| Author |
 Topic  |
|
BatKol
Advanced Member
USA
735 Posts |
 Posted - 19 Nov 2006 : 18:50:38
|
quote:
Originally posted by oneisraelite
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
Notice that Paul does not call his faith 'the Naziyr'. Also notice that he says "the Way" that "THEY" call a sect. Paul does not call it a sect. That's the same "THEY" that were trying to frame him. Also note that in direct response to "THEIR" accusations he says, "Neither can they prove the things whereof they now accuse me". So again, what you are doing is trying to apply "THEIR" accusations as truth while Paul disagrees.
If you need an endorsed label of "the Way" look to Paul and Peter here:
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.
1Pe 4:16 - Yet if [any man suffer] as a Christian, let him not be ashamed ; but let him glorify God on this behalf.
Your formula is at least consistant, I'll give you that much. Focus on the false claims of the accusers brought against Christ and the Apostles. Ignore all else which proves against your theory or - at best - just claim "corrupt scripture".
I am going to take a few days off on this and see if you can figure out when exactly the RCC came into the picture and what changes they brought along.
|
 |
|
|
Oneisraelite
Advanced Member
uSA
833 Posts |
Posted - 20 Nov 2006 : 08:25:17
|
Let us see "if you can figure out" why I will no longer read your posts nor waste valuable time responding to them.
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 21 Nov 2006 06:38:13 |
|
|
|
Oneisraelite
Advanced Member
uSA
833 Posts |
Posted - 23 Nov 2006 : 09:49:34
|
Blessing, and glory, and wisdom, and thanksgiving, and honour, and power, and might, be unto our 'Eloah for ever and ever. Amen.
Thought we would share this partial response to a brother with ya'll.
Peace be unto the house.
We hope this finds you and yours, healthy, happy and prosperous.
We take up where we left off.
You wrote: You have probably noticed that all of the set times in the RNV are rendered as "festivals" because that is what they are.
We respond: Wow! We had not noticed, but it seems we are in somewhat of an agreement on this issue, my brother of diligent study. Furthering this concept, it would seem that James Strong also understood this. Here is what he has written after the colon, which are the ways in which he has found the Ibriy word chagag to be translated: feast (holiday). Here, though he admits that it was translated “feast”, he thoughtfully adds in parenthesis, for understanding, the word “holiday”.
HOL'YDAY, n. A day set apart for commemorating some important event in history; a festival intended to celebrate some event deemed auspicious to the welfare of a nation… - Webster’s 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language
However, this it appears, is where we may depart from agreement with you, dear brother. The “holidays” are for the Kingdom of Yisar’el. Many would like us to believe that this Kingdom is either off in Never-Never-Land or off in the future somewhere. However, this is the very kingdom that Yahushua speaks of when he says, “And I bestow upon you a kingdom, just as My Father bestowed one upon Me”. He didn’t establish a “church” or a “religion” as most sources claim; Yahushua came in his Father’s name (authority) to re-open, or re-establish, his Father’s Kingdom, his Father’s Government, as it is written.
For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government [not the CHURCH] shall be upon his shoulder… Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of Dawid, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even for ever. The zeal of Yahuwah of hosts will perform this.
And, just like every other nation, our Governor has given us “holidays”, which are intended to be peculiar to our nation, though others may choose to celebrate them if they so desire, just as some United States citizens celebrate Cinco de Mayo and some French citizens may celebrate St. Patrick’s Day. In most cases they celebrate it with no understanding whatsoever of what it is meant to remind them of.
Think about it, my brother of diligent study, how could someone who has never come out of bondage remember their exodus out of bondage? Or why would they need to remember the day that atonement was made for the penalty of high treason against the King de jure (malkiy-tsedeq) if they have never accepted it in truth and returned to the King de jure?
From the day the veil was rent from top to bottom the sanctuary known as the Kingdom of Yahuwah was re-opened. Most of its original citizens have refused to enter in (Luke 19:14) and as a consequence others who were not of his [original] flock were invited to the wedding. (See Mattith’yahu 22:9-10).
Those natural (original) branches who are cut off (Romans 11:21) left an opening for others (Yahu'hanan 4:22), but those natural branches try desperately to block those who are entering in (Luke 11:52).
These natural branches are so envious, in fact, that, in an act of desperation (fury; rage; disregard of safety or danger), they have married the kings of the earth who set themselves, and the rulers [who] take counsel together, against Yahuwah, and against his anointed.
For a time men were pressing into the Kingdom…
The law and the prophets were until Yahu’hanan (Yahuwah’s grace): since that time the kingdom of Yahuwah is preached, and every man presseth into it. (Three thousand in one day!! See Act 2:41)
…but, as in the parable of the sower, when the “kitchen got hot”…fewer and fewer could withstand the “heat”.
Hear ye therefore the parable of the sower. When any one heareth the word of the Kingdom…
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 23 Nov 2006 10:00:59 |
|
|
|
BatKol
Advanced Member
USA
735 Posts |
Posted - 26 Nov 2006 : 15:55:21
|
quote:
Originally posted by oneisraelite
Let us see "if you can figure out" why I will no longer read your posts nor waste valuable time responding to them.
brother Robert: fellowcitizen of the commonwealth of Yisar'el,
NOT the man-made, fictional STATE OF ISRAEL.
Ephesians 2:12 & 19
That's easy. You don't like having major flaws in your theory and exegesis being pointed out. Like when you only quote the part of the verse that can be twisted into your theories while leaving out the other parts which argue against it. Or when we look to the context of verses you quote and prove they have nothing to do with your theories. I am also sure that me pointing out how out of one side of your mouth you can blast an early bishop for changing the Sabbath away from Saturday while you yourself have changed the Sabbath from Saturday. You probably don't like the fact being repeated that you quote as truth the false claims made by those who were trying - and failing - to frame Christ and the apostles. Stuff like that.
Concerning the location of the Kingdom (Zealots must of hated this):
17:20 And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should come, he answered them and said, The kingdom of God cometh not with observation:
17:21 Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you. |
Edited by - BatKol on 26 Nov 2006 16:14:02 |
|
|
|
Oneisraelite
Advanced Member
uSA
833 Posts |
Posted - 28 Nov 2006 : 08:43:52
|
This bears repeating.
INSURREC'TION, n. [L. insurgo; in and surgo, to rise.] 1. A rising against civil or political authority... It is equivalent to sedition, except that sedition expresses a less extensive rising of citizens. - Webster's 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language
Because narrow is the gate, and contracted is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.
This "rising of citizens" were, and are, the "called out ones", i.e. the ekklesia.
At the time of Yahushua's anointing as the Prime Minister of the commonwealth of Yisar'el an ecclesia was - 1. The political assembly of citizens of an ancient Greek state. It, much later, came to be defined as, 2. A church or congregation. - The 2000 American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition
It [sedition] differs from rebellion, for the latter expresses a revolt, or an attempt to overthrow the government, to establish a different one or to place the country under another jurisdiction.
This is an important distinction, since we are not attempting "to overthrow the government", nor are we trying to "place the country under another jurisdiciton", but rather we have simply been "called out" from, and have left, the governments of men and have been translated into another jurisdiciton.
Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the Kingdom of his dear Son
brother Robert: fellowcitizen of the commonwealth of Yisar'el,
NOT the man-made, fictional STATE OF ISRAEL.
Ephesians 2:12 & 19 |
|
|
|
berkano
Advanced Member
uSA
129 Posts |
Posted - 28 Nov 2006 : 17:00:35
|
Would anyone on this thread kindly define for me:
1. Christian
2. Nazarite/Nazarean
3. The difference between 1 and 2
Berkano |
|
|
|
Oneisraelite
Advanced Member
uSA
833 Posts |
Posted - 29 Nov 2006 : 08:18:32
|
Greetings and salutations, brother berkano:
Peace be unto the house.
You wrote:
Would anyone on this thread kindly define for me:
1. Christian
2. Nazarite/Nazarean
3. The difference between 1 and 2
As we understand it, the Nazarites (Naziyr)/Nazarenes (Nazaraios), which means “one separated”…
When either man or woman shall separate themselves to vow a vow of a Nazarite, to separate themselves unto Yahuwah… (See 1Cor. 6:17-18)
…were first derogatorily “called” christianos (Gr)/ christianus (Vul. Lat), probably by the Iewes in Antioch.
In our Webster’s 1988 New World Dictionary of American English, Third College Edition, page 327 we offer up the complete etymology shown there for the word cretin.
[[Fr. cretin, dial. form of chretien; lit., Christian, hence human being (in contrast to brutes) < LL(Ec) Christianus, CHRISTIAN: sense development as in SILLY]] [Emphasis added]
And in this same dictionary on page 249 under the etymology for the word Christian we again see this christianus.
[[ME & OE cristen < LL(Ec) Christianus < Gr christianos, a Christian < christos (see CHRIST); mod. sp. < L]] [Underlining added]
As our second witness we give the definition and etymology for the word cretin once again, this time from The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition (2000).
NOUN:1. A person afflicted with cretinism. 2. Slang An idiot.
ETYMOLOGY: French crétin, from French dialectal, deformed and mentally retarded person found in certain Alpine valleys, from Vulgar Latin *christianus, Christian, human being, poor fellow, from Latin Christianus, Christian. See Christian. [Underlinging added]
If this understanding of the word christianos (Gr)/christianus (LL(Ec) is, at best, “human being, poor fellow”, and at worst, a “mentally retarded person” or “an idiot”, then we can better understand the sardonic nature of King Agrippa's (a devout follower of Judaism) words, “Almost thou persuadest me to be a Christian”. If we are not mistaken, this is the same man who killed Ya'acob, brother of Yahu'hanan, and later imprisoned Peter.
Again, brother berkano, if all this is accurate, then the answer to your third question is that being “called” a christianos/christianus was (is?) akin to calling a Caucasian an honky, i.e. it was (is?) a disparaging term for members of the party of the Nazarenes/Nazaraios/Naziyr (“ones separated”).
"For behold, you shall conceive and bear a son. And no razor shall come upon his head for the child shall be a Naziyr to 'Elohiym from the womb and he shall begin to deliver Yisra'el out of the hand of the Immigrants."
That which groweth of its own accord of thy harvest thou shalt not reap, neither gather the grapes of the vine undressed (naziyr)...
He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.
Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.
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 05 Dec 2006 05:39:58 |
|
|
|
BatKol
Advanced Member
USA
735 Posts |
Posted - 30 Nov 2006 : 08:30:39
|
quote:
Originally posted by berkano
Would anyone on this thread kindly define for me:
1. Christian
2. Nazarite/Nazarean
3. The difference between 1 and 2
Berkano
1. Christian Look at the context. Regardless of the selective quoting of secular dictionaries by oneisraelite the term Christian is held in a positive light in the NT.
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.
1Pe 4:16 - Yet if [any man suffer] as a Christian, let him not be ashamed ; but let him glorify God on this behalf.
Can the endorsement of the title Christian be any clearer?
Now, since our context is the Bible, let's look at a Bible dictionary to see what the definition of Christian is. Look in the blueletterbible.org link and it fits in perfectly with Bible context.
Christianos {khris-tee-an-os'}
1) Christian, a follower of Christ
Can this get any clearer? Context and definition fit together like a glove.
2. Nazarene. As always we must look to the CONTEXT in which this word is used to see which definition applies.
Nazarite = "one separated"
1) an inhabitant of Nazareth
2) a title given to Jesus in the NT
3) a name given to Christians by the Jews, Ac. 24:5
"one separated" - Jesus is called "one separated" due to the branch prophecy, not because of having taken a Numbers 6 "nazarite vow". Not because He was part of the political party known as "the nazarenes". If Christ was part of that party then the brutal Pilate would have easily supported the Jew's claim against Him. This has been covered in detail in previous posts. Heck, just read the Gospels as they are written in which ever language you please and this is crystal.
1. Nazarite as an inhabitant of Nazareth refers - in context - to
Jesus having dwelt in Nazareth.
2. The title "Nazarite" applies to Jesus being "from Nazareth" as the
this definition tells us.
3. Nazarene as a title given TO CHRISTIANS by the Jews in Acts 24:5.
Point number three is where we must look closely. Please read Acts 24. We will find - just as the definition says - that this is a title that the Jews tried to pin on Paul when bringing charges against him. Paul says the Jews cannot prove these assertions. Here is where one can go outside of the Bible to learn that, indeed, there was a political group called the Nazarenes. Why would the Jews be wanting to contrive an association of Paul - and Christians - with this political group? Simply because they wanted Rome to persecute the Christians for sedition. The Jews tried the same exact frame job on Christ but even Pilate saw that the charges against Jesus were FALSE!
This point above cannot be emphasized enough when "proving all things and holding fast to that which is true". When you search out the key verses that oneisraelite uses to support his teaching you will see consistantly that he takes the false claims made against Christ and the apostles by the Jews as authentic descriptions of ecclesia doctrine.
3. The difference between the two
Again one needs to look to the context.
Nazarene: One can be an inhabitant of Nazareth "Nazarene" and be a Christian. No conflict. However, one would most likely identify himself as a Christian when speaking about his spiritual affiliations. In context to Acts 24 we see that the Jews used "Nazarene" in a way to try to frame Paul. Paul denied this tag. Why would he deny this particular tag? Because - like the seditious Zealots who were generally associated with the "Galileans" -that term also was applied in the same way to a like-minded political group called "Nazarenes". But it is clear that not everybody from Nazareth or Galilee was automatically associated with these politcal groups. Perfect example is Joseph and Mary (both from Galilee) going to register for the Roman tax. Not very Zealot! Yes, both of these "Nazarene" and "Zealot" groups preached resistance to Rome yet the NT is clear that neither Christ or his apostles endorsed this theology. Jews consistantly made these claims against Christ and the apostles for obvious reasons. It is essential to note that whenever these charges by the Jews were brought against Christ and the apostles they were found to be FALSE by Rome. If they had been associated with these political groups then they would have been readily accepted by the "lost sheep" because of their understanding of the scriptures that Rome would be destroyed. It they had been associated with these political groups we would not be seeing the unforgiving Romans clearing them of sedition charges. No, they preached freedom from bondage from the curse of Adam. The small-minded and blinded Israelites could not accept this so we have "He came to His own but His own received Him not".
Christian: As shown above, this is the term accepted by the Apostles. This is the term that is defined simply as "followers of Christ". Notice the Bible definition for "nazarene" does not include "follower of Christ". It says "the term given to the Christians BY THE JEWS. That also fits like a glove with the context.
oneisraelite posts this on the term Christian:
"…were first derogatorily “called” christianos (Gr)/ christianus (Vul. Lat), probably by the Iewes in Antioch."
This assessent, as usual, is backwards but certainly consistant with oneisraelites' position of using the false claims of the Jews as his foundational position. He - or whoever he is quoting - is wrong here because Paul endoresed this "Christian" title in Acts 26. Peter also endorsed this title in 1 Peter. Reading the text of Acts 11 there is no hint at all that this term was derogatorily put upon the disciples by Jews. oneisraelite needs this assertion to underpin the rest of his theory which is based on the slanders made against Christ and the apostles by the Jews. |
Edited by - BatKol on 30 Nov 2006 10:21:26 |
|
|
|
Oneisraelite
Advanced Member
uSA
833 Posts |
Posted - 01 Dec 2006 : 08:23:52
|
Greetings once more, brother berkano:
Peace be unto the house.
A bit more for you.
We find, in our Webster’s 1988 New World Dictionary of American English, Third College Edition, on page 905, that the root of “Nazarite or Nazirite” is the Greek Nazaraios, and it further informs us that Nazaraios is the Greek word “for the Heb nazir < nazar, to separate, consecrate”, while Nazarenos is the Greek word for, “the Nazarene”, or “of Nazareth…”
Further, in the Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary, copyrighted 1916 through 1960, we read this under the heading Nazarite, n. Also Nazirite …2. Now Rare. A (or the) Nazarene.
…He shall be called a Nazarene (G3480 Nazaraios), and as we can see from the above etymologies this would mean that it was prophesied, “He shall be called a Nazirite” (better transliteration of the Heb naziyr), which appears, to us, to be precisely the prophecy that was fulfilled.
“…the child shall be a Nazirite (naziyr) to ‘Elohiym from the womb to the day of his death.”
Virtually all those who searched the Scripture for the prophecy that he would be called a Nazarenos, i.e. an inhabitant of Nazareth, had basically the same outcome that Jay P. Green Sr., author of the Literal Translation of the Holy Bible, had, i.e. “No OT passage”. However, as you can readily see, when we are looking for the right word, the outcome is a bit different.
Some people might now say, “So what?” The “so what” of it is this, if we are to emulate (imitate, follow, copy, try to be like) Yahushua, the Anointed Prime Minister of the Kingdom of Yahuwah, also known as the commonwealth of Yisra'el, (not to be confused with the man-made STATE OF ISRAEL), then it would stand to reason that we too should come out from among them (nazar) and be separate (naziyr), as it is written, would it not?
They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.
This, brother berkano, is why Paul was called, and apparently confessed (See Act 24:14) to being, a champion of the so-called sect ((specifically) a party or (abstractly) disunion) of the Nazirites (the Separatists).
DISUNION, n. Disyunion. [dis and union.] Separation; disjunction; or a state of not being united. It sometimes denotes a breach of concord, and its effect, contention.
We hope this additional information proves helpful in your search for truth.
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 05 Dec 2006 06:15:02 |
|
|
|
Oneisraelite
Advanced Member
uSA
833 Posts |
Posted - 02 Dec 2006 : 05:02:25
|
"He [a nazirite] shall not make himself unclean for his father, or for his mother, for his brother, or for his sister, when they die: because the consecration of his 'Elohiym is upon his head."
And he [Yahushua] said unto another, "Follow me". But he said, Lord, suffer me first to go and bury my father. Yahushua said unto him, "Let the dead bury their dead: but go thou and preach the Kingdom of Yahuwah".
Was Yahushua heartless, as it may seem here, or could there have been another reason for his saying this?
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 - 05 Dec 2006 : 07:21:33
|
Now, to take this a step further.
James Strong in his Hebrew and Chaldee Dictionary tells us that the root word nazar means "to hold aloof". So let us take a look at this word.
ALOOF, adv. [Probably from the root of leave, to depart.]
1. At a distance, but within view, or at a small distance, in a literal sense; as, to stand aloof.
2. In a figurative sense, not concerned in a design; declining to take any share, implying circumspection; keeping at a distance from the point, or matter in debate. - Webster's 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language [Emphasis added]
We gain from this a better feel for being nazar (separate); we are at a distance but within their view, that is to say, we are separate, but we are "in" the world, we are not concerned with their design, because we are not "of" their world (design), and we are to be circumspect about taking any share.
CIRCUMSPECT, a. Literally, looking on all sides; looking round. Hence, Cautious; prudent; watchful on all sides; examining carefully all the circumstances that may affect a determination, or a measure to be adopted. (Ibid.) [Emphasis added]
Those who might choose to "come out from among them" need to know, it is a virtual minefield of snares out there, with baited traps everywhere, waiting to drag you back in.
But mine eyes are unto thee, O Yahuwah, my Lord: in thee is my trust; leave not my soul destitute. Keep me from the snares which they have laid for me, and the nooses (for catching animals) of the workers of iniquity. Let the wicked fall into their own nets, whilst that I withal escape.
He is indeed a Wonderful Counsellor!
Hallelu'Yah!!
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 05 Dec 2006 08:26:47 |
|
|
|
Uncle Buck
Advanced Member
Australia
134 Posts |
Posted - 05 Dec 2006 : 19:02:04
|
Greetings brother Robert: and sister Kathleen: Peace be unto the house. Batkol appears to have difficulty with being SET-APART from the world. Perhaps my intrusion will be permitted on this thread to quote from another source what brother Robert: is attempting to explain.
http://www.yrm.org/qna-fornication.htm
FORNICATION
...The Complete Word Study Old Testament offers a more decisive definition than found in Strong’s. It notes on page 2312 in its Lexical Aid, "To fornicate, commit fornication, be a harlot, play the harlot, commit adultery; to apostatize, have intercourse with false g-ds or foreigners; to seduce. The main idea is to commit illicit sexual intercourse, particularly with women. However, this strong image is used in a figurative sense to describe illegal contact between Israel and other nations and their g-ds…"The Complete Word Study Old Testament suggests three possible meanings for the Hebrew word "zanah." The first being fornication (pre-marital, illicit sex), the second being adultery (marital, illicit sex), and the third being idolatry (worship of a person or thing besides Yahweh).
The second word denoting fornication in the English is found only once in the Hebrew, in Ezekiel 16:29. The word fornication in this passage is from the Hebrew, No. 8457, taznuth, and simply means a type of idolatry. Being that this word is only used once, the quest for an exact definition should not be too exhausting.
The third word signifying fornication is found in the Greek and is first used in Matthew 5:32. This word derives from the Greek word, No. 4202, porneia and is defined in the Strong’s as follows, "from 4203; harlotry (incl. Adultery and incest); fig. Idolatry: - fornication." Again, we only find a broad definition for this Greek word, "porneia." Porneia is used 32 times in the New Testament and conveys many different definitions.
For example, the word fornication in Matthew 5:32 is often taken to denote an act of adultery, however an in-depth study will prove this understanding false, and confirm the real usage of this Greek word "porneia" in this particular passage, which is fornication, pre-material sex.
Rick
*************************
If I have to be like him who is going to be like me?
James 1:25 The Perfect Law of Liberty |
|
|
|
Oneisraelite
Advanced Member
uSA
833 Posts |
Posted - 06 Dec 2006 : 07:59:21
|
Greetings and salutations, brother Rick:
Peace be unto the house.
We hope this finds you mending quickly, brother.
In all fairness, perhaps the primary difference we have is that we perceive that Francis Brown, D.D., D.Litt. Davenport Professor of Hebrew and the Cognate Languages in the Union Theological Seminary, Samuel Rolles Driver, D.D., Litt.D. Regius Professor of Hebrew, and Canon of Christ Church, Oxford, and Charles Augustus Briggs, D.D., D.Litt. Edward Robinson Professor of Biblical Theology in the Union Theological Seminary, gave the correct definition, at H430, 1a, for the Ibriy [Hebrew] word 'elohiym, i.e. "rulers, judges", and he, according to all outward appearances, does not.
We further believe that James Strong, in his Hebrew and Chaldee Dictionary, is correct in his definition of the Ibriy root word for 'el, i.e. H352 'ayil; when he states that it means, "specifically a chief (politically)", which, it would seem, he does not.
And, we believe, as our third witness, that Noah Webster, circa 1825, was correct in his findings when he states in his etymology for the word GOD, "Except for the word Jehovah <sic>, I have found the name of the Supreme Being to be usually taken from his supremacy or power, and to be equivalent to lord or ruler..., which, again, he apparently does not.
Were we to ever come together on this one point, I would like to believe, that many of our differences would soon disappear into thin air.
Yasha'yahu [Isaiah] 43:15 I am Yahuwah, your Set Apart One, the creator of Yisra'el, your King.
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 06 Dec 2006 08:12:01 |
|
|
|
BatKol
Advanced Member
USA
735 Posts |
Posted - 06 Dec 2006 : 17:31:38
|
quote:
This, brother berkano, is why Paul was called, and apparently confessed (See Act 24:14) to being, a champion of the so-called sect ((specifically) a party or (abstractly) disunion) of the Nazirites (the Separatists).
Paul is making a defense against the charges made against him as he clearly says in 24:10. Paul did not “confess” to being part of the Nazarites in Acts 24:14 because what does he say in 24:13? Let’s look at BOTH verses:
13 Nor can they prove to you the things of which they now accuse me.
14 But this I confess to you, that after the Way, which they call a sect, so I serve the God of our fathers, believing all things which are according to the law, and which are written in the prophet.
Nor can they prove? Which they call a sect? Hmmm. Read how the word “they” plays into the context of the verse. No. Paul looked at these Jews that oneisraelite quotes rightly as persecutors and adversaries (see my quote of I Thess. 2:14-16 below).
Secondly, Paul was not a member of the Nazarene political separatists seeing as he was clearly a Roman Empire citizen which is proven by his own confession and backed up by the benefits and privileges he enjoyed that were only afforded to that status.
Oneisraelite tries to get around this by saying “corrupt scripture”.
Now let’s deal with “uncle buck”
quote:
Greetings brother Robert: and sister Kathleen: Peace be unto the house. Batkol appears to have difficulty with being SET-APART from the world.
No. The problem I am having is that to believe what you and oneisraelite are peddling we have to agree that the scriptures cannot be believed as they are written. You see, if your theories are correct then Joseph was not really “righteous” as he is called in the NT because he went to go register for taxes. Paul, being a citizen of the Empire of Rome, was actually not “SET-APART” because he was really ’serving two masters’. The irony in your use of Paul is that you are quoting a guy who does not even measure up to your theories.
The difficulty I am having is why you people willfully skip over the definitions offered in the Bible dictionaries which harmonize with the context of the scriptures to choose ones which actually destroy the context. To choose ones which actually make those called righteous in the Bible unrighteous.
How does the NT define the world that we need to be separate from?
1 John 2:16 - For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is "of the world".
quote:
Perhaps my intrusion will be permitted on this thread to quote from another source what brother Robert: is attempting to explain.
How oneisraelite backs up his theory is by consistently quoting from those who were trying to frame Christ and the disciples. He justifies this by saying “the scriptures are corrupted” so one must pick and choose from the Bible as if it were a ‘buffet’.
What does Paul have to say about the Jews who oneisraelite likes to quote?
"For you brethren, are become followers of the churches of God which are in Judea, in Christ Jesus: for you also have suffered the same things from your own countrymen, even as they have from the Jews, who both killed the Lord Jesus, and the prophets, and have persecuted us, and please not God, and are adversaries to all men; prohibiting us to speak to the Gentiles, that they may be saved, to fill up their sins always: for the wrath of God is come upon them to the end."
(I Thess. 2:14-16)
Why on earth would anyone want to take the Jew’s side as it is found in the NT after such a statement?
As for the word "elohim" if we are to go with oneisraelite's assertion concerning this we run into the same problem. Paul was breaking the first commandment. Joseph and Mary were breaking the first commandment, etc. etc, etc. The Jerusalem Council (which included the Holy Spirit) that met to declare what laws the Gentile brethren were obligated to follow in Acts 15 made a huge error by not mentioning your theory.
The bottom line can be reduced down to two points.
1. Either the Gospels frame the Jews or the Jews framed Christ.
2. If being set apart from the world means not having any connection
to "THE SYSTEM" then one cannot justify engaging in DEBT NOTE
SCHEMES or dealing with CORPS.
I mean isn't it odd that we are here discussing this topic on a registered .ORG address in a realm which is certainly GOVERNED by
"THE SYSTEM" !?!?!?!?!?!?
Think it through!
|
Edited by - BatKol on 06 Dec 2006 19:00:27 |
|
|
|
BatKol
Advanced Member
USA
735 Posts |
Posted - 06 Dec 2006 : 18:55:40
|
quote:
Originally posted by oneisraelite
Greetings and salutations, brother Rick:
Peace be unto the house.
We hope this finds you mending quickly, brother.
In all fairness, perhaps the primary difference we have is that we perceive that Francis Brown, D.D., D.Litt. Davenport Professor of Hebrew and the Cognate Languages in the Union Theological Seminary, Samuel Rolles Driver, D.D., Litt.D. Regius Professor of Hebrew, and Canon of Christ Church, Oxford, and Charles Augustus Briggs, D.D., D.Litt. Edward Robinson Professor of Biblical Theology in the Union Theological Seminary, gave the correct definition, at H430, 1a, for the Ibriy [Hebrew] word 'elohiym, i.e. "rulers, judges", and he, according to all outward appearances, does not.
We further believe that James Strong, in his Hebrew and Chaldee Dictionary, is correct in his definition of the Ibriy root word for 'el, i.e. H352 'ayil; when he states that it means, "specifically a chief (politically)", which, it would seem, he does not.
And, we believe, as our third witness, that Noah Webster, circa 1825, was correct in his findings when he states in his etymology for the word GOD, "Except for the word Jehovah <sic>, I have found the name of the Supreme Being to be usually taken from his supremacy or power, and to be equivalent to lord or ruler..., which, again, he apparently does not.
Were we to ever come together on this one point, I would like to believe, that many of our differences would soon disappear into thin air.
Yasha'yahu [Isaiah] 43:15 I am Yahuwah, your Set Apart One, the creator of Yisra'el, your King.
brother Robert: fellowcitizen of the commonwealth of Yisar'el,
NOT the man-made, fictional STATE OF ISRAEL.
Ephesians 2:12 & 19
In all fairness? LOL. What you are doing here is taking ONE definition given for the word and putting your own application to it while claiming that is HOW the professors also apply it in the same spot. I have run your first commandment 'elohim' theory by Hebrew scholars and linguistic professors and they all basically say the same thing; that you are abusing the work of those you quote to fit your argument. You also are ignoring the fact that Israelites had just fashioned out of fire the 'golden calf' to worship as a god!!! We see the Israelites consistently having problems with worshipping 'molten gods' they fashioned out of gold or silver through out the OT. The only time I have ever seen the word "elohim" used in context to an earthly ruler is when addressing Israelites. I have challenged you for years to provide a context where 'elohim' is used for a flesh and blood non-Israelite ruler and you have not been able to meet this challenge to this day.
Because of this you can't accept the proven fact that there were other deities of other cultures in the Levant who were not GOVT rulers but rather "creator gods" who held the same position amongst those peoples as YHWH had with the Israelites. Golden calves are called gods and we see that often Israelites had a problem with these 'molten gods'. Hence the first and second commandments.
I wrote this to you a few years ago and it still stands to show how your position is false.
Just think with me for a second. It's all about context. If lower case god/elohim meant a living, physical 'ruler or judge' in the verses below, think how wacky this story would be:
Exodus 12:17 - Thou shalt make thee no moltenH4541 godsH430.
and this:
Exodus 20:23 - Ye shall not make with me gods of silver, neither shall ye make unto you gods of gold.
or this about the golden calf 'god':
Exodus 32:31 - And Moses returned unto YHWH, and said, Oh, this people have sinned a great sin, and have madeH6213 them godsH430 of gold.
How about this?
Genesis 31:30-34 - And now, though thou wouldest needs be gone, because thou sore longedst after thy father’s house, yet wherefore hast thou stolen my gods?31 And Jacob answered and said to Laban, Because I was afraid: for I said, Peradventure thou wouldest take by force thy daughters from me. 32With whomsoever thou findest thy gods, let him not live: before our brethren discern thou what is thine with me, and take it to thee. For Jacob knew not that Rachel had stolen them. 33And Laban went into Jacob’s tent, and into Leah’s tent, and into the two maidservants’ tents; but he found them not. Then went he out of Leah’s tent, and entered into Rachel’s tent. 34Now Rachel had taken the images, and put them in the camel’s furniture, and sat upon them. And Laban searched all the tent, but found them not. 35And she said to her father, Let it not displease my lord that I cannot rise up before thee; for the custom of women is upon me. And he searched, but found not the images.
Can you imagine Rachel taking Laban's 'earthly rulers or judges' and putting them on the camel and sitting on them? Surely the context and common sense tells us that 'gods' can most definately mean the imaginary fake 'gods' we find through out the bible!
or this one:
1 Kings 11:4 - For it came to pass, when Solomon was old, that his wives turned away his heart after other godsH430: and his heart was not perfect with YHWH his God, as was the heart of David his father. 5For Solomon went after Ashtoreth the goddessH430 of the Zidonians, and after Milcom the abomination of the Ammonites. ..... 8And likewise did he for all his strange wives, which burnt incense and sacrificed unto their godsH430.
In this story above Solomon is already king of the Israelites with his rule firmly in place. 'gods' in this verse does not mean ruler or judge.
Also this which Jeroboam did:
1 kings 12 28Whereupon the king took counsel, and madeH6213 two calves of gold, and said unto them, It is too much for you to go up to Jerusalem: behold thy godsH430[/u], O Israel, which brought thee up out of the land of Egypt. 29And he set the one in Bethel, and the other put he in DanH1. 30And this thing became a sin: for the people went to worship before the one, even unto Dan.
Note that both Jeroboam and Solomon were already Israelite kings when these imaginary idol/gods were worshiped. These gods were not men acting as judges or rulers like in Ps 82 but rather false, imaginary gods like the golden calf god of Exodus 32. Again, it is all about the context that tells us what type of god we are dealing with. Both of these kings broke the first and second commandment. And as was promised in Deut 28, Israel was banished from the holy land and scattered amongst the nations.
Here is a good verse that shows gods as Israelite men ruling within the people of Israel, just like the word is used in Ps 82:
Exodus 22:28 - Thou shalt not revile the godsH430, nor curse the ruler of thy people. |
Edited by - BatKol on 06 Dec 2006 20:19:54 |
|
|
|
Uncle Buck
Advanced Member
Australia
134 Posts |
Posted - 06 Dec 2006 : 20:32:03
|
Dear brother Batkol.
The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology Vol 2 King, Kingdom entry page 385
(d)The facts that the kingdom is the gift of God (Luke 12:32) [Yahuwah] and that it is appointed to men by covenant (Luke 22:29) have their counterparts in the teaching that a person can only receive it like a child (Mark 10:15, Luke 18:17, MattHew 18:3, John 3:3) and that it is something for which one must wait (Mark 15:43 Luke 23:51). Particularly frequent is the metaphor of entering the kingdom of God [Yahuwah] in the fullest sense lies in the future (Matthew 25:34 and Mark 9:43). But the presence of the kingdom of God [Yahuwah] in the person of Jesus [Yahushua]faces the individual with a clear-cut decision: "If your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away; it is better to lose one of your members than let your whole body go into hell" (Matthew 5:30, Mark 9:43-48) Some have even made themselves eunechs for the kingdom's sake (Matt 19:12). "No one who puts his hand to the plough and looks back is fit for the kingdom of God [Yahuwah]" (Luke 9:62). The decision is not a result of mere enthusiasm; it is to be made after careful previous consideration (luke 14:28-32) and in obedience to Jesus' [Yahushua's] word (Matthew 7:24-27). But when it is made, it involves a readiness for sacrifice which may mean self-denial to the point of being hated by one's own family (Matthew 10:17). Yet the decision is not born of a rigid fanaticism, but against a background of overwhelming joy at the greatness of God's [Yahuwah's] gift (parables such as Matthew 13:44-46).
My laymans understanding of the above is that there are two jurisdictions Yahuwah's [freedom - serving others with love or binding through a contract] and Satan's [political State].
If I am in Satan's jurisdiction (under his authority and power of rule and dominion - a man-made political State) then I am either forced into it as a slave or I volunteered. If I volunteered into Satan's jurisdiction show me where the irrevocable contract/covenant prohibits me from volunteering out? Can I not move from Australia to France and become a naturalised/nationalised citizen of that political State? or do they sell and buy me? If I am only slave of Satan's then that is involuntary servitude and means I was never born with unalienable rights to life, liberty or property. That scenario would make Yahushua a liar and Yahuwah weaker than Satan.
The stipulation is that I must repent and believe when Yahuwah invites me into His kingdom. I can't force entry.
The kingdom of Yahuwah is a gift - not a right to enter. You don't walk into someone's house and lay claim to their property/territory etc... so we have to be invited into the Kingdom of Yahuwah!!! Some of us have been in spite of our previous stiff-necked pride.
I am encouraged that you are challenged - He is calling you brother keep listening, asking, knocking, and seeking! Perhaps the man-made government systems are fictions after all, and the governments are made to serve those who are truly free, Cain's punishment was to serve the people of Yahuwah. The government persons all swear an oath to serve their constitution a big fat golden calf if ever I saw one!
*************************
If I have to be like him who is going to be like me?
James 1:25 The Perfect Law of Liberty |
Edited by - Uncle Buck on 06 Dec 2006 20:41:24 |
|
|
|
BatKol
Advanced Member
USA
735 Posts |
Posted - 06 Dec 2006 : 20:43:26
|
quote:
Originally posted by Uncle Buck
Dear brother Batkol.
The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology Vol 2 King, Kingdom entry page 385
(d)The facts that the kingdom is the gift of God (Luke 12:32) [Yahuwah] and that it is appointed to men by covenant (Luke 22:29) have their counterparts in the teaching that a person can only receive it like a child (Mark 10:15, Luke 18:17, MattHew 18:3, John 3:3) and that it is something for which one must wait (Mark 15:43 Luke 23:51). Particularly frequent is the metaphor of entering the kingdom of God [Yahuwah] in the fullest sense lies in the future (Matthew 25:34 and Mark 9:43). But the presence of the kingdom of God [Yahuwah] in the person of Jesus [Yahushua]faces the individual with a clear-cut decision: "If your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away; it is better to lose one of your members than let your whole body go into hell" (Matthew 5:30, Mark 9:43-48) Some have even made themselves eunechs for the kingdom's sake (Matt 19:12). "No one who puts his hand to the plough and looks back is fit for the kingdom of God [Yahuwah]" (Luke 9:62). The decision is not a result of mere enthusiasm; it is to be made after careful previous consideration (luke 14:28-32) and in obedience to Jesus' [Yahushua's] word (Matthew 7:24-27). But when it is made, it involves a readiness for sacrifice which may mean self-denial to the point of being hated by one's own family (Matthew 10:17). Yet the decision is not born of a rigid fanaticism, but against a background of overwhelming joy at the greatness of God's [Yahuwah's] gift (parables such as Matthew 13:44-46).
My laymans understanding of the above is that there are two jurisdictions Yahuwah's [freedom - serving others with love or binding through a contract] and Satan's [political State].
If I am in Satan's jurisdiction (under his authority and power of rule and dominion - a man-made political State) then I am either forced into it as a slave or I volunteered. If I volunteered into Satan's jurisdiction show me where the irrevocable contract/covenant prohibits me from volunteering out? Can I not move from Australia to France and become a naturalised/nationalised citizen of that political State? or do they sell and buy me? If I am only slave of Satan's then that is involuntary servitude and means I was never born with unalienable rights to life, libert or property. That scenario would make Yahushua a liar and Yahuwah weaker than Satan.
The stipulation is that I must repent and believe when Yahuwah invites me into His kingdom. I can't force entry.
The kingdom of Yahuwah is a gift - not a right to enter. You don't walk into someone's house and lay claim to their porperty/territory etc... so we have to be invited into the Kingdom of Yahuwah!!! Some of us have been in spite of our previous stiff-necked pride.
*************************
If I have to be like him who is going to be like me?
James 1:25 The Perfect Law of Liberty
I'll simply ask you to explain - in context to your understanding spelled out above - how Paul could be a Roman Empire citizen (enjoying the benefits thereof) while at the same time claiming to be a Citizen of Heaven? If you are correct in your estimation then you need to explain away all of the problems that crop up when applying your theory to what the NT tells us about cetain "righteous" people.
After all - Paul aside - Joseph and Mary could not be considered "righteous" while at the same time going to register for Empire census if what you are saying is correct.
Please take the time to explain to us what seems to be a glaring contradiction in scripture, in terms of simple context - if you have this right.
PS - the Kingdom is inside you/me. To get there we have to be cured from the inherited curse of Adam after the fall. Bad GOVT is what God gives us and is a symptom of the problem rather then the problem itself.
Also, thanks for the encouraging words.
|
Edited by - BatKol on 06 Dec 2006 20:46:32 |
|
|
|
Uncle Buck
Advanced Member
Australia
134 Posts |
Posted - 06 Dec 2006 : 21:04:09
|
Greetings brother Batkol!
I will quote from the scholars again, because I like brother Robert: may have it all wrong also thus we rely on other people to get it right for us!
The anointed are all the believers who have received the gift. Christ in us and we are in Christ. We have been given the gift of the Set-Apart Spirit. That gift is the mind to unlock the truth of the scriptures. Where do you get it? Through Yahushua the authority that sends the power! In the name of the creditor we have access to the bank of treasures in heaven including our mind.
NIDOFNTT Vol 2 page 388 King, Kingdom
(c) Kingdom of God [Yahuwah] and Kingdom of Christ [Yahushua]. Evidence that the kingdom of Jesus Christ [Yahushua the Messiah] is in the NT view the same as the kingdom of God [Yahuwah] is also to be seen in the fact that in parts of the NT outside the synoptics tradition both expressions are found together, sometimes God [Yahuwah] being named first, and sometimes Christ [the anointed Messiah]. Thus it is equally acceptable to speak of "the kingdom of Christ [the anointed which includes all believers!] and of God {Yahuwah]" (Eph 5:5] and of the world dominion "of our Lord and of his Christ" (Rev 11:15). The rule of Christ [the anointed] and the rule of God [Yahuwah] are in other words identical. When the rule of Christ [the anointed] has become established, it is taken up into the rule of God [Yahuwah] (Rev. 5:10; 2:4+6; 22:5); at the end of the time Christ [Yahushua the Prime Minister/Chief Priest] hands back to the Father [Yahuwah] the kingdom he has received from him (1 Cor 15:24-28).
I guess a layman's summary is when we are called to separate from the political State and serve Yahuwah in His kingdom we are translated to be under the authority of Yahushua who is our Prime Minister. We serve one another with love. We are the anointed in this age. The rule of law is what courts and politicians constantly claim all are under! Well the rule of law is the rule of Yahuwah as far as I can work out.
*************************
If I have to be like him who is going to be like me?
James 1:25 The Perfect Law of Liberty |
|
|
|
Uncle Buck
Advanced Member
Australia
134 Posts |
Posted - 06 Dec 2006 : 21:16:37
|
quote:
Originally posted by BatKol
[quote]Originally posted by Uncle Buck
Dear brother Batkol.
I'll simply ask you to explain - in context to your understanding spelled out above - how Paul could be a Roman Empire citizen (enjoying the benefits thereof) while at the same time claiming to be a Citizen of Heaven? If you are correct in your estimation then you need to explain away all of the problems that crop up when applying your theory to what the NT tells us about cetain "righteous" people.
After all - Paul aside - Joseph and Mary could not be considered "righteous" while at the same time going to register for Empire census if what you are saying is correct.
Please take the time to explain to us what seems to be a glaring contradiction in scripture, in terms of simple context - if you have this right.
PS - the Kingdom is inside you/me. To get there we have to be cured from the inherited curse of Adam after the fall. Bad GOVT is what God gives us and is a symptom of the problem rather then the problem itself.
Also, thanks for the encouraging words.
Greetings brother Batkol, be encouraged brother Robert:, sister Kathleen:, myself and every other believer in the kingdom want you here! But more importantly so does Yahuwah and Yahushua!
Yahuwah does not give us bad government. We elect a government and we choose to operate under a constitution because we are incapable of self-government under Yahuwah!
We are cured through the purification of the Holy or Set-Apart Spirit. It purifies us. We obtain that gift by believing in Yahushua, we have the same belief he had that is Yahuwah will save us if we cry out for help!
As for Paul, I believe he was a citizen of the Roman Empire which simply means he was free. Free to contract. Not bound by any roman laws. An equal. That was his civil status.
I think you will find he had no political Status to bind him under authority of a man master. He had the protection of the Roman Emperor to retain that freedom and conduct his commerce/trade on his own terms. My gut feeling and I may be wrong is that it would be similar to being a 'subject of the Queen' in England which appears to be the highest form of freedom for one born in the Commonwealth ie: exempt from political rule.
There is civil status and political status. Political Status is the one getting us into problems.
Rick
*************************
If I have to be like him who is going to be like me?
James 1:25 The Perfect Law of Liberty |
Edited by - Uncle Buck on 06 Dec 2006 21:19:05 |
|
|
|
Uncle Buck
Advanced Member
Australia
134 Posts |
Posted - 06 Dec 2006 : 21:44:04
|
brother Batkol wrote ...."After all - Paul aside - Joseph and Mary could not be considered "righteous" while at the same time going to register for Empire census if what you are saying is correct.
Was Joseph capable of being 'self' righteous before the Messiah was born? No one is righteous [Romans 3:10]. The word righteous also means to render innocent. Strong's G1344
"This righteousness from Yahuwah comes through faith in Yahushua the Messiah to all who believe" [Romans 3:22]
There is a future aspect to righteousness. Yahuwah has set a day when he will judge the world by his standard of righteousness [Acts 17:31]. We "will reap a harvest of righteousness and peace" [Hebrews 12:11] and thus become fully righteous [Gal 5:5].
In the NIDONTT under Discisple in Vol 3 page 482-83 section 2(b):
(iii) As a rule, one who takes up the new "calling" gives the old one up.
(iv) 'Since the disciple cannot expect better fortune than his Lord readisness for suffering becomes a part of discipleship. "If any man would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me" (Mk 8:34; Matt 10:38). "To take up the cross" means "to be ready for death". But readiness to suffer is only made possible through the "self-denial" which consists in freedom from oneself and all forms of personal security. Such self-denial is possible only when man gives himself to God [Yahuwah] in unconditional discipleship.'
My problem in 'believing' we CAN serve two Masters is - Why would the second master want to punish us????
Rick
*************************
If I have to be like him who is going to be like me?
James 1:25 The Perfect Law of Liberty |
Edited by - Uncle Buck on 06 Dec 2006 22:16:31 |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
The Kingdom of Yahuwah
Topic Locked
