"I will bless those who bless you, And I will curse him who curses you"

reply to post by lonewolf19792000

. . . Israelites were chosen to be the priests of nations . . .

1 Peter 2:9
But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people belonging to God, that you may declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light.

. . . talking about Christians.
That overrides the old covenant of Sinai, which was to make those of the exodus priests.
We are under the new covenant as described by Peter.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by lonewolf19792000

 

. . . Israelites were chosen to be the priests of nations . . .

1 Peter 2:9
But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people belonging to God, that you may declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light.

. . . talking about Christians.
That overrides the old covenant of Sinai, which was to make those of the exodus priests.
We are under the new covenant as described by Peter.

Thats what the Israelites were chosen for originally. They did play out their role when they offered up Christ and he went willingly. I didn't say they were still chosen, i said they were. The old testament was the forshadowing of what proceeded during and after the gospels.

reply to post by jmdewey60

That is pretty broad, and your cult seems to interpret it to mean something in a very particular way, part of what makes it a cult, that somehow the cult has the power of prophecy higher than Gabriel's.

Seems clear enough to me. That Jesus would one day rule from David's throne. Which was a literal throne in Jerusalem. A throne that didn't exist at the time Gabriel spoke that promise. The Herods weren't Jews.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

Seems clear enough to me.

Thanks to being thoroughly brainwashed by your cult's indoctrination.

That Jesus would one day rule from David's throne.

Right, like I already quoted from Peter in Acts, that he was fulfilling that when Jesus ascended to Heaven and was made Lord by God the Father.

Which was a literal throne in Jerusalem.

There is nothing that says that in the Bible, and what I was referring to in my earlier reply, that it only says that in your cult's propaganda.

A throne that didn't exist at the time Gabriel spoke that promise.

If you look at the original promise to David, he would always have someone on his throne, if even in a not too literal sense, so the Hasmoneans would have held that position, which is who Herod got the throne from.
The idea that there is somehow a literal physical throne somewhere that Jesus has to sit on in order to fulfill prophecy is an idea specific to your cult and not what normal Christians believe in, and is part of the Dispensationalist doctrine, a cult that does not support the Messiahship of Jesus, and supports a new kingdom of the Jews to rule the world.

The Herods weren't Jews.

Herod the Great was King of the Jews, and there is an article saying just that in Biblical Archaeology Review.
By lineage, he was Idumean, so technically he wasn't a hereditary member of the tribe of Judea. That does not mean that he can not be considered "A Jew" in the modern sense of the word.
The area around Judea was consolidated by his predecessor, John Hyracanus, which included the Idumeans. In Fact, it was the Idumeans who instigated the move to keep the Romans out of Jerusalem which eventually let to its fall, and the destruction of the temple in 70 AD.

reply to post by jmdewey60


What do you mean He was "made Lord"? The Bible narrative is that the Lord became a man, Jesus Christ.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

What do you mean He was "made Lord"? The Bible narrative is that the Lord became a man, Jesus Christ.

You belong to a cult of a cult, where you think that the same person who was "The Lord" in the Old Testament, became The Lord, in the New Testament.
You are in the very extreme, to the point of not really being a Christian at all, by any normal definition of the word.
So, no wonder why you can't understand the concept of a Messiah.
Clue: that was Jesus, and he is currently, The Messiah, and also, and part of that, as a sort of extra bonus, Jesus is now called Lord, and God, the Father, desires everyone to acknowledge that and to submit themselves to his authority.
If you choose not to recognize that, then it is to your detriment. Hoping for some appearance that is visible to you in the physical realm is not going to satisfy that demand. So failing that faith in Christ is failing the most important thing in your life.
Submitting to the wishes of men, to forsake the notion of Jesus' Messiahship, is not the way to go but is the way being let to by the cult you apparently have joined in intellectually.

reply to post by jmdewey60


Cult, cult, cult.

(Says the guy parroting Arianism as if it's historical Christian orthodoxy.)

reply to post by NOTurTypical

Cult, cult, cult.

(Says the guy parroting Arianism as if it's historical Christian orthodoxy.)

Trying to find a worse 'cult'?
Arianism is not a cult, and it was 'orthodox' for much of church history.
As it turned out, the Athenasian Catholics won the war, with "might makes right" prevailing.
I told you before, that if you believe 'Jesus is God's only begotten son', then you are an Arian.
The "official" orthodoxy of the Catholic Church proclaims Jesus as 'un-begotten'.

reply to post by jmdewey60


It certainly wasn't orthodoxy. Arius taught that Jesus wasn't the eternal God who became a man. That He was a created being. He rejected the notion that the eternal God added humanity to His pre-existent divinity at the incarnation. And Arius was resoundingly deemed to be a heretic.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

It certainly wasn't orthodoxy.

What you think you know about church history is really anti-history, meaning cult propaganda.

Arius taught that Jesus wasn't the eternal God who became a man.

Whatever you just said is not "orthodox" either. Not only is it not "official" Catholic orthodoxy, it isn't supported by the Bible either.

That He was a created being.

You are confusing Jehovah's Witnesses, who are sometimes called Arian by their opponents, as a kind of derogatory term.

He rejected the notion that the eternal God added humanity to His pre-existent divinity at the incarnation.

No, because that was not one of the options in the controversy, and something only made up 200 years ago by your cult's creator.

And Arius was resoundingly deemed to be a heretic.

By who, his opponents, hundreds of years later after that side finally prevailed, after killing half the clergy in Europe to gain the victory?

reply to post by jmdewey60


You can't just re-write history.

reply to post by lonewolf19792000

Israel will exist wether or not there are jews in it and this is for those who have eyes to see and ears to hear.

So you don't hold a pro-Jewish view of Israel then? Good to hear.
This thread was directed at people who are infatuated with the modern state of Israel... and hold that they will somehow get special treatment. The truth is that only a portion of them will survive... and Israel is to be a third with Egypt and Assyria.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

He rejected the notion that the eternal God added humanity to His pre-existent divinity at the incarnation. And Arius was resoundingly deemed to be a heretic.

God adding humanity and becoming human and all that is NOT part of the original Israelite religion that Jesus was part of. God never said that, neither did Jesus.

Originally posted by sk0rpi0n
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

He rejected the notion that the eternal God added humanity to His pre-existent divinity at the incarnation. And Arius was resoundingly deemed to be a heretic.

God adding humanity and becoming human and all that is NOT part of the original Israelite religion that Jesus was part of. God never said that, neither did Jesus.

I'm well aware Judaism rejects Jesus.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

I'm well aware Judaism rejects Jesus.

Not talking about Judaism as we know it today... but rather the Israelite religion that Jesus was born into 2000 years ago. That religion did not believe in ideas of God adding humanity and becoming human.

Originally posted by sk0rpi0n
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

I'm well aware Judaism rejects Jesus.

Not talking about Judaism as we know it today... but rather the Israelite religion that Jesus was born into 2000 years ago. That religion did not believe in ideas of God adding humanity and becoming human.

Yes..

I.....

know.

Originally posted by sk0rpi0n
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

He rejected the notion that the eternal God added humanity to His pre-existent divinity at the incarnation. And Arius was resoundingly deemed to be a heretic.

God adding humanity and becoming human and all that is NOT part of the original Israelite religion that Jesus was part of. God never said that, neither did Jesus.

Actually it was. Go read Genesis 18, the Lord showed up in the physical, he did it again at Mt. Sinai in Exodus 33, and again to Manoah and his wife (parents of Samson) in Judges 13. Jesus accepted worship, which for a kosher jew would be idolatry. Now if Jesus wasn't God, and he accepted worship then that was blasphemy and the jews would have been in the right for executing him. Now which one is it Skorpion? Was Jesus God or were the jews justified to execute him? You can't have it both ways.

It says plainly:

John 19:17-22

17 And He, bearing His cross, went out to a place called the Place of a Skull, which is called in Hebrew, Golgotha, 18 where they crucified Him, and two others with Him, one on either side, and Jesus in the center. 19 Now Pilate wrote a title and put it on the cross. And the writing was:

JESUS OF NAZARETH, THE KING OF THE JEWS.

20 Then many of the Jews read this title, for the place where Jesus was crucified was near the city; and it was written in Hebrew, Greek, and Latin.

21 Therefore the chief priests of the Jews said to Pilate, “Do not write, ‘The King of the Jews,’ but, ‘He said, “I am the King of the Jews.”’”

22 Pilate answered, “What I have written, I have written.”

In verse 21, the chief priests (Caiaphas) wanted it made abundantly clear that Jesus claimed to be the king of the Jews, which in hebrew would have come out as:

Yeshua
Ha'Neseret
Ve'Melekh
Ha'Yehudim

Or simply put YHVH. They wanted it known that Jesus claimed to be God. Even jews know that God is the only King of Israel, it says it right there all in the old testament.

So now it brings you to the Trilemma. Jesus was either:

A) a lunatic
B) a liar
C) telling the truth

Either the jews were right, or christians are right there is no in between. If you say he was nothing but a prophet, well then go figure they thought he was too at first until he started saying "before Abraham was, I AM" and they tried to throw him of a cliff and stone him. Infact the jews understood who he was claiming to be:

John 10:33 The Jews answered Him, saying, “For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy, and because You, being a Man, make Yourself God.”

They understood very well what he was claiming, thats why they kept trying to kill him.

reply to post by lonewolf19792000

Actually it was.

There is no description of how it was that this person (called in the current form of Genesis, Yahweh) appeared looking quite human-like.
For all we know, angels looked basically like normal people, to the writers of Genesis.
"God" to the ancient Hebrews, meant anyone higher than an ordinary person, which could include sometimes human persons, for example the Old Testament quote by Jesus, recorded By the Gospel of John as giving in response to the accusations by the Jews against him (of blasphemy), for claiming to be the son of God (which is just another way of saying, the Messiah).

Was Jesus God or were the jews justified to execute him? You can't have it both ways.

Clearly Jesus is god in that he stands as the new 'I Am', as the representative, in Physical form and appearing before men, on this planet, Earth.
Jesus was killed for causing a disturbance in the status quo, being more a political concern that religious, though amongst themselves, the leaders of the Jews were using such concerns to justify their actions to each other.

They understood very well what he was claiming, thats why they kept trying to kill him.

They understood that the then-current definition of Messiah would confer upon whoever filled that role, a type of divinity.
So being a god and Messiah was not a problem with the Jews of Jesus' day, it was just that They thought he would come directly from heaven, sitting on a cloud, next to God.
Since they knew Jesus and where he came from, they could not accept his divinity.
We today are faced with the exact same challenge, to accept Jesus as Lord by spiritual discernment, or find out physically, when it will be too late for you to save yourself through the Faith that comes with that belief.

reply to post by lonewolf19792000

In verse 21, the chief priests (Caiaphas) wanted it made abundantly clear that Jesus claimed to be the king of the Jews, which in hebrew would have come out as:

Yeshua Ha'Neseret Ve'Melekh Ha'Yehudim

The actual thing was written in Hebrew, Greek and Latin.
We know that the Latin read "Iesus Nazarenus Rex Iudaeorum"... how do you know that was the exact Hebrew translation, may I ask?

I ran a few searches and I found that it said "Yeshua hanatzari melekh hayehudim", so thats "YHMH". SOURCE

Also, I had a suspicion that your source was Chuck Missler. And I was right. I ran a search for this Chuck Missler and your Hebrew translation... and this is what I found.

Jesus Epitaph by Chuck Missler

Or simply put YHVH. They wanted it known that Jesus claimed to be God. Even jews know that God is the only King of Israel, it says it right there all in the old testament.

From what we know they wanted to inscribe that he said "I am King of the Jews", but Pilate refused to.

Secondly, Jesus could not have claimed to be God because he himself read the Israelites Shema and directed all worship to God.

He said "Hear O Israel, your God is one", not "Hear O Israel, I am your God".

reply to post by lonewolf19792000

So now it brings you to the Trilemma. Jesus was either:

A) a lunatic
B) a liar
C) telling the truth

We know the exact words that Jesus spoke. Its in the Bible.
We know he did not say "I am God" or "I am YHWV".

Either the jews were right, or christians are right there is no in between. If you say he was nothing but a prophet, well then go figure they thought he was too at first until he started saying "before Abraham was, I AM" and they tried to throw him of a cliff and stone him.

"I AM" was an angel... in the form of a burning bush. Jesus probably was of the same essence of the angel.
I'm guessing "I AM" means the word of God, which is what Jesus was.

Again, Jesus never really explains why he called himself I AM... so we can only speculate.

Infact the jews understood who he was claiming to be:

John 10:33 The Jews answered Him, saying, “For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy, and because You, being a Man, make Yourself God.”

And we all know Jesus' response. He referred to the One who sent him, i.e - God.