"Stranger still, the ancient religion of the Jews survives, when all the religions of every ancient race of the pre-Christian world have disappeared. Again it is strange that the living religions of the world all build on the religious ideas derived from the Jews" - The Ancient World, Professor T.R. Glover

"According to the materialistic and positivist criterion, this people ought to have perished long ago. It's survival is a mysterious and wonderful phenomenon demonstrating that the life of this people is governed by a special predetermination..."
- The Meaning of History, Professor Nicholas Berdkilaev of the Moscow Academy of Spiritual Culture

"It was Judaism that brought the concept of a God-given universal moral law into the world...the Jew carries the burden of God in history and for this he has never been forgiven" - Distinguished Catholic Scholar Edward H. Flannery

Fact: Judaism is the only religion in the world that lost its holy land and has regained it.

Sunday, January 18, 2009

The Trinity - Part One

The doctrine of the Trinity is simply a confederation of three different god-persons united in a Godhead call a single God (Colossians 2:9 / I John 5:7-8). Though the official Nicaea Council of 325 CE has the three god persons as part of the same substance, the god-persons themselves are completely separate from one another in "personhood" nonetheless. The Trinity is in a sense polytheistic in nature but operating under a monotheistic title.
.
The Trinity and its god-persons can be broken down in the following way:
  • God the Father - god person #1 - separated in person from the other god-persons: God the Son and God the Holy Ghost.
  • God the Son - god-person #2 - separated in person from the other god-persons: God the Father and God the Holy Ghost.
  • God the Holy Ghost - god-person #3 - separated in person from the other god-persons: God the Father and God the Son.
To the Trinitarians who insists that they believe in one God and one God only, let me ask you a simple question: What is his [one] name? (See Zachariah 14:9) The last time I asked a Trinitarian this I got a long pause because the person knew where I was going with such a question. If you say the name of your one god is "Jesus" then who is the one god person Jehovah? Isn't Jehovah a different "person" in the Trinity with of different name than your one-god Jesus? If the name of your one god in indeed Jehovah as in the Jehovah Witness doctrine, then isn't Jesus "another" god in person form apart from Jehovah, making all that is to be consider God multiple and polytheistic via more than one persons with different names?
.
Another question would be, what is the actual name of the third person in the Godhead? Holy Ghost or Holy Spirit is not a name but a title or office position. If the other god-persons known as God the Father and God the Son both have specific names, why doesn't the person of the Holy Ghost have one. According to Matthew 28:19 and the Trinitarian mindset he is suppose to have one.
.
Though falling short of its goal it was the Oneness Pentecostal movements that have tried to fix these "Trinitarian multiple god-person problems" within the Christian faith by simply making Jesus and his father the same "person" which goes against Revelation 3:5,21. But to truly fix the Trinity multi-god person problem, I believe one has to travel back to the original Bible - the Hebrew scriptures. There in the Hebrew scriptures (though the Trinintarians go to great lengths to try to prove otherwise) you won't find Trinity (multiple-person gods) issues. Though I have never received an answer, I love to ask Trinitarians, which person of the Trinity Godhead made the following statement:
"I am the LORD, and there is none else, there is no God beside me: I girded thee, though thou hast not known me: That they may know from the rising of the sun, and from the west, that there is none beside me. I am the LORD, and there is none else." - Isaiah 45:5-6
.
Check out all those singular personal pronouns. Just in the short statement above I counted three I's and another three me's along with four declarations of the personal pronoun speaker (God) of being alone. All three god-persons of the Trinity could not have made the singular personal pronouns at the same time without being the exact same in personhood. So, again to all Trinitarians, feel free to post a comment telling me what god-person in the Trinity made the above statement. If it was God the Father (as the original Hebrew states: "I am Jehovah") tell me why He didn't consider the other god-persons when He stated, "there is no God beside me".
.
Also concerning the Hebrew scriptures, you won't find a need of a second-person in a Godhead Trinity to be your savior.
"...and there is no God else beside me; a just God and a Saviour; there is none beside me. Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth: for I am God, and there is none else." -Isaiah 45:21-22
.
Christian Proof Text of the Trinity
One of the main arguments that pro-Trinity Christian groups use is that the Hebrew name "Elohim" (actually a title taken from the Canaanites' god El) is given in plural form revealing the Trinity Godhead plural nature within the one true God of Israel. 1 This shows their willingness to use a very limited knowledge of Hebrew while disregarding the rest. The Trinity scholars who know better still use this lie to convince their listeners.
.
Out of the four main names of God used in the Hebrew Bible (Jehovah, Adoni, Shaddai, and Elohim) Elohim is the lest personal. It simply means "God" as in the title of an object of worship. Elohim is not a personal name just like the title "husband" is not my personal name though I carry that title and office. The title "Elohim" is also used throughout the Hebrew scriptures in reference to false gods 2 which definitely can't be said concerning the personal names of God: Jehovah, Adoni, Shaddai! Not only were false gods referred to as "Elohim" but also judges, angels, and even an altar were referred to as "Elohim"3 again, something the names Jehovah, Adoni, and Shaddai could not have been used for. Why don't the Trinity scholars point this out? They simply know that such information undermines their Trinitarian doctrine.
.
The Canaanites who lived among the Israelites, had a pantheon of gods with the head of that pantheon called "El" who was the mythological father of Baal. The proper name of El meant "power" or "powerful". For the Israelite to take off the plural ending of Elohim when referring to their one God of Israel without tying it to personality trait of their God in such usage as in "El Shaddai" (God Almighty) in Genesis 28:3 (notice the singularity of Elohim in such a title)4 would seem to be referring to the Canaanite god of El or one of the gods under El. In other words, for an Israelite to refer to "El" by itself would seem to be referring to one of the many Canaanite gods (elohim), or El, the father of Baal. The Israelites therefore referred to their one God as "Elohim" (of which no one Canaanite god including the head of the pantheon is named) as all-powerful to imply that their God takes the place of the entire Pantheon of Canaanite gods in power and uniqueness. For the Israelites of the day, the one Hebrew God makes up and was the very source of all the many powers that the El-Canaanites gods represented (i.e. god of lightning, god of grain, god of rain, ect.) rolled into one by saying that He is "Elohim"!
.
God explains His true non-truine name to his one-person "Elohim" named Moses. Did you caught that? God said unto the "one person" Moses: "I have made thee an "Elohim" to Pharaoh: and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet." (Exodus 7:1) Why didn't God say to the one person Moses, I have made thee an El (singular) to Pharaoh? Again, why isn't this made mention of by the Trinitarian Hebrew scholars, for they avoid expounding on that particular scripture like one of the ten plagues (pun intended)?
.
The one true non-truine God explains His name to His personal Elohim (Moses) on earth this way:
"And Elohim spake unto Moses, and said unto him, I am Jehovah: And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by the name of El Shaddai (singular form) but by my name JEHOVAH was I not known to them." - Exodus 6:2-3

It must be noted that the name Jehovah derives from the meaning "I am" (see Exodus 3:14) to "He is". Both personal pronouns in these most personalized names are singular in nature. God was telling Moses His "mystery" name of which He didn't even reveal to "His friend" Abraham! (II Chronicles 20:7 / Isaiah 41:8)! O ye Trinitarians, let me ask again, what Godhead "person" of the Trinity spoke unto Moses and used the personal pronoun "I" for His name when He said, "ahyeh-ahshear-ahyeh" I Am that I AM? For it is through this singular personal pronoun natured name that He stated the following: "this is "my" name for ever, and this is "my" memorial unto all generations." (Exodus 3:15). Moreover, the prophet Zechariah states that during the Messianic Age: "And Jehovah shall be king over all the earth: in that day shall there be one Jehovah, and his name one. (Zechariah 14:9) So how is it that you can come up with a three-person Godhead based Trinity when comparing and considering Exodus 3:15 and Zechariah 14:9 together? Why have countless Jews been murdered down through the ages in the shadows of your Trinity crosses, while no Jewish movements ever killed or even sought to kill Christians based upon their trinitarian beliefs?5
.
Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness..." - Genesis 1:26
.
Most serious trinitarians understand that Genesis 1:26 is a royal majestic decree made before a heavenly court (see Isaiah 6:1-2, 8). However, I don't think that they fully understand the significance of the statement "our image". The "creation of man" of which this scripture is concerning, is the very last of the creation events and is the very climax of all creation, and is given dominion over all that already had been up until that point, created (Genesis 1:26). The sum of all creation i.e. image of all creation is reflected in Adam. Even the adomah (land / ground / earth) is reflected in Adam (man / mankind) from which the first man is so named. It becomes easy to see that the original Hebrew gives even New Testament texts such as I Corinthians 15:47 a deeper meaning. Does the "Us" and "Our" image that God uses in Genesis 1:26 mean, "God and the earth" as in Jeremiah 22:29? Does it mean "God and the angels" (not to be confused with winged seraphims as in Isaiah 6:2) that appeared in the exact same "image" and even called "man" in the Bible as with Abraham (Genesis 18:2) and to Jacob (Genesis 32:24). Does it mean "God and all of creation" where God being the King makes a decree to His creation being His willing subjects as when a president making a State of the Union address states "Let us" do such and such. The answer to all these questions is "yes". What it doesn't refer to is the Father-person of the Trinity speaking to the others (Son-person and Holy Spirit-person) urging them of the same God-person status to following His leading idea. My question to the Trinitarians is why isn't man "three persons" like the image of the Trinity when man was made in the same image? 6
.
...and now the Lord GOD, and his Spirit, hath sent me. - Isaiah 48:16
.
I heard one woman a few years ago who had called into a Hal Lindsey's radio show really complaining and wanting to know why the Christian non-trinitarians (also including those bad O Jews) can't plainly see the Trinity all through the above verse. She probably wouldn't like me telling her that, that very verse she was holding so dear to her trinitarian heart, was not only translated by Christan Trinitarians but that it by itself actually proves the Trinity doctrine wrong. When reading the text word for word in the Hebrew it goes (flows) like this: "And now, Adoni Jehovah has sent me and His Spirit". Right away one can see the context meaning change from a Trinity proof text to a sort of "Oneness" proof text. Of course questions should now be raised.
1. Why wasn't the text translated in the same manner and method as the Hebrew gave it?
2. Does the Hebrew reading imply that Jehovah's Spirit is a whole other person, separated in personhood from that of Jehovah?
3. Why didn't the second Son-God person have anything to do with the sending of Isaiah? I mean Isaiah according to the KJV text, took time to specifically name the first and third persons of the Trinity, so why not included the Son-God person too?
4. Is the "spirit" of Elijah different in personhood than Elijah himself? (See II Kings 2:15)
5. Can we determine by continuing in the text what the proper name of "the Spirit" is that sent Isaiah? I mean, the Trinitarians really don't have a proper personal name for Him, just the title of "Holy Spirit"?
.
Actually, the very next verse (Isaiah 48:17) reads: "Thus saith Jehovah, thy Redeemer, the Holy One of Israel; I am Jehovah thy God which teacheth thee to profit, which leadeth thee by the way that thou shouldest go." So if we place together the two verses (16 and 17) along with following the context through, a complete picture emerges. It is not that God and His other-person Spirit is sending out Isaiah to declare something on his own as the KJV might indicate in the minds of Trinitarians, but God places His very person in Spirit form on Isaiah (anointing Isaiah) for a declaration to the people of Israel. And with that anointing the "Spirit of the "one" God of Israel" upon Isaiah, the anointing-causing Spirit speaks of "Himself" giving His proper name while stating in the Hebrew: "I am Jehovah your God"! Come on Trinitarians, learn some Hebrew and get Hebrew real! It's absolutely asinine to willfully believe in twisted translated scriptures while stretching to denying the easy to understand text of what the Hebrew Bible clearly states and its contextual meaning!
.
Notes:
1. The plural masculine noun suffix in the Hebrew is generally (but not always) given and pronounced "eem" or "im" at the end of the noun. It has the same effect as adding the letter "s" at the end of a noun in English. "Elohim" can be translated as "gods" in the Hebrew Bible. For example, the words "God" and "gods" are spelled the same in the Hebrew in Deuteronomy 8:19
2. Even though the KJV and other Christian translation carry it, there are no term "false gods" as in "false Elohim" in the Hebrew Bible, just Elohim. Example: "Thou shalt have no other gods (Elohim) before me" - Exodus 20:3
3. Judges are called Elohim: Exodus 21:6 / Exodus 22:8.
An altar is called Elohim: Genesis 33:20.
Angels are called Elohim: Psalms 8:6
4. To the Trinitarians; if the name "Elohim" denotes the triune nature of God, why doesn't the truine God refer to Himself as Elohim or Elyai Shaddai instead of the singular "El Shaddai"? Isn't it ironic that Elohim states: "I am the El Shaddai; walk before me, and be thou perfect." - Genesis 17:1 (Also see Genesis 35:11).
5. Though the later writings of the New Testament gave hints of a Trinity (I John 5:7) the doctrine of the Trinity wasn't ratified by Christianity until the Nicene Council in 325 CE. The picture at the top is taking from the Nicene Council decree. Paul (the New Testament chief overseer) never implies that Jesus was one of three "persons" making up the Trinity (I Corinthians 11:3) but rather the "Godhead" was a system that God (singular) used for revealing Himself (Romans 1:20 / Colossians 1:15).
6. Some will use the male and female of mankind (Genesis 5:2) as a type of the Trinity. However, there is a reason why out of all the creation Adam was originally alone and without a mate. If God had created two separate individuals as He did with the animal kingdom in an original creation that was to be after His image then we could say God was indeed multiple in personhood. The reality is that man in singular form is an attribute of God, and woman (also in singular form) is the image of man. The New Testament scriptures of Ephesians 1:4 and I Corinthians 11: 7-8 should confirm this to the Trinitarians. Besides, giving man is both male and female doesn't add up to there being "three" as to somehow reflect a truine Trinity Godhead called God.

112 comments:

Andrew said...

I really did appreciate your exposotion of the hebrew scriptures proving that there is only one GOD. However you briefly mention the oneness teaching of the Godhead and reference a Scripture in revelation to try to disprove it. If you study oneness teaching it is simply this: Jesus is Emmanuel which is God with us. THERE IS ONLY ONE GOD. The God with us in Jesus is the same Jehovah who was not with us in humanity in the o.t. There can not be a multiplicity of gods. Any distinction shown between the father and the son is between Jesus' humanity and GOD'S DEITY. Not a distinction between persons in a Godhead. I am a oneness believer who has been filled with the Spirit of the ONE TRUE GOD and baptized in his name which is Jesus and means "Jehovah has become my salvation"

Joe Whitehead said...

To Andrew,
You wrote: "Any distinction shown between the father and the son is between Jesus' humanity and GOD'S DEITY"
Q. Since Jesus' "humanity" was supposedly over long before the book of Revelation was written, why does Jesus speaking in the present refer to God as his "father" in places such as Revelation 2:27, Revelation 3:5, and Revelation 3:2, not to mention the "heavenly symbolic vision of Revelation 14:1?

For some reason Paul (the founder of Church doctrine) didn't make the distinction you have. Perhaps you should read Paul opening salutations such as I Thessalonians 1:1-3 more closely?

I always like to ask where did Jesus' humanity go which defines him as to who he was - as it does all of us? Did all of his humanity vaporize after the ascension?

Regardless of whether you wish to separate Jesus' humanity from God's deity the Christian doctrine and concept as a whole is not only embraces humanity (see my blog entitled "Is God a Man?") but humanity is the very foundation of Christianity which is something that God of the Jewish scriptures forbids: Psalms 146:3 "Put not your trust in princes, nor, in the "son of man" (humanity) in whom there is no salvation." (literally using the Hebrew root "no yeshuah"! Did you get that Andrew?

The name "Emanuel" meaning "God with us" did not originate with the founding of the Christian doctrine but several hundred years before. The close reading Isaiah 7:14-16 demonstrates that "God with us" was during the time of Isaiah, not several hundred years into the future.

The name of Jesus is a name of humanity (a human name). Not one time in the Christian Bible does "God the Father" call Himself "Jesus". In fact, not one time does the Christian Bible ever state the Name of God of which God Himself states over and over - again and again is his true personal Name via the prophets:

Ex. 20:2-3 "I am YHVH"
Ex. 6:2-3 "I am YHVH"
Joel 2:32 "And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the Name of YHVH shall be delivered.."
Theme of Ezekiel chapter 34 "You shall know that "I am YHVH"
Theme of Ezekiel chapter 36 "I am YHVH"

Amos 5:8 "...YHVH is His name"
Jeremiah 31:35 "YHVH (of hosts) is His Name"
***Isaiah 42:8 "I am YHVH that is My Name"****
Micah 4:5 "...and we will walk in the "Name of YHVH" our God forever and ever"

Therefore Andrew, if you christian emphasis is "not" on Jesus' humanity why be baptized in a name given to a "son of man" (humanity) as Jesus call himself (Matthew 8:20 one verse of many) instead of the very and most personal Name of the al-mighty God?

Andrew said...

First of all I'd like to thank you for responding to my comment. Although you disagree and stress your point of contention I find it very valuble to read your point of view which by doing so and searching the Word of God sharpens my faith in the truth.
First to answer your question on why distinction is shown in the book of revelation between the father and the son when his human flesh has long since died and resurrected I give this simple response: because he still has a body. God is not a man God is Spirit. God is almighty and cannot be limited to human restrictions. The son is the avenue through which almight God manifested himself to the world. Though the body has been risen the body is still alive and glorified. This simply put explains the distinction in the book of revelation without making two gods or as trinitarians call them two persons necessary.

I also disagree with your stating that Paul shows no such distinction because he frankly does in:

1Timothy 3:16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness God was manifest in the flesh...

Romans 1:3 Concerning His SON Jesus Christ our Lord, WHICH WAS MADE OF THE SEED OF DAVID ACCORDING THE THE FLESH. (Emphasis mine.) I can provide other scriptures if you so desire and require but these sufficiently prove a distinction between humanity and deity. "God was manifest IN the flesh." (emphasis mine) God was not THE FLESH. Jesus was made of the seed of David "ACCORDING TO THE FLESH" (Emphasis mine.)
Emmanuel. God with us. Many O.T scriptures have a present meaning for the time and a future meaning. Remember it was not contemporary Christians who decided what that meant but the Jews of old such as Matthew. All the first Christians on Pentecost were Jews my friend.

Joe Whitehead said...

To Andrew, post: July 13, 2010 12:49 PM

Let me continue my "stress your point of contention" less we pass over the fact the millions of Jews murdered under the shadow of the cross. And please, save your speech how they wasn't "real" Christians, I'm only stating that because of your of "stress of contention" comment.

So let me get this, "because he still has a body" he refers to a position than is higher authority head than himself(I Corinthians 11:3)?

I'm sure we could go around and around with God manifested in flesh of which the Trinitarians agree given the fact he prayed to himself, but what happened to his humanity life of how one is known eternally including ourselves? Unless your stating that all Christian become God the Father, Jesus' humanity is how he is known to God, so what happened to his humanity that could "will" different than the Father - Matthew 26:39? Did it vaporize at the ascension unto the Father?

Your emphasis in capital letters "WHICH WAS MADE OF THE SEED OF DAVID ACCORDING THE THE FLESH is odd given the fact the a "VIRGIN BORN MAN" can't be David's heir "ACCORDING TO THE FLESH". And before you start trying to unbiblically explain how the tribal affiliation of Judah came through the woman or that Jesus was "adopted" of which he still could not inherit David flesh (Psalms 132:11)just should me the linage portion in Matthew or Luke (the verse) that carries Mary's name in that linage.

Being that scriptures mean two different accounts (double prophecy) please tell me the names of the two kings Isaiah was talking about in Jesus' time in Isaiah 7:15-16 - remember its all or nothing when it comes to prophesy lest you are wanting to pick and choose potions of prophesy that fits your doctrine - so the two kings names mentioned in Isaiah 7:15-16?

I know, I know, I'm just stressing a contentious point. :)

Andrew said...

I would like to point out that all the first Christians were Jews. Mathew, Mark, John, Peter, Paul and so on. Do you not think they knew the scriptures? Think of Paul, born a jew, raised a Pharisee, of the tribe of Benjamin, he sat at the feet of Gamaliel, do you not think that this Jew of Jews who had his boast in the law knew the Old Testament? His own consience would condemn him if he spent his whole life arguing for what is wrong and then ultimately giving his life for it. What rational, educated man (such as Paul) would give there life for what they understand to be a fallacy??? Or Peter the Jew who hung on a cross upside down for the faith he once died, he was, infact,a jew! James, the brother of the Lord who grew up whith him ended up giving his life for him because he recongnized that he gave his life not for h is brother but for his God. And again to Paul who had his place secure in the arms of Judaism, fighting against the faith, consenting to the death of Christians all through Israel, how does a Christian killer become a Christian preacher except that his conversion be trulty a divine interuption from the almighty. Would you endure ridicule, torture, pain and even death for a mere lie??? Neither would Paul, he, with his Jewish heritage endured martyrdom for Jesus, his Lord and his God.

Your mention of Jews who died under the "shadow of the cross" is ironic considering the one who died on the cross Himself was a Jew! His disciples were Jews. His church started with the outpouring of the Holy Spirit in Jerusalem as prophesied by Joel. God worked from Jerusalem outward to eventually save the gentiles and the "uttermost parts of the earth." But the essence of Christianity is Jewish in itself.

You know the answers to those questions about being the son of David already.As far as the humanity of Jesus what we do know is that he is risen in a glorified body that as Paul says in Corinthians is not the same "flesh" as mortal flesh. We know he is risen from the testimony of his JEWISH following and we know the words of Deuteronomy 6:4 The Lord our God is one Lord. That's the facts.

I'm purposefully ignoring your last question because I don't see how answering it would edify this discussion. Feel free to anwer it yourself if you please.

You over used my statement about a point of contention. I intened to keep this online discussion as respectful as possible while still being able to reason about controversial things.

In the end every mouth and tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord to the Glory of God the Father. (Written by the apostle Paul who was himself, a Jew.)

Joe Whitehead said...

To Andrew, response to post July 14, 2010 2:34 PM
Part 1

Andrew,
You’re obviously not wanting this discussion to go further than your “Yeshua Christianity” but since I’m not avoiding nor “dodging” any of your statements or questions, please give me the same consideration.

Many people who study antisemitism (including myself) see the Gospels to be the “first source” (of many to come afterward) “blood libels” (deocide) of which would “inspire” many centuries of Christendom taking violent aggression upon Jewish communities even to this very day.

Fact: Outside the bias antisemitic Christian text there are no historical records of Jewish masses attempting to annihilate Christian communities during the first century or any other century following. Josephus describes how certain Jewish factions were trying to kill each other based upon political agendas, but not singling out Christians on religious grounds like the Christian text might have one to believe. On the other hand, the cross-displaying Christian Crusaders, the Christian Inquisitors, the Christian ideology-based Pogroms, and Christian Europe’s Holocaust are all historically undeniable!

Fact: Jesus was just one of many Jews crucified by the Romans that would later become the Roman Catholic Christian Church of power.
Yes, it was the New Testament "absolved" Gentile-Roman “nail-drivers” with “hammer in hand” who literally crucified your “Jewish” Jesus, not “the Jews” (as St. John repeatedly defines them) who were under heavy Roman subjugation.

Paul’s confessed sin of killing apostate Jews via Roman (future Catholic) authority (himself being a Roman citizen and all) gave way to killing Jews spiritually under the “Gentile name” of Paul!

Paul was supposedly taught under Gamaliel (the educated Jew) yet it was Gamaliel that is portrayed as giving council to not harm the Christians (Acts 5:34-35). Right? So then, was Saul (who decided to go by a gentile name later) just not a good student while sitting under the prestigious Gamaliel???
Why don’t you think about that and give the answer to that question - with no dodging!
[End of part one response]

Joe Whitehead said...

To Andrew, response to post July 14, 2010 2:34 PM
Part 2

Tell me Andrew, based upon your principle of “Jewish education to conversion” does the fact that the leading Holocaust deniers are not Gentiles but are educated Jewish academics with gentile first and second names, like “Norman Gary Finkelstein” for example, give you pause about Paul’s education?
Would you say that such Holocaust-denying Jewish men of academics give greater substantiation to the concept of Holocaust denial than any gentile ever could?
Given your “method of reason” to believe the conversion of an educated Jew can’t be wrong, should we then become Communists since the “Father of Communism” Karl Marx was a “converted Jew” from a long line of prestigious rabbis? Perhaps Andrew, you should study “educated” Jewish apostates like the gentle named Benedict Spinoza (1632-77) or maybe the highly Jewish educated Pablo Christiani who also changed his name from Saul to Paul at his conversion - and was instrumental in forcing the Jews to wear pre-Hitler Jew-identifying badges in the 13th century. Maybe you could learn about how the Grand Inquisitor of the Spanish Inquisition - Grand Tomas de Torquemada was indeed a product of Jewish conversion. Perhaps you can trace “Jewish apostasy” like I have, all the way back to Korah (Numbers 16:1-3)?

You need to pick up this month current issue of National Geographic and check out the Pakistan article. There you will see a picture of a man who literally beat his own back into a hideous bloody mess for the sake of his Islamic faith. Seriously Andrew, check it out, then think about the literal millions of body pieces Islamic shahid martyrs blow themselves into, and not only themselves but their veru own flesh and blood children as well, in order to express their Islamic faith.
Bottom line Andrew: Martyrdom of any kind DOES NOT validate the martyr’s faith!

(Bonus Question) When you say it was “a Jew” on the cross, are you suggesting The Holy Spirit had sex or “infertilization” with a Jewish women (Matthew 1:18) via sperm creation into Mary’s personal egg or was the sperm and egg created by God outside of Mary normal body - of which would make Jesus a non-Jew all around?
I'm not trying to be funny or mean, this is something to think about when trying understanding Christianity's claims. It is not a topic to just not worry about if one is seeking unadulterated biblical truth of God's nature and plan.

Now, back to the questions you dodged:
Q. How can a virgin born man be of the tribe of Judah when he has no father ties that connects him to Judah himself?

Q. Being that Isaiah 7:14-16 is a duel prophecy, who was “the virgin” in Isaiah’s time?

Andrew said...

Yes, many other people and Jews were crucified and the hand of the Romans however there was no one of them who was completely sinless except for Jesus. If you remember the passover Lamb had to be without spot or blemish and likewise Jesus who was crucified on the passover (that's no coincidence) was sinless which is what made him the only one to be qualified to be the "Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world." as spoken by John the Baptist (a Jew himself who fulfilled the prophesy of being a forerunner.)

I was not stating that any educated Jew converting to something made that something valid in all cases whatsovever I was pointing out that the following of Jews who believed Jesus was the Messiah based on O.T. prophesy give us a reason to consider that not only were they sincere but that any modern Jew should atleast consider the possibility of their claims having validity.

The bible says that the Holy Spirit overshadowed Mary and that Jesus was born of the Holy Spirit that's as far as it explains concerning his immaculate conception. I prefer to speak where the bible speaks and not speak where it dosn't. It takes FAITH to believe the word of God.

Also I never claimed that any martyr has the truth just because they are willing to die for it but was pointing out that in the christianity that the Jews had they would surely have been able to see if they were wrong base off of the scriptures but instead it was the fulfillment of the scriptures that they died for. These facts should be considered by a modern day Jew.

As for Isaiah 7:14 you well know the disagreement between Christians and Jews as for the purpose of the Hebrew word almah. One contends that it is just a young maiden and the other contends that it is a virgin. Either way Mathew uses it to point out the birth of Jesus and Jesus being Emmanuel which is God with us. No matter your point of view on the fact I would just like to point out that the person to interpret this passage was not a king james translator but a Jewish man named Mathew. If this is a double prophecy (one that is to be fulfilled near it's announcement and also later-I'm not saying it is or is not) Then I suppose it would probably refer to a young maden in the first sense and a virgin in the other. If you have an opinion on this feel free to express it. I wasn't dodging the question i simply didn't find it important and wanted to focus on other things because it indulges in hyupotheticals.

You know I do not consider any man who would kill a Jew a Christian. Therefor any one who claims christianity and kills one is not a Christian whether they be a crusader, extremist or otherwise. Note that Christ-ian means to be Christ-like or to be a little-Christ. Keeping that in mind and bearing in our theology the fact that Christ died for all of mankind a true Christian would rather be killed than kill. I know you know that but needed to express it since you further pressed the issue.

Also I do know that Romans killed Jesus but keeping in mind it was the Sandhedrin who gave them consent thus it was both Jews and Gentilies who put him on the cross. Both were responsible. He paid for both's sin's.

I have some questions for you Joe.

The Jewish religion has not had the ability to make sacrafices for over 2000 yrs. Animal sacrafices are what rolls away sins over and over in the Jews religion. You have not had the ability to make sacrafices for over two thousand years. That would mean that no Jew has had atonement for their sins for over two thousand years! How are your sins taken away? How will any Jew go to be with their God when they have had no atonement? The sacraficial system ended bacause Jesus fulfilled in on the cross. I can be comfterable knowing that my sins have been remmitted. What about you Joe?

Joe Whitehead said...

To Andrew - Response to post July 16, 2010 3:42 PM - Part 1

You made eight statement paragraphs of which I'll respond in order:

1. Your statement here is self-fulfilling in vindicating itself. It remains me "in principle" of Islam's view that by rejecting Islam you are thereby "making war" against Islam, giving Islam the rightful means to defend themselves in form of holy jihad so you can be "freed" from man's servitude so that you can "freely" choose Allah - thereby making Islam a religion of peace!
In my blog "Is God a Man" I address the "sinless" - Jesus" issue. If you don't want to read it, here are the scriptural references based on Numbers 23:19 - I Samuel 15:29: Matthew 16:28, Matthew 10:23, Matthew 24:34, Romans 13:12, Revelations 3:11 / 22:7,12,20

2. And the following are some of the great many things a modern Jew should consider when a Christian tries to pass off the possibility of Christian claims having validity:
A. In-Gathering of the House of Israel exiles - Jeremiah 16:15 / Ezekiel 37:24-25
During Jesus' time, there was a Jewish diaspora - just the exact opposite of the prophecies.
B. Building of the third and final temple - Ezekiel 37:26-28 / Ezekiel chapters 40-48 / Isaiah 33:20 / Amos 9:11. During Jesus' time, the Jewish temple was torn down - just the exact opposite of the prophecies.
C. Universal knowledge of the God of Israel - Isaiah 11:9 / Jeremiah 31:33 / Zechariah 14:9. During Jesus' time, a very small percentage of the world's population knew anything about him, or about the Torah and God of Israel - just the exact opposite of the prophecies.
D. World Peace - Isaiah 2:4 / Isaiah 11:6-8
During Jesus' time, the Jewish nation was being subjugated by Rome which led to the greatest Jewish tragedies in 70CE and 132 CE. - just the exact opposite of the prophecies.
E. Resurrection of the Dead - Isaiah 26:19 / Daniel 12:2 / Ezekiel 37:12-13
Though the New Testament claims that some graves of the saints were opened (Matthew 27:52-53) the Hebrew prophecy is that "all" the graves are to be opened, and not just "all" the saints, but "all" the wicked as well, unto everlasting shame and abhorrence - Daniel 12:2
F. From the Tribe of Judah - Number 1:18-44 / Numbers 34:14 / Leviticus 23:10
Bible based "tribal affiliation" came directly from the father, not the mother. In order for Jesus to even be considered a Dividical king-messiah, he would have to be a "seed" from the Judean tribe - not a virgin born demigod, who of such origin, would be bypassing the Biblical requirement and prophecy of Genesis 49:10.

3. "Faith" is what Mormons, Jehovah Witnesses, and Muslims have. It is what one is willing to have faith in or on the negative side, "blindly follows" that counts Andrew.
As for as ancient-theology of "virgin births" go, YOU should consider the following:
A. "The "sky gods," patriarchal male figures who resided on mountaintops such as Olympus, often came down to Earth to take human wives. "Virgin births" were common-a union of the "Father god" with a human maiden." - Answers.com > http://www.answers.com/topic/greek-gods-and-goddessess

B. The mythical story of the foundation of Rome (7 1/2 centuries before Jesus) starts with the god of Mars fathering the human female (Vestal) Virgin Rhea Silvia with two human males Romulus and Remus.

C. "The Ancient Egyptians believed that their Pharaoh was the god Horus, son of Re, the sun god. When a pharaoh died he was believed to be united with the sun and then a new Horus ruled on earth."

D. Alexander the Great, though having an earthly father named Phillip, believed as did his own mother to be fathered by a god, and even called himself the "son of god"!
End part 1 response

Joe Whitehead said...

To Andrew - Response to post July 16, 2010 3:42 PM - Part 2

4. You seem to think everything is "cut and dry" with the Jews / Judaism. If the 1st. century Sadducees couldn't believe in a resurrection of the dead,(and were wiling to die for their faith "as they did" during the Roman wars) why don't you consider the possibility that the Jewish Nazarenes were just as much a heretic towards the Torah and the prophets as were the Sadducees? The only reason Christianity survived was because it became a "Gentile religion" based on "Gentile named" Paul (Pauline) doctrine.

5. Actually the book as Matthew didn't sign off "sincerely your Matthew" but was written several decades later beyond Jesus' lifetime of which like most Christians today stop at verse 14 but leave out verse 15-16 of the text creating an allusion within the Christian text outside the context of the Hebrew scripture.
Andrew, can't you see how you are willing to "pick and chose" portions of scripture with your "young maiden then virgin" suggestion and then calling it faith? So the two kings mentioned in verse 16 that the "land will forsake during the first two years of Jesus' life are Herod and Nero? You may wish to pick and chose a foundation for your faith Andrew, but I'm not.

6. Your meek Christ-like statement is fine however, there is a fact of so-called Christ-like Christians "continuing" the goal set by those which began the Christian Jewish murdering of which is to destroy the everlasting covenant God has with the Jews.
What has preserved the Jewish people to this very day is in-part their persistence of rejecting their "replacement" in Christianity's "replacement theology" that denies Israel's one true God (via the Trinity) and "spiritualizing the land of Israel and Abraham's physical seed to Eretz Yesrael!
End of response 2

Joe Whitehead said...

To Andrew - Response to post July 16, 2010 3:42 PM - Part 3

7. The New Testament totally absolves the Romans for committing "deocide". In fact the Ethiopian Orthodox Church venerates Pontius Pilate as "Saint" of all things! Only the Jews are demonized both in the Gospels and in Paul's letters. The Romans couldn't have "killed their own prophets" therefore being "contrary to all men" God's "wrath may come upon them (not the Gentile Romans) "to the uttermost" as Gentile named "Paul" writes in I Thessalonians 2:14-16

It must be noted that it was words such as these from Gentile-named Paul and the Gospels calling the Jews "devils"in places like John 8:44 that has cause "Christian world antisemitism" and Christian-on-Jew mass murders down throughout the ages. I don't recall any age old "blood libels" being lobbied against the Italians (formally Romans) on the world stage, have you?

8.Andrew,I go through this Christian thought in great detail on my blog entitled, "Is Human Blood Kosher for Sin Atonement">
http://judaism-now.blogspot.com/2009/05/is-human-blood-sacrifice-kosher-for-sin.html

Here is two small excerpts:
A. Leviticus 5:11 "But if he be not able to bring two turtledoves, or two young pigeons, then he that sinned shall bring for his offering the tenth part of an ephah of fine flour for a sin offering; he shall put no oil upon it, neither shall he put any frankincense thereon: for it is a sin offering."
This was a non-blood sacrifice that allowed the very poor to offer a sin-offering. Note, if it was blood that was absolutely required for sin and God is no respecter of persons, how then did the very poor get off without typing Jesus with a blood sacrifice of sin? I have yet to get a clear-cut answer from a Christian apologist.

B. One has to wonder how Jesus as "the son of man" forgave sins [before] the blood-required antitype Calvary-atonement was made? After all, "all sin" in the Christian view required "blood"?
See Matthew 9:2-5 / Luke 7:47 compared with Hebrews 9:22.
Concerning such a Christian response as "Jesus was God, therefore he could forgive sins" then such a one must be reminded that it was the same "God" that "required blood" all through the "Old Testament" and required His son's blood (Jesus) in the New Testament, according to Christian doctrine. Therefore, again, how did Jesus forgive sins between the time of animal blood-sacrifices and Jesus' blood sacrifice, when it took blood (Roman 9:22) to forgive sins?

Joe Whitehead said...

To Andrew,
One thing I forgot to ask, if you had any thought as to why gentile-named Paul went out killing Christians when such acts were against his prestigious "rabbi Gamaliel" teaching in (Acts 5:34-35) of whom he "supposedly" sat under?

Andrew said...

First of all Joe, I feel you are using a straw-man argument. Your are arguing with beliefs that I do not adopt. You argue about Christian anti-semitism. (which oxymoronic) I am not anti-semetic neither do I accept any anti-Jew person as being correct in their view. I do not care if supposed "orthodox" ethiopian church vererated Pontius Pilate as a saint because historically it is obvious that what is so called orthodox is usually a majority vote of peoples opinions which is often wrong. The one orthodox document we have is the Bible- Old and New Testaments which is in no way anti-semitic. Paul (Saul) said he would rather die himself than see the nation of Israel be lost. Paul promoted in his letters the fact that Israel was chosen as a nation by God and God would keep his promises to them. No Hebrew hatred there Joe. Show me in the New Testament scriptures where it clearly advocates killing Jews! Quote it word for word. Where does it say that if in fact early Christians were as pessimistic toward the Hebrew children as you believe? Show me I'm confident anything you bring up can be disproven to say what you imply by studying the exegisis of the passage.

And again another straw-man argument. I do not believe in some sort of Christian Jihad. I do not believe there should be any religous battle (other than perhaps metaphoricly) for the Christian faith. Christians shedding the blood of other religions is not Christian, plain and simple. Show me in the N.T. where it says we should go and kill peopleso we and they can be free to serve God? Can you find it? I can show you many places where the contrary is said.

Next: Every religion and sect accuses the other of picking and choosing what to believe. Islams to Jews, Jews to Christians etc. I could say the same to you for choosing to avoid the passages of scripture that obviously point towards the Savior of the world but since every one who disagrees with someone says that I prefer not to because it is a biased accusation unfounded except in the perceptions of the one accusing.

And again I do not promote blindly following anything. In the book of Acts it says the Bereans were better than the other people because they searched the scriptures daily to see if what the apostles said were true.

Please Joe stop arguing with me about what I don't believe and we'll get a lot further a lot quicker.

Andrew said...

I would appreciate it if you could answer my last question. Yes you talked about whether or not human blood was "kosher" and asked a few questions concerning Jesus forgiving sin but I asked you something more personal

"HOW ARE YOUR SINS REMMITED JOE?"

Concerning Jesus forgiving sin I can say it was not only because he was God but because he recognized he would shed his blood for those people. John said it "behold the Lamb of God that takes away the sin of the world!"

Joe Whitehead said...

To Andrew - Response to post July 19, 2010 8:40 AM Part 1

You may think that Christian antisemitism is an "oxymoron" Andrew but the Jews who were burned alive on July 15 1099 in their synagogue in Jerusalem by cross-displaying Crusaders while they sang ""Christ, We Adore Thee!, Thee are our light, our direction, our love" and quoting "St. John 15:6" Christian antisemitism was the cause of their horrifying death.

Paul (so Gentile named) sought the total spiritual destruction of the Jewish people as the Chosen People under the eternal covenant!
A. Paul advocated the abandonment of the physical seed of Abraham (Jew inwardly 'spiritual seed' concept) while even encouraging man and women not to marry and have physical "Jewish" seed! I mean, how anti physical seed of Jacob can one get?

B. Paul denounced the physical Jerusalem (as being apart of Judaism) for a "heavenly Jerusalem" concept even though "physical Jerusalem" is in the "eternal covenant" plan of YHVH.

C. Paul's doctrine included the doing away (as in 'The End') with the Torah for the "Law of Christ" concept which is the most anti-Jewish thing he could have done while bearing his Gentile name!

Bottom line fact: If all of Israel would have become Christianized in the first century like Paul was striving so religiously hard for, there wouldn't be a people identifying themselves as physical descendants from Jacob (Israel) today! No "Zionism" (which every Jew-hater hates - for a spiritual reason) would be present because only the "Heavenly Jerusalem" doctrine would have prevailed, and get this Andrew, there would be no Christianity due to the fact "PRESENT JUDAISM" GIVES IT ITS STABILITY IN WORLD CONCEPT OF RELIGION JUST LIKE IT DOES ISLAM!
Therefore Paul (Gentile named and all) was very, very, antisemitic in religious theory and doctrine. He was "religious antisemitic" towards the eternal covenant just like 'most Christians' (especially the Jewish Christians with Gentile first names) are today.
[End of response Part 1]

Joe Whitehead said...

To Andrew - Response to post July 19, 2010 8:40 AM Part 2

You know Andrew, I can't find a New Testament scripture that advocates (outright) the killing of Jews, boy you got me there! Congratulations!
However, being a lover of history I can't seem to find mention of a "historical document" of Hitler giving the marching order to those under him to wipe out all of Jewish Europe? Perhaps you could up with one Andrew? I'll keep looking in the New Testament for as you put it, "word for word" avocation of killing Jews, and I'll let you search for Hitler's "word for word" marching orders to wipe European Jewry. When you find it, do as you suggested to me, "quote it word for word". Deal?

Fact: In the spiritual world of antisemitism very few movement leaders from neo-Nazis to the General Secretary of the UN will ever give the marching orders outright that consist of physical murder of Jews (or the death of the State of Israel). There "marching orders are within "the demonizing of the Jews"! Can we find "that" in the New Testament Andrew???

I don't believe Paul (even being so Gentile named) would outright advocate Jewish "physical" murder, but still, he participated in demonizing the Jew charging them with the highest crime in the concept of man "DEOCIDE" the "murder of God" that flew open the gates of future Christians generations would act upon, and boy did they ever - and still are!

Paul charged "ALL JEWS" with Deocide and prophetcide even though 95% of world Jewry lived outside of Israel during Jesus' lifetime and only a small percentage of Jews knew about him of those actually living in Judea at that!
Therefore Andrew, I charge ALL CHRISTIANS with "Jew murder"! How about that? Even your "Protestant father" (by whom you're not a Catholic today) advocated the killing of Jews in his work, "On the Jews and Their Lies - 1543". Christians has historically labeled "all Jews" as "Christ killers" therefore, I'll label 'all Christians" as "Jew killers"! Again, how about that? It's like I tell Muslims, "Jihad goes both ways buddy boy!"
Therefore Andrew, don't expect me to give your oneness doctrine special consideration when your beloved Paul whom you follow so deeply, didn't give any one single Jew outside his Christianity special consideration in his condemnation all Jews as "contrary to all men" and "damned to the uttermost"- of which I consider all Jew-Killing Christians to be!
[End a response part 2]

Joe Whitehead said...

To Andrew - Response to post July 19, 2010 8:40 AM Part 3

Funny thing about Judaism, they "defend" not proselytize! Since they have "the original" set of scriptures by a thousand years there is no reason the "pick and chose" just maintain as ordered in their instructions - II Kings 17:37 (read it and then compare it to Romans 10:4 and see who's "picking and choosing!)
Christian doctrine can't even stay within the very context in which it was written of it's so-called "proof texts" - then you want to claim Judaism "picks and chooses" like Christians? Get "spiritually" real Andrew! It should be greatly obvious how you "picked and chose what you wanted to believe over the simple context of Isaiah 7:14-16 of which you still having told me the two kings names in the so-called "double prophesy" have you?

I wonder if the the Bereans, could read the Hebrew scriptures in the original Hebrew? If not, don't you think they missed out on the deeper meaning laying within the Hebrew Torah (I'm actually hoping you challenge me on this). How much Hebrew do you know Andrew?

Stop denying what lays spiritually underneath what you believe, then I'll stop arguing with you what "you say" you don't believe.
[End of response 3]

Joe Whitehead said...

To Andrew - Response to post July 19, 2010 8:47 AM

My detailed answer to your question is very detailed in my blog that I posted, but since you obviously didn't want to read the detailed version I'll give you a simple and quick answer:
My sins are removed as far as the east is from the west (Yes that's so-called Old Testament) the same way the Jews in Babylon and Persia was forgiven their sins for 550 plus years before Jesus' lifetime. How's that Andrew? Know your history Andrew?

Guess what? There was no temple in Babylon to "sacrifice" on. Oh no, what's a Jew going to do?
Here's a challenge for you Andrew, go read I Kings 8:46-50 and ask yourself "where's that "blood sacrifice" mentioned at???" Surely it's in there somewhere?

So just how did David get his murdering-sin of Uriah forgiven when there was no "blood sacrifice atonement" for murder as we read in Psalms 51:16-19? Hey, maybe, just maybe, I can get my sins blotted out just like O.T. David did - and I never had anybody killed like he did Uriah! Wow, how bout that, huh?
Now you know Andrew how my sins are not just remitted but removed as far as the east is from the west. If you have any more questions on my sins being removed, don't hesitate to ask.

You sure are bypassing a lot of my questions to be "demanding" me answering yours.
I mean, did you not read the scripture text of Lev. 5:11? So try and answer it this time:
Q.How then did the very poor according to Lev. 5:11 get off without typing Jesus with a blood sacrifice of sin when Hebrews 9:22 clealy, (and I do mean clearly) states: "without the shedding of blood is no remission"?
We can also use that "clear statement" on Jesus' forgiven of sins without the shedding of blood "first" as clearly illustrated in Hebrew 9:22. Sorry, I don't care how much Jesus supposedly knew he would later shed his own blood, the illistration in Hebrew 9:22 is in fact the shedding of blood COMES FIRST then the forgiveness comes- that's bottom line!
But, let's not get tangled up in that, just try an answer the Lev. 5:11 question if you don't mind.

I'm still waiting on that Gamilel teaching - Paul killing connection (not listening to his teacher answer). This is only my third time mentioning it.

Joe Whitehead said...

To Andrew:
Here are some questions to think about:
Q. Just what was YHVH take on "Human sacrifice" throughout the "entire" Hebrew scriptures?

Q. What was the Hebrew Scripture take on "vicarious" atonement?

Q. What was the Hebrew Scriptures take on the practice of astrology? You know the kind practice by the "wise men" found in the Gospels?

Q. What is the history of Vestal Virgins of Rome? Wouldn't you say that a Roman carved image of a vestal virgin looks a whole lot like, oh say...Mary?> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vestal_Virgin
I wonder according to Roman legend that some of these Vestal virgins were impregnated by oh say...the god of Mars?

Q. Is it said that Rome didn't convert to Christianity but Christianity converted to Rome?

Just some minor questions to perhaps think about.
I wonder in Roman leng

Andrew said...

Answer # 1

The fact that Hitler was anti-Jew is without question however you make the audacious comparison between Hitler and Paul the apostle; this is asenine. Paul was not a general over a Christian army who attempted to wipe out the Jewish race so not only did he not write it but there were no actions taken during the apostolic (not post-apostolic) era to interpret early Christians as being anti-Hebrew. Joe, that comparison you offered is on a sandy foundation and holds no basis to support your faulty assumption that Christianity is an anti-semite religion. The facts are that many people claiming Christianity have hilled Jews just like many Jews claiming Judaism have actively worshipped idols. You cannot, I repeat, CANNOT paint a picture of a belief system based off of the people whose actions are contrary to the religion they claim and consider your outcome accurate!

Andrew said...

That's the first answer but right now I'm low on time so I'll have to get back to the others next week. Thankyou.

Joe Whitehead said...

To Andrew, [Response to post dated July 23, 2010 1:28 PM]

My point was NOT to compare Paul with Hitler method of Jew-murder but to point out that just because the New Testament doesn't give the "marching orders" to kill Jews within the text doesn't mean antisemitism is not present. What "IS" present within the New Testament is the "demonization of the Jewish people" (that Paul is clearly guilty of) who don't accept the Gentile-demigod method of worship found in Christianity. One might even say that the religious antisemitism found within and started the New Testament built up among the Gentile Christians for over two millenniums that ultimately caused the Christian-Europe Holocaust to strike the Jews!

Antisemitism is not limited to physically killing Jews. The "motive" is what is behind antisemitism. Where Christianity does compare to Hitler, Hamas, the Inquisitions, the pogroms, and "all" enemies against the Jewish people is the motive to annihilate the eternal covenant YHVH has with the Jewish people.
Again, I'm not saying that the New Testament wants to murder Jews "like Hitler" but it does want to annihilate the everlasting covenant "as did Hitler" though through a different method which was "conversion to a religion outside the covenant"!

Again, if all of Israel would have followed Paul in his Gentile-demigod method of worship (and I gave three direct N.T. methods in my last post) there would have been no nation of Israel / Jewish people in the world today - which is "proof" in and of itself that Christianity seeks the end of the Jewish nation and therefore the "end of the eternal covenant". Ironically, this has been every antisemite's goal down through the ages including Hitler's.

Joe Whitehead said...

Excerpts from my blog: Antisemitism Among the Three great Monotheistic Faiths:

General God-haters and antisemites alike know that once they can find a way to annihilate the Jews in any form, (either by physical death, religious conversion, and assimilation) they will in effect have killed God (see Psalms 115: 2,3) because the God of Israel is known by His covenant that He has established with the Jews and the nation of Israel (see Jeremiah 31:36)

It was never the intention of the All-Mighty that His Jewish nation to become like the other nations (Deuteronomy 7:6 / 14:2). Christianity and Islam are Gentile faiths of those other nations (see Deuteronomy 6:14). Though they use the Jewish scriptures as the foundation to their faith, however, their faith is Gentile oriented and Gentile maintained. Paul's conversion to Christianity caused his name to be changed from a Hebrew name of Saul to a Greco-Roman name of Paul (Acts 13:9). The name "Paul" remains a popular name among Gentiles while the name "Saul" (Solomon / Shlomo) remains popular among the Jews.

Hamas tries to murder the Jews away from their covenant while evangelicals try to covert the Jews away from their covenant. One of their biggest techniques is trying to convince the Jew that the Law of Moses is no longer in effect. There is an onslaught by both the Arabs and the Christians (the basic whole of the Gentile world) to takeover Jewish Israel. The Arabs want to make Israel an assimilated Muslim nation like all the other Muslim nations under the name of Palestine, while the Christians wish to make Israel an assimilated Christian nation like all the other Christian nations!

Andrew said...

The N.T does not only not support Jew killing but it does not support looking down on Jews either. If you remember the church head-quarters in the book of acts is in Jerusalem and the main leader is James, a Jew. They are the ones who wrote the letter you can find in Acts as to what the gentiles ought to observe and not observe, they are the ones who sent Paul and Barnabas on many of their missions. They spoke in the synagogues and testified of the things which they saw and heard. (Jesus risen from the dead) They understood that the original plan of God was to save the people through Jesus Christ.

Andrew said...

You speak of Christianity trying to leave and abolish the old covenant when the truth is the New Covenant was the purpose of God in the first place. What was the covenant to Abraham? In your seed will all the nations of the earth be blessed. Jesus is the seed of Abraham and therefor has blessed all the world through his atonement for mankind. What was God's Covenant to David? That someone will sit on his throne who would rule forever. Jesus is the seed of David (whether you want to argue about that or not.) and he will rule as king because the scripture says David's kingdom would have no end.

I'm not the one tossing out God's covenant!

Andrew said...

And how much of the Law of Moses do you keep Joe?

When is the last time you celebrated a sabbath YEAR as commanded in the Law that six years you shall work and the seventh you shall rest?

When is the last time you or any of the present living Jewish people had a Jubilee where debts were erased and lands were restored to the proper owners?

Do you wear "mixed" garments?

Have you been regularly offering animal sacrifices as prescribed and commanded in the Law of Moses?

When is the last time you offered a turtle dove, sheep, goat, or lamb?

Do you really stone the adulterers, murderers, and disobedient to the death? Tell me when is the last time YOU saw somebody get killed because they broke the SABBATH! Does it ever happen? If it doesn't then no one is keeping the Law!

Do you have cities of refuge for those who kill by accident as prescribed in the Law of Moses.

Is Israeli Government set up the way God prescribed. (Remember God was reluctant to give them a king.)

Where are the prophets Joe? Judaism after the Torah continued to have prophets who warned the people and spoke for God.

When you keep the passover do YOU sacrifice the passover Lamb. Remember anything else does not obey the Law of Moses.

HAVE YOU AS A NATION SUCCEEDED IN KILLING EVERY GENTILE NATION AROUND YOU WHO WORSHIPS IDOLS AS PRESCRIBED IN THE LAW OF MOSES???

That's only a few of many commands in the good ol' Law o' Moses that no Jew hardly in existence keeps.

As far as me reading Hebrew goes I'll tell you that I'm working on learning but in the meantime there are plenty of Hebrew lexicons and concordances that are ready to answer any of my questions.

However I do know enough ENGLISH to recognize when I read the Law that the New Testament is truly correct when it says that there is NO ONE WHO TRULY KEEPS ALL OF THE LAW AND DOES NOT OFFEND IN ONE THING! That's why there's grace.

Andrew said...

As to your comments concerning the annihilation of the Jewish faith I would simply state that apostles like James obviously did not feel that their Jewish faith was being annihilated but that he could practice his Jewish customs AND believe in Jesus without imposing those said customs on the gentile believers. You see this in the letter written to the gentile churches in the book of Acts. It does not bother me if a Jewish believer prefers to practice his/her Jewish customs and believe in the atoning blood of Jesus. In fact I think that would be wonderful. In the book of acts it mentioned that a "great number of the priests were obedient to the faith." They obviously did not feel their culture was compromised because they continued in their practices and yet they loved Jesus as their Messiah. I do believe that God will bless the nation of Israel.

I believe in praying for Jerusalem as the book of Psalms says.

Jesus said that his first and primary mission was to the nation of Israel and that the gentiles would come second. He was a Jew himself.

Paul said he would like to die so that Israel would be saved.

As for your accusation that Christianity says Jews killed a deity I would say this assumption is false.

This is why: GOD CANNOT DIE.

Reason number two: THE NEW TESTAMENT POINTS THE FINGER AT BOTH JEWS AND GENTILES IN RESPONSIBILITY FOR HIS DEATH. IF IT WERE ONLY JEWS THAT WERE RESPONSIBLE THEN ONLY JEWS' SINS WOULD BE ATONED FOR BUT AS YOU RECALL JEWS DELIVERED HIM TO THE ROMANS AND THE ROMANS KILLED HIM THEREBY CAUSING JEWS AND GENTILES TO HAVE EQUAL RESPONSIBILITY.

It seems you desire to make the New Testament to say something that it does not say.

How much Greek do you read?

Andrew said...

The Hebrew scriptures do not support looking to the stars to tell the future but in the book of Genesis God does state that they are for signs and seasons. Whether the star was a super-natural appearance to the wise men (how it moved and led them) or a natural phenomenon orchestrated by God there is no problem in supposing that God can use that to lead the wise men to Jesus.

As for the virgin birth myths my answer to you is that for every true thing that God does the Devil would like to make a counterfeit.

DID YOU KNOW THAT IN MANY WAYS THE LAW OF MOSES RESEMBLES THE PRACTICES OF PAGAN NATIONS THAT WERE CONTEMPORARY TO IT INCLUDING THE PRACTICE OF ANIMAL SACRIFICES?

HAVE YOU NOTICED THAT IN THE OLD TESTAMENT THERE ARE TRUE PROPHETS AND FALSE PROPHETS?

THE BOOK OF PROVERBS RESEMBLES ANCIENT PAGAN LITERATURE SO MUCH THAT EVEN LIBERAL SCHOLARS SUPPOSE THAT MUCH OF IT WAS PLAGIARIZED.

(caps for emphasis)

You see when it comes to textual criticism in comparison to contemporary unbelieving cultures and testing their influence upon what we consider to be holy writ even the O.T. has problems and questions.

Do I turn these problematic criticisms into a reason to exclude the canon of the Old Testament? Absolutely not because I understand that the devil likes to counterfeit the truths that God makes with similar lies. WHETHER THEY APPEAR BEFORE OR AFTER THE TRUTHS GOD MAKES DOES NOT MATTER BECAUSE AS YOU NOTICES THE CRITICISMS ON THE LAW OF MOSES ORIGINATE FROM DOCUMENTS DATING PRIOR TO THE TORAH.

A little faith and spiritual understanding will do us all a lot of good.

Andrew said...

As for your ironic statement supposing that "Rome did not convert to Christianity but Christianity converted to Rome." I'll have you know that I am very against the teachings of Catholicism because of their idols and heresy against all scripture and on this one point I can agree with you along with a slight alteration.

The conversion of Constantine was obviously not authentic. I do not believe that TRUE Christianity converted to Rome but I do believe that the beliefs of Christianity and Roman Paganism (including Mythra worship) became intertwined to form a monstrosity called the Catholic church.

You keep on talking about "Christian nations" This terminology is in my diction only as a man-made idea but I do not believe it is in the vocabulary of God himself because when Jesus was before Pilate and asked whether or not he was a king his response was that he is but his kingdom is not of this world. Jerusalem is God's chosen nation. If it came between warring against Jerusalem or betraying America I would betray America because Jerusalem IS God's chosen NATION. As far as the church goes it is the body of Christ and only a nation metaphorically.

When the Jewish apostle John saw his revelation he said he say "nations and kindreds and tongues worshipping God.

Andrew said...

As for the scriptures take on human sacrifice I refer you to when God told Abraham to sacrifice his only and promised son; Isaac. This is not just a story but an allegory. Abraham takes his son up the mountain with the equipment to sacrifice but no sacrifice and Isaac asks him, as you recall, "where is the sacrifice?" Abraham responds "God will provide for himself a LAMB." REMEMBER IN GENESIS CHAPTER TWENTY VERSE SEVEN GOD CALLS ABRAHAM A PROPHET. (caps for emphasis.)

When Abraham and Isaac arrive at the top Abraham lifts up his dagger to sacrifice his only son. Just in time the angel of the Lord stops him from performing the act. And what do they find as a substitution? A ram caught in the thicket. Did they find a LAMB as Abraham said? NO! Abraham spoke prophetically of Jesus who was his promised seed and God's only begotten son who was sacrificed by his Father for the sins of the world thus making him in effect THE LAMB OF GOD. It is the book of HEBREWS that makes the connection between the story and it's prophetic meaning as to Jesus being God's only begotten son.

Jesus is Messiah

"But God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son that whosoever believes in him should not perish but have everlasting life."

Andrew said...

Jesus died for every one both past and present therefor David could have his sins forgiven before making sacrifice because he looked forward to the coming of the Messiah. Now we look backwards to his sacrifice.

My sins are all forgiven through the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus and so were David's only I look backwards and he looked forwards. How about yours?

Andrew said...

I gotten to all of your questions I could get to today. Again as opposed to your previous statements I am not trying to dodge anything.

By the way all the questions I asked pertaining to your keeping of the Law "Sabbath years, cities of refuge, mixed garments, etc. were not rhetorical.

Please go through each question about your keeping of the law and tell me yes or no on whether or not you keep those specific laws.

I would like to know. And in the future I will probably have more questions for you to answer yes or no to as to your keeping of the law.

As always Joe it is always a pleasure dialoguing with you about our differences.

Just in case you mistake my caps it is not "internet yelling" or anything like that but just things that if we were in person I would emphasize with the tone of my voice so caps are my substitute.

I look forward to your response and please first and foremost go through my questions on your law-keeping one by one and answer yes or no.

Thank you for this great opportunity for conversation between us.

Joe Whitehead said...

To Andrew (Response to Comments posted on July 28, 2010) Part 1

Point 1 A "counterfeit" is a bogus to an "original". A counterfeit cannot be an original. Human sacrifice which Torah / prophets hated was an original (it came first). Christianity is (a copy) of that "human sacrifice" original.

Point 2 Astrology (along with human sacrifice to God) is strictly forbidden Deut. 18:9-12

Point 3 "Vicarious Atonement" is strictly against Torah / Prophet teaching: The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: EVERY MAN SHALL BE PUT TO DEATH FOR HIS "OWN" SIN" Deuteronomy 24:16 - See also Ezekiel 18:20

Point 4 "Animal sacrifices" "originated" with Abel not pagan cult rituals! Trying to link pagan sacrifices with the Israelite sacrificial system in order to justify Christianity's pagan conception of "virgin births from the sky-gods" shows just how far you're willing to go in your gentile belief system.

Point 5 "Biblical criticism" will only go back as far as the Babylon Kingdom (6th cent. BCE) and doesn't even recognize a literal David and "Solomon" who wrote "Proverbs"and whose Empire influence stretched from the Nile River to the Euphrates River! I'd say the one who built the greatest building in all the world that the nations traveled to see, would be the one "copied after" by the pagans, not the other way around.

Point 6 I know enough Greek to know that The God of Israel's most personnel Name is not in the NT anywhere - which is quite a piece of evidence being that Christianity claim the God of Israel.

{End of Part 1}

Joe Whitehead said...

To Andrew (Response to Comments posted on July 28, 2010) Part 2

Fact: All Christian Holidays are pagan in origin:
Roman Pagan Religion: Attis was a son of the virgin Nana. His birth was celebrated on DEC-25. He was sacrificed as an adult in order to bring salvation to mankind. He died about MAR-25, after being crucified on a tree, and descended for three days into the underworld. On Sunday, he arose, as the solar deity for the new season. His followers tied an image of Attis to a tree on "Black Friday," and carried him in a procession to the temple. His body was symbolically eaten by his followers in the form of bread. Worship of Attis began in Rome circa 200 BCE

Greek Pagan Religion: Dionysus is another savior-god whose birth was observed on DEC-25. He was worshipped throughout much of the Middle East as well. He had a center of worship in Jerusalem in the 1st century BCE. Some ancient coins have been found in Gaza with Dionysus on one side and JHWH (Jehovah) on the other. In later years, his flesh and blood were symbolically eaten in the form of bread and wine. He was viewed as the son of Zeus, the Father God.

Egyptian Pagan Religion: Osiris is a savior-god who had been worshipped as far back as Neolithic times. "He was called Lord of Lords, King of Kings, God of Gods...the Resurrection and the Life, the Good shepherd...the god who 'made men and women be born again'" 5 Three wise men announced his birth. His followers ate cakes of wheat which symbolized his body. Many sayings associated with Osiris were taken over into the Bible.

This included:
23rd Psalm: an appeal to Osiris as the good Shepherd to lead believers through the valley of the shadow of death and to green pastures and still waters
Lord's Prayer: "O amen, who art in heaven..."
Many parables attributed to Jesus.
Worship of Osiris, and celebration of his DEC-25 birth, were established throughout the Roman Empire by the end of the 1st century BCE.

Persian Pagan Religion: Mithra was a Persian savior. Worship of Mithra became common throughout the Roman Empire, particularly among the Roman civil service and military. Mithraism was a competitor of Christianity until the 4th century. Their god was believed to have been born on DEC-25, circa 500 BCE. His birth was witnessed by shepherds and by gift-carrying Magi. This was celebrated as the "Dies Natalis Solic Invite," The "Birthday of the Unconquered Sun." Some followers believed that he was born of a virgin. During his life, he performed many miracles, cured many illnesses, and cast out devils. He celebrated a Last Supper with his 12 disciples. He ascended to heaven at the time of the spring equinox, about March 21.

Fact: No Jewish Holiday is Pagan in origin! They are "all" Hebrew Biblically based. That states quite a bit for there is a very, very deep, spiritual reason for this FACT!

Joe Whitehead said...

To Andrew (Response to Comments posted on July 28, 2010) Part 3

Q. Concerning David's seed, what part of "the fruit of thy body" of Psalms 132:11 do you not understand Andrew???

Q. Concerning Abraham seed, what part of "out of thine own bowels shall be thine heir" of Gen. 15:4 do you not understand Andrew???

The original Hebrew concept of David's seed and Abraham's seed can be clearly (and I mean "clearly") seen by simply reading Jeremiah 33:26 which states:
"...Then will I cast away the SEED of Jacob, and David my servant, so that I will not take "any of HIS SEED" to be rulers over the SEED of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob..." (Christian KJV)

Point 7 Christianity seeks to change Physical Israel and the essence of the eternal covenant mentioned in Psalms 105:6-11

A. God's Name of YHVH that no human has or has ever had to human-man "Jesus". (Man do I know a lot of Hispanics named "Jesus").
B. Physical land of Eretz Yisrael to a (heavenly) spiritual land - of which no SEED of Jacob is promised!
C. Torah being kept (II Kings 17:37) to being so-called "fulfilled" and of "dead works" to the Christian believer.

Point 8 (Fact) No offspring of Jews have continued to be identified as "Jews" within 3 to 4 generations of converting to Christianity or Islam. [Exodos 20:5)

Fact: THE JEWISH PEOPLE HAS SURVIVED TODAY AS A IDENTIFIED NATION OF PEOPLE DUE IN "GREAT PART" OF THEIR "REJECTION OF CHRISTIANITY"
Proof of what I'm saying 'FACT': The "Conversos" generation who converted during the Spanish Inquisition (of whom you would applaud for converting therefore applauding the Inquisition) are no longer identified which the Jewish people and have no connection today is day with the land of the covenant mentioned in Psalms 105:6-11.
{End of response 3)

Joe Whitehead said...

To Andrew (Response to Comments posted on July 28, 2010) Part 4

I'm sure you would like to corrupt the Jewish people with your pagan-influence demigod worship by suggesting that the Jews can keep their "Jewishness" in order to help corrupt other unsuspecting Jews via "Jewish cloak" of disguise. However, that makes you "worse" than Hamas! Hamas will dress like a religious Jew in order to board a public Israeli bus in order to destroy Jews physical bodies. Messianic Christianity dresses like religious Jews in order to destroy their souls!

Fact: Matthew chapter 23 reads like a United Nations / Quartet report on Jews! No Romans mentioned in that chapter!

Fact: the Romans are NEVER called "the devil" in all the Christian text.

Fact: Nowhere, (I repeat) nowhere in the Christian text are the Romans condemned for the crucifixion.

Here's challenge:
I Thessalonians 2:14-16
"For ye, brethren, became followers of the churches of God which in Judaea are in Christ Jesus: for ye also have suffered like things of your own countrymen, even as they have of the Jews (not the Romans):
15 Who both killed the Lord Jesus, and their own prophets (Not the Romans who had no prophets) and have persecuted us (not the Romans) and they please not God (not the Romans) and are contrary to all men (Not the Romans):
16 Forbidding us to speak to the Gentiles (< notice the absolve towards the Gentiles) that they might be saved, to fill up their sins alway (not the Romans) for the wrath is come upon them (not the Romans) to the uttermost.

Find a Christian text that explicitly denounces the Romans or Gentiles in this same type of manner Andrew. I challenge you!

Fact: History is the greatest indicator of how the Gentile Church would perceive the difference within the Christian text vilifying the Jews and absolving the Romans. Historical Christian Jewish persecution is a direct result of New Testament bias found in the Gospels and in the letters of Gerco-Roman-named Paul.
{end of response 4}

Joe Whitehead said...

To Andrew (Response to Comments posted on July 28, 2010) Part 4

I'm sure you would like to corrupt the Jewish people with your pagan-influence demigod worship by suggesting that the Jews can keep their "Jewishness" in order to help corrupt other unsuspecting Jews via "Jewish cloak" of disguise. However, that makes you "worse" than Hamas! Hamas will dress like a religious Jew in order to board a public Israeli bus in order to destroy Jews physical bodies. Messianic Christianity dresses like religious Jews in order to destroy their souls!

Fact: Matthew chapter 23 reads like a United Nations / Quartet report on Jews! No Romans mentioned in that chapter!

Fact: the Romans are NEVER called "the devil" in all the Christian text.

Fact: Nowhere, (I repeat) nowhere in the Christian text are the Romans condemned for the crucifixion.

Here's challenge:
I Thessalonians 2:14-16
"For ye, brethren, became followers of the churches of God which in Judaea are in Christ Jesus: for ye also have suffered like things of your own countrymen, even as they have of the Jews (not the Romans):
15 Who both killed the Lord Jesus, and their own prophets (Not the Romans who had no prophets) and have persecuted us (not the Romans) and they please not God (not the Romans) and are contrary to all men (Not the Romans):
16 Forbidding us to speak to the Gentiles (< notice the absolve towards the Gentiles) that they might be saved, to fill up their sins alway (not the Romans) for the wrath is come upon them (not the Romans) to the uttermost.

Find a Christian text that explicitly denounces the Romans or Gentiles in this same type of manner Andrew.

Fact: History is the greatest indicator of how the Gentile Church would perceive the difference within the Christian text vilifying the Jews and absolving the Romans. Historical Christian Jewish persecution is a direct result of New Testament bias found in the Gospels and in the letters of Gerco-Roman-named Paul.
{end of response 4}

Joe Whitehead said...

To Andrew (Response to Comments posted on July 28, 2010) Part 5

Every question you have towards me, Israel, concerning the Law of Moses needs to be first examined in light of the generation of Jews beginning with Babylon Exile to Jesus' life time. So before you ask me - ask of them, of what they did Biblically in those generation before Jesus. All of these answers are on my blog entitled, "Is Human Blood Sacrifice Kosher for Sin" > http://judaism-now.blogspot.com/2009/05/is-human-blood-sacrifice-kosher-for-sin.html

So before you ask me anything about the Law, read this blog. I not going to rewrite my blog in this comment section in order to answer your questions. I post blogs to answer questions like you are purposing. So if you're not afraid to read it -then read it, and then ask your questions concerning what I may have not covered in the blog. Fair enough?

Q. You wrote: "therefor David could have his sins forgiven before making sacrifice because he looked forward to the coming of the Messiah" however, you missed the point. For David's sin of "murder" there was no sacrifice of any kind that could be made. Do you not understand this? The Law of Moses didn't include nor did it provide a sacrifice to be made for "murder". Murder was a capital offense - only a death penalty was given by the Law of Moses.

David said it this way: Deliver me from bloodguiltiness, O God, thou God of my salvation: and my tongue shall sing aloud of thy righteousness.
O YHVH, open thou my lips; and my mouth shall shew forth thy praise.
For thou desirest not sacrifice; else would I give it: thou delightest not in burnt offering.
The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit: a broken and a contrite heart, O God, thou wilt not despise. (Psalms 51:14-17)

Now, we can ask, how did David being in the "Old Testament" get his murderous sins "washed away" as far as the east is from the west???

Q. Did Hosea prophesy that the Jewish people would be without temple and the sacrificial system for quite a long time? Did he relate to the Jews how they should repent?

Q. Is the sacrificial system coming back in the End of Days, and if so, why would that be when Jesus is supposedly the "final sacrifice"???

End of response 5

Joe Whitehead said...

To Andrew (Response to Comments posted on July 28, 2010) Part 6

It's really quite ironic that you would use Genesis 22:8 as a "proof text" when I use it as well against Christianity. First of all, Isaac was not to be a "sin offering" towards God. Right? So there no sacrifice-for-sin type within the story - only in the Christian mind. God was testing Abraham using the pagan method (that he had no doubt seen in his former pagan country) but the fact that God told him to stop was a sign to Abraham (and to Moses later in writing of the Law) that human sacrifices are NOT what God prefers! The Hebrew term referring to a "lamb" (verses 5 and 8) was a "burt offering" by fire. Perhaps you didn't get nor did you care to notice that Isaac in the story noted the "fire" and the "wood" for the "olah" sacrifice by fire. So did Abraham prophesy God would provide Himself an "Olah" fire-burt sacrifice in the form of Jesus? Jesus didn't die by fire Andrew, did he???

Secondly, What did "the ram" that was sacrificed represent ? Did it type Jesus too? Did the ram have "a type and a shadow"? Can we say "The Ram" that takes away the sin of the world??? Is Jesus typed as a "ram" anywhere in the sacrificial system Andrew? I'll bet if you take a few minutes you could think up something to make it fit. I'd love to hear it.

Thirdly, Abraham was answering Isaac's direct question. Little Isaac was first to mention the olah burnt-offering "lamb" not Abraham. God did provide an olah, it just wasn't a lamb-olah which should rise the question to the Christian: Why wasn't it a lamb in the thicket? which to me signifies a discredit to Christianity (in the form of prophecy) based upon Christianity's man-god being a lamb, more than anything else!

End of response 6

Joe Whitehead said...

To Andrew (Response to Comments posted on July 28, 2010) Part 7

Just for kicks and grins Andrew, since you want to put me under the microscope under the Law, do you cleanse all your meat and food from blood like a good gentile is suppose to? Acts 15:19-20

Do you ever fulfill the "lust of the flesh" by not walking in the Spirit? (Gal. 5:16) And if so, why is that?
Would the Law help? Might try it before judging it one of these days. :)

"Salvation is far from the wicked: for they seek not thy statutes." Ps 119:155
(of course one most wonder what statues was the prophet-David talking about?) I'll say "OT Statues -but that's just a guess.)

End of response 7

Joe Whitehead said...

To Andrew (Response to Comments posted on July 28, 2010) Part 8

You wrote: "I gotten to all of your questions I could get to today. Again as opposed to your previous statements I am not trying to dodge anything."

Before we head on into issues that I responded to, try to answer two question that I have posted to you more than twice now.

Q. How is it that the very poor in Leviticus 5:11 got off without a "blood atonement"? (Posted three times now)

Q. Why did Paul (who supposedly sat under the prestigious Gamaliel) killed Christians when Gamaliel taught differently according to Acts 5:34-35? (This makes the fourth time being posted now.)

I know the Christian tactic is to quickly move unto the next subject when cornered, but I'm not going to let this go. In fact it will be the first things I mention each post from now on until I get an answer from you along with the number of times its been avoided. So please, take a few minutes a come up with an answer to these questions.

Thanks.

Andrew said...

Point one: I do not believe in so called "Christian holidays" because I believe they originate in Catholicism and consider anything from Christmas to easter etc. to be of pagan, not Christian origin. You are not arguing with a Catholic here so please quit arguing with me about what I do not believe in the first place! That's pointless.

Point two: The Jews did infact kill there own prophets. When ever God sent them a man of God that man of God was often murdered by them. Given the history of Israel rejecting those who are sent to them is it a large thing that one may say they rejected their own Messiah?

Point three: I never said that I considered the textual criticisms of liberal scholars to be accurate as pertaining to animal sacrafices, proverbs, and etc. but was merely pointing out that accusations of pagan comparison do not rightfully justify or condemn a religion whether it be Judaism or Christianity. In your interpretation of my comment saying that I would go to great lengths to justify a gentile religion you are very incorrect. I do recognize that animal sacrifices present at Abel.

Point four: Continuing on that thought you are actually incorrect in saying that animal sacrifice BEGAN at Abel because the very first animal sacrafice was made by God himself to cover up the nakedness (consequence of sin) of Adam and Eve thus signifying that God would make a more perfect sacrafice to cover up the nakedness of all mankind.

Andrew said...

Point five: When sacrafices are resumed it does not obliterate the fact that Jesus is the final sacrifice but rather is a final spit into the face of God before the end of the age comes.

Point six: Thankyou for proving my point Joe! Your absolutely right that God did not provide a lamb in the thicket but instead he provided a RAM. Did Abraham lie when he said that God would provide for himself a LAMB Joe? God does not lie, you know that. So the saying of Abraham did not come true right away because a ram is not a lamb! Jesus is the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world. He fulfilled Abrahams saying that "God would provide for himself a Lamb"

Point seven: Your right again Joe! God said no man should offer human sacrifices to gods or cause their chidren to go through the fire. This is referring to sinful human sacrifices being offered up to false gods not ONE SINLESS MAN SACRIFICED ONCE AND FOR ALL TO THE ONE TRUE GOD.

Andrew said...

Point eight: In order to not fulfill the lust of the flesh one must walk in the Spirit. It is an if-then statement. Read Romans where Paul tried to be righteous by using the law. He learned to rely on the Holy Spirit.

Point nine: I don't eat much meat but what I do eat is cooked.

Point ten: I'm not trying to judge the law or judge you because in the book of James it states that "if you judge the law you are not a doer of the law but a judge." I'm just pointing out that under the full consequence of the Law of Moses you are just as much a sinner as any one else and are in desperate need of the grace of God in your life that is offered through the blood of Jesus. No matter what excuses you use to not keep the WHOLE law the fact is that the law is rigid and you HAVE to keep ALL of it or be CONDEMNED IF YOU SEEK TO BE JUSTIFIED BY IT.

Point 11: Your right there is no sacrifice prescribed for the murderous sin of David. Right again Joe! Like I said before Jesus died for sins past, present and future and that's how he could find grace for his sin. Jesus is the perfect sacrifice that the law could not fulfill.

Andrew said...

As for your last questions I'm sorry but I'm only human and in the process of answering the others didn't get to those and I will will this post however before doing so I would like to ask that you do not stereotpe Christians because stereotyping does not lend itself to the richness of logic or good sense but instead is the effort of the feeble-minded to cast dishonour on another with no substantiating evidence. The less you stereotype the more of a civil, reasonable, and profitable, conversation this will be.

Paul said specifically that he was advancing in the Jews religion and persecuting the church is part of how he was accomplishing this. There are many students who progress to do things that are contrary to some of what their own teachers taught. It is very common and no reason to question the legitimacy of his discipleship under him.

And this point I would like to challenge you concerning the passage you reffered to:

ACTS 5:33-40

When they heard that they were cur to the heart and took counsel to slay them. Then stood there up one in the council, a Pharisee named Gamaliel, a doctor of the law, had in reputation among all the people, and commanded them to put the apostles forth a little space; and said unto them, Ye men of Israel, take heed to yourselves what ye intend to do as touching these men. For before these days rose up Theudas, boasting himself to be somebody; to whom a number of men about four hundred, joined themselves: who was slain; and all, as many as obeyed him, were scattered, and brought to nought.
After this man rose up Judas of Galilee in the days of the taxing, and drew away much people after him: he also perished; and all even as many as obeyed him, were dispersed. AND NOW I SAY UNTO YOU, REFRAIN FROM THESE MEN, AND LET THEM ALONE: FOR IF THIS COUNSEL BE OF MEN, IT WILL COME TO NOUGHT: BUT IF IT BE OF GOD YE CANNOT OVERTHROW IT LEST HAPLY YE BE FOUND EVEN TO FIGHT AGAINST GOD. And to him they agreed...

Gamaliel himself professed that Christianity could be of God and this was his condition of proving it: IF IT IS NOT OVERTROWN AND BROUGHT TO NOTHING. And it hasn't been! So here's the question Joe: How long will you fight against God when you can read these Jew spoken words on the page of any Bible you find?

As for the poor not needing sacrifice I will refer you to the Passover where God commanded that if any was poor and did not have anything to sacrifice he borrow from his neighbor. IN THIS CONTEXT IT WAS STILL REQUIRED. Why was Jesus crucified on the Passover Joe? Was it a coincidence in your point of view? These questions are not rhetorical.

Andrew said...

Well Joe I read the blog you reffered me to and I have to admit that mainly all the same questions remain. Sabbath years? Jubilees? Mixed garments? Killing all gentile enemies? Etc. So please go through the questions concerning your observance of the law again and answer yes or no. I understand your view on animal sacrifices but do not consider it wholly substantial in the light of contextual meaning. It shouldn't be hard to just say yes or no and maybe give a brief explanation should it?

Afterwards please answer some of the questions in my most recent comments and then please explain to me the hope that YOU find as a gentile in Judaism.

Thankyou

Andrew said...

Oh and God's name is in the New Testament. Every time you read Jesus is is Yah (abreviated YHVH) has become my salvation. The angel said you shall call his name Jesus for he shall save his people from their sins.

Joe Whitehead said...

To Andrew - Response to comments posted on 07-29-2010 - part 1

Point: Even though you don't put up a Jer.10:3-4 tree on Mithra Day you are still a Catholic - just an apostate one. If it wasn't for Catholicism you wouldn't be a Christian today.
Fact: It was "the Catholics" who canonized what books would become "your" beloved New Testament Bible!
Fact: You and the Pagan Catholics have more in common than you think in the basic tenants of the Christian belief and doctrine thereby connecting you to the pagan rituals and incorporations from pagan religions even though you don't accept them. Amazing isn't it?
Oh, and as I stated before, your Protestant Father by which you are a Protestant today (who also came out of the Catholic Church) was a Jew-hater that the Nazis admired!

Point 2 48 named prophets and 7 prophetesses named in the Hebrew Bible. How many of them were killed by the Jews? How many can you name?

Fact: While the NT tries to suggest that the Jews committed "deocide" "through the Law of Moses" that fact is, in "ALL" incidents where a Hebrew prophet was killed by a Jewish power the theme is always that those Jews had indeed departed from the Torah and the Covenant first!

Point 3 The bottom line is: Christianity is one of the later religions in the Levant to pagan-believe in "virgin births" fathered by sky god(s), and human demigods that resurrected of which one (Mithra of Persia) was born on December 25.

Point 4 I didn't know God would "sacrifice" to Himself using an animal.
{End of Part 1}

Joe Whitehead said...

To Andrew - Response to comments posted on 07-29-2010 - part 2

Point 5 You obviously don't know the Hebrew Bible: The Third and Final Temple described in Ezekiel 37:27-28 stands forever (as the scripture clearly states) to the glory of YHVH! That very temple is described in detail in chapters 40-48 that includes "animal sacrifices"! And this you call a "spit in God'a face"??? Sorry, but I have to say that you're a complete idiot when it comes to Hebrew prophecy.

Point 6 Abraham was alluding to (even if he didn't know it) the Paschal lamb (which like Isaac was) NOT AN ATONEMENT FOR SIN! Get it? The Paschal lamb of the nation of Israel was not, is not, nor will ever be, a sin-sacrifice! It had absolutely nothing (as in: "not one thing to do with") nor any connected to a sin-offering!

Christianity has man-god Jesus as the deified "Lamb of God" but did you know that the pagan practices of Egypt deified lambs as gods??? That is why YHVH wanted the blood pasted on the doorpost for all the Egyptians to see their deities humbled before followers of YHVH.

Point 7 "The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin. - Deuteronomy 24:16

The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him. - Ezekiel 18:20
(End of response 2}

Joe Whitehead said...

To Andrew - Response to comments posted on 07-29-2010 - part 3

Point 8 I'll trust Moses and David:
"And it shall be our righteousness, if we observe to do all these commandments before YHVH our God, as he hath commanded us." Deut. 6:25

The law of YHVH is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple. Ps. 19:7

Point 9 That's good. You might want to tell your Christian friends who do eat blood what Acts states - note, it was the Catholic Church that instituted the eating of meat.

Point 10 This is where the NT gives the Gentile Christians the wrong view of the law. Within the very Law of YHVH itself abides "mercy" "truth". To truly know the God of Israel "YHVH" is to know His laws and statues thereby knowing His Mercy and Truth! (see Ps. 89:14) God's very Mercy can only be found within the Law....because the Law reveals the nature God of Israel! That's what the whole "mercy Seat" within the Ark of the Covenant was about.

"Salvation is far from the wicked: for they seek not thy statutes. Ps. 119:155

Point 11 How convenient. Then nobody had to "really" do any blood-type & shadows sacrificing at any time in the OT....just look to Jesus several hundred years down the road and you'll be alright. Got it. Why get off ones tukus head off to the temple and get ones hands bloodly when all one had to do is look to Jesus several hundred years down the road. Got it.

Joe Whitehead said...

To Andrew - Response to comments posted on 07-29-2010 - part 4

I do not believe Paul sat under Gamaliel as a true disciple nor do I believe the quote that the book of Acts attributes to him. I just wanted you do acknowledge the NY discrepancy. Thank you for finally doing so.

Just know in your Christian mind that according to Lev. 5:11 the very poor couldn't type Jesus in blood "type and shadow" simply because they were, well, very poor.

When you ask, "Why was Jesus crucified on the Passover " I take it you're meaning according to the "synoptic Gospels" and not the book of John right? Because as you know John has Jesus slain on Nissan 14th. in accordance with Exodus 12:6 while the synoptic Gospels has him slain on Nissan 15th. the first day of Passover. Isn't that something???

Joe Whitehead said...

To Andrew - Response to comments posted on 07-29-2010 - part 5

Q. Sabbath years? Jubilees? Mixed garments? Killing all gentile enemies? Etc

A. The same way Jewish (keeper of the Law) Daniel did it who lived most of his life in Babylon - not the Land of Israel. Who was loved of God and was able to repeat not only for himself but all of Israel (9:19) without animal blood and where there was no temple, and no sacrificial system in any form - just his three times a day prayers. Amazing huh?
Now if you need more detail let me know what part about Daniel above that you don't understand, and I'll get that right to you.
The prophet Daniel is my teacher and illustrator on how to keep the Law in Exile without a temple or sacrificial system, Sabbath years, Jubilees, Mixed garments, Killing all gentile enemies, Etc. So I'll all I need to say is, I inspire to be like Daniel, how bout you?

"Also the sons of the stranger, that join themselves to the LORD, to serve him, and to love the Name of YHVH to be His servants, every one that keepeth the sabbath from polluting it, and take hold of My covenant;
Even them will I bring to my holy mountain, and make them joyful in My house of prayer: their burnt offerings and their sacrifices shall be accepted upon mine altar; for mine house shall be called an house of prayer for all people." Isaiah 56:7

The secret of YHVH is with them that fear Him; and He will shew them His covenant. Psalms 25:14

Now Andrew, Do you believe in "keeping" the Ten Commandments and or any other "Law" Commandments that are outside the Ten Commandments, including the so-called NT "greatest commandments"? Please let me know on this.

Joe Whitehead said...

To Andrew - Response to comments posted on 07-29-2010 - part 6

Time for a Biblical Hebrew lesson. Ready?
No, "Jesus" does not mean "YHVH is become my salvation". That is something that is applied not directly given.

Names in Hebrew come from a three (sometimes two) letter verb / noun roots. The name Jesus comes from the root word ya-sha (spelled yod-shin-ayin) meaning "to rescue or to deliver".
Many Hebrew words start with the letter "yod" which does not mean nor signifies YHVH. In fact, the yod in this root is a weak consonant which actually disappears when used in certain stems where the letter "hay" along with the holem-maleh vowel replaces it - leaving totally off the "ya" sound.

Ye-shu-ah so-often said to be Jesus' name actually is a noun not a name. The extension makes the verb "to rescue" a noun meaning "rescue" or "deliverance".

The "yod" also acts as a singular masculine "pronoun" in names at the beginning. Yay-shu "meaning "He" as in a pronoun - not Yah of YHVH) will deliver. Yay-shu was a very popular Hebrew name in the 1st century. Josephus mentions many in his works.

YHVH is part of some Hebrew names, but come at the end of names ending with the Yah or yahu sound
Netanyahu = YHVH gives

Andrew said...

How were the early Christians (For instance the ones who were first called Christian in Antioch according to the book of Acts) actually Christian without the contribution of Catholic/Pagan mythology? It's because to be Christian has to do with trying to be like Jesus and not anything to do with the Catholic house of idols.

Historically the New Testament books were generally recognized by the wide spread population of Christians and the only reason for canonization of the books occurred when the afor said scriptures where attacked by people seeking to destroy te faith. Thus the canon was a formal way of establishing what had been informally held to be true for many years.

Christians existed before, during, and after Catholics so it is nothing but blind stereotyping that lumps the idolatries of Catholicism into Protestant Churches. There are some Protestant Churches that do closely resemble catholicism in beliefs and practice however I would get as far away from the Catholic traditions as possible

Avoid stereotyping people you have never even met in person Joe.

So your first few statements were not a matter of fact but biased world view developed by an attempt to descredit any form of Christianity due to the actions of many I wouldn't consider very Christian in the first place.

Andrew said...

You are attacking people and their beliefs not what the N.T. actually preaches when you attack the Catholic church and Martin Luther. Although I recognize Martin Luther did some important reform in seperating from the Catholic Monstrosity I do not hold to many of his personal opinions.

To give and easy example of how this is reasonable I would like you to turn from viewing Martin Luther and examine the reformation of Martin Luther King.

Martin Luther King achieved great headway in contending for the rights and equalities between blacks and whites that had so long been denied by early American civilization. I recently enjoyed a basket ball game between myself and another white man and two black men. It was arranged so that their was one white person and one black person on each team. We played, joked, talked, and drank out of the same water fountain all because of the revolutionary strides made by MLK and other blacks and whites who agreed with him but here is an ugly fact:

Martin Luther King committed adultery on his wife!

Do I then become a segragationalist, KKK, white supremacy scum bag because of the failure of a man who did great things? Absolutely not! That would be asinine and idiosyncratic!

I cherish the truths that he has revealed and that have been but into practice in my generation while simultaneously disagreeing with his adulterous affair.

So it is with Martin Luther.

Andrew said...

1)Jesus was NOT born on December twenty fifth. 2)Those who killed the prophets were often departed from Torah teaching as were the Pharisees and Saducees in many ways. 3)God CAN AND DID provide a sacrifice for the sins of man. 4)It doesn't matter how many pagan counterfeit pagan religions are out their who bare similarity as long as the truth is recognised and seperated from them. 5) The passover Lamb kept the Jews in egypt from having the spirit of death enter their house which is typological of how the blood of Jesus applied to our life keeps us safe from eternal death. 6)Like Paul said "the Law is good" so quit trying to argue with my about whether or not it is good. 7) Daniel is before the cross but you are after and can be justified through Christ. 8) Isaiah said our good works are as filthy rags. 9) Your interpretation of the name of Jesus is really just your interpretation because their are many Hebrew scholars who would recognize the name of Jesus as meaning Yah has become my salvation or Yah saves (rescues.) 10)The fact that the name of Jesus had been previously used on other children does not eliminate that it is also the name of your Messiah. That is why Jesus OF NAZARETH is strongly emphasized in Acts when the apostles prayed and people were healed in HIS name. 11)Name calling even with the pretense "sorry but" is not conducive to reasonable discussion and FURTHER DISPROVES THAT YOU ANY HAVE TRUTH IN YOU BY YOUR NECESSITY TO USE IT SO PRIMITIVELY.12)If you really trusted Moses and David you would believe in Jesus because they spoke of Him. 13)The context of a man dying for his own sins has to do with not unjustly punishing the rest of a mans family for what he did however the context of Jesus dying for the sins of all has to do with giving everyone the opportunity for forgiveness, cleansing, and power over sin. For Him he considered it a joy to die for you Joe. 14)Jesus is risen 15)Paul was a disciple of Gamaliel.

Andrew said...

Well Joe, I will give you more courtesy than you gave me by not accusing you to be a question dodger because I honestly believe you simply made a mistake and that during your focused attempt to type out all your thoughts you forgot about my question so here it is again:

"Gamaliel himself professed that Christianity could be of God and this was his condition of proving it: IF IT IS NOT OVERTROWN AND BROUGHT TO NOTHING. And it hasn't been! So here's the question Joe: How long will you fight against God when you can read these Jew spoken words on the page of any Bible you find?"

That's one of the last questions on the post you responded to so please get to it as soon as possible.

Christianity has not been brought to nothing.

Andrew said...

By the way the concept of type and shadow is not meant for every single situation where a word ever occurs nor is it nullified because practicality of the poor not being able to completely fulfill it. It is simply proving that many ideas in the Old Testament are symbols for things in the New Testament. Will you criticize Nike or Addidas because their symbol does not within it encompass the wholeness of what they represent? Absolutely not but by researching the companies themselves some light could be shed as to the intricacies of what their symbol really entails.

Andrew said...

If you truly love God with all your heart mind soul and strength and love your neighbor as yourself you will be keeping all the law and the prophets. Infact you will be doing things through love that you were never able to do through legalism.

It's been swell

Joe Whitehead said...

To Andrew - Response to comments posted on August 02, 2010 - Part 1

Christianity begins with "astrology confirmation" virgin birth from a God, a demigod, human sacrifice, a resurrection of just one, a vicarious atonement, all of which are contained within the Gentile pagan concepts of worship. The Gentile-naming of "Paul" in order to relate to the Gentile way of worship was not by accident.
Not only are these things not contained within the Torah and the prophets Israelite-method of worship, they are directly forbidden!

You may wish to dodge the reality of Catholicism being the ones to officially canonize the books of today's "New Testament" but Andrew, I know history and the works of Eusebius and his "Eusebian canons".
You need to watch the History Channel's "Who Wrote the Bible" I & II. And I'm not talking about their spin-off theories theories that secular programmers do (I pay that no attention myself) but the hard-line historical facts that they do tell.

Again, examine yourself of not what you differ with Catholicism but check "how much" you do have in common with pagan-Catholicism in fundamental beliefs, then tell me I'm stereo-typing.
In fact you might want to checkout www.catholicanswers.com

Joe Whitehead said...

To Andrew - Response to comments posted on August 02, 2010 - Part 2

If there were only two choices to stand before God on Judgment Day on 1. Martin Lutheranism (with all of his antisemitism included) or 2. Fundamental OT Judaism, which would you pick?
I rest my case as to your spiritual linkage (as a protestant) to Martin Luther.

The other side of your example:
Would you join with Hamas in just their "building hospitals" in giving to their "charities" and their giving of "family support" of building new houses for those the Israelis bombed? Would you? Now not their doctrine - just their "good works" so-called? Would you give them a helping hand just in their good works???

From my Luther blog:
“First, their synagogues should be set on fire and whatever does not burn up should be covered or speared over with dirt so that no one may ever be able to see a cinder or a stone of it.” “Secondly, their homes should likewise be broken down and destroyed. For they perpetrate the same things there that they do in their synagogues. For this reason they ought to be put under one roof or in a stable, like Gypsies, in order that they may realize that they are not masters in our land, as they boast, but miserable captives.…”
“Thirdly, they should be deprived of their prayer-books and Talmuds...... ”
“Fourthly, their rabbis must be forbidden under threat of death to teach any more…”
“Fifthly, passport and traveling privileges should be absolutely forbidden to the Jews. For they have no business in the rural districts since they are not nobles, nor officials, nor
merchants, nor the like. Let them stay home.”
- Martin Luther, On the Jews and Their Lies - 1543

So Andrew, Was Luther a sinner saved by grace?

Joe Whitehead said...

To Andrew - Response to comments posted on August 02, 2010 - Part 3

2. "...in many ways" doesn't cut it Andrew. The so-called "Cursed Law" typed with the Pharisees is what is denounced throughout the Gospels and Paul's letters. In the "two" incidents the Bible states of "killed prophets" is where the Jewish people had "totally" departed from the Torah - not "in many ways" as you try to insinuate concerning the Pharisees.

4. Again, the pagan methods are not "counterfeit" they would have to come "after" Christianity in order for them to be "counterfeit" (a copy). However, they came BEFORE Christianity. We can go back and forth on this over and over, but the fact will forever remain virgin births and the like were here within the pagan world for centuries BEFORE the advent of Christianity.

6. The Law is not just "good" it converts the soul (Ps. 19:7 and is needed for salvation (Ps.119:155).

7. Daniel being "before the cross" has absolutely nothing to do with your question concerning: "Sabbath years? Jubilees? Mixed garments? Killing all gentile enemies? Etc" does it not? nor my answer to that question. You wanted to know how does one "keep the Law" regarding those issues and I told you showing you an example how Daniel did it. So why are you ejecting an issue about "the cross" when it irrelevant within the framework of the question that you originally asked?

8. Your reference to Isaiah 64:6 saying that "Torah observance" is "as filthy rags" is quite ridiculous. That's not the context and meaning of the text as the next verse (7) indicates. It is stating that Israel's righteousness among the people had became corrupt and it was observance of the Law was what Israel was indeed missing.

9. Perhaps you can tell me how to "say / spell" the word "rescue / deliver" in Biblical Hebrew "without" again "without" using YHVH in it? Perhaps you can refer to "Strongs" word reference # 3467 and tell me if they (being Christian edited) refer to this verb "ya-sha" as having a direct YHVH reference within the word?
Why don't you look up ya-sha in the "Hophel" or "Hiphel" stems and see if the "yod-letter sound of "ya" disappears, and then wonder why sometime you believe stands for YHVH would do that???

I know my Hebrew Andrew and any so-called scholar who tells you YHVH is within the verb is a fruitcake and doesn't know what the hec (I kept it clean) he's talking about!
See > http://www.ancient-hebrew.org/35_dictionary_10.html


"I am YHVH" is found numerous times throughout the Hebrew Bible - that's His Name - all others are just references to the ONE NAME - and again, the NT doesn't have it in its entire book - not even once!

10."Then he said unto them, O FOOLS, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken: - Luke 24:25
How come it don't register with you that Jesus calling them "fools" (same thing as an "idiot" FURTHER DISPROVES THAT Jesus ANY HAVE TRUTH IN YOU BY YOUR NECESSITY TO USE IT SO PRIMITIVELY."? Jesus even called them "devils" which would be considered by most as worse than calling someone an idiot. What does that show of his spirit?

Anyway, I did feel I shouldn't have said it and that it was a bit much, so I do apologize. I know you're just trying to defend your faith.

13. The context of Deut. 24:16 and Ezk. 18:20 are to make it very clear tho Israel that nobody can died for another's sin. Nobody's sin can be placed upon another human being - that is directly against the precepts of the Torah and prophets! The God of Israel would violate His own direct Law!

15. The Talmud is full of Gamaliel quotes and he NEVER mentions Christianity.

Joe Whitehead said...

To Andrew:
It's now after 2 am I'll answer the rest of your comment tomorrow.
Later.

Joe Whitehead said...

To Andrew - Response to comments posted on August 02, 2010 - Part 4

Exactly what Christianity are you considering "NOT OVERTROWN AND BROUGHT TO NOTHING"? The "Christian Crusades, Inquisitions, Pogroms are spiritually linked together in motive and goal, yet separated by centuries. Therefore on can say "Christian Antisemitism is as old as Christian / Church government-run influence of power - and it still hasn't "come to not"!
How old is Islam? Buddhism? Hinduism? Zoroastrianism? Centuries have come and gone yet these religions are alive and well. So much for Gamaliel's supposed quote.
Just as a side note: Hillel kick Gamaliel's donkey throughout the Talmud (meaning, his arguments were more favored in the Talmud).

You wrote: (Q.) How long will you fight against God when you can read these Jew spoken words on the page of any Bible you find?"

A. I can't find them in the Talmud nor the Hebrew (original) Bible. Perhaps when you can tell me what two kings Isaiah 7:15-16 "double prophecy" was talking about in the first century - I'll consider it.

You wrote: Christianity has not been brought to nothing.

My Response: Neither has Islam. However, it has been prophesied that both Christianity and Islam both cease together at the same time! No kidding. You'll find such prophecy in "Zechariah 8:23" with the comparable reading "Ezekiel 37:26-28".

Joe Whitehead said...

To Andrew - Response to comments posted on August 02, 2010 - Part 5

You Wrote: "By the way the concept of type and shadow is not meant for every single situation where a word ever occurs nor is it nullified because practicality of the poor not being able to completely fulfill it. It is simply proving that many ideas in the Old Testament are symbols for things in the New Testament."

My response (is actually New Testament believe it or not)
"...without shedding of blood is no remission." - Hebrews 9:22

Fact: The Hebrew scripture NEVER imply temple rituals are representing a type or a shadow. On the contrary, temple rituals are prophesied to be reinstated "to the glory of YHVH" after the Christian era ends. Ezekiel chapters 40-48

Joe Whitehead said...

To Andrew - Response to comments posted on August 02, 2010 - Part 6

You wrote: "If you truly love God with all your heart mind soul and strength and love your neighbor as yourself you will be keeping all the law and the prophets"

My response: So if one loves God with all of his heart can indeed work on the Sabbath while fulfilling the law that says not to work on the Sabbeth? Is that what I hear you saying Andrew?

The difference between Christianity and Judaism is that Christianity as yourself is an example of, believes loving God causes one to be absolved from performing the Law (while claiming they fulfilled it) while Judaism believes loving God cause one to preform to duties of the Law.

Psalms 119:163-168
I hate and abhor lying: but thy law do I love.
Seven times a day do I praise thee because of thy righteous judgments.
Great peace have they which love thy law: and nothing shall offend them.
YHVH, I have hoped for thy salvation, and done thy commandments.
My soul hath kept thy testimonies; and I love them exceedingly.
I have kept thy precepts and thy testimonies: for all my ways are before thee."

What David so loved you seem to be calling legalism!

What does God want for Israel today:
"And now, Israel, what doth the LORD thy God require of thee, but to fear YHVH thy God, to walk in all his ways, and to love him, and to serve the LORD thy God with all thy heart and with all thy soul,
To keep the commandments of the LORD, and his statutes, which I command thee this day for thy good?"
Duet. 10:12-13

Notice how Love of God and the "doing the commandments" work in harmony?

Fact: If the Law can be "broken" then the Law is still in effect!

Andrew said...

Actually I never said that a love of God would absolve a man from keeping the word of the Lord. This is an interpolation made by your desire to prove yourself right by accusing me of things I do not believe. In fact to the contrary of what you said in the book of 1 John you will find the Jewish Christian apostle John saying that "if any man love God he will keep his commandments. I contend for the opposite of what your accusing!

Andrew said...

Sacrifice. blood shedding, ceremonial washings, sprinklings, etc. were all means of atonement in the Old Testament. And quite contrary to what your saying in the book of Leviticus it states that atonement is in the blood!

Andrew said...

I would say it is an often mistake of all faiths to look at the scriptures through the lens of their own bias. I see your trying to use the Hebrew scriptures to fight against the Hebrew Messiah as a direct example because as you know they actually point towards Him and not away from Him. God's church will continue and God's covenant with Israel will be established.

Andrew said...

I wanted to answer what you posted and will wait until you have the chance to finish your response to continue. Thanks again.

Joe Whitehead said...

To Andrew - Response to comments posted on 08-04-2010 - Part 1

Perhaps you can expound on your comment where you stated: "If you truly love God with all your heart mind soul and strength and love your neighbor as yourself you will be keeping all the law and the prophets."

Q. Is a Christian "commanded" not eat pork, crabs, or camels if he so chooses?

Q. Is it forbidden for a Christian do physical labor on the seventh day of the week - as in the seventh day of the week in ancient Biblical times?

Q. Does the act of circumcision of a Jewish male child on the 8th day of life avail anything spiritual -as in keeping the commandment of YHVH?

Perhaps you could expound on difference between keeping the Law through loving God with ones whole heart and soul as Deuteronomy dictates verses Gentile-named Paul's meaning of "dead works"?

Joe Whitehead said...

To Andrew - Response to comments posted on 08-04-2010 - Part 2

From my blog:
"Following the teaching of Gentile-named Paul (see Hebrews 9:22) the Christian proof-text of Leviticus 17:11 is used to falsely determine that blood was absolutely required for atonement. However, the context of Leviticus 17:10-12 is not at all addressing the issue of atonement for sin. It is addressing the prohibition of blood consumption, period. There is a doctrinal revealing reason why Christian apologists will NEVER quote verses 10 and 12 with Leviticus 17:11. To do so would yank the carpet out from under their proof-text. The context of all three verses would be too revealing, therefore the context is purposely hidden by quoting only verse 11 by itself.
.
The text of Leviticus 17:10-12 is stating the following:
"And whatsoever man there be of the house of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn among you, that eateth any manner of blood [subject of context] I will even set my face against that soul that eateth blood [subject of context] and will cut him off from among his people. For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul [not the bones or the meat of the animal that the priest can eat but the blood that no man can consume because the blood is for an atonement]. Therefore [this word "therefore" - "Kee" in the Hebrew, connects the previous two verses with the following statement staying inline with the context] I said unto the children of Israel, No soul of you shall eat blood [subject of context], neither shall any stranger that sojourneth among you eat blood [subject of entire context]."

Joe Whitehead said...

To Andrew - Response to comments posted on 08-04-2010 - Part 3

The difference between your "lens" and and mine, is that I have looked through "both" lenses and you haven't.

You have never looked through lens of the original Hebrew Bible - only through a (secondary) New Testament lens. You don't even know how the read the original Bible in the holy language in which it was holy given - only what other Gentiles translates to you through their looking only through a NT NT lens as well.

I, on the other-hand, have been a deep believing Gentile Christian knowing the NT a whole lot better than I did the so-called "Old Testament" and was one to set out with great vigor to refute Judaism for the glory of my non-Trinitarian (like yours) Christianity.

Needless to say Judaism kicked my butt - as it now has yours.
I'm not trying to brag (unless on Judaism Torah-prophets themselves) but Andrew, you have not won one issue of direct debate this whole time. You have ducked and dodged to save face so to speak (example, the two Kings of Ish. 7:15-16,) but nothing you have posted has been in the least convincing over the original Hebrew scriptures. What you refuse to acknowledge now, you will clearly be aware of when Zechariah 8:23 is being fulfilled - and it isn't far off friend.

Andrew said...

Personal question Joe:

What exactly was your non-trinitarian Christianity (Jehovah's witness, Oneness Pentecostal, Mormon, Duality, Unitarian, etc.)

Just curious in what sort of church you were involved in and why you left because it may help me understand where you are coming from.

Andrew said...

As far as dietary restrictions, sabbath keeping, and circumcision you know full well that the New Testament explains that "Christ is the end of the Law." It specifically states that sabbath keeping, circumsision, and dietary restrictions are not necessary for the Christian. For one example Paul talks about the circumsision of the heart rather than a literal circumsision. The Old Testament supports this when it YHVH declares that Israel is of uncircumsised hearts. Eventually by the time we get to the book of Isaiah we find God saying that he hates their sabbath keeping, and sacrifices, and feasts. The very thing that God commanded in the past he now proclaims he detests! I think God can do what he wants to so if he decides when providing the Messiah that that breaks down the wall of Law then who am I to argue with God and who are you as well?

The scriptures speak of the difference between the spirit of the Law and the letter of the Law. When loving the Lord your God with all your heart mind soul and strength you keep the spirit of the Law. The letter of the Law is what proves to you you are condemned by the very law you try to keep because you cannot keep every tittle of it thus letting you know you need a savior.

the law is good.

Andrew said...

As far as the scripture in Leviticus goes once again you are completely mistaken. The context in no way abolishes the point. I already knew the context of the scripture but simply honed in on the point that the blood is for atonement.

THE BLOOD IS FOR ATONEMENT.

The context does not contradict the point and neither does the point contradict the context.

Andrew said...

The only reason you want to say the "Judaism kicked my butt" is because your trying to finish this conversation before the fat lady sings! I too have made several points that you have not answered satisfactorily and yet I do not try to end this conversation early by saying that "Christianity kicked your butt!" It is a childish tactic that is completely void of understanding. Please be an adult!

The Old testament points forward to Jesus and the New Testament back towards him.

I'm not judging anything.

Once again that accusation is childish and I implead you to be an adult.

POR FAVOR!!!

Andrew said...

Oops and replace the word judging with the word dodging so it reads:

I am not dodging anything!

Andrew said...

I may not be able to read Hebrew yet but that doesn't mean I can't look from that lens and reasonably consider what is truth or not. For instance I do not require to to fully read greek in order to consider the New Testament in it's entirety but I encourage you to read it in what language you are able. There are many Christians who speak write and read in Hebrew so if you really want to talk with someone who can speak with one of them until I can read it. In the meantime be satisfied with the fact that I have looked through most points of view including, Jew, Muslim, Bhuddist, Atheist etc. and found Jesus Christ to be the most convincing. HALLELUJAH!

Joe Whitehead said...

To Andrew - Response to comments posted on August 5, 2010 - Part 1

I was brought up under the message of William Branham (more of towards oneness Pentecostalism - but not entirely oneness either). I was baptism "twice" in the Name of Lord Jesus Christ according to Acts 2:38 believing that to be the "revelation" of Matthew 28:19. My first baptism was when I was 9 years old, the other time was as an adult.

I haven't discussed with you the positive things concerning Christianity that I and others in Judaism believe because we're discussing Christianity as a whole verses Judaism as a whole. I still admire William Branham - to me he is one of the greatest people Christendom has ever known.
There is a great difference between Christian John Hagee and Christian Jeremiah Wright!. One I believe is a child of God (though still in era) and one is a devil (soon to burn).

I believe you Andrew have a godly spirit about you and I believe you love Israel over her enemies - but I would caution you not to seek their conversion away from their covenant because when you do, you're working against YHVH. Let the God of Israel take care of Israel. Let the anointed Jewish prophet to Israel that is to come change the Israeli system- and oh man will it!

I have been called into work - so I'll have to address your other posts at a later time - tonight or tomorrow.
Later
-Joe

Joe Whitehead said...

To Andrew - Response to comments posted on August 5, 2010 - Part 2

Show me what I’m misunderstanding here: If the Law of Moses (The Torah) is indeed “The Commandments” of YHVH and the Christian, as you pointed out, is absolved from observing them in the fashion that they were given, how then does the Gentile Christian “Keep the Commandments” of YHVH???

Let me ask you again: So if one loves God with all of his heart can indeed work on the Sabbath while fulfilling the Law that stats very clearly not to work on the Sabbeth? Is that what I hear you saying Andrew?

The difference between Christianity and Judaism is that Christianity as yourself is an example of, believes loving God causes one to be absolved from performing the Law (while claiming they fulfilled it) while Judaism believes loving God cause one to preform to duties of the Law.

Again what am I missing on your theology on “keeping the Commandments”Andrew? What you and Christianity want to do is create a “new” set of NT Laws and call the YHVH commandments to the Hebrew people dead and “dead works” which is totally against the mindset of the Torah and prophets:

You shall not add to the word which I command you, neither shall you take away from it, so that you may keep the commands of YHVH your God which I command you. - Deut. 4:2

And the statutes, and the ordinances, and the law, and the commandment, which He wrote for you, you shall be careful to do FOREVER. - II Kings 17:37
That's "bottom line" Andrew!

Joe Whitehead said...

To Andrew - Response to comments posted on August 5, 2010 - Part 3

You wrote: "The Old Testament supports this when it YHVH declares that Israel is of uncircumsised hearts."

My response is simply a messianic age prophecy - I'll let the scripture refute your comment Please note that Ezekiel came "after" Isaiah:

"Thus saith YHVH GOD; No stranger, uncircumcised in heart, NOR UNCIRCUMCISED IN FLESH, shall enter into My sanctuary, of any stranger that is among the children of Israel" -Ezek. 44:9

You wrote: " Eventually by the time we get to the book of Isaiah we find God saying that he hates their sabbath keeping, and sacrifices, and feasts. The very thing that God commanded in the past he now proclaims he detests!"

My response: No Andrew He doesn't hate animal sacrifices. That's the most ridiculous answer I had ever heard - and you know better! You had to travel outside the mindset given throughout the Hebrew Bible in order to make your Gentile theology look more acceptable to come up with that doctrine!

It is not the sacrificial system itself but the evil heart when bringing it that was Israel's problem.
"TO WHAT PURPOSE IS THE MULTITUDE OF YOUR SACRIFICES UNTO ME? SAITH YHVH I am full of the burnt offerings of rams, and the fat of fed beasts; and I delight not in the blood of bullocks, or of lambs, or of he goats....
"Wash you, make you clean; put away the evil of your doings from before mine eyes; cease to do evil- Ish. 1: 11,16

Israel was thinking that all they had to do was bring sacrifices while continuing in sin and that would keep them in good standing with YHVH - YHVH was letting them know the sacrifice is only as good as the pure heart that brings it - all other sacrifices He hates (because its being used as a cover for sin.)

Again, the sacrificial system is restore in the Messianic age - showing that YHVH doesn't hate the sacrifices themselves! And if that was the case from Isaiah on as you described then you really have a case to try explain based on Romans 9:22.

Moses David and all the prophets knew the Law and the Love of God and through the Law they knew the mercy of YHVH as a bride to her husband. Your problem is not knowing the what the Law is from the influence of a Gentile and foreign religion - a different lens - looking glass, therefore you tell yourself you are fulfilling by a spirit but in reality you are NOT keeping the commandments of YHVH as they were given and instructed to keep - that's bottom line!

Notice, the laws will be kept as they are given in the Messianic age:
"And I will put My spirit within you, and cause you to walk in My statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, AND "DO" THEM. Ezk. 36:27

...they shall also walk in my judgments, and observe my statutes, AND DO THEM. - Ezk. 37:24

Andrew said...

Joe, I do not mean to divert, (we will continue discussing Judaism as a whole in contrast to Christianity as a whole) but I do have to admit that you have spiked a great amount on intrigue inside of me concerning your upbringing. (I was not really raised Christian, personally.)

Number one I will need to google search this man you mentioned but if you don't mind perhaps in your response you could include some of your views on him.

Number two if I understand you right then you described a Christian as a Child of God who you thought to be in error. In your context of Judaism how is it you can view a Christian as a child of God? In your Jewish beliefs do you think a sincere Christian is saved and will go to heaven?

Considering the fact that you grew up under a Pentecostal message did you ever recieve the baptism of the Holy Spirit? Specifically what I am asking is whether or not you ever spoke in tongues as the Spirit gave the utterance.

Please be elaborate in answering these questions because I am very VERY intrigued and vagueness will only prompt more questions.

I greatly appreciate it.

Andrew said...

In Romans Paul said that if you love your neighbor you will do no ill to your neighbor, by doing this you keep the law.

I see a difference between the moral law God established and the ceremonial law.

However if you are stuck on the keeping of ceremonies then I point out (what you surely already know)That there are plenty of Monotheistic Jews who believe in the Messiah and confess him as their savior but also perform the ordinances contained in the Law. JUST AS JAMES AND OTHERS IN JERUSALEM DID IN THE BEGINNING.

I see the sabbath and many of the various ritualistic performances of the Old Testament to be God's Covenant specifically with the Jews. Seeing how he spoke those things to them, for them, and established them through them. Thus I see nothing inherently displeasurable about a Hebrew who believes and trusts in Yeshua to keep the customs as they have been handed down to them but like the original Jewish church I do not agree that those things should be forcibly implemented upon the gentiles or required for salvation.

Andrew said...

The Spirit coming in me has strengthened me not to follow in the depraved paths I once did and to DO the things the Lord would have me to do.

Also there are gentile Christians who keep festivals and Sabbaths not as a means of Self-Justification but as a way of remembering God's Covenant with Israel and understanding the paths of the Lord.

My great grandmother on my Father's side was a Jew by the way. She grew up Jewish catholic and then became Pentecostal. I never got to meet her.

Andrew said...

Thankyou for the compliment Joe and yes, I do pray for Israel and believe she will have victory over her enemies. I think any Christianity that is an enemy of Israel is not true Christianity . As Romans says: "They are beloved because God chose them."

Joe Whitehead said...

To Andrew - Response to comments posted on August 5, 2010 - Part 4

I want to finish up responding to your prior posts on 08/05/2010 before going on to your three most reason three posted on 08/06/2010. I don't like letting an issue raised get pasted me (lest one think I'm avoiding the issue.) But I will condense them up in order to get to your resent posts if I can.

Concerning Lev 17:10-12 (and I'll have to add this to my blog) "the context" tells the background of all "points" one wishes to "hone" in on. If one wishes to "hone in on a point" without "consulting" the overall context (not just acknowledging it) they are sure to take their "honed in" point "out of context" which Christianity - seeking justification for its doctrine - does.

Fact: The three-verse context of Lev. 17:10-12 is all about the prohibition of eating (drinking) blood - not about the blood atonement itself. The part you "honed in on" is secondary to the context via explaining as to "why" it is forbidden to eat (drink) blood.
The text doesn't comment on it, but along the same principle as the lamb's blood on the doorpost in Egypt directly set itself against the Lamb-deity worship of pagan Egypt - the forbidding of consumption of blood was probably a direct response to the pagan religions in and around Cannon who ate and drank animal and "human" blood as part of their worship rituals - which bring the "spiritual aspect" of the Christian Communion into mind.

Andrew, you're contradicting yourself: If only "blood" was the avenue of atonement then the very poor according to Lev. 5:11 would be out of luck of ever having a "blood" mandated atonement.
Also, you have stated that YHVH was through with desiring animal "blood" sacrifices by the time of Isiah - which is ridicules given the fact that the YHVH-commissioned Second Temple (which functions included animal sacrifices) came long after Isaiah.
If indeed "blood" was "required" for atonement then like the very poor mentioned in Lev. 5:11 the prophets who came after Isaiah such as Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, Hosea, ect would be out of luck as well.

Look at what you are trying to do Andrew. You're trying to inject a foreign doctrine in order to answer (make fit) Judaism Bible-based objections.

Joe Whitehead said...

To Andrew - Response to comments posted on August 5, 2010 - Part 5

I never intended to end this discussion that I'm starting to enjoy more and more - I always have allowed the person taking the time to post on my blog-site to end their comments on their own. In fact, I'm on Facebook if you wish to join me there as well.

I was addressing to the fact that we have discussed a lot of topics of which apparently we both are not getting satisfying answers - perhaps because we're not getting the other converted :)

Sorry for being so blunt in my past responses / comments - but I'm used to dealing with radical Muslims and Jew-hating neos in which you have to be in their face - that's the only thing they understand.

You ought to know that since you told me you have a Jewish great grandmother (as I have a Jewish great grandfather on my mother's side) I'm really going to be working on you to get to back to the Sinai covenant. :)

Joe Whitehead said...

To Andrew - Response to comments posted on August 5, 2010 - Part 6

I encourage you to learn Biblical Hebrew without fail - if you ever have any question on it let me know.
I wish you was in the Oklahoma City area where I may soon be teaching it publicly - free a charge of course.

Since the relationship between Israel and YHVH is to be as a husband and bride - you wouldn't want your bride to hear your love words to her be through a foreign interpreter, or for her to call you "husband" instead of "Andrew" every time she spoke to you right? The same goes for the God of Israel and the Hebrew Bible. You will find the more you get into it how much more deeper the text becomes when reading it in its original language that it was holy given in.

My Christian wife (yes I know - we have jihads every now and then) does know some Greek - so I do believe Greek is very helpful in understanding the NT.
However, Greek is NOT the language chosen by the God of Israel. Greek is the language of the Goyim (gentiles).
Also, Hebrew is the "only" ancient so-called "dead language" to be "resurrected" into the modern age!
So learn it Andrew - you'll be glad you did.

By the way: "HALLELUJAH" is a command to all to "praise YHVH".

I'll try to get to your most resent posts tomorrow.
Later,
Joe

Joe Whitehead said...

To Andrew - Response to comments posted on 08-06-2010 - Part 1

When you google William Branham your going to get mostly negative stuff. You'll get more reasonable information from "Voice of God Recordings Inc." or better yet, hear for yourself one of his sermons - I would recommend "Three Kind of Believers" and or "Anointed Ones at the End Time". I guarantee it will be a sermon like you have never heard before.

As you know any Christian group not submitting to the Trinity doctrine is demonized by the Trinitarians - big time.

Hank Hanegraaff [yamach shamo - may his name be obliterated] popular book "Counterfeit Revival" that included the audio version in the mid 90's, had William Branham as his first target. He used an excerpt from which William Branham was declaring the Trinity to be of the devil.

My personal view of William Branham is that I don't know another who would be a greater gift to the christian Gentile world as far as the Christian Gentile world goes. One of the greatest features of his ministry I think was when he was in Cairo, Egypt with ticket in hand for Israel fixing to take his gift of healing, revealing the thoughts and past of peoples lives to be displayed to Israel when "the Spirit" told him not to go.

He had great success all around the Gentile world, but he was not permitted to use his gift in Israel though he wanted to and those around him pressed him to do so.

You wrote: In your context of Judaism how is it you can view a Christian as a child of God?

My answer: A pure motive and love towards the Sinai Covenant and Torah (without even knowing it) verses a spirit of mischief towards the God of Israel (including His oneness).
One quick incomplete example of each:
1. The more pro-Israel one is I noticed the more sanctified his Christian walk is - that's not a coincidence.

2. Those who side with the Palestinians on their political view for the cause and sake of their Christian doctrine are nothing but devils.

You wrote: " In your Jewish beliefs do you think a sincere Christian is saved and will go to heaven?"

My quick answer: Absolutely.
Also note that "traditional Judaism" teaches that if the goyim follows the 7 noahide laws (each one goes deeper than something said on the surface) they will have a part in the world to come.

Joe Whitehead said...

To Andrew - Response to comments posted on 08-06-2010 - Part 2

I would argue with you within the realm of first century NT doctrine that "tongues" was the evidence of the "Holy Spirit" though Acts shows tongues present. I know that is the Oneness Pentecostal doctrine along with the doctrine of "baptismal regeneration". I call it "the H20 doctrine".

Have all the gifts of healing? do all speak with tongues? do all interpret?" - I Cor. 12:30

I'm no Greek expert but according to my wife, the Greek word spelled with the Greek letters "mu te" pronounced "mae" used throughout this verse is a "particle of negation" that is most commonly used with non-indicative verbs and questions expecting a negative answer. So the answer to Paul's questions above is that of "no" - not all believers speak with tongues.

They are now starting to teach this lesson in Jewish Yesheva schools - just kidding! :)

Now if you want me to, I can write "YHVH is God" or something like that in the Hebrew "Tongue" and then interpret it, being that Acts has "tongues" as authentic languages and not the Kenneth Hagan stuff!

"... because that every man heard them speak in his own language." - Acts 2:6

Joe Whitehead said...

To Andrew - Response to comments posted on 08-06-2010 - Part 3

You wrote: In Romans Paul said that if you love your neighbor you will do no ill to your neighbor, by doing this you keep the law.

My Response: "This Book of the Law shall not depart from your mouth, but you shall meditate in it day and night, that you may observe to do according to all that is written in it..." - Joshua 1:7

You wrote: I see a difference between the moral law God established and the ceremonial law.

My Response: "Remember the Law of Moses, My servant, Which I commanded him in Horeb for all Israel, WITH THE STATUTES AND JUDGMENTS." - MAL.4:4

You wrote: That there are plenty of Monotheistic Jews who believe in the Messiah and confess him as their savior but also perform the ordinances contained in the Law. JUST AS JAMES AND OTHERS IN JERUSALEM DID IN THE BEGINNING.

My Response:
1. The whole book of Galatians addresses what you're suggesting. I call today's Messianics a cult described in the book of Galatians.
2. Christianity's foundation is a mixture of Judaism and paganism. To worship YHVH through "humanhood" for it "takes away" and "adds to" the Sinai Covenant. It's the same it principle to accept Mohammad as Allah's prophet while still keeping the Jewish traditions.

"Lo eesh El" "God is not a man" that He should be deceitful, not a "son of man" that He should relent - Numbers 23:19

Do not put your trust in princes, nor in "the son of man" in whom there is no ta-shu-ah (salvation) - Psalms 146:3 (modern King James Version)

Hebrew note: Remember me posting earlier and telling you that the Hebrew letter in "Yeshua" doesn't mean YHVH? That it is a root letter of a 3-letter basic verb meaning "to save" and that actually disappears in certain verb stems? Well, here it is in the noun-form in Ps. 146:3. The word ta-shuah in the verse means "salvation". It is taken from the root verb "ya-sha" but to make it a noun the weak letter "yod" is dropped at the beginning of the word and the letter "tav" replaces it, and the letter "hay" is added at the end of the word.
But isn't it strange given the nature and context of the verse (Ps. 146:3) that the title "son of man" is given along with the root word from where the name Yashua derives, is part of this verse???
I'm thinking Bible code?

Joe Whitehead said...

To Andrew - Response to comments posted on 08-06-2010 - Part 4

Keep on the path where ever God leads you. I'm not trying to end our discussions when I say this, but I hope I have given you some things to consider - at least to know the mindset of those in Judaism be they Jews or Gentiles.

You can't take mine or anybody else's word on anything - your journey with God is between you and God alone - of course you know that.

For me, I don't feel like I've left Christianity (as one might throw something away altogether) but that I simply graduated to a higher understanding (elementary to junior-high in a sense). I wouldn't trade my Christian experience(s) for nothing, and I truly mean that.

God does use Christianity for His overall purpose in the world and that too is believed by traditional Judaism.

Anywho, I think I'm caught up now responding.

Andrew said...

I understand the context of the Leviticus scripture where it says blood is the atonement for your souls however I do not think that the context negates the fact that the blood IS for atonement. I consider the commandment to not eat blood to not only be prohibition seperating Jew's from pagans but also a statute generating a respect for blood which led the apostles to write about how the blood of Jesus atones for the soul.


Both the rich and the poor can come to Jesus and find atonement in his blood. There is equality in Jesus Christ.

I'm sorry if I gave the impression that I thought God was finished with animal sacrifices in Isaiah but what I was trying to point out is that although at the time it was still a commandment God was tiring of their faithless ceremonies.

Infact Isaiah is the book where God says "Behold I will do a new thing."

Andrew said...

I'm glad you've been enjoying our discussions and neither of us have any intent of ending them any time soon. I would join you on face book except I dont have one L.O.L. but if I ever make one I will be sure to look you up.

Yes, I understand you previous blunt responses and am enthused we have that settled and can continue into further regions of discussion.

I do have a Jewish great grandmother. my physical heritage is quite interesting seeing that my father is from Mexico and I'm in America. Although part Mexican I am white with red hair! I also have scotch-welsh, european, and to top it off Hebrew in me! So although my great grandmother on my fathers side (she was also in Mexico) was Jewish I would hardly consider myself physically a Jew. Not quite even a Samaritan, but a gentile with the faith of Abraham...

When two people coming from individual and contradictory points of view hash it out verbally trying to see who's wrong and who's right there is always a predisposition for each individual to consider themselves right and desire for the other person to adapt their view points. Consequently I'm not offended by your desire to bring me into the "Sinai covenant" because as much as you would like me to convert I as well would like to see you return your faith to the Calvary Covenant and trust in Jesus again.

Bias is the nature of the human mind therefor we will continue to discuss issues hopefully until someone has satisfying answers!

Notice where both the old and new covenants were established: Sinai and Calvary. Neither were in a valley and that's no coincidence

Andrew said...

Questions...???

In traditional Judaism wouldn't having a Christian wife be considered a vile sort of mixing just like the many occasions in which the God of Israel rebuked them for taking gentile wifes of different beliefs?

When your wife and you have Jihad how is it that you while denying Jesus as Messiah stay with her?

As someone seeking the Israeli Covenant don't you want to live in Israel.

I understand your view on the place of the New Testament tongues so still my question to you is have YOU ever spoken in tongues as the Spirit gives the utterance.

In what way did you grow up under the message of William Branham. Were you in Branhamism (absolute religous devotion to William Branham) or did you simply agree with his message.

God said he would affirm the apostles words with sigs following. William B. said Jesus was Messiah and had miraculous signs following so shouldn't that be proof in that light that Jesus IS Messiah?

What are the seven noahide (if I spelt that right) laws that traditional Judaism says a gentile performs he will have part of the kingdom and how do you prove that scripture advocates these views?

Most of the negative stuff I read about William Branham was pertaining to his somewhat audacious claim to be Elijah the prophet that would come in the last days. Do you believe he is Elijah?

I have someone willing to teach me New Testament Greek this upcoming September but do you know of any ways to learn biblical Hebrew for free?

Andrew said...

Acts two does speak of specific dialects but in Corinthians Paul speaks of an unknown tongue which no one understands but only God understands.

http://onenesspentecostal.com/tonguelearned.htm

That is a good page if you want to read something on the subject showing that it is infact a super-natural experience and that it is not confined to learned languages.

Also the interpretation is not a translation as in your example because in the book of Corinthians Paul describes that one should pray that they may be able to interpret thus showing it is not of learned ability but gifted spirituality.

Andrew said...

... that is tongueslearned.htm ... I'm not sure why it got cut off.

I consider the New Testament to be written in Greek because it is the YHVH of old making his gospel message attainable to all the world through the use of a gentile tongue.

I would infact love to learn Hebrew but do not seem to have a way.

I do not believe in baptismal regeneration (H20 doctrine) by the way.

You refferenced something I have heard before, namely, the idea that Hebrew will be ressurected. Please explain this idea and where it comes from.

I do not consider the actual flesh a.k.a. human aspect of Jesus to be God but I call him God when pointing to his deity.

I find it very interesting that although you adhere to Judaism religously you believe God uses Christianity to get people into His kingdom. TRADITIONAL Judaism believes this? Why?

I HAVE been gaining much knowledge of the modern day Jewish positions on theological issues and it has been very helpful. It's always a pleasure Joe.

Joe Whitehead said...

To Andrew - Responding to your comments posted on 08/10/2010

I'll try to complete my responses in a five-part postings. What I don't finish I'll continue a short time later. So this will be [part 1]

The blood was no doubt set aside for atonement (no Jew would argue that point) but the blood was "not necessary" "in the sense" that without it one was just out of luck and could not have atonement as Heb. 9:22 gives the wrong suggestion.

The poor and the rich are equally before YHVH in the Hebrew scriptures (notice the "non-blood" atonement)
"The rich shall not give more, and the poor shall not give less than half a shekel, when they give an offering unto YHVH, to make an atonement for your souls. - Ex. 30:15

The "new" in Isaiah 43:19 ("thing" is not in the Hebrew) is the restoration of Israel that we see prophesied in places like Ezekiel 37:21-28.

Joe Whitehead said...

To Andrew - Responding to your comments posted on 08/10/2010
Part 2 of 5

Just guessing - but your great grandmother was probably from a line of "conversos" who fled to Mexico to escape the Spanish inquisitions.
You should do a deep research on your great grandmother Andrew.
Here is a good place to start >
http://www.jewishheritage.org/

Becoming aware of the Sinai Covenant "as a gentile" was scary yet comforting at the same time. I literally thought I was the only gentile coming to know YHVH through His Sinai Covenant and it blew my mind when it was reveled to me the Gentile explosion that has been happening. I never ever, ever, ever, thought I'd be where I'm at today, in a billion years - and that's putting it mildly!

Therefore Andrew, my Jewish Heritage friend, I'm going to say that it will be "you" who will be the one to convert - by the "new" that YHVH is doing to do in your own life and the Jewish nation as a whole!

Note: The 16th. chapter of Jeremiah describes the 10 lost tribes of Israel as becoming to believe that they are gentiles and not Jews until the time of the end when YHVH calls them out!

Andrew said...

Most Jews who come to believe in Jesus would say that for them it fulfills their Jewish heritage in the same way that Messiah fulfills the prophetic scriptures. The prophetic scriptures are barren without the fulfillment of having brought to pass the will of God and many natural Jews find the knowledge of the gospel satisfying for their souls. That being said I find whatever Jewish heritage I have to be completed in Messiah, who is, in fact, the King of the Jews.

I understand your fervor for me to be the one to convert and I feel the same for you! Humans are never void of bias.

Andrew said...

I downloaded those sermons from Branham and will be listening to them.

I clicked the e-mail link from jewishheritage.org and I don't think it sent me to the right spot.

I'll let you finish responding. Just wanted to comment on the point you already brought out:)

Joe Whitehead said...

To Andrew - I'm in between two jobs and visiting a friend in the hospital whose on the liver transplant list. Therefore, it maybe not until this week-end that I'll have time to properly respond.

-Joe

Andrew said...

Alright thanks for letting me know and I look forward to your response when you get some free time.

Joe Whitehead said...

To Andrew - Response to comments posted on August 11, 2010

You wrote: "Most Jews who come to believe in Jesus would say that for them it fulfills their Jewish heritage"
and
"I find whatever Jewish heritage I have to be completed in Messiah"

On your August 10th (3:17pm) post you wrote:
"I would hardly consider myself physically a Jew. Not quite even a Samaritan, but a gentile with the faith of Abraham..."

Through your own statements Andrew, It's easy to see Christianity is an end to the covenant that God set to remain forever.

Issiah 59:21
As for me, this is my covenant with them [those of physical Zion] saith YHVH; My spirit that is upon thee, and my words which I have put in thy mouth, shall not depart out of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy seed, nor out of the mouth of thy seed's seed, saith YHVH, from henceforth and for ever.

Again, every element contained within the everlasting covenant Christianity (mixed with its paganism method of worship) seeks to change it entire "everlasting, YHVH-set, structure.

Fact: That you are living proof of:
Within 3 or 4 generations of a Jew leaving the Sinai covenant, the descendants of such are cut-off from being identified as People of the covenant.

Bottom line: Like Islam, Christianity seeks the end of the covenant.
However, Zechariah 8:23 shows at the End of Days the end to Christianity and Islam at the same time.

Joe Whitehead said...

To Andrew - Continuing now in responding to your comments posted on 08/10/2010 Part 3 of 5

My wife and I stay together for the same reasons. Number one, we love each other. Number two, God works out the differences. Don't you think i Corinthians 7:13-14 is good advise?

As soon as I can get my "unbelieving wife" (lol) to commit, we're off to Israel.

No, I never spoke in tongues in the way you mean in asking - for when you wrote on your August 10th. 2010 [3:37 pm] that "in Corinthians Paul speaks of an unknown tongue which no one understands but only God understands" you must understand that I Corinthians 14:2 is addressing the abuse the Church at Corith. If you will continue in the text (verses 3-9) you will see that Paul was stating how much more edifying "prophecy" was that everybody understood than for someone to speak in an non-understandable language that only himself and God knew.

I was baptized at nine years old believing W. Branham to be a sinner save by grace, but a Gentile prophet with a prophetic message to the Gentiles.

You wrote: "William B. said Jesus was Messiah and had miraculous signs following so shouldn't that be proof in that light that Jesus IS Messiah?

My answer: when you hear "Anointed Ones at the End Time" you will have a good understanding why "gifts" are NOT the vindication of the message. And then there is Deuteronomy chapter 13.
However, W. Branham's special gifts to the "Gentile world" did come from God allowing the Gentile world to take part with God.

The seven Noahide Laws are "civilization laws" contained in Genesis 9.

When the prophesied "Spirit of Elijah" does hit Israel it will be very much like what W. Branham manifested to the Gentile world as a Gentile - I do believe.

I would suggest buying the book "Learn Hebrew Today - Alef-Bet for Adults" by Paul Michael Yedwab and Howard I. Bogot (This is the book I teach from) ISBN 0-8074-0483-7

This will get you through the Alepha Bet and learning all the vowels and will build word structure as you go. It about 18 shekels (dollars) for the book but it makes learning easy. Then stay in touch with me for questions - lol.

Joe Whitehead said...

To Andrew - Continuing now in responding to your comments posted on 08/10/2010 Part 4 of 5

You wrote:
"Also the interpretation is not a translation as in your example because in the book of Corinthians Paul describes that one should pray that they may be able to interpret thus showing it is not of learned ability but gifted spirituality."

The N.T. verses you are referring: "Wherefore let him that speaks in an unknown tongue (language) pray that he may interpret." - 1Corinthians 14:13

My response: Basically Paul is saying that if one speaks via "the tongue-gift" (say Greek in amongst a Hebrew crowd) that one should pray he can interpret it to the Hebrews otherwise he'd be wasting his time and their time.

Just five verses later (verse 19) Paul states:
"Yet in the church I had rather speak five words with my understanding, that by my voice I might teach others also, than ten thousand words in an unknown tongue."

Joe Whitehead said...

To Andrew - Continuing now in responding to your comments posted on 08/10/2010 Part 5 of 5

In seeking the changing of very the elements of the everlasting covenant (Torah /YHVH's Name/ Physical land of Israel/ Physical seed of Jacob) a need for "changing" the very spoken language of the everlasting covenant was needed as well - to help facilitate the big Gentile-oriented "method of worship" change.

Again, Greek is the language of the Goyim:

Zechariah 8:23
Thus saith YHVH of hosts; In those days it shall come to pass, that ten men shall take hold OUT OF ALL LANGUAGES OF THE NATIONS, even shall take hold of the skirt of him that is a Jew, saying, We will go with you: for we have heard that God is with "you" ("ahtem" meaning "plural-you" in the Hebrew - not just one man lest ye try to Christalogical it)

The goal in transferring the Holy Language of Hebrew to Goyim-Greek is again like unto Islam wanting to change it into Islam (method of worship) Arabic - the transfer purpose and goal are the exact same.

It is within the Hebrew Language that the very Name of God "YHVH" is given. Therefore, because Christianity has within it the Goyin pagan-Greek culture the N.T. does not mention (not even once) the Name of the God of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, and "all" the prophets! But it is prophesied that at the End of Days that the nations will know God in the "Name" that Moses and "all" the prophets knew Him.

Ezekiel 36:23
"...and the heathen shall know that I am YHVH, saith YHVH GOD, when I shall be sanctified in you before their eyes.

Zech. 14:9
"YHVH will be the King over all the earth; on that day YHVH will be one and His Name will be one"

Hebrew wasn't an everyday language from about 200 CE to 1880 CE. It was a "dead language" like Latin. But with the prophesied "return the exiles" Hebrew has become the only "resurrected" language in the world! Something your Greek can't say!

Your Christian Communion "alone" connects you to the human flesh of Jesus.

Joe Whitehead said...

To Andrew - Continuing now in responding to your comments posted on 08/10/2010 Part 6 (because I didn't have room within the "4096 spaces" allotted to post it on part 5).

Before the Temple was destroyed in 70CE (common era) the complete pagan world worship was the norm for the nations. However, since the Temple's destruction the majority of the world's population now adheres to a religion founded on the Torah and the Hebrew prophets. Christianity took over the West while Islam covers the Middle East (At one time Islam was larger than the Roman Empire at its peek).

God has used Christianity and Islam to prepare the world for the knowledge of the messiah and the Messianic age that is to come. If it was left totally pagan as before the time of the temple, the world would not understand the messianic concept when it arrived.

Christianity, as well as Islam, through its persecution of the Jews has been used as a sheep-dog that keeps the heard together keeping the Jewish nation bound ever so-close together through the last 2,000 since the temple's destruction.

Because rivalries are a lot more intense in close proximity (example OU Sooners and OSU Cowboys play lights out more so when playing each other in the same state than playing say, Kansas Jayhawks) YHVH will use the intensity rivalry between Christianity-Islam and the Jewish nation to show his divine glory:

Ezekiel 37:28
"And the Goyim shall know that I YHVH do sanctify Israel, when My sanctuary shall be in the midst of them for evermore." (Also read my 5 part blog that we are posting back and forth on [Isaiah 53].

Out of the usage of Torah-based / pagan-mixed Christianity for the proposes mentioned above, good-holy people as well as evil-devil people have come out of Christianity.
John Hagee's Christianity has developed him into a child of God (though in error) while Jeremiah Wright's Christianity expresses a devil on earth.
Hagee's Christianity is pro-covenant and therefore eternally blessed while Wright's Christianity is anti-Semitic and therefore anti-covenant based and is forever damned.

Andrew said...

Hey Joe I just wanna let cha know it might be a little while for me to respond in detail. I will be camping through the remainder of this week and weekend with my church and also due to my grandmother's recent decease (I was very close to her) I will be attending to family things for some time. I'll get back to you when I get the chance. Thank you.

Joe Whitehead said...

To Andres,
I'm very sorry to hear about your loss - something tells me you'll see your grandmother again not to far off in the future the way the world is rapidly moving towards its end.

There's certainly no rush in postings comments - take all the time you need, and take care until I hear from you again.

-Joe

Samuel Maynes said...

If you are interested in some new ideas on the Trinity and religious pluralism, please check out my website at www.religiouspluralism.ca. It previews my book, which has not been published yet and is still a “work-in-progress.” Your constructive criticism would be very much appreciated.

My thesis is that an abstract version of the Trinity could be Christianity’s answer to the world need for a framework of pluralistic theology.

In a constructive worldview: east, west, and far-east religions present a threefold understanding of One God manifest primarily in Muslim and Hebrew intuition of the Deity Absolute, Christian and Krishnan Hindu conception of the Universe Absolute Supreme Being; and Shaivite Hindu, Buddhist, Taoist apprehension of the Destroyer (meaning also Consummator), Unconditioned Absolute, or Spirit of All That Is and is not. Together with their variations and combinations in other major religions, these religious ideas reflect and express our collective understanding of God, in an expanded concept of the Holy Trinity.

The Trinity Absolute is portrayed in the logic of world religions, as follows:

1. Muslims and Jews may be said to worship only the first person of the Trinity, i.e. the existential Deity Absolute Creator, known as Allah or Yhwh, Abba or Father (as Jesus called him), Brahma, and other names; represented by Gabriel (Executive Archangel), Muhammad and Moses (mighty messenger prophets), and others.

2. Christians and Krishnan Hindus may be said to worship the first person through a second person, i.e. the experiential Universe or "Universal” Absolute Supreme Being (Allsoul or Supersoul), called Son/Christ or Vishnu/Krishna; represented by Michael (Supreme Archangel), Jesus (teacher and savior of souls), and others. The Allsoul is that gestalt of personal human consciousness, which we expect will be the "body of Christ" (Mahdi, Messiah, Kalki or Maitreya) in the second coming – personified in history by Muhammad, Jesus Christ, Buddha (9th incarnation of Vishnu), and others.

3. Shaivite Hindus, Buddhists, and Confucian-Taoists seem to venerate the synthesis of the first and second persons in a third person or appearance, ie. the Destiny Consummator of ultimate reality – unqualified Nirvana consciousness – associative Tao of All That Is – the absonite* Unconditioned Absolute Spirit “Synthesis of Source and Synthesis,”** who/which is logically expected to be Allah/Abba/Brahma glorified in and by union with the Supreme Being – represented in religions by Gabriel, Michael, and other Archangels, Mahadevas, Spiritpersons, etc., who may be included within the mysterious Holy Ghost.

Other strains of religion seem to be psychological variations on the third person, or possibly combinations and permutations of the members of the Trinity – all just different personality perspectives on the Same God. Taken together, the world’s major religions give us at least two insights into the first person of this thrice-personal One God, two perceptions of the second person, and at least three glimpses of the third.

* The ever-mysterious Holy Ghost or Unconditioned Spirit is neither absolutely infinite, nor absolutely finite, but absonite; meaning neither existential nor experiential, but their ultimate consummation; neither fully ideal nor totally real, but a middle path and grand synthesis of the superconscious and the conscious, in consciousness of the unconscious.

** This conception is so strong because somewhat as the Absonite Spirit is a synthesis of the spirit of the Absolute and the spirit of the Supreme, so it would seem that the evolving Supreme Being may himself also be a synthesis or “gestalt” of humanity with itself, in an Almighty Universe Allperson or Supersoul. Thus ultimately, the Absonite is their Unconditioned Absolute Coordinate Identity – the Spirit Synthesis of Source and Synthesis – the metaphysical Destiny Consummator of All That Is.

For more details, please see: www.religiouspluralism.ca

Samuel Stuart Maynes