By the way -- if you claim to be a Christian...

[Sargonski]

My sins are forgiven because Jesus Christ gave
His life, was buried and rose from the dead. It is finished - debt is paid, Veil of the temple torn in two top to bottom, fulfilled Isaiah 52-53,Psalm 22. No more sacrifices needed year after year because they were satisfied once and for all for those coming to God through Jesus Christ.
Otherwise where is your atonement, your blood sacrifice for sin? There is no temple because the old covenant is obsolete. If you fail just one time to keep the commandments you’re guilty of all, the soul that sins will die, no one can keep the law perfectly except Jesus Christ and He is the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the World.
I’m under the New Covenant Jesus Christ established at the last Passover before He died.
Being born again and living a Holy life, a royal priesthood, chosen generation, presenting our bodies as living sacrifices why? Because of the love He showed us at the Cross, giving his life for us, we do the same because we love God.

You misunderstand the sacrament- Your Sins are not forgiven because the Scapegoat dies --- your sins are forgiven because you asked for repentance . there is no forgiveness without repentence goat .. or no goat. The Scapegoat is the payment had to be made on your behalf for that forgiveness to be granted upon repentence . . should the sin be other than the unforgivable .. and then u in deep doo doo

 

[Dimi95]

Ya, execution probably was not fun.

I am so annoyed when people go into one-way discussion..

I still try to find out why would he say petra and i can't

 

[2ndpillar]

With respect

You should learn first something about Logic , then something about languages and History and then you can come back here and talk about Scripture.

There is no point to quote the other part of the answer since you were disproven quite a few times and still you continue with non-sense.

I agree that someone should learn more about language and history. As for Scripture, the "petra"/foundation stone of the church is the Spirit of Revelation/prophecy (Mt 16:17), which was the basis of Simon bar Jonas knowing that Yeshua was the messiah, the son of God, is also the foundation for having understanding, for it is only for those who are not numbered among the "wicked"/lawless, who have access to the Spirit of God, which is the Spirit of prophecy. Your supposed wisdom and "logic" is shown by Yeshua in Matthew 11:25, to be a non source of understanding. The traditions of men, which build upon themselves into a logical mess of presumptions based on false premises, takes people into a crazy complex of doublemindedness, and loss of a grip with reality. One should be careful how far down that road a person travel.

Matthew 16:17 And Jesus said to him, “Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven.

Matthew 11:25 At that time Jesus said, “I praise You, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that You have hidden these things from the wise and intelligent, and have revealed them to infants.

 

[2ndpillar]

I am so annoyed when people go into one-way discussion..

I still try to find out why would he say petra and i can't

You can say "petra" all you want but know petra (foundation stone) referred to the foundation of the church, which was the Spirit of Revelation/prophecy, which was defined as the "message of Yeshua (Revelation 19:10), and not the new name of Peter, which was petros, which means small stone, or pebble. As for using Peter and Cephas, Paul used both in the same chapter of Galatians 2. Being a follower of Paul, I see no problem with you following Paul down that path (Mt 7:12-15).

 

[2ndpillar]

You misunderstand the sacrament- Your Sins are not forgiven because the Scapegoat dies --- your sins are forgiven because you asked for repentance . there is no forgiveness without repentence goat .. or no goat. The Scapegoat is the payment had to be made on your behalf for that forgiveness to be granted upon repentence . . should the sin be other than the unforgivable .. and then u in deep doo doo

With respect to the feast of atonement, the sacrifice was the bull and the use of his blood in the holy of holies. The goat was a scape goat, who was not sacrificed, but released into the wilderness. The goat, as with the goat horned and hoofed Satan, was relegated to the wilderness, as with being "sealed" into the "abyss" for 1000 years (Rev 20:2). Keep in mind, that after 1000 years, Satan is released, to again deceives the "nations"/Gentiles (Rev 20:7-8), as is being done now per Revelation 13:11-13) through the "beast with two horns like a lamb", by means of a daughter of Babylon, the Holy Roman Catholic Church, set up by Constantine at his convened Council of Nicaea in 325 A.D. And yes, those with the mark of the beast, are in "deep doo doo" as stated in Revelation 14:10.

 

[2ndpillar]

Ya, execution probably was not fun.

The "annihilation" of the 3 shepherds of Zechariah 11, Paul, Judas Iscariot, and Peter, was predetermined per Zech 11:8. Now as far as those with the "mark of the beast (Constantine) with two horns like a lamb", well, apparently, they will have to drink from the "cup of His/God's anger" (Rev 14:10) Now as to what is worse, being choked to death by Nero, as in the case of Paul, or being roped to a cross by one's belt, or by being hung by a tree, as in the case of Judas Iscariot, their death was probably quicker than the one where everyone will pray to die, as in Revelation 9:6.

 

[2ndpillar]

Of course it was! And when Jesus changed his name, he undoubtedly did it for a reason as many Jewish names in Hebrew have meaning to them. And Jesus says this is what he's doing when he starts out "Thou art Petros,..." [Greek translation].

IOW, he's using a play on words.

And "thou art Petros" means your new name is "pebble/little stone", which is not the foundation stone (petra) of the church. Saul was given the name "Paul", which means "small" which goes along with anyone annulling the "smallest" of the letters of the Law or the prophets, will be called "least".(Mt 5:19)l

 

[Subduction Zone]

And "thou art Petros" means your new name is "pebble/little stone", which is not the foundation stone (petra) of the church. Saul was given the name "Paul", which means "small" which goes along with anyone annulling the "smallest" of the letters of the Law or the prophets, will be called "least".(Mt 5:19)l

No, Saul took the name "Paul" because it was the closest Roman name to his Jewish one. There is no evidence in the Bible that he ever changed his name. From a Christian source:

It’s a Myth! Paul Wasn’t Saul’s Christian Name - Clear Creek Resources

This article was originally published on September 2, 2020 at blog.yanceyarrington.com and posted here by permission. You can read the original article here. Let’s make this short and sweet. God didn’t change the apostle’s name from Saul to Paul when the man from Tarsus became a Christian...

clearcreekresources.org

 

[2ndpillar]

There is no point to make there , the verse alone is enough to speak.



Of course you don't understand.

How can you understand since the only tool that you use is Scripture and you use it to fit in your understanding.

Cephas is a masculine name of Aramaic origin, meaning "rock." It is derived from the Aramaic word kephas, which means "rock" or "stone."

John 1:42
"And he brought him to Jesus.
Jesus looked at him and said, 'You are Simon son of John. You will be called Cephas' (which, when translated, is Peter)."

Cephas = Peter

Again , disproven

Again, Matthew 16:28 "you are Peter (Gr Petros). Petros meaning rock or stone in Greek. Petra meaning foundational stone. Two different words and two different meanings. Why did Yeshua do this? To fulfill Isaiah 22:15-16, whereas the new steward (head of house of the royal household), Peter, would claim a place in the "rock" (Is 22:16). Whereas this "steward"/Peter would be found wanting, after shaming his master's house (Is 22:18), and eventually being "disposed" from his office.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Again, Matthew 16:28 "you are Peter (Gr Petros). Petros meaning rock or stone in Greek. Petra meaning foundational stone. Two different words and two different meanings. Why did Yeshua do this? To fulfill Isaiah 22:15-16, whereas the new steward (head of house of the royal household), Peter, would claim a place in the "rock" (Is 22:16). Whereas this "steward"/Peter would be found wanting, after shaming his master's house (Is 22:18), and eventually being "disposed" from his office.

Or more probably scholars did some quote mining after the fact.

 

[2ndpillar]

No, Saul took the name "Paul" because it was the closest Roman name to his Jewish one. There is no evidence in the Bible that he ever changed his name. From a Christian source:

It’s a Myth! Paul Wasn’t Saul’s Christian Name - Clear Creek Resources

This article was originally published on September 2, 2020 at blog.yanceyarrington.com and posted here by permission. You can read the original article here. Let’s make this short and sweet. God didn’t change the apostle’s name from Saul to Paul when the man from Tarsus became a Christian...

clearcreekresources.org

Paul didn't become a "Christian", he created Christianity. Yeshua was a Jew until death, and so were his apostles. Saul was born a Roman citizen, and his name was Saul from birth. No need for him change his name from "Saul" which means asked for, or prayed for, to a name which means "small", except that Paul was fulfilling the prophecy of Yeshua regarding Mt 5:18-19.

 

[2ndpillar]

Or more probably scholars did some quote mining after the fact.

The wicked/lawless, whether scholars, or clergy, did not understand the scripture, as stated in Matthew 13:13-14, to affectively obscure that which was already stated in parables, as in already obscured. The play was to add and subtract (Rev 22:18-19). The "message" of the "enemy"/"devil" was simply planted next to the good seed, the message of the "son of man" in the same field/book (NT) (Mt 13:25-50).

 

[Subduction Zone]

Paul didn't become a "Christian", he created Christianity. Yeshua was a Jew until death, and so were his apostles. Saul was born a Roman citizen, and his name was Saul from birth. No need for him change his name from "Saul" which means asked for, or prayed for, to a name which means "small", except that Paul was fulfilling the prophecy of Yeshua regarding Mt 5:18-19.

I did not say that he became a Christian. Yes, the source that I used said that. But that does not mean that I accepted that.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The wicked/lawless, whether scholars, or clergy, did not understand the scripture, as stated in Matthew 13:13-14, to affectively obscure that which was already stated in parables, as in already obscured. The play was to add and subtract (Rev 22:18-19). The "message" of the "enemy"/"devil" was simply planted next to the good seed, the message of the "son of man" in the same field/book (NT) (Mt 13:25-50).

Or the whole Jesus story could be just a lot of myths.

 

[Sargonski]

With respect to the feast of atonement, the sacrifice was the bull and the use of his blood in the holy of holies. The goat was a scape goat, who was not sacrificed, but released into the wilderness. The goat, as with the goat horned and hoofed Satan, was relegated to the wilderness, as with being "sealed" into the "abyss" for 1000 years (Rev 20:2). Keep in mind, that after 1000 years, Satan is released, to again deceives the "nations"/Gentiles (Rev 20:7-8), as is being done now per Revelation 13:11-13) through the "beast with two horns like a lamb", by means of a daughter of Babylon, the Holy Roman Catholic Church, set up by Constantine at his convened Council of Nicaea in 325 A.D. And yes, those with the mark of the beast, are in "deep doo doo" as stated in Revelation 14:10.

Wow .. while animal sacrifice was part of normal religious ritual -- the scapegoat was sent out into the desert to apease the Desert God Azazel..

no idea how you figure the scapegoat is an anagram for Satan .. and Revelations has zero to do with the issue.

now .. we do have Ha Satan -- that Old Tester from Job .. "The Adversary" his Job Title given him by God .. a powerful God in his own right Ha Satan - one of the Son's of the Supreme one .. .. Chief God over the earth. ... After being adopted by the Supreme One .. the chosen Messiah .. ordained one of God .. One of the Angels .. a sprite ..leads Jesus to the Desert !! Desert God .. nudge nudge wink wink !!

40 days the Ritual Testing - before Jesus can activate the little peice of the All -Spark bestowed upon him by his adopted Father .. the Son of Man -- notice the distinction between Jesus and Ha Satan .. The Chief God over the earth is born of God vs God .. where Jesus is .. born of man and woman .. Son of Man -- his divinity ..put upon him as a man .. a Human .. at the age of 30.

Now .. "the whore of Babylon" ? .. "Set up by good Emperor Constantine" how does that related to the story of our story of human sacrifice .. the human Scape-Goat.

How can we relate these two .. except in having that sacrifice .. be to the wrong God ? .. all very complicate after this point. Was Jesus sacrificed to the Desert God .. who at the time was Ha Satan ? ?

And who is speaking at the time from the Clouds .. what is the name of this God who Adopts Jesus ? A High Priest forever in the Order of Melchi-Zedek.

and there is your clue .. to the name of "The Father- Hallowed be thy name" -- who's name is What ? What is the name of the God of Lord Jesus .. the Hallowed Name !

 

[Dimi95]

No, Saul took the name "Paul" because it was the closest Roman name to his Jewish one. There is no evidence in the Bible that he ever changed his name. From a Christian source:

It’s a Myth! Paul Wasn’t Saul’s Christian Name - Clear Creek Resources

This article was originally published on September 2, 2020 at blog.yanceyarrington.com and posted here by permission. You can read the original article here. Let’s make this short and sweet. God didn’t change the apostle’s name from Saul to Paul when the man from Tarsus became a Christian...

clearcreekresources.org

This is false

Assumption based on assumption and missing important details
I would rather question the validity of those claims

Not all foreign Roman citizens had two names , and those who had were mostly in Rome and were given the right to have a Latin name because of interest and nothing more.Also there was a different kind of citizenship for foreigners.

Many also think that Josephus was born as Josephus but in fact he was Yosef ben Matityahu.
Do you know at what point Yosef Ben Matityahu resolved to become Josephus, the Roman?

Also Jews were kicked out of Rome from January AD 41 until January AD 53.

But yes , God did not change his name.
The question is when did he started using that name.

 

[Subduction Zone]

This is false

Assumption based on assumption and missing important details
I would rather question the validity of those claims

What assumptions were made? How are you going to show that it is false?

Not all foreign Roman citizens had two names , and those who had were mostly in Rome and were given the right to have a Latin name because of interest and nothing more.Also there was a different kind of citizenship for foreigners.

True, not all did. But where on Earth did you get that claim that only in Rome would they have two names. It would make much more sense that someone with a foreign name that was also Roman would adopt a Roman one.

Many also think that Josephus was born as Josephus but in fact he was Yosef ben Matityahu.
Do you know at what point Yosef Ben Matityahu resolved to become Josephus, the Roman?

I have no idea. So what? Like Paul he may have been born Roman but had a foreign name. If one wanted to go anywhere in the Roman hierarchy a Roman name was probably a must. But since you are challenging my source you need to provide your sources first. A bad argument on its own will not help you.

Also Jews were kicked out of Rome from January AD 41 until January AD 53.

Were they? They may have been, but that is just a non sequitur. It has nothing to do with the argument.

But yes , God did not change his name.
The question is when did he started using that name.

And now this is all a waste of time since you agreed with me. According to this article he was born Jewish, but also a Roman citizen, though some claim he became a citizen later, but at any rate it appears that he used the name Paul when dealing with Romans and Greeks:

Paul the Apostle - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[YoursTrue]

I am so annoyed when people go into one-way discussion..

I still try to find out why would he say petra and i can't

I'd like to go over this as much as possible, if possible. OK?
We know that many (hundreds of millions) persons are Roman Catholic and profess that Peter was the first pope. When asked about this, they may refer to the words of Jesus to Peter: “Thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church.” (Matthew 16:18) But does that really mean that Jesus meant by those words, that Peter is the rock on which His church is built? I'd like to examine this further, so I look forward to your response.

 

[2ndpillar]

the scapegoat was sent out into the desert to apease the Desert God Azazel.

So, you are saying that God required Israel to appease some Desert god Azazel, in which "Azazel" was supposedly the fallen angel who introduced the weapons of war and deception to women by means of ornaments. Azazel - Wikipedia All this done by symbolically putting the sins of Israel on the head of a goat. I don't know, you might want to requestion your gender studies professor as what she was thinking.

The Book of Enoch brings Azazel into connection with the Biblical story of the fall of the angels, located on Mount Hermon, a gathering-place of the demons of old.[29] Here, Azazel is one of the leaders of the rebellious Watchers in the time preceding the Flood; he taught men the art of warfare, of making swords, knives, shields, and coats of mail, and taught women the art of deception by ornamenting the body, dyeing the hair, and painting the face and the eyebrows, and also revealed to the people the secrets of witchcraft and corrupted their manners, leading them into wickedness and impurity until at last he was, at Yahweh's command, bound hand and foot by the archangel Raphael and chained to the rough and jagged rocks of [Ha] Dudael (= Beth Ḥadudo), where he is to abide in utter darkness until the great Day of Judgment, when he will be cast into the fire to be consumed forever.[30]

 

[2ndpillar]

I'd like to go over this as much as possible, if possible. OK?
We know that many (hundreds of millions) persons are Roman Catholic and profess that Peter was the first pope. When asked about this, they may refer to the words of Jesus to Peter: “Thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church.” (Matthew 16:18) But does that really mean that Jesus meant by those words, that Peter is the rock on which His church is built? I'd like to examine this further, so I look forward to your response.

The Catholics believe that Peter is the rock the church is built on. The Protestants believe that believing that Yeshua, is Christ, the son of God, is the rock the church is built on. Both are incorrect. The petra (foundation stone) is that the Spirit of Prophecy/Revelation, which includes the testimony of Yeshua (Rev 19:10), is the rock the church is built on. At the time of the implementing of the Roman Church in 325 A.D. by way of the Roman emperor Constantine, the Pontifex Maximus, the title taken by the pope, was with regards to being the head of the pagan church, in charge of taking care of the gods and the calendar. Both the "beast", Julius Caesar, a Pontifex Maximus, and the pope, changed the calendar. At the time of setting up dogmas of the Roman Catholic Church, at the Nicaean Council, the bishop of Rome, didn't even show up. Some think he had gout and could not travel.