It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Oh? Is that why it says,
The one tribe of Judah would bring forth the Messiah, so this tribe was preserved according to the covenant with David.
There is no YHWH in the NT to be the same as the one in the OT.
YHWH of the Old Testament is one and the same as the one of the New Testament. No difference there.
You don't seem to be interested in answering questions but where did you pick up this misinterpretation of scripture? Paul talks about death to the law in Romans but this thing you have going has no connection to that what Paul was talking about and looks to me to be a good example of taking something out of context. It also is a good example of why you can't use the NT to interpret the OT.
If the husband dies, then the woman is released from the Law of her husband.
But not the same person, regardless of whatever the messianic cults might tell you.
Jesus and the Father are one
Yes, if you define "render" as, "use your imagination and reverse all the laws of language."
YHWH can be rendered to mean "Behold the Hand, Behold the Nail" or "Behold the nailed hand." according to meanings of the letters in the name.
The New Testament say not, so whatever theory you have picked up from the cults is only just that, a theory, and is adopted to counter the New Testament and to undermine its authority.
Yahushua is the Messiah's name.
That is what archaeology says, that YHWH was an old Canaanite god who rode on a chariot on the top of storm clouds and made it rain, just exactly like Baal, plus the OT describes him in the same way.
How can you say that is a storm gods name?
Each Canaanite hill-top altar had a Baal, and YHWH was one but who eventually won out over a certain area, so is preserved with honorable mention in the holy book of the people of that area.
Baal is similar to Lord or Master but is not the same as the Holy One in Israel.
That only reinforces what I said earlier, the NETBible version reads "You are an eternal priest after the pattern of Melchizedek."
Psalm 110:4 "The LORD hath sworn, and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek."
That has to be one of the most ambiguously constructed verses in the NT, so it is not clear if it is people awaiting salvation or if it people waiting to see Jesus. What the translation gives as "to appear" really means in the Greek "will be seen", which could mean metaphorically, for all we know. But it is slender proof of some sort of elaborate fantasy return scenario.
What Bible are you reading? The Day of the LORD is the Second Coming of Christ. Hebrews 9:28 "So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall HE APPEAR A SECOND TIME without sin unto salvation.
Read my earlier posts on the subject of Acts 1:11, www.abovetopsecret.com...
Acts 1:11 "Which also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven."
Israel literally had two different gods, one named El, in the north, and one named YHWH, in the south. Deuteronomy sought to correct that problem by uniting them into one god.
There are not two Gods. Only one. Deuteronomy 6:4 "Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD:" God is one God.
The "time of restoration" is one of these erroneous theories of the people of Jesus' day, and one of the contributing factors of his ending up being crucified, not a teaching of the New Testament.
Yes He is the King of Kings. Yet, Satan and the fallen angels who rule with him are the rulers of this world right now. God is sovereign but Satan is still the "god" of this world. It's all under him for now until the time of restoration.
We are not supposed to do what you are doing.
Your god is an idol made of stone that sat on the top of a hill and was built by Herod who tried to kill Jesus, who was killed later by his son. God judged that place and made it desolate, so now you worship the ground it sat on, which is really sad when there is a Messiah right now who rules from Heaven, who you ignore and talk about another who you are waiting to show up to be like a worldly king.
Ecclesiastes 12:13 "Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man."
This is assuming that Yahweh personally wrote the Torah and it has remained untainted by human tradition ever since the time of the Sinai Wilderness.
My brother I am saying this in love, that you might turn from the traditions of men and come back to the ways of Yahweh.
Who is the "we" who are supposedly grafted "back in"? This is a very different interpretation of Romans 11:17, apparently you think that the "wild olive shoot" that was grafted in was the other Israelite tribes living amongst the gentiles. Did they "go wild"? If so, it is not brought up by Paul, and I think that if that was what he meant, he would have said so. Otherwise we have to assume he meant the gentiles, meaning people who were not, or ever were by hereditary descent, Israelites.
Also, have you considered the mystery of the Gospel as Paul gave it? That the Messiah came so that we could be grafted in or back into the covenants of Israel. That by His blood mankind could be saved, and the divorced tribes could also be restored. This is the mystery of the Gospel.
I'm not saying Judah and Israel is the same, I am saying that the new term, "Jew", became interchangeable with Israel since those opposed to the Jews, such as the Samaritans, were not considered to be included. "Jew" meant you agreed with the temple cult of Jerusalem.
Not that they are the same.
This is where you diverge into the realm of cult deception because in normal Christianity, many instances of "House of Israel" are universally accepted to mean Israel, the kingdom, along with Judah, the kingdom.
All Israel would include Judah yes, but House of Israel is northern kingdom specific.
Judah, and not all of it, but the upper class, left for Babylonian exile, who returned was the Jews.
I can see what you are saying with this. Since Judah came back after the captivity they were considered Israel. That is indeed true. Today this is why we even have Jews.
If you were mainstream Christian, you would agree with Paul when he says no one can be saved by keeping the law, meaning the old written "Mosaic" Law that existed in his time. Where people have a problem is in differentiating between the book law, and the spiritual law Jesus taught. Following Jesus' law can save you, and as a matter of fact, is the only way anyone can be saved.
As far as salvation goes, I have never said that the Mosaic Law gives anyone salvation. Even the patriarchs and prophets saw the promises afar off and believed them.
Salvation is righteousness. What other kind of salvation is there? A good question to ask is: are people saved in their sins, or are they saved from their sins? Paul says, 'Make no mistake, sinners will by no means enter heaven.' That means that there is no other provision made whereby a person can enter heaven, than renouncing a life of sin. That does not mean saying you are going to, but taking the spirit offered by Jesus to put that thought into action. Jesus in Mark says, 'With God that is possible.'
All I have been doing with this thread is trying to clarify that salvation is by grace through faith not a sinner's prayer, but that salvation is accompanied by righteousness.
Here you seem to be buying into the Protestant founding fathers' happy talk about substitutionary righteousness. When you find an actual Bible teaching of that, let me know.
His righteousness does not make us righteous, but we must practice it ourselves.
Misquote. The actual quote is,
The Law isn't something difficult. God said it is very near us.
So what was up with the story of the 'woman caught in adultery'? You are talking about the old written "Mosaic" Law. Jesus lived and died so that we could have the Holy Spirit sent to us by him. That is the law of faith, the only one we are given for salvation. Now Jesus did endorse some of the obviously moral concepts found in the old written "Mosaic" Law, but does not place the burden of the entire law on anyone. Jesus wants you to came to him so he can teach you. That is possible, through the spirit, and we don't need a written law that does not apply to us, or anyone else for that matter.
All of the difficult to understand matters of the Law are actually quite simple in context.
You aren't "correcting" me because you are giving just your opinion rather than teaching me a biblical truth.
I am correcting out of love and not to be right or to further my own agenda.
You have no tolerance for it whatsoever, that is why you refuse to deal with any of my statements and just keep repeating your talking points.
I accept criticism just fine, and I can assure you the Scriptures say these things.
Jesus said, 'your father is the devil', basically, so who are you calling "The Father"? Jesus never promoted the laws that were in practice, supposedly because God had ordained them, but had no practical value and were just used for show to present a false piety.
I am not the one who gets the glory, but the Father. The Father has shown me many things and many people are coming back to His ways.
Maybe you mean Christianity, in which case you should drop the 'Jesus died for your sins' thing and convert to Judaism. You seem to be happy with being a cult, just not the label. To not be in a cult, you need to go all the way with Christ, or go all the way with Moses. Falling in the middle is the cult zone.
Dispensationalism has ruined the believers.
You have no background in biblical studies
you need to go all the way with Christ, or go all the way with Moses. Falling in the middle is the cult zone.
So did the devil.
What did Christ do when tempted? Did he quote the New Testament? Or did he quote the Law?
There is a verse that says that,
We are to walk as he walked.
You may think that, but you don't present a compelling enough of an argument to make someone else think that.
The New Testament is just as valid as the old and vice versa.
The context shows Paul meant the old written law, not the law of Christ, in that Galatians quote. I of course am not advocating becoming a Jew and keeping the laws of the old testament. I am saying you have to follow the law of Jesus, which is different, though you can find those principles stated in the OT, as Jesus points out in the Gospels.
Galatians 3:5 "He therefore that ministereth to you the Spirit, and worketh miracles among you, doeth he it by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?"
Just observing the written letter of Torah does not save us. It cannot bring forth anything in and of itself. Faith must work with it, or it is futile.
"The Law" according to the Christian religion, is believing in God's son who He sent to us. That is number one, along with believing in the power and goodness of the Holy Spirit, as the name should imply.
I am not saying that people who don't observe the Law cannot have the Holy Spirit. Just that obedience makes our faith that we already have perfect. For what means more? Actual baptism or the faith you had in getting in the water? The faith you had first.
Compared to a written law which can be discerned by reading it. We have a spiritual Law of Faith that comes to us by the Holy Spirit, through Jesus.
1 Corinthians 2:14 "But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned."
Paul can seem to have a split personality. This is where your biblical naiveté comes into play because of your eschewing of scholarship. He employs types of rhetoric including diatribe, which is his taking of parts like a play, to argue back and forth between himself and an imaginary partner in a conversation.
Romans 7:14 "For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin"
Romans 7:12 "Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good."
If Paul is saying that the Law is holy and just and good, then why do people think it is done away with? He cannot have a split personality.