Why don't christians follow the laws of Leviticus and kill homosexuals, adulterers, etc.?

a reply to: pthena

I am too tired to do a link but Epiphanius then Eusebius wrote about it, whoever was younger first (obv.), Epiphanius I think. Around 3-400 AD

Google Ebionites First Christians, go to vexen.com or whatever you want but that one has a whole article.

originally posted by: Matrixsurvivor

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: craig732

Perhaps because they aren't officers of the court legally empowered to carry out those punishments.

Despite that fact, all sin is equally liable under Old testament Law. One punishment for all.

Even in the Old Testament times, if you went about killing people, you were a murderer.

Unless you were Yahweh...then you could kill all the people and animals you wanted to, for the slightest infractions (like picking up sticks on the Sabbath). Of course, the babies and animals didn't do anything wrong at all. Guess they were just liabilities. Or you could just kill them because they displeased you. So much for loving your enemies, eh?

Remember when the disciples asked Jesus if He wanted them to call fire down from heaven, like Elijah the prophet? What did He tell them..."you know not what spirit you are of". Hmmmm....wonder who did all that "calling fire down from Heaven, and what spirit IT was of"?

And you have proof of these alleged misdemeanours?

a reply to: craig732

But that view clearly contradicts Matthew 5:17-18:
17 “Don’t misunderstand why I have come. I did not come to abolish the law of Moses or the writings of the prophets. No, I came to accomplish their purpose. 18 I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not even the smallest detail of God’s law will disappear until its purpose is achieved.

No it does NOT. You missunderstand God's Law's /law of morality. The only moment killing anyone is justified or perhaps passable (and that is a very narrow line) is in self defense. But even then, you have to watch your thoughts and motives because there is a fine line between revenge & having no choice. There is a difference.

God's true laws is actually LOVE. That is what Yeshua taught, LOVE. See the video below for a deeper understanding. It is actually very simple.

This may help.

1. Jesus also said he who is without sin cast the first stone when the people wanted to stone the woman.

2. Judge not, lest though be judged because by the same measure you measure others it will be measured unto you.

3. When Jesus says the law will not pass away, he's talking about the 10 Commandments that God wrote with his fingers upon a Stone Tablet, not the Mosaic Law.

The point of Christ is that we all are fallen creatures incapable of perfection without God. In this you are in no position to judge anyone. The Levitical Laws existed for a reason, because Jesus had to be born from a Jew. The Jewish laws ensured that Jesus could be born through a relatively pure bloodline, not a bloodline filled with cheats, adulterers, murderers, etc. Mary had such a heart that when the angel told her she would become pregnant without being married, she didn't protest, but her soon to be husband did. This may help explain why bloodlines are so important to some people into the occult.

originally posted by: KesleyJ
This may help.

1. Jesus also said he who is without sin cast the first stone when the people wanted to stone the woman.

2. Judge not, lest though be judged because by the same measure you measure others it will be measured unto you.

3. When Jesus says the law will not pass away, he's talking about the 10 Commandments that God wrote with his fingers upon a Stone Tablet

The point of Christ is that we all are fallen creatures incapable of perfection without God.

Ding Ding, you hit the nail with these words alone. But you only know part of the full story. Now know the reasons, why we are fallen creatures. And why Yeshua is the only way.

This is literally the Mother lode of revelations. because things are much more complicated than most people see. but because you have an understanding on God's law, then you need to know the full truth. Combine it with yeshuas teachings for a much clearer point of view. But be warned, this are grave, and kinda makes one angry because we have been kept in the dark...in more ways than one.


But to sum it all up, Genesis needs to be looked at much more carefully. the apple , may not have been what most people think it is.
Hope you take the time to watch this.

Judge not unless ye be Judged yourself.

originally posted by: enterthestage

originally posted by: DISRAELI
a reply to: craig732
The short answer to your question is;
"Now we are discharged from the law, dead to that which held us captive, so that we serve not under the old written code [e.g. Leviticus] but in the new life of the Spirit"- Romans ch7 v6.

More than Leviticus, Torah is Law, all 5 books. The Pentateuch is Torah is Law. Paul wants to replace Torah with his teachings!?! Egomaniac is he, Paul.

Law is Torah, so Saul is saying discharged from the Torah,...which held us captive, so that we serve not under the old written code (more than Leviticus) but in the new life of the Spirit."

If Paul is saying that the Romans were under the Hebrew Torah/Law he is incorrect as James himself had no problems with Romans/Greeks or all non Israelites converting to the Way so long as they don't eat meat sacrificed to idols, don't practice sexual immorality, eat raw/bloody meat, or strangled animals (which Jesus confirms in Apocalypse is detestable) and Paul calls a teaching of the "Spiritually weak." He never even mentioned the letter with the 4 codes of conduct that came from the Spirit through the James and the same pillars/leaders he rants about while pretending to be in the Way. He is required to perform a ritual to prove he wasn't an apostate (and not happy about being subservient to someone as respected and Holy like James).

Saul calls a teaching of Jesus spiritually weak and he hurls the same charge at "Those who were supposed to be pillars."

Gal 2:6-7

And from those who were supposed to be acknowledged leaders [S. Peter, James and John] (What they actually were makes no difference to me; God shows no partiality)---those leaders contributed nothing to me.

Maybe you doubt it was the Jerusalem leaders James, Peter and John he was speaking of so the next sentence after 2:8 should clarify:

2:9 And when James and Cephas and John, who were acknowledged leaders...

Now he needs their reputation to give him authority so leaves out "supposed" because he is trying to be subtle, but he is certainly still talking about the same 3 pillars/leaders saying they were ''acknowleged" leaders, but doesn't say by him or who even. Subtle snake.

Me:

Don't let the subtleties fool you, both mentions of acknowledged leaders are the same 3 people. Paul misrepresents what went down in Jerusalem because that is not what happened and Peter was the legit Apostle to the nations or "Gentiles." Saul wants that position and is summoned to Jerusalem as his teachings against the Torah were unacceptable and Acts records this.

"Remember the poor'' is not mentioned in Acts it was the 4 codes of conduct about diet and fornication that were the actual events and in 11-13 he tells how he called Peter out for being a "hypocrite" (and the Jews present, including Barnabas), and they side with Peter (Jews) and you can tell Saul is not happy about it. The accusation is suspect because he doesn't record Peter's side of the story, lies several times and even Barnabas sides with Peter.

Chapter 3 begins ''You foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you." Apparently Paul was not a very good leader and not preaching the truth because pretty much everyone abandons (All... who are in Asia have turned from me, Jerusalem is in Asia) him and it was Peter who really brought the Way to the Romans instructing one Clement of Rome, a Flavian cousin (Titus?), in all things righteous where as Paul was hated everywhere he went (practically) and a miserable individual, Peter was well received in Rome until he was martyred and very patient and righteous.

Paul's stance on the Torah (Law) is heretical and blasphemous.

Most importantly, it is the opposite of what Jesus taught as "Not one iota" shall pass from it. People might abandon it but it has yet to perish. Paul wanted to be a leader but was terrible at it as he is constantly complaining that people don't believe and hypersensitive about being called out which is a great indicator that he was lying and was called out for it everywhere he went.

We should all realize this by reading the book and not hopping around from book to book, etc. Why respect the nemesis of the Apostolic Church in Jerusalem? I prefer the Righteous pillars and 12 gang and despise Paul, who was never called Apostle and admits his gospel is not from the men trained by Jesus but a "revelation" that he pretty much invented himself before infiltrating the Nazarenes and turning on them later.

That was very well done, sir. You are correct on all of the above concerning Saul of Tarsus. Yes, he was a crafty snake.

originally posted by: enterthestage
a reply to: Matrixsurvivor



You can't trust Epiphanius his innaccuracy is kown, whether deliberate or unintentional, as he (pretty sure) or Origen maybe Iranaeus, I think it was Iranaeus who said (lied) that the Ebionites were a heretical sect founded by a man named Ebion (who never existed). Ebionites are mentioned in the New Testament (The Poor) and were the followers of James. He said the same about the Nazarenes but it was because they were the originals, rejected the apostate Saul and had a greater legitimate connection to the first Nazarenes and Jesus. They had to be and were destroyed which I believe is what started Islam. They didn't believe in the Godhood of Christ but that he was adopted upon baptism as his Son. Sound familiar? Islam believes in the virgin birth and that Jesus was human so it's not a perfect fit but still the chronology of the fall of the Messianic Jews and the rise of Islam are close. Islam connection is a theory but the rest I'm sure of.

When I found out that the Ebionites and Nazarenes were the Dead Sea Scrolls authors and are mentioned many times (Ebionim/Notzrim) in the Scrolls I was psyched . Proof that the Nazarenes and Ebionites were the first "Christians" exists and this is something they don't want anyone knowing but too late. They also call themselves the Way and Zaddikim and James was a or The Zaddik (Just). They believed Melchizedek was a Metatron type of Elohim. In a final Apocalyptical war against the Kittim (Rome and Syria) and then the world and a Messiah of heaven and earth and the similarities go on and on.

Most church "Fathers" had no conscience about lying to hide the truth but Clements of Rome and Alexandria were ok as was Hermas.

I've read about the DSS and that the Ebionites and Nazarenes were the authors. I also think you can find much truth by how much the "church father's" tried to cover up, or who they dismissed or talked negatively about. I've gotten to where I look for WHO'S been eradicated, writings burned, killed, etc.
I agree with you that Jesus taught to keep the Torah. I'll take that a step further, though....I think He WAS the TORAH....the true one, from the true Most High.
I don't think the Torah or Tanakh that the priests were using, was the true one. Much of it was redacted/added to etc., esp. after the Babylonian captivity. I don't believe the true God ever commanded animals to be sacrificed.
I think that's the real reason Jesus went postal at the temple (the money changers story). I don't think it was because of the merchants....I think it was because of them killing innocent beings in the name of God.
If the Essenes/Ebionites/Nazarenes were vegetarians, it makes a whole lot more sense how Jesus reacted to the temple practices of animal sacrifice.

a reply to: Matrixsurvivor

Agreed.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Matrixsurvivor

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: craig732

Perhaps because they aren't officers of the court legally empowered to carry out those punishments.

Despite that fact, all sin is equally liable under Old testament Law. One punishment for all.

Even in the Old Testament times, if you went about killing people, you were a murderer.

Unless you were Yahweh...then you could kill all the people and animals you wanted to, for the slightest infractions (like picking up sticks on the Sabbath). Of course, the babies and animals didn't do anything wrong at all. Guess they were just liabilities. Or you could just kill them because they displeased you. So much for loving your enemies, eh?

Remember when the disciples asked Jesus if He wanted them to call fire down from heaven, like Elijah the prophet? What did He tell them..."you know not what spirit you are of". Hmmmm....wonder who did all that "calling fire down from Heaven, and what spirit IT was of"?

And you have proof of these alleged misdemeanours?

The proof is in the pages of the OT, itself (you do believe the whole Bible is truth, right?)

Lot's wife for looking back- Gen.19:26
Er who was "wicked in the sight of the Lord"- Gen.38:7, 1 Chr.2:3,
Onan for spilling his seed- Gen.38:10,
Pharaoh and 600 chariot captains (plus his entire army) - Ex.14:8
For dancing naked around Aaron's golden calf- Ex.32:27-28, 35,
Aaron's sons for offering strange fire before the Lord- Lev.10:1-3, Num.3:4, 26:61
A blasphemer- Lev.24:10-23
A man who picked up sticks on the Sabbath- Num.15:32-36,
Korah, Dathan, and Abiram (and their families)- Num.16:27,
Burned to death for offering incense- Num.16:35, 26:10,
For complaining- Num.16:49,
For "committing whoredom with the daughters of Moab" - Num.25:9,
Midianite massacre (32,000 virgins were kept alive)- Num.31:1-35,
God tells Joshua to stoned to death Achan (and his family) for taking the accursed thing.- Joshua 7:10-12, 24-26,
God tells Joshua to attack Ai and do what he did to Jericho (kill everyone).- Joshua 8:1-25,
Joshua kills 5 kings and hangs their dead bodies on trees- Joshua 10:24-26
God delivered Canaanites and Perizzites- Judges 1:4
Ehud delivers a message from God: a knife into the king's belly- Jg.3:15-22,
God delivered Moabites- Jg.3:28-29,
God forces Midianite soldiers to kill each other.- Jg.7:2-22, 8:10,
The Spirit of the Lord comes on Samson- Jg.14:19,
The Spirit of the Lord comes mightily on Samson- Jg.15:14-15,
Samson's God-assisted act of terrorism- Jg.16:27-30,
"The Lord smote Benjamin"- Jg.20:35-37,
More Benjamites- Jg.20:44-46
For looking into the ark of the Lord- 1 Sam.6:19
God delivered Philistines- 1 Sam.14:12
Samuel (at God's command) hacks Agag to death- 1 Sam.15:32-33
"The Lord smote Nabal."- 1 Sam.25:38
Uzzah for trying to keep the ark from falling- 2 Sam.6:6-7, 1 Chr.13:9-10
David and Bathsheba's baby boy- 2 Sam.12:14-18
Seven sons of Saul hung up before the Lord- 2 Sam.21:6-9
From plague as punishment for David's census (men only; probably 200,000 if including women and children)- 2 Sam.24:15, 1 Chr.21:14
A prophet for believing another prophet's lie- 1 Kg.13:1-24
Religious leaders killed in prayer contest- 1 Kg.18:22-40
God delivers the Syrians into the Israelites' hands- 1 Kg.20:28-29
God makes a wall fall on Syrian soldiers- 1 Kg.20:30
God sent a lion to eat a man for not killing a prophet- 1 Kg.20:35-36
Ahaziah is killed for talking to the wrong god.- 2 Kg.1:2-4, 17, 2 Chr.22:7-9
Burned to death by God- 2 Kg.1:9-12
God sends two bears to kill children for making fun of Elisha's bald head- 2 Kg.2:23-24
Trampled to death for disbelieving Elijah- 2 Kg.7:17-20
Jezebel- 2 Kg.9:33-37
God sent lions to kill "some" foreigners - 2 Kg.17:25-26
Sleeping Assyrian soldiers- 2 Kg.19:35, Is.37:36
Saul- 1 Chr.10:14
God delivers Israel into the hands of Judah- 2 Chr.13:15-17
Jeroboam- 2 Chr.13:20
"The Lord smote the Ethiopians."- 2 Chr.14:9-14
God kills Jehoram by making his bowels fall out- 2 Chr.21:14-19
Judean soldiers- 2 Chr.28:6
Ezekiel's wife- Ezek.24:15-18
Ananias and Sapphira- Acts 5:1-10
Herod- Acts 12:23

a reply to: enterthestage

don't like subjection, I don't care about what they've to offer. You would rebel too if you had been under subjection for generations and generations, just like the USA did to England.

That last sentence, "Why? What do they have to offer?" was not broken down properly. It was past my bedtime.

The "why?" was meant as "Why side with Judeans vs Romans.
The "What do they have to offer" was meant as "What do the Essene/Nazarene/Ebionites have to offer?"

Siege of Jerusalem (63 BC)

Pompey had been asked to intervene in an internecine war between Hyrcanus II and Aristobulus II for the throne of the Hasmonean Kingdom. His conquest of Jerusalem, however, spelled the end of Jewish independence and the incorporation of Judea into the Roman Republic as a client kingdom.

The death of Hasmonean queen Alexandra Salome plunged Judea into a civil war between her two sons, Hyrcanus and Aristobulus. After Aristobulus ousted his elder brother from both the throne and the high priesthood in Jerusalem, Antipater the Idumean advised Hyrcanus to enlist the aid of King Aretas III of Nabataea. In return for the promise of territorial concessions, Aretas provided Hyrcanus with 50,000 soldiers, and their joint forces besieged Aristobulus in Jerusalem.

The bottom line is that Judea in the whole history of history had only been independent from being a subject nation during the Hasmoneans, about a hundred years. During the Judean internecine war, it was looking like Judea would become vassal to Persians/Parthians. So Rome or Parthia.

I don't think they started the rebellion (Qumran peoples) I think they were invaded due to rumor.

The rebellion started as a riot between Hellenized and non-Hellenized Judeans in Caesarea and Jerusalem. Nero sent Vespasian to quell the riots. Judeans attacked and killed the Roman peace keepers. Rebellion ensued.

If you ask me the Romans were the worst ever and demanded that Caesar be called Lord, something that the sects of nationalistic Judeans couldn't, wouldn't do unto death.

According to legends, most of Rome's religious institutions could be traced to its founders, particularly Numa Pompilius, the Sabine second king of Rome, who negotiated directly with the gods. This archaic religion was the foundation of the mos maiorum, "the way of the ancestors" or simply "tradition", viewed as central to Roman identity.
...
The Roman Empire expanded to include different peoples and cultures; in principle, Rome followed the same inclusionist policies that had recognised Latin, Etruscan and other Italian peoples, cults and deities as Roman. Those who acknowledged Rome's hegemony retained their own cult and religious calendars, independent of Roman religious law.
...
The deification of deceased emperors had precedent in Roman domestic cult to the dii parentes (deified ancestors) and the mythic apotheosis of Rome's founders. A deceased emperor granted apotheosis by his successor and the Senate became an official State divus (divinity). Members of the Imperial family could be granted similar honours and cult; an Emperor's deceased wife, sister or daughter could be promoted to diva (female divinity).
...
Judaea's enrollment as a client kingdom in 63 BC increased the Jewish diaspora; in Rome, this led to closer official scrutiny of their religion. Their synagogues were recognised as legitimate collegia by Julius Caesar. By the Augustan era, the city of Rome was home to several thousand Jews.[175][176] In some periods under Roman rule, Jews were legally exempt from official sacrifice, under certain conditions. Judaism was a superstitio to Cicero, but the Church Father Tertullian described it as religio licita (an officially permitted religion) in contrast to Christianity.
...
Roman investigations into early Christianity found it an irreligious, novel, disobedient, even atheistic sub-sect of Judaism: it appeared to deny all forms of religion and was therefore superstitio. By the end of the Imperial era, Nicene Christianity was the one permitted Roman religio; all other cults were heretical or pagan superstitions
Religion_in_ancient_Rome

As far as I'm concerned, any Judahite saying "the Messiah son of David will come and crush Roman rule and sit on the throne in Jerusalem to rule the World" is a Christ-ian, whether they ever heard of Jesus or not, because the Psalms of Solomon were being floated about in the time period between death of Herod the Great and the rebellion of 66AD. And that's pretty much what that said.

There were no Gospels. There was no one going about the Roman Empire quoting the sayings of Jesus until after the rebellion was crushed in 70AD. Paul was dead or gone. James was dead. If Peter was still alive, he may have been the one who was a Josephus(former Zealot turned pro-Rome after capture) to provide Pseudo-Pauline writings to add non-Judahite followers as sympathetic base and a pseudo-pacifist Jesus whose sayings would provide for the writing of the Gospels as an attempt to pacify anti-Roman Judean Zealotry. It all failed because Rabbinic Judaism came into being to continue the aspirations of finding another Messiah and that was bar Kochba.

The Peter as a proto-Josephus is my hypothesis.

The bottom line: "Jesus is the Christ who will come again" meant politically "Stop making Messiahs. Stop violent rebellion. You don't need to kill anyone, or overthrow any empire. Just live a peaceable normal life and wait for the return of the peace loving Messiah to return."

a reply to: pthena

I side with the oppressed always, never the invader, save the usual justification like liberating them (think Cyrus or Darius(?)).

The Ebionites were the originals and I always side with the originals and especially in this instance where diplomacy would have sufficed. No Emporer worship required, that would have done it. Judea would have accepted it then. But they chose to die rather than call Emporer Lord, that is not super smart but it reveals character of mind blowing proportions on the Judeans who were severely tortured and still wouldn't do it.

How can/could you not admire such conviction? These people lived and breathed what they preached and believed and if they were related to (they were) the Nazarenes and Ebionites and Zaddikim and knew the Messiah then I am on that team. Ill go with the Ebionites because I am poor but blessed and I don't think I could be a Nazarene faithfully, definitely not a Zadokite!!!

I don't throw in with copycats or cowards.

a reply to: pthena



I am sorry, did say Peter reminds you of Josephus somehow? I have never thought about that.

BUT. Paul and Josephus Flavius Titus the sellout, the boat wreck, Shaul killing James (remember we are discussing typology) and Stephen a pseudonym for James in Acts?

I have. Dying to know, why Peter?

a reply to: Matrixsurvivor

I wanted to post a link for those interested, but have to use my phone... which is limiting me. Anyway, found this site a year and a half ago. There are tons of contradictions in the OT.


contradictionsinthebible.com...

originally posted by: pthena
a reply to: enterthestage

don't like subjection, I don't care about what they've to offer. You would rebel too if you had been under subjection for generations and generations, just like the USA did to England.

That last sentence, "Why? What do they have to offer?" was not broken down properly. It was past my bedtime.

The "why?" was meant as "Why side with Judeans vs Romans.
The "What do they have to offer" was meant as "What do the Essene/Nazarene/Ebionites have to offer?"

Siege of Jerusalem (63 BC)

Pompey had been asked to intervene in an internecine war between Hyrcanus II and Aristobulus II for the throne of the Hasmonean Kingdom. His conquest of Jerusalem, however, spelled the end of Jewish independence and the incorporation of Judea into the Roman Republic as a client kingdom.

The death of Hasmonean queen Alexandra Salome plunged Judea into a civil war between her two sons, Hyrcanus and Aristobulus. After Aristobulus ousted his elder brother from both the throne and the high priesthood in Jerusalem, Antipater the Idumean advised Hyrcanus to enlist the aid of King Aretas III of Nabataea. In return for the promise of territorial concessions, Aretas provided Hyrcanus with 50,000 soldiers, and their joint forces besieged Aristobulus in Jerusalem.

The bottom line is that Judea in the whole history of history had only been independent from being a subject nation during the Hasmoneans, about a hundred years. During the Judean internecine war, it was looking like Judea would become vassal to Persians/Parthians. So Rome or Parthia.

I don't think they started the rebellion (Qumran peoples) I think they were invaded due to rumor.

The rebellion started as a riot between Hellenized and non-Hellenized Judeans in Caesarea and Jerusalem. Nero sent Vespasian to quell the riots. Judeans attacked and killed the Roman peace keepers. Rebellion ensued.

If you ask me the Romans were the worst ever and demanded that Caesar be called Lord, something that the sects of nationalistic Judeans couldn't, wouldn't do unto death.

According to legends, most of Rome's religious institutions could be traced to its founders, particularly Numa Pompilius, the Sabine second king of Rome, who negotiated directly with the gods. This archaic religion was the foundation of the mos maiorum, "the way of the ancestors" or simply "tradition", viewed as central to Roman identity.
...
The Roman Empire expanded to include different peoples and cultures; in principle, Rome followed the same inclusionist policies that had recognised Latin, Etruscan and other Italian peoples, cults and deities as Roman. Those who acknowledged Rome's hegemony retained their own cult and religious calendars, independent of Roman religious law.
...
The deification of deceased emperors had precedent in Roman domestic cult to the dii parentes (deified ancestors) and the mythic apotheosis of Rome's founders. A deceased emperor granted apotheosis by his successor and the Senate became an official State divus (divinity). Members of the Imperial family could be granted similar honours and cult; an Emperor's deceased wife, sister or daughter could be promoted to diva (female divinity).
...
Judaea's enrollment as a client kingdom in 63 BC increased the Jewish diaspora; in Rome, this led to closer official scrutiny of their religion. Their synagogues were recognised as legitimate collegia by Julius Caesar. By the Augustan era, the city of Rome was home to several thousand Jews.[175][176] In some periods under Roman rule, Jews were legally exempt from official sacrifice, under certain conditions. Judaism was a superstitio to Cicero, but the Church Father Tertullian described it as religio licita (an officially permitted religion) in contrast to Christianity.
...
Roman investigations into early Christianity found it an irreligious, novel, disobedient, even atheistic sub-sect of Judaism: it appeared to deny all forms of religion and was therefore superstitio. By the end of the Imperial era, Nicene Christianity was the one permitted Roman religio; all other cults were heretical or pagan superstitions
Religion_in_ancient_Rome

As far as I'm concerned, any Judahite saying "the Messiah son of David will come and crush Roman rule and sit on the throne in Jerusalem to rule the World" is a Christ-ian, whether they ever heard of Jesus or not, because the Psalms of Solomon were being floated about in the time period between death of Herod the Great and the rebellion of 66AD. And that's pretty much what that said.

I don't think it matters what the Romans called them, they didn't call themselves Christians didn't invite Rome to invade and secluded themselves mostly in camps bothering nobody. Several would be Messiahs were unharmed because it was believed they were harmless lunatics. I call people what they want(ed) to be called as groups and names go. Neat little portion of an article but not too in depth, exstensive or even material to what I am thinking and saying. There were good times followed by bad times is the only thing that needs to be said however you want to word it but one sentence sums up the entire relevant material in it.

There were no Gospels. There was no one going about the Roman Empire quoting the sayings of Jesus until after the rebellion was crushed in 70AD. Paul was dead or gone. James was dead. If Peter was still alive, he may have been the one who was a Josephus(former Zealot turned pro-Rome after capture) to provide Pseudo-Pauline writings to add non-Judahite followers as sympathetic base and a pseudo-pacifist Jesus whose sayings would provide for the writing of the Gospels as an attempt to pacify anti-Roman Judean Zealotry. It all failed because Rabbinic Judaism came into being to continue the aspirations of finding another Messiah and that was bar Kochba.

That was all known to me before I woke up this morning and longer and it doesn't alter or necessitate alterations to anything I was saying, I wasn't banking on Gospel material to support my statement just the Scrolls coming first which means that this is where the information that Christianity is based on was obtained, Ebionites and Nazarenes are mentioned in the Scrolls (and later by the church), that are older than 70AD and not 400AD like the oldest Bible and the mountains of evidence in the Scrolls that is Messianic, Apocalyptic and organized which is no coincidence. Its also the oldest version (some fragmented) of almost every Tanakh book (not Esther) along with the Book of Enoch, Jubilees and more, in the world. It has Sectarian writings and inner interpretations on certain books and Patriarchs. Are you just a die hard Roman Empire fan or what, because it's pretty well known that it was until mid 2nd century that the Romans got the last of them to hide atop a mountain and when it was time to die they just commited sucide. Craziness but I am just saying Rome was cruel and you're sugar coating it.


If you love Babylon you love Babylon, I'm fascinated with Rome myself. I won't defend war and tortue and murder though.

WHY?

#1 Christians are not Israel in the land given Israel So they are not to follow the laws of Leviticus.

#2 They know that Homosexuality is God giving them over to do those things which are not convenient. Romans 1:18-31

#3 Matthew is preparation of the kingdom for the Jews. That is why Christ was sent unto the house of Israel alone and n to to the Gentiles. When Israel rejected the holy Ghost's testimony to them in Acts 7. then God set Israel's kingdom aside and sent Saul/Paul to the gentiles but he never stopped trying to reach his brethren the Jews.

Matthew 5 literally is teachings for the Jews when they are living in the Kingdom not before and they are not in it yet.

a reply to: ChesterJohn

You don't think It's OK to be a homosexual?

Are you Catholic or Lutheran?

originally posted by: ChesterJohn
WHY?

#1 Christians are not Israel in the land given Israel So they are not to follow the laws of Leviticus.

#2 They know that Homosexuality is God giving them over to do those things which are not convenient. Romans 1:18-31

#3 Matthew is preparation of the kingdom for the Jews. That is why Christ was sent unto the house of Israel alone and n to to the Gentiles. When Israel rejected the holy Ghost's testimony to them in Acts 7. then God set Israel's kingdom aside and sent Saul/Paul to the gentiles but he never stopped trying to reach his brethren the Jews.

Matthew 5 literally is teachings for the Jews when they are living in the Kingdom not before and they are not in it yet.

Might think about that sentence structure while you have time to fix it.

He is talking about everyone listening and Jewishness is irrelevant entirely. Galilee to Syria, Decapolis, Jerusalem, Judea and from beyond the Jordan. He obviously talked to some people who weren't Judean and wasn't concerned about that at all. He had CROWDS following him 4:25

You are making a guess and I am going to have to correct you because the world, not just Judea, was his mission. To teach and baptize and prepare for a test. For the Kingdom of God now and in Heaven. Love God is a universal statement no matter when or where he said it to who. He isn't leaving anybody out.

originally posted by: Matrixsurvivor
No, Disraeli... He never, ever fulfilled ONE thing of "the law". He broke all of them. You still need to explain how that qualifies him as " fulfilling the law of Yahweh??
You can't get around that by saying "Jesus died for our sins". He would not be " fulfilling the law if he broke all of them.
When I say "law", you know I mean Yahweh's law.

He never broke the OT law, Jesus rejected and broke the oral law and traditions of the elders that the Pharisees were teaching.

a reply to: NOTurTypical

Not true. There was a prohibition in the Torah about doing cures on the Sabbath but he broke it.

Probably reinterpreted to mean unless death is imminent any minute or hour(s) now. Applied logic isn't a sin they just weren't using it and misunderstood scripture.

I am cool with it, a technicality that should be clarified but the Torah doesn't.