It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Jerusalem Temple VS Messiah

page: 3
7
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 18 2009 @ 04:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by pthenaYou had me going there for awhile. I should be afraid of Paul because of his thorn in the flesh of foreign influence? I am a foreigner. There's no way for me to avoid myself.
Instead of Paul you offer me Solomon? Isn't he Mr. Briar patch cloak and empty eyesockets?


Listen, I am only telling you what is the Jewish point of view. You and others are not required to accept it and neither do I have any need to condemn you if you choose to not acknowledge it (but it is not fair to represent our view in a false light ... not that I think you are intending to do such). You are free to choose whatever you desire and no matter, you are still on of the Peoples of God ... for all people of the world belong to God. But the Jewish have fences built around us for purpose .. and that is to not be deceived by those who say they are of us and yet try to pull us away from the way in which God has laid out for us. Deuteronomy 13

As for Paul, what he taught is not anything that Jewish have EVER held to as a People ... he was hellenistic and if you read Acts for what it says, you will see clearly that he was not going after the Gentiles and rather he was going to the synagogues (synagogues are the JEWISH places of worship) to pull away the Jewish from following the way in which we were instructed to follow (again, not because that way is mandatory for anyone BUT the Jewish ... to keep our People together). We are NOT to ever worship a man and that is what Paul taught. Worshipping a man puts one in the position to be manipulated as has clearly happened.

What David and Solomon represent is our New Covenant ... where we are no longer obeying God for fear to be punished of man, but rather because we understand our purpose as People ... as well as the new covenant is that we will reach (and have) a point where we are no longer having to be taught by each other (that doesn't mean though that we don't share our wisdom with one another) because the Law of God would be written on our hearts. And that happened even before the time that it is said Jesus walked the earth ... Jesus knew this quite well.

Oddly enough, there is a warning for the jewish people that is attributed to the mouth of Jesus that says that we should be aware of wolves in sheeps clothing. David, in Psalm 78, is said to have been taken out from among the sheep whereas Jacob, in Genesis 49, attributes the tribe of Benjamin to being a wolf. And that someone would bother to attribute Paul to the tribe of Benjamin as well as attributing the warning to the mouth of a Jewish man who was zealous for our laws does not seem a mistake to me.

The only advice for a life well lived that the Jews offered to the Gentiles is inferred in Genesis 9 (the covenant between mankind and God). That is 7 common sense laws that MOST OF YOU ALREADY are living by!

What someone attempted to do with Paul was to put you all under condemnation of OUR laws to then guilt you into worshiping a man who was clearly part of a People who don't believe in God being a man.

To me, being Jewish, there is clearly a test of the NT and jeremiah 17:5-10 spells out that test.

DEFINITELY do not take MY word for it just because I am Jewish .... I am glad that you do not and are taking the time to look these things up. All I ask is that you do not imply that I am trying to deceive you ... I am giving you the tools to do the research to see for yourself ...

Judaism is not a religion like that of Christianity ... being Jewish (truly Jewish) does not put us at an advantage over those who are not (that some claim to be Jewish and abuse the knowledge to impose their will over others is the reason for our fences ... Deuteronomy 13). We do not believe in hell anyway the way that those of a mystic menatality view it ... for us, it is when we are in a state of confusion. Ignorance = darkness and the fire is ignited when those of us who were born on the outside of it are drawn to it and yet, trying to figure out why ... then, the "fire" is to teach us (the covenant to the house of Israel as stated in Jeremiah 31 and even seen in Deuteronomy 4). Hosea is clear that the house of Israel (Ephraim) is the suffering servant having been anihilated into the gene pools of the world (clearly seen in Hosea 8:8) ... and who was it that Jesus was calling out to? Matthew 15 will tell you.

The standards that Christians hold humanity up to is not possible and it is the subtle twist of knowledge that has been from since "the beginning."

"thou shalt not surely die and your eyes will be opened to know good and evil."




posted on Dec, 18 2009 @ 10:13 PM
link   
reply to post by justamomma

Originally posted by justamomma
Listen, I am only telling you what is the Jewish point of view. ...(but it is not fair to represent our view in a false light ... not that I think you are intending to do such).

How representative of Jewish point of view are your views? I know there are many different sects ( I don't know if that's the right word to use ). Are there views held in common? I am a barbarian of many tribes, therefore the very concept of tribal unity is foreign to me. As for fairness I think we'll have to see.

On Paul, I should state what I see as his thorn in the flesh. The Hellenistic concept of the cosmic Christ. From what I gather it arose among Greek speaking Jews after the Antiochus IV era, merging concepts of Wisdom and Logos and Greek philosophy and arriving at cosmic Christ. It includes ideas of Sophia/Logos as a coexistent god with God. It's easy to see that Greek speaking Jews after Peter's multilingual speech (Acts 2) identified Jesus of Nazareth the Messiah as this Cosmic Christ, that's the group, Greek speaking Jewish believers, which eventually became known as Christians.

It was this group of people that Saul of Tarsus, of the tribe of Benjamin was persecuting and killing. The question then is why? Was it because they held the concept of Cosmic Christ or was it that they associated a man's name with it, and stated he was the man at God's right hand? It's a matter of where you draw the line. So I ask you is it acceptable to have a concept of cosmic Christ, or is that too far? Is it acceptable to view wisdom as a person through whom God created or is that too far? I don't know where you draw the line.



PR 3:19 By wisdom the LORD laid the earth's foundations,
by understanding he set the heavens in place;

PR 7:4 Say to wisdom, "You are my sister,"
and call understanding your kinsman;

PR 8:12 "I, wisdom, dwell together with prudence;
I possess knowledge and discretion.


You have yourself located at G.d's right hand, what do you mean by this? Is it that Wisdom is at God's right hand, and you are wise, therefore you are there in Wisdom? If that is the case, then you should understand the Christian concept taught by Paul of the 'mystical union'. Instead of Wisdom it's Jesus as Wisdom at God's right hand.

The question of fairness then rests upon your answers.

While Paul eventually accepted the Hellenistic Christian teachings and spread it as you say among synagogues throughout the Diaspora, and also among Gentiles, it's altogether reasonable to assume that James the brother of Jesus rejected or at least disagreed with or at least didn't teach the Hellenized views of Paul. James speaks of asking for wisdom from God in ways similar to Proverbs.

I don't think it would be correct then to call James a Christian, accept in the loose way the name is used today, as someone who believes Jesus to be the son of David and Messiah.

I'm really trying to 'synthesize' three Monotheistic Abrahamic traditions. There's got to be some way for them to unite in brotherhood. I know as humans we are one. Is there any way to worship together? That would be a real test. As if we were all of the same tribe.



[edit on 18-12-2009 by pthena]



posted on Dec, 18 2009 @ 11:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by pthena
How representative of Jewish point of view are your views? I know there are many different sects ( I don't know if that's the right word to use ). Are there views held in common? I am a barbarian of many tribes, therefore the very concept of tribal unity is foreign to me. As for fairness I think we'll have to see.


It is true that the Jews apply the teachings of the Tanach to their own personal experiences ... then, we would draw forth Wisdom from many different aspects. The things that we don't argue with is that there is only one God and He is incorporeal ... God is not, nor ever has been a man ... and the sacrificing of the innocent is not ever going to justify our deeds that we may feel guilt over ... only ever learning from them so as to find Wisdom will justify our deeds. Then, we must turn from the path that leads to "death" back to the path that is the Way of Life.


On Paul, I should state what I see as his thorn in the flesh. The Hellenistic concept of the cosmic Christ. From what I gather it arose among Greek speaking Jews after the Antiochus IV era, merging concepts of Wisdom and Logos and Greek philosophy and arriving at cosmic Christ. It includes ideas of Sophia/Logos as a coexistent god with God. It's easy to see that Greek speaking Jews after Peter's multilingual speech (Acts 2) identified Jesus of Nazareth the Messiah as this Cosmic Christ, that's the group, Greek speaking Jewish believers, which eventually became known as Christians.

It was this group of people that Saul of Tarsus, of the tribe of Benjamin was persecuting and killing. The question then is why? Was it because they held the concept of Cosmic Christ or was it that they associated a man's name with it, and stated he was the man at God's right hand? It's a matter of where you draw the line. So I ask you is it acceptable to have a concept of cosmic Christ, or is that too far? Is it acceptable to view wisdom as a person through whom God created or is that too far? I don't know where you draw the line.


I hesitate to share this as it will could be seen the wrong way, but I will be honest with you and share what is written in our Scriptures .. however, do not take this that we believe we are more important than the rest of God's precious creation.

Psalm 47:9 says that the seed of Abraham is the shield of the earth. Jeremiah 31:35-37 as well as Jeremiah 32:19-26 ties us as the signature on the covenant between mankind and God .... as long as the People is on earth, then the rest of mankind remains safe from any natural disaster (speaking of the type such as the one that wiped out the dinosaurs). Jesus confirmed this as well in Matthew 5:17-19. Till heaven and earth pass away, we are to remain faithful to the Law of God ... and then, John 4:22 ... thus, salvation is of Jews for we know what we worship. It is the salvation of mankind on the earth and not the Christian view of salvation.

And anyone can be Wisdom personified ... Israel, the People, is such ... that is, by the actual standards of Wisdom. Gandhi is one outside of the People who was Wisdom personified .... we are blessed on this earth with many more than just Jesus who taught us wisdom.



PR 3:19 By wisdom the LORD laid the earth's foundations,
by understanding he set the heavens in place;

PR 7:4 Say to wisdom, "You are my sister,"
and call understanding your kinsman;

PR 8:12 "I, wisdom, dwell together with prudence;
I possess knowledge and discretion.


The 2nd verse you posted touched me personally as relating to the circumstances of my life as it is right now. Thank you.
(not saying that I am Wisdom and rather that it gave me the 3rd confirmation to go in a certain direction I have been contemplating for some time now).


You have yourself located at G.d's right hand, what do you mean by this? Is it that Wisdom is at God's right hand, and you are wise, therefore you are there in Wisdom? If that is the case, then you should understand the Christian concept taught by Paul of the 'mystical union'. Instead of Wisdom it's Jesus as Wisdom at God's right hand.

The question of fairness then rests upon your answers.

While Paul eventually accepted the Hellenistic Christian teachings and spread it as you say among synagogues throughout the Diaspora, and also among Gentiles, it's altogether reasonable to assume that James the brother of Jesus rejected or at least disagreed with or at least didn't teach the Hellenized views of Paul. James speaks of asking for wisdom from God in ways similar to Proverbs.

I don't think it would be correct then to call James a Christian, accept in the loose way the name is used today, as someone who believes Jesus to be the son of David and Messiah.

I'm really trying to 'synthesize' three Monotheistic Abrahamic traditions. There's got to be some way for them to unite in brotherhood. I know as humans we are one. Is there any way to worship together? That would be a real test. As if we were all of the same tribe.



[edit on 18-12-2009 by pthena]



As for all of the above, I have to be honest and say that I can not subscribe to mysticism ... even Jewish mysticism, as it does not testify to Life to me. I am more of a Naturalist ... meaning, I look to Nature to know the Wisdom of God .. it is what we have been given to know Him through.

As for me stating my location "at the right hand of God" ... that came through my understanding of Job. Particularly Job 40:6-8, 14 What grace we offer to others is the grace we are given of God. "Grace for Grace" ... then, all the times I have assumed others have done me wrong personally I have come to understand and thus, rather than having to "forgive" them, I found grace for my own self. If you understand another, than is there EVER reason to seek for their "apology" so that you can forgive them? We ALL live and we ALL learn.


Is there anyway to worship together? well, first ... live in what you know and seek to understand what you don't know. Discard what you can't know and embrace people always! It indeed is more difficult than it sounds, but again, we all are living and learning. That is where I just trust God to show me the Way to make peace with those who I may not understand. When it happens, it is always in the most strange way to where I can't deny there is a God. It is very subjective and yet the effects are objective.

I don't think we will ever all see eye to eye ... such is life. I can only control myself and seek to make peace within my own mind.

I hope I have understood your questions as you meant for me to. If not, just let me know.

Shalom



posted on Dec, 19 2009 @ 12:28 AM
link   
reply to post by justamomma
I had to break up the top post for time and space (4000 character) reasons. so I'm still on the top one.

Originally posted by justamomma
What David and Solomon represent is our New Covenant ... where we are no longer obeying God for fear to be punished of man, but rather because we understand our purpose as People ... as well as the new covenant is that we will reach (and have) a point where we are no longer having to be taught by each other (that doesn't mean though that we don't share our wisdom with one another) because the Law of God would be written on our hearts. And that happened even before the time that it is said Jesus walked the earth ... Jesus knew this quite well.

Yes, Jesus knew this quite well. The question is why do you include Solomon? Is it that you say Solomon is the Messiah son of David and therefore no further Messiah is expected? The promise of God was unconditional to David. The word of the LORD to Solomon that the promise would be fulfilled through him was conditional upon his personal fidelity to the LORD exclusively. Solomon failed miserably and therefore the promise was not fulfilled through him. Therefore it was necessary to expect a future messiah of the line of David. It seems completely obvious to me that this future Messiah was being looked for, that's why all through I$II Kings every Judean king's reign had a note attached as to how well he fulfilled the requirement. There would be no need for such summaries without such expectation.

As for the change to New Covenant, that has been explained in what's called the Letter to the Hebrews in the Christian New Testament. With change in priesthood comes change in of the Law. David of Judah offered sacrifice as a king/priest in the order of Melchizedek, as did Solomon and some of the subsequent kings. The Greek speaking Jewish Christians saw Jesus as the expected Messiah signaling the change. It would be fair to assume they had been working upon the 70 week prophecy of Daniel also seeing as the book was included in the Septuagient some time before it was included in Tanach.

Jeremiah does not indicate any specific time for New Covenant, merely saying


JER 31:31 "The time is coming," declares the LORD,
"when I will make a new covenant
with the house of Israel
and with the house of Judah.

JER 31:33 "This is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel
after that time," declares the LORD.
"I will put my law in their minds
and write it on their hearts.
I will be their God,
and they will be my people.

JER 31:34 No longer will a man teach his neighbor,
or a man his brother, saying, `Know the LORD,'
because they will all know me,
from the least of them to the greatest,"
declares the LORD.
"For I will forgive their wickedness
and will remember their sins no more."

I don't think Jeremiah was the first to voice this concept, I think it goes back to Moses or sometime later. A change of covenant is not an easy thing for people. I think most would want to wait for a sure word from a sure Messiah, such as the Samaritan woman got from Jesus (John 4)



[edit on 19-12-2009 by pthena]



posted on Dec, 19 2009 @ 02:27 AM
link   
reply to post by justamomma

Originally posted by justamomma
Oddly enough, there is a warning for the jewish people that is attributed to the mouth of Jesus that says that we should be aware of wolves in sheeps clothing. David, in Psalm 78, is said to have been taken out from among the sheep whereas Jacob, in Genesis 49, attributes the tribe of Benjamin to being a wolf. And that someone would bother to attribute Paul to the tribe of Benjamin as well as attributing the warning to the mouth of a Jewish man who was zealous for our laws does not seem a mistake to me.

If you have checked my member page you will notice that one of my totems, lower left, is the wolf. Shamans don't go around giving away their identities this way, they lose power over people and make themselves open to attacks. You referred to Ezekiel 13. The removal of the veil sets free those who were captured. I have no intention of capturing any one, and I certainly don't want the Lord to have to unmask me. That could be very uncomfortable! I don't use charms or any mechanical devices. As far as I can I walk naked (metaphorically). I cannot escape my nature. I am who I am. Because wolf is in my lower(ego) portion, as much as possible I use it to hunt truth, as apposed to ripping up sheep. Also I have the snake, which according to the list in Genesis 49 signifies Dan provider of justice and unseater of horsemen by biting the horse, so while trying to be fair I may also use under stirrup tricks. That's just who I am. And I have 'lost it' a few times. But enough of my dirty little thorn in the flesh.

Paul, who originally was named Saul (rejected king) had quite an inferiority complex. Benjamin was the least of the tribes because it had been wiped out, down to only 600 men (Judges 19-21). Quite a gnarly story. The collective tribal pain of this outweighs even the collective pain from the holocaust. I've taken care of survivors in nursing home, so have an inkling of an idea of what such pain can do to people.

Paul made himself more important than he should have, in an ego sort of way, hinting at things as if he had a vast store of 'mystery' that he was drawing upon. As far as I can tell, he had no 'extra' teaching at all except orginizational aspects of congregational well order which was necessary for Gentiles who had never been in synagogue. His doctrinal teachings came right from the Hellenist Jewish Christians who came before him. He did expand upon the mystic union aspect though. Probably Ephesians is his most mature ego-free piece of work, also the doctrinal aspects he had most involvement in developing personally. He did not invent Christianity, the Hellenized Jews did. He did bring it to the Gentiles though. To be fair to Christians we should leave Paul's personal problems out of it.


Hosea is clear that the house of Israel (Ephraim) is the suffering servant having been anihilated into the gene pools of the world (clearly seen in Hosea 8:8) ... and who was it that Jesus was calling out to? Matthew 15 will tell you.

This is a conclusion I reached a couple of years ago about the 'lost tribe' gene pool. By now we may all be Samaritans. If I understand you here, you are saying Jesus is the one to speak to Samaritans/Gentiles rather than Paul. That would agree with the Koran. As far as the Gospels go, though there is a doctrinal taint to some of it, the sayings of Jesus as recorded seem to be genuine, handed down sayings.

(I won't have time 'til Monday probably to do much more work on this)
Peace.



posted on Dec, 19 2009 @ 02:58 AM
link   
i disagree with your post

i find that the jesus who was per executed for breaking the law a divine vassal as any other for the purpose of receiving god.god is received now without the need of breaking laws; and the way god was received to the lawbreaker jesus was unique and individual and non replicable .

but i also feel the way god was known is impossible to know in the same fashion as in other times regardless of what temples are built in exact replicated fashion.


so really this concept to an adept, is a non issue: manifesting from the desires of past missed chances to know god in some way or another.

i am sure there will be temples god will dwell in if he is forced to be; and vassals he will express himself from if not given the opportunity to just be.



posted on Dec, 19 2009 @ 03:56 AM
link   
We used to hear smatterings about the idea of a temple of stone being re-built, at my old church.

Now that I have had time to myself to examine the subject I would have to agree with the OP.
And especially because of the letter to the Hebrews and the writers arguments to his audience who seem to be turning one eye back again toward the "good ol' days" of stone and sacrifice.

I see two great contrasts expressed between the old testament and the new, and the language used again and again.
i.e. in the new testament:-
- a king sits down in heaven
- Jerusalem in heaven
- the temple in heaven, and people being the temple
- the new man who is spiritual
and so on.

If we allow the New Testament to interpret the old (as the NT writers themselves do), then to me this is the plain conclusion.

There may be a temple built of stone in Jerusalem once again, but my conviction is that God has no desire for it, nor for dispensational "memorial sacrifice".



posted on Dec, 19 2009 @ 01:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by pthena
If you have checked my member page you will notice that one of my totems, lower left, is the wolf. Shamans don't go around giving away their identities this way, they lose power over people and make themselves open to attacks.


Acts 21:11 ... I don't think Paul gave himself away. I think the Jews had a hand in giving him away for the sake of our own. Paul is not understood until the Tanach is understood. TRY living by all of what he says as well as by all of what Jesus said .... you will find yourself in deep confusion (which is the reason Christians are SOOO divided in everything). Believe me, it does get to me ... and it is why I try to reason with others ... not because I THINK I can or even WANT to change anyone's mind for I know better.

Rather I would like to give them the tools to know for themselves. Was Paul evil ... well, that I will not say. Only that if you read the words as they are written and filter them through the Tanach since both Jesus and Paul referred to such, things are not what they at first glance may seem.



You referred to Ezekiel 13. The removal of the veil sets free those who were captured. I have no intention of capturing any one, and I certainly don't want the Lord to have to unmask me. That could be very uncomfortable! I don't use charms or any mechanical devices.


MANY people do this. This stems back even from the Egyptian culture. The Catholics do this through the Eucharist. EVEN the Jewish do this with the tefillin (shel yad and shel rosh), the tallit, as well as many other physical items. I find it to be superstitious and whilst I don't have issue with others doing such, I myself do not find it comfortable to attach myself to physical things in such ways. I guess I wouldn't feel that I am living Life in true liberation. But again, that is MY personal view and one that is not even shared by most Jews.
To each his own, I guess.



As far as I can I walk naked (metaphorically). I cannot escape my nature. I am who I am.


This is good! The teaching of our Tanach has the point of view that before God, we ALL must be upright in heart (honest w/ ourselves) and have a willing mind .. that is, to adjust our point of view as it may be needed ...

Remember that we all view "reality" through our own perspective and what may be my reality is not going to be your reality ... what we should be trying to do is to adjust our reality to the greater Reality ... and that is very difficult to do and even requires for us to try to "walk in the shoes" of those around us. That is the importance, then, of the stability in the Tanach for me. Malachi 3:6 "For I am the LORD and I do not change so that you sons of Jacob are not consumed." That to me is comforting and give me the freedom to be myself as I strive to understand others as well as my own self and what it is my purpose might be in this world.


Because wolf is in my lower(ego) portion, as much as possible I use it to hunt truth, as apposed to ripping up sheep. Also I have the snake, which according to the list in Genesis 49 signifies Dan provider of justice and unseater of horsemen by biting the horse, so while trying to be fair I may also use under stirrup tricks. That's just who I am. And I have 'lost it' a few times. But enough of my dirty little thorn in the flesh.


What an interesting view ... I will enjoy taking this point of view of yours to think more on.


Paul, who originally was named Saul (rejected king) had quite an inferiority complex. Benjamin was the least of the tribes because it had been wiped out, down to only 600 men (Judges 19-21). Quite a gnarly story. The collective tribal pain of this outweighs even the collective pain from the holocaust. I've taken care of survivors in nursing home, so have an inkling of an idea of what such pain can do to people.


Yes, I know the story quite well. And you are right of Paul ... he did seem to have an inferiority complex as well as he seemed confused. I pity him at times and at the same time, I have to be careful not to let "pity" deceive me ... as is very easy to happen with women.


Paul made himself more important than he should have, in an ego sort of way, hinting at things as if he had a vast store of 'mystery' that he was drawing upon.


I spent some time my own self REALLY dogging Paul ... I mean I could not stand him to a fault of my own. Then, I realized that I saw a bit of me in him and this is where it would be ... via the "ego." Though I don't mean to be such, I sometimes have to be brought low to remember that it is not my place to change the mind of others and to ALWAYS listen to what a person is SAYING before coming to conclusions of them off the bat. In that way, I relate to Paul ... that he found it difficult to listen to others and encouraged his followers to shut the mouths of those who disagree w/ his gospel .... I was glad to realize this about myself through Paul and am committed to having it worked out of me so that I do not cut myself off from others, particularly those I love.



As far as I can tell, he had no 'extra' teaching at all except orginizational aspects of congregational well order which was necessary for Gentiles who had never been in synagogue. His doctrinal teachings came right from the Hellenist Jewish Christians who came before him. He did expand upon the mystic union aspect though. Probably Ephesians is his most mature ego-free piece of work, also the doctrinal aspects he had most involvement in developing personally. He did not invent Christianity, the Hellenized Jews did. He did bring it to the Gentiles though. To be fair to Christians we should leave Paul's personal problems out of it.


Hmmmmm .... Paul misused the Scriptures and taught hatred of others ... that is not something I find easy to ignore or to settle on leaving it alone. Whilst i agree that what he did is not to be a standard to hold all christians to (my best friend in the world is a Christian .. yes
), it also is not something we should ignore ... else, we could find ourselves again in a fury of hatred. I believe in trying to help others to liberate their mind as well as it helps me to liberate my own.


This is a conclusion I reached a couple of years ago about the 'lost tribe' gene pool. By now we may all be Samaritans. If I understand you here, you are saying Jesus is the one to speak to Samaritans/Gentiles rather than Paul. That would agree with the Koran. As far as the Gospels go, though there is a doctrinal taint to some of it, the sayings of Jesus as recorded seem to be genuine, handed down sayings.


Not entirely. I believe that Jesus came to teach the Jews how to know and reach those of the lost sheep of Israel. That would be why he forbade them at first to going to the Gentiles and upon leaving Jerusalem, he finally gave the charge to go to them. By then, they would understand all the ins and outs of how to know one from another ...

Paul had not been personally taught of Jesus and thus, did not have the knowledge that the disciples of Jesus had. It is why he would even rebuke them ... out of his own ignorance. NEVER does a Jew teach Gentiles that they are under obligation to our Laws ... that is a lie. Only ever if a Gentile wishes to convert to Judaism to be a part of our People are the obligated to submit to the Laws as it is interpreted by a Beit din. Any person though whose heart has been genuinely given to the People, though, will not argue such and understand its purposes.

Then, there is never reason for a Jew to tell a Gentile that they don't have to abide by our Laws .... it is a given. Paul did not seem to understand this, thus making his "mission" quite suspect.


(I won't have time 'til Monday probably to do much more work on this)
Peace.


No problem. I look forward to hearing more of your views on this. I am enjoying the discussion. Shalom


[edit on 19-12-2009 by justamomma]



posted on Dec, 19 2009 @ 01:46 PM
link   
reply to post by justamomma


JOB 40:6 Then the LORD spoke to Job out of the storm:

JOB 40:7 "Brace yourself like a man;
I will question you,
and you shall answer me.

JOB 40:8 "Would you discredit my justice?
Would you condemn me to justify yourself?

JOB 40:9 Do you have an arm like God's,
and can your voice thunder like his?

JOB 40:10 Then adorn yourself with glory and splendor,
and clothe yourself in honor and majesty.

JOB 40:11 Unleash the fury of your wrath,
look at every proud man and bring him low,

JOB 40:12 look at every proud man and humble him,
crush the wicked where they stand.

JOB 40:13 Bury them all in the dust together;
shroud their faces in the grave.

JOB 40:14 Then I myself will admit to you
that your own right hand can save you.

You have made yourself Satan to contend against the life of Paul. Therefore I will argue on his behalf. My testimony is not alone, for Paul also argued on his own behalf, and greater testimony yet from his own Lord, who is also my Lord. The testimony is this: that the Lord's grace is sufficient for him. I will see him in the resurrection of the righteous. He has already been humbled all the way to the dust. You cannot touch him.

How can you say you have the mind of Judah? Judah offered his own life for the sake of his brother Benjamin.(Genesis 43 & 44).

The case is closed. Stop being Satan and be Judah. Submit yourself to God and to his Messiah, even Jesus the son of David. Stop sinning. That's all I can say. I will not contend with you.



posted on Dec, 19 2009 @ 05:18 PM
link   
i feel the sin is not in the acts of one who recreates a temple; but the acts committed against the institution the temple was founded upon after its inception. to judge in apprehension due to one's "prehension" to words in a law book seems weird to me.

and of the people who await a messiah; i find in waiting a verb, will these same people be acting in waiting while god is here already.

the person who feels they need a temple to see god or a vassal to feel god need a temple and a vassal and god is not the primary concern.

if your god feels it needs a temple i see no problem with you making one for your god.

if i read you correctly you feel neither a temple nor a physical vassal is necessary for gods dispensation to his people? but your thesis implies god never required a "permanent" temple of "wood and stone"? yet you mention dispensation ideology in the form of a covenant with one of the vassals you recognize as being one of gods temples/vassals.

you dont have a thesis you have a claim with quotes from an ancient lawbook.

god is not going to magically make for you what he does not create himself; regardless of if one were to force god in a temple that is recently built. but if you feel god is complete in embodiment in the vassal you recognize as having received god: what extra does he need to do for you; that you think you will receive any entitlements to your own vassal that worships its own god.

Dispensationalism : Dispensationalism is a Protestant evangelical tradition and theology[1] based on a biblical hermeneutic that sees a series of chronologically successive "dispensations" or periods in history in which God relates to human beings in different ways under different Biblical covenants.

from wiki.

why do you contest dispensationalism; yet mention a "messiah" as though you have a covenant with the red letters in the new testament.

so you feel it would be folly to help the jews build a temple as it would be against your messiah.

in the time of this conversation is god not in the process of dispensing himself as he sees fit?where do the past 2000 years fit in with dispensing with "the church" . and how do you make for yourself space to receive dispensation after you have already received god; by your own admission.



posted on Dec, 19 2009 @ 07:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by pthena
reply to post by justamomma


JOB 40:6 Then the LORD spoke to Job out of the storm:

JOB 40:7 "Brace yourself like a man;
I will question you,
and you shall answer me.

JOB 40:8 "Would you discredit my justice?
Would you condemn me to justify yourself?

JOB 40:9 Do you have an arm like God's,
and can your voice thunder like his?

JOB 40:10 Then adorn yourself with glory and splendor,
and clothe yourself in honor and majesty.

JOB 40:11 Unleash the fury of your wrath,
look at every proud man and bring him low,

JOB 40:12 look at every proud man and humble him,
crush the wicked where they stand.

JOB 40:13 Bury them all in the dust together;
shroud their faces in the grave.

JOB 40:14 Then I myself will admit to you
that your own right hand can save you.

You have made yourself Satan to contend against the life of Paul. Therefore I will argue on his behalf. My testimony is not alone, for Paul also argued on his own behalf, and greater testimony yet from his own Lord, who is also my Lord. The testimony is this: that the Lord's grace is sufficient for him. I will see him in the resurrection of the righteous. He has already been humbled all the way to the dust. You cannot touch him.

How can you say you have the mind of Judah? Judah offered his own life for the sake of his brother Benjamin.(Genesis 43 & 44).

The case is closed. Stop being Satan and be Judah. Submit yourself to God and to his Messiah, even Jesus the son of David. Stop sinning. That's all I can say. I will not contend with you.





Wow! I would not have dared to call you names and neither would I call Paul names. I have not even called either of you sinners (seek the good and not the evil for as you have spoken so shall you be .... and as Jesus confirmed, For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned) ... but your sudden change of attitude is right on par with the way Paul treated others and turned on a whim against them. Good luck to you then on your journey.

Oh... and one thing to keep in mind ... even Jesus did not think being a witness of his own self or having the witness of others was enough proof that someone (EVEN HIMSELF) had the best interest of the People he loved in mind.

John 5:31-37 ... it is true that to know the Laws and the testimonies given of Moses is to know Jesus as he really was ... one OF the People of Israel. To know Paul through the same standard in which Jesus set up for even his own self is to know that he was speaking contrary to what Jesus taught and obviously he was speaking against the People that Jesus loved so much. You seem to place Paul at more importance than you do the one you have referred to as Lord. That is the trademark of a christian.

Had you paid any attention to me instead of finding offense and reasons to call me Satan and a sinner, you would have seen that I take the stance that Paul served an important purpose .... even according to Jeremiah 17:5-10 ... because the trademark of one of ours would never settle in belief simply on the word of a man ... even one claiming to be one of our own.


[edit on 19-12-2009 by justamomma]



posted on Dec, 20 2009 @ 12:32 AM
link   
reply to post by Ausar


i feel the sin is not in the acts of one who recreates a temple; but the acts committed against the institution the temple was founded upon after its inception. to judge in apprehension due to one's "prehension" to words in a law book seems weird to me.

and of the people who await a messiah; i find in waiting a verb, will these same people be acting in waiting while god is here already.

the person who feels they need a temple to see god or a vassal to feel god need a temple and a vassal and god is not the primary concern.

if your god feels it needs a temple i see no problem with you making one for your god.

if i read you correctly you feel neither a temple nor a physical vassal is necessary for gods dispensation to his people? but your thesis implies god never required a "permanent" temple of "wood and stone"? yet you mention dispensation ideology in the form of a covenant with one of the vassals you recognize as being one of gods temples/vassals.

Your observations are correct. God can put His Name on whatever He wants at any time. And on whoever he wants.

These plans of some extreme Zionist Jews and Christians are not taking place in a vacuum. It isn't an empty land and vacant lot. The land is inhabited and the proposed temple site already has houses of prayer.

Dispensationalist teaching is the justification for mass removal of people and destruction of homes and houses of prayer. The fact is that there is no justification for dispensationalism from their own books even. It's all an exercise in futility. And yet they will kill and destroy for it.

That's why I call it what it is. Futility and destructive madness.

And while I argued against it, I got caught up in it, as if it were real, there is no room for it.



[edit on 20-12-2009 by pthena]



posted on Dec, 20 2009 @ 01:28 AM
link   
reply to post by pthena
 


i sent you a u2u


O mankind, surely we have created you, families and tribes, so you may know one another.
Surely, the most honorable of you with God is MOST RIGHTEOUS AMONG you.
Surely, God is Knowing, Aware."



posted on Dec, 20 2009 @ 03:57 AM
link   
reply to post by Ausar
 

where do the past 2000 years fit in with dispensing with "the church"
. . .the Word was with God,
. . .In him was life, and that life was the light of men,
. . .The true light that gives light to every man was coming into the world,
. . .this is the one who baptizes with the Holy Spirit,
. . .the chaff he will burn up with inextinguishable fire.

A profuse outflowing of the spirit that encompasses the earth, that becomes the judgment of the world. The same word of God that causes the spirit to move upon the primordial waters at creation resides in the person of Jesus, causing the spirit to move on the unconverted mass of humanity, to bring to repentance, those who will.



posted on Dec, 20 2009 @ 08:56 PM
link   
to the prior reply;

i meant church that is physical, that houses a preacher/pastor, and has been speaking dispensation.

besides referring to the old testament in lectures, where do the past 2000 years of time fit with regards to personal actions undocumented and unspoken by dispensation preachers?is time unkempt until a "messiah" "returns" and is the preaching lectures of the old testament with no regard to a peoples actions as a whole throughout this time prior to an "arrival"?

i ask the last question in my prior post; because...
if you were a nation of peoples who witnessed a generation of life's process and moved on from the point i see dispensationalist at in current; would the building in good faith of ones own, a temple, be as damning as the OP so makes it seem? if the past 2000-+ years has not been focused with a primary education and lecturing of the old testament as ones source of holiness, pertaining dispensation: then are you truly deluded to believe you will be dispensed anything; forsaken your actions as a church(opposite the meaning implied of church prior)in the time since the departure of gods last documented temple to await a return.

is thievery a sin?
is it not thievery to take what is not your own?
can you allow someone to preach you up into thinking you are entitled to take what you count as your own?
do you take responsibility for americas actions against other churches in the past 2000+- years?
do these actions(prior question, if you feel america is a clean and righteous church ignore) receive focus or is the party line "you are content knowing your a sinner"?


bluntly put: how do you think you are on unequal footing to tell another who is damned; does this not make your own self so?


so, the jews want to build a new temple(unconfirmed) why does it matter; is the intent to lose ones own judgement in the matter that makes life itself?


all i know; if even a little bit of some persons being that belonged to the american church made its way into my matter: i feel unclean already, but thats what i am saying.


this entire thread for minor exclusions is dirty; the thought of an american church member thinking his churches past actions an exclusive to himself reeks.

i hope an attempt at holiness is not an attempt at cleanliness for the american church; maybe it was cleaner when there was not a formulated perception of lawlessness.

you must feel you know someone(someone godly) to take prior words as interpreted gods intent.



posted on Dec, 21 2009 @ 12:33 AM
link   
reply to post by Ausar

Originally posted by Ausar
to the prior reply;

i meant church that is physical, that houses a preacher/pastor, and has been speaking dispensation.

besides referring to the old testament in lectures, where do the past 2000 years of time fit with regards to personal actions undocumented and unspoken by dispensation preachers?is time unkempt until a "messiah" "returns" and is the preaching lectures of the old testament with no regard to a peoples actions as a whole throughout this time prior to an "arrival"?

i ask the last question in my prior post; because...
if you were a nation of peoples who witnessed a generation of life's process and moved on from the point i see dispensationalist at in current; would the building in good faith of ones own, a temple, be as damning as the OP so makes it seem? if the past 2000-+ years has not been focused with a primary education and lecturing of the old testament as ones source of holiness, pertaining dispensation: then are you truly deluded to believe you will be dispensed anything; forsaken your actions as a church(opposite the meaning implied of church prior)in the time since the departure of gods last documented temple to await a return.

is thievery a sin?
is it not thievery to take what is not your own?
can you allow someone to preach you up into thinking you are entitled to take what you count as your own?
do you take responsibility for americas actions against other churches in the past 2000+- years?
do these actions(prior question, if you feel america is a clean and righteous church ignore) receive focus or is the party line "you are content knowing your a sinner"?

The purpose of a temple is to meet with god in some way, to understand more. The premise of OP is to idicate god's desire to be known at any time and in any place. Not stationary. To Abraham the wandering one the temple was a man who ate with him. When the man spoke it was God's word. When Abraham spoke to the man, he spoke to God. This man was the temple of God for Abraham. This is the ideal. For people to be temples, and sharing God to others.

While Moses led the Israelites, Moses was the temple more than the tent of meeting was. In the tent was an angel who spoke to Moses. The angel was not God, but had a Name from God, allowing it to speak as God. Moses was not a perfect enough man to be a temple by himself.

Later God intended for the kings to be a temple. David was close, but not close enough. He needed prophets to speak for God, even to him. Prophets are temporary temples, for specific messages. The eternal temple to come would be a descendant of David, as per the promise. God did not ask for the stone temple. After it was built though, an angel once again inhabited it.

Eventually Jesus from the line of David was born, after he was baptized he was given a Name and the spirit so that he became God's temple to speak as God. He was God on earth since he was the temple, just as was the man who ate with Abraham.

After Jesus the messiah, was taken to heaven to appear for all people before God, he gave his spirit to act in the world to build another temple, an image of the true, this earthly temple is people working together to help all people in the world understand God.

We have been failing most miserably, else everyone would know God, but maybe they all do. The spirit still works.


bluntly put: how do you think you are on unequal footing to tell another who is damned; does this not make your own self so?

Because I am a man like all men and if I know what the true temple should be, others should also, especially those who call themselves teachers or preacher. It's all in the book after all.

Yes, if I damn others, I am myself damned, for we are all one family in the image of God. If I don't help build than I am no better than a broken brick, and will be cast off.


so, the jews want to build a new temple(unconfirmed) why does it matter; is the intent to lose ones own judgement in the matter that makes life itself?

If we have a perfect temple in heaven, and we people are the image intended to reflect God's love to one another, then a stone temple will only distract. What good to deal with angels after the best man has come?


all i know; if even a little bit of some persons being that belonged to the american church made its way into my matter: i feel unclean already, but thats what i am saying.

this entire thread for minor exclusions is dirty; the thought of an american church member thinking his churches past actions an exclusive to himself reeks.

i hope an attempt at holiness is not an attempt at cleanliness for the american church; maybe it was cleaner when there was not a formulated perception of lawlessness.

you must feel you know someone(someone godly) to take prior words as interpreted gods intent.

The Church(as an institution) is a false image of the true church, people who love and care for all people. The false image is concerned with property and control and uniformity, as such it is the world, as much as any country or empire or corporation. These things are greedy power hungry things that have no care for people ( with a few exceptions) these things fade and deteriorate. The true church will continue, even though it gets ravaged by hostile forces and members die.

The Messiah Jesus the true perfect temple lives forever and cannot be torn down or worn away by anything. The earthly people temple has it's ups and downs.

I was called by Jesus, and have a bit of the spirit. By myself I am no temple, it takes a whole lot of people to make one temple on earth.

I hope I understood the questions correctly. And yes it's always wrong to do wrong to others.

[edit on 21-12-2009 by pthena]



posted on Dec, 21 2009 @ 01:47 AM
link   
i disagree with most of what you say, but i listened and it sounded like you have developed what you chose to tell me so it seems fine with me with what you said; although i disagree with most of what you have told me.because i disagree i feel it important to contest many things you have said but find it would detract from the original content of this thread.in short i find it illegal to develop a mind set within a frame of time that is not you own.the time of "jesus" has gone and past and is now;to attempt to be likened in his ways mentally seems an injustice to the image you have set forth of this being.



posted on Dec, 21 2009 @ 02:45 AM
link   
reply to post by Ausar

Originally posted by Ausar
i disagree with most of what you say, but i listened and it sounded like you have developed what you chose to tell me so it seems fine with me with what you said; although i disagree with most of what you have told me.because i disagree i feel it important to contest many things you have said but find it would detract from the original content of this thread.

Any disagreement is relevant, because part of the OP was the present temple of people. So it is relavant.


in short i find it illegal to develop a mind set within a frame of time that is not you own.the time of "jesus" has gone and past and is now;to attempt to be likened in his ways mentally seems an injustice to the image you have set forth of this being.

I'll try again. I like a good story, and get caught up in them. The reality is that these are other people's religions I've been trying to place myself in, and not very well, because they don't fit me, and I don't fit them.

The man Abraham spoke to as God is a matter between them and not me. It's their life and not mine. Like wise Jesus, to me he is a man who I met once. He's not my messiah, because I don't look for or need one. He's the man who looks out for me. That's between him and me. I can't say he's any body's messiah. If he agreed with someone else to have that role, then that's between them and not me or my concern.

Temples too, that's not my concern. I don't need any, maybe someone does. Someone else's problem. If there had been no books written for prehension and someone asked me who's God? I would say, "see that cloud? He's behind it. You can't see him, because he's behind it."

Beyond that, all I've got for religion is the feeling I should help people. That's my whole religion. Anything else is borrowed.

As for the thread: I still agree with why I started it. Real people are being fooled into supporting with their money and politically something that does more harm than good, by large orders of magnitude. I'd like to warn them just like I would warn them to get off a train track when a train is coming. As for the method I used, sense I'm familiar with the books they use to build their ideas, I was using them to disprove their premise.

If I were a journalist, I'd be writing news stories about it. If I were a conspiracy theorist, I'd be digging up seemingly unrelated stories and making those kinds of theories. But I'm not that either. I'm a guy who knows their books, therefore that's what I use.

As for American fundamentalist Christians, I find their beliefs and practices quite disgusting. If I can help any one to stay out of those groups I certainly will. If one of them reads my post and says, "yeah, that doesn't make any sense." then I feel I did some good.

So for the most part, I'm sticking with the thesis. It's written in their language, using terms from their books, so that they can understand it.



[edit on 21-12-2009 by pthena]



posted on Dec, 21 2009 @ 10:29 AM
link   
reply to post by Ausar
 

to the prior reply;

i meant church that is physical, that houses a preacher/pastor, and has been speaking dispensation.

besides referring to the old testament in lectures, where do the past 2000 years of time fit with regards to personal actions undocumented and unspoken by dispensation preachers?is time unkempt until a "messiah" "returns" and is the preaching lectures of the old testament with no regard to a peoples actions as a whole throughout this time prior to an "arrival"?
According to Jesus' own words in the gospel, there were times spoken of by the law and the prophets that were in effect up to the preaching of John the baptist, who he considered to be the greatest of all prophets.
John said that here is the man who will bring to an end all the world. The Baptist was saying that Jesus was the omega man who had within him all the powers of God, on earth. The purpose for this appearance of such a person was to proclaim the new kingdom, where John had been proclaiming the end of the old system of things.
The mechanism for bringing about this change was the spirit of God which would fully indwell the chosen one to the point of eventually totally recreating this man into a righteous judge, having beaten in spiritual warfare, the opposition to man's salvation, who is personified as Satan.
As far as I can tell, there is no other king for this kingdom than the one chosen by God for this task, and no other dispensation than the one that started here in the presence of the prophet.



posted on Dec, 21 2009 @ 11:27 AM
link   
then, my illusion is that people are aware of their actions while i am observing them, and by what you tell me this is false. as what you imply is that even though 2000-+ years have transpired( by what is told to me)that the focus has not been on self actions, and primary focus pertaining the american church has been the past. since these actions have not been recreated into a holy document that is also encompassing in christianity the closest thing i can offer is history books corroborated by local law injunctions; as the old testament has its foundation as well as america in forms of laws expressed in the bible.since this is the case your "church" seems very maladjusted and comfortable in the position of external witness; when the history books and corroborating laws will clearly dictate an opposite truth.a truth that although you mention a satan or speak of goodness, your actions as a church are clearly lost.i can see why this is the case as the one you refer to as "messiah" was a lawbreaker himself, and selfishly at that.

a lost church cannot dictate to another diocese what is good or bad as the way they find for such is unknown to even themselves.



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join