The Meaning of Parables

[5stringJeff]

Originally posted by ajwps
Actually I am really not an expert on the New Testament versions. But if my memory serves me, it seems that only 144,000 people will be taken up in the clouds with him on judgement day.

It is difficult to believe that Christ has so many enemies.

That is not correct, as has already been pointed out. From what I've read, there will be 144,000 Jews that will be raptured with the rest of the Church. See this website for more info:
http://www.jesus-messiah.com/prophecy/144-000.html
and
http://www.rapturechrist.com/onehundredfortyfour.htm

 

[ajwps]

Originally posted by Avatar4321
Even that is innacurate. the only 144,000 being taken up is a misinterpretation commonly found among the Jehovahs witnesses. And they arent all jews. only 12,000 are jews. the rest of the 132,000 are from the other tribes of Israel. The verses after the mention of the 144,000 states that there is a countless multitude cleansed by the blood of the Savior.

My interpretation is that the 144,000 are missionaries sent out to the preach the Gospel and gather up the wheat from the midsts of the tares. Above that i dont know much, i havent diligently sought after this question.

Again I am not a New Testament expert but the words of Revelation 14:1-3 seem to talk about this 144,000 were the only redeemed from the earth as chosen by Jesus. Are these 144,000 Jews who convert to Jesus or they just those Christians who truly believe Jesus while the untold trillions upon trillions only speak from their mouths and not their minds about believing on Jesus?

It seems even the Christian folks here are confused.

Revelation 14 KJV

1 And I looked, and, lo, a Lamb stood on the mount Sion, and with him an hundred forty and four thousand, having his Father's name written in their foreheads.

2 And I heard a voice from heaven, as the voice of many waters, and as the voice of a great thunder: and I heard the voice of harpers harping with their harps:

3 And they sung as it were a new song before the throne, and before the four beasts, and the elders: and no man could learn that song but the hundred and forty and four thousand, which were redeemed from the earth.

 

[ajwps]

Originally posted by gop_jeff

That is not correct, as has already been pointed out. From what I've read, there will be 144,000 Jews that will be raptured with the rest of the Church. See this website for more info:
http://www.jesus-messiah.com/prophecy/144-000.html
and
http://www.rapturechrist.com/onehundredfortyfour.htm

Apparently there is a great deal of confusion about this 144,000 elect. Here is the last paragraph of your first Christian messianic site.

Antother thuoght here which I have not explored completely is that as Jerusalem is often referred to as Zion and Mount Zion, so the heavenly city New Jerusalem is also called Zion or Mount Zion. Some are of the opinion that Revelation 14 is a heavenly scene and not earthly and the reference to Mount Sion (Zion) is not the earthly but the heavenly Jerusalem. The 144,00 are said to be singing in heaven on Mount Sion not upon earth. These are singning in 14:3 before the throne and before the four beast and Elders. The word "these" in 14:4 indicate the 144,000 are there in heaven doing the singing. And in 14:5 the text says they are before the throne in heaven. They therefore are NOT Jewish evangelist to save Israel by preaching. So, the sealing of the 144,000 is not upon the earth during the tribulation time and this resolves the objection that the Church will not go through the tribulaton because the great number were not sealed with the 144,000.

Interesting..... There seems to be in this man's thoughts that there are 144,000 sirens singing in New Jerusalem from the sky and that some folks are going to be sealed or maybe unsealed but why bother with the Jews as they are the sons of Satan and the killer of the Christ?

Saved, how many trillions upon trillions times a trillion squared souls have died before that knew not Christ. Somebody is sure to be left out of this great savings day..

 

[ajwps]

Originally posted by HGROKIT

ajwps has moved this thread from the joke forum to discuss this parable with Walwor. The parable he is speaking of comes from the Book of Luke - however ajwps stated two threads up he is not familiar with the NT (Luke is a NT book BTW). So is he trying to engage in conversation in which he learns something or just to troll?

In reading the back and forth he had going on with Walwor - I sense that he is just arguing back and forth about persecution of Jews etc. A parable in a group of verses and verses unto themselves cannot be used in the singular to express a point. Very fine and sublte context exists - especially in parables.

So - if one is trying to make a point that christians persecute jews or vice versa, why not just come out and say so without pulling religious scripture one know nothing about to make a point?

You ask a very good question in your post HGROKIT. The reason I bother with these discussions is that apparently Christianity has included us, the Jewish people, in their passion play depicting the people of G-d as being replaced (replacement theology) by the gentiles with a new covenant by G-d.

Like G-d made a big mistake making a covenant with a people he knew and promised would always be His.

I don't like being made a scapegoat by those whose belief makes them following a god never known before.

As one who is not a New Testament expert, it seems apparent that reading a text from any testament either means what it says or it hidden in veiled analogies or parable stories that no one can be certain of its meaning.

Good to meet ya...

 

[Avatar4321]

Originally posted by HGROKIT
My interpretation is that there are 12,000 taken from each of the twelve tribes for 144,000. The 12 tribes were the jews lead out of Egypt, so I am not sure how you came to the conclusion that there is a difference betweeb Israel and the Jews.
B]

Ill explain it. Its not really that tough.

Israel had twelve sons. Through his twelve sons there are twelve tribes. Jews are the term for the tribe of Judah which is only one of twelve.

Originally all twelve tribes lived together. during the days of Isaiah. the Assyrians ransacked the northern kingdom of Israel and carried 10 of the twevle tribes out scattering them among the nations.

Later, Babylon conquored the Southern Kingdom of Judah which also included the tribe of Benjamin, which Paul the Apostle descended from. After the Babylonian exile, the Israelites remaining were mostly from the tribe of Judah so they were called Jews.

So you see Jews are only one tribe Israel. One of which will be gatherened with his brethren before the Lord comes today.

Interestingly enough, the jews arent the tribe with the greatest blessings. The greatest blessings lie with the Tribe of Ephraim, the Son of Joseph in Egypt who recieved his Fathers birthright. It was Ephraim, who along with his brother tribe Manasseh. was promised the land of the everlasting hills, and given the responsibility to gather in Israel from the four corners of the earth before the Lord comes again. And We have seen evidence of the gathering beginning. it wont be long now. Maybe a hundred years or so before all is fulfilled. Quite possibly alot shorter time though.

 

[5stringJeff]

Originally posted by ajwps
Apparently there is a great deal of confusion about this 144,000 elect. Here is the last paragraph of your first Christian messianic site.

Interesting..... There seems to be in this man's thoughts that there are 144,000 sirens singing in New Jerusalem from the sky and that some folks are going to be sealed or maybe unsealed but why bother with the Jews as they are the sons of Satan and the killer of the Christ?

Saved, how many trillions upon trillions times a trillion squared souls have died before that knew not Christ. Somebody is sure to be left out of this great savings day..

I will be the first to admit that people are not in agreement on what exactly the 144,000 are, so I gave you a couple of links. But the paragraph you quoted says that the 144K are Jews in heaven who are saved. So I don't know where you are getting this whole thing that Christians don't want Jews to be saved. Why don't you visit this site and read up about Jews who have accepted Jesus?

And you are right, not everyone is going to be saved. Jesus said as much in the Sermon on the Mount: "Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it."

 

[ajwps]

Originally posted by Avatar4321

Ill explain it. Its not really that tough. Israel had twelve sons. Through his twelve sons there are twelve tribes. Jews are the term for the tribe of Judah which is only one of twelve.

Actually it was Jacob (Israel) the son of Isaac and grandson of Abraham, who had twelve sons who eventually had families of their own which each became one of the twelve tribes of the people of the land. Jews are not the term or name of those twelve tribes of Judah. They were the Hebrew people who only became Jews once they entered the land of Canaan with Joshua.

Originally all twelve tribes lived together. during the days of Isaiah. the Assyrians ransacked the northern kingdom of Israel and carried 10 of the twevle tribes out scattering them among the nations.

Actually the prophet Isaiah lived in the 8th century BCE. The northern tribes were taken off into Babylonian captivity (Diaspora) leaving the tribe of Judah in the south of Israel.

Later, Babylon conquored the Southern Kingdom of Judah which also included the tribe of Benjamin, which Paul the Apostle descended from. After the Babylonian exile, the Israelites remaining were mostly from the tribe of Judah so they were called Jews.

Actually all the Jews in Israel since their 40 year journey in the desert became known as the Jewish people. It is higly unlikely that Paul of Tarsus was from any of the tribes of Israel (Jacob).

There were no Jews in Tarsus but simply pagans with dieties similar to those in the New Testament. This was how Paul knew of the god-man, born of woman, came to save man from sin, killed and rose back to the sky. These concepts were not known before Paul introduced them as the gospels.

So you see Jews are only one tribe Israel. One of which will be gatherened with his brethren before the Lord comes today.

Do you actually mean the Jesus is coming TODAY. The Jews are beginning to return from the four corners of the earth as predicted thousands of years before Christianity. They even come on the wings of birds as in planes from places like Ethiopia, Russia, India and many many more places. An yet, Jesus has not been seen as yet but the prophecies of old are coming true in our day.

Interestingly enough, the jews arent the tribe with the greatest blessings. The greatest blessings lie with the Tribe of Ephraim, the Son of Joseph in Egypt who recieved his Fathers birthright. It was Ephraim, who along with his brother tribe Manasseh. was promised the land of the everlasting hills, and given the responsibility to gather in Israel from the four corners of the earth before the Lord comes again. And We have seen evidence of the gathering beginning. it wont be long now. Maybe a hundred years or so before all is fulfilled. Quite possibly alot shorter time though.

So you think that the ingathering of the lost tribes of Israel announce the comming of the Messiah. Well you are right in one respect but the Messiah Jesus knew of was never to be G-d Himself. Jesus knew that as well as you know your own hand. For the L-rd G-d never left the first time as He has always been right here.

You are the masters of your souls and the captains of your own fate. For you were given freewill with which to choose for yourself and no one or god can give salvation from what path in life you yourself have chosen.

 

[ajwps]

Originally posted by gop_jeff

I will be the first to admit that people are not in agreement on what exactly the 144,000 are, so I gave you a couple of links. But the paragraph you quoted says that the 144K are Jews in heaven who are saved. So I don't know where you are getting this whole thing that Christians don't want Jews to be saved. Why don't you visit this site and read up about Jews who have accepted Jesus?

I have read your Christian missionary site. You seem to find all those Jews who have come to find Jesus but I can show you many many more Christians who have left the belief in Jesus and have converted on their own without deceit or prentense to Judaism. There are no Jewish missionaries (this is forbidden) and for any who desire to become Jews, the way is made very difficult for the faith of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. It is not necessary to become Jewish in order to accept the burden of following G-d and His commandments. Actually one doesn't need to be Jewish to be saved or have salvation, for all G-d's children are equal in His site. It is up to each person, Jew or Gentile to have a life of good deeds and works but creed (belief) is not a prerequisite.

Any Jews who accept foreign gods instead of the Creator is a lost soul and must find his own way to goodness, mercy and justice.

And you are right, not everyone is going to be saved. Jesus said as much in the Sermon on the Mount: "Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it."

For the Jewish people, salvation is not the object or a reward to be earned. G-d gave man the gift of life on this earth and this is where we have to live in righteousness and not belief in a salvation god with deeds being dead. (said Paul of Tarsus).

What happens before we are born and after we leave this earth is not our concern but is left up to Him that created us.

 

[walwor]

Posted by ajwps:

The northern tribes were taken off into Babylonian captivity (Diaspora) leaving the tribe of Judah in the south of Israel.

Have you read the book of Jeremiah? It describes the sacking of Jerusalem, capital of Judah, by Babylon, and the taking of the king of Judah to Babylon.

Jeremiah 34:

[1] The word which came unto Jeremiah from the LORD, when Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon, and all his army, and all the kingdoms of the earth of his dominion, and all the people, fought against Jerusalem, and against all the cities thereof, saying,
[2] Thus saith the LORD, the God of Israel; Go and speak to Zedekiah king of Judah, and tell him, Thus saith the LORD; Behold, I will give this city into the hand of the king of Babylon, and he shall burn it with fire:
[3] And thou shalt not escape out of his hand, but shalt surely be taken, and delivered into his hand; and thine eyes shall behold the eyes of the king of Babylon, and he shall speak with thee mouth to mouth, and thou shalt go to Babylon.

The northern tribes were already out of the picture. In another thread you wrote that Aaron led the Hebrews into the Promised Land, instead of Joshua. Your ignorance of your own Jewish Bible is as appalling as your misreadings of the New Testament. You should spend more time reading the Bible, instead of inventing evil slanders about Jesus like this one, taken from another thread:

Jesus Christ as one-third of the godhead would certainly have enough intelligence to speak of rape or abortion in his gospels. But maybe Jesus wasn't thinking about anything but saving sinners for without those who sin there would be no rapists or abortionists.

So apparently Jesus was in favor of abortion and rape so his shed blood could simply and with no cost save them..

Jesus repeated the commandments to not commit adultery and murder, and that covers rape and abortion. I mean, what the hell's wrong with you, anyway? You need to actually read the Bible. Come back when you know something.

 

[ajwps]

Originally posted by walwor

Have you read the book of Jeremiah? It describes the sacking of Jerusalem, capital of Judah, by Babylon, and the taking of the king of Judah to Babylon. Jeremiah 34:

Yes but you failed to read on the next verses in Jeremiah 34:

Jeremmiah 34:7-8

34:7 when the king of Babylon's army fought against Jerusalem, and against all the cities of Judah that were left, against Lachish and against Azekah; for these alone remained of the cities of Judah as fortified cities.

34:8 The word that came unto Jeremiah from the Lord, after that the king Zedekiah had made a covenant with all the people that were at Jerusalem, to proclaim liberty unto them;

So the southern tribe of Judah and King Zedekiah made a covenant with all the people that remained in Jerusalem a proclamation of freedom and liberty unto the remnant Jewish people remaining in Jerusalem and the southern part of Israel after the northern tribes had been taken off into Babylonia captivity.

The meaning here is not a parable but clear and unambiguous. You have to learn to read the Bible more fully.

The northern tribes were already out of the picture. In another thread you wrote that Aaron led the Hebrews into the Promised Land, instead of Joshua. Your ignorance of your own Jewish Bible is as appalling as your misreadings of the New Testament. You should spend more time reading the Bible, instead of inventing evil slanders about Jesus like this one, taken from another thread:

Thanks for understanding that I was typing faster than I was paying attention to what is clearly stated in the Torah. I write no slander nor do I invent evil concepts about Jesus. That is done for me by yourself. Your getting a bit defensive and offensive here...

My meaning was not evil but simply stating the facts. Without those choices to sin like abortion, rape and murder, Jesus would have nothing to have shed his blood for and man could answer for his own actions while on this planet.

Jesus repeated the commandments to not commit adultery and murder, and that covers rape and abortion. I mean, what the hell's wrong with you, anyway? You need to actually read the Bible. Come back when you know something.

So YOU say that repeating the commandments of G-d the Father concerning murder; this also covers abortion. That is a bit of a stretch as abortion is only considered murder if you ignore the fact that Jesus (who lived during a time when abortion was common) chose to say absolutely nothing about this being a form of murder. Maybe Jesus was just forgetful or a 'right to choose advocate.' Do you think?

Then you say the original commandment against adultery is the equivalent of rape. That should be a real comfort to the rape of a married or single women who would now become adultresses against their will. Yep that would be something to think about alright.

Good discussion.....

 

[Avatar4321]

Originally posted by ajwps
Actually it was Jacob (Israel) the son of Isaac and grandson of Abraham, who had twelve sons who eventually had families of their own which each became one of the twelve tribes of the people of the land. Jews are not the term or name of those twelve tribes of Judah. They were the Hebrew people who only became Jews once they entered the land of Canaan with Joshua.

Um actually Jew is a post exile term. It wasnt used till the time of the Babylonian captivity. It certainly wasnt around during the time of Joshua. And a Jew is one from the tribe of Judah they were called Jews because by then the Norther Kingdom of Israel was gone and only Judah was left, with a small amount of Benjamin of course. The rest of the House of Israel cannot strictly be called jews because they are not all descended from Judah.

Actually the prophet Isaiah lived in the 8th century BCE. The northern tribes were taken off into Babylonian captivity (Diaspora) leaving the tribe of Judah in the south of Israel.

Actually thats not true at all. The Northern kingdom of Israel was carried off during the days Isaiah, a hundred years before Babylon became a world power. If you read Isaiah sometime He will talk about the fally of Israel and then the protection of Jerusalem by an angel who slaughtered the armies of the Assyrians. the 10 lost tribes were carried out long before Babylon came into play.

Actually all the Jews in Israel since their 40 year journey in the desert became known as the Jewish people. It is higly unlikely that Paul of Tarsus was from any of the tribes of Israel (Jacob).

No, they were known as Israelites as ive stated once before. The term Jew is was not developed until the exile and it was a term to denote the tribe of Judah because they were the ones in power among the two tribes left.

As for Paul he claims linage from Benjamin in his Epistles and are you seriously going to try to argue that a former Pharisee wasnt an Israelite?

Do you actually mean the Jesus is coming TODAY. The Jews are beginning to return from the four corners of the earth as predicted thousands of years before Christianity. They even come on the wings of birds as in planes from places like Ethiopia, Russia, India and many many more places. An yet, Jesus has not been seen as yet but the prophecies of old are coming true in our day.

Today is a relative term. but yes He is coming soon. Why wouldnt He? The prophecies must be fulfilled.

So you think that the ingathering of the lost tribes of Israel announce the comming of the Messiah. Well you are right in one respect but the Messiah Jesus knew of was never to be G-d Himself. Jesus knew that as well as you know your own hand. For the L-rd G-d never left the first time as He has always been right here.

I think Christ is the person He claims to be. Jehovah. the Great I am.

 

[Avatar4321]

Originally posted by ajwps

Originally posted by gop_jeff

There are no Jewish missionaries (this is forbidden) and for any who desire to become Jews, the way is made very difficult for the faith of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. It

Interesting when you take into account the story of Jonah isnt it? God told him to preach repentence to the people of Ninevah who certainly werent jews.

 

[ajwps]

Originally posted by Avatar4321

Um actually Jew is a post exile term. It wasnt used till the time of the Babylonian captivity. It certainly wasnt around during the time of Joshua. And a Jew is one from the tribe of Judah they were called Jews because by then the Norther Kingdom of Israel was gone and only Judah was left, with a small amount of Benjamin of course. The rest of the House of Israel cannot strictly be called jews because they are not all descended from Judah.

Uhum sorry but being a Jew is not a post exile term. By definition 'Jew' is a term derived from a geo-political designation; Jews are identified with the country of Judea (Israel) and its nation; this indicates ethnic and national identity rather than just belief or practice. Ergo, the Hebrews became Jews once they occupied the land previously known as Canaan. Again you are mistaken about Judah and his three surviving sons who went down with Jacob into Egypt (Gen. 46:12; Ex. 1:2). At the time of the Exodus, when the family of Judah have increased to the number of 74,000 males (Num. 1:26,27).

The name Judah being a Jew derived solely from his lineage has as much to do with Christ being associated with a Christ(mas) tree. The House of Israel actually composes all of the twelve tribes being of the Jewish faith. Where do you get these ideas?


Actually the prophet Isaiah lived in the 8th century BCE. The northern tribes were taken off into Babylonian captivity (Diaspora) leaving the tribe of Judah in the south of Israel.

Actually thats not true at all. The Northern kingdom of Israel was carried off during the days Isaiah, a hundred years before Babylon became a world power. If you read Isaiah sometime He will talk about the fally (?) of Israel and then the protection of Jerusalem by an angel who slaughtered the armies of the Assyrians. the 10 lost tribes were carried out long before Babylon came into play.

Wrong again.

http://www.livius.org/di-dn/diaspora/diaspora.htm

Much more important is the Jewish community of Babylonia. In 586, the Babylonian king Nebuchadnezzar had captured Jerusalem and deported the Jewish elite to Iraq. This period is called the exile (Golah).

quote:
Actually all the Jews in Israel since their 40 year journey in the desert became known as the Jewish people. It is higly unlikely that Paul of Tarsus was from any of the tribes of Israel (Jacob).

No, they were known as Israelites as ive stated once before. The term Jew is was not developed until the exile and it was a term to denote the tribe of Judah because they were the ones in power among the two tribes left.

Sorry but your wrong on this one too…. See above

As for Paul he claims linage from Benjamin in his Epistles and are you seriously going to try to argue that a former Pharisee wasnt an Israelite?

Sorry to pop your balloon but just because Paul of Tarsus claimed to be a former Pharisee, from the line of Benjamin as he wrote in his Epistles has no bearing with reality.

Apparently admitted as much in Corinthians 9:19-20

King James Version (KJV)

Corinthians 9

19 For though I be free from all men, yet have I made myself servant unto all, that I might gain the more.

20 And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law;

----Do you actually mean the Jesus is coming


Today is a relative term. but yes He is coming soon. Why wouldnt He? The prophecies must be fulfilled.

So you say ‘today’ is a relative term. Tell that to your electric company or your mortgage company and see if they agree with you that it’s okay to pay them ‘soon.’ You ask ‘why wouldn’t he.’ Apparently the writers of the gospels put words into Christ’s mouth when Jesus told his disciples that he would return before they died. Did he keep his promise to them? Have you seen Christ ‘today or coming soon to a local theater?”


I think Christ is the person He claims to be. Jehovah. the Great I am.

That of course is your privilege. But Christ as a Jew in Judea prayed at his synagogue every day just like everybody else. He said the following prayer required of every Jew every day since he lived on the earth to this very day. “Hear O Israel, the L-rd our G-d, the L-rd is One.” Jesus was known to be a Jew but Paul had a problem with him and his disciples.

" Whereupon, O king Agrippa, I was not disobedient unto the heavenly vision: But shewed first unto them of Damascus and at Jerusalem, and throughout all the coasts of Judea, and then to the Gentiles, that they should repent and turn to God and do works meet for repentance. For these causes the Jews caught me in the temple, and went about to kill me."

Acts 26:19-21

Contradicted by:

" But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother's womb, and called me by his grace, To reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood: Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me; but I went into Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus. Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days. But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother. Now the things which I write unto you, behold, before God, I lie not. Afterwards I came into the regions of Syria and Cilicia; And was unknown by face unto the churches of Judea which were in Christ: But they had heard only, That he which persecuted usin times past now preacheth the faith which once he destroyed. "

Galatians 1:15-23

With regard to the first two passages in " The First Christian," says: " These assertions are not inconsistent with each other, but are damaging for another reason,: they are contradicted by Paul himself in his letter to the Galatians (Chapters 1 and 2)." Paul's oath: " Now concerning the things which I write to you, indeed, before God I do not lie," which makes his account a sworn affidavit. He goes on to say:

" To the story in Acts, this contradiction is disastrous. There never was a teaching campaign at Jerusalem and through all of the county of Judea (Acts 26:20). If Paul was unknown to the Judean communities as he says, then he had undertaken no mission among them. In fact he had never joined the Judean movement or even attempted to join it. He only saw Cephas, and Jesus' brother James. Even of the other apostles, not to mention more ordinary believers, 'I saw none' he admits. Instead of his having gone 'in and out of Jerusalem, preaching boldly in the name of the Lord' the Jerusalem community had not even known that he was there. 'They only heard' he tells us 'that he who once persecuted us now makes the faith of which he made havoc'; but they never heard him preach it in Judea."

 

[ajwps]

Originally posted by Avatar4321

Interesting when you take into account the story of Jonah isnt it? God told him to preach repentence to the people of Ninevah who certainly werent jews.

I'm sorry but I must have missed something. When did I mention Jonah?

Actually you are confusing Christian theology which is 'preaching repentence for salvation' instead of warning the people of Nineveh that unless they mended their evil ways, the L-rd G-d would destroy them all as in the case of Sodom and Gomorah. There was no salvation with Christ mentioned in the entire story of Jonah. Now is there?

You seem to enjoy twisting Biblical stories to fit you ideas in the New Testament.

 

[walwor]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
" Whereupon, O king Agrippa, I was not disobedient unto the heavenly vision: But shewed first unto them of Damascus and at Jerusalem, and throughout all the coasts of Judea, and then to the Gentiles, that they should repent and turn to God and do works meet for repentance. For these causes the Jews caught me in the temple, and went about to kill me."

Acts 26:19-21
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Contradicted by:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
" But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother's womb, and called me by his grace, To reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood: Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me; but I went into Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus. Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days. But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother. Now the things which I write unto you, behold, before God, I lie not. Afterwards I came into the regions of Syria and Cilicia; And was unknown by face unto the churches of Judea which were in Christ: But they had heard only, That he which persecuted usin times past now preacheth the faith which once he destroyed. "

Galatians 1:15-23

With regard to the first two passages in " The First Christian," says:

I have figured out what you are doing. You are getting all your information from other sources, which quote the New Testament in order to "discredit it." If you read on in Galatians, which I don't believe you have done, you would read, of course, the next chapter, chapter 2:

"Then after fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem..."

When Paul says, "immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood: Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me; but I went into Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus" the phrase "immediately I conferred not" means he didn't go right away, nor did he go to Jerusalem at that time. He then says he went up to Jerusalem after 3 years. This corresponds to Acts 15. He then goes to Macedonia, Thessalonica, Athens, Corinth, Ephesus, and then again to Jerusalem. All you are doing here is mixing up the chronology, or rather not you yourself but whomever you are quoting this all from. There's no way you are a New Testament scholar, with all these quotes you have, but you are just looking up so-called "contradictions" (in "The First Christian" whatever that is) and writing whatever you find.

As for our discussion, you are either completely wrong or using terminology that is wrong. The "northern tribes" refers, usually, to the 10 tribes of the Northern Kingdom of Israel, which were taken into captivity by Assyria in the 8th century bc. These were not taken to Babylon. The punishment on Israel is proclaimed by the prophet Hosea.

As for Jeremiah 34, you look ahead to verses 7 & 8, but you stop verse 8 in mid-sentence:

Yes but you failed to read on the next verses in Jeremiah 34:


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jeremmiah 34:7-8

34:7 when the king of Babylon's army fought against Jerusalem, and against all the cities of Judah that were left, against Lachish and against Azekah; for these alone remained of the cities of Judah as fortified cities.

34:8 The word that came unto Jeremiah from the Lord, after that the king Zedekiah had made a covenant with all the people that were at Jerusalem, to proclaim liberty unto them;
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So the southern tribe of Judah and King Zedekiah made a covenant with all the people that remained in Jerusalem a proclamation of freedom and liberty unto the remnant Jewish people remaining in Jerusalem and the southern part of Israel after the northern tribes had been taken off into Babylonia captivity.

The meaning here is not a parable but clear and unambiguous. You have to learn to read the Bible more fully.

Man, you take things so out of context. This is NOT a covenant "unto the remnant Jewish people remaining in Jerusalem and the southern part of Israel..." as if this is a remnant who were never taken to Babylon. They will be taken to Babylon. This is a covenant made with the people of Jerusalem to free Jewish slaves, which they do, but then they go and take them back. Right after this, in verses 12-22, Jeremiah prophesies to them "Therefore thus says the Lord: 'You have not obeyed Me in proclaiming liberty, every one to his brother and every one to his neighbor. Behold I proclaim liberty to you,' says the Lord- 'to the sword, to pestilence, and to famine! And I will deliver you to trouble among all the kingdoms of the earth (Jeremiah 34:17)." Then in verse 21: "And I will give Zedekiah king of Judah and his princes into the hands of their enemies, into the hand of those who seek their life, and into the hand of the king of Babylon's army which has gone back from you." It is you who are not reading further into the text. You only quote what suits you, and then, as usual, way wrong. Do you really think you please or serve the G-d you claim to worship when you don't even think things through?

As to this discussion of rape and abortion: Your whole premise is way off the page. You decided, only to dispute anything relating to Christianity, that Jesus should have specifically addressed rape and abortion, and since you can't find a verse where He does, you decide that He must have approved of them. But even you can't be that perverse. You are really saying, if I am reading correctly, that Jesus approved of sin because without sin He would have had nothing to die for. This is ludicrous. That's like saying that when you repent of your sins on Yom Kippur and speak the kol nidre, asking to be forgiven any vows you might make in the coming year, that you are giving yourself license to break your vows. This is a charge made by anti-Semites, as a total misreading of what the actual meaning of the kol nidre is, as I'm sure you know, but you misread Christ as badly as the anti-Semites misread this. Jesus came to annul the animal sacrifices of the Temple. Sin, under the Mosaic covenant, or Old Testament, required animal sacrifice for expiation. Under the New Testament, the blood of Christ permanently replaces the need for any other sacrifice. But here's your error- although both covenants require blood sacrifice, under NEITHER covenant are you expected or allowed to go out and sin again just because your sin was forgiven. This is where I see you stumbling over and over again, thinking that Jesus' crucifixion for our salvation is a license to sin- if this is true, then so was animal sacrifice in the Temple. So if you sin, can you just bring another offering, be forgiven and deliberately go sin again? No. Under both covenants, sacrifice must be accompanied by REPENTANCE. Will there be backsliding into sin? Of course. That's human nature. But under the New Covenant I have Christ as my intercessor. What do you have under Jewish law, the rabbinical tradition? There is no more Temple sacrifice. So what can you do? Try to be good, and hope your sins are forgiven on Yom Kippur. But who is your intercessor with G-d? Yourself? The rabbi of your synagogue? This is very shaky- G-d didn't just let anyone come close to Him under the old covenant, which you are still under if you're not under the new. G-d killed unauthorized persons who came close to His ark. Only the high priest could go into the Holy of Holies and be in the presence of the Shekinah, and then only once a year. You don't even have a high priest now. So who is pleading your case to G-d? You? Do you have the authority? No, only Jesus has the authority.

 

[ajwps]

Originally posted by walwor

I have figured out what you are doing. You are getting all your information from other sources, which quote the New Testament in order to "discredit it." If you read on in Galatians, which I don't believe you have done, you would read, of course, the next chapter, chapter 2:

"Then after fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem..."

When Paul says, "immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood: Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me; but I went into Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus" the phrase "immediately I conferred not" means he didn't go right away, nor did he go to Jerusalem at that time. He then says he went up to Jerusalem after 3 years. This corresponds to Acts 15. He then goes to Macedonia, Thessalonica, Athens, Corinth, Ephesus, and then again to Jerusalem. All you are doing here is mixing up the chronology, or rather not you yourself but whomever you are quoting this all from. There's no way you are a New Testament scholar, with all these quotes you have, but you are just looking up so-called "contradictions" (in "The First Christian" whatever that is) and writing whatever you find.

The size of this disucussion is getting to large to respond adequately so lets break it down into parts.

Walwor you got me. It is true that my post was partly from a CHRISTIAN source that readily admits that Pauline Christianity and that of Jesus were two very different religions.

" To the story in Acts, this contradiction is disastrous. There never was a teaching campaign at Jerusalem and through all of the county of Judea (Acts 26:20). If Paul was unknown to the Judean communities as he says, then he had undertaken no mission among them. In fact he had never joined the Judean movement or even attempted to join it.

Then you responded, ""Then after fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem..."

When Paul says, "immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood: Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me; but I went into Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus" the phrase "immediately I conferred not" means he didn't go right away, nor did he go to Jerusalem at that time. He then says he went up to Jerusalem after 3 years. "

You are changing the subject. Apparently you are referencing that Paul didn't immediately go back to Judea or Jerusalem (which has not been denied by me or by this post) but the post tried to explain that Paul in fact did not undertake a TEACHING mission or campaign in Judea but in fact the Jerusalem Church Disciples of Christ had a schism with Paul of Tarsus who never joined up with the Judea Church of Christ and the disciples who knew him and his work before Crucifixion.

It might be better if you tried to respond to this Christian site I posted and refute their attempt to deny Paul's brand of Christianity and keep the concepts of the earliest Judea church following the crucifixion of Christ.

 

[ajwps]

Originally posted by walwor

Okay 'man' lets get back to the original subject at hand instead of your denial that only the northern tribes were taken into exile by the Assyrians and not the Babylonians long before they 'came into play.'

If you read Isaiah sometime He will talk about the fally (?) of Israel and then the protection of Jerusalem by an angel who slaughtered the armies of the Assyrians. the 10 lost tribes were carried out long before Babylon came into play.

Did you really say that the Assyrians took the 10 lost tribes of Israel into captivity long before Babylonian exile of the northern tribes came into play. For clarification is that what you were trying to say?

 

[ajwps]

Originally posted by walwor

......Jesus should have specifically addressed rape and abortion, and since you can't find a verse where He does, you decide that He must have approved of them. But even you can't be that perverse. You are really saying, if I am reading correctly, that Jesus approved of sin because without sin He would have had nothing to die for. This is ludicrous.

Are you forgetting that Jesus was a god part, all knowing and a part of the trinity? Do you beleive that Jesus Christ was referring to abortion and murder when he repeated the Old Testament commandment of 'thou shalt not kill.' Or that everybody who reads the NT gospel should understand that which seems so VERY OBVIOUS! How could Jesus expect everyone to know what is apparently obvious to you? So Jesus meant that murder is equated with abortion but to be understood in a parable.

Are you saying that Jesus did not approve of sin? As a Jew or a godhead he knew that G-d (the Father) created both good and evil (sin). Ergo Jesus died and shed his blood to save gentiles from the evil (sin) that G-d (the Father) created. So Jesus died for something that his Father admitted creating.....

Deuteronomy 30 KJV

15 See, I have set before thee this day life and good, and death and evil;

That's like saying that when you repent of your sins on Yom Kippur and speak the kol nidre, asking to be forgiven any vows you might make in the coming year, that you are giving yourself license to break your vows.

Unfortunately like most gentiles you are making an erroneous assumption that by beseeching G-d for his forgiveness for our next year vows but is also for being disobedient to His commandments, we are somehow receiving forgiveness for these transgressions. We also acknowledge that on these 10 day of atonement, each human's fate is written on Rosh Hashanah and sealed on Yom Kippur. We know that there is no certainty of salvation but that we hope that our merits or deeds outweigh our bad fates next year right here on earth and prior to His sealing His book of Life. And not for the promise of some mansion living with Jesus in the sky. Therefore there is no license granted to go forth and sin again and then get free salvation from our transgressions by faith in G-d.

The Kol Nidre does not mean sins being forgiven but means:

http://www.myjewishlearning.com/hol...ippur_Community/Prayer_Services/Kol_Nidre.htm

'All vows,' the opening words of the declaration, largely in Aramaic, at the beginning of the evening service on Yom Kippur in which all vows that will be uttered in the coming year are declared null and void. The declaration applies only to religious vows and has no effect on oaths taken in a court of law. If a person makes a vow, say, to deny himself wine for a certain period, perhaps as a, penance, he must keep his promise, which is thought of as a promise to God. But this applies only if the vow is uttered with full intent. A person's declaration beforehand that all vows he will take in the year ahead are null and void means that any vow he will make is held to be without sufficient intention and hence without binding power.

.....Jesus came to annul the animal sacrifices of the Temple. Sin, under the Mosaic covenant, or Old Testament, required animal sacrifice for expiation. Under the New Testament, the blood of Christ permanently replaces the need for any other sacrifice.

Jesus came to annul???

G-d commanded animal sacrifice for each man to give freely of his own valuable possession which demonstrates fear and awe of the Creator by placing each man's best of his own produce or best of the herd which until the destruction of the Temples in Jerusalem was possible. You say Jesus came to annul G-d's commandments. Now without the Temple in Jerusalem, prayer has replaced animal sacrifices which are no longer possible. And prayer or animal sacrifice was never meant to be a replacement substitution by god deicide

The G-d of the Old Testament (Torah) detested man spilling of blood as a sacrifice as witnessed in Abraham being stoped from sacrficing his only son. Human (a god substantiation) sacrifices have been declared an abomination by the Creator of the universe as stated in the Old Testament.

But here's your error- although both covenants require blood sacrifice, under NEITHER covenant are you expected or allowed to go out and sin again just because your sin was forgiven. This is where I see you stumbling over and over again, thinking that Jesus' crucifixion for our salvation is a license to sin- if this is true, then so was animal sacrifice in the Temple.

My error or did G-d error? Both covenants require blood (human) sacrifice or blood (animal) sacrifice????? ERROR - ERROR - ERROR

You believe that accepting Christ and being forgiven in his shed blood somehow gives the Christian a belief that they are not to sin again but must now go sinless (like Christ)? Or until they ask Christ again for forgiveness. The early Hebrew animal sacrifices which had to do with every person's making his or her best effort to follow the path of good and avoid the path of evil during their lifetime. This is the basic difference in Judaims and Christianity. The second being a religion of creed (belief being the only way to salvation) and the first being a religion of deed (demonstrating that ones deeds are not for salvation but simply for the enjoyment of helping one's fellowman instead of looking for a pie-in-the-sky living with Jesus in his mansions.

So if you sin, can you just bring another offering, be forgiven and deliberately go sin again? No. Under both covenants, sacrifice must be accompanied by REPENTANCE. Will there be backsliding into sin? Of course. That's human nature. But under the New Covenant I have Christ as my intercessor.

Sorry again. One's sacrifices or prayers to G-d must be accompanied by more than only repentance but also by following G-d's commandments to live this life on earth in His path. After one dies, they can no longer perform that which is pleasant in the eye's of G-d. That being the ability to do good, love mercy, do justice and walk in the path of G-d. In fact, Judaism does not believe in any going to a literal heaven to live with Almighty G-d. Any Jewish reference to heaven has to do with an existence of sort in the Garden of Eden with all the righteous humans (Jews and non-Jews). We do not believe that G-d lives with dead human souls but that He exists everywhere including right here and everywhere with all mankind all the time. Both before, during and after one life here on earth, the Creator never leaves our presence but remains unknowable to our G-d given senses.

What do you have under Jewish law, the rabbinical tradition? There is no more Temple sacrifice. So what can you do? Try to be good, and hope your sins are forgiven on Yom Kippur. But who is your intercessor with G-d? Yourself? The rabbi of your synagogue? This is very shaky- G-d didn't just let anyone come close to Him under the old covenant, which you are still under if you're not under the new.

What do we have in Judaism? We do not have Jesus's tradition or rabbinical tradition nor animal or a man-god sacrifice. We have the Torah (you call the New Testament) that you somehow thinks belong between the same bookcover with a new foreign god gospel.

What new covenant do you think that I or the Jewish people are under? Do you really believe that the unknowable and omniscient G-d of the universe willnilly goes around making new covenants (contracts) with this group and that at His wim and finally making a brand new third covenant with Joe Smith in Philidelphia. (Church of Latter Day Sinners).

For your information Rabbis are not like priests or ministers found in the Christian church denominations. Rabbi's are simply defined as teachers who are no greater or lesser than those congregants who attend any particular synagogue. Jews need no intermediary god to carry our FAITH IN HIS SHED BLOOD to the Father god. The Jew can approach their G-d without any intermediaries or sinless mothers who have been impregnated by a big ole tri-god in the sky.

G-d killed unauthorized persons who came close to His ark. Only the high priest could go into the Holy of Holies and be in the presence of the Shekinah, and then only once a year. You don't even have a high priest now. So who is pleading your case to G-d? You? Do you have the authority? No, only Jesus has the authority.

There is also now no known location of the Holy of Holy Ark. We now have as always the ability to go directly to our G-d without having to go first to any of a god's sons, mothers, aunts, uncles or first cousins by a second marriage.

We humans make our own case to G-d by our actions (deeds) during our daily lifetime. No one need plead for us for that is why mankind was given the gift of FREEWILL and our own choice for actions while we live. Jesus the man prayed to his Father, "forgive them pop for they know not what they do" is reason enough to understand clearly:

Hear O Israel, The L-rd is our G-d, the L-rd He is One........

 

[walwor]

aj-

(Sorry I've been AWOL. I see you've remained active on this site.)

Okay, here's where we pull no punches. You've made 2 statements I am going to call on you to answer. First,

"In fact, Judaism does not believe in any going to a literal heaven to live with Almighty G-d."

and second,

"We now have as always the ability to go directly to our G-d without having to go first to any of a god's sons, mothers, aunts, uncles or first cousins by a second marriage."

Okay, if Jews have the ability to go directly to G-d, then what about the Holocaust? Do you believe that none of the 6 million Jews who were killed, tortured, experimented on, and had their families killed in front of them, called on the G-d of Israel? Do you believe, then, that G-d forsook these Jews in spite of their cries? What is this "ability to go directly to our G-d?" You can cry out to Him, but He doesn't have to respond? You are also saying that none of these victims of Nazi horror have been granted the privilege of going to heaven to be with their G-d? So this G-d you talk about allows children to be tortured, He ignores their cries, lets them die, and then He doesn't even reward them with Heaven? Oh, He did let them take over Israel again, that's true, so they could be in one place for the Arabs to attack and kill them continuously since 1948. And no reward for any of this, just the sublime joy of being G-d's own human sacrificial people. No heavenly reward, just the promise of being maimed. Tell me about this supremely masochistic joy, aj, that I might understand, because I surely don't.

 

[ajwps]

aj-
(Sorry I've been AWOL. I see you've remained active on this site.)

Okay, here's where we pull no punches. You've made 2 statements I am going to call on you to answer. First,

"In fact, Judaism does not believe in any going to a literal heaven to live with Almighty G-d."

and second,

"We now have as always the ability to go directly to our G-d without having to go first to any of a god's sons, mothers, aunts, uncles or first cousins by a second marriage."

Okay, if Jews have the ability to go directly to G-d, then what about the Holocaust? Do you believe that none of the 6 million Jews who were killed, tortured, experimented on, and had their families killed in front of them, called on the G-d of Israel? Do you believe, then, that G-d forsook these Jews in spite of their cries? What is this "ability to go directly to our G-d?"

Your baaaaack. You're under some kind of delusion that all one has to do is to go to Jesus or G-d and ask him or him for favors, monetary gifts or to get you out of trouble. G-d gave mankind (all His children) FREEWILL. The ability to act independently on a path for good or evil. He didn't interfer with the murder of the children of Israel. The Creator was with all those who were brutally murdered in the holocaust and it was said that He was crying while His creations were being murdered.

The children of Israel had for a long time turned their face away from G-d and their covenant with Him. Ergo the Creator formed Hitler and the Arabs for a specific purpose to punish His children for their choice to abandon Him and try to become like the nations around them. The European Jews said they were Germans, French, Polish, etc first and lost their way from G-d. The children of Israel were punished by the outstreched arm of G-d twice as much for their sins againt G-d and the covenant they had with Him.

Isaiah 40

1 Comfort ye, comfort ye my people, saith your G-d.
2 Speak ye comfortably to Jerusalem, and cry unto her, that her warfare is accomplished, that her iniquity is pardoned: for she hath received of the L-RD's hand double for all her sins.

The righteous as well as the secular Jews were murdered in their millions along with millions of gentiles and continues today with the brothers of the Nazi's in the world of Islam. They are the tool of G-d just as the Pharoah was the tool of the Master of the universe and burdened the Hebrew slaves in Egypt thousands of years ago. Yet if you will notice, He did not destroy the Jewish people nor mankind for their iniquity.

You can cry out to Him, but He doesn't have to respond? You are also saying that none of these victims of Nazi horror have been granted the privilege of going to heaven to be with their G-d? So this G-d you talk about allows children to be tortured, He ignores their cries, lets them die, and then He doesn't even reward them with Heaven? Oh, He did let them take over Israel again, that's true, so they could be in one place for the Arabs to attack and kill them continuously since 1948. And no reward for any of this, just the sublime joy of being G-d's own human sacrificial people. No heavenly reward, just the promise of being maimed. Tell me about this supremely masochistic joy, aj, that I might understand, because I surely don't.

The Nazis said that the smoke stacks of Auschwitz were the entry into heaven for those whom they murdered. But they were wrong. Heaven is not a place like you and Chrisitianity imagines. I can only know this by His own words. In the words used by the Jewish people and the Jewish man Jesus, the word for heaven is Gan Aden or the Garden of Eden.

You say that you cannot cry out to G-d for He doesn't answer you without an intermediary son and mother. Again you are mistaken. G-d hears all pleas and supplications to Him. He is under no obligation to answer your prayers immediately as Jimmy Swaggard, Oral Roberts or Jim Bakker can readily attest. There is more to this existence than your immediate gratification or cash money for the asking.

Does Jesus answer your prayers by being an intermediary to G-d?

The answer to your question is found in the frailty and temporary nature of our lives on earth.

Isaiah 40:6-8

6 The voice said, Cry. And he said, What shall I cry? All flesh is grass, and all the goodliness thereof is as the flower of the field:
7 The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: because the spirit of the L-RD bloweth upon it: surely the people is grass.
8 The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the word of our G-d shall stand for ever.

There is no living in a heavenly mansion with Jesus or his Father. For humans are not gods. Everything has a reason but not for masochism or being maimed. You won't know His reasons or rewards until you are no longer on this earthly plane.