nazarenes. The NT clearly says that Jesus resided in Nazareth. Hence the frequent use of the title "Jesus of Nazareth". There's your Nazarene context. Yes, there was a group prior to Jesus called the Nazarenes and we see the Jews wanting to pin that title on Paul in Acts. He denies it!
quote:
We wonder openly, if their "positions were completely opposite" to each other, as you teach, why some of the partisans of the Zelotes would join themselves to the party of the Nazoraios? It is because their "positions" were not "completely opposite" each other, as you lead people to believe, rather it was their methods of achieving independence that were quite different.
Here again you are leading people to believe that Christ was part of the political party of the Nazarenes when the context of Nazarene is related to being from the town of Nazareth. That's the reason for the title "Jesus of Nazareth". You have also said that Paul was “a leader of the party of the Nazarenes”. Paul's Jewish enemies also tried to say the same thing as well in Acts. Paul denied this! Why not just believe Paul?
quote:
quote:
BatKol wrote: Again, you have this backwards as well.
Why do you feel compelled to continually use such an ostentatious, rude and disrespectful tone?
brother Robert, give me a break! I can copy and paste all sorts of statments you have made to me which could be taken the way you are trying to make my statement out to sound. You never see me whining and huffing about such statements made by you. So please get over it already! I am sorry you feel this is rude but 'backward' is exactly how you are spinning much of your theology when compared with what is plainly written in the NT. You boldly - and consistently - quote statements the NT says are made by Christ’s enemies and then say they are truth! Sorry, but backwards is the exact word for your exegesis when reading the NT as it is written, including context.
quote:
Do you think this advances your cause? Do you think it makes you look more intelligent? Do you think that you have it all figured out? It does not, it does not, and you don't. And neither do we; we simply do the best we can with what He has given us to work with, just like everyone else.
Do you think moving foward with the hunch that the scriptures are corrupt and need to be approached like a pick and choose 'buffet' advances your cause? Do you think promoting the statements made against Christ and the Apostles by the Jews wanting to frame them is a solid foundation to base your teachings on? And no, I am not trying to 'look intelligent'. I am pointing out that much of what you put forth is the opposite of what the scriptures say - as they are written.
Also, there is nothing to “figure out”. The Bible as it is written tells us the pertinent details and the end game. Mystery explained. No need to redact, re-edit and rewrite the parts you don't like. What you have been doing here is rearranging the Bible to fit your theory while at the same time hyper-focusing on claims the same book says are made by Christ‘s enemies to frame Him. Claims that both Christ and the Apostles were exonerated of when examined by Rome! Your rebuttal for almost everything I have presented contextually from the Bible that argues against your position is simply “corrupt scripture”. Sorry that me pointing all of this out seems rude to you.
|
Edited by - BatKol on 15 Nov 2006 18:02:35 |
|
|
|
Oneisraelite
Advanced Member
uSA
833 Posts |
Posted - 16 Nov 2006 : 06:19:35
|
It has been put on our heart to retract this entire post for a complete overhaul.
brother Robert: fellowcitizen of the commonwealth of Yisar'el,
NOT the man-made, fictional STATE OF ISRAEL.
Ephesians 2:12 & 19 |
Edited by - Oneisraelite on 16 Nov 2006 08:14:42 |
|
|
|
Oneisraelite
Advanced Member
uSA
833 Posts |
Posted - 16 Nov 2006 : 07:39:23
|
You forgot, ostentatious and disrespectful.
And, as to whether or not you "continually use such an ostentatious, rude and disrespectful tone", we shall let the witnesses here decide. We (my helpmeet and I) are merely conveying the feeling we get when we read the majority of your posts that are directed to us.
Who knows, maybe the witnesses here will decide that it is I who am using "an ostentatious, rude and disrespectful tone" towards you.
If that is their decision, I will do my utmost to "curb my tongue", as it were when responding to you.
brother Robert: fellowcitizen of the commonwealth of Yisar'el,
NOT the man-made, fictional STATE OF ISRAEL.
Ephesians 2:12 & 19 |
|
|
|
BatKol
Advanced Member
USA
735 Posts |
Posted - 16 Nov 2006 : 09:42:18
|
quote:
Originally posted by oneisraelite
You forgot, ostentatious and disrespectful.
And, as to whether or not you "continually use such an ostentatious, rude and disrespectful tone", we shall let the witnesses here decide. We (my helpmeet and I) are merely conveying the feeling we get when we read the majority of your posts that are directed to us.
Who knows, maybe the witnesses here will decide that it is I who am using "an ostentatious, rude and disrespectful tone" towards you.
If that is their decision, I will do my utmost to "curb my tongue", as it were when responding to you.
brother Robert: fellowcitizen of the commonwealth of Yisar'el,
NOT the man-made, fictional STATE OF ISRAEL.
Ephesians 2:12 & 19
Why pull other people into this? Let's just decide between ourselves how to proceed. I have not resorted to ad hom or name calling while refuting your positions. I will try to find a 'nicer way' to respond but just the act of pointing out many of these items must sound "disrespectful" in and of itself. Plus, when you actually do respond, some of your reasoning is just hard to swallow. Especially when I present scores of verses and examples from scripture which you simply write off as "corrupt scripture". It is also frustrating when the definitions for the words we look at do include entries which go along perfectly with the general context of scripture. Choosing some of the definitions you do throws out many key foundations.
This subject is about as deep as it gets and of great importance. We owe it to ourselves as well as all who read this thread to answer each point presented by each other. In doing so - on my end - I will try the best I can to be more sensitive.
Also, please don't take our debate on a personal level. You might not believe this but I do have much respect for you as a man and for that fact alone that you are willing to move forward with your beliefs. That does mean a lot to me regardless of our disagreements. Nobody can say you “ain’t got heart”!  |
|
|
|
Oneisraelite
Advanced Member
uSA
833 Posts |
Posted - 17 Nov 2006 : 08:58:13
|
Greetings and salutations, brothers and sisters of this forum:
Peace be unto the house.
Behold, the days come, saith Yahuwah, that I will raise unto Dawid a righteous Branch (tsemach), and a King shall reign and prosper, and shall execute judgment and justice in the earth.
We believe, for the sake of accuracy, that the Ibriy [Hebrew] word tsemach, Strong’s dictionary number H6780, should have been translated “sprout” since Yahushua is the son of perpetuity (nun), (See Matt. 28:20) in the sense of, “to resprout, that is, propagate by shoots; figuratively, to be perpetual.
And there shall come forth a rod out of the stem of Jesse, and a Branch (netser) shall grow out of his roots: and the spirit of Yahuwah (the Living One) shall rest upon him, the spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of counsel and might, the spirit of knowledge and of the fear of Yahuwah; And shall make him of quick understanding in the fear of Yahuwah: and he shall not judge after the sight of his eyes, neither reprove after the hearing of his ears: But with righteousness shall he judge the poor, and reprove with equity for the meek of the earth: and he shall smite the earth with the rod of his mouth, and with the breath of his lips shall he slay the wicked.
Netser, Strong’s number H5342, is “always figurative” for descendant. It is not, as far a we have been able to ascertain, from the Ibriy root word natsar, as both Strong’s Hebrew Dictionary and Brown-Driver-Briggs’ Hebrew Lexicon indicate. (We believe it can be demonstrated that BDB merely followed James Strong’s lead on this point.)
Natsar pronounced naw-tsar, according to Brown-Driver-Briggs’ Hebrew Lexicon, means: 1) to guard, watch, watch over, keep; 1a) (Qal) - 1a1) to watch, guard, keep; 1a2) to preserve, guard from dangers; 1a3) to keep, observe, guard with fidelity; 1a4) to guard, keep secret; 1a5) to be kept close, be blockaded; 1a6) watchman (participle)
We will admit the possibility that Nazareth may have come from this Ibriy word, natsar, since its existence may have been specifically ordained for the sole purpose of guarding, with fidelity, His descendant of Dawid. In fact, Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament seems to confirm it.
G3478
Nazareth / Nazaret
Thayer Definition:
Nazareth = “the guarded one”
However…
We see in both Strong’s Greek Dictionary and Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament that G3478 is, “of uncertain derivation". Hmmmm?
It is written, he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth [G3478]: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene [G3480].
It will be noted here that Joseph Thayer says that Nazoraios, G3480, means, “one separated”. If this is true it would mean that it came from the Ibriy word nazar, Strong’s number H5144, which means:
H5144
nazar
BDB Definition:
1) to dedicate, consecrate, separate
1a) (Niphal) to dedicate oneself, devote oneself
1b) (Hiphil) to keep sacredly separate
2) (Hiphil) to be a Nazarite, live as a Nazarite
Note: We are not nazarites, we are naziyr, pronounced naw-zeer, which means:
H5139
naziyr / nazir
1) consecrated or devoted one, Nazarite <sic>
1a) consecrated one
1b) devotee, Nazarite <sic>
1c) untrimmed (vine)
BatKol, like the Jews of about 2,000 years ago, thought that this meant he couldn’t partake of the fruit of the vine, which explains why they both pointed out that he was a wine drinker. (See Matt. 11:19; Luke 7:34)
The Greek word oinopotes is made from G3631, wine, and G4095, imbibe. And, imbibe simply means “to drink in”.
James Strong, in his Hebrew and Chaldee Dictionary, makes an interesting observation concerning the Ibriy word naziyr [H5139]: ...separate, that is, consecrated (as prince, a Nazirite).
When we remember that the italicized words are what he believes to be the English synonyms for the Ibriy word he is defining we find that that the first one is simply separate, like, “come out from among them and be ye separate (naziyr)”.
We also note that second word italicized is prince, consecrated as prince. And, consecrated, of course, means, “separated (nazar) from a common…use”.
Are we beginning to see a pattern here, or are these merely coinkydinks? We suppose that it could be mere coinkydink, but then again, it may just be possible that they aren't…
The blessings of thy father have prevailed above the blessings of my progenitors unto the utmost bound of the everlasting hills: they shall be on the head of Yahu’caph [Joseph], and on the crown of the head of him that was separate (naziyr) from his brethren.
brother Robert: fellowcitizen of the commonwealth of Yisar'el,
NOT the man-made, fictional STATE OF ISRAEL.
Ephesians 2:12 & 19 |
|
|
|
BatKol
Advanced Member
USA
735 Posts |
Posted - 17 Nov 2006 : 11:59:56
|
quote:
Originally posted by oneisraelite
Greetings and salutations, brothers and sisters of this forum:
Peace be unto the house.
Behold, the days come, saith Yahuwah, that I will raise unto Dawid a righteous Branch (tsemach), and a King shall reign and prosper, and shall execute judgment and justice in the earth.
We believe, for the sake of accuracy, that the Ibriy [Hebrew] word tsemach, Strong’s dictionary number H6780, should have been translated “sprout” since Yahushua is the son of perpetuity (nun), (See Matt. 28:20) in the sense of, “to resprout, that is, propagate by shoots; figuratively, to be perpetual.
And there shall come forth a rod out of the stem of Jesse, and a Branch (netser) shall grow out of his roots: and the spirit of Yahuwah (the Living One) shall rest upon him, the spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of counsel and might, the spirit of knowledge and of the fear of Yahuwah; And shall make him of quick understanding in the fear of Yahuwah: and he shall not judge after the sight of his eyes, neither reprove after the hearing of his ears: But with righteousness shall he judge the poor, and reprove with equity for the meek of the earth: and he shall smite the earth with the rod of his mouth, and with the breath of his lips shall he slay the wicked.
Netser, Strong’s number H5342, is “always figurative” for descendant. It is not, as far a we have been able to ascertain, from the Ibriy root word natsar, as both Strong’s Hebrew Dictionary and Brown-Driver-Briggs’ Hebrew Lexicon indicate. (We believe it can be demonstrated that BDB merely followed James Strong’s lead on this point.)
Natsar pronounced naw-tsar, according to Brown-Driver-Briggs’ Hebrew Lexicon, means: 1) to guard, watch, watch over, keep; 1a) (Qal) - 1a1) to watch, guard, keep; 1a2) to preserve, guard from dangers; 1a3) to keep, observe, guard with fidelity; 1a4) to guard, keep secret; 1a5) to be kept close, be blockaded; 1a6) watchman (participle)
We will admit the possibility that Nazareth may have come from this Ibriy word, natsar, since its existence may have been specifically ordained for the sole purpose of guarding, with fidelity, His descendant of Dawid. In fact, Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament seems to confirm it.
G3478
Nazareth / Nazaret
Thayer Definition:
Nazareth = “the guarded one”
However…
We see in both Strong’s Greek Dictionary and Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament that G3478 is, “of uncertain derivation". Hmmmm?
It is written, he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth [G3478]: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene [G3480].
It will be noted here that Joseph Thayer says that Nazoraios, G3480, means, “one separated”. If this is true it would mean that it came from the Ibriy word nazar, Strong’s number H5144, which means:
H5144
nazar
BDB Definition:
1) to dedicate, consecrate, separate
1a) (Niphal) to dedicate oneself, devote oneself
1b) (Hiphil) to keep sacredly separate
2) (Hiphil) to be a Nazarite, live as a Nazarite
Note: We are not nazarites, we are naziyr, pronounced naw-zeer, which means:
H5139
naziyr / nazir
1) consecrated or devoted one, Nazarite <sic>
1a) consecrated one
1b) devotee, Nazarite <sic>
1c) untrimmed (vine)
What is your point, here? I never said you were a nazarite. I already covered your conclusion on Nov 13 2006 : 2:02:44 PM
I will just repost what I wrote:
Slow down brother! You are passing over a few major points that should be factored into this equation. Matt 2:23 tells us that Christ came to dwell in a city called Nazareth. A Nazarene is certainly defined as "one from the city of Nazareth". Also it means "one set apart" which certainly ties in with the branch prophecy. Branch in Hebrew is "nezer" and we know Jesus was not a Nazarite because he came eating and drinking (even though He was wrongly accused of being a wine bibber).
quote:
BatKol, like the Jews of about 2,000 years ago, thought that this meant he couldn’t partake of the fruit of the vine, which explains why they both pointed out that he was a wine drinker. (See Matt. 11:19; Luke 7:34)
That's not what I think and I am scratching my head as to how you come to interpret my position as such. It is hard to be sensitive to your feelings when you keep garbling my position and then proceed to try and correct me on a position that was not mine to begin with! This is not the first time you have tried this. I do not "think" what you are trying to pin on me.
Read closely what I wrote:
"Branch in Hebrew is "nezer" and we know Jesus was not a Nazarite because he came eating and drinking (even though He was wrongly accused of being a wine bibber). "
The point I was making is that we can rule out Nazarite as in "one who has taken the nazarite vow" for obvious reasons. Numbers 6:1-27 clearly spells out that such a person must "eat nothing that is made of the vine tree, from the kernels even to the husk". A Nazarite in this context certainly means one cannot partake of wine. We know Jesus was not a 'Numbers 6' Nazarite. That was my point. In an effort to "zing" me you ended up garbling my position.
quote:
The Greek word oinopotes is made from G3631, wine, and G4095, imbibe. And, imbibe simply means “to drink in”.
Here I am trying to refute the false Jewish claims that Jesus said were made against Him and you want to try to play word games. Bottom line, the word in question - as used in the context of Jesus' statement - is defined as this:
oinopotes {oy-nop-ot'-ace}
1) a winebibber, given to wine, a wino
Why play with the word? Are you now going to attempt to rearrange the word "gluttonous" to not mean what it really means in Jesus' statement?
I can't believe you are focusing on these points (and getting them wrong!) when the real meat of the argument is being passed over.
quote:
James Strong, in his Hebrew and Chaldee Dictionary, makes an interesting observation concerning the Ibriy word naziyr [H5139]: ...separate, that is, consecrated (as prince, a Nazirite).
When we remember that the italicized words are what he believes to be the English synonyms for the Ibriy word he is defining we find that that the first one is simply separate, like, “come out from among them and be ye separate (naziyr)”.
We also note that second word italicized is prince, consecrated as prince. And, consecrated, of course, means, “separated (nazar) from a common…use”.
Are we beginning to see a pattern here, or are these merely coinkydinks? We suppose that it could be mere coinkydink, but then again, it may just be possible that they aren't…
Please remember that the point in all of this is that you made the assertion that Our Wonderful Counselor was part of the political party called the Nazarenes. I have shown you how being both from Nazareth and being "set apart" in context to "the branch" prophecy can tie in together. You have also said that Paul was the leader of the Nazarenes. Paul denied that connection but did not deny the title 'Christian' in Acts 26:28-29
Then Agrippa said unto Paul, Almost thou persuadest me to be a Christian. And Paul said, I would to God, that not only thou, but also all that hear me this day, were both almost, and altogether such as I am, except these bonds.
You might want to ask yourself why Peter did not choose the Nazarene title but rather the Christian title in 1 Peter 4:16.
1Pe 4:16 - Yet if [any man suffer] as a Christian, let him not be ashamed ; but let him glorify God on this behalf.
quote:
The blessings of thy father have prevailed above the blessings of my progenitors unto the utmost bound of the everlasting hills: they shall be on the head of Yahu’caph [Joseph], and on the crown of the head of him that was separate (naziyr) [purple]from his brethren.[/purple
Like I said a few posts ago. I already factored this into the equation I presented on this item a few days ago. The core issue on this sub-argument here is your claim concerning the political party of the Nazarenes. You have not proven this especially in light of the fact that Paul denied a connection to that group. Paul did, however, accept the connection with Christian as did Peter.
If you want me to be nicer in my posts stop misrepresenting my position and then attempt to correct me on that misrepresentation.
|
Edited by - BatKol on 17 Nov 2006 12:01:50 |
|
|
|
Oneisraelite
Advanced Member
uSA
833 Posts |
Posted - 18 Nov 2006 : 08:12:43
|
(Acts 24 RNV[1]) {5} For we have found this man a plague, a creator of dissension among all the Yahudiym throughout the world, and a ringleader of the sect [(specifically) a party] of the Naziyr.
...
{14} But this I confess to you, that according to the way that they call a sect [(specifically) "the party of the Naziyr"] , so I worship the 'Eloah of my fathers, believing all things that are written in the Law and in the Prophets.
P`ARTY, n. [L. pars. See Part.] 1. A number of persons united in opinion or design, in opposition to others in the community. It differs from faction, in implying a less dishonorable association, or more justifiable designs. Parties exist in all governments; and free governments are the hot-beds of party. - Webster's 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language
Endnote:
[1] We almost forgot to extend our special thanks to brother Buck for his diligent, and apparently selfless, efforts in the ongoing reconstruction of the Scriptures, which he calls the Restored Names Version (RNV).
brother Robert: fellowcitizen of the commonwealth of Yisar'el,
NOT the man-made, fictional STATE OF ISRAEL.
Ephesians 2:12 & 19 |
Edited by - Oneisraelite on 20 Nov 2006 06:38:21 |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
The Kingdom of Yahuwah
Topic Locked
