Jacob-to-Joseph [Archive] - Bibles, Wheels, and Brains Forum

dpenn

09-15-2014, 02:07 PM

dp:

Gal 3:28"There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus". Agree, dpen, that this may not apply directly to a change in attitude towards women, but I still maintain the pedigree of Jesus is by way of his mother in Matt 1:16. And Jacob is Generation #63, which IMO shines light on 1Cor 1:25 concerning God's foolishness! hah.

:playball: The "administrations or dispensations" included changing the way they did things!
Isa37:3 "..Thus saith Hezekiah, This day is a day of trouble, and of rebuke, and of blasphemy: for the "children" are come to the birth, and there is not strength to bring forth".

Abraham sending his servant to fetch a wife for Isaac is like how God has sent the Holy Spirit to look for wives for the bridegroom! And many more similarities like this when you're looking for them!

dux,

yes, Mary is Jesus' flesh and blood mother, although the male DNA had to have been created miraculously by the Holy Spirit. But you did add a bit to this, saying:

... it emphasizes the Father-to-Son Generations through the OT (because Adam was first) and then Father-to-Daughter in NT, where gender not an issue, as per Gal 3:28.

Purpose of OT was to bring forth the Promised Seed/Son JESUS, and now the NT is emphasizing the 'Fruitful' females; Trees of Righteousness!

If God, in the OT and NT wanted to teach that, don't you think the Scriptures would have clearly said that? We wouldn't have to use our imagination to introduce anything we wanted to from it. This was one of the main reasons the Reformers were so insistent on sola Scriptura, as the only standard for the Christian's faith and practice. Aren't you just a little suspicious as to why Jesus didn't use gematria, or kabbala, or talmud, for His teachings? If He didn't, why should we?

dp

duxrow

09-15-2014, 02:37 PM

For starters, dpenn, am Not talking about DNA or Gematria -- commendable subjects, and maybe they figure somehow in the Generation theme, but I don't see it yet..

1 Cor 12:5 And there are differences of administrations, but the same Lord.
12:6 And there are diversities of operations, but it is the same God which worketh all in all.

You wrote:
If God, in the OT and NT wanted to teach that, don't you think the Scriptures would have clearly said that?

:no: No, I certainly don't. Like my 'signature' verse says, I'm convinced many things have been hidden from us ON PURPOSE for us to study to show ourselves approved. 2Tim2:15

dpenn

09-15-2014, 02:56 PM

dp:

For starters, dpenn, am Not talking about DNA or Gematria -- commendable subjects, and maybe they figure somehow in the Generation theme, but I don't see it yet..

1 Cor 12:5 And there are differences of administrations, but the same Lord.
12:6 And there are diversities of operations, but it is the same God which worketh all in all.

You wrote:

:no: No, I certainly don't. Like my 'signature' verse says, I'm convinced many things have been hidden from us ON PURPOSE for us to study to show ourselves approved. 2Tim2:15

dux,

You can't take one verse and set aside the clear teaching of the Bible, turning it into a type of mystery religion like the gnostics. Yes, I do believe that we are to study to show ourselves approved unto God, workmen that know how to rightly divide the Word of Truth. But Jesus never once relied upon gematria, or kabbala, or talmud for that study. As a matter of fact, in the sermon on the mount, of Matthew 5-7 he rebuked quite strongly the oral tradition of the scribes and pharisees, many teachings which eventually found their way into the Babylonian Talmud. Pretty soon, the Scriptures become a mere springboard into the deeper mathematical correlations of the Scriptures, and that at the imagination of the so-called interpreter. Jesus always taught openly, offering His teaching freely to whomsoever would receive it and submit to it. And although the allegory figure of speech is used in the Scripture, as in Galatians, it is stated ahead of time that it is being employed. Why is it that the clear straight-forward interpretation of Scripture usually comes up different than the hidden message interpretation, and almost always, just a little bit less real?

dp

duxrow

09-15-2014, 03:11 PM

dux,

You can't take one verse and set aside the clear teaching of the Bible, turning it into a type of mystery religion like the gnostics. Yes, I do believe that we are to study to show ourselves approved unto God, workmen that know how to rightly divide the Word of Truth. But Jesus never once relied upon gematria, or kabbala, or talmud for that study. As a matter of fact, in the sermon on the mount, of Matthew 5-7 he rebuked quite strongly the oral tradition of the scribes and pharisees, many teachings which eventually found their way into the Babylonian Talmud. Pretty soon, the Scriptures become a mere springboard into the deeper mathematical correlations of the Scriptures, and that at the imagination of the so-called interpreter. Jesus always taught openly, offering His teaching freely to whomsoever would receive it and submit to it. And although the allegory figure of speech is used in the Scripture, as in Galatians, it is stated ahead of time that it is being employed. Why is it that the clear straight-forward interpretation of Scripture usually comes up different than the hidden message interpretation, and almost always, just a little bit less real?

dp:deadhorse:Enuf already, DPEN--I wouldn't expect Jesus to get into gematria, or kabbala, and I definitely believe his entire message, but he'd been with the 12 for over 3 years and then said the Holy Spirit would lead them to the MEAT. Both Peter and Paul speak of 'the milk and meat' of the Word, and Isa28 speaks of being weaned.. Richard has a problem with that ever since I spoke of "Father's milk" being maybe more important than Mother's milk. hah.. :lmbo:

dpenn

09-15-2014, 03:37 PM

dp:

:deadhorse:Enuf already, DPEN--I wouldn't expect Jesus to get into gematria, or kabbala, and I definitely believe his entire message, but he'd been with the 12 for over 3 years and then said the Holy Spirit would lead them to the MEAT. Both Peter and Paul speak of 'the milk and meat' of the Word, and Isa28 speaks of being weaned.. Richard has a problem with that ever since I spoke of "Father's milk" being maybe more important than Mother's milk. hah.. :lmbo:

ok dux, maybe you're just a little nuts. :lol: I'm glad you haven't succombed to gematria and kabbala, and I am hoping Talmud. But I sure wouldn't open that can of milk and meat quite that liberally. Yes, we are exhorted to desire the milk and the meat, but it is both, "OF THE WORD", and there is no hint that we are to play mystery religion with it all, or to play a secret game of EUREKA. I think it means to search out the clear and simple meaning of the Scriptures, that are even open to the uneducated, if they search prayerfully, and diligently.

As for the "Father's milk" being maybe more important than Mother's milk. hah.. :lmbo:, I have my limits ... the line has to be drawn somewhere.

dp

duxrow

09-15-2014, 04:03 PM

1Pet2:1 Wherefore laying aside all malice, and all guile, and hypocrisies, and envies, all evil speakings,
2:2 As newborn babes, desire the sincere milk of the word, that ye may grow thereby:
2:3 If so be ye have tasted that the Lord is gracious.

Spiritual MILK! John6:63..

Gotta Go now.. Look forward to some other time.. /s/ dux

sylvius

09-15-2014, 09:39 PM

Negative, Sylvie, it emphasizes the Father-to-Son Generations through the OT (because Adam was first) and then Father-to-Daughter in NT, where gender not an issue, as per Gal 3:28.

:sEm_blush8:[ Purpose of OT was to bring forth the Promised Seed/Son JESUS, and now the NT is emphasizing the 'Fruitful' females; B]Trees of Righteousness[/B]!

Matthew made Jesus to be both son of Judah and son of Joseph.

duxrow

09-16-2014, 05:16 AM

Matthew made Jesus to be both son of Judah and son of Joseph.
Why would He want to do that? Sylvie, for what purpose? Judah had five sons already, and there are nearly a dozen Joseph's in Scripture. Matthew is the KING LINE which includes 19 kings and compares to the 19 generations preceding Abraham#20. :thumb:

sylvius

09-16-2014, 06:22 AM

Why would He want to do that? Sylvie, for what purpose? Judah had five sons already, and there are nearly a dozen Joseph's in Scripture. Matthew is the KING LINE which includes 19 kings and compares to the 19 generations preceding Abraham#20. :thumb:

Judah betrayed (sold) Joseph but made himself guarantee for Benjamin later on.

Name Benjamin means "son of the end of days"-

So this "later on" in a way is still future.

Jewish tradition kknows of a Messiah son of Joseph and a Messiah son of Judah (David)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messiah_ben_Joseph

duxrow

09-16-2014, 07:11 AM

Judah betrayed (sold) Joseph but made himself guarantee for Benjamin later on.

Name Benjamin means "son of the end of days"-

So this "later on" in a way is still future.

Jewish tradition kknows of a Messiah son of Joseph and a Messiah son of Judah (David)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messiah_ben_JosephDid you get that from Rashi again, Sylvie?
Gen35:18 And it came to pass, as [Rachel's]soul was departing, (for she died) that she called his name Benoni (son of sorrow) but his father called him Benjamin (son of right hand).

:specool: Take a cue from Ruth--when she gleaned ONLY from Boaz fields, he told his men to drop some special for her--as long as you persist in following others, you aren't likely to get any nuggets for yourself..:eek:

sylvius

09-16-2014, 08:13 AM

Did you get that from Rashi again, Sylvie?
Gen35:18 And it came to pass, as [Rachel's]soul was departing, (for she died) that she called his name Benoni (son of sorrow) but his father called him Benjamin (son of right hand).

:specool: Take a cue from Ruth--when she gleaned ONLY from Boaz fields, he told his men to drop some special for her--as long as you persist in following others, you aren't likely to get any nuggets for yourself..:eek:

You could have taken a look yourself:

http://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/8230#showrashi=true

Benjamin: The son of the South, an expression of“North and South (וְיָמִין) You created them” (Ps. 89:13). For this reason, it is [written here] plene, [with a “yud” after the “mem”]. (Another explanation: Benjamin means“the son of days” (בֶּן יָמִים) , because he was born in his (Jacob’s) old age, and it is spelled with a “nun” like“at the end of the days (הַיָמִין)” (Dan. 12:13).

duxrow

09-16-2014, 08:29 AM

You could have taken a look yourself:

http://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/8230#showrashi=trueGood food for thought, Sylvie. :thumb: As the 12th son, brother to Joseph the eleventh, I've been trying to figure reason for him to be 'son of right hand', because that's a position of Jesus, imo.

The 600 Benjamites on the Rock Rimmon had no wives.. after the Tribe of Benjamin warred by the other tribes for cutting the prostitute into 12 pieces..
Maybe the current beheadings by scum ISIS could be harbinger of End Times here?

duxrow

09-16-2014, 10:05 AM

Just remembered, Sylvie, about the 700 men of Benjamin who were lefthanded-- seems like that was laughable on account of the meaning being "son of right hand"..
Judg20:16 Among all this people [Benjamites] there were seven hundred chosen men lefthanded; every one could sling stones at an hair breadth, and not miss.

dpenn

09-16-2014, 10:51 AM

dp:

dux and sylvius,

Gen35:18 And it came to pass, as [Rachel's]soul was departing, (for she died) that she called his name Benoni (son of sorrow) but his father called him Benjamin (son of right hand).

Benjamin: The son of the South, an expression of“North and South (וְיָמִין) You created them” (Ps. 89:13). For this reason, it is [written here] plene, [with a “yud” after the “mem”]. (Another explanation: Benjamin means“the son of days” (בֶּן יָמִים) , because he was born in his (Jacob’s) old age, and it is spelled with a “nun” like“at the end of the days (הַיָמִין)” (Dan. 12:13).

I must admit, this is quite fascinating from the Scriptures, as "right hand" in Genesis 13:9,

"Is not the whole land before thee? separate thyself, I pray thee, from me: if thou wilt take the left hand, then I will go to the right; or if thou depart to the right hand, then I will go to the left."

is spelled the same way as Daniel 12:13,

"But go thou thy way till the end be: for thou shalt rest, and stand in thy lot at the end of the days. "

Is it possible that both are right in their own context?

The only problem I have is this two Messiah doctrine. The dominant theme in the OT is for the Messiah being from the tribe of Judah, whereas, now, at the end of days (and I just can't get Arnold S out of my mind:eek:), there is growing Talmudic talk of a Messiah ben Joseph, with some even thinking this will be from the tribe of Ephraim. He is the Messiah they believe will rebuild the 3rd Temple at the end of days.

Do I sense, bring on the Masons and the Rosicrucians, and probably the Vatican (now that they finally have their Jesuit Pope)?

Do you know that Louis Buff Parry, from Edmonton, Canada, also holds to this Messiah ben Joseph? He was recruited by the Rosicrucians to interpret many historical monuments and markers in US, Canada, and England, culminating at the Shepherd's Monument in Stafford, England.

There is a video of his on Youtube, entitled LAPIS EXILLIS: Lost Secrets of the Illuminati,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z_75v1XA46g

Maybe we will soon have history in the making, I mean literally!

dp

dpenn

09-16-2014, 10:57 AM

dp:

The 600 Benjamites on the Rock Rimmon had no wives.. after the Tribe of Benjamin warred by the other tribes for cutting the prostitute into 12 pieces..
Maybe the current beheadings by scum ISIS could be harbinger of End Times here?

dux,

have you read any of my 911 comments, especially culminating in my points on ISIS? Most are avoiding this subject like the plague. If you are one of them, I will understand, but with your background, I am curious what your response to this is.

dp

duxrow

09-16-2014, 12:01 PM

dp:

dux,

have you read any of my 911 comments, especially culminating in my points on ISIS? Most are avoiding this subject like the plague. If you are one of them, I will understand, but with your background, I am curious what your response to this is.

dpNope, dp, must've missed it, but not my cuppa tea anyway--book "The Harbinger" about how ground zero same place as Geo.Washington inauguration, plus St.Paul chapel and sycamore tree, is much more intriguing to me.

sylvius

09-16-2014, 10:45 PM

dp:

dux and sylvius,

I must admit, this is quite fascinating from the Scriptures, as "right hand" in Genesis 13:9,

"Is not the whole land before thee? separate thyself, I pray thee, from me: if thou wilt take the left hand, then I will go to the right; or if thou depart to the right hand, then I will go to the left."

is spelled the same way as Daniel 12:13,

"But go thou thy way till the end be: for thou shalt rest, and stand in thy lot at the end of the days. "

Is it possible that both are right in their own context?

Daniel 12:13 "l'keitz hayamin" Rashi:

Heb. לְקֵץ הַיָמִין, like הַיָמִים בְּאַחֲרִית. We cannot interpret הַיָמִין as an expression of the right hand, because it is mentioned in the Large Masorah among the six words that are unusual because they have a final “nun” at the end of the word, which serves instead of a “mem,” and there is none like them, e.g. (Job 31:10): “and may others (אֲחֵרִין) kneel upon her;” (ibid. 24:22): “and he is not sure of life (בַּחַיִין) ” (Ezek. 4: 9): “take yourself wheat (חִטִין) ” ; (ibid. 26:18): “Now the isles (הָאִיִן) will tremble;” (Prov. 31:3): “to the pleasures of kings;” (here): “to the end of the days (הַיָמִין).”

The final "mem", written as a square, is called "mem s'tumah" = closed mem.

"end of days" in Genesis 4:3, . Now it came to pass at the end of days, that Cain brought of the fruit of the soil an offering to the Lord. is written with final "mem" - וַיְהִי מִקֵּץ יָמִים, "vay'hi mikkeitz yamim"--

Now it seems that Daniel deliberately does write "l'keitz hayamin" to give you kind of a "key" to the whole of his writing:

Daniel 12:9,
And he said, "Go, Daniel, for the words are closed up and sealed until the time of the end.
"closed up"= סְתֻמִים, "s'tumim" , like the closed final "mem".

Value of "mem" is 40, value of "nun" is 50.

49 ( = 7 x 7) comes to the brink of "50".

This being also "the secret" of the counting of the omer, 7 x 7 days, that come "close to" the 50th day = Pentecost = Revelation at mount Sinai.

and also of the seventy yearweeks (Daniel 9), and also of the seventy times seven times that Lamech shall be avenged.

and also of the writing on the wall:

http://www.einstweilen.de/uploads/pics/01-1635-Rembrandts-Menetekel-400.jpg

you see the hand still busy writing the final "nun". The secret of it being that it was written in the Ashuri script, that no one could read except for Daniel. (Ashuri script characterized by its five final forms)

dpenn

09-16-2014, 11:43 PM

dp:

Daniel 12:13 "l'keitz hayamin" Rashi:

Heb. לְקֵץ הַיָמִין, like הַיָמִים בְּאַחֲרִית. We cannot interpret הַיָמִין as an expression of the right hand, because it is mentioned in the Large Masorah among the six words that are unusual because they have a final “nun” at the end of the word, which serves instead of a “mem,” and there is none like them, e.g. (Job 31:10): “and may others (אֲחֵרִין) kneel upon her;” (ibid. 24:22): “and he is not sure of life (בַּחַיִין) ” (Ezek. 4: 9): “take yourself wheat (חִטִין) ” ; (ibid. 26:18): “Now the isles (הָאִיִן) will tremble;” (Prov. 31:3): “to the pleasures of kings;” (here): “to the end of the days (הַיָמִין).”

The final "mem", written as a square, is called "mem s'tumah" = closed mem.

"end of days" in Genesis 4:3, . Now it came to pass at the end of days, that Cain brought of the fruit of the soil an offering to the Lord. is written with final "mem" - וַיְהִי מִקֵּץ יָמִים, "vay'hi mikkeitz yamim"--

Now it seems that Daniel deliberately does write "l'keitz hayamin" to give you kind of a "key" to the whole of his writing:

Daniel 12:9,
And he said, "Go, Daniel, for the words are closed up and sealed until the time of the end.
"closed up"= סְתֻמִים, "s'tumim" , like the closed final "mem".

Value of "mem" is 40, value of "nun" is 50.

49 ( = 7 x 7) comes to the brink of "50".

This being also "the secret" of the counting of the omer, 7 x 7 days, that come "close to" the 50th day = Pentecost = Revelation at mount Sinai.

and also of the seventy yearweeks (Daniel 9), and also of the seventy times seven times that Lamech shall be avenged.

and also of the writing on the wall:

http://www.einstweilen.de/uploads/pics/01-1635-Rembrandts-Menetekel-400.jpg

you see the hand still busy writing the final "nun". The secret of it being that it was written in the Ashuri script, that no one could read except for Daniel. (Ashuri script characterized by its five final forms)

Sylvius,

do you think it is possible that Daniel 12:13 should instead be interpreted as:

"But go thou thy way till the end be: for thou shalt rest, and stand in thy lot at the right hand",

which would see Daniel being blessed by Jesus Christ, who is standing at the right hand of the Father?

Or, is it possible the Masoretic text was possibly cooked for some reason forced on them by gematria?

btw, you never did respond to my question about the double min (mimmochorath) of Lev 23:15-16, and the counting of the omer. I thought the Feast of Weeks (Pentecost) was associated with the giving of the Law, not the revelation before Moses fasted for 40 days on Sinai. This would put in question Sivan 6. And why count at all if you know it is always to be Sivan 6?

dp

sylvius

09-17-2014, 07:22 AM

do you think it is possible that Daniel 12:13 should instead be interpreted as:

"But go thou thy way till the end be: for thou shalt rest, and stand in thy lot at the right hand", No, fo it says "l'keitz hayamin" -- "keitz" = end, cf. Genesis 6:33, And God said to Noah, "The end of all flesh has come before Me,

"The end of all flesh" = "keitz kol basar".

which would see Daniel being blessed by Jesus Christ, who is standing at the right hand of the Father?

Psalms 110 says: "sit at my right hand until Imake your enemies a footstool at your feet", and it is not about Jesus but about Abraham in the first world war (mother of all wars), Genesis 14, the war of the four kings against the five, where Abraham gained victory in favor of the five with help of his 318 trained servants.

Or, is it possible the Masoretic text was possibly cooked for some reason forced on them by gematria? I think it to be intention of the author. cf. Mark 13:14, But when ye shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing where it ought not, (let him that readeth understand,) then let them that be in Judaea flee to the mountains:
The Preterists have made out of Daniel an idol, even "the abomination of desolation":yo:- "flee to the mountains" where Abraham, the father of all who believe, dwells.

btw, you never did respond to my question about the double min (mimmochorath) of Lev 23:15-16, and the counting of the omer. I thought the Feast of Weeks (Pentecost) was associated with the giving of the Law, not the revelation before Moses fasted for 40 days on Sinai. This would put in question Sivan 6. And why count at all if you know it is always to be Sivan 6?
- Pentecost is the day of the giving of Torah, 50th day after the 2nd day of Passover.

dpenn

09-17-2014, 09:31 AM

dp:

No, for it says "l'keitz hayamin" -- "keitz" = end, cf. Genesis 6:33, And God said to Noah, "The end of all flesh has come before Me,

"The end of all flesh" = "keitz kol basar".

do you think it is possible that Daniel 12:13 should instead be interpreted as:

"But go thou thy way till the end be: for thou shalt rest, and stand in thy lot at the right hand",

sylvius, yes I know that, but it isn't out of context for Daniel, at the end of days, to appear before the Son of God at the right hand of the Father.

Psalms 110 says: "sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool at your feet", and it is not about Jesus but about Abraham in the first world war (mother of all wars), Genesis 14, the war of the four kings against the five, where Abraham gained victory in favor of the five with help of his 318 trained servants.

I think it to be intention of the author. cf. Mark 13:14, But when ye shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing where it ought not, (let him that readeth understand,) then let them that be in Judaea flee to the mountains:
The Preterists have made out of Daniel an idol, even "the abomination of desolation":yo:- "flee to the mountains" where Abraham, the father of all who believe, dwells.

But Abraham was never a priest after the order of Melchizedek, whereas, Jesus is declared to be a priest after the order of Melchizedek. Consider the most quoted psalm in the NT, Psalm 110:1-5,

"The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool. The LORD shall send the rod of thy strength out of Zion: rule thou in the midst of thine enemies. Thy people shall be willing in the day of thy power, in the beauties of holiness from the womb of the morning: thou hast the dew of thy youth. The LORD hath sworn, and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek. The Lord at thy right hand shall strike through kings in the day of his wrath."

Here, David said, YHWH said to my Adonay, Sit thou at my right hand until I make thine enemies Thy footstool. It is God the Father speaking to God the Son, telling Him to sit at His right hand until His enemies are made His footstool. Paul uses this in Hebrews 1:13, to speak of the incarnation of Jesus the Christ,

"But to which of the angels said he at any time, Sit on my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool".

Later in Hebrews 10:11-13, he says,

"And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins: But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God; From henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool."

But there are two contexts for this:

In one sense, all things are already put under Jesus' feet, according to Paul's prayer in Ephesians 1:17-23,

"That the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give unto you the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of him: The eyes of your understanding being enlightened; that ye may know what is the hope of his calling, and what the riches of the glory of his inheritance in the saints, And what is the exceeding greatness of his power to us-ward who believe, according to the working of his mighty power, Which he wrought in Christ, when he raised him from the dead, and set him at his own right hand in the heavenly places, Far above all principality, and power, and might, and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this world, but also in that which is to come: And hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to the church, Which is his body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all."

But in another sense, we do not see all things placed under His feet till the end, as in Hebrews 2:8-9.

"Thou hast put all things in subjection under his feet. For in that he put all in subjection under him, he left nothing that is not put under him. But now we see not yet all things put under him. But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man. For it became him, for whom are all things, and by whom are all things, in bringing many sons unto glory, to make the captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings."

or, ultimately even death shall be placed under Him, as in 1 Corinthians 15:22-28,

"For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming. Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power. For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet. The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death. For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him. And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all. "

And as for your preoccupation with the Preterists use "abomination of desolation" for the 1st Century AD, I need to remind you what I clearly said before, and that is that almost all Christians would believe this, with the Preterists representing a small fraction of Protestants or Evangelicals in general.

- Pentecost is the day of the giving of Torah, 50th day after the 2nd day of Passover.

btw, you never did respond to my question about the double min (mimmochorath) of Lev 23:15-16, and the counting of the omer. I thought the Feast of Weeks (Pentecost) was associated with the giving of the Law, not the revelation before Moses fasted for 40 days on Sinai. This would put in question Sivan 6. And why count at all if you know it is always to be Sivan 6?

But Exodus 19:1 says,

"In the third month, when the children of Israel were gone forth out of the land of Egypt, the same day came they into the wilderness of Sinai."

So, clearly, it was at 60 days already since leaving Egypt, that the Israelites arrived at Sinai, and then Moses fasted 40 days before receiving the Law. This is closer to 100 days, which makes one wonder if Lev 23:15-16 is really saying, count 50 days to Sivan 6, ie. Pentecost. I know some Hebrews say you count 50 days following the 7 sabbaths. Of course, this group usually takes the sabbaths for each month to fall on the 8th, 15th, 22nd, and 29th of each month, following the new moon on the 1st. The only problem with this, is that you would not have continuous 7's for sabbath on Saturday, but a floating sabbath from each new moon.

dp

sylvius

09-17-2014, 10:56 AM

But Abraham was never a priest after the order of Melchizedek
Psalms 110:4,

The Lord swore and will not repent; you are a priest forever because of the speech of Malchizedek.

Hebrew עַל דִּבְרָתִי מַלְכִּי צֶדֶק, "al divrati Malki Tzedek" - "divrah" is from the root "davar/dibbeir" = to say, to talk, to speak.

Rashi:

you are a priest forever because of the speech of Malchizedek: From you will emerge the priesthood and the kingship that your children will inherit from Shem your progenitor, the priesthood and the kingship, which were given to him. דִבְרָתִי מלכי-צדק. The “yud” is superfluous, like (Lam. 1: 1): “the city that was once so populous (רבתי).” Because of the speech of Malchizedek, because of the command of Malchizedek. You are a priest, Heb. כהן. The word כהן bears the connotation of priesthood and rulership, as (II Sam. 8:18): “and David’s sons were chief officers.”

whereas, Jesus is declared to be a priest after the order of Melchizedek. That's in the NT letter to the Hebrews.

Consider the most quoted psalm in the NT, Psalm 110:1-5,

"The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool. The LORD shall send the rod of thy strength out of Zion: rule thou in the midst of thine enemies. Thy people shall be willing in the day of thy power, in the beauties of holiness from the womb of the morning: thou hast the dew of thy youth. The LORD hath sworn, and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek. The Lord at thy right hand shall strike through kings in the day of his wrath."

Here, David said, YHWH said to my Adonay, Sit thou at my right hand until I make thine enemies Thy footstool. It is God the Father speaking to God the Son, telling Him to sit at His right hand until His enemies are made His footstool.

Hebrew: נְאֻם יְהֹוָה | לַאדֹנִי, "n'um hashem l'adoni" = utterance of the Lord to my master.

The 2 times "Lord" is KJV-perversion.

Paul uses this in Hebrews 1:13, The letter to the Hebrews was not written by Paul, by by some imposter.

But Exodus 19:1 says,

"In the third month, when the children of Israel were gone forth out of the land of Egypt, the same day came they into the wilderness of Sinai."

The third month is the month of Sivan,

So, clearly, it was at 60 days already since leaving Egypt, that the Israelites arrived at Sinai, 15+30 = 45 days

and then Moses fasted 40 days before receiving the Law. Moses went up on the mountain on the seventh of Sivan, the day after Pentecost.

dpenn

09-17-2014, 02:53 PM

dp:

Psalms 110:4,
The Lord swore and will not repent; you are a priest forever because of the speech of Malchizedek.
Hebrew עַל דִּבְרָתִי מַלְכִּי צֶדֶק, "al divrati Malki Tzedek" - "divrah" is from the root "davar/dibbeir" = to say, to talk, to speak.

Rashi:

you are a priest forever because of the speech of Malchizedek: From you will emerge the priesthood and the kingship that your children will inherit from Shem your progenitor, the priesthood and the kingship, which were given to him. דִבְרָתִי מלכי-צדק. The “yud” is superfluous, like (Lam. 1: 1): “the city that was once so populous (רבתי).” Because of the speech of Malchizedek, because of the command of Malchizedek. You are a priest, Heb. כהן. The word כהן bears the connotation of priesthood and rulership, as (II Sam. 8:18): “and David’s sons were chief officers.”

But Abraham was never a priest after the order of Melchizedek,
whereas, Jesus is declared to be a priest after the order of Melchizedek.

That's in the NT letter to the Hebrews.

You say, "al divrati Malki Tzedek" - "divrah" is from the root "davar/dibbeir" = to say, to talk, to speak,

but Strong's Concordance lists alternate meanings for "al divrati" to be: cause, end, estate, order, regard. No where does it list "to say". Just because it has this root doesn't mean it has the same meaning (but you must know by now that I have a very very minimal knowledge of Hebrew).

Is Rashi the new guru that I must trust for the interpretation that is not clear and obvious? The text itself, definitely doesn't say this.

Psalms 110:4,
Hebrew: נְאֻם יְהֹוָה | לַאדֹנִי, "n'um hashem l'adoni" = utterance of the Lord to my master.

The 2 times "Lord" is KJV-perversion.

Consider the most quoted psalm in the NT, Psalm 110:1-5,

"The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool. The LORD shall send the rod of thy strength out of Zion: rule thou in the midst of thine enemies. Thy people shall be willing in the day of thy power, in the beauties of holiness from the womb of the morning: thou hast the dew of thy youth. The LORD hath sworn, and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek. The Lord at thy right hand shall strike through kings in the day of his wrath."

Here, David said, YHWH said to my Adonay, Sit thou at my right hand until I make thine enemies Thy footstool. It is God the Father speaking to God the Son, telling Him to sit at His right hand until His enemies are made His footstool.

I see no reason to assume Adonay is referring to Abraham and not David's Lord (the Son of God).

Psalms 110:4,
The letter to the Hebrews was not written by Paul, but by some imposter.

Paul uses this in Hebrews 1:13, to speak of the incarnation of Jesus the Christ,

"But to which of the angels said he at any time, Sit on my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool".

ok, I slipped up their slightly, because although I think Paul wrote Hebrews, many Christians believe it was another Apostle, or amanuensis (like a secretary) to an Apostle. So maybe I should have said author of Hebrews.

But you obviously are taking this way beyond that, attributing it to an imposter. It sure is convenient for you to use your kabbala and arguments from the Talmud on NT, when it serves you, but when it is just too challenging for you, suddenly it is an imposter. Rather convenient, don't you think?

Psalms 110:4,
The third month is the month of Sivan,

15+30 = 45 days

Moses went up on the mountain on the seventh of Sivan, the day after Pentecost.

You may have me there sylvius, that is if it is from Sivan 1, not Sivan 15.

That is, assuming that Exodus 19:1,

"In the third month, when the children of Israel were gone forth out of the land of Egypt, the same day came they into the wilderness of Sinai.",

where "the same day" is Sivan 1, not Sivan 15, where the latter would be like the same day they left Egypt.

In any case, the giving of the law was still after Moses' 40 day fast, so I know there has to be a logical answer to this, as I also believe the OT to be the Word of God, but I am still unclear about this.

dp

sylvius

09-17-2014, 11:21 PM

You say, "al divrati Malki Tzedek" - "divrah" is from the root "davar/dibbeir" = to say, to talk, to speak,

but Strong's Concordance lists alternate meanings for "al divrati" to be: cause, end, estate, order, regard. No where does it list "to say".

Strong's is Christian biased, i.e. it makes the meaning fit to its theology.

"divrah" occurs besides in Psalms 110:4 still 4 more times in the Jewish bible, in Ecclesiastes 3:18; 7:14; 8:2 and in Job 5:8. Nowhere in the sense of "order" (Greek "taxis"; although LXX has it that way, but it seems the LXX Psalms has been written by Christians after the NT).

Is Rashi the new guru No.

I see no reason to assume Adonay is referring to Abraham and not David's Lord (the Son of God). "adoni" = my master (lord) -- Genesis 23:5-6, And the sons of Heth answered Abraham, saying to him, "Listen to us, my master; you are a prince of God in our midst; in the choicest of our graves bury your dead. None of us will withhold his grave from you to bury your dead."

ok, I slipped up their slightly, because although I think Paul wrote Hebrews, many Christians believe it was another Apostle, or amanuensis (like a secretary) to an Apostle. So maybe I should have said author of Hebrews.
Also not amanuensis.

The letter to the Hebrews has had great impact on the Christianity that held (holds) it as authorative: " For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins" (10:26)
-- thus turning the Gospel into a curse.

In any case, the giving of the law was still after Moses' 40 day fast,
The giving of the tablets of stone was after the 40 days that Moses spent on the mountain after te givng of Torah on the sixth day of Sivan. Exodus 24:12, And the Lord said to Moses, "Come up to Me to the mountain and remain there, and I will give you the stone tablets, the Law and the commandments, which I have written to instruct them."

Moses returned with the tablets of stone on the seventeenth of Tammuz, Exodus 32:1, When the people saw that Moses was late in coming down from the mountain, the people gathered against Aaron, and they said to him: "Come on! Make us gods that will go before us, because this man Moses, who brought us up from the land of Egypt we don't know what has become of him."

Rashi:

that Moses was late: Heb. בשֵׁשׁ, as the Targum [Onkelos] renders אוֹחַר, an expression for lateness. Likewise, [in the verse] “is his chariot late (בֹּשֵׁשׁ) ” (Jud. 5:28); “and they waited until it was late (בּוֹשׁ) ” (Jud. 3:25). When Moses went up the mountain, he said to them [the Israelites], “At the end of forty days I will come, within six hours” [from sunrise of the fortieth day]. They thought that the day he went up was included in the number [of the forty days], but [in fact] he had said to them, “forty days,” [meaning] complete [days], including the night. But the day of his ascent did not have its night included with it , for [B]on the seventh of Sivan he ascended. Thus, the fortieth day [of Moses’ absence] was the seventeenth of Tammuz. On the sixteenth [of Tammuz], Satan came and brought confusion into the world and showed a semblance of darkness, [even] pitch darkness, and confusion, [as if] indicating [that] Moses had surely died and therefore, confusion had come upon the world. He [Satan] said to them, “Moses has died, for six [additional] hours have already passed, and he has not come, etc.,” as is found in tractate Shabbath (89a). We cannot say that their [the Israelites’] only error was that on a cloudy day [they were confused] between before noon and after noon, because Moses did not descend until the next day, as it is said: “On the next day, they arose early, offered up burnt offerings…” (verse 6).

duxrow

09-18-2014, 05:58 AM

Everybody's biased (twin-buttocks), so what's the problem? I'm thinking it would be really boring if it weren't for bias. hah.

dpenn

09-18-2014, 10:45 AM

dp:

Strong's is Christian biased, i.e. it makes the meaning fit to its theology.

"divrah" occurs besides in Psalms 110:4 still 4 more times in the Jewish bible, in Ecclesiastes 3:18; 7:14; 8:2 and in Job 5:8. Nowhere in the sense of "order" (Greek "taxis"; although LXX has it that way, but it seems the LXX Psalms has been written by Christians after the NT).

I checked every one of your references sylvius, and "in my mind (yes, could be wrong)" the context fits the KJV "cause, end, estate, order, regard" better than "to say or to speak" for the derivatives of "divrah". Consider:

Ecclesiastes 3:18,

"I said in mine heart concerning the estate of the sons of men, that God might manifest them, and that they might see that they themselves are beasts."

Ecclesiastes 7:14,

"In the day of prosperity be joyful, but in the day of adversity consider: God also hath set the one over against the other, to the end that man should find nothing after him."

I must admit, this one is puzzling, but the context fits this better than "to say, or to speak".

Ecclesiastes 8:2,

"I counsel thee to keep the king's commandment, and that in regard of the oath of God."

Job 5:8,

"I would seek unto God, and unto God would I commit my cause:"

"adoni" = my master (lord) -- Genesis 23:5-6, And the sons of Heth answered Abraham, saying to him, "Listen to us, my master; you are a prince of God in our midst; in the choicest of our graves bury your dead. None of us will withhold his grave from you to bury your dead."

Yes, I agree it can mean "master, lord", it clearly also is used for another name of God. And I think that the context bears this latter meaning:

Psalm 110:1-5,

"The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool. The LORD shall send the rod of thy strength out of Zion: rule thou in the midst of thine enemies. Thy people shall be willing in the day of thy power, in the beauties of holiness from the womb of the morning: thou hast the dew of thy youth. The LORD hath sworn, and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek. The Lord at thy right hand shall strike through kings in the day of his wrath."

I repeat,

Here, David said, YHWH said to my Adonay, Sit thou at my right hand until I make thine enemies Thy footstool. It is God the Father speaking to God the Son, telling Him to sit at His right hand until His enemies are made His footstool.

The letter to the Hebrews has had great impact on the Christianity that held (holds) it as authorative: " For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins" (10:26)
-- thus turning the Gospel into a curse.

Yes, Christianity does hold the book of Hebrews as authoritative. And the Hebrews 10:26 you quote, does not turn the Gospel into a curse. It merely states that Jesus Christ was the last sacrifice to take away the sins of the world, and if we choose to sin wilfully in light of this, there is no more sacrifice for sin.

And this is perfectly supplemented in Daniel 9:24,27:

"Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy ... And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate."

dp

sylvius

09-18-2014, 12:31 PM

I checked every one of your references sylvius, and "in my mind (yes, could be wrong)" the context fits the KJV "cause, end, estate, order, regard" better than "to say or to speak" for the derivatives of "divrah". Consider:

Ecclesiastes 3:18,

"I said in mine heart concerning the estate of the sons of men, that God might manifest them, and that they might see that they themselves are beasts."

chabad.org:
I said to myself, [that this is] because of the children of men, so that God should clarify for them, so that they may see that they are [like] beasts to themselves.

Ecclesiastes 7:14,

"In the day of prosperity be joyful, but in the day of adversity consider: God also hath set the one over against the other, to the end that man should find nothing after him."

I must admit, this one is puzzling, but the context fits this better than "to say, or to speak".

Ecclesiastes 8:2,

"I counsel thee to keep the king's commandment, and that in regard of the oath of God."

Job 5:8,

"I would seek unto God, and unto God would I commit my cause:"

In no place it does mean "order"-

Yes, I agree it can mean "master, lord", it clearly also is used for another name of God. And I think that the context bears this latter meaning:

Psalm 110:1-5,

"The LORD said unto my Lord, (...)

I repeat,

Here, David said, YHWH said to my Adonay,

It reads: "l'adoni", not: l'adonay" . If it would read "l'adonay" it would have been utter nonsense. Or better: the Christian interpretation is utter nonsense.

The clue of Mark 12:35-36,

And as (BK)Jesus taught in the temple, he said, “How can the scribes say that the Christ is the son of David? David himself, in the Holy Spirit, declared, “‘The Lord said to my master, Sit at my right hand, until I put your enemies under your feet.’ David himself calls him master. So how is he his son?” And the great throng heard him gladly.
(Greek has 2 times "kurios", that both can denote God (Tetragrammaton), and man, "master". )

The scribes seemingly understood Psalms 110 to be messianic. For else Jesus couldn't have questioned them this way.

The scribes having no idea of the gematrial clue of Psalms 110 and Genesis 14, 318 being the numerical value of the name Eliezer (name meaning - "God is my helpmate" - yes indeed sitting at your right hand)

It must be because "the key of knowledge" had been taken away...

Yes, Christianity does hold the book of Hebrews as authoritative. And the Hebrews 10:26 you quote, does not turn the Gospel into a curse. It merely states that Jesus Christ was the last sacrifice to take away the sins of the world, and if we choose to sin wilfully in light of this, there is no more sacrifice for sin. it being "ISIS-style" - theology -- believe it or die. For infidels there is no hope.

And this is perfectly supplemented in Daniel 9:24,27:

"Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy ... And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate." That's completely unclear to me.

dp[/QUOTE]

dpenn

09-18-2014, 01:34 PM

dp:

it being "ISIS-style" - theology -- believe it or die. For infidels there is no hope.

Oh come on, sylvius, Jesus didn't run around cutting off heads or teach the future Church to forbid unbelievers from visiting and benefiting from a church service. He opened His arms graciously to all who would place their faith and trust in Him. As a matter of fact, I seem to recall Him being crucified by the Romans at the instigation of the Jews of His day.

The judgement awaits all, at the end of the age. Until then, Romans 12:19,

"Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord. ",

quoting Deuteronomy 32:35,

"To me belongeth vengeance, and recompence; their foot shall slide in due time: for the day of their calamity is at hand, and the things that shall come upon them make haste."

God's judgement for sin is all through the OT, which you have cut your gematria teeth on (althouh I don't know if you have really followed this from childhood).

dp

sylvius

09-18-2014, 09:38 PM

dp:

Oh come on, sylvius, Jesus didn't run around cutting off heads or teach the future Church to forbid unbelievers from visiting and benefiting from a church service. m make haste[/U]."

But the writer of the letter to the Hebrews did.

dpenn

09-18-2014, 10:19 PM

dp:

You compare the theology of Hebrews to ISIS-style theology,

it being "ISIS-style" - theology -- believe it or die. For infidels there is no hope.

But the writer of the letter to the Hebrews did.

Oh come on, sylvius, Jesus didn't run around cutting off heads or teach the future Church to forbid unbelievers from visiting and benefiting from a church service. He opened His arms graciously to all who would place their faith and trust in Him. As a matter of fact, I seem to recall Him being crucified by the Romans at the instigation of the Jews of His day.

The judgement awaits all, at the end of the age. Until then, Romans 12:19,

"Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord. ",

quoting Deuteronomy 32:35,

"To me belongeth vengeance, and recompence; their foot shall slide in due time: for the day of their calamity is at hand, and the things that shall come upon them make haste."

God's judgement for sin is all through the OT, which you have cut your gematria teeth on (althouh I don't know if you have really followed this from childhood).

Sylvius, you are not even being honest with the documents, whether you believe them or not. And to think that I am the one to be accused of being judgemental.

dp

sylvius

09-19-2014, 12:42 AM

dp:

You compare the theology of Hebrews to ISIS-style theology,

Sylvius, you are not even being honest with the documents, whether you believe them or not. And to think that I am the one to be accused of being judgemental.

dp

Hebrews 11 presents the way of how he undertands Hebrew scripture, starting with: Ἔστιν δὲ πίστις ἐλπιζομένων ὑπόστασις, Faith is the solid ground of what is hoped for

which is kind of philosophical statement, poetic, but utter nonsense.

And next he summarizes bible history as though it was mundane history, thus showing that he didn't understand nothing of it.

sylvius

09-19-2014, 01:49 AM

Hebrews 9:22 " .... without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins.

A false statement, on which his whole theology is based.

Said to refer to Leviticus 17:11, which does not state it that way.

It's contrary the essence of the Gospel, which even is "forgiveness of sin", because of which Jesus was considered to be guilty of death ("no one can forgive sins but God alone")

dpenn

09-19-2014, 09:34 AM

dp:

Hebrews 9:22 " .... without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins.

A false statement, on which his whole theology is based.

Said to refer to Leviticus 17:11, which does not state it that way.

It's contrary the essence of the Gospel, which even is "forgiveness of sin", because of which Jesus was considered to be guilty of death ("no one can forgive sins but God alone")

sylvius, if you understand the OT at all, you will know that God ordained animal sacrifices as a substitute for the sins of His people. The people and the priests (depending on the sacrifice) would lay their hands on the innocent victim, confess their sins over it, and the substitution would take place, whereby the animal would bear the sins of the guilty. So without the shedding of blood, there was no remission of sins.

And so, foreseeing the complete type of the entire OT sacrifice system to be summed up in the vicarious, or substitutionary sacrifice of Jesus Christ, John the Baptist said, "Behold the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world". Thus, the final Prophet of the OT dispensation proclaimed how Jesus became the final sacrifice, the perfect, innocent, sinless, Lamb of God, bore the sins of all those who would place their faith and trust in Him, as it therefore pleased God the Father to put Him to death.

This is the only shedding of blood the New Covenant understands. Jesus Christ became that final fulfillment of ALL the sacrificial types of the OT under the Old Covenant of the dispensation of the Law. I know there have been sick, perverted, immoral cultic pseudo-religious people that have tried to teach that it is necessary to shed the blood of innocent Christians to fulfill this Scripture, but that satanic doctrine could only be held by the most wretched human beings ever to walk this earth. This could only be the belief of sick psychopaths.

So, maybe the Roman Catholic pseudo-church, or corporation, has behaved like ISIS in the past, but the faithful, peace loving Christians, down through the ages, have always regarded this as grossly immoral, in line with the clear teaching of Jesus the Christ. And sadly, these poor, faithful servants of Jesus Christ, have been the bloody sacrifice of first, the Jews and the Romans, then later, the leadership of the Vatican, and then Islam. That is why I often say that there is little difference between historic Talmudic Judaism, Roman Catholicism, and Islam. They have always been religions of blood. And even if they put on a different face today, they have never come out and completely repudiated their actions of the past. This has never been the teaching of Jesus Christ and historic biblical Christianity.

Thankfully, I have observed that most practising Roman Catholics, Muslims, and Jews, are peace loving, wonderful people, great to work with, and live with in society. But sadly, that is not the practise of the ruling elite of these cultic religions. And whatever part of all of this represents Mystery Babylon of Revelation 17, God commands His children to "come out of her".

And yes, sylvius, "no one can forgive sin but God", proclaiming that Jesus Christ is God in the flesh, having authority to forgive sins, both in His Ministry, and eternally, as He bore the penalty of death for His elect.

dp

sylvius

09-19-2014, 09:59 AM

sit [/B]at my right hand until Imake your enemies a footstool at your feet", and it is not about Jesus but about Abraham in the first world war (mother of all wars), Genesis 14, the war of the four kings against the five, where Abraham gained victory in favor of the five with help of his 318 trained servants.

It must also be "the end of all wars" where Abraham gains victory with help of his 318 trained servants.

Might this be the reason why the writer of Revelation ascribes all kinds of good things to the one who is victorious?

Revelation 2:17,

Whoever has ears, let them hear what the Spirit says to the churches. To the one who is victorious, I will give some of the hidden manna. I will also give that person a white stone with a new name written on it, known only to the one who receives it.
’

The white stone with which you are able calculate the number of the beast :winking0071:

white pebblestone = "psefos leukès"

calculate = "psèfidzo" --

the white stone is speaking you free from guilt, the black stone condemns.

sylvius

09-19-2014, 10:25 AM

sylvius, if you understand the OT at all, you will know that God ordained animal sacrifices as a substitute for the sins of His people. The people and the priests (depending on the sacrifice) would lay their hands on the innocent victim, confess their sins over it, and the substitution would take place, whereby the animal would bear the sins of the guilty. So without the shedding of blood, there was no remission of sins. that's not a logical conclusion, and also not the right conclusion. The forgiveness of sin was already there before man sinned, it being the secret (mystery) of creation.

And so, foreseeing the complete type of the entire OT sacrifice system to be summed up in the vicarious, or substitutionary sacrifice of Jesus Christ, John the Baptist said, "Behold the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world". Not: "who takes away", but "who carries",

cf. Mark 8:34, And when he had called the people unto him with his disciples also, he said unto them, Whosoever will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me.

Same verb is used, "airo"; no one would translate here: "take away his cross"

John has here for lamb Greek "amnos", which translates Hebrew "keves"; which again might be a wordplay with "kevesh"(footstool)/"kavash" = to subdue, conquer, rape, referring to the "v'chivshuha" (and subdue her) of Genesis 1:28.

dpenn

09-19-2014, 10:51 AM

dp:

that's not a logical conclusion, and also not the right conclusion. The forgiveness of sin was already there before man sinned, it being the secret (mystery) of creation.

Not: "who takes away", but "who carries",

cf. Mark 8:34, And when he had called the people unto him with his disciples also, he said unto them, Whosoever will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me.

Same verb is used, "airo"; no one would translate here: "take away his cross"

John has here for lamb Greek "amnos", which translates Hebrew "keves"; which again might be a wordplay with "kevesh"(footstool)/"kavash" = to subdue, conquer, rape, referring to the "v'chivshuha" (and subdue her) of Genesis 1:28.

sylvius, there are alternate meanings for the Greek word airo

to raise up, elevate, lift up

to raise from the ground, take up: stones
to raise upwards, elevate, lift up: the hand
to draw up: a fish
to take upon one's self and carry what has been raised up, to bear
to bear away what has been raised, carry off

to move from its place
to take off or away what is attached to anything
to remove
to carry off, carry away with one
to appropriate what is taken
to take away from another what is his or what is committed to him, to take by force
to take and apply to any use
to take from among the living, either by a natural death, or by violence
cause to cease

The context of the whole of the teaching of the NT, is that Jesus bore away the sins of His elect, and ultimately paid the substitutionary death penalty for all of them, for all time. God first imputes the sins of His elect on Jesus Christ, and He bears the penalty for those sins, in His own body on the cross, the only sacrifice of blood in the New Covenant. But God also imputes the righteousness of His sinless Son to His elect Church, a double imputation, clearly taught in the NT. Thus, we are saved by grace through faith alone, in Christ alone, by the grace of God alone (justification). It is only then that the fruit of our salvation is born out in our obedient walk of faith in Jesus Christ's accomplished work on our behalf (sanctification). And that walk must include the good works that we were foreordained to walk in, without which, our faith is in fact a false faith.

dp

sylvius

09-20-2014, 12:33 AM

The context of the whole of the teaching of the NT, is that Jesus bore away the sins of His elect, and ultimately paid the substitutionary death penalty for all of them, for all time. God first imputes the sins of His elect on Jesus Christ, and He bears the penalty for those sins, in His own body on the cross, the only sacrifice of blood in the New Covenant. But God also imputes the righteousness of His sinless Son to His elect Church, a double imputation, clearly taught in the NT. Thus, we are saved by grace through faith alone, in Christ alone, by the grace of God alone (justification). It is only then that the fruit of our salvation is born out in our obedient walk of faith in Jesus Christ's accomplished work on our behalf (sanctification). And that walk must include the good works that we were foreordained to walk in, without which, our faith is in fact a false faith.

dp

John 1:29 doesn't say "the sins of His elect", but "the sin of the world".

dpenn

09-20-2014, 06:54 AM

dp:

John 1:29 doesn't say "the sins of His elect", but "the sin of the world".

sylvius, only the elect believe in the atoning work of Jesus Christ and are saved. So, only those who are justified are elect Christians, along with faithful and obedient, believing OT saints. And the only way to be justified is by faith in the finished work of Jesus Christ alone, by the grace of God alone, according to the Word of God alone.

The debate over Arminianism vs Calvinism is a debate amongst Arminian and Calvinistic Christians, first, and non-believers, second.

dp

sylvius

09-22-2014, 12:10 AM

dp:

sylvius, only the elect believe in the atoning work of Jesus Christ and are saved. So, only those who are justified are elect Christians, along with faithful and obedient, believing OT saints. And the only way to be justified is by faith in the finished work of Jesus Christ alone, by the grace of God alone, according to the Word of God alone.

The debate over Arminianism vs Calvinism is a debate amongst Arminian and Calvinistic Christians, first, and non-believers, second.

dp

"The elect" being the ones (mentioned in John 1:12) who accept the light that the world has no notion of?

dpenn

09-22-2014, 01:01 AM

dp:

"The elect" being the ones (mentioned in John 1:12) who accept the light that the world has no notion of?

sylvius, only the elect believe in the atoning work of Jesus Christ and are saved. So, only those who are justified are elect Christians, along with faithful and obedient, believing OT saints. And the only way to be justified is by faith in the finished work of Jesus Christ alone, by the grace of God alone, according to the Word of God alone.

The debate over Arminianism vs Calvinism is a debate amongst Arminian and Calvinistic Christians, first, and non-believers, second.

sylvius, first I want to thank you for bringing another subject back to the forum. I needed a change.

To your question, yes, but the elect were also such as those in the world blinded to this truth, themselves. And this is certainly not something for the Church to ever feel smug about. But it is taught both in the OT and NT, as both Israel under the first covenant (including a small Gentile presence), and the Church (up until now, including a small Jewish presence, but with a major influx in the future), under the new covenant, make up this elect of God. It is associated very closely in the Scriptures with God's foreknowledge, predestination, and sovereign good will, whereby he foreordains whatsoever comes to pass.

dp

sylvius

09-22-2014, 01:29 AM

dp:

sylvius, first I want to thank you for bringing another subject back to the forum. I needed a change.

To your question, yes, but the elect were also such as those in the world blinded to this truth, themselves. And this is certainly not something for the Church to ever feel smug about. But it is taught both in the OT and NT, as both Israel under the first covenant (including a small Gentile presence), and the Church (up until now, including a small Jewish presence, but with a major influx in the future), under the new covenant, make up this elect of God. It is associated very closely in the Scriptures with God's foreknowledge, predestination, and sovereign good will, whereby he foreordains whatsoever comes to pass.

dp

Is it like the light of the first day, in Jewish tradition known as "or haganuz" (= hidden light - because God did hide it immediately so that evildoers could not make use of it), the light that God saw to be good?

dpenn

09-22-2014, 10:30 AM

dp:

Is it like the light of the first day, in Jewish tradition known as "or haganuz" (= hidden light - because God did hide it immediately so that evildoers could not make use of it), the light that God saw to be good?

sylvius, there are some similarities to that, but in the beginning, God did not hide the light from Adam and Eve, but following their sin, He made them leave the Garden of Eden. In their lost and fallen state, they were alienated from the presence and glory of God, but thankfully, God also provided a way and a means of being restored to that fellowship, always pointing to His final and ultimate means, that is through the atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ. God foreordained and chose the way to eternal life. Noah found favour with God, amidst a sinful humanity, and through the line of his son, Shem, Abraham was chosen by God to further His sovereign election, with a goal to providing a godly line, whereby He could, in the fullness of time, extend His salvation and restoration to the rest of the world.

This sovereign plan culminated in the sending of His eternal Son into the world, as He was miraculously joined to the seed of a baby boy. God the Holy Spirit came upon the virgin Mary, a chosen vessel to bear the incarnate baby Jesus, who was fully God and fully man, two natures, but one person. And he accomplished what Adam failed to do. As the new head of humanity, He first did what Adam failed to do, He lived a sin free life. And then He did what only the eternal Son of God joined to humanity could do, He bore in His own body on the Cross, the judicial penalty for sin. But only those who place their faith and trust in His finished work, receive this free gift of salvation. Just as God ordained that the blood and death of innocent animals should, as a substitute, provide a means of forgiveness, under the Mosaic Covenant, He also foreordained that these sacrifices were only efficacious as they pointed to the perfect and ultimate sacrifice of Jesus the Christ. So that, even then, the reason they really were forgiven was because these animal sacrifices and other feastal sacrifices, pointed to the foreseen ultimate sacrifice for all time. Thus, John the Baptist could announce, "Behold th Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world".

What was hidden in the past, is completely unveiled in Jesus Christ. The Gospel of Jesus Christ, is now open to Jew and Gentile alike, as we all become one in Him. Paul even says the following in 2 Corinthians 4:1-4:

"Therefore seeing we have this ministry, as we have received mercy, we faint not; But have renounced the hidden things of dishonesty, not walking in craftiness, nor handling the word of God deceitfully; but by manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God. But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost: In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them."

What was a mystery in the past, is open to the world, so that the wall of partition between Jews and Gentiles is broken down, creating one new humanity in Christ, as Paul said in a few of the following verses:

Romans 16:25-27,

"Now to him that is of power to stablish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began, But now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith: To God only wise, be glory through Jesus Christ for ever. Amen."

Ephesians 2:11-18,

"Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands; That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world: But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ. For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us; Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace; And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby: And came and preached peace to you which were afar off, and to them that were nigh. For through him we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father."

And if you will remember what I said earlier about Daniel 9:24-27, when the above says "Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances", the sacrifice of Jesus Christ was the final sacrifice, thus fulfilling all the commandments contained in ordinances. That does not mean that the moral law was abolished, but the ceremonial laws contained in ordinances. The moral law is an eternal reflection of the character of God, and can never be abolished. For even the 10 Commandments given to Moses, are summed up in these two commandments, "You shall love God, and you shall love your neighbour". On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets, fulfilled in Christ.

This is the reason why the veil in the Temple was rent from top to bottom at the crucifixion of Christ. The way into the Holy of Holies was made accessible to all those who have saving faith in Jesus Christ as their Lord and Saviour. Therefore, the Church is the new Temple of the Holy Spirit, where God now lives in each and every believer in Christ. And this Church is made up of Jews and Gentiles alike. Whosoever will, may come.

dp

sylvius

09-23-2014, 03:13 AM

dp:

sylvius, there are some similarities to that, but in the beginning, God did not hide the light from Adam and Eve, but following their sin, He made them leave the Garden of Eden. In their lost and fallen state, they were alienated from the presence and glory of God, but thankfully, God also provided a way and a means of being restored to that fellowship, always pointing to His final and ultimate means, that is through the atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ. God foreordained and chose the way to eternal life. Noah found favour with God, amidst a sinful humanity, and through the line of his son, Shem, Abraham was chosen by God to further His sovereign election, with a goal to providing a godly line, whereby He could, in the fullness of time, extend His salvation and restoration to the rest of the world.

"The sin of the world" being that it has no notion of God in his quality of "merciful one", i.e. the Tetragrammaton hidden in the initial letters of "yom hashishi vay'chulu hashamayim" (Genesis 1:31 - 2:1).

Sin, Greek ἁμαρτία, carries the meaning of "to miss the mark".

The world being the world of the six days, the profane, that opposes the world of the seventh day, the holy.

The ruler of this world being characterized by the number 666, gematria of "yom shishi", sixth day of which the letter "hey" is missing.

sylvius

09-23-2014, 04:57 AM

duxrow

09-23-2014, 06:30 AM

"or haganuz", the light of the first day, is also called "or shiv'at hayamim", the light of the seven days, because where the sixth days and the seventh are joined together (in the name of the Lord hidden in the initial letters of "yom hashishi vay'chulu hashamayim" ), (which is in fact the original state of being), the seven days form, as it were, one day, "day one". :yes:
"Light" being one of the many metaphors of Jesus, 'Light of the World', John8:12, explains why "Light Be" on Day One of Genesis preceded the light of the sun and moon on Day Four. "In the beginning was THE WORD..

sylvius

09-23-2014, 07:01 AM

:yes:
"Light" being one of the many metaphors of Jesus, 'Light of the World', John8:12, explains why "Light Be" on Day One of Genesis preceded the light of the sun and moon on Day Four. "In the beginning was THE WORD..

John 1:9-13, The true light, enlightening everyone, was coming into the world. It was in the world, and the world was made through it, yet the world did not know it It came to its own and its own did not receive it. But to all who did receive it, he gave the authority to become children of God, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.

It came to its own = in scriptural form, in Hebrew language, Hebrew letters.

v.14, And the word became flesh - it became "oral" -- a message ,good tidings.

dpenn

09-23-2014, 10:27 AM

dp:

John 1:9-13, The true light, enlightening everyone, was coming into the world. It was in the world, and the world was made through it, yet the world did not know it It came to its own and its own did not receive it. But to all who did receive it, he gave the authority to become children of God, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.

It came to its own = in scriptural form, in Hebrew language, Hebrew letters.

v.14, And the word became flesh - it became "oral" -- a message ,good tidings.

sylvius, why even bother using the text if you are going to butcher it to that extent? Suddenly, the Word, isn't even a word any more. You might as well be speaking in tongues, and giving us your own interpretation.

dp

sylvius

09-23-2014, 10:57 AM

dp:

sylvius, why even bother using the text if you are going to butcher it to that extend? Suddenly, the Word, isn't even a word any more. You might as well be speaking in tongues, and giving us your own interpretation.

dp

I just did a new invention, of how John 1:11 has to be understood:

εἰς τὰ ἴδια ἦλθεν, καὶ οἱ ἴδιοι αὐτὸν οὐ παρέλαβον.

"(the true light) came to its own and its own did not get it"

It is about the inner meaning of Hebrew scripture.

sylvius

09-26-2014, 01:28 AM

John 1:4,

ἐν αὐτῷ ζωὴ ἦν, καὶ ἡ ζωὴ ἦν τὸ φῶς τῶν ἀνθρώπων:

"in it (the word) was life and the life was the light of the people"

τὸ φῶς τῶν ἀνθρώπων, the light of the people

Not of the animals? - or of vegetation?

dpenn

09-26-2014, 02:20 AM

dp:

I just did a new invention, of how John 1:11 has to be understood:

εἰς τὰ ἴδια ἦλθεν, καὶ οἱ ἴδιοι αὐτὸν οὐ παρέλαβον.

"(the true light) came to its own and its own did not get it"

It is about the inner meaning of Hebrew scripture.

John 1:4,

ἐν αὐτῷ ζωὴ ἦν, καὶ ἡ ζωὴ ἦν τὸ φῶς τῶν ἀνθρώπων:

"in it (the word) was life and the life was the light of the people"

τὸ φῶς τῶν ἀνθρώπων, the light of the people

Not of the animals? - or of vegetation?

sylvius,

It might be good to take the full passage for the clear meaning, and the overall context, John 1:1-14:

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. In him was life; and the life was the light of men. And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not. There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe. He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light. That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world. He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not. He came unto his own, and his own received him not. But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth."

This is a clear Scripture that teaches of the incarnation of Jesus the Christ. In His deity, He is the eternal Word that was with God, and was God. And He is the Creator of all things, angelic, material, visible and invisible. Sadly, He came to His own, that is, those who were of the Jewish humanity of Himself, and the majority of them rejected Him. But, the New Covenant opened the door for both Jews and Gentiles to be born again, not of the will of the flesh, nor of anything in humanity, but ONLY by the will of God. And clearly, the Word was made flesh, born into the human race, as the Holy Spirit came upon the virgin Mary, and miraculously, the baby Jesus Christ was conceived, being fully human and fully God, the one and only begotten God-man, the Son of God.

And this is the grace of God, that as many as believe on Him and trust that He died for them, not only receive forgiveness of their sins, but also are empowered to become the children of God, even to those who believe on His Name.

There is the written Word, the inspired Scriptures, and their is the living Word, the Lord Jesus Christ. My hope and prayer is that someday, you will not only see Him for Who He is, but will be given the grace to receive Him as your personal Lord and Saviour.

I suspect that you don't see it that way, but just as the Apostle Paul was a hater of the Lord Jesus Christ, and His Gospel, there came a day when the risen Lord met him on the Damascus road, and revealed His glory to Him. And he became a faithful servant of the great triune God, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, One God, but Three unique and distinct Persons.

dp

sylvius

09-26-2014, 06:45 AM

This is a clear Scripture that teaches of the incarnation of Jesus the Christ. What exactly do you mean by "incarnation"?

In His deity, He is the eternal Word that was with God, and was God.

Does this mean that you can read John 1:1 also as: "In the beginning was Jesus Christ and Jesus Christ was directed towards God and God was Jesus Christ?"

And He is the Creator of all things, angelic, material, visible and invisible. The text says: "all things happened through (by means of) it (the word)" and not: "It (the word) is the creator of all things"

Sadly, He came to His own, that is, those who were of the Jewish humanity of Himself,

But this is about the light, the light that after verse 3 was the life within the word, the light that was coming into the world while the world had no notion of it, and also to it's own - in scriptural form, I did contend.

My question was: Why is it the light of the people, and not of the animals, or of vegetation?

duxrow

09-26-2014, 08:55 AM

hey Sylvie, maybe because animals and broccoli can't read! :winking0071:

sylvius

09-26-2014, 09:38 AM

hey Sylvie, maybe because animals and broccoli can't read! :winking0071:

Animals can "read" signs -

but aren't able to count.

Book = Hebrew "sefer", from "safar" = to count, number; "mispar"= number.

The number of fish caught by Peter and consorts was 153.

Alluding to the 153rd word of the Hebrew bible, "tov", in Genesis 1:12, same "tov" that occurred in Genesis 1:4, where it said that God saw the light to be "tov", good, the same light that John is referring to..

The story of the miraculous fish-catch is like a vocation-story; cf. Luke 5:1-11.

"It came to its own, and its own people did not get it.

But to all who did get it, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God."

dpenn

09-26-2014, 10:12 AM

dp:

What exactly do you mean by "incarnation"?

The term incarnation is used to describe how God was born into this world in the baby Jesus, as the promised Messiah (Christ) of the OT. The Person, Jesus Christ, has two natures. He is fully God and fully man, in one Person, yet without mixture or change of either natures. One nature is completely human, with the male DNA miraculously created by the Holy Spirit, with Mary providing her side of the DNA. And one nature is the eternal Son of God, the 2nd Person of the Trinity. Two natures, One God. The human nature is as real as our human nature, and the divine nature is the very nature of God.

Does this mean that you can read John 1:1 also as: "In the beginning was Jesus Christ and Jesus Christ was directed towards God and God was Jesus Christ?"

No, it simply means that as the Word was and is, the eternal Son of God, He was both with God, as the Son of God, and One God, just like the Father and the Holy Spirit are One God. So Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, are One in Essence or Being (God), but Three in Person. So 3 in one sense, but 1 in another sense, expressed in the OT, yet obscured there, till His Incarnation, by calling God, Elohim, plural noun, but with a single verb.

The text says: "all things happened through (by means of) it (the word)" and not: "It (the word) is the creator of all things"

Yes, but the word, Word is being used to express that the Son of God became Jesus the Christ, the Incarnate Son of God, the Messiah to come, prophesied in the OT. Consider again, John 1:14:

"And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth."

Now, compare Scripture with Scripture, Colossians 1:12-20,

"Giving thanks unto the Father, which hath made us meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in light: Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son: In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins: Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature: For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: And he is before all things, and by him all things consist. And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence. For it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell; And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven."

and Hebrews 1:1-2,

"God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;"

therefore we are without excuse, when we deny Him, Romans 1:20,

"For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:"

But this is about the light, the light that after verse 3 was the life within the word, the light that was coming into the world while the world had no notion of it, and also to it's own - in scriptural form, I did contend.

There are two uses of the word, Word. It in some contexts refers to the written Word, and at other times, like here, to the Incarnate Word. The same with the word, Light. In some contexts, it refers to the illuminating way that the Word of God is like a lamp unto our path, and enlightening our ways, by revelation, and in other contexts, refers to the Incarnate Light of God come into the world, the God-Man, Jesus Christ. There is even a lesser use of the light, and that is to describe how the Church is a city set on a hill, the light of the world, that is, if they are walking in the Light of God's Truth, being filled with the 3rd Person of the Trinity, the Holy Spirit of Promise.

My question was: Why is it the light of the people, and not of the animals, or of vegetation?

dux had a pretty good, light answer to this question:

hey Sylvie, maybe because animals and broccoli can't read!

dp

sylvius

09-26-2014, 11:39 AM

dp:

The term incarnation is used to describe how God was born into this world in the baby Jesus, Are we, normal living people, also incarnations?

No, it simply means that as the Word was and is, the eternal Son of God, He was both with God, as the Son of God, and One God, just like the Father and the Holy Spirit are One God. So then indeed you can also read: "In the beginning was Jesus Christ". Or ain't the triune God eternal?

Yes, but the word, Word is being used to express that the Son of God became Jesus the Christ, Was he then first just son of God and next Jesus the Christ?

Now, compare Scripture with Scripture, Colossians 1:12-20,

"Giving thanks unto the Father, which hath made us meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in light: Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son: In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins: Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature: For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: And he is before all things, and by him all things consist. And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence. For it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell; And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven."

" all things were created by him" is false translation, Greek: ὅτι ἐν αὐτῷ ἐκτίσθη τὰ πάντα = for in him all has been created.

dpenn

09-26-2014, 12:23 PM

dp:

Are we, normal living people, also incarnations?

sylvius, let me digress to react to your "normal". I sometimes wonder if such a person exists.:lol:

But kidding aside, according to the Bible, Jesus Christ is the only Incarnation of God. There are no other "normal" living people that are fully God and fully man (or woman).

So then indeed you can also read: "In the beginning was Jesus Christ". Or ain't the triune God eternal?

Of course the pre-incarnate Son of God is eternal. This merely is saying that He existed in the beginning, relating Him to His Creation of all things, visible and invisible.

Was he then first just son of God and next Jesus the Christ?

Yes, He was, from all eternity, the Son of God, co-equal with the Father and the Holy Spirit, One God. And at His miraculous virgin birth, His finite human nature was joined with His infinite divine nature, so that He was One Person, but with two natures. Thus, He is the one and only, for all eternity, God-man.

Even though evil, sinful men put Him to death, He was put to death in His humanity, because His divinity could never die. Then after 3 days, He was raised from the dead, where his human spirit joined with his physical body, resurrected, and once again joined perfectly with His divine nature. It was through His resurrection that He then received a changed, glorified, eternal body, now equipped to live for eternity. That is why all believers will be resurrected likewise, to receive immortal, glorified, bodies, to live for eternity in the presence of God. Through all eternity, all believers will be changed like unto the perfect humanity of the glorified Jesus Christ, but He remains God for all eternity. We will be highly exalted in Him, but we will never be God. We will, for all eternity, serve and worship God, only made possible by the birth, life, death, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus Christ.

" all things were created by him" is false translation, Greek: ὅτι ἐν αὐτῷ ἐκτίσθη τὰ πάντα = for in him all has been created.

ἐν can be translated, "in, with, by". The context, along with other Scriptures, demands "by". But "in" is also true, because it is only really "in Him" that all things "live and move and have their being", and He "upholds all things by the Word of His power" (Heb 1:3).

sylvius

09-26-2014, 12:42 PM

Of course the pre-incarnate Son of God is eternal. This merely is saying that He existed in the beginning, relating Him to His Creation of all things, visible and invisible.

Did he just exist in the beginning or does he exist still now?

dpenn

09-26-2014, 11:34 PM

dp:

Did he just exist in the beginning or does he exist still now?

sylvius, you know full well that God doesn't just pop in and out of existence. He is eternal. So please be civil in your words.

sylvius

09-27-2014, 03:03 AM

dp:

sylvius, you know full well that God doesn't just pop in and out of existence. He is eternal. So please be civil in your words.

How then can his son have both a pre-incarnate existence and an incarnate existence (beginning somewhere in time)?

Doesn't that call for a four-une Godhead?

Father - preincarnate son - incarnate son - holy spirit.

dpenn

09-27-2014, 09:53 AM

dp:

How then can his son have both a pre-incarnate existence and an incarnate existence (beginning somewhere in time)?

Doesn't that call for a four-une Godhead?

Father - preincarnate son - incarnate son - holy spirit.

sylvius,

No. That is the mystery of the Incarnation. The eternal, infinite, immutable, Son of God, was joined to the finite, born in time humanity in the Lord Jesus Christ. The Son of God, being God, could not change, and He was joined to the miraculously born baby Jesus in the womb of the virgin Mary. This is what the Christian theologians call the hypostatic union, joined, not mixed, yet in one Person. And that one Person, Jesus the Christ, has an uncreated nature, the eternal Son of God, and a created nature, through the DNA of Mary, and the required DNA miraculously provided by God to provide the male baby. It was the 3rd Person of the Trinity, the Holy Spirit, Who provided the miracle of causing Mary to conceive while still a virgin. The Bible doesn't say, but her haploid genetic material had to be joined with the haploid genetic material miraculously provided by God, the Holy Spirit. That is why Jesus is the one and only God-Man, and His incarnation remains the only one for all eternity. That is why the Council of Chalcedon spoke of the two distinct natures in Jesus, but these two natures were joined perfectly, yet without mixture in that One Person, Jesus, the Son of God.

He is not a fourth, because the eternal Son of God remains the same through all eternity. He was merely joined to the perfect humanity of the baby Jesus so that He might be the 2nd Adam, the one who could bring life, to fallen sinful humanity. That is why He needed to have a human nature, so that He could be like us in all ways, and live out His life in perfect obedience to God, yet without sin. For Christians, His life was as important as His death and resurrection, because He first had to satisfy the just demands of God's law. But then, as the last, perfect sacrifice for sin, He bore the judgement of God's wrath for all those who will place their faith and trust in Him. The animals that were sacrificed in the OT, the innocent for the guilty, could never take away the sins of sinful humanity. That is why they had to continually be offered daily. But they all along pointed to that One Perfect sacrifice that God would provide for our sins. And He has forever paid the price for our sins by that one sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the Cross, the just for the unjust. He became that Perfect sacrifice for all the saints of the OT, as they obeyed God in their sacrificial system, as well as all the saints of the NT. That is why the middle wall of partition is now broken down between Jew and Gentile. All are united in Christ, that is, all those who now put their faith and trust in Him as Lord and Saviour.

Isaiah speaks of Him perfectly in Isaiah 53:1-12,

"Who hath believed our report? and to whom is the arm of the LORD revealed? For he shall grow up before him as a tender plant, and as a root out of a dry ground: he hath no form nor comeliness; and when we shall see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him. He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and we hid as it were our faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed him not.

Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted. But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed. All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.

He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth. He was taken from prison and from judgment: and who shall declare his generation? for he was cut off out of the land of the living: for the transgression of my people was he stricken. And he made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death; because he had done no violence, neither was any deceit in his mouth.

Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand. He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities. Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he hath poured out his soul unto death: and he was numbered with the transgressors; and he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors. "

And that is why I have referred to Daniel 9 so often, regarding fulfilled prophecy in Him, because He is again spoken of as the great sacrifice to end all sacrifices Daniel 9:24-27,

"Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy. Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times. And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined. And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate."

Sylvius, could anything be plainer? These are inspired Scriptures in the text of your own Bible (even if you were to question the translation of the KJV in places). Without always trying to find some deeper esoteric meaning in the text, in your heart, what is the clear and unmistakable message of this Scripture?

dp

sylvius

09-27-2014, 10:33 AM

dp:

sylvius,

No. That is the mystery of the Incarnation. The eternal, infinite, immutable, Son of God, was joined to the finite, born in time humanity in the Lord Jesus Christ. The Son of God, being God, could not change, and He was joined to the miraculously born baby Jesus in the womb of the virgin Mary. This is what the Christian theologians call the hypostatic union, joined, not mixed, yet in one Person. And that one Person, Jesus the Christ, has an uncreated nature, the eternal Son of God, and a created nature, through the DNA of Mary, and the required DNA miraculously provided by God to provide the male baby.

I thought that that one person, complete with Mary's DNA, was already there before God created Adam.

dpenn

09-27-2014, 11:16 AM

dp:

I thought that that one person, complete with Mary's DNA, was already there before God created Adam.

No, that is nowhere a part of the doctrine of the Incarnation. Adam was the first human being created by God, and Eve was formed by God, from Adam. The Bible doesn't say how this happened, but only that it was a part of God's 6th day of creation. Jesus was, according to the Scriptures, really born in time and space around 2014+ years ago (probably closer to 4 BC). The NT clearly says that the eternal Son of God became man, that is, was joined to the human nature miraculously formed in the virgin Mary. Christianity does not teach the pre-existence of souls or the pre-creation existence of Jesus.

The Bible, however, clearly teaches that the eternal Son of God, Who being God before even time began, was perfectly joined to humanity in the baby, Jesus, and Chalcedon rightly adds, without mixture in the hypostatic union of the two natures, human and divine. He needed to be fully human to satisfy the just demands of God's law, as our perfect human substitute, and He needed to be fully divine, to assure that, as the last Adam, He would succeed in living out a sinless life before God, in total obedience to His just law. This promised seed is promised many times through the OT.

The writer to the book of Hebrews (who I believe to be Paul, but that is debatable), said in Hebrews 2:16,

"For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham."

And Paul addresses this more specifically in that He was the "seed of Abraham" in Galatians 3:16-22,

"Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ. And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect. For if the inheritance be of the law, it is no more of promise: but God gave it to Abraham by promise. Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator. Now a mediator is not a mediator of one, but God is one.

Is the law then against the promises of God? God forbid : for if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law. But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe."

So, clearly, the incarnation is when the human nature of Jesus was created miraculously, and it was joined to the eternal nature of God, in the Person of the Son of God, conceived by the Holy Spirit, born of the virgin Mary.

If you somehow keep this in your mind, you will see this popping out at you all through the Holy Scriptures of the OT, and fulfilled in the Holy Scriptures of the NT.

dp

sylvius

09-27-2014, 01:31 PM

dp:

No, that is nowhere a part of the doctrine of the Incarnation. Adam was the first human being created by God, and Eve was formed by God, from Adam. The Bible doesn't say how this happened, but only that it was a part of God's 6th day of creation. Jesus was, according to the Scriptures, really born in time and space around 2014+ years ago (probably closer to 4 BC). The NT clearly says that the eternal Son of God became man, that is, was joined to the human nature miraculously formed in the virgin Mary. Christianity does not teach the pre-existence of souls or the pre-creation existence of Jesus.

The Bible, however, clearly teaches that the eternal Son of God, Who being God before even time began, was perfectly joined to humanity in the baby, Jesus, and Chalcedon rightly adds, without mixture in the hypostatic union of the two natures, human and divine. He needed to be fully human to satisfy the just demands of God's law, as our perfect human substitute, and He needed to be fully divine, to assure that, as the last Adam, He would succeed in living out a sinless life before God, in total obedience to His just law. This promised seed is promised many times through the OT.

The NT is about the death and resurrection of a human being of flesh and blood, born from a woman.

As resurrected one he lives eternal.

So as resurrected one he was already present when God created Adam.

dpenn

09-27-2014, 02:12 PM

dp:

The NT is about the death and resurrection of a human being of flesh and blood, born from a woman.

As resurrected one he lives eternal.

So as resurrected one he was already present when God created Adam.

sylvius, the NT is about the death and resurrection of the Son of God, the Lord Jesus Christ. He was born of a virgin woman, conceived by the Holy Spirit. Yes, as the resurrected One, He lives eternal, because from all eternity, as the Son of God, He is eternal. But it was not as the resurrected One that He was already present when God created Adam, but as the eternal Son of God, the 2nd Person of the Trinity. He did not exist as Jesus the Messiah/Christ until he was born of the virgin Mary.

Sooner or later, if you are a true student of the Scriptures, you will have to see this in the OT as well as the NT. The Jewish Talmud has blurred your vision, and deceptively caused you to be partially blinded to the Truth. It is only the pure Scriptures of your own OT that can finally set you free from that false teaching.

dp

duxrow

09-27-2014, 02:24 PM

The NT is about the death and resurrection of a human being of flesh and blood, born from a woman.

As resurrected one he lives eternal. So as resurrected one he was already present when God created Adam.
Sylvie, its a Question of Time, Ecc3
The question that is asked the most: we hear it every day,
"What time is it?", they want to know, and then they go away.
It's time for bed or time for work or time to feed the fishes,
It's time to take your medicine, or wash and dry the dishes.

Time in seconds, time in hours, so many freckles past a hair,
Depending on the Zone, or whether Daylight Saving's there.
Time is measured many ways, from minutes to the months,
Time is what keeps everything from happening at once!

A time to live, a time to die, a time for having fun,
Clocks and calendars alike, all scheduled by the sun.
Intervals that can't be hurried, will not be denied,
A season that we know is coming, as surely as the tide.

If there ever comes a time when time will be no more,
I wonder how we'll know to quit, or when it was before.
Do we hurry? Do we loaf? It depends upon the time...
Had we started earlier, we'd be finished with this rhyme.

sylvius

09-27-2014, 11:06 PM

dp:

sylvius, the NT is about the death and resurrection of the Son of God, the Lord Jesus Christ. He was born of a virgin woman, conceived by the Holy Spirit. Yes, as the resurrected One, He lives eternal, because from all eternity, as the Son of God, He is eternal. But it was not as the resurrected One that He was already present when God created Adam, but as the eternal Son of God, the 2nd Person of the Trinity. He did not exist as Jesus the Messiah/Christ until he was born of the virgin Mary.

Sooner or later, if you are a true student of the Scriptures, you will have to see this in the OT as well as the NT. The Jewish Talmud has blurred your vision, and deceptively caused you to be partially blinded to the Truth. It is only the pure Scriptures of your own OT that can finally set you free from that false teaching.

dp

Mark 8:33, And he began to teach them that the Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders and the chief priests and the scribes and be killed, and after three days rise again.

i.e. he is only Messiah through his death and resurrection.

The virgin birth being not an historical phenomenon, but scriptural.

dpenn

09-28-2014, 11:40 AM

dp:

Mark 8:33, And he began to teach them that the Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders and the chief priests and the scribes and be killed, and after three days rise again.

i.e. he is only Messiah through his death and resurrection.

The virgin birth being not an historical phenomenon, but scriptural.

sylvius, the NT gives us the full package, the Incarnation of Jesus the Messiah, from birth, through life, to death and resurrection, culminating in His ascension, where He is seated at the right hand of God, awaiting His return in glory to set up His eternal Kingdom, and to rule in the midst of His saints for all eternity. Even so come Lord Jesus. Amen.

dp

sylvius

09-28-2014, 01:32 PM

dp:

sylvius, the NT gives us the full package, the Incarnation of Jesus the Messiah, from birth, through life, to death and resurrection, culminating in His ascension, where He is seated at the right hand of God, awaiting His return in glory to set up His eternal Kingdom, and to rule in the midst of His saints for all eternity. Even so come Lord Jesus. Amen.

dp

Why then would he say to Peter: “Get behind me, Satan! For you are not setting your mind on the things of God, but on the things of man.”

dpenn

09-28-2014, 02:01 PM

dp:

Why then would he say to Peter: “Get behind me, Satan! For you are not setting your mind on the things of God, but on the things of man.”

sylvius, because even though Peter had just finished acknowledging that Jesus was the Christ/Messiah, the Son of the Living God, in Matthew 16:13-17,

"When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am? And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets. He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven."

But Jesus wanted this knowledge of Him to be secret for the time. Peter soon showed his fleshly side, which Jesus likened to Satan himself, following Jesus telling His disciples about His coming death and resurrection, Matthew 16:20-23,

"Then charged he his disciples that they should tell no man that he was Jesus the Christ. From that time forth began Jesus to shew unto his disciples, how that he must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised again the third day. Then Peter took him, and began to rebuke him, saying, Be it far from thee, Lord: this shall not be unto thee. But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men."

This shows how often the things of men can be evil (even likened to satan himsef) when compared to the things of God.

dp

sylvius

09-28-2014, 10:28 PM

dp:

sylvius, because even though Peter had just finished acknowledging that Jesus was the Christ/Messiah, the Son of the Living God, in Matthew 16:13-17,

"When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am? And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets. He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven."

But Jesus wanted this knowledge of Him to be secret for the time. Peter soon showed his fleshly side, which Jesus likened to Satan himself, following Jesus telling His disciples about His coming death and resurrection, Matthew 16:20-23,

"Then charged he his disciples that they should tell no man that he was Jesus the Christ. From that time forth began Jesus to shew unto his disciples, how that he must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised again the third day. Then Peter took him, and began to rebuke him, saying, Be it far from thee, Lord: this shall not be unto thee. But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men."

This shows how often the things of men can be evil (even likened to satan himsef) when compared to the things of God.

dp

Peter rejected his fundamental teaching,viz. that he only is Messiah through death and resurrection.

"The things of God" return in Mark 12:17 (Matthew 22:21) Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's

This was about the coin with image and inscription of Caesar, "the beast", that opposes the image of God, in which man was created, and the inscription on the cross.

dpenn

09-28-2014, 11:47 PM

dp:

Peter rejected his fundamental teaching,viz. that he only is Messiah through death and resurrection.

"The things of God" return in Mark 12:17 (Matthew 22:21) Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's

This was about the coin with image and inscription of Caesar, "the beast", that opposes the image of God, in which man was created, and the inscription on the cross.

sylvius, we would all do well to take a lesson from Peter, who when he realised how he had denied his Lord, repented of his sinful ways. And Jesus showed how quickly He is to forgive and reinstate His wayward children. However, much more the majority of us are like Saul, (later, Paul after his conversion). When he met the Lord on the road to Damascus, Jesus asked him why he kicked against the ox goad, spikes on the backboard of the cart that prevented a rebellious ox from kicking the cart apart. The more he kicked, the more he hurt himself. Jesus then asked Saul why he was persecuting Him, but it was obvious that Saul was persecuting the Church, which Jesus considered as persecuting Himself.

I wonder how many on the way to Damascus today, are not acting out on their own human wisdom. Keep in mind, Saul thought he was doing the Lord a favour, blaspheming the Name of Jesus, while all the time persecuting the Church. Sadly, most Zionist Christians and Jews interpret Isaiah 17:1 in a futuristic way (or more precisely, just around the corner),

"The burden of Damascus. Behold, Damascus is taken away from being a city, and it shall be a ruinous heap."

But if you read on, it is obvious that the context is referring to a time more than 2,000 years ago.

You see sylvius, I can ramble on and jump from one thing to another too.

dp

sylvius

09-29-2014, 01:34 AM

sylvius, we would all do well to take a lesson from Peter, who when he realised how he had denied his Lord, repented of his sinful ways. But what about you? The High-Priest was searching for testimony, in Peter's presence, while only Preterists stepped forward to declare that Jesus was the one to destroy the Temple. Peter should have taken a stance against them.

And Jesus showed how quickly He is to forgive and reinstate His wayward children. However, much more the majority of us are like Saul, (later, Paul after his conversion). When he met the Lord on the road to Damascus, Jesus asked him why he kicked against the ox goad, spikes on the backboard of the cart that prevented a rebellious ox from kicking the cart apart. The more he kicked, the more he hurt himself. Jesus then asked Saul why he was persecuting Him, but it was obvious that Saul was persecuting the Church, which Jesus considered as persecuting Himself.

I wonder how many on the way to Damascus today, are not acting out on their own human wisdom. Keep in mind, Saul thought he was doing the Lord a favour, blaspheming the Name of Jesus, while all the time persecuting the Church. Sadly, most Zionist Christians and Jews interpret Isaiah 17:1 in a futuristic way (or more precisely, just around the corner),

"The burden of Damascus. Behold, Damascus is taken away from being a city, and it shall be a ruinous heap."

But if you read on, it is obvious that the context is referring to a time more than 2,000 years ago.

You see sylvius, I can ramble on and jump from one thing to another too.

Damascus, Hebrew "D'mesheq", is an acrostic of: "doleh umashqeh", = he draws up water (in a bucket - like Aquarius) and gives to drink -- from the well of the water of life (in which is the light of men).

Eliezer, Abraham's servant was from Damascus (Genesis 15:2), gematria of his name 318 coinciding the number of trained servants with whom Abraham did gain victory over the four kings in favor of the five, which meant "The end of all wars", to which relates Psalms 110.

dpenn

09-29-2014, 10:21 AM

dp:

But what about you? The High-Priest was searching for testimony, in Peter's presence, while only Preterists stepped forward to declare that Jesus was the one to destroy the Temple. Peter should have taken a stance against them.

sylvius, if you spoke truth, I would have to sit up and take notice. But you say the most outrageous deceptive distortion of the facts. Jesus prophesied the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple, and it really happened at the end of that generation, in 70 AD. Full preterism is as heretical as any other cultic mindset that takes the Word of God and distorts it, much like the Talmud. They don't just stop at the Temple being destroyed. They go all the way and say that Jesus actually returned already, and then exchanges the Truth of the Bible for some kind of pseudo-evolutionary development of this fact. Whereas, Jesus and genuine Christians, not only see the truth of Jesus' prophesy of the end of the Temple and its dispensation of Law, but also see and understand that the Church is now the Temple of the Holy Spirit, awaiting the physical, bodily return of Jesus Christ at the end of time, to set up His eternal Kingdom on earth.

Thank God that Peter, realising the error of his betrayal of Jesus, broke down in tears of remorse. And after His resurrection from the dead, Jesus personally showed Peter that He forgave him, and exhorted him to feed His sheep, the elect of Israel. Later, God the Holy Spirit revealed that this same Gospel message was to be extended to the Gentile elect of God.

You are right, the High-Priest was looking for testimony against Jesus, but found none. So, in kangaroo court fashion, they found some unprincipled men to put forward lies to help accuse Him of pseudo-guilt. Peter may have denied Jesus at the time of his weakness, but he soon realised his need to repent of that.

I don't know what you mean by, "But what about you"?

Damascus, Hebrew "D'mesheq", is an acrostic of: "doleh umashqeh", = he draws up water (in a bucket - like Aquarius) and gives to drink -- from the well of the water of life (in which is the light of men).

Eliezer, Abraham's servant was from Damascus (Genesis 15:2), gematria of his name 318 coinciding the number of trained servants with whom Abraham did gain victory over the four kings in favor of the five, which meant "The end of all wars", to which relates Psalms 110.

It is obvious that there are very profound interrelationships between the Hebrew alphabet and their number system, yet to make that the driving component of biblical Truth, is to twist the clear teaching of Jesus and the OT Prophets, along with the NT Apostles and Prophets. But I am even more thankful that a separate mathematical number system was developed to take the world far beyond the confines of Gematria. Advances in Calculus and Physics, along with all the Natural Science systems of knowledge has helped us step out of an antiquated pseudo-world of Gematria and Kabbalah. That doesn't mean that I believe that any area of science is autonomous in itself, but at least these advancements in science helps us step out of superstitions and myths.

Just the fact that you make so much out of the Gematria of Eliezer of Damascus, and "the end of all wars" tied to Psalm "110", makes me wonder what the Talmudic Kabbalists might be up to next. And when you throw in the Zodiacal Aquarias, the dawning of this new astrological age, my concern deepens, not that I buy into any of this from a true scientific perspective.

There are obviously some very brilliant mathematical sevant kabbalists who are obsessed with being architects of a world of their own design and control. But I believe they are merely creating a false god in their own image.

dp

sylvius

09-29-2014, 10:48 AM

dp:

sylvius, if you spoke truth, I would have to sit up and take notice. But you say the most outrageous deceptive distortion of the facts. Jesus prophesied the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple, and it really happened at the end of that generation, in 70 AD

All four Gospels were written after the event. They are in fact the Christian answer to the destruction of the Jewish Temple.

dpenn

09-29-2014, 10:56 AM

dp:

All four Gospels were written after the event. They are in fact the Christian answer to the destruction of the Jewish Temple.

sylvius, that is a logical possibility. However, Daniel 9:24-27 prophesied the same, and all of the early NT Church speaks unanimously that Jesus prophesied this, as recorded in the Gospels.

sylvius

09-29-2014, 11:01 AM

dp:

sylvius, that is a logical possibility. However, Daniel 9:24-27 prophesied the same, and all of the early NT Church speaks unanimously that Jesus prophesied this, as recorded in the Gospels.

Daniel didn't prophecy it, it 's just read into it by the Preterists.

Richard Amiel McGough

10-11-2014, 11:14 AM

sylvius, that is a logical possibility. However, Daniel 9:24-27 prophesied the same, and all of the early NT Church speaks unanimously that Jesus prophesied this, as recorded in the Gospels.
Daniel didn't prophecy it, it 's just read into it by the Preterists.
The posts relating to the this topic have been moved to a new thread called Daniel 9:24-27 (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?6152-Daniel-9-24-27).

Please try to keep this thread on the topic of the original post. If any thread gets off topic, please send me a message and I will create a new thread and move the relevant posts.

:focus:

dpenn

10-11-2014, 12:44 PM

The posts relating to the this topic have been moved to a new thread called Daniel 9:24-27 (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?6152-Daniel-9-24-27).

Please try to keep this thread on the topic of the original post. If any thread gets off topic, please send me a message and I will create a new thread and move the relevant posts.

:focus:

muchos gracias, senor! :sombrero2: Did you catch that sylvius?

browncone

05-06-2017, 05:51 AM

Book of Ruth ends with Boaz, Obed, Jesse, David (Grandpa, Dad, Son, Grandson), and the Book of Isaiah begins with Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, Hezekiah (4 generations, father-to-son).

The final-4 in Matthew 1:16 are Jacob, Joseph, Mary, Jesus -- and note that every name from Adam to Jesus is different (no repeats like in Luke) EXCEPT for the name of Jacob (means 'supplanter', to take the place of..) and there are only two (2) "Joseph son of Jacob" in the Bible!
Could be that Bush41, Clinton, Bush43, Obama are a Harbinger of good things to come? (Fig. of Speech: sarcasm).. :huhsign:

The story of Jesus can be found in the meanings of the names in the 12 tribes of Israel.

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-rCmYffM1MNo/WPq_t_pzsTI/AAAAAAAAsuU/KD71jcJ-E2kvQvqxLAZXKt3qMpndAQ1_wCJoC/w530-h655-p-rw/tribesofIsraelmeaning.png

browncone

05-06-2017, 06:04 AM

2017-1984=33 years (0 to 33 years Life of Jesus) Death and Resurrection since 33 A.D

The story of Jesus in genealogy name meaning from Adam to Noah

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-FpuzmAGwCBE/WQ3JheiyWzI/AAAAAAAAtR0/o1K8cbmSCrA70S4bKNhKlNqhm5ZljFR5gCL0B/w530-d-h414-p-rw/Genesis5geneologymeaning.png

iampeter

03-04-2018, 04:31 AM

First of all, I want to give all glory and honor to God the Father of my Lord Jesus Christ.

I don't take any credit for this information or revelation and I don't remember the person that I received this from.

When we look at the genealogy of Jesus Christ, there is a discrepancy with Matthew and Luke. This makes a huge difference into assuring that Jesus Christ is the true Messiah. However, once the explanation is done, that will shed a bit of light to support Jesus Christ more.

In Matthew, the genealogy of Jesus says that Josephs father was Jacob. Also Solomon was the son of David

(Matthew 1:16 KJVA) And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary[/U][/I], of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.
(Matthew 1:6 KJVA) And Jesse begat David the king; and David the king begat Solomon of her that had been the wife of Urias;

However, in Luke, it clearly states that Joseph was the son of Heli and Nathan was the son of David

(Luke 3:23 KJVA) And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli
(Luke 3:31 KJVA) Which was the son of Melea, which was the son of Menan, which was the son of Mattatha, which was the son of Nathan, which was the son of David,

The reason for this difference is because there is a translation error in the gospel of Matthew. The error is that Joseph, son of Jacob, is not the HUSBAND of Mary but the FATHER.
The proof is in Mat 1:17:
(Matthew 1:17 KJVA) So all the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen generations; and from David until the carrying away into Babylon are fourteen generations; and from the carrying away into Babylon unto Christ are fourteen generations.

In Matthew, from David to Joseph is only 26. Including Jesus, there is only 27. It's missing one more person. Well if you add Mary then it makes sense.
Also, If you tried to count the generations in Luke, from David to Jesus, there's about 42 people which is way more than what is written.

The importance of this is that Jesus had to fulfill many prophecies, in order to be the legitimate Messiah. One, is that he was in the Line of David. Although Mary's husband Joseph was from the line of David, that wouldn't make Jesus a legitimate King, because Joseph's ancestor was Nathan. However, Mary's ancestor was Solomon, who was the king after David. This means that Jesus is in fact the true King of the Jews, who came from the Kingly Line of David. This fulfills that promise to restore Davids Kingdom. And it leaves nothing unchecked as far as Mary's genealogy and whether Jesus was king by marriage in Josephs line or a true King.

Why the translation error? Well, because Matthew wasn't originally written in Greek but in Hebrew. I have to look up more info on this because I forgot.