The Two Judaisms (Art Katz)

[Charisma]

Art Katz presents his thoughts in a fairly long but lucid conference talk. He says nearly everything only once, bringing new material in all the way to the end, and littering his statements with a stream of challenges. The Two Judaisms (http://artkatzministries.org/MP3s/K-016_The_Two_Judaisms.mp3) He knows what he wants to say from the start. His unique use of the term 'Judaism' attracts one's attention, and in passing he touches on Israel from all angles. But this is not a discussion about Israel.

It is about having a Biblically Jewish mentality.... I think. :huhsign:

[Timmy]

As brother Katz mentioned Key 73 and is relating everything to Jeremiah 17.5-...
I do not see this message as you. It is prophetic in every way, and not an issue of Goy -vs- Jew.
It is actually an issue between tradition versus Davidic Judaism (after God's own heart).

Consider this DVD in relation to what that conference message is all about and come back again to the message younare referring to:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UaKmieXj-BY

Here also is a short video clip to clue you in of a portion about the same topic:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c9IjRPC0Mfw

Although he first mentions Freud, Marx, and Einstein as Jews who have primarily caused the whole world--in believing their philosophies--to become Jewish in it's naturalistic world view, he is talking about the end results of trusting man over trusting God...and primarily the end (historic) results of doing such. He is pointing to what lies beyond as a result of attempted conversion of we Hebs, hinting to the end result of Yakov's response against this message of the gospel, thus the forewarded videos.

Many, as i myself, have misinterpreted the meaning behind Art's messages failing to establish a well rounded view of things from his perspective...but it is prophetic, so how could anything else be expected. Preterists and Futerists, whether pre, mid, or post millenial in perspective all are misinterpreting prophecy so much so, that i have given up trying to explain perspective which is Oriental and not Western at all. This same problem arising by the desigation of specifics or analogy to these thing which really are neither/nor any such thing is a huge source of misunderstanding scripture=all of which is prophecy and being continually fulfilled without an end date to any of it...except directly in what Yahoshuvah declares in Mt. 5.17-20.

I have probably confused more than clarified in explaining these things, however, anyone without our mindset, and most importantly the guidance of Ruach Ha'Kodesh (Spirit [of] TheHoly [One]), people will dig through whatever book or varied source of human knowledge and only--at best--obtain surface knowledge without true understanding into Yah's intended knowledge and wisdom hidden in plain sight:


...Worship God. The testimony of Yahoshovah is the Spirit of prophecy.
The Apocalypse 19.10

Most of you think prophecy is just oracles of a seer and it is not. Seership only represents a very small part of prophecy...and often the seeing expressed is not even recognized as such until after the fact of whatever cycle predefined to be initiating goes into motion. Prophecy is not necessarily linear nor logical, and is neither expressed nor understood by GræcoRoman modes of recording, reasoning, or rationale attempting to figure it out.

Hopefully helpfully,
Timmy

[Charisma]

Hi Timmy,

I watched the clip and read your post with interest, but have not followed the link yet. Am rather distracted from posting, by 3D intrusions, but the Lord is speaking to me about other things both practical and spiritual, which may eventually be translated into sensible posts here and there.

If there is just one point I would be glad for you to say more on, it is the connection between Jacob's Trouble and the great tribulation - which Art seemed to be saying are one and the same thing. Really? Why? What other verses support that interpretation, without over-stretching them?


Prophecy is not necessarily linear nor logical, and is neither expressed nor understood by GræcoRoman modes of recording, reasoning, or rationale attempting to figure it out.

Exactly!

But on what grounds can the great tribulation be so limited to Israelites and Jews, that it could be subtitled - or supertitled - 'Jacob's Trouble'?

Now I hope it's clear I'm open to be persuaded, but I don't see it. One has to forget, totally, to whom the New Covenant came, and that Paul implicates the Gentiles in the pouring out of the Holy Spirit on the twelve tribes, by his allusion to Acts 10 and beyond, in Galatians 3:14.

So, I wonder if you've ever heard this presentation by Benjamin Freedman, in 1961? I think it (also) contains errors of logic towards the end, but the eye-witness account of events out of public view a hundred years ago, is worth hearing, whether it is believed or not. It's not comfortable listening.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HhFRGDyX48c

[Timmy]

Hi Timmy,


...If there is just one point I would be glad for you to say more on, it is the connection between Jacob's Trouble and the great tribulation - which Art seemed to be saying are one and the same thing. Really? Why? What other verses support that interpretation, without over-stretching them?...on what grounds can the great tribulation be so limited to Israelites and Jews, that it could be subtitled - or supertitled - 'Jacob's Trouble'?

Now I hope it's clear I'm open to be persuaded, but I don't see it. One has to forget, totally, to whom the New Covenant came, and that Paul implicates the Gentiles in the pouring out of the Holy Spirit on the twelve tribes, by his allusion to Acts 10 and beyond, in Galatians 3:14.

So, I wonder if you've ever heard this presentation by Benjamin Freedman, in 1961? I think it (also) contains errors of logic towards the end, but the eye-witness account of events out of public view a hundred years ago, is worth hearing, whether it is believed or not. It's not comfortable listening.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HhFRGDyX48c Howya' Charis,


There is the object(ive) and the shadow of that object(ive).

There is the subject(ive) and the shadow of the subject(ive).

The object(ive) is dependent on the subject(ive), and this is how we CAN only BEGIN to percieve the principal(ity) behind it. The power(s) provided for the object(ive) to physically manifest, come from and remain with the principa(lity) which gives rise to the subject(ive) existing...out of which the object(ive) is bornE.


Read Torah history--specifically about Yakov--in the first book, showing all people the inception of all things to be generated (generating their generations).


:prophet:
What is happening today is a result of what happened then, and follows the same cyclic pattern established in the beginning.

"The time of Jacob's Troubles" is not the Tribulation.
The Tribulation is near the very end of Jacob's Troubles and is the culmination of them.
Then he must wrestle with G_d and survive, though the hip be smitten.
All the children of both of Yakov's wives are Jacob and shall perpetually repeat the principal cycle until it culminates as He whom after the order of MelchiTzadek, Cohen Gadol et Melki Yahoshuvah shall keep for Himself the remnant tithe.

Wherever the nations are, Yaweh has scattered us amongst them.
Those who claim and believe through following Ha'Mashiach Yeshua are as Ephesians 2 states.
Wherever the people of this commonwealth are found, there shall be a sifting, and shaking, and fire.
Out from this Yaweh's kingdom on earth shall be established.

Focus only on the object(ive) blinds us to the subect(ive) arising out of the power(s) proceeding from the principal(ities).


Mara Natha,

Timmy

ps. I have never listened to Benjamin Freedman before, and drifted off to sleep listening last night. Intriguing, and quite factual...at least until conscious awareness left this carcass. I'll give it another go when possible. Thank you.

I have many 3D intrusions--as you call it--vying for interaction meself today. It's hoped the above brevity clarifies at least a smidgen...and when time comes available, be there more things you will share and if i can answer, we can carry on from there.

[David M]

Hello Charisma and Timmy
I came looking to start a new thread and saw that maybe this one can be continued with a slight addition. I was wondering what title to give the new thread; 'The Three Judaisms', or the title I have used for this post.
Though, I would put you both in category #2(see list below), it is evident that you do not agree with each other on everything you hold common. That is not unusual, since in any group, there is hardly ever complete agreement on everything.

I quote;

Timmy

As brother Katz mentioned Key 73 and is relating everything to Jeremiah 17.5-...
I do not see this message as you. It is prophetic in every way, and not an issue of Goy -vs- Jew.
It is actually an issue between tradition versus Davidic Judaism (after God's own heart).
Following some research on the B'rit hadashah suggested by Timmy, it came to me that Jews are divided as to whether Jesus is the Messiah, or if Jesus is the Messiah, whether Jesus is God, or Jesus is not God. It appears to me, that there are three camps Jews can be put in.

#1. Jews who believe the Messiah has not come, therefore Jesus was not the Messiah and not the Son of God.
#2. Jews that believe the Messiah is Jesus and that Jesus is God.
#3. Jews that accept Jesus is the Messiah and the Son of God and is not God

To group #2, I pose the following question. Which of the other two groups is more correct, that is; #1The Messiah has not come; #3 Jesus is not God ?

I am not a Jew, but if I were, I would fall into group #3 (Note for Timmy - I have used the subjunctive). You both disagree with me for regarding Jesus as not God. So while I acknowledge everything else about the plan God has for his creation and of God's kingdom to come, (group #1 look for the establishment of the Kingdom restored to Israel and the fulfillment of God's promise to Abraham) am I more on track than group #1 in which I also believe in the promises made to Abraham, or am I to be rejected or shall I be grafted in as Israel (represented by group #1) will be grafted in after the veil is lifted from their eyes?

Of course, from my perspective, group #2 could also have a veil over its eyes. The return of Jesus might finally remove the veils from all groups and we will all see what we have got wrong. Just as we all have some sin in us, maybe we are all partly sighted and do not see everything as clearly as we could. Let us pray for each other that when the time comes, we will all be grafted into the true vine for our belief in YHWH (and Yeshua).

While I leave you to comment on the above, I will continue to research the B'rit hadashah in connection with The prophecy of Micah and the Tanakh. I have just been reading an article in connection with the B'rit hadashah in which Jeremiah 31 is the focus.

One final question that I have for you both; do either of you have a copy of the following Bible and what do you think of it? The Bible is; 'The Complete Jewish Bible' by David H. Stern

All the best
David

[Timmy]

Hello Charisma and Timmy
I came looking to start a new thread and saw that maybe this one can be continued with a slight addition. I was wondering what title to give the new thread; 'The Three Judaisms', or the title I have used for this post.
Though, I would put you both in category #2(see list below), it is evident that you do not agree with each other on everything you hold common. That is not unusual, since in any group, there is hardly ever complete agreement on everything.

I quote;

Following some research on the B'rit hadashah suggested by Timmy, it came to me that Jews are divided as to whether Jesus is the Messiah, or if Jesus is the Messiah, whether Jesus is God, or Jesus is not God. It appears to me, that there are three camps Jews can be put in.

#1. Jews who believe the Messiah has not come, therefore Jesus was not the Messiah and not the Son of God.
#2. Jews that believe the Messiah is Jesus and that Jesus is God.
#3. Jews that accept Jesus is the Messiah and the Son of God and is not God

To group #2, I pose the following question. Which of the other two groups is more correct, that is; #1The Messiah has not come; #3 Jesus is not God ?

I am not a Jew, but if I were, I would fall into group #3 (Note for Timmy - I have used the subjunctive). You both disagree with me for regarding Jesus as not God. So while I acknowledge everything else about the plan God has for his creation and of God's kingdom to come, (group #1 look for the establishment of the Kingdom restored to Israel and the fulfillment of God's promise to Abraham) am I more on track than group #1 in which I also believe in the promises made to Abraham, or am I to be rejected or shall I be grafted in as Israel (represented by group #1) will be grafted in after the veil is lifted from their eyes?

Of course, from my perspective, group #2 could also have a veil over its eyes. The return of Jesus might finally remove the veils from all groups and we will all see what we have got wrong. Just as we all have some sin in us, maybe we are all partly sighted and do not see everything as clearly as we could. Let us pray for each other that when the time comes, we will all be grafted into the true vine for our belief in YHWH (and Yeshua).

While I leave you to comment on the above, I will continue to research the B'rit hadashah in connection with The prophecy of Micah and the Tanakh. I have just been reading an article in connection with the B'rit hadashah in which Jeremiah 31 is the focus.

One final question that I have for you both; do either of you have a copy of the following Bible and what do you think of it? The Bible is; 'The Complete Jewish Bible' by David H. Stern

All the best
David

Hey D,

Yes, i have Stern's CJB and all other books by him. He is in group 2, and that Bible is a paraphrase from the Hebrew slant. It's Tanakh more often than not is. quite a bit more accurate than any other English translation; but his B'rit Hadasha is full of Hebraisms not found in the text. If you wish to obtain a rudimentary perspective on some of the Hebrew ways of speaking and attitude formed through successive generational traditions, it is a good starting point. The way it is written, leaves room for the reader to decide if Jesus is God...but the few cross reference in the B'rit Hadasha portion point to this very fact.


If you read through Paul and John in the Greek, nobody can come away as group three. The messages and meanings are all too obvious.

Those from group 3 i know, after showing them what Paul specifically relates,--and John continually alludes to, which requires reasoning through what John writes--without exception, have all joined group 2...and indeed, the veil is removed...the all end up so excited seeing the whole Bible make more sense and the spirit of Christ begins speaking to them too, and they realize in their lives that future redemption begins now through faith in the finished work of Jesus on the cross, and the resurrection is then proof positive to them all...then experiencing this power to change them and everything around them.

All appropriated through faithfulness in the faithfulness from Yeshua...which is why there is one (of a few) disagreement(s) with Charis as follows: that Jer. 31 has not yet occurred as a complete fact, but only in part, though the promise of a "new heart" in Ezekiel is already available to "whosoever will(...should not" (Jn.3.16))..."come to the water" in Isaiah 55.
(...subjunctive added and emphasized boldly for you to note, David)

I think the word believe, as in actually believing is understood too loosely by the majority. True belief would better be understood as "dependent reliance in", even as the word faith is "trust"ing God so much, whatever He says, we do.



BAH!!!!!!!!


More later if materials still have not yet arrived at the home being renovated.

T

[David M]

Hello Timmy and Charisma

As brother Katz mentioned Key 73 and is relating everything to Jeremiah 17.5-...
I do not see this message as you. It is prophetic in every way, and not an issue of Goy -vs- Jew.
It is actually an issue between tradition versus Davidic Judaism (after God's own heart).

Consider this DVD in relation to what that conference message is all about and come back again to the message younare referring to:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UaKmieXj-BY

Here also is a short video clip to clue you in of a portion about the same topic:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c9IjRPC0Mfw


I watched the video clip and I found it very refreshing that from his Jewish perspective, he regards Jacob's Trouble as a time to come. It is interesting how it is going to work out in detail, but in principle I agree with what he is saying.
His futuristic perception of events cuts across the Preterists teaching and fits in with what I have come to believe. That is why it is so interesting to see how things are developing in the Middle East. I think there will be a third overturning of Jerusalem and the present nation of Israel will be humbled for a last a final time. Even if events do not happen quick enough in my lifetime, they will surely take place.

I look forward to watching the whole video/DVD if it is downloadable.


All the best
David

[Charisma]

Hi Timmy,


which is why there is one (of a few) disagreement(s) with Charis as follows: that Jer. 31 has not yet occurred as a complete fact, but only in part,

Umm, you're a bit out of date, brother. Once I saw what Paul does with Psalm 2:7 in Acts 13:32, 33, I came into agreement with you a long time ago. In fact, I'm surprised you haven't picked that up from things I've written already - even recently;

so please could you lay this one down for good? :thumb:

[David M]

Hello Charisma

Hi Timmy,
Umm, you're a bit out of date, brother. Once I saw what Paul does with Psalm 2:7 in Acts 13:32, 33, I came into agreement with you a long time ago. In fact, I'm surprised you haven't picked that up from things I've written already - even recently;

so please could you lay this one down for good? :thumb:

I have no disagreement with that and am thinking the same as you. Thanks for drawing this to our attention.

Have you a comment on Psalm 110:1; The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool. and how Jesus flummoxed his opponents when quoting this Psalm? ( Matthew 22:46) And no man was able to answer him a word, neither durst any man from that day forth ask him any more questions.

All the best
David

[David M]

Hello Timmy

Hey D,

Yes, i have Stern's CJB and all other books by him. He is in group 2, and that Bible is a paraphrase from the Hebrew slant. It's Tanakh more often than not is. quite a bit more accurate than any other English translation; but his B'rit Hadasha is full of Hebraisms not found in the text. If you wish to obtain a rudimentary perspective on some of the Hebrew ways of speaking and attitude formed through successive generational traditions, it is a good starting point. The way it is written, leaves room for the reader to decide if Jesus is God...but the few cross reference in the B'rit Hadasha portion point to this very fact.Thank you for this reply and information. I think we have to be careful not to confuse tradition with teaching from Scripture. If I have to choose between doing away with the writings that are Tradition or the Bible, the Tradition is the works I would reject.


If you read through Paul and John in the Greek, nobody can come away as group three. The messages and meanings are all too obvious.It is not obvious as you think. I respect you for sticking with the original Hebrew rather than the Greek that was probably translated from the Aramaic that Jesus spoke in. The finding of texts of Matthew in Hebrew have found errors in the Greek translation.


Those from group 3 i know, after showing them what Paul specifically relates,--and John continually alludes to, which requires reasoning through what John writes--without exception, have all joined group 2...and indeed, the veil is removed...the all end up so excited seeing the whole Bible make more sense and the spirit of Christ begins speaking to them too, and they realize in their lives that future redemption begins now through faith in the finished work of Jesus on the cross, and the resurrection is then proof positive to them all...then experiencing this power to change them and everything around them.I agree with you in that some in group #3 have lost the truth and reverted to group #2. We all have to keep questioning as to whether we have understood correctly that on which our faith is based. As we are reminded, when Jesus returns (Luke 18:8) shall he find (The) faith on the earth?


All appropriated through faithfulness in the faithfulness from Yeshua...which is why there is one (of a few) disagreement(s) with Charis as follows: that Jer. 31 has not yet occurred as a complete fact, but only in part, though the promise of a "new heart" in Ezekiel is already available to "whosoever will(...should not" (Jn.3.16))..."come to the water" in Isaiah 55.
(...subjunctive added and emphasized boldly for you to note, David) Is that correct. Are you sure "should" is not meant to be the following?
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/should?s=t
3.must; ought (used to indicate duty, propriety, or expediency): You should not do that. The following is what the subjunctive mood is about;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subjunctive_mood
The subjunctive is a grammatical mood found in many languages. Subjunctive forms of verbs are typically used to express various states of unreality such as wish, emotion, possibility, judgment, opinion, necessity, or action that has not yet occurred – the precise situations in which they are used vary from language to language. The subjunctive is an irrealis mood (one that does not refer directly to what is necessarily real) – it is often contrasted with the indicative, which is a realis mood.

I am not disagreeing with the spiritual metaphors.


I think the word believe, as in actually believing is understood too loosely by the majority. True belief would better be understood as "dependent reliance in", even as the word faith is "trust"ing God so much, whatever He says, we do.I am not going to disagree.

I have been thinking that it is time to end our discussion on our difference of understanding the nature of Jesus. I listened to Art Katz (at least the first part of his talk to do with incarnation). I am so surprised after he lists all the difficulties in believing how incarnation can take place, he is stuck in the wrong way of understanding Philippians 2. He claims Jesus emptied himself of his deity. That is not what the text states.
I am happy to do a verse by verse exposition with you to get to the truth. BTW, I was saddened to learn that Art Katz died relatively recent. He has left a legacy of talks, which I will download and keep on file.

I am for moving on to discuss other topics and let the 'Jesus is not God' issue rest for the moment.

Please give me the link again to the book you want me to read. I am not a fast reader and I rarely read a book from cover to cover, so do not expect a response soon. I will read through the book to find the gems that might be hidden there.

All the best.

David

[L67]

Hello Timmy and Charisma

I watched the video clip and I found it very refreshing that from his Jewish perspective, he regards Jacob's Trouble as a time to come. It is interesting how it is going to work out in detail, but in principle I agree with what he is saying.
His futuristic perception of events cuts across the Preterists teaching and fits in with what I have come to believe. That is why it is so interesting to see how things are developing in the Middle East. I think there will be a third overturning of Jerusalem and the present nation of Israel will be humbled for a last a final time. Even if events do not happen quick enough in my lifetime, they will surely take place.

I look forward to watching the whole video/DVD if it is downloadable.


All the best
David

Wow, just wow. We can see first hand how futurism is built on shifting sand. Futurism is FALSE in every way.

That guy is easily refuted. David you of all people should be ashamed of yourself. You constantly harp at everyone that we need to put Bible verses into context, yet you give this guy a pass because he says what you want to hear.

Let me show you why this guy is dead wrong. He uses Jeremiah 30 to describe current events in modern Israel. That is completely ripping Jeremiah 30 out of context. Let's back up.

Jeremiah 29:10–14 “For thus says the Lord, ‘When seventy years have been completed for Babylon, I will visit you and fulfill My good word to you, to bring you back to this place. ‘For I know the plans that I have for you,’ declares the Lord, ‘plans for welfare and not for calamity to give you a future and a hope. ‘Then you will call upon Me and come and pray to Me, and I will listen to you. ‘You will seek Me and find Me when you search for Me with all your heart. ‘I will be found by you,’ declares the Lord, ‘and I will restore your fortunes and will gather you from all the nations and from all the places where I have driven you,’ declares the Lord, ‘and I will bring you back to the place from where I sent you into exile.’ ”



Jeremiah is speaking about the return of Babylonian captivity.




Jeremiah 29:28-32 28 For therefore he sent unto us in Babylon, saying, This captivity is long: build ye houses, and dwell in them; and plant gardens, and eat the fruit of them.

29 And Zephaniah the priest read this letter in the ears of Jeremiah the prophet.

30 Then came the word of the Lord unto Jeremiah, saying,

31 Send to all them of the captivity, saying, Thus saith the Lord concerning Shemaiah the Nehelamite; Because that Shemaiah hath prophesied unto you, and I sent him not, and he caused you to trust in a lie:

32 Therefore thus saith the Lord; Behold, I will punish Shemaiah the Nehelamite, and his seed: he shall not have a man to dwell among this people; neither shall he behold the good that I will do for my people, saith the Lord; because he hath taught rebellion against the Lord.




And in context Jeremiah 30 is about the return from Babylonian captivity.

Jeremiah 30:9 9 But they shall serve the Lord their God, and David their king, whom I will raise up unto them.




Is David still alive? No! Nothing could be clearer that Jeremiah is speaking about the Babylonian return from captivity and not some future event.

Why are you following an obvious false doctrine of the masses David?

[Timmy]

:signthankspin:L67:winking0071:



Hi Timmy,

Umm, you're a bit out of date, brother. Once I saw what Paul does with Psalm 2:7 in Acts 13:32, 33, I came into agreement with you a long time ago. In fact, I'm surprised you haven't picked that up from things I've written already - even recently;

so please could you lay this one down for good? :thumb:
Hi Charis,

Sister, you asume too much that you actually have; because, what you have said ( to the subjective mythorrevisionist) in the six hour secretNOT prayer meeting thread and here speaks differently

...and then you start talking about twenty four chromasomes?
:rofl:...sounds like a majorly deformed glob of carcass (if that) to me...so
Give me a break.
You of all people should know better. Yeah, i'll drop it when you purge the leaven completely out of your reasonings. It's things like that which are leavening the whole lump, even as little foxes spoil the vine.



:talk005:...and David???
Just:stop:the jibber jabber concerning Timmy since you don't even understand what the actual problem is.
Mind your P's and Q's making sure to dot every i and cross every T before Timmy again confronts you over your own perpetual inconsistencies. I see so much rationalized subjective humanistic mythical rubbish in so much of what you post it is pitiable.

Yeah yeah! Stand down when Charis talks to me or i to her. Otherwise, donn a hooded asbestos suit with facemask.

A word to the wise is sufficient where only fools rush in.

Tim TimTim Tim

[David M]

Hello Timmy



:talk005:...and David???
Just:stop:the jibber jabber concerning Timmy since you don't even understand what the actual problem is.What problem? Are you going to tell me what the problem is?


Mind your P's and Q's making sure to dot every i and cross every T before Timmy again confronts you over your own perpetual inconsistencies.I am willing to stand corrected, so what are my inconsistencies that you think I have?


I see so much rationalized subjective humanistic mythical rubbish in so much of what you post it is pitiable.Unless you want to point out anything specific and discuss it, you are not helping me.


Yeah yeah! Stand down when Charis talks to me or i to her. Otherwise, donn a hooded asbestos suit with facemask.Richard says this is an open forum. I am wrong for thinking you and Charisma were in close agreement. I expect you to take your own advice and stay out of of other people's conversations on this forum, if you want to take that attitude.



A word to the wise is sufficient where only fools rush in.Is everybody a fool except Timmy, who likes to put on the persona of a fool?

Shalom
David

[Charisma]

Hi Timmy,


Hi Charis,

Sister, you asume too much that you actually have; because, what you have said ( to the subjective mythorrevisionist) in the six hour secretNOT prayer meeting thread and here speaks differently

From what I wrote in the 'six hour secretNOT prayer meeting thread and here', please show me what I said, which can be shown conclusively to indicate we are still in disagreement over how to interpret Psalm 2:7? (In respect of you being 'out of date' with my thinking, that is the only point to which I referred.)

Regarding Art Katz's reading of scripture, I did not post this link because I completely agree with him.

I wonder why Paul began his first epistle to Timothy with this exhortation?

3 As I besought thee to abide still at Ephesus, when I went into Macedonia, that thou mightest charge some that they teach no other doctrine, 4 Neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions, rather than godly edifying which is in faith:

Two questions -

What do you think it means?

And was Benjamin Friedman 'right' to distance himself from the 'Jewish' agenda, after he became a Christian?
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HhFRGDyX48c)

[Timmy]

Hello Timmy
What problem? Are you going to tell me what the problem is?Which ones are you talking about? There's me, incontrovertibly amplifying mine so here we alli can see them far more clearly. There's my bestest closestest friend to the end hidee hidee hoe? Then there is you. Then there is the misinterpretation and misrepresentation of the truth which does not rilly bother me in the least...except when any claiming to take part in His life or to be following Him speak about any specific aspect they rilly do not have operational in their lives. So which ones are you querying about?


I am willing to stand corrected, so what are my inconsistencies that you think I have?Oh yeah, we have seen jest how willing you are and how far that goes in more instances than the digits on your limbs. Thank you for this utmost concern and your eveready willingness to experience your personal metamorphosis through thyself for thyself in and of thyself.

If only everyone can learn of your example just think how conformist this place could be, all comfy and cozy and dull; but, people like the Timmy appear so bound to their biarse there first need be the veil removed, hunh?


Unless you want to point out anything specific and discuss it, you are not helping me.

What if you are not helping through distracives or not?

How's this to begin with?

Be quick to listen,slow to speak, and slow to anger.

Yeah yeah...patience Prudence...


Richard says this is an open forum. I am wrong for thinking you and Charisma were in close agreement. I expect you to take your own advice and stay out of of other people's conversations on this forum, if you want to take that attitude.Charisand Timmy agree even when it seems different David.

Righteeoh David...a completely and unabashedly open forum, a cyber-social experience like no other...and although i am most often than not not so quick to speak very little of my mind until people begin hanging themselves, and love enigmatica with parabolic implications, Timmy likes to push buttons taking lames in this cybersociological experiment...Timmy is alwo here and hir IMput is not silen just because the Timmy can.

So, lively up yourself, speak your mind, as we social scientists are all taking notes.



Is everybody a fool except Timmy, who likes to put on the persona of a fool?No, we are all part of this crazy little ship of fools together and exit only begins six feet under the stars. There ain't no nothin' 'bout gettin' off the bus here, even deleted words and phrases are still accessible.

Shalom
David[/QUOTE]

MARA NATHA!



Verückte,

Timmy

[L67]

Wow, just wow. We can see first hand how futurism is built on shifting sand. Futurism is FALSE in every way.

That guy is easily refuted. David you of all people should be ashamed of yourself. You constantly harp at everyone that we need to put Bible verses into context, yet you give this guy a pass because he says what you want to hear.

Let me show you why this guy is dead wrong. He uses Jeremiah 30 to describe current events in modern Israel. That is completely ripping Jeremiah 30 out of context. Let's back up.

Jeremiah 29:10–14 “For thus says the Lord, ‘When seventy years have been completed for Babylon, I will visit you and fulfill My good word to you, to bring you back to this place. ‘For I know the plans that I have for you,’ declares the Lord, ‘plans for welfare and not for calamity to give you a future and a hope. ‘Then you will call upon Me and come and pray to Me, and I will listen to you. ‘You will seek Me and find Me when you search for Me with all your heart. ‘I will be found by you,’ declares the Lord, ‘and I will restore your fortunes and will gather you from all the nations and from all the places where I have driven you,’ declares the Lord, ‘and I will bring you back to the place from where I sent you into exile.’ ”



Jeremiah is speaking about the return of Babylonian captivity.




Jeremiah 29:28-32 28 For therefore he sent unto us in Babylon, saying, This captivity is long: build ye houses, and dwell in them; and plant gardens, and eat the fruit of them.

29 And Zephaniah the priest read this letter in the ears of Jeremiah the prophet.

30 Then came the word of the Lord unto Jeremiah, saying,

31 Send to all them of the captivity, saying, Thus saith the Lord concerning Shemaiah the Nehelamite; Because that Shemaiah hath prophesied unto you, and I sent him not, and he caused you to trust in a lie:

32 Therefore thus saith the Lord; Behold, I will punish Shemaiah the Nehelamite, and his seed: he shall not have a man to dwell among this people; neither shall he behold the good that I will do for my people, saith the Lord; because he hath taught rebellion against the Lord.




And in context Jeremiah 30 is about the return from Babylonian captivity.

Jeremiah 30:9 9 But they shall serve the Lord their God, and David their king, whom I will raise up unto them.




Is David still alive? No! Nothing could be clearer that Jeremiah is speaking about the Babylonian return from captivity and not some future event.

Why are you following an obvious false doctrine of the masses David?


Why have you ignored this post David?

[Timmy]

Hi Timmy,



From what I wrote in the 'six hour secretNOT prayer meeting thread and here', please show me what I said, which can be shown conclusively to indicate we are still in disagreement over how to interpret Psalm 2:7? (In respect of you being 'out of date' with my thinking, that is the only point to which I referred.)

Regarding Art Katz's reading of scripture, I did not post this link because I completely agree with him.

I wonder why Paul began his first epistle to Timothy with this exhortation?

3 As I besought thee to abide still at Ephesus, when I went into Macedonia, that thou mightest charge some that they teach no other doctrine, 4 Neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions, rather than godly edifying which is in faith:

Two questions -

What do you think it means?

And was Benjamin Friedman 'right' to distance himself from the 'Jewish' agenda, after he became a Christian?
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HhFRGDyX48c)BF WAS SPOT ON.
FABLES AND GENEOLOGIES ARE ENDLESS speculations creating the questions.
...and the dig was about what L67 mentions in his post and why you differed not (or at least said nothing rilly to the contrary-vs- what David had assumed.
It was not about Ps. 2.7

No more shall be said over any of this.

All dropped as you desire.

Shalom Rav,

Timmy

[Timmy]

Hello Timmy
Thank you for this reply and information. I think we have to be careful not to confuse tradition with teaching from Scripture. If I have to choose between doing away with the writings that are Tradition or the Bible, the Tradition is the works I would reject.Hi David,

re:Stern's CJB? :yo:


It is not obvious as you think. I respect you for sticking with the original Hebrew rather than the Greek that was probably translated from the Aramaic that Jesus spoke in. The finding of texts of Matthew in Hebrew have found errors in the Greek translation.Not really errors so much as limitations of the Greek Language. If studying one must continually double-back confirming the foundation.


I agree with you in that some in group #3 have lost the truth and reverted to group #2. We all have to keep questioning as to whether we have understood correctly that on which our faith is based. As we are reminded, when Jesus returns (Luke 18:8) shall he find (The) faith on the earth?The problem is that those of group three are most often trusting in their own righteous deeds, not that group 2 doesn't do this either, but they should know better...even as Hashem had Yechezk'el record of His words, “When I say the righteous shall surely live, and he trusts in his righteousness and so commits iniquity, none of his righteous deeds will be remembered; but in that same iniquity of his which he has committed he will die." (if remembering correct, that is found near Ezek. 33.15?)







Is that correct. Are you sure "should" is not meant to be the following? The following is what the subjunctive mood is about;You tell me.




I have been thinking that it is time to end our discussion on our difference of understanding the nature of Jesus. I listened to Art Katz (at least the first part of his talk to do with incarnation). I am so surprised after he lists all the difficulties in believing how incarnation can take place, he is stuck in the wrong way of understanding Philippians 2. He claims Jesus emptied himself of his deity. That is not what the text states.
I am happy to do a verse by verse exposition with you to get to the truth. BTW, I was saddened to learn that Art Katz died relatively recent. He has left a legacy of talks, which I will download and keep on file.

I am for moving on to discuss other topics and let the 'Jesus is not God' issue rest for the moment.I never said Jesus was not flesh and blood. The clear proofs that Jesus is Hashem and thus God is not done. There was just desire for silence from you so that i could get on with providing the other evidence. You may want to reconvene after everything is laid out?

Some things Art says are questionable comparing the Bible with it, but yeah, goodstuff there FTMP.

Re Phil. 2, no, not actually emptied. It was a (temporary) laying aside His priveledges.


Oh,
In the Greek, BTW, it is extremely clear who Jesus is (if one knows the Tanakh, as most Messianics).


Please give me the link again to the book you want me to read. I am not a fast reader and I rarely read a book from cover to cover, so do not expect a response soon. I will read through the book to find the gems that might be hidden there.

All the best.

DavidI was talking about a straight through reading of John.

It is completely inappropriate to pick out any words or phrases to grapple with in any book of the Bible without first being very familiar with the context of the whole book, or if a specific discouse, the context of that discourse.

Why? It's Jewish non-linear thought. Often (but not always), the main import of it's message is somewhere close to the center of the book, then repeated at the end. When the main point is noted after reading through until clear about this, it is best to read from that point to the end, then read from the beginning to the middle.

(there are other methods than this, that if knowledgeable, noting the whole text, the method used can be noticed almost immediately. Going from the middle to the end is very common though...and we will not even get into the terms describing these methods.

For example, Jesus' so-called "Sermon on the Mount", when he taught his talmudim while sitting down--(Rabbinic typical procedure)-in Mt 5-7, the main point is found at 6.12-14. Reading from there to the end, then continuing at 5.3 all the way back again to 6.14 will give one the proper perspective on what was meant about all else said therein. It sets the tone and emphasis in the perspective it is typically taught to be received and understood by Hebrews who grow up knowing this. Most people of other nations are virtually clueless about this significant factor often present in the Bible.


Shalom Rav,

Timmy

[Charisma]

Hi David,

Timmy has stirred me up to look back at your posts.


Have you a comment on Psalm 110:1; The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool. and how Jesus flummoxed his opponents when quoting this Psalm? ( Matthew 22:46) And no man was able to answer him a word, neither durst any man from that day forth ask him any more questions.

This was only one of several occasions when Jesus either questions, or states something, which shows up the local religious leader's attitudes towards truth. Psalm 110:1 is quoted elsewhere, and it all makes perfect sense when one has receive the same eternal Spirit which/who gave those words to king David.

[Charisma]

Hi Timmy,

Shalom,

Thanks for the clarification.

I find L67's apparent Bible knowledge which he/she does not care to take into account at a personal level, confusing and concerning. Rom 1:18

I think you know that I don't have any time for 'Futurism'. Now, I don't feel the need to refute it when it comes up in discussions. I'm not an expert. I know what I know. I know what I believe, and I'm happy to have only the Lord to answer to for that.

People think what people think, and the vast majority of Christendom is embracing one form of 'thinking' or another, only very loosely linked to scripture, and some of it majorly (excuse the shakey English) out of sync with even the simplest understanding of the Bible's narrative. I don't feel responsible for their fate. I do feel responsible for what I claim as my personal experience of God's dealings, when, occasionally, I share some detail.

I am interested in your thought that the remnant will be 'a tithe'. Was that a figure of speech, or do you have scripture for the final tally?

Another thing I find disturbing, is the way 'people' refer to the final gathering up (as you did), as if it only applies to the generation who 'see' Jesus, if indeed He is going to come to (earth) (and) (come) how 'people' are holding out for, despite that the oft-quoted prophecy has already been fulfilled.

Maybe your busyness has protected you from the repetitiosness of the 'arguments', and maybe your heart is tenderer than mine. Pray for me again.

Please forgive my brusqueness. You read me right.

(The fact is), I cannot defend some of Art's declarations about the future, but I am blessed by his honest declamation of what God had shown him.


I should have posted this presentation, earlier, perhaps, as I believe it is a later talk, and brings even greater light to bear, in that he is more accurately distinguishing the issues that 'people' don't necessarily think about when they are forming denomination allegiances.

Beyond Messianic Judaism - http://www.sermonindex.net/modules/mydownloads/visit.php?lid=3323

Description: Spoken at a Messianic congregation, Art presents a view of the faith that eclipses what is labeled “Messianic,” namely, an apostolic faith. It is only in this faith, reality, power, credibility and witness that we can successfully reach the Jew in the Last Days.

[Timmy]

Hey Charis,

Psalm 110...there we go...no intention to stir you up, but that is a proclivity even when not disagreeing with others.

Now David has to account for the fact with the Judaic record in there being two representations of Yaweh, and often, even though it does not say Lord God in this instance, it is implied with context: Adonai Elohei...

...as the prophet and High Priest only were allowed and recognized to be in direct communication with Yah during the time of the Tanakh...

...thus the baffling of those religiois leaders--and prolly David now, also--by the Word of Yeshua.

...BUT WAIT..nahhh..i dropped it.

Danke,

Timmy

[Timmy]

Why have you ignored this post David?
That's just the way he does when you boil away the fat from any issue
...prolly thinking it will change if he ignores it...
...or presto: it may disappear through such magnanimously inept skill in magical thinking...
...or chango: prolly might do the hat trick with a bit of that ole' sleight of mind...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kRW7pITY5Cg

[Charisma]

Hi Timmy,

I would like to suggest a simpler solution to David's confusion is that he takes his eyes off his doctrine and puts them and his faith in the Word of God as it is expounded by the text itself. His unbelief all rests on the presupposition that God's Son was not of the same substance as His Father.

He doesn't have to give any other account.


Are you counting the men before Aaron as priests?

[Timmy]

Hi Timmy,

I would like to suggest a simpler solution to David's confusion is that he takes his eyes off his doctrine and puts them and his faith in the Word of God as it is expounded by the text itself. His unbelief all rests on the presupposition that God's Son was not of the same substance as His Father.

He doesn't have to give any other account.


Are you counting the men before Aaron as priests?

Hello Charisma,

Their doctrine insideously puts them in bondage to something that has never worked. It is both theological and sociological for them...a seperationist discipline that eventually cuts them off from being able the function without them.He did not learn to act all authoritarian with those mythological opinions by coincidence either.

David has been working to justify himself ever since before he went through the water.

It really doesn't matter if it is a church or cult or group or faction or sect or even the individual themselves or whatever else...everyone of them are in bondage to a spirit of religion that says if you do what you see is morally right, then God will accep ttheir idea of self-justification: good outweighing the bad.:hysterical:

When you sit down and think it all through, there is man who wanting to remain his own god will rather die trying and perish over accepting and believing into and upon what God through His life in the blood of Christ Jesus has already accomplished for them: the religion of humanity apart from God in various multifaceted forms or trusting God.

When a person realizes they cannot even solely rely on themselves, to depend on an invisible God hidden from them appears impossible.

It is not so simple for David either, because of proclaiming far less than half of the gospel as though it were whole does not bode well for him. His own mind is his worst enemy now, and that type of blindness is compounded at least fivefold.

Itis not about what he does so much as what he cannot do.

It's too easy to say look and decide when: 2 Thess.2 (and delusions), the bad of Jude, of 2 Peter, of Jude, of Ii Cor. 3-4, of Rom. 1.18-2.5, of Deut 8-13, ofJer ch23-29 and so much more is already in effect against him...and it is God ordained because of what he has been doing religiiusly for far too long, counting the mediator and His blood of this covenant as insufficient...you tell me what's next.

After hearing things thatshow how false that ideology is and saying,"let's drop it", do you actually believe he could ever see or hear...all about the appearance ignoring the power of God...repeatedly treading it underfoot?

It's thought you thinkJesus is justgoingto bring someone into His kingdom through decisional easy believism when nothing could be further from the fact.

Though Jesus healed and restored all who submitted to him, out from thousands of thousands we see only 120 doing whatHe said to do before ascending to the right hand of Yah...and think about all the many he either would not receive or he eliminated from following Him any longer.

The solution is not so simple when you tell himthesame thing over and over in so many differe t ways yet observably never gets it. Each time you bring it up, it's like you have to start all over...but can you hear another while you are busy incessantly jabbering away on top of the blindness?
...then think qbout having to cut yourself aways from that group only to end up dealing with the mixed bags of nuts out away from that cult among a huge majority who are not grounded in the Word?

I am not saying it is not possible though. Just that it will call for extreme non-compromise following Jesus voice when this should come about.



As for before the restablishment of the covenant of Avraham Avinu with the children of Y'israel, Psalm 110 was not established in the earth. When it was spoken after it was written it became a physical reality on Earth. That is what is being coonsidered regarding the when.

Agapeo,

Timmy

[Timmy]

Hi Timmy,

Shalom,

Thanks for the clarification.Hi Charis,

AYS when available.


I find L67's apparent Bible knowledge which he/she does not care to take into account at a personal level, confusing and concerning. Rom 1:18

I think you know that I don't have any time for 'Futurism'. Now, I don't feel the need to refute it when it comes up in discussions. I'm not an expert. I know what I know. I know what I believe, and I'm happy to have only the Lord to answer to for that.

People think what people think, and the vast majority of Christendom is embracing one form of 'thinking' or another, only very loosely linked to scripture, and some of it majorly (excuse the shakey English) out of sync with even the simplest understanding of the Bible's narrative. I don't feel responsible for their fate. I do feel responsible for what I claim as my personal experience of God's dealings, when, occasionally, I share some detail. Head knowledge alone only produces pride.

We who believe and follow shall answer to Him at the Bema for our effect with affect and how this affects others though we are not directly responsible for what they do.

People can talk all that useless talk about when and why. Leave me out of it unless it be to confound that and point them back to Yaweh Yeshua. These are completely off track with the cart before the horse and the rider who is the Word of God.


I am interested in your thought that the remnant will be 'a tithe'. Was that a figure of speech, or do you have scripture for the final tally?Isaiah, Genesis, the offerings in Leviticus, what Jesus says, and much Remez in accord with the aforementioned Peschat.


Another thing I find disturbing, is the way 'people' refer to the final gathering up (as you did), as if it only applies to the generation who 'see' Jesus, if indeed He is going to come to (earth) (and) (come) how 'people' are holding out for, despite that the oft-quoted prophecy has already been fulfilled.No prophecy has seen it's final fulfillment; but rather only in part are clearer and clearer physical indications of what is yet to come:

"Do not think I have come to abolish the Torah or the Prophets. I have come not to abolish but to complete. Amin I tell you that until heaven and earth pass away, not one yud or kotz will pass from the Torah--not until everything that must transpire has already happened. So, whoever disgards the least of these...
~Mattityahu 5.17-…


Maybe your busyness has protected you from the repetitiosness of the 'arguments', and maybe your heart is tenderer than mine. Pray for me again.

Please forgive my brusqueness. You read me right.DITTO!

(The fact is), I cannot defend some of Art's declarations about the future, but I am blessed by his honest declamation of what God had shown him.
What i do not get is why many do not realize how it is not wise to compare ourselves with one another person.
Let everyone being saved account for what they say or defend of themselves by the Word at work in their living.


I should have posted this presentation, earlier, perhaps, as I believe it is a later talk, and brings even greater light to bear, in that he is more accurately distinguishing the issues that 'people' don't necessarily think about when they are forming denomination allegiances.

Beyond Messianic Judaism - http://www.sermonindex.net/modules/mydownloads/visit.php?lid=3323

Description: Spoken at a Messianic congregation, Art presents a view of the faith that eclipses what is labeled “Messianic,” namely, an apostolic faith. It is only in this faith, reality, power, credibility and witness that we can successfully reach the Jew in the Last Days.Though labels are hsed here as defining generalities, i am not for that garbage in the least.

Either one lives by His faith(fulness) or they do not: end of the story, Q.E.D.

Can a good tree bear bad fruit?


Shalom Shalom Rav,

Timmy

[Charisma]

Dear Timmy,

In reference to post # 24, thank you. You're right that there is a great deal at stake for a person attempting to abandon self-righteousness, whether it is because of a cult's teaching, or just the natural man rising up definitively to prevent himself being put to death in Christ Jesus. Forgiveness of sins is a wonderful gift for those who experience it, but how much more wonderful to be freed from all bondage to sin itself?



Perhaps we could arrange 20 minutes to unite in prayer once a week? Not necessarily at the same time. I know how much you enjoy asymmetry, so feel free to name your asymmetrical availability, and I will do my utmost to match it.

Recently I relistened to Esther Ibanga's 'Money and the New Move of God', which she preached at TSC, NYC. She is good! And she used this verse as bookends.

Psalm 119:130 The entrance of thy words giveth light;

Upon looking it up, I find the end of the verse states:

it giveth understanding unto the simple.


Amen.


God is our hope. My optimism is unbounded.


Do you know the old chorus... (?)


His love knows no limits,
His grace knows no end,
His power has no boundary known unto man,
And out of His infinite riches in Jesus
He giveth, and giveth, and giveth again.

Well, I can't find it online, but as you say, 'I am not saying it is not possible though'. Indeed.

After I was baptised in the Spirit, the only words singing through my soul were

Love of Christ so freely given,
Grace of God beyond degree,
Mercy higher than the heaven,
Deeper than the deepest sea!

What a wonderful redemption!
Never can a mortal know
How my sin, tho red like crimson,
Can be whiter than the snow.

Every need His hand supplying,
Every good in Him I see;
On His strength divine relying,
He is all in all to me.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bdvrL52p8Q

[Charisma]

Hi again Timmy,

You may have missed a little question at the end of post # 23, regarding the High Priests. My understanding is that each male head of household was the priest in his own family, all the way down until the Aaronic priesthood, and in a measure, these priests (and sometimes women) were called upon to prophesy to their generation. Certainly to their own households.

I am most conscious that not only did God not stop speaking to Adam after he sinned, but that He spoke to and through Adam's descendants, long before circumcision was instituted. The knowledge of God was abroad in the earth, else why would an Elamite (Job) give so much attention to sacrifice on behalf of himself and his children? Also, look at Eber, Noah's grandson, who bridged right over to Jacob. These men were not ignorant of God's commands, and they knew that they disdained them at their peril. The great flood was not a distant memory to those generations, while Noah was still alive, either.

[Timmy]

Hi again Timmy,

You may have missed a little question at the end of post # 23, regarding the High Priests. My understanding is that each male head of household was the priest in his own family, all the way down until the Aaronic priesthood, and in a measure, these priests (and sometimes women) were called upon to prophesy to their generation. Certainly to their own households.

I am most conscious that not only did God not stop speaking to Adam after he sinned, but that He spoke to and through Adam's descendants, long before circumcision was instituted. The knowledge of God was abroad in the earth, else why would an Elamite (Job) give so much attention to sacrifice on behalf of himself and his children? Also, look at Eber, Noah's grandson, who bridged right over to Jacob. These men were not ignorant of God's commands, and they knew that they disdained them at their peril. The great flood was not a distant memory to those generations, while Noah was still alive, either.
Hello again C,

Regarding the meet, how does 8pm your time Monday until something differs here?

No it was not missed regarding #23.

The priesthood was not the family, from father down. The family followed example ordained in the Aaronic Priesthood. True that those in authority, whether family or government are designated to execute their station ordained by God, but these were never to be recognized to be direct spokespersons and specifically serving in direct communication for and with God at the time that Psalm was made active in the earth. The king was also to listen to the prophet and go to God through the mediation of the priest. Even with the annointed king there were specific limitations at that time (before he would hear from God.. The thing is, King Dawid is refering to two rulers who rule over him, both designated as ruling in association, one submitting to another.

Clearly, for those who are not blinded to blaspheme because of the lies of mythmaking men, and rather worship Jesus, the facts are clear enough

As stated before, that Psalm was not active in the earth until years after the structure of the Sinai covenant was in effect...and the Lawgiver and Judge(Jesus=Yaweh) never breaks His rulings.


Shalom Aleichim,

Timmyo

[Charisma]

Hi Timmy,

Thank you again for dragging things into historical perspective for me. Clearly, I was way off target!

However, did king David always go through a priest to communicate with God? I am a little bemused by that picture, because I've never picked it up from my reading, although there was always a priest on his team, sts.

And, clearly he was a prophet, meaning that he received 'the word' directly from God for the nation, some of the time, as well as answers to prayer for his own guidance.

8pm my time is most acceptable. I will be there, later today. :)


Incidentally, I was quite entertained by what you said, earlier, as I had been thinking exactly the same!!! :rofl:

I had not had time to read anything till this evening, so then discovered your " too. By that, I am mollified. Thank you.




Au revoir.

[Timmy]

Hi Timmy,

Thank you again for dragging things into historical perspective for me. Clearly, I was way off target!

However, did king David always go through a priest to communicate with God? I am a little bemused by that picture, because I've never picked it up from my reading, although there was always a priest on his team, sts.

And, clearly he was a prophet, meaning that he received 'the word' directly from God for the nation, some of the time, as well as answers to prayer for his own guidance.

8pm my time is most acceptable. I will be there, later today. :)


Incidentally, I was quite entertained by what you said, earlier, as I had been thinking exactly the same!!! :rofl:

I had not had time to read anything till this evening, so then discovered your " too. By that, I am mollified. Thank you.




Au revoir.King Dawid seeking after God's heart obeyed God's rulings.
He went through the Priest to access God and likewise highly regarded His prophets. For all we know, it could have been Samuel or Nathan revealing many things. The Psalms are recognized as "of" David, and not neccessarily "by" him, though we know he wrote them.

[Charisma]

Hi Timmy,


King Dawid seeking after God's heart obeyed God's rulings.
He went through the Priest to access God and likewise highly regarded His prophets. For all we know, it could have been Samuel or Nathan revealing many things.

Okay.


The Psalms are recognized as "of" David, and not neccessarily "by" him, though we know he wrote them.

I know that some of the Psalms are not 'by' David, but surely we can take from both Peter and Paul, that some of those speaking of Messiah, were indeed his?

[Timmy]

Read what was written again in my previous post.

How is this untrue?

[Charisma]

Hi Timmy,


How is this untrue?

Well, it seems that we will never know whether God gave His words directly to David, even though the apostles credited him with them.

Is this your point?

[Timmy]

Hi Timmy,



Well, it seems that we will never know whether God gave His words directly to David, even though the apostles credited him with them.

Is this your point?Kinda'.

David did write them.
God operates within the parameters he deigns. David was annointed and prophecied in the Psallms, and still He gave precedence to God's ordination of His structure of government He instructed.

Even if David may have recieved certain prophecies himself, they were confirmed by the prophet and priest.

Why we have idiots today saying their message is from God, whether by prophecy, teaching, discrenment of spirits, a word of wisdom, or a word of knowledge, yet these things are found false is the stupidity of people assuming a notion opposed to the fact that what applied in King David's day and earlier applies today as well, that ""...by two or three witnesses let everything be established..."

[David M]

Why we have idiots today saying their message is from God, whether by prophecy, teaching, discrenment of spirits, a word of wisdom, or a word of knowledge, yet these things are found false is the stupidity of people assuming what applied in King David's day and earlier applies today as well,
Hello Timmy

I believe faith does work miracles, even if it is YHWH who is responding to a person's faith and working that miracle by his power (Holy Spirit).

The Holy Spirit was something that appeared to be given to Jesus in that God worked the miracles through Jesus. The Holy Spirit was also given to the disciples before and at Pentecost (but in limited measure). The Holy Spirit (in limited measure) could be passed on by the laying on of hands of the disciples, although that appears to have been for a limited period in the first century and did not continue for all time.
There are those who claim to have the Holy Spirit today, but I would disagree. I am not saying they do not have the spirit of God, or that they do not have a strong faith. I do not see it as them possessing the Holy Spirit.

I have said before that I do not posses the Holy Spirit. I do not compare myself the apostle Paul, but like he said when making a judgement about a wife's position; (1 Cor 7:40) ... and I think also that I have the Spirit of God.
Paul does not appear to be speaking about having the Holy Spirit; more like having the "thinking of God".

Having the mind of Christ, as Paul exhorts us to have, is to have Christ's thinking in us. In that sense, it is one way to understand how we have the Spirit of Christ in us or the Spirit of God in us. That is one way of understanding the phrase; (John 14:23) we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.


What are your thoughts about this?



Shalom
David

[Timmy]

Hi David,

As a starting point to your above post now being responded to, you quoted a portion of the final statement (i just corrected) in post #34 (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?3596-The-Two-Judaisms-(Art-Katz)&p=62802#post62802). The correction is in red there to show where i goofed up.



You will be responded to what you wrote anyway, though what was quoted as my words stands corrected. This appropriate sentence will be used as what was intended instead of what should be that first quote from your post to Timmy (below).



Why we have idiots today saying their message is from God, whether by prophecy, teaching, discrenment of spirits, a word of wisdom, or a word of knowledge, yet these things are found false is the stupidity of people assuming a notion opposed to the fact that what applied in King David's day and earlier applies today as well...
Hello Timmy

I believe faith does work miracles, even if it is YHWH who is responding to a person's faith and working that miracle by his power (Holy Spirit). Actually, when there are true miracles it is not even an issue of the individuals faith, as the faith needed for miracles comes only by and through Jesus. i speak from experience. If one called complete reliance upon God for the deliverance to be that faith, it is short-sighted. (see Gal. 2.20 regarding exactly what is meant here.)


The Holy Spirit was something that appeared to be given to Jesus in that God worked the miracles through Jesus. The Holy Spirit was also given to the disciples before and at Pentecost (but in limited measure). The Holy Spirit (in limited measure) could be passed on by the laying on of hands of the disciples, although that appears to have been for a limited period in the first century and did not continue for all time.
There are those who claim to have the Holy Spirit today, but I would disagree. I am not saying they do not have the spirit of God, or that they do not have a strong faith. I do not see it as them possessing the Holy Spirit. i see it a little differently, but yeah, nobody of Adam's seed possesses the Holy Spirit.

Think about this.
"Holy" is a defining adjective to the impersonal noun "Spirit".

This being the case, consider that Jesus is referred to as the Holy One of Y'israel by True Israelites.
Demons called Him the Holy One of God. Though he commanded them (sometimes to just shut up) Jesus never denied this title.
Throughout Isaiah, God gives this name to both Himself and his "suffering servant."

In the Greek, this Spirit of the Holy [One] is refered to as both him and it. The key relating how this can be so is Midrash of John 14.

The Holy Spirit, being Jesus and the Father together as one is who regenerates those who experience the Faith and Zoe of Jesus.

Jesus worked one miracle in particular before He was ever baptized, David.


I have said before that I do not posess the Holy Spirit. I do not compare myself the apostle Paul, but like he said when making a judgement about a wife's position; (1 Cor 7:40) ... and I think also that I have the Spirit of God.
Paul does not appear to be speaking about having the Holy Spirit; more like having the "thinking of God". Paul is being sarcastic with the Corinthians in writing that. The Spirit of God is the Holy Spirit. Only the Father and the Son are Holy.


Having the mind of Christ, as Paul exhorts us to have, is to have Christ's thinking in us. In that sense, it is one way to understand how we have the Spirit of Christ in us or the Spirit of God in us. That is one way of understanding the phrase; (John 14:23) we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.It is far more than just rational thought. The word is "nõus" for mind, thinking you are refferring to 1 Cor. 2.16? It is an "understanding based upon thoughts and intentions with associated feelings out from them".

That is the way to understand the word "mind" in that reference. Christ relative to this is "God's Annointed One". This is by the Spirit of the Lord Paul refers to in his letters/epistles (1 Cor. 6.17/ 2 Cor. 3.17) who is the Holy Spirit.



What are your thoughts about this?You just read the beginning...and the Holy Spirit possesses all who are more or less depending daily on Yeshua: submitting in this "attitude" and "mind" of Yeshua to accordingly becoming filled with His Holy Spirit--ZOE:God's Life and Nature--becoming themselves part of Him.

Paul does--(as do all the Apostles)--command all who are in Christ, to grow in Him, and so "...be being stimulated-and-filled with the [Holy] Spirit."(see: Eph. 5.15-18/ Prov. 23.19-23)

David, God is not divided. God is one. He is His Spirit, and through the same He expresses Himself via various appearances of (physical) objectivities we humans can come to comprehend only a dim view of who He is.

His Christ Jesus is the only direct physical representation and manifestation of God to this Earth. Because Jesus fills all in all, it is impossible to actually become relational with Him and comprehend God by any other means. Jesus is the only Way.

Please think these things through before you write back about this. God shall give you a better glimpse of Himself, if you will instead of reasoning and rationalizing these things out without scriptural proof, find correlative scriptures related to what is just beginning to be shown.

There is nothing you might surmise that can prove anything other than what is being experienced by me in this, as there is nothing about this that contradicts His Sh'kinah--whether this happens through what is Written or His Life poured out through me for others wholeness, be that miracle or restoration/reconciliation by any other means: there is no contradiction.

As well, by what you have related on forum, it is quite clear that the Holy Spirit has yet to be directing you into all truth...and so daily experience the "dunamis" of Jesus "pistis".

You cannot clutch onto mythos calling it logos expecting God to be any party with that.

(Read John 16.1-15)

[Timmy]

Hi again David!

Reading through post #36 again, one potion rilly struck me wrong. It's supposed that reading it through so quick the first time and blabbering back answers relative to the flow it may have been overlooked, though itcould be it's own post. It was this:
The Holy Spirit was something that appeared to be given to Jesus in that God worked the miracles through Jesus. The Holy Spirit was also given to the disciples before and at Pentecost (but in limited measure). The Holy Spirit (in limited measure) could be passed on by the laying on of hands of the disciples, although that appears to have been for a limited period in the first century and did not continue for all time.
There are those who claim to have the Holy Spirit today, but I would disagree. I am not saying they do not have the spirit of God, or that they do not have a strong faith. I do not see it as them possessing the Holy Spirit.You say the Holy Spirit in limited measure for Jesus disciples/apostles and the idea that this was limited to laying on hands after Pentecost, but only for a limited time?

Just curious if what teaching(s) you follow has/(have) some basis in dispensationalism....noting a few of the Bibles you used as potential reference concerning John 1.15, and a few things you have said on forum also?2

What is the difference betwen Spirit of God and the Spirit of holiness?

...and you say you believe about this or that.
So, how does somebody believe something they have no experience concerning?
Is it just assumptions until different ideas predominate?

What you say you do not believe is self-determinism, isn't it?

i sometimes wondering "i believes" and usually think, "ok, what else doesn't he believe...and why?"
Do you feel like you need to trick other people or is that more of something that by outside influences you began doing that very young, and do not even worry about their afftes...or maybe you just don't even realize you ar doing that again...maybe even wondering if you are not even considering the potential effect from what you write?

[David M]

Hello Timmy
Thank you for raising further questions. Answering these will help clarify my position and hope explain a little more why I said what I did. It also gives me the opportunity to correct anything that I might have said by mistake.

I am not putting forth my thoughts as; this is what must be believed. I am sharing my belief as I have come to believe from my study and contemplation of these things. It is for everyone to come to their own decision and I would hope that decision is based on the best reasoning. If your reasoning is best, then I expect people to go along with what you say until such time as they find a better reason to change their mind.


Hi again David!

Reading through post #36 again, one potion rilly struck me wrong. It's supposed that reading it through so quick the first time and blabbering back answers relative to the flow it may have been overlooked, though itcould be it's own post. It was this:You say the Holy Spirit in limited measure for Jesus disciples/apostles and the idea that this was limited to laying on hands after Pentecost, but only for a limited time?

Just curious if what teaching(s) you follow has/(have) some basis in dispensationalism....noting a few of the Bibles you used as potential reference concerning John 1.15, and a few things you have said on forum also?2 Regarding the limited measure of the Holy Spirit. I gave an instance when the disciples could not cast out a certain "demon". Jesus said it could only be cast out by much fasting and prayer. We know that Jesus fasted and was in almost constant prayer to his Heavenly Father and we are given that insight before he raises Lazarus from the dead.
I just do not see the disciples performing the same number of miracles or types of miracles that Jesus performed. That is not to say the disciples could not raise the dead, which is perhaps the hardest miracle of all. It is very apparent that it was not anything the disciple knew how to do, but to call upon the name of YHWH to perform the miracle through them, the same as the miracles were performed through Jesus.


What is the difference betwen Spirit of God and the Spirit of holiness? Holiness is an attribute of God, the Spirit of God and the Spirit of Holiness can be regarded as the same. If you want to define them separately, I am open to listening to how you explain this better.
If we see holiness in someone else and that person influences us because of their holiness, that is the spirit (unseen force) that is communicated from one person to another. Influence, is what I consider to be Spirit. We influence other people by what we say, write, and demonstrate. If we do, speak or write evil things, that is communicating through the 'Spirit of Evil'. When we do any of those evil things, we are being the devil, or a satan to someone else. We do not have to associate evil thoughts to an external spiritual being that has no foundation in the Bible; not when these things are properly understood. This seems like work in progress.

For the moment, I see that all evil thoughts originate in our minds. The seed for those thoughts can be external, such as in ways of communication I have described, and like when God said in his communication; "Do not...". That seed of communication began the thought in Eve; "Why not..." From then on, it was her reasoning that became her own lie which she believed. The serpent, the devil, the satan are all the same; they are in the mind of man as part of human nature. We are descendants of Adam with the same nature as Adam and Eve and we are under the same curse of death as Adam and Eve were. Only Jesus overcame human nature to remain sinless. Jesus died under the curse, what is now natural for the body to die, but God could not hold Jesus to the curse and so had to raise him from the dead.

Without God, Jesus would have remained dead. Jesus is like us all, he was made from dust and would have gone back to dust. We are not made of any supernatural substance that we can say is the substance of God, who is outside and greater than the things which he created. That is my belief based on what I understand from God's word. If we are going to extemporize, all we know is that God made everything in the universe and that must have come from something that God has abundant supply of and has control over in order to make everything that has been detected, or not detected, in this universe. We should not waste too much time on things we do not know, but spend our time thinking about those things we know and the things which God has revealed to man.


...and you say you believe about this or that.
So, how does somebody believe something they have no experience concerning?I am basing my belief on what the word of God tells me. I cannot base my belief solely on what another person claims to have experienced or had a revelation of. That would have to be supported in some way. We know the prophets were given revelations, which were inspired by God through his Holy Spirit. Can you claim to have had such a revelation that the world should hear and accept?


Is it just assumptions until different ideas predominate?Maybe. We can have ideas, but those ideas have to have some basis. I am basing my thoughts (ideas, if you want to term them as such) on the word of God. I will accept commentaries and dictionaries as study aids, but commentaries also have to be soundly based in the word of God.


What you say you do not believe is self-determinism, isn't it?You tell me! Give me examples of what you mean, so that I can agree, or say why I do not agree.


i sometimes wondering "i believes" and usually think, "ok, what else doesn't he believe...and why?"That should come in time. I do not expect you to have read every post of mine on this forum and you have probably missed things I have said. I do expect to have to explain myself again on something I have explained already to someone else. I should not have to explain the same again to the same person. I expect that person to have learned something from what I have said, or have learned something about me, in which case, we should not keep going over the same ground.


Do you feel like you need to trick other people or is that more of something that by outside influences you began doing that very young, and do not even worry about their afftes...or maybe you just don't even realize you ar doing that again...maybe even wondering if you are not even considering the potential effect from what you write?I am not out to trick anyone. That would be dishonest of me and that is the last thing I should be accused of. I do not accuse you of dishonesty, or anyone else for that matter, when for example, I quote anyone using any of the '38 Dishonest Tricks To Win An Argument'. That is a title I have borrowed and can be found on websites. People take that as a personal insult when I mention it. The fact is; I am guilty of the same, when I do not realize I am using any of those "dishonest tricks". Now I am aware of them, I try hard spot myself using them and so eliminate them from my argument. If you can point out when I am using a "dishonest trick", I will correct myself and it can be struck from the debate; just like in a court of law when the Judge overrules the defending lawyer, or the prosecutor.

I am no master scholar. My research into understanding the Greek and Hebrew language behind the scripture is very basic. However, when I am presented with choices, I see all those choices as a possibility until further reasoning begins the process of elimination of some of those choices.

You come up with your interpretations and I come up with mine. Now we have a choice of all the interpretations between us. How do we know which to accept or reject? Surely, we have to continue to reason and eventually come to a conclusion when we can reason no further. Either the interpretations will remain valid, or they are eliminated. I accept we can both be wrong and we will have to stand corrected when these things are finally explained to us in the Kingdom of God. When we are in the Kingdom of God, then we shall be past wanting to know explanations, since they will be immaterial to what is the here and now. Once in the kingdom, knowing where we got things wrong is not going to change where we have arrived.

It is good to be continuing to speak soberly. May this continue and may we find agreement on things that we might both have to concede some ground on when we are shown to be incorrect.

There should be no loser in our discussion. Maybe our faith and belief has already saved us. The winner is God, who is making up his jewels. We both sow the seed and we both water, but it is God that reaps the increase. We have to be good stewards and be profitable. Your life is different to mine, yet in both our lives we are to demonstrate the life of Jesus in our own lives the best we can. We accept that we are not perfect and never can be in our own strength. That is why we give praise first and foremost to God for providing His Son, and we thank and praise Jesus for winning the victory for us.

Shalom
David