See other Religion Articles
Title: Christ Was Not A Jew
Source:
israelect
URL Source: http://www.israelect.com/reference/WillieMartin/ChristNotAJew.htm
Published: Jun 3, 2005
Author: WillieMartin
Post Date: 2005-06-03 09:45:20 by Itisa1mosttoolate
Keywords: Christ
Views: 2307
Comments: 183
Christ Was Not A Jew Jesus Christ Was Not A Jew: Does this shock you? We certainly hope it does. For it is time that Christians woke up to the fact that they have been brainwashed by the Jews with the "big lie technique" to the falsehood that Christ was a Jew. We ask you now, to set aside all prejudice in the matter and as God states in the Bible, "Come let us reason together." (Isaiah 1:18) There are two ways that a person can be a Jew; racially (which means a cross between the descendants of Esau and True Israelites 49; There is Edom [Esau is called Edom in Genesis 36:8. And Edom is in 'Modern Jewry' Jewish Encyclopedia, 1925 edition, Vol. 5, p. 41) or religiously. Let us now see whether Christ fits either of these categories. Ninety49;five percent of the people that we know as Jews today, are mongrels; they are a product of the amalgamation of many races. The majority of the Jews are Asiatics, of Mongolian, stock, the descendants of the tribes of Khazars of Russia who accepted Judaism in 740 A.D. They are the descendants of Cain; No racial Jew is an Israelite. That's right, we repeat, NO RACIAL JEW IS AN ISRAELITE. The Bible itself identifies the Jews as the seed of Cain thereby identfying Satan as their father. (John 8:44) Christ said to the Jews, in the 23rd chapter of Matthew, verses 3349;35: "You serpents, you generation (race) of vipers, how can you escape the damnation of hell? Wherefore behold I send you a prophet, wise men and scribes and some of them you shall kill and crucify and some of them yuo shall scourge in your synagogues and persecute them from city to city that upon you may come all the righteous blood that has ever been shed upon the earth from the blood of righteous Abel" (Note that carefully). Here Christ is saying to the Jews that they are guilty of the murder of Abel. Jesus could not have said this unless the Jews were/are the descendants of Cain. Christ goes on to say: "Unto the blood of Zacharias, son of Brachias who you slew between the temple and the alter." It's very plan! And it's in your Bible. Christ said to the Jews "You are guilty of the death of righteous Abel because you rfather Cain murdered him." It is also well for you to note here that Jesus further blames these Jews for all the deaths of righteous people from the beginning of time right down to this day. This is not a statement of man but of our Redeem, our King, our Savior. Christ never lied and spoke only the truth; every word contained in the sixty49;six books of the Bible is the Word of Almighty God. Are the Jews then God's Chosen People as some "fogbound, lying, deceiving, Judeo49;Chrisian Clergy" would have us believe? Far from it! Rather than being God's Chosen People, they are Satan's Children! Let us turn for proof of this, to the eighth chapter of John the 42nd verse. The Jews have just said to Christ, we are God's Chosen People, God is our Father. Christ did not answer the Jews the way ninety49;nine percent of our Judeo49;Christian preachers would do today. Rather, He said in the 42nd vers, "If God were your Father you would love me for I proceeded forth and came from God. Neitherdid I come of myself, but He sent Me. Why is it that you do not understand my speech. It is because yuo cannot hear my words." (Read carefully the 44th verse) where Christ said to the Jews, "Ye are of your father the devil and the lusts of your father you will do. He was a murderer from the beginning and abode not in the truth because there is no truth in him. When he speaks oa lie, he speaks of his own for he is a liar and the father of it." The Word "Jew" A Jew is a person whose religion is Jew49;dah49;ism (Judaism). The word Jew is not found in the original texts of the Scriptures, but in many English Bibles the word is an incorrect rendering of the latin word Judaeus, the Greek word Ioudaios, and the Hebrew word Yehudi. Although not found in either the Hebrew or the Greek Scriptures, the word Jew is an English rendering most often incorrectly translated from Yahudah, that is, referring to one belonging to one of the tribes of Israel (Yisrael) called Yahudah (Judah), a Yahudite. The word Jews, the plural of the word Jew, is incorrectly translated most often from the word Yahudim (descendants of the tribe of Yahudah). The letter 'J' was not in general use until after the 17th century as used in many Bibles for the word 'Jew' to substitute for the correct word Yahudite, or Yahudim. In some English Bibles we have received the word Juda, also an error in translation because the word derives from the Greek Iudaios, which in the English would be Judaios. Judaios was none other then a Greek diety (see W.H. Roscher's lexicon of mythology). As used in the Scriptures, the word 'Jew' is sometimes translated to refer to a Yudean (Judean) a native or inhabitant (which includes many diverse races and people groups living in the region) of Yudea (Judea). As the word 'American' includes many diverse peoples living in the Country called 'America'. The word very often refers to an advocate or adherent to the religion of the Yahudim, (Judaism), or it may in a few cases refer to a literal descendant of Abraham, Issac, Jacob/Israel, one of the descent of the tribe of Yahudah (Judah). In present day generic usage, the word has no relationship to the Hebrew or the Greek translated words in the Old or New Covenant Scriptures, and is associated primarily through an adherent or advocate of Jew49;dah49;ism (Judaism) the religion, but not through ethnics or race. Basically, a Jew is anyone who decides to call himself/herself a Jew. Within Jewish Circles, there are two other official ways one can become a Jew. One can be born from a mother who calls herself a Jew, or one can 'convert' to become a Jew. (A convert is called a ger which literally means stranger). Being born a Jew is pretty simple. If one's mother is Jewish (of the Jewish religion) then he/she is considered a Jew, if one's mother is not of the Jewish religion, then neither is the child officially a Jew. (It doesn't matter what the father is). Modern Jew49;dah49;ism began about 1000 AD, and is traced to Rabbenu Gershon of Mainz, Germany the 'Father' of the Ashkenazi Jews, which constitute approximately 90% of the worlds Jews. Modern Jew49;dah49;ism is not the Scriptural worship system of the Yahudim of the Scriptures. Jews do not actively encourage conversion; to a large degree they discourage it. This is the reason Jews have never had missionaries trying to convert non49;Jews. They want the convert but the convert must be 100% committed to being a Jew. Discouraging conversion helps to filter out those 'lacking the proper degree' of commitment. If the non49;Jew still wants to become a Jew, the male is circumcised. After he is healed, he immerses himself in a mikva. A mikva is a special pool of water which is used for many religious purposes in the religion of the Jews. (It must be made according to very specific rules). A female convert only has to immerse herself. The term 'Jew', has come to be used synonymous with the term 'Israel, Israelite', however, this is error. Scriptural Israelites were never called Jews, (Yahudim), unless they were so associated by their religion. Most modern Jews are not of the tribe of Yahudah (Judah), and are not 'Israelites.' They are called Jew(s) because of their religion, Jew49;dah49;ism (Judaism). Jew, Ashkenazi (Franco49;German, Eastern and Central European Jews) After the Northern Kingdom of Israel was conquered by the Assyrian King Shalmaneser V, in 74549;722 BCE, (for their sin before Yahweh), the Israelites were exiled into (Assyria), 2 Kings 17:549;7. They prospered during the years in Assyria, and became a huge number of people. Outgrowing the land area they eventually migrated North through the 'Caucasus Mountains', and into central and Western Europe forming the European Nations, and are known as Caucasians 'whites.' As these Israelites migrated they influenced many people groups, no longer having an organized religious priesthood, and not having a nation or national identity, these migrating people, descendants of Jacob/Israel nevertheless passed on their bits and pieces of the ancient Scriptural worship system which was corrupted through their many years of captive living in pagan Assyria. During the 7th century A.D. these bits and pieces of the corrupt worship system became a form of Jew49;dah49;ism and was embraced by the Khazar King, his court, and the Khazar military class, who are descendants of Ashkenaz. This new religion of Jew49;dah49;ism, became the religion of the Khazars, and forms most of modern cultic European Jewry. In common parlance the present day 'Jew' is synonymous with the 'Ashkenazi Khazar Jew'. Scripture refers to the Ashkenaz in Gen. 10:3, and in I Chron. 1:6, as one of the sons of Gomer, who was a son of Japheth, son of Noah. Ashkenaz is also a brother of Togarmah (and a nephew of Magog) who the Kazars, according to King Joseph, (of the Kazars) claimed as their ancestor. The people who refer to themselves as Ashkenazi Jews are not Israelites, and they are not Semites because they do not descend from Noah's son Shem. They are Ashkenazi Khazar Jews, who descend from Noah's son Japheth. Approximately 8549;90 percent of the Jews in the world call themselves Ashkenazi Jews. Present49;day Jew49;dah49;ism, was formally formed into it's basic cultic form about 1,000 years ago, (according to the Jews), when 49; Rabbenu Gershon of Mainz, Germany, published a ban on bigamy. This marks the recorded beginning of the Ashkenazi Jews*, and Franco49;German halachic** creativity. The word 'Ashkenazi' is not Hebrew for the word Germany, although the name has become 'associated' with Germany because many Ashkenazi Jews organized in Russia, Eastern Europe and Western Mongolia. *Ashkenazi 49; (Franco49;German, Eastern and Central European Jews). **halachic 49; loose 'interpretations' of Old Testament laws Jew, Sephardim (Spanish Jews) After the Northern Kingdom of Israel was conquered by the Assyrian King Shalmaneser V, in 74549;722 BCE, (for their sin before Yahweh), The Israelites were exiled into (Assyria), 2 Kings 17:549;7. The King then imported people groups from his country (Assyria) to replace the exiled Israelites to maintain and control the land of the exiles. The Sepharvaim were one of these people groups, along with Cuthahites, Arrahites, 2 Kings 17:24. They mingled with each other, along with Edomites, who had migrated Northward from Idumea (field of Edom), after Israel and the Yahudim (Judeans) were exiled. Adad and Anu were ancient gods of Babylonia and were also the gods of these pagan Sepharvaim people. The Sephardim Yudeans (Judeans) are a mongrel people whose descent is directly from a mixture of this Assyrian people group and the remnant of escaped Yudeans (Judeans) along with Edomites who had migrated into the land originally occupied by the Kingdom of Israel and the kingdom of Yahudah (Judah). This made their religion also of mixed character, 2 Kings 17:2449;41. The people known as "Spanish Jews," are descended from the Canaanites, the people who colonized Carthage. Following its sack by Rome, they adopted this Sepharvaim, or Sephardim name for deceptive purposes and constitute 5% of world Jewry today. The Sephardim Jews speak Latino, a mixture of Spanish and Hebrew. The Sephardim Jews migrated West through Egypt, then North into Spain from Judea and Samaria before, during, and after the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans in 70 CE,. This migration became known as the "Jewish 'Sephardim' Diaspora". Today, these Sephardim Jews are still using their ancient adopted name Sephardim (the spelling is a transliteration into English and not of significance). They settled in Spain, Portugal, the Eastern Mediterranean, Italy, the Balkans, Salonica and Macedonia, eventually emigrating into France and England, and Western Europe. The Sepharviam Yudeans (Judeans) were known as Samaritans during the time of Messiah, because they were living in Samaria, which was the area from which Israel was removed by the Assyrian King Shalmaneser V. The twelve apostles during the time if Messiah, were instructed not to enter the cities of the Samaritans, Matt. 10:5. Although the True Israelites of tribal descent, living in Samaria did received the witness of Yahshua and the message of redemption from the apostles, Acts, 1:8. Some of the mixed Samaritans also became proselytes to the Christian faith, Acts 8:449;25. The Sephardim Jews, (or Sepharviam Jews) are not of Israelite blood; they are not of the tribe of Yahudah although they were called Yudeans, 'Judeans', as an inhabitant, i.e. person living in the land originally occupied by the tribe of Yahudah of Israel). Their descent is mixed from Edom/Esau Canaanite stock. The Sephardim Jews, like the Ashkenazi Khazar Jews are not a Semitic people. The word Sephardim is not a Hebrew word for Spain, although the name has become 'associated' with Spain because many Sephardim Jews organized in Spain. Jew49;dah49;ism, (modern 'Judaism') Jew49;dah49;ism, is a cultic (ritual49;istic) religion which originated approximately 1000 CE, and is traced to Rabbenu Gershon of Mainz Germany through the publishing of his 'halachic creativity' (interpretation of Old Covenant laws), he thereby established the beginning of the modern cultic religion of Jew49;dah49;ism. Today the religion is also greatly influenced by the Babylonian Talmud, an ancient Pagan ritual49;listic system of various extreme opinions, interpretations, codes, rules, and regulations. The modern cultic religion of Jew49;dah49;ism has nothing in common with the Scriptural Cultic system of worship which was completely destroyed by Messiah as a religious system in 70 CE at the destruction of Yerushalayim (Jerusalem), Herod's Temple, and through the establishment of the New Covenant through Yahshua Messiah. Christianity, as a religious system of Faith, replaced the ancient system of Cultic (ritual49;istic) sacrificial worship. Jewish A term incorrectly applied to reflect anything pertaining to a Yahudite, a descendant of the tribe of Yahudah. In common use, the term 'Jewish' is now applied to things pertaining to the Jews. Scriptural accuracy has no bearing on the use of the modern term 'Jewish'.See also the word 'Israel'
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-97) not displayed.
.
.
.
#98. To: 1776 (#97)
Why does the Pope wear a Yamaka? http://www.zionjudaica.com/project/shop/subcategory.php?catid=43
I may disagree and vehemently disagree.. but as Chris said debate and discussion as long as it's civil.. is the goal. So if you disagree please add to the discussion.. for I think it's important that those who do take issue with others stance or beliefs contribute so there is both sides to this issue or any other..
Are these the scriptures that you were refering to?
#2 a newborn is called "American", no matter where the mother came from American immigration laws have zilch to do with whether or not Jesus was a Jew. Have you been drinking?
As my man running for govenor of the pitiful state of TX would say, "They don't make jews like Jesus, anymore." Friedman for Govenor
{{{{{{kisses}}}}}}
He was speaking to the children of satan ... otherwise he was a politician ... not God. (I don't think God needs to use rhetoric to make His point.) Otherwise maybe he was kidding ... just joking around, trying to look important. When one considers that God spoke and "nothing" became "everything" ... one must also consider how careful God must be when speaking. When Christ told those little serpents who and what they were ... he was speaking in the physical ... not the spiritual !
Otherwise maybe he was kidding ... just joking around, trying to look important. When one considers that God spoke and "nothing" became "everything" ... one must also consider how careful God must be when speaking. When Christ told those little serpents who and what they were ... he was speaking in the physical ... not the spiritual ! Not so.. Jesus was speaking of their spiritual condition.. for what did He say? My kingdom is NOT of this world.. The people wanted to make Jesus King they too thought His purpose was physical.. so: "When Jesus therefore perceived that they would come and take him by force, to make him a king, he departed again into a mountain himself alone" (John 6:15)... Repeatedly scripture tells us that the inheritance is to those of FAITH.. the seed of Abraham are those of faith.. therefore, if Jesus was speaking of the physical.. then would it not be said that those who inherit the promises of Abraham be due to genetics rather than of faith?
After thinking about your questions and seeing the generally good answers you got from Zipporah and Barak, I thought what might be more helpful is to have a larger context of God's eternal kingdom in which to understand the bible, a kind of 'bible big picture'. What follows is, IMO, biblical, but I did not attempt to tie every sentance to a verse. Undoubtedly you may have questions and some may have arguments. I'm willing to offer clarification or scripture backup as may be requested. Everything flows from God's attributes: God is loving. Somewhat like a human who wants a faithful loving spouse on whom to lavish affection, gifts and kindness, God wants to lavish His love and gifts on someone. It is the very nature of Love to want to be loving, but on what?. On mankind. God created man in His own image (a likeness to God's spirit and a physiology that Christ Himself would 'wear') to be loved by God, and to worship and love God in return. But to genuinely love requires free will. A preprogrammed or forced "love" is not love at all. So for God to be genuinely loved by His creation, that creation must have the free will to disobey as well as to love in return. But God is perfect. Disobedience is sin and God will not tolerate sin and sin can not exist in God's presence. Somewhat like a deepsea diver who can not survive at the surface with excess nitrogen still dissolved in their blood, the reduced surface pressure allows the nitrogen to "boil over", killing the diver. Similarly, sinful man can not survive in the presence of God because God's holiness 'kills' any sin-filled creature in His presence. The sin must be removed for the creature to survive in God's presence, as well as be acceptable to God. God has perfect foreknowledge. God is 'outside of time' and knows the future, including the decisions we will or will not make. God foreknew when he created mankind (to be loved and to genuinely love God in return) that mankind would freely, willingly disobey and sin instead of love God. God is sovereign and has established laws of holy behavior (like the 10 commandments) and God is justice. God can not allow lawbreaking and sin to go unpunished. God does not let people off, plea bargain, waive penalties, or grant parole. But God is merciful. God wants to forgive the disobedience and remove the sin from whomsoever freely and willingly wants the sin to be removed and to be forgiven. But the only person who could 'pay the price' of sin and live to tell about it, is God. And so in an amazing act of mercy, love and self-sacrifice, God sacrificed Himself (Jesus Christ) on the Cross to pay the penalty (under God's law) of all the sins of all mankind for all time. God chose Israel to be His people, to be both a living testimony of God's existence and character, and to bear the Messiah (God's salvation) Jesus Christ. And through the Hebrew people, God has demonstrated His character and offered salvation to all the world, first to the Jew then to the Gentile. And so Jesus is 100% God and 100% human. Only a human can stand in humanity's place of punishment. Only God can pay the price to redeem all humanity. God substituted sinless Jesus on the Cross for us. God substitutes Jesus' perfection for us in exchange for our sinfulness. Jesus got our perfect punishment, we got Jesus' sinless perfection in God's eyes; quite a loving and merciful deal wouldn't you say? The only expectation from God is that we (of our own God-given freewill): This goes back to the Old Testament sacrifices. Blood means and provides "life". Sin results in "death". Without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness for sin. When someone offered a sacrifice they had to lay their hands on it in the presence of God and the high priest. The unblemished animal (a lamb of man, raised and brought by a man) was offered to be killed (its life blood drained out) as a substitute for their sin (unblemished physical life exchanged for blemished spiritual death). Laying their hands on their sacrifice was how they identified their personal sin with their personal sacrifice - not for God's benefit but for their own acknowledgment and admission. " Acceptance" of Christ's sacrifice and offer of salvation is the same identification of each persons sin with their personal sacrifice, Jesus - the Lamb of God. In the Old Testament sacrifices, a mere animal was not sufficient to permanently pay for sin, it only "rolled it over" for another year, but it taught the Israelites (and us) the purpose of sacrifice and to look forward to the day when the Lamb of God (Jesus Christ) would shed His sinless blood, sufficient to redeem all mankind permanently in God's eyes once and for all. For those who reject Christ's offer, imagine the anger of a father whose son sacrificed his life in a war for a neighbor's kid and that kid says to the grieving father, "I didn't need or want your son to die for me, I can do it myself. Thanks but no thanks, pal. Besides, you don't really have a son do you - you old fool". Now try to imagine Christ's suffering (both physical and spiritual) as well as His obedience and faithfulness (He shed His spiritual robes to take on human form), and then try to imagine God the Father's ultimate wrath at those who would dismiss Christ and His suffering as nonexistent, needless or trivial, or worse, try to exploit it for self gain or to oppose God's purposes. The Lake of Fire awaits. For those who turn to Jesus, in my experience, they do because God's Love has won them over. They think about what they have done, the eternal punishment they have earned, and what God still offers in spite of that. Eternity in Heaven. It's somewhat like Prince Charming finds (Sin)derella after the ball; she dirty, filthy and oppressed by her wicked stepmother and stepsisters, despairing and hopeless in her condition; the Prince, love in his eyes and heart, seeing her for who she truly can be (a pearl of very great price), and the Prince steps in, buys out the stepmother & stepsisters and says "I love you. Please marry me. Wait for me. I'll come back to get you and take home with me to my kingdom and castle". That is something like what Jesus is offering us. Would you not shout His name to the rooftops for the kind of wonderful person He is? So, God in His foreknowledge and all knowing omnipotence, looks to the heart to see if the confession and remorse are sincere and genuine. Liars and posers are seen by God for what they are, and God drums his fingers and waits for them to get it. Those who are sincere, God forgives, notes their names in the Book of Life, gives them the Holy Spirit as a kind of 'down payment' to seal the deal and regenerate their spirit (so as to eternally cancel the second death), and then begins the process of life transformation within the new believer - they are "born again of the Spirit" and their subsequent Christ-like or spirit-lead works demonstrate their genuine faith - the holy spirit transformation is evident in their works, in their entire life. By our love they will know us. But the transformation is gradual, it is a process. The deep sea diver is not instantly brought to the surface nor is all the nitrogen removed at depth. It is gradually removed in a slow steady ascent. There are obviously false Christians, like there are false anythings. Anyone can claim anything. But the evidence is in their fruit or our fruit. Look at the gifts and judge the fruit and know whom is truly following Christ. Transformed believers do not continuously sin. We make mistakes. We fall back. But we get up, seek God's help to be better and get back in the fight. We decrease sinful behavior, striving (but seldom achieving) to stop altogether. We strive to be more holy & righteous. Our own sin becomes loathsome and we despair as did Paul when we do what we don't want, and don't do what we do want. If you don't see the Spirit at war with the flesh, it's likely because the flesh has no opposition. Brokenness is the sign of a Spirit-indwelt transformed life. One of the mysteries is that God not only created us with free will to choose to accept or reject Him, God also predestined (chose with foreknowledge) who would be saved. It is a kind of spiritual friction or tension between two seemingly irreconcilable concepts. Choosen by God but created free to choose otherwise. But then Gods thoughts are not our thoughts nor His ways our ways. A great deal of the more serious theological debates pivot around this very issue. I mention it because it deserves careful thought, study and prayer, but you can rest in God's written assurances, that if you sincerely believe on Jesus then you will have eternal life, and this issue becomes interesting but somewhat after the fact (of your salvation). Almost as if God wanted a theological conundrum to occupy "the kids" and give them a reason to search out the scriptures. So, God wanted to lavish His love on His creatures and be loved by them in return. He created them with free will, knowing they would sin, knowing He would sacrifice His Son for that sin, knowing how narrow was that gate and that only a few would find it. Life on earth is a kind of boot camp for Heaven. "What is life, but preparation for eternity" as Erwin Lutzer put it. A series of good works prepared before hand that we might lay up treasure in heaven - a training ground for our minds, souls and spirits, to observe and learn God's ways and prepare to co-reign as His Bride for all eternity.
(The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)
Amen... and the SINderella analogy ..excellent.
Thank you kindly.
(The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)
I believe that is indeed the case. Too many people expect life to be perfect, then become angry when everything is not to their liking. This was an all-around excellent post, many good points and info!! Oddly I understand the space/time issue, like we are embedded in a space/time graph while on earth, but when we die our souls come out of it, I realized that some time ago, time and space only exist in the physical life.
I did want to elaborate a bit on this question. Zipporah answered: We were (many still are) captives to sin. Enslaved to both a sinful nature (a fleshly, carnal proclivity to disobey God's law) and destined for the ultimate penalty of eternal spiritual death - separation from God - perhaps what Jesus experienced on the Cross when He cried out "My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?" ie Where are you? My entire eternal existence up to now was in close intimate contact with you, Abba (Daddy) and now I'm alone, in spiritual darkness, cutoff from contact. If it tormented Jesus, imagine the eternal torment of those condemned. But while we were yet slaves to sin on Satan's auction block, the only person who could afford the price stepped up and bought us. We were slaves. We had no say in the matter. Satan had no legal grounds to object, the asking price was offered. In fact Satan was delighted thinking Christ would be dead and Satan left to rule the slaves anyway. But God. (An amazing two words). But God, raised Jesus from the dead. And Satan, who as the father of sin bore responsibility for Christ being accused, scourged, and crucified, Christ (who unlike anyone else in all history was perfectly innocent and blameless of all the charges Satan had brought against Jesus) was now Satan's downfall because for the first time Satan had effectively accused and convicted an innocent man. But God, (in Jesus) alive and risen now 'owns' the slaves and Satan is guilty of false accusations and murder. Jesus not only redeemed all humanity but He turned the heavenly legal tables on Satan.
(The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)
Better still, we will never taste death, and if Jesus' resurrected body is any indication, we will have physical existance that transcends space and time. After resurrection, Christ entered the upper room appearing to the now 11, seemingly "beamed in" through walls and locked doors. To doubting Thomas Jesus said stick your fingers in the wounds in my hands and my side. In another passage he was hungry and ate food. Resurrected physical bodies that feel, eat, transport across time and space with eternal lifetime warranty against rust, decay, parts & labor.
(The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)
The people wanted to make Jesus King they too thought His purpose was physical ... then would it not be said that those who inherit the promises of Abraham be due to genetics rather than of faith? The "My Kingdom is not of this world" is a statement made to Pilate at another time under different circumstances altogether. Pilate wasn't a Pharisee. What about when he told the Pharisees that their teachings made His Father's Laws of no effect, was that "spiritual" too ? The Pharisees didn't want to make Him King, they wanted Him dead ! The debate that has gone on forever related to Faith vs. Grace isn't the one we were having. I'm not completely settled on that one. However, I have a theory relative to genetics. An earlier discussion on this thread mentioned "redemption" ... In "common law", which came to us from Great Britain and was part of their culture from ancient times, and was even known in Biblical times, redemption was a legal situation wherein a family member could take the place of another family member in paying the price for a crime. Doesn't the Bible say we were paid for with a price and wasn't that price the death of Christ? The possibility that there is a difference between "redemption" and "salvation" should not be ignored. I'll be the last one to say "God" can't do whatever He chooses, He being the Potter and me the clay. This scenario gets into whether one conceives predestination and free will as compatible. DNA and genetic markers sure might help when the "harvest time" comes, and we know that genetic predispositions exist for many things, including life-span and disease. The teachings of James and Paul are at variance, one teaching works, the other teaching grace. James writings weren't placed into the Bible until 500 A.D. James stayed in Jerusalem and Paul went to the gentiles (nations). Luther castigated James and supported Paul. (I honestly don't know for sure but do know that Jesus stated he didn't come to change the law, but to fulfill it, while also saying not a jot or tittle of the law would change, and scripture also says that God never changes, being the same yesterday, today and forever.) Sometimes I think it's presumptuous of us to have these debates. In the end it isn't going to matter what each of us thinks because ultimately "THERE IS TRUTH" whether we have it exactly right or not. I only try to keep my mind free from the indoctrination that I received from the Catholic Church, which has little bearing on truth when compared to scriptures. Paul stated: "Study the scriptures to show thyself approved" ... is this not works in some degree ? One last thing: Many scriptures have God referring to "MY PEOPLE ISRAEL" ... isn't this a physical reference ... and if not why do we have this flesh to lug around ? This is strictly food for thought. John, the one considered to be the one Christ loved or his "insider" favorite, wrote from Patmos of the false prophet that would convince many to worship the beast, and that there were anti-christs among us even at that time. Paul was a pharisee, learned under Gamaliel, the most learned of all Pharisees, and Paul never walked with Jesus. While John is writng about the destruction of those accepting the Mark of the Beast being imposed upon people by some "govt" authority in Revelations, Paul is writing that we should submit to all government authority in Romans 13. This is a problem area for me. Faith, as we have generally been instructed through churchianity, is to believe in Christ as the Savior that was born of a virgin, suffered died and rose from the dead to pay the price for our sins. Satan believes, will he be saved ?
1st I qualified my statement as it regarded my own research. I further stated that I wasn't convinced that all were white or caucasions, because of the four mothers that bore Jacob's children, 2 were possibly non-white. Leah and Rachel were white, as was Rebecca the aunt of Leah and Rachel. [Here is a little surprise that can be found in "Strong's Concordance or Zondervan's dictionary of the Bible: Laban, brother of Rebecca and the father of Rachel and Leah ... Laban in the Hebrew means "white"] Let me reiterate here that it is NOT as IMPORTANT to me who are the so-called chosen people of promise as it is to clearly point out that the people claiming to be are liars and their lie is terrorizing the entire world. The State of Israel is not Biblical, it is a fraud because the people operating it are not descended from Abraham, and it is the focal point of WW III. And while we edge ever closer to this all out war that will require us to sacrifice our children to it, unlearned Christians continue to support anti-christ Bush remaining adamant about protecting the phoney State of Israel that exists based upon the falsely claimed promise to Abraham and can be clearly discerned by reading Genesis Chapter 10:3 (see Ashkenaz grandson of Japeth NOT SHEM) .... The descendants of Japeth (NIMROD) built Babel, developed the Babylonian Talmud and even claimed to be god. When one considers the simplicity of just taking a look at the geneology at Genesis 10/11/12 where it confirms what I am stating, and the stubborn refusal of Christians to do so in order to comply with the high priests of Baal running their church, is "willful ignorance" ... caveat: I haven't always been aware of this and am not trying to act like a know it all ... we as a civilization are approaching a time of terror of our own making. "My people are DESTROYED for lack of knowledge" ... I am admitting to you that I resisted this information for a long time until I became convinced of it through study, not Willie Martin or anyone else. I am reminded of the scripture that says: "they loved a lie more than the truth" Starwind, I would appreciate a little restraint on your part when making remarks about "MY" worldview ... until at least you have a little better knowledge of it ... PLEASE This may not be of consequence to this conversation but people (I don't remember exactly whom) have remarked about Moses being a "JEW" as if he were a student or adherent to Judaism. The first Synagogue in Jerusalem didn't exist until AFTER the captivity of Judah/Benjamin, and was brought back from Babylon.
Agreed (even though using language like VERY WRONG HEADED is unnecessarily provocative) ... I haven't proferred a doctrine. I have not taken "a" scripture and made it the basis for anything. I was thinking to write that even in our man made court system it takes a preponderance of evidence to support a verdict of guilty in a non-capital offense. I believe I have weighed a proponderance of evidence, and am still searching, admitting that I am convinced that I will never achieve total understanding. However, to date I am certain that many accepted beliefs of the churches such as the State of Israel have NO basis in scripture, actually violating scriptural truth. One can hardly dismiss the negative impact the State of Israel is having upon the world today, and this is not a "spiritual" fact but a most physical one. If the geneologies listed ad nauseum in Genesis mean nothing, WHY ARE THEY THERE ?
This reference was to Jacob/Israel's descendants (The twelve tribes) not Jesus', as I have no way of determining whether Jesus had any descendants.
Whether or not Jesus was speaking to Pilate at another time does not negate the premise.. I cited this particular scripture but there are others which state the same.. "What about when he told the Pharisees that their teachings made His Father's Laws of no effect, was that "spiritual" too ?" Actually yes. The Pharisees were the 'keepers of the law.. the Torah but the Law had become a side issue so to speak to them.. they focused on the oral tradition and put it before the Torah and in doing so they were misleading the people just as those false teachers today mislead people and what does the bible say about false teachers? That is what Jesus was saying. The Pharisees weren't concerned about the spiritual condition of people or themselves..their 'hearts'.. all they were concerned about was keeping the Law and the oral tradition the physical aspects of that law.. the do's and don'ts.. They also believed in an earthly King a ruler.. because they focused so heavily on the physical they were unable to 'see' the divine, the spiritual and that Jesus had come as that King.. not an earthly King but as a spiritual King.. "my kingdom is not of this world" and yes they wanted Him dead. Because He dared to challenge them and their power was as risk for many of the people were following Him. Jesus challenged them for mainly their spiritual blindness. He called them 'blind guides': Matt. 23:13..Matt. 23:23-26: "But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in... Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these things ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone. Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel. Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye make clean the outside of the cup and of the platter, but within they are full of extortion and excess. Thou blind Pharisee...." As far as genetics.. you have said why is there such a focus on genetics the begats etc.. for one purpose and one purpose only.. To show that Jesus himself was who He said He was.. to show that He was in fact the rightful heir to the throne.. but as I said the kingdom was not as they thought.. it was a spiritual one.. a heavenly kingdom come down from heaven. John 1:12-13 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: {13} Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God... NOT of blood.. but of God.. a spiritual birth not one of genetics.. Again the scripture in Galatians: Galatians 3:8-9 And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed. {9} So then they which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham... what this is saying is it was the GOSPEL of Christ Jesus that was being preached to Abraham.. not a genetics lesson.. those who believe are the heirs.. for Jesus was the seed.. and we who believe are the heirs of the promise. On Luther: Luther's words are not cannon. Luther was stuggling with the Roman Church's focus on works.. therefore, he placed great importance on grace due to the revelation he received through the HS regarding the grace of God that saves not the works of men.. Satan believes in that he knows the truth and rejects it as many people today do.. they enjoy their condition..
Leading others INTO a DITCH ... Straining at a gnat ... SWALLOWING CAMELS WHOLE !!! Churchianity has been and continues to serve their sheoples CAMELS ... what's for lunch ???
Hey ... take a moment to contemplate this: Revelations tells us that there will come a man or authority thinking to change the days and the times ... many believe this was Constantine or a later Pope, not that it matters much in the larger picture. Today "MILLIONS if not BILLIONS of people will attend (churchianity) services, calling it the "SABBATH" ... when any dictionary plainly states it is the day of "SUN-WORSHIP" while the Old Testament repeatedly states that the honoring of the true Sabbath will be "A SIGN BETWEEN THEE (us) AND ME (God) "FOREVER" the evidences of manipulative fraud are surrounding a blinded prey ... Easter, Christmas and Good "FRIDAY" are other examples of frauds perpetrated by those we are supposed to trust in the pulpit ... but can't ! [The Bible further tells us that "THEY" will make merchandise of our souls ... we have been warned ! I'll give it a rest so as not to appear argumentative ... peace be unto you all !
On Revelation, I view the book from a partial preterist or amillienial viewpoint so it would take pages of explanation .. but the short version.. is this, the book is a picture of the church.. in allegory. Not some future event that can be interpreted with the newspaper. One needs to see the book through the eyes of those to whom it was written. Well re the sabbath.. what does the bible tell us? Jesus is Lord of the sabbath..and He is the fulfillment of the Law.. therefore, if we are one of His.. then we keep the sabbath daily for Jesus is in us.. remember the veil was torn.. releasing the spirit.. so no longer do we have to go somewhere to worship Him.. He is with us.. and in us.
by doing a search on christianity and mithraism, one can easily find the roots of the mythological/contemporary belief. As well, by doing a search on 'egyptian book of the dead' and 'the ten commandments' one can find the original egyptian sources for these supposedly uniquely given laws... any serious person who is qualified to discuss such matters would also know about the origins of the 'faith' (doctrine today accepted as 'truth') concerning the Council of Nicea and Constantine. so much of what Christians believe is not factually accurate, or even supported by the bible. But, that's what they get...they've decided to listen to the views of other men as the source of truth, though Christ specifically mentioned the 'divine counselor' as the one who would advise, etc. That's all organized religion can ever be, a crappy second choice for the sleeping. Mercian Order of St.George Christianity or Mithraism It is surprising that Christianity was to become the international religion, when one considers that the already well-established religion of Mithraism was a natural challenger for that title. Up until the time of the Emperor Constantine, it was the latter religion which was more popular within the framework of the Roman Empire, and Christianity was regarded as being only one sect amongst numerous other sects. It was only when Constantine decreed that Christianity was to be the state religion, that Mithraism, together with a host of other religions and sects, was put into the melting pot, and ideas of that religion, most suited for the Christian purpose, were absorbed into the new state-approved religion. Mithraism, the religion followed by those who worshipped the sun god Mithra, originated in Persia about 400 BC, and was to spread its Pagan ideas as far west as the British Isles. In the early centuries of the Christian era, Mithraism was the most wide-spread religion in the Western World, and its remains are to be found in monuments scattered around the countries of Europe, which then comprised the known civilised world. Mithra was regarded as created by, yet co-equal with, the Supreme Deity. Mithraists were Trinitarian, kept Sunday as their day of worship, and their chief festivals were what we know of as Christmas and Easter. Long before the advent of Jesus, Mithra was said to have been born of a virgin mother, in a cave, at the time of Christmas, and died on a cross at Easter. Baptism was practised, and the sign of the cross was made on the foreheads of all newly-baptised converts. Mithra was considered to be the saviour of the world, conferring on his followers an eternal life in Heaven, and, similar to the story of Jesus, he died to save all others, provided that they were his followers. For three centuries both religions ran parallel, Mithraism first becoming known to the Romans in 70 BC, Christianity following a century later, and it wasn’t until AD 377 that Christianity became sufficiently strong to suppress its former rival, although Mithraism was to remain a formidable opponent for some time after that, only slowly being forsaken by the people. It was only the absorption of many Mithraist ideas into Christianity which finally saw its downfall. The big turning point was brought about by the Congress of Nicaea in AD 325. Constantine, a great supporter of the Christian religion, although not converting to it until the time of his decease, gathered together 2,000 leading figures in the world of theology, the idea being to bring about the advent of Christianity as the official state religion of Rome. It was out of this assembly that Jesus was formally declared to be the Son of God, and Saviour of Mankind, another slain saviour god, bringing up the tally of slain god-men to seventeen, of which Mithra, together with such men as Bel and Osiris, was included. Just as Nicaea can be regarded as the birthplace of Christianity, so too it can be regarded as the graveyard of what we imagine Jesus taught. From that time onwards, Christianity was to absorb the superstitions of Mithraism, and many other older religions, and what was believed to have happened to earlier saviour gods, was made to centre around the Nazarene. The coming of Christianity under state control was to preserve it as a religion, and was the death knell of all other sects and cults within the Roman Empire. Had Constantine decided to retain Mithraism as the official state religion, instead of putting Christianity in its place, it would have been the latter that would have been obliterated. To Constantine however, Christianity had one great advantage, it preached that repentant sinners would be forgiven their sins, provided that they were converted Christians at the time of their Passing, and Constantine had much to be forgiven for, He personally did not convert to the new religion until he was on his death bed, the reason being that only sins committed following conversion were accountable, so all sins committed by a convert, prior to conversion, didn’t matter, and he could hardly have sinned too much whilst he was lying on his death bed. Mithraism could not offer the same comfort to a man like Constantine, who was regarded as being one of the worst mass-murderers of his time. The Emperor Julian, who followed Constantine, went back to Mithraism, but his short reign of only two years could not change what Constantine had decreed. His defeat, and death, at the hands of the Persians, was used by the Christians as an argument in favour of the new, against the old, being looked upon as an omen that Christianity had divine approval. If Julian had been spared to reign some years longer, the entire history of international religion would almost certainly have been different. Under Emperor Jovian, who followed Julian, the substitution of Christianity for Mithraism made further progress, and old Pagan beliefs, like the Virgin Birth, Baptism and Holy Trinity, became generally accepted as the basis of the state religion. The early Christian idea of Unitarianism was quickly squashed in favour of Trinitarianism, and those who refused to accept the Holy Trinity were put to the sword, the beginning of mass slaughter in the name of religion, which was to go on for centuries. http://members.aol.com/MercStG/ChriMithPage1.html The Influence of Mithraism on Christianity When Mithraism is compared with Christianity, there are surprisingly many points of similarity. Of all the mystery cults Mithraism was the greatest competitor of Christianity. The cause for struggle between these two religions was that they had so many traditions, practices and ideas that were similar and in some cases identical. Many of the similarities between these two religions have already been alluded to, but there are many others of greater or lesser significance. The belief in immortality, a mediator between god and man, the observance of certain sacramental rites, the rebirth of converts, and (in most cases) the support of high ethical ideas were common to Mithraism as well as to Christianity. In fact, the comparison became so evident that many believed the Christian movement itself became a mystery cult. "Jesus was the divine Lord. He too had found the road to heaven by his suffering and resurrection. He too had God for his father. He had left behind the secret whereby men could achieve the goal with him."[Footnote:] Enslin, op. cit., p. 190. There were many other points of similarity between these two groups. Let us look at a few of them: (1) Both regarded Sunday as a holy day. (2) December 25 came to be considered as the anniversary of the birth of Mithra and Christ also. (3) Baptism and a communion meal were important parts of the ritual of both groups. (4) The rebirth of converts was a fundamental idea in the two cults. (5) The struggle with evil and the eventual triumph of good were essential ideas in both religions. (6) In both religions only initiates who passed through certain preliminary phases of introduction were admitted to the mysteries which brought salvation to converts. There were many more similarities between Christianity and Mithraism--most of them purely superficial. These which have been mentioned are largely only surface likenesses because the reasoning behind them is quite different, but the general effect is almost startling. The sacraments of baptism and the eucharist have been mentioned as rites which were practiced both by christians and pagans. It is improbable, however, that either of these {were} introduced into Christian practices by association with the mystery cults. The baptismal ceremony in both cases (christian and mystery) was supposed to have the effect of identifying the initiate with his saviour. But although baptism did not originate with the Christians, still it was not copied from the pagans. It seems instead to have been carried over from Jewish background and modified by the new ideas and beliefs of the Christians. The eucharist, likewise though similar in some respects to the communion meal of Mithraism, was not a rite borrowed from them. There are several explanations regarding the beginning of the observance of the Lord's Supper. Some held that the sacrament was instituted by Jesus himself. Others saw it as an out-growth from Jewish precedents. Still others felt that, after the death of Jesus, the disciples saw in their common meal an opportunity to hold a kind of memorial service for him. On the whole, early Christians were not greatly concerned about the likenesses between the Mithraic cult and their own. They felt at first that these competitors were not worthy of consideration, and few references to them are found in Christian literature. When Mithraism became widespread and powerful, it attracted so much attention that certain Christian apologists felt the need to present an explanation for the similarities in their respective characteristics. The only one they could offer was quite naive, but it was in keeping with the trends of thought in that age. They maintained that it was the work of the devil who helped to confuse men by creating a pagan imitation of the true religion. The greatest influence of Mithraism on Christianity lies in a different direction from that of doctrine and ritual. It lies in the fact that Mithraism paved the way for the presentation of Christianity to the world of that time. It prepared the people mentally and emotionally to understand the type of religion which Christianity represented. It was itself in varying degrees, an imperfect example of the Galilean cult which was to replace it. It encouraged the movement away from the state religions and the philosophical systems and toward the desire for personal salvation and promise of immortality. Christianity was truly indebted to Mithraism for this contribution, for it had done this part of the groundwork and thus opened the way for Christian missionary work. Conclusion That Christianity did copy and borrow from Mithraism cannot be denied, but it was generally a natural and unconscious process rather than a deliberate plan of action. It was subject to the same influences from the environment as were the other cults, and it sometimes produced the same reaction. The people were conditioned by the contact with the older religions and the background and general trend of the time. Many of the views, while passing out of Paganism into Christianity were given a more profound and spiritual meaning by Christians, yet we must be indebted to the source. To discuss Christianity without mentioning other religions would be like discussing the greatness of the Atlantic Ocean without the slightest mention of the many tributaries that keep it flowing. BIBLIOGRAPHY {2} Cumont, Franz, The Mysteries of Mithra, The Open Court Publishing Co., Chicago, 1910. Dhalla, M. N., History of Zoroastrianism, Oxford University Press N. Y., 1938 pp. 183-192. {4)} Dill, Samuel, Roman Society From Nero To Marcus Aurelius, Macmillan and Co., 1905, pp. 585-626. {5)} Enslin, Morton S., Christian Beginnings, Harper and Brothers Publishers N. Y. and London, 1938, pp. 186-200. {(8)} Halliday, W. R., The Pagan Background of Early Christianity, The University Press of Liverpool, London, N.D., pp. 281-311. {10)} Moore, George F., History of Religions, Vol. 1, Charles Scribner's Sons, N.Y., 1913, pp. 357-405, 592-602. THDS. MLKP-MBU: Box 113, folder 19. Back to Top © The Estate of Martin Luther King, Jr. http://www.stanford.edu/group/King/publications/papers/vol1/491123-A_Study_of_Mithraism.htm
Whenever people ask me, 'hey, you know what you should do? I always say 'What? Buy a monkey?'
Noone, i believe i owe you an apology for calling you evil, not that i don't think we are all evil at times, including myself. I share some of your concerns and critical views of "churchianity." Many so-called Christians are afraid to think and re-read the Bible to determine what it really teaches and find truth/facts which differ from church dogma upsetting. These fearful ones can be harsh and condeming when people like you bring up so many questions. I have been the receipient of church folks' condemnation for my questioning who have driven me away from the church, but not from Christ Jesus. Jesus said His disciples would be known by their love in action. Fortunately for you there is Zipporah and Starwind who have taken the time to answer your questions. I think it would help you to clarify your own thinking if you separated your conserns as Bible-sourced and church-sourced as it is clear to most of us that the church through the ages has adulturated many of the Bible's teachings and it would not be fair to blame the Bible for the way some have misused it. Also, there is a process of maturity one goes though in willingness to submit to the authroity of God who speaks through Scripture via the Holy Spirit. In the end, whatever we believe is not going to be 100% correct as each of us is growing in our understanding. What saves us is God's grace and our choice in accepting it, not perfect knowledge and being 100% correct. It is good to question and good to have the freedom to question. I'm grateful to God that two here, Zip and Star, are loviing and patient enough and knowledgeable enough to answer your questions.
That was a very nice thing to say.. And although sometimes possibly some's beliefs may be shocking to us.. or make some uncomfortable.. I think we can reject what those beliefs are and still not reject the person.. Jesus at times could be quite harsh.. but it was to those such as the Pharisees who were held to a higher standard.. Luke 12:48, “For everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked.”..
To err is human ... to forgive is "divine" ! No Problem !
Surprising? Maybe for someone looking to butress conspiracy theories, but certainly not to most bible students. Further, "Adam" in Hebrew means 'red or ruddy' and is usually thought to refer to his complexion.... so what? white or red/ruddy are descriptions of visual complexion, much like calling someone 'redhead' or 'blonde' or 'brunette', and clearly not sufficiently distinct genetically so as to permit race or tribe identification or exclusion. And the descendants of Rachel & Leah (with Jacob) are the tribes of Reuben, Simeon, Levi, Judah, Issachar, Zebulon, Joseph & Benjamin. Judah is in the lineage of Christ (genetically thru Mary) and not one of the lost tribes. So even if you're trying to draw some inferrence that Jesus Christ was descended of a ruddy/white complected tribe and because caucasians are ruddy/white complected thus Christ was not a Jew is patently illogical: All liars are terrorizing the world, not just Jewish liars. Quite the contrary: If you want to argue that Israel (the modern political nation) is not conducting itself in accord with the Torah, that they lie and manipulate and don't trust God, you're right. But then who is not lying and manipulating these days? Jews and Gentiles can be liars and liars can be Jewish or not. The existance of the political state (the nation) of Israel is not a fraud. It is the nation God prophecied He would restore. How many residents of Israel (which includes "Palestinians", Arabs, Gentiles, etc) trace their lineage from Abraham only God knows - certainly neither you nor I nor Willie Martin know. But, yes it is the focal point of WWIII - God said it would be. A great deal of your confusion stems from what you just did. You conflate biblical issues of fact or history with how individuals chose to behave (preaching, politics, lies, etc). You will never understand the bible if you don't separate what people choose to do from what God said they should do. (The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)
Actually, you do. The bible tells you Jesus did not have any descendants. Were Jesus to have any, there'd be a mention of marriage, a bride, a birth, etc. What is mentioned is Jesus' "Bride" is in fact the church and His marriage is the marriage supper of the Lamb (Rev 19). But, if you're about to argue Jesus fathered illegitimate children in secret, out of wedlock, that would be a sin, would it not? Would you not then be arguing that not only was Jesus not a Jew, but he was not sinless either? Is that your position? Also, in your post #115, you replied to my post #77, but you lead off with an indented italicized phrase: It gave the appearance you were quoting me, and I never said such. I know it was unintentional. I'm asking that you take greater care in composing your replies to my posts so as to not give the appearance of misquoting me.
(The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)
Amen. This is what the work of the Holy Spirit looks like. Repentance. Thank you as well for the kind words. How long the patience lasts remains to be seen. Even the Holy Spirit said He would not strive with man forever. I have far less time and perseverance.
(The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)
Luke 17:21 No reading of the Old Testament god of the jews can reconcile with that declaration by the Logos, God Incarnate, the Lord Jesus Christ. John 7:28,29 Jesus is saying that the God who sent Him is not only different from the God of the Jews, but that He is in fact unknown to them.
Awake thou that sleepest
The geneology that is plainly stated in Genesis 10:3 makes it perfectly clear that todays "so-called" Jews aren't semetic, aren't descendants of Abraham and are nothing less than trespassers against Palestine ... and that they are the primary force fucking up a peaceful world ! There's my worldview ... quit trying to protect the phoney Jews !
But then Gen 10:3 was never intended to establish the geneology of Israel (Jacob). But you already knew that. Nonetheless, you have (in a stunning display of illogic) cherry-picked the geneology of the ashkenazi, and with a wave of your hand assert that has some bearing on the modern political nation Israel as re-established by the Balfour Declaration of 1917 and the Weizman-Faisal Agreement of 1919 as well as subsequent UN resolutions. You ignore (because it doesn't fit your world-view) 1Ch 1:1-34 and Gen 35:22-26 wherein the genology of Israel (not the Ashkenazi) is established. More of that restraint with which you wish to be treated?
(The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)
Israel as re-established by the Balfour Declaration ... The actual "Israelites" (unless of course they happen to be Americans and Great Britains) aren't the driving force behind the State of Israel and the genocide of Palestinians, Iraqis and Afghanis ... Ashkenazi Jews are key ! I said it earlier and will repeat it for the "not so attentive" it's less important to me who are the lost tribes of Israel as it is to point out that the people trespassing in Israel today, and by so doing are creating the atmosphere for WW III, which will include American kids 18 years old and up, are Mongol converts with NO ETHNICAL CLAIM to Jerusalem/Palestine or any justification to oust the prior residents. "Israel as (re-) established by the Balfour Declaration" you're a dreamer, The Balfour Proclamation was nothing more than a letter from Lord Balfour to Lord Rothschild agreeing to support the fraud that Rothschild was intent upon foisting on the world ... later actually mandated by the UN ... I don't know about you but I have a hard time with Rothschild and the UN ... I suppose you support them ! By the way "Brit" "ain" in Hebrew means Covenant Land ... "Brit" "Ish" means covenant man ... and Longshanks, King Edward the 1st was a direct descendant of JUDAH !
God "can't predict a fraud ... I beg to differ. It's hard to conclude that it is anything less than a fraud when the people claiming the land were NEVER promised anything, aren't related to Abraham or his covenant with God, yet claim it regardless of their political bent. Jews against Zionism act as if they are ethnically related to Abraham ... and if they are of the Ashkenazi lineage they are NIMRODS descendants, not Jacob / Israel's ... and the land was given as an heriditary gift to Abraham and HIS SEED forever ... however, the Word says they will dwell in the tents of Shem ... and they do ... most inconveniently for everyone in the tent I might add. Moses was never a Jew ... quit trying to imagine it in your fantasy world view ... hahahahaha !!! There was no Talmud nor Synagogue before the 2nd Captivity ... (I am dutifully restraining myself ... from laughing out loud !)
The Bible depicts Gog and Magog as paired figures representing Satan. It predicts that a ruler (Gog) of the land of people from the north (Magog) would be involved in the final conflict against God's people. It could be said that Ariel Sharon, the son of immigrant Russian parents, i.e., Khazar Jews, fits the Gog profile.
Life is a tragedy to those who feel, and a comedy to those who think.
Same here, what if your government turns evil? It also seems contradictory what Mark says and what Paul says.
There were few or no prior residents in 1917, 1919, even 1948. The so called "palestinians" came to Israel well after 1948 when it became economically attractive for them to do so (they came for jobs in the economy the Jews were creating), and after it became clear their Arab brethen weren't about to give them a homeland in the transjordan, as previously agreed. There certainly were no "palestinians" when Abraham camped in the land on Mt Moriah. There have been Jews (Judahites) living in their "promised land" since Abraham. Not all of them were removed in the exile or the even the diaspora. Israel would be largely native Judahites and Samaritans today were it not for the Roman occupation. Your oft repeated and not once substantiated assertion that modern Israel consists ethnically of mostly Ashkenazi, even if true, has zero bearing on the legitimacy of the recognized political boundaries and national sovereignty of modern Israel, whatever the 'ethnic tribe(s)' it's returnees claim as origin. Now, if it was the intention of the British, Arabs, and "Jews" to establish a political nation solely for the descendants of the ethnic tribe of "Judah" you might have an argument. But the world (British, Arabs, Weitzman, Faisal, et. al.) never intended Israel to be soley occupied by an ethnically pure population of "Judahites". That is a straw man argument you keep tossing out. Would the legitimacy of the United States be called into question if it were determined (or alleged) that only 10 percent of the original 'pilgrims' where in fact English? How many French, Spanish, German, etc settlers would be needed to overturn the US Declaration of Independence? What if the native "indians" weren't native to the land but were Asian and came across the bearing strait? What is the basis on which you assert an ethnic prerequisite to a political nation's sovereignty, and then on what basis do you apply that only to Jews and Israel? Lastly, you show a marked mistrust and disbelief of God's ability to bring about His prophecy of a restored Israel. The political nation exists again. The population is returning from around the world. Who are you to declare the prophecy as fulfilled and now time to check God's work? Were someone actually able to genetically test the ethnicity of the growing Israeli population for whatever the 12 tribes are (genetically), I believe when the prophecy is fulfilled, it would be shown that God in fact regathered "Israel" and while Ashkenazi might reside in the population, that is no different than when Caananites and Egyptians and Greeks, etc resided amongst the Israelites as well. Is Israel the focal point for WWIII? Absolutely, as previously pointed out, it has been foretold. Did God screw up and mistake the Ashkenazi for His chosen people? Not likely. There are lots of reasons to mistrust our "Christian" and "Jewish" leaders, but the Ashkenazi successfully conspiring to usurp Jacob's blessing isn't one of them. Picking up now from your post #131: You have now for me fully demonstrated your lack of understanding of God, Christ, or the bible. You have yet to establish any basis that a false claim has been made, other than your deliberate cherry-picking out of context the geneology of Ashkenazi. Nowhere have you established that the Ashkenazi in fact comprise modern Israel, nor that there is any ethnic prerequisite for a modern political nation's sovereignty or legitimacy. That's the argument you'd like to have, but it isn't the one you've been given. In OT terms, Moses was an Israelite, a Hebrew, a descendant of Abraham, of the tribe of Levi. He was the forerunner Levitical Priest. The synagogue was established after the destruction of the Herodian Temple, 'substitutes' for the absent Temple, and is the "hall of meeting" but without sacrifices and the ark present (obviously). The Rabbi likewise 'substitutes' for the levitcal priest. Again you conflate what modern Judaism does as opposed to what OT scripture recorded; as if what Jews do today changes in any respect who Moses was.
(The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)
This brings to mind our present day culture. Anything of a spritual nature is put down as 'kookery'.
One must take care to discern the spirits. We battle not against flesh and blood but against powers and principalities. Not everything spiritual is kookery, agreed. But not everything spiritual is good or truthful either.
(The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)
The other day I was reading some very old letters written from Ireland to a family member who moved to America in the early 1800s. The letters were from various family members. Reading through those letters there was much mention of God, which made it very obvious that this particular family at least was very spiritual and it seemed very important to them that they stay on the good side of God. I thought to myself that if people were to read those letters today, they would have thought those people were fanatics! Our modern culture at least from what I see appears to have a distain for God and the bible. It's put down in movies and tv shows with implications that bible believers are somehow deranged or are just in it for the money. I think this is a disturbing trend, and I fear that if this country turns it's back on God, God will turn his back on this country as we are now a very sinful nation.
Mosas was a Hebrew. Do you know the relationship of Hebrews with Jews? Why do you constantly bring in the state of Israel to scorn (many of us here decry the politics in Israel as we do in the PLO)? What does the political entity known as the state of Israel have to do with the Israelites in the Bible? What does any of this have to do with your belief that Jesus is not a Jew? What are you really angry about? Is it that Jesus is a Jew and you hate what the Jews in present-day Israel are doing to the Palestinians? I have a hard time following your quarrel with the Bible, the Church, history of the Hebrews and the current events. I could be wrong, as i have many times before, but i will venture an observation about your line of questioning that i admit greatly irritates me---it wanders all over the globe and throughout all histroy and never lands on any point long enough to either reach agreement or demonstrate a rational reason for disagreement, IMO. It seems you have an axe to grind and are determined to grind it on whatever is whithin your grasp. This is not the kind of discussion i can take seriously, though i will contend for the faith and the essential tenets of the faith that are not a matter of opinion or fancy but fundatmental and worth dying to proclaim/defend. Jesus was a Jew or He could not have fulfilled the numerous biblical prophesies. This is not my opinion, but either Jesus was a Jew/Hebrew or the Bible is unrealiable and, yes, we all wrestle with the many and wonderful biblical paradoxes. The Bible doesn't suit any of us perfectly and there are many sections that we serious and honest seekers find troubling/disturbing/puzzling/confusing. But we honest ones admit our feelings/attitudes/hard questions and DO NOT REWRITE HISTORY to suit our mindset. I am wondering if you would answer a simple and fundamental question---Why do you want Jesus to not be a Jew? Why is that important to you? Thank you very much in advance for answering this question.
Comments (139 - 183) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#99. To: fatidic (#93)
Well said, and spot on, Zip. It's always about redefining Jesus and His ministry that separates Christians from cults. It is pure evil to redefine Jesus and seek to ensnare others in a system of bondage and spiritual darkness. False prophets/teachers have evil fruits always characterized by hate, bondage and fear. The so-called Christian Identity movement are hate mongers and race baiters and liars, like their father the devil.
#100. To: 1776 (#94)
#101. To: Itisa1mosttoolate (#52)
#1 for all practicle purposes there is immigration laws
#102. To: Zipporah (#100)
#103. To: christine (#80)
#104. To: Starwind (#79)
But you already knew that.
#105. To: noone222 (#104)
He was speaking to the children of satan ... otherwise he was a politician ... not God. (I don't think God needs to use rhetoric to make His point.)
#106. To: Diana, Zipporah, Barak, fatidic, Christine, noone222 (#25)
#107. To: Starwind (#106)
#108. To: Zipporah (#107)
#109. To: Starwind (#106)
Life on earth is a kind of boot camp for Heaven.
#110. To: Diana, Zipporah (#28)
Another thing, people talk about Jesus dying for our sins, as if no one else has ever died to save others, but there have been lots of people throughout history who have died so that others could live, such as countless soldiers and assorted brave souls. That's another point that has always bothered me.
True there have been people who've died for others but.. those people couldnt pay the price for sin.. only a perfect person.. one without sin would be able to do so.. and only Jesus Christ who is God Himself in human form was born without sin and died without sin.. So .. God Himself paid the debt for us all..
I would add to that that Christ's sacrifice was a redemption, like that of buying a slave on an auction block.
#111. To: Diana (#109)
but when we die our souls come out of it, I realized that some time ago, time and space only exist in the physical life.
#112. To: Zipporah (#105)
Not so.. Jesus was speaking of their spiritual condition.. for what did He say? My kingdom is NOT of this world..
#113. To: Starwind (#77)
Oh yeah, Willie Martin and others believe that the caucasion people are the sole ethnic descendants of Jacob/Israel. "I'm not so sure".
#114. To: Zipporah (#76)
It is very wrong headed to take one scripture and build an entire doctrine from that
#115. To: Starwind (#77)
much evidence supports the notion that whites are his descendants.
#116. To: noone222 (#112)
#117. To: Zipporah (#116)
He called them 'blind guides':
#118. To: Zipporah (#116)
#119. To: noone222 (#118)
#120. To: noone222, zipporah (#118)
#121. To: noone222, Zipporah, Starwind (#118)
#122. To: fatidic (#121)
#123. To: fatidic (#121)
#124. To: noone222 (#113)
I further stated that I wasn't convinced that all were white or caucasions, because of the four mothers that bore Jacob's children, 2 were possibly non- white. Leah and Rachel were white, as was Rebecca the aunt of Leah and Rachel. [Here is a little surprise that can be found in "Strong's Concordance or Zondervan's dictionary of the Bible: Laban, brother of Rebecca and the father of Rachel and Leah ... Laban in the Hebrew means "white"]
Let me reiterate here that it is NOT as IMPORTANT to me who are the so-called chosen people of promise as it is to clearly point out that the people claiming to be are liars and their lie is terrorizing the entire world.
The State of Israel is not Biblical, it is a fraud because the people operating it are not descended from Abraham, and it is the focal point of WW III.
Zec 12:2-10 (NASB) "Behold, I am going to make Jerusalem a cup that causes reeling to all the peoples around; and when the siege is against Jerusalem, it will also be against Judah. (3) "It will come about in that day that I will make Jerusalem a heavy stone for all the peoples; all who lift it will be severely injured. And all the nations of the earth will be gathered against it. [...snip...] (8) "In that day the LORD will defend the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and the one who is feeble among them in that day will be like David, and the house of David will be like God, like the angel of the LORD before them. (9) "And in that day I will set about to destroy all the nations that come against Jerusalem. (10) "I will pour out on the house of David and on the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the Spirit of grace and of supplication, so that they will look on Me whom they have pierced; and they will mourn for Him, as one mourns for an only son, and they will weep bitterly over Him like the bitter weeping over a firstborn.
God thru Zechariah (and elsewhere) prophecies that the nations will gather against Jerusalem and God will defend Jerusalem and defeat all the nations, and Jews will look upon Jesus whom they pierced and recognize He is their Messiah. When one considers the simplicity of just taking a look at the geneology at Genesis 10/11/12 where it confirms what I am stating, and the stubborn refusal of Christians to do so in order to comply with the high priests of Baal running their church, is "willful ignorance" ...
Starwind, I would appreciate a little restraint on your part when making remarks about "MY" worldview ... until at least you have a little better knowledge of it ... PLEASE
I will show as much restraint in my answers as you show in your allegations. This may not be of consequence to this conversation but people (I don't remember exactly whom) have remarked about Moses being a "JEW" as if he were a student or adherent to Judaism. The first Synagogue in Jerusalem didn't exist until AFTER the captivity of Judah/Benjamin, and was brought back from Babylon.
Reconsider the lack of restraint you just demonstrated in arguing Moses was not "a Jew" because Jewish synogogues didn't exist in his day. Consider the ignorance demonstrated in ignoring what the 'wilderness tabernacle' was, and the stubbornness demonstrated in refusing to carefully consider the context in which the word "Jew" is used, whether an OT reference to the tribe of Judah, an NT reference to the nation Israel (largely post-exhillic Judahites), or a modern reference to an Israeli Hebrew or Jew.
#125. To: noone222 (#115)
>> This reference was to Jacob/Israel's descendants (The twelve tribes) not Jesus', as I have no way of determining whether Jesus had any descendants.
much evidence supports the notion that whites are his descendants.
#126. To: fatidic, noone222, Zipporah (#121)
Noone, i believe i owe you an apology for calling you evil, not that i don't think we are all evil at times, including myself.
I'm grateful to God that two here, Zip and Star, are loviing and patient enough and knowledgeable enough to answer your questions.
#127. To: Itisa1mosttoolate (#0)
Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you
Then cried Jesus in the temple as he taught, saying, Ye both know me, and ye know whence I am: and I am not come of myself, but he that sent me is true, whom ye know not. But I know him: for I am from him, and he hath sent me.
#128. To: Starwind (#124)
#129. To: noone222 (#128)
The geneology that is plainly stated in Genesis 10:3 makes it perfectly clear that todays "so-called" Jews aren't semetic, aren't descendants of Abraham and are nothing less than trespassers against Palestine
... and that they are the primary force fucking up a peaceful world !
#130. To: Starwind (#129)
wherein the genology of Israel (not the Ashkenazi) is established.
#131. To: Starwind (#124)
The existance of the political state (the nation) of Israel is not a fraud. It is the nation God prophecied He would restore.
#132. To: noone222 (#131)
#133. To: noone222 (#112)
While John is writng about the destruction of those accepting the Mark of the Beast being imposed upon people by some "govt" authority in Revelations, Paul is writing that we should submit to all government authority in Romans 13. This is a problem area for me.
#134. To: noone222 (#130)
[Ashkenazi Jews are] Mongol converts with NO ETHNICAL CLAIM to Jerusalem/ Palestine or any justification to oust the prior residents.
God "can't predict a fraud ...
It's hard to conclude that it is anything less than a fraud when the people claiming the land were NEVER promised anything, aren't related to Abraham or his covenant with God, yet claim it regardless of their political bent.
Moses was never a Jew ... quit trying to imagine it in your fantasy world view ... hahahahaha !!! There was no Talmud nor Synagogue before the 2nd Captivity ... (I am dutifully restraining myself ... from laughing out loud !)
#135. To: Zipporah, noone222, Starwind (#116)
They also believed in an earthly King a ruler.. because they focused so heavily on the physical they were unable to 'see' the divine, the spiritual and that Jesus had come as that King.. not an earthly King but as a spiritual King.. "my kingdom is not of this world" and yes they wanted Him dead. Because He dared to challenge them and their power was as risk for many of the people were following Him. Jesus challenged them for mainly their spiritual blindness. He called them 'blind guides':
#136. To: Diana (#135)
Anything of a spritual nature is put down as 'kookery'.
#137. To: Starwind (#136)
But not everything spiritual is good or truthful either.
#138. To: noone222, Starwind, Zipporah, Itsalmosttoolate (#131)
Moses was never a Jew ... quit trying to imagine it in your fantasy world view ... hahahahaha !!!
.
.
.