Say a phrase, and you are saved...

2 Timothy 2:23 "But foolish and unlearned questions avoid, knowing that they do gender strifes."

2 Timothy 2:14 "Of these things put them in remembrance, charging them before the Lord that they strive not about words to no profit, but to the subverting of the hearers."

We are not supposed to do what you are doing. Are you simply trying to be right just to be right? I have given Scripture after Scripture concerning the things I have mentioned. Remember we are not allowed to speak by our own authority on Scripture. He is our authority and we cannot go against Him. If I were telling you things that were not true, I would be in huge huge trouble at the judgment. Not a place anyone wants to be. Why do you keep provoking me like the Pharisees used to do? It does not help a thing. I am simply trying to help people understand about the topic at hand and yes further explain the concepts. Straight from Scripture. I am truly saddened that instead of trying to see if your life is in line with our example (the Messiah), you are trying to prove me wrong on something that is straight from Scripture. Scripture cannot be wrong. Its useless. I hope your eyes can be opened, otherwise you will live in vain. Our purpose on this earth is not to work a million jobs and make money, our purpose is not to have vacations and retire at 65, our purpose is to make His name known and glorify our Creator. Our purpose is defined in:

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."

reply to post by yahushuasaves

The one tribe of Judah would bring forth the Messiah, so this tribe was preserved according to the covenant with David.

Oh? Is that why it says,

I will be like a moth to Ephraim, like wood rot to the house of Judah.
Hosea 5:12

sounds like the opposite of a preservative to me.
And why does it say this,

Israel’s sister, unfaithful Judah, has not turned back to me with any sincerity; she has only pretended to do so,” says the Lord. Then the Lord said to me, “Under the circumstances, wayward Israel could even be considered less guilty than unfaithful Judah.
Jeremiah 3:10, 11

This does not look like the prediction of a favorable disposition for Judah to me.
In NETBible, the search results for "House of Judah" is a list of 45 verses. For the search term, "House of Israel", there are 158. Do you have any idea why that might be so? It is because usually "House of Israel" means all of Israel, including Judah.

reply to post by yahushuasaves

YHWH of the Old Testament is one and the same as the one of the New Testament. No difference there.

There is no YHWH in the NT to be the same as the one in the OT.

If the husband dies, then the woman is released from the Law of her husband.

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.

Jesus and the Father are one

But not the same person, regardless of whatever the messianic cults might tell you.

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.

Yes, if you define "render" as, "use your imagination and reverse all the laws of language."

Yahushua is the Messiah's 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.

How can you say that is a storm gods 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.

Baal is similar to Lord or Master but is not the same as the Holy One in Israel.

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.

reply to post by yahushuasaves

Psalm 110:4 "The LORD hath sworn, and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek."

That only reinforces what I said earlier, the NETBible version reads "You are an eternal priest after the pattern of Melchizedek."

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.

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.

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."

Read my earlier posts on the subject of Acts 1:11, www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by yahushuasaves

There are not two Gods. Only one. Deuteronomy 6:4 "Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD:" God is one God.

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.

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.

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.
There were two ages in the NT and early Christian times, the one ended with the destruction of the Jerusalem temple and the other began with the creation of the church which was being founded in that transitional period after the going forth of the Gospel unto the world by the Apostles.
The restoration is not a sudden occurrence as the earlier people had supposed, but is a gradual change as more and more people come to the knowledge and acceptance of Jesus and turn from futile religious pursuits that have nothing to do with the real Christ who reigns supreme. Satan may have ruled in that age that saw the crucifixion of Jesus, but Jesus rules now, with Satan being vanquished, and toppled from his throne. If you believe Satan rules, then there is your master and king. You dig up the past and worship it while ignoring the new reality which is giving life to the world.

reply to post by yahushuasaves

We are not supposed to do what you are doing.

You are, by mingling with the anti-Christian cults.
I am not inviting strife, I work at adopting and promoting normative Christianity.
You should reconsider your position as the satan to Christianity as it exists.
What is your purpose of tearing down the church in favor of pretend temple worship?
We don't have a temple that we sacrifice to so all your laws you think are so holy are completely worthless.
Paul says Jesus is the Mercy Seat, and that makes him God and we have no other, but for the One who is his Father, who we don't know other than what we see in Jesus.

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."

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.

reply to post by yahushuasaves

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.

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.
I don't think that has any more chance at authenticity than what we find in the New Testament and can trace to, or very close to, its original writing.
I think you have a very hard sale, with no product appeal, other than slavery to something that most sane people think is a better left behind relic of the Late Bronze Age.

reply to post by yahushuasaves

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.

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.

reply to post by jmdewey60


The verses you quoted show a distinction between Israel and Judah. Not that they are the same. All Israel would include Judah yes, but House of Israel is northern kingdom specific. Babylonian captivity was the judgment on Judah, and a dispersion among the Gentiles and taken into captivity into Assyria was the punishment of the House of Israel. This is all in Scripture. I am not a cultist or a member of one. I absolutely will never be a part of one either. You deny that Christ will come back to Earth during the Day of the LORD? This is the same day.

Matthew 24:29 "Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken:"

Matthew 24:30 "And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory."



He is referencing Isaiah 13

Isaiah 13:9 "Behold, the day of the LORD cometh, cruel both with wrath and fierce anger, to lay the land desolate: and he shall destroy the sinners thereof out of it."

Isaiah 13:10 "For the stars of heaven and the constellations thereof shall not give their light: the sun shall be darkened in his going forth, and the moon shall not cause her light to shine."

He even goes so far as to tell us that there will be a partial solar eclipse, a new moon (on which an eclipse of the sun is possible) and that the stars will be falling lower to the horizon due to the approaching fall season and lower ecliptic. How is this not literal? Its even pointing to the Day of Trumpets or Yom Teruah.

So we have a Biblical foundation for the Second Coming of Christ to be one and the same as the Day of the LORD.

As for kingship:

Zechariah 14:9 "And the LORD shall be king over all the earth: in that day shall there be one LORD, and his name one."

Zechariah 14:16 "And it shall come to pass, that every one that is left of all the nations which came against Jerusalem shall even go up from year to year to worship the King, the LORD of hosts, and to keep the feast of tabernacles."

Isaiah 66:23 "And it shall come to pass, that from one new moon to another, and from one sabbath to another, shall all flesh come to worship before me, saith the LORD."

Revelation 20:4 "And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years."

Daniel 7:27 "And the kingdom and dominion, and the greatness of the kingdom under the whole heaven, shall be given to the people of the saints of the most High, whose kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, and all dominions shall serve and obey him."

Psalm 72:11 "Yea, all kings shall fall down before him: all nations shall serve him."

Psalm 86:9 "All nations whom thou hast made shall come and worship before thee, O Lord; and shall glorify thy name."

Isaiah 9:7 "Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even for ever. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will perform this."

Doesn't seem fantasy at all. Rather it seems quite literal.

reply to post by yahushuasaves

Not that they are the same.

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.

All Israel would include Judah yes, but House of Israel is northern kingdom specific.

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.

reply to post by jmdewey60


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. 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. 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. His righteousness does not make us righteous, but we must practice it ourselves. The Law isn't something difficult. God said it is very near us. All of the difficult to understand matters of the Law are actually quite simple in context. Stoning is only by the court officials and if they decide it is even necessary as in the case of the rebellious son. Israelite sacrifices were probably more humane than a slaughter house and amounted almost to cooking. Not very strange at all.

reply to post by yahushuasaves

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.

Judah, and not all of it, but the upper class, left for Babylonian exile, who returned was the Jews.

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.

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.

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.

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.'

His righteousness does not make us righteous, but we must practice it ourselves.

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.

The Law isn't something difficult. God said it is very near us.

Misquote. The actual quote is,

But the word is very near you, in your mouth and in your heart, that you may observe it.
Deuteronomy 30:14

All of the difficult to understand matters of the Law are actually quite simple in context.

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.

The Law does not save anyone. It simply compliments salvation already attained through grace and faith. This is a Scriptural principle that is made over and over. I am correcting out of love and not to be right or to further my own agenda. I have given plenty of evidence straight from Scripture to answer the topic at hand and my time here is done. I pray that God will open your eyes to the truth of Scripture and that understanding may come by the Spirit.

Shalom.

reply to post by yahushuasaves

I am correcting out of love and not to be right or to further my own agenda.

You aren't "correcting" me because you are giving just your opinion rather than teaching me a biblical truth.
You are apparently protecting your agenda by not having it subjected to criticism, if you are running away from the discussion.
Being "saved" is something that can be compared to the Israelites crossing the Red Sea, and something brought up by the writer of Hebrews. That salvation, brought by freeing the Israelites from Egypt brought them to Sinai where they were given instruction from The Lord. Then it was up to them to go along with it or not. Those who did not, did not make it into the promised land. We have the same thing with Christianity, where instead of a physical sort of salvation, it is spiritual, taking us out of spiritual Egypt, and spiritual Babylon, into the congregation of the Lord, this time Jesus. We are sanctified by being placed in the church after being saved from the world outside of sin. Now it is up to us to follow Jesus into righteousness.
What we don't have is an immediate entrée into heaven, just like the Israelites did not have immediate entrée into the promised land.
Grace is what put us into the congregation of the Lord, that was his saving you from the outside the church world of sin. Faith is a term for not just believing in something but the being convinced, which meant something more, and what Paul took up and redefined to make it the thing in the church that was the replacement for what the Law was for Israel. By Faith (living by Faith, as the people before lived by the Law) we have the ultimate salvation which is when we arrive in our promised land, Heaven.

I accept criticism just fine, and I can assure you the Scriptures say these things. 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. Dispensationalism has ruined the believers.

reply to post by yahushuasaves

I accept criticism just fine, and I can assure you the Scriptures say these things.

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.
You have no background in biblical studies and are taken in by known cult philosophies which are perpetuated by people who are knowingly dishonest.

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.

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.

Dispensationalism has ruined the believers.

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.

What did Christ do when tempted? Did he quote the New Testament? Or did he quote the Law? There was no New Testament at the time He was tempted. We are to walk as he walked. The New Testament is just as valid as the old and vice versa.

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. 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.

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."

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. Paul can be hard to understand. Christ is very plain in the Spirit. To those outside He speaks in parables. If one twists His words then one is spitting in the face of the Almighty and will suffer for it. The Law is holy, and the correct interpretation was given by Christ. He did not even give a new command, and anything new in the "New Testament" was already prophesied in the Old.

Psalm 119:1 " Blessed are the undefiled in the way, who walk in the law of the LORD."

If the Law of God is perfect and those who walk in it are undefiled, then how can Dispensationalism make any sense?

Jesus Christ is the Word of God made flesh, and if He is the same yesterday, today, and forever, the Torah cannot change at all. Who are we to obey? God or men? He did not come to abolish parts of Himself on the cross. Heaven and earth are still here, thus they are great witnesses against the Law abolishing paradigm. There are no New Heavens and New Earth yet are there? I am done with this. I have said what I have said for the sake of believers not to further my own cause. I am not a cultist or Judiazer. I am a follower of the Messiah Jesus Christ Yehoshua ha Mashicah and the God of the Universe. The God of the Bible. There is no other.

You have no background in biblical studies

2 Corinthians 3:1 "Do we begin again to commend ourselves? or need we, as some others, epistles of commendation to you, or letters of commendation from you?"

I do not need a theological degree to understand the very basic tenets of Scripture. Scripture is for all men to understand, and to glory in degrees is pride and in vain. The Spirit teaches us all things, not Pastor fill in the blank because he went to school. Not to say that they are all bad. Then again my job is not to say it nicely if someone is genuinely in error they must be corrected. Always out of love and in gentleness, yet sometimes harsh consequences are needed. Sometimes it must be said in the most plain of ways. No beating around the bush.

you need to go all the way with Christ, or go all the way with Moses. Falling in the middle is the cult zone.

Or do we need to go all the way with both? I leave you with this:

John 5:39 "Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

John 5:40 "And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life."

John 5:41 "I receive not honour from men."

John 5:42 "But I know you, that ye have not the love of God in you."

John 5:43" I am come in my Father's name, and ye receive me not: if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive."

John 5:44 "How can ye believe, which receive honour one of another, and seek not the honour that cometh from God only?"

John 5:45 "Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father: there is one that accuseth you, even Moses, in whom ye trust."

John 5:46 "FOR HAD YE BELIEVED MOSES, YE WOULD HAVE BELIEVED ME, FOR HE WROTE OF ME."

John 5:47 "BUT IF YE BELIEVE NOT HIS WRITINGS HOW SHALL YE BELIEVE MY WORDS?"

reply to post by yahushuasaves

What did Christ do when tempted? Did he quote the New Testament? Or did he quote the Law?

So did the devil.
Why didn't Jesus say, "If it says so, then it must be true."?

We are to walk as he walked.

There is a verse that says that,

Whoever claims to live in him must walk as Jesus did.
1 John 2:6
That is talking about loving your brother, and nothing to do with following the old written law.

The New Testament is just as valid as the old and vice versa.

You may think that, but you don't present a compelling enough of an argument to make someone else think that.

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 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.

reply to post by yahushuasaves

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.

"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.
The rest of the law is loving others. And in the case of Christians, the first part is a given, so it only leaves the second part as a rule to live by, and so becomes the Law to us.
There is no harking back to that old law which served to point forward to the spiritual Israel which is the church of Jesus Christ our Lord.

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."

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.

reply to post by yahushuasaves

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.

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.
These are arguments concerning his earlier statement in verses one through seven, on being dead to the jurisdiction of the law, meaning the old written, so-called Law of Moses.
What was "done away with" is the part of the Law which curses everyone who does not follow everything written in the books of the law, and demands our death on account of it. We are free to now follow the command to love God and others as ourselves, without fear of being struck down for not following the rest.
You have a problem when it comes to this so-called Moses document because you have really a tradition of men. Jesus does not go on to describe it as some sort of inerrant law straight out of the mouth of God. For example, Jesus said the provision of divorce was added. Also, people try to explain Jesus' remarks about tradition by making out that there were extra burdens placed on people beyond what is stipulated in the law. Probably the exact opposite would be true, that the Pharisees were constantly adding allowances for basically breaking the law in defined circumstances. Jesus said to do what the Pharisees said, as they sit in the seat of Moses. He was not so much lifting up the Pharisees as explaining the true nature of the "Moses" tradition, in a tactful way so as not to immediately set off would-be converts to Christianity from Judaism.