A message for Jeremiah

[Sidekick]

משיח is whoever is משיח at the time.
Revelation 22:8-9

 

[Sidekick]

Yeah but the verses ofJeremiah becomes problematic for your imposter messiah, especially the ones about false prophets. Jeremiah 5:30-31, 14:14, 23:16, 26, 31-32.

If it’s Michael (Dan 12:1-4) to rise and redeem Israel thus Judah, then he must be the one who is savior and called Lord of Righteousness in Jeremiah 23:5-6 as we already know in the Jewish traditions even in Christian traditions angel (messenger/prophet) of Righteousness is Michael .
Jeremiah 11:20 he's the LORD of hosts (head [arch] of the congregation).
that judgest righteously fits in a pattern with Jeremiah 23:5-6 but also with Jeremiah 33:15-16.

Jeremiah 23:5-6:
"Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will raise to David a righteous Branch, and a King shall reign
& prosper, and shall execute judgment and justice upon the earth. 6 In his days Judah shall be saved,
and Israel shall dwell in safety: and this is his name by which he shall be called,
JEHOVAH OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS." (Noah Webster Bible; NWB)[/i]

King here is claimed to be Moshiach (Jesus was and will never be king unless you label him king of
the kingdom of death).
Executing Judgment was a role of Michael in the Bible, oral tradition and scrolls.
see my former post on the Judge and the refiners Fire Analogy if you need references to the judge.

Reference to the man saving Israel means if you combine Dan 12:1-4 (same scenerio) with Jeremiah 23:5-6
you have the name of that very same Savior to rise up for Israel, that name being in clear writing as
MICHAEL not Jesus. YHWH of Righteousness if it's worded that way means 'one who causes Righteousness'
If it's worded Lord is our righteous then it means the KIng called Lord (Not to be confused with G0d)
is our righteousness or as we say Messenger of righteousness.
THe Message of Righteousness in scripture and tradition was always known as the top messenger Michael
sometimes refered to as Melchezedek (King of Righteousness) all lines up with Jeremiah 23 :5-6 and thus reveals
one in the same name for all aspects of these 2 verses, the name being Michael not Jim, Not Joe, and Not Jesus.

When you read the whole book of Daniel, is it written in first person point of view, is it written by the prophet or by the king of Babylon, how do you know where the one ends and the other begins?

 

[JakeStarkey]

[The comment you quoted was in response to a poster that doesn't comprehend that a follower of Christ had their sins removed at the cross. God doesn't smite them for their sins, He doesn't even remember their sins. Happy God, Happy fundies. You should try it. Sure beats nasty.........

Bad theology.

Perfect theology:

"I, even I, am the one who wipes out your transgressions for My own sake; and I will not remember your sins

He does it for His Son's sake, not ours. What just God would judge 2 men for the same crime?

For as high as the heavens are above the earth, So great is His lovingkindness toward those who fear Him. As far as the east is from the west, So far has He removed our transgressions from us. Just as a father has compassion on his children, So the LORD has compassion on those who fear Him.…

Hebrews 9:26
Otherwise Christ would have had to suffer many times since the creation of the world. But he has appeared once for all at the culmination of the ages to do away with sin by the sacrifice of himself

I suppose you can ask him to judge your sins, but if he did away with your sins on the cross, and remembers them no more, what then will He be judging you on?

Yup, you post bad theology. Irresistible grace does not free you from the consequence of your sinning.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Just curious, Jake. I noticed you chose a translation that uses "charity" instead of "love". I am assuming you used the KJV as that is how it translates it as well. The Greek word for charity is filanthro̱pía, but according to the Greek interlinear (see link below) the root words used is agápi̱, which is "love".

Now as we both know, different manuscripts from antiquity say different things and words used for translation in the Elizabethan Age sometimes do not mean the same thing as today. In other words, when the KJV was translated in the Elizabethan Age, it was a faithful translation because "charity" and "love" were used interchangeably when referring to love as a noun. Today they have very different definitions though.

I wonder if you would comment on continuing to use the Elizabethan translation "charity" instead of "love" in 1 Corinthians 13. What are your thoughts on how it may apply to modern understanding of the scripture?

http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/NTpdf/1co13.pdf

At the very basic level, charity and love can be equated as nearly the same. Of course, they aren't at the essential element but are close. I love the KJV from days attending church with my grandmother. I learned Spanish by reading Santa Biblia and Don Quioxte along side the English versions. Finally, I love the beauty and linguistic elegance of the KJV. When I read KJV, I always have a NIV and a Catholic reader's Bible alongside.

 

[HaShev]

Yeah but the verses ofJeremiah becomes problematic for your imposter messiah, especially the ones about false prophets. Jeremiah 5:30-31, 14:14, 23:16, 26, 31-32.

If it’s Michael (Dan 12:1-4) to rise and redeem Israel thus Judah, then he must be the one who is savior and called Lord of Righteousness in Jeremiah 23:5-6 as we already know in the Jewish traditions even in Christian traditions angel (messenger/prophet) of Righteousness is Michael .
Jeremiah 11:20 he's the LORD of hosts (head [arch] of the congregation).
that judgest righteously fits in a pattern with Jeremiah 23:5-6 but also with Jeremiah 33:15-16.

Jeremiah 23:5-6:
"Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will raise to David a righteous Branch, and a King shall reign
& prosper, and shall execute judgment and justice upon the earth. 6 In his days Judah shall be saved,
and Israel shall dwell in safety: and this is his name by which he shall be called,
JEHOVAH OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS." (Noah Webster Bible; NWB)[/i]

King here is claimed to be Moshiach (Jesus was and will never be king unless you label him king of
the kingdom of death).
Executing Judgment was a role of Michael in the Bible, oral tradition and scrolls.
see my former post on the Judge and the refiners Fire Analogy if you need references to the judge.

Reference to the man saving Israel means if you combine Dan 12:1-4 (same scenerio) with Jeremiah 23:5-6
you have the name of that very same Savior to rise up for Israel, that name being in clear writing as
MICHAEL not Jesus. YHWH of Righteousness if it's worded that way means 'one who causes Righteousness'
If it's worded Lord is our righteous then it means the KIng called Lord (Not to be confused with G0d)
is our righteousness or as we say Messenger of righteousness.
THe Message of Righteousness in scripture and tradition was always known as the top messenger Michael
sometimes refered to as Melchezedek (King of Righteousness) all lines up with Jeremiah 23 :5-6 and thus reveals
one in the same name for all aspects of these 2 verses, the name being Michael not Jim, Not Joe, and Not Jesus.

Michael is a creation. An angel. Christ is the Son of man. God in the flesh. Emanuel. Michael did not remove the sins of the world. Jesus the Christ did. There is a big difference between a messenger and a redeemer.

I am curious, where in the Torah are you told by God to praise Michael, a creation, instead of the creator?

There is so much that is wrong in this post, where do I begin?
1) malakh means messenger, it is your faith that anthropromorphizes a simple word into mythical beings against warnings not to do so.
2) you do not know what the term "son of" meant in the time of the Bible in that context. Son of=reflection of.
same as saying malakh/angel (reflections of God).
That is why Psalms says the angels are "sons of God".
3)Jesus and the apostles talk of son of man as another to come later (third person tense).
4) Daniel reveals to you who son of man is.
5) Jesus isn't son of man Rev 1:13 Jesus is like unto (resembling/impostering) son of man.
6) you gave God a form of flesh breaking the simplest of commands and notions that God is not a man nor form.
7) Moshiach is not a God and only Lucifer tries to steal from both Moshiach and God by claiming to be a god-Ezekiel 28. You made Jesus fulfill LUCIFER WHICH IS WHAT REV 22:16 admits.
8) Emanuel? Jesus was not the one who was Prince of peace and God with us, that was King Hezekiah in Isaiah 7 who had God with him in defeating Assyrians, thus prince of peace & father figure the son of King Ahaz as his sign given to him in his era not 600 yrs after he's dead where a sign does him no good. You were lied to & to lazy to read the context and history of his era. Now you repeat &spew those lies corrupting other lazy people.
That debunks your removal of sins claim as we see he makes you sin.
9) Once again you prove Jesus is lucifer who confuses your weighing of what is sin and what is salvation from sin.
10) never said praise Michael, but you sliped because you praise Jesus for the same role you stole and that's another Lucifer trait to seek praise and servitude.
Moshiach is a servant to man not served by man thus proving Jesus is not moshiach, he's the fallen son of perdition.

 

[JakeStarkey]

HaShev is mistaken, badly in error.

No need to go further.

 

[HaShev]

Sidekick,
could be many reasons you see it as such.
1) maybe your version is not the Tanakh?
2) maybe if it was written in a later time in Daniel's name and the writer has trouble keeping tenses like a non writer would have writing a play .
3) translation or transliteration issues (see 1)
4) our reading issues
5) requires exact verses to evaluate where they weave in and out of character.

But you bring up an important issue proving my former points.
Daniel speaks of son of man third person tense as a vision yet is not confused for Michael giving him the message nor considered son of man.
Yet when Jesus speaks of son of man / holy father (head of hosts) third person tense,
the messenger and son of man this father becomes one in the same accidentally and there are sects of Christians who thus accidentally make Jesus the messenger Michael. In other words they notice tenses when they need to yet conveniently play dumb when impostering Michael with this Jesus figure.

 

[The Irish Ram]

[The comment you quoted was in response to a poster that doesn't comprehend that a follower of Christ had their sins removed at the cross. God doesn't smite them for their sins, He doesn't even remember their sins. Happy God, Happy fundies. You should try it. Sure beats nasty.........

Bad theology.

Perfect theology:

"I, even I, am the one who wipes out your transgressions for My own sake; and I will not remember your sins

He does it for His Son's sake, not ours. What just God would judge 2 men for the same crime?

For as high as the heavens are above the earth, So great is His lovingkindness toward those who fear Him. As far as the east is from the west, So far has He removed our transgressions from us. Just as a father has compassion on his children, So the LORD has compassion on those who fear Him.…

Hebrews 9:26
Otherwise Christ would have had to suffer many times since the creation of the world. But he has appeared once for all at the culmination of the ages to do away with sin by the sacrifice of himself

I suppose you can ask him to judge your sins, but if he did away with your sins on the cross, and remembers them no more, what then will He be judging you on?

Yup, you post bad theology. Irresistible grace does not free you from the consequence of your sinning.

Oh yes it does:

Romans 5:20
Moreover the law entered that the offense might abound. But where sin abounded, grace abounded much more

Much more. The person committing sin under the law wasn't even responsible for his own sins. A lamb was used as a substitute. God would never kill two for the fault of one. If Christ didn't remove our sin once and for all then there was no reason for Him to be here, hanging on a cross. His sole purpose was to remove our sin. Which gave God the ability to tell you, personally, that your sin is as far removed from you as the east is from the west, and I don't remember them, welcome home.

If he intends to punish you too, then God is a liar.

Colossians 1:22
But now he has reconciled you by Christ's physical body through death to present you holy in his sight, without blemish and free from accusation

 

[HaShev]

HaShev is mistaken, badly in error.

No need to go further.

Damn that was the best (laziest) refutation and rebuttle I've ever seen, worth every penny you spent on college. : - )

 

[HaShev]

The Irish ram,
but the lamb on passover was not for sin it was to mock the Egyptian idol lamb god and make the Egyptians kick them out of Egypt. The Lamb=idolization/sin itself
By calling Jesus that lamb you admit he is the idol god and sin needing removal.

 

[JakeStarkey]

[The comment you quoted was in response to a poster that doesn't comprehend that a follower of Christ had their sins removed at the cross. God doesn't smite them for their sins, He doesn't even remember their sins. Happy God, Happy fundies. You should try it. Sure beats nasty.........

Bad theology.

Perfect theology:

"I, even I, am the one who wipes out your transgressions for My own sake; and I will not remember your sins

He does it for His Son's sake, not ours. What just God would judge 2 men for the same crime?

For as high as the heavens are above the earth, So great is His lovingkindness toward those who fear Him. As far as the east is from the west, So far has He removed our transgressions from us. Just as a father has compassion on his children, So the LORD has compassion on those who fear Him.…

Hebrews 9:26
Otherwise Christ would have had to suffer many times since the creation of the world. But he has appeared once for all at the culmination of the ages to do away with sin by the sacrifice of himself

I suppose you can ask him to judge your sins, but if he did away with your sins on the cross, and remembers them no more, what then will He be judging you on?

Yup, you post bad theology. Irresistible grace does not free you from the consequence of your sinning.

Oh yes it does:

Romans 5:20
Moreover the law entered that the offense might abound. But where sin abounded, grace abounded much more

Much more. The person committing sin under the law wasn't even responsible for his own sins. A lamb was used as a substitute. God would never kill two for the fault of one. If Christ didn't remove our sin once and for all then there was no reason for Him to be here, hanging on a cross. His sole purpose was to remove our sin. Which gave God the ability to tell you, personally, that your sin is as far removed from you as the east is from the west, and I don't remember them, welcome home.

If he intends to punish you too, then God is a liar.

Colossians 1:22
But now he has reconciled you by Christ's physical body through death to present you holy in his sight, without blemish and free from accusation

Poor theology. That does not protect from the effect of sin. Christ will not protect you.

 

[JakeStarkey]

HaShev is mistaken, badly in error.

No need to go further.

Damn that was the best (laziest) refutation and rebuttle I've ever seen, worth every penny you spent on college. : - )

One need not spend a penny on refuting your nonsensical silliness.

 

[Hollie]

What sins will he smite you for?

Angry fundamentalists and their angry gawds.

It's gettin' old.

So, if it is getting old, why do you bother posting on the religion threads? Clearly it does nothing but annoy you, and, I mean this as respectfully as possible, you don't really offer much in regard to providing an opportunity for new learning, so why do you continue? It's like someone who cracks a rotten egg and is disgusted by the smell, but keeps the egg on the kitchen counter so they can smell it over and over. It doesn't make a great deal of sense

I think it's important and worthwhile to counter fear and superstion with reason and rationality. How do we discern the truth? By partisan faith in supernatural gawds? By unsupportable assertion and stepping away and accepting untested and anecdotal claims? Or, do we assiduously test our truths, hold them up to scrutiny, demand they be accountable at some level?

When religionists simply accept that their particular, partisan gawds as the answer to existence, they would condemn humanity to never probing the answers to the deeper questions. And in fact during the Dark Ages this thought held sway -- do not seek the answers to the mysteries of life, because you cannot answer them because you cannot know the mind or character of the gawds.

There are far better models of existence that serve human requirements and they do so in terms of the common good as opposed to an external authority of various gawds commanding us on pain or threat of punishment to do the things that are morally justified. As time goes on, these wholly secular environments will grow larger and religions that promote fear and superstition will fade.

 

[RandomVariable]

The Irish ram,
but the lamb on passover was not for sin it was to mock the Egyptian idol lamb god and make the Egyptians kick them out of Egypt. The Lamb=idolization/sin itself
By calling Jesus that lamb you admit he is the idol god and sin needing removal.

The lamb was for supper. God was just making sure no one headed off on an empty stomach. Wow, you people really over-think some of this stuff.

 

[The Irish Ram]

Jake, if your sins aren't covered by the blood of Christ, then whose sins did Jesus remove?
And what is the method you are using to rid yourself of your sins? And since every man has sinned is every man destined to hell?

 

[The Irish Ram]

The Irish ram,
but the lamb on passover was not for sin it was to mock the Egyptian idol lamb god and make the Egyptians kick them out of Egypt. The Lamb=idolization/sin itself
By calling Jesus that lamb you admit he is the idol god and sin needing removal.

The lambs slain at the Temple were a substitute sin offering for the Jew. It was a temporary blood covering of their sins, which made it necessary to repeat. Christ, the Lord died once and for all to remove sin permanently. Under the new covenant of Christ the veil in the Temple that separated man from God was torn. Man can go boldly to the throne now without accusation or condemnation.

 

[JakeStarkey]

False questions and a demonstrated lack of willingness to understand, Ram. Being saved does not mean you get to keep sinning and escaping the results of sin. Irresistible grace is not a shield for continued bad actions.

 

[HaShev]

The Irish ram,
but the lamb on passover was not for sin it was to mock the Egyptian idol lamb god and make the Egyptians kick them out of Egypt. The Lamb=idolization/sin itself
By calling Jesus that lamb you admit he is the idol god and sin needing removal.

The lambs slain at the Temple were a substitute sin offering for the Jew. It was a temporary blood covering of their sins, which made it necessary to repeat. Christ, the Lord died once and for all to remove sin permanently. Under the new covenant of Christ the veil in the Temple that separated man from God was torn. Man can go boldly to the throne now without accusation or condemnation.

1)Once again passover lamb is not the same.
But Temple symbolism was also a mockery of the other cultures gods.
2)Deut says a bastard son is not allowed in the temple therefore the lamb can not=the son of the harlot who had him from her fling with Roman Soldier Pantheras.
3)By claiming him the covering of sins proves my point=lucifer covers up your sins.
4) the thousands of wars and over 50 million murders in his name and all the cross tatoos necklaces and earings in prison prove you are not saved from sin, you rather create more in that crazy claim.
Your reply is not only a great lie but it's pure satanic in logic.

 

[The Irish Ram]

False questions and a demonstrated lack of willingness to understand, Ram. Being saved does not mean you get to keep sinning and escaping the results of sin. Irresistible grace is not a shield for continued bad actions.

So then your actions are also required for salvation? You + Christ = Salvation? You couldn't be more wrong Jake. You cannot earn your salvation. At your very best, you continue to sin.
So which sins are you accountable for and which ones did Christ pay for?
How many of your good works does it take to equal out the bad ones?
And if you are going to endure the result of a sin, the second death, why exactly did Christ have to pay for your sins too? What would be the point?
What just judge condemns the criminal to death, and then goes out on the street and grabs an innocent passer-by and condemns him to death for the criminal's crime too? To revisit your sins twice would be double jeopardy, and nothing close to being just.

God is 100% merciful and 100% just. The punishment for sin is death. And here is the courtroom of a just God:
You have an accuser. And it certainly isn't our Father. It is Satan and he remembers your sins very well.
You have an advocate at your table. It is Christ.
When Satan presents your sin, Christ will respond with, "That debt has been paid your honor". The case against you is dismissed.
And THAT is why God took pleasure in bruising His Son. Because the above scenario is the result.


Even the Jews, under the law, were not responsible for their sins. God provided a substitute for their sins, over and over and over, because they sinned over and over and over, as do the very best of Christians today.

To include yourself in the apparent unfinished work on the cross places your eyes squarely on self instead of on Christ. Christ didn't die to pick up your slack.

And why would a Christian continue their bad behavior once they have become a new creature in Christ? What Christ did for us does not constitute a license to sin. It was a gift and it was complete. If you never produce a good work in your life, but believe that Jesus Christ died for your sins and you except his gift, you will enter Heaven. Sin Free.

Abraham's bosom is proof that Christ alone removes sin. We cannot.

Galatians 2:21 (ASV) I do not make void the grace of God: for if righteousness is through the law, then Christ died for naught.

.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Ram, those are your words and false conclusions.

You have an opinion and that is all it is.