Jesus And The Law

[Ben Masada]

Abraham did not have the Law or the paraphernalias that goes with that, yet his faith was counted as righteousness, therefore the promise that God made to him was not based on law but on the righteouseness of faith. Jesus is the seed of Abraham who has received the promise of the Holy Spirit, that is why Christians worship Him, He has become one with God.
On the other hand Jews seek the things of this world and as you say they are very good at it, but in the end they will be left with nothing.

So, you mean to imply that Abraham was an outlaw? There are only three classes
of beings as the Law is concerned: Those who are above the Law, those who are under the Law and the outlaws. Above the Law, only God is. Under the Law are the Law abiding citizens. Outlaws are the criminals.

The Covenant God established with Abraham was based not on faith but on the everlasting commandment of the the circumcision, which would define God's relationship with Abraham and his seed. Read Genesis 17:7, 13. Then, when Paul preached against circumcision, he was preaching against the everlasting Word of God. (Acts 21:21)

 

[kylixguru]

Jesus and the Law

This is one of Jesus' secret teachings, not because Jesus meant it to be a secret, but because Christians find it so hard to understand that it is taken as a secret. It is in the parable of the Richman and Lazarus.

Since you can read the whole parable in Luke 16:19-31, I am cutting short this thread by going straighht to the bottom line: Verses 29-31. Somehow, the Richman must not have been a good man, because his afterlife was to be spent in Hell. Lazarus, who was a beggar, and a good man in his ways, also happened to die and spend his afterlife in Heaven. As the text say, in the bosom of Abraham.

It happens that the Richman in Hell lifted up his eyes and saw Abraham afar off and Lazarus in his bosom. And he cried and said: "Oh father Abraham, have mercy on me and send Lazarus to my father's house, because I have five brethrens and Lazarus could testify to them, so that they would not fall in this place of torment."

The answer to the Richman in Hell put in the mouth of Abraham by Jesus was: "They have Moses and the Prophets; let them hear them." And the Richman insisted, "Ney, father Abraham, but if one went to them from the dead, they wouldl repent." And Abraham (Jesus) said to him: "If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, neither they will be persuaded even if one rose from the dead."

IMHO, that was a prophecy of Jesus' in the form of a parable which has been fulfilled by Christians in general. They do believe that Jesus rose from the dead; nevertheless, they just can't be persuaded to listen to Moses and the Prophets, which means the Law, in order to prevent themselves from falling in Hell. They prefer the Pauline policy of salvation by faith only.
Ben

I like the way you have read this parable. I too believe it prophesies just what you have pointed out. However, I disagree with how you assume Christians understood Paul. What they have done is taken Paul's words incorrectly and abused them. Paul was not opposed to the law. We already had this discussion elsewhere.

 

[kylixguru]

So, you mean to imply that Abraham was an outlaw? There are only three classes
of beings as the Law is concerned: Those who are above the Law, those who are under the Law and the outlaws. Above the Law, only God is. Under the Law are the Law abiding citizens. Outlaws are the criminals.

The Covenant God established with Abraham was based not on faith but on the everlasting commandment of the the circumcision, which would define God's relationship with Abraham and his seed. Read Genesis 17:7, 13. Then, when Paul preached against circumcision, he was preaching against the everlasting Word of God. (Acts 21:21)

God is not above the law. Nobody is. Although there can be executive pardons issued by the King. But, there yet must be a pardon issued. And, this is according to law. Thus, nobody is above the law. It pertains to all, God included.

 

[Ben Masada]

I like the way you have read this parable. I too believe it prophesies just what you have pointed out. However, I disagree with how you assume Christians understood Paul. What they have done is taken Paul's words incorrectly and abused them. Paul was not opposed to the law. We already had this discussion elsewhere.

Read Romans chapter 7. It is about an allegory on freedom of a woman who gets rid of her obligations to her husband after he died. Paul applies the allegory to the freedom a person enjoys from the Law with the death of Jesus. My question is: What Law was he talking about? Read Romans 7:7. Where is it written "You shall not covet?" In the Decalog right? So, Paul was including the Law of the Ten Commandments, for Heavens' sake. If this is not to be opposed to God's Law, I don't know anymore what the word "opposed" means.

 

[Ben Masada]

God is not above the law. Nobody is. Although there can be executive pardons issued by the King. But, there yet must be a pardon issued. And, this is according to law. Thus, nobody is above the law. It pertains to all, God included.

You must be talking about the anthropomorphic god of religions, who is, like a man, under all kinds of laws, including the law of genesis and destruction. The God I am talking about is the one Jesus declared in John 4:24, That God is a Spirit and that the only way to relate to Him is through a spiritual manner. This God is above all laws.
Ben

 

[free spirit]

So, you mean to imply that Abraham was an outlaw? There are only three classes
of beings as the Law is concerned: Those who are above the Law, those who are under the Law and the outlaws. Above the Law, only God is. Under the Law are the Law abiding citizens. Outlaws are the criminals.

were there is no law there is no transgression.

The Covenant God established with Abraham was based not on faith but on the everlasting commandment of the the circumcision, which would define God's relationship with Abraham and his seed. Read Genesis 17:7, 13. Then, when Paul preached against circumcision, he was preaching against the everlasting Word of God. (Acts 21:21)

The circumcision was extablished as proof of the faith he had before he was circumcised.

 

[Ben Masada]

were there is no law there is no transgression.


The circumcision was extablished as proof of the faith he had before he was circumcised.

Just don't try the Pauline rhetoric of no law, no transgression, because you may get into big trouble. Everywhere there is law, either civic or natural. Try to persuade a Judge that you cannot be charged with transgression of a law that does not exist for you, and you will feel the sting of his or her response.

Regarding Abraham's circumcision, what has been established as proof of the Christian faith? Before you answer this one, read Jeremiah 31:30. And remember Isaiah 8:20. "To the Law and the Testimony, if you don't speak according to this Word, it is because there is no light in whatever you say.
Ben

 

[kylixguru]

Read Romans chapter 7. It is about an allegory on freedom of a woman who gets rid of her obligations to her husband after he died. Paul applies the allegory to the freedom a person enjoys from the Law with the death of Jesus. My question is: What Law was he talking about? Read Romans 7:7. Where is it written "You shall not covet?" In the Decalog right? So, Paul was including the Law of the Ten Commandments, for Heavens' sake. If this is not to be opposed to God's Law, I don't know anymore what the word "opposed" means.

You are entirely missing Paul's point. Israel and Judah were a bride to the Lord. They were both put away as adulteresses. There couldn't be a new covenant established until the husband was dead. Anyone supposing to enjoin Israel or Judah in a new covenant while their former husband yet lived would be caused to commit adultery with the woman who were put away for adultery. Thus, Israel and Judah would not be eligible for re-marriage under a non-adulterous covenant until her husband, the Lord God, came and was put to death. Thus, the law would be satisfied, not opposed. Jesus carried the necessary sacrifice the husband has to make in order to be able to be joined again to his wife or wives. Thus, because of the death of Jesus, who was the Lord in the flesh, the two wives were made eligible for remarriage. There's actually more to it than this, but this ought to help you understand Paul a little better.

 

[Ben Masada]

You are entirely missing Paul's point. Israel and Judah were a bride to the Lord. They were both put away as adulteresses. There couldn't be a new covenant established until the husband was dead. Anyone supposing to enjoin Israel or Judah in a new covenant while their former husband yet lived would be caused to commit adultery with the woman who were put away for adultery. Thus, Israel and Judah would not be eligible for re-marriage under a non-adulterous covenant until her husband, the Lord God, came and was put to death. Thus, the law would be satisfied, not opposed. Jesus carried the necessary sacrifice the husband has to make in order to be able to be joined again to his wife or wives. Thus, because of the death of Jesus, who was the Lord in the flesh, the two wives were made eligible for remarriage. There's actually more to it than this, but this ought to help you understand Paul a little better.

Wrong! You are absolutely wrong. Paul, if he was a Jew, he could never apply that allegory because he knew that in Judaism there is no such a thing as Greek Mythology. If you insist that he did it, he was not a Jew but a Hellenist Gentile just like all the gospel writers. A man cannot be God neither God incarnated as a man. This is simply vandalism of a religion by another. And the reason why he didn't choose another religion but Judaism is based on the fact that he was intent on promoting his policy of Replacement Theology.
Ben

 

[kylixguru]

Wrong! You are absolutely wrong. Paul, if he was a Jew, he could never apply that allegory because he knew that in Judaism there is no such a thing as Greek Mythology. If you insist that he did it, he was not a Jew but a Hellenist Gentile just like all the gospel writers. A man cannot be God neither God incarnated as a man. This is simply vandalism of a religion by another. And the reason why he didn't choose another religion but Judaism is based on the fact that he was intent on promoting his policy of Replacement Theology.
Ben

I am not talking about Greek Myths and neither was Paul. Paul was talking about the fact that according to Hebrew marriage law that the put away wife is not freed from the law of her husband until he is dead. And, further to that, if any man takes a put away bride, she causes that new man to commit adultery also. This is why both Assyria and Babylon were smashed not long after Israel and Judah were smashed by them. They were the partners in adultery. And, any man who attempts a marriage with Israel and Judah before their husband is dead shall also be taken in adultery and reap the consequences. This is what is coming to the Gentiles. You are who is doing violence to your own laws and refusing to apply them exactly as the Lord has said they should be applied. He doesn't get a bye or some kind of special exemption. He must come and be put to death, physically and then also spiritually, before he can be rejoined to Israel and Judah as a husband in a new covenant. There is no mythology required here. Just plain and simple application of marriage law.

 

[Ben Masada]

I am not talking about Greek Myths and neither was Paul. Paul was talking about the fact that according to Hebrew marriage law that the put away wife is not freed from the law of her husband until he is dead. And, further to that, if any man takes a put away bride, she causes that new man to commit adultery also. This is why both Assyria and Babylon were smashed not long after Israel and Judah were smashed by them. They were the partners in adultery. And, any man who attempts a marriage with Israel and Judah before their husband is dead shall also be taken in adultery and reap the consequences. This is what is coming to the Gentiles. You are who is doing violence to your own laws and refusing to apply them exactly as the Lord has said they should be applied. He doesn't get a bye or some kind of special exemption. He must come and be put to death, physically and then also spiritually, before he can be rejoined to Israel and Judah as a husband in a new covenant. There is no mythology required here. Just plain and simple application of marriage law.

-----------

You are talking about Romans 7. That's the allegory about the married wife who becomes free of the law with reference to her husband after he dies. Read Romans 7:7. Where is it written "You shall not covet?" In the Decalog. In the Law of the Ten Commandments. He meant therefore, that with the death of Jesus one would no longer be under that Law. Is there a more explicit reason to understand his policy of Replacement Theology? I didn't think so.

For the Greek Mythology, I meant his doctrine that Jesus was son of God with a woman. Such a thing is possible only in Greek Mythology. There is no such a thing in Judaism.

 

[kylixguru]

-----------

You are talking about Romans 7. That's the allegory about the married wife who becomes free of the law with reference to her husband after he dies. Read Romans 7:7. Where is it written "You shall not covet?" In the Decalog. In the Law of the Ten Commandments. He meant therefore, that with the death of Jesus one would no longer be under that Law. Is there a more explicit reason to understand his policy of Replacement Theology? I didn't think so.

Yes, I told you the explicit reason. This wasn't to eliminate the law but to fulfill and satisfy the law so that the people were eligible to be rejoined to God as His Bride. Had Jesus not come to earth and acted out God in the flesh and be put to death, the people of Israel would have remained in their cut-off state, put away for their transgressions, forever. The literal death of the husband freed them from the consequences of the law of their husband and made them eligible to be received again. How? In accordance to His Covenant. Thus, God's Law is magnified, not put away.

For the Greek Mythology, I meant his doctrine that Jesus was son of God with a woman. Such a thing is possible only in Greek Mythology. There is no such a thing in Judaism.

So God and Israel were Husband and Bride and you expect it to be a barren union?

 

[Ben Masada]

Yes, I told you the explicit reason. This wasn't to eliminate the law but to fulfill and satisfy the law so that the people were eligible to be rejoined to God as His Bride. Had Jesus not come to earth and acted out God in the flesh and be put to death, the people of Israel would have remained in their cut-off state, put away for their transgressions, forever. The literal death of the husband freed them from the consequences of the law of their husband and made them eligible to be received again. How? In accordance to His Covenant. Thus, God's Law is magnified, not put away.

So God and Israel were Husband and Bride and you expect it to be a barren union?

------------

Jbug, as a matter of fact, Jesus did not come to eliminate the Law, as he declared himself that he came to fulfill it and make sure that we all his correligionary Jews were liable to do the same. Read Matthew 5:17-19; but as you present the allegory of the widow who got free of the law with the death of her husband, you agree with the rest of the Christian world that Jesus abolished the Law with his fulfilment of it, according to Paul in Ephesians 2:15, which constitutes Replacement Theology.

And Jesus did not establish any new covenant, because when he came, he was already under the New Covenant predicted by Jeremiah in 31:31. And according to this New Covenant, no one is supposed to die for the iniquities of another. Every one is supposed to die for his own iniquity. (Jer. 31:30) Therefore, Jesus was crucified on political charges for being proclaimed king of the Jews.

God and Israel had been husband and bride all right. But because Judah of the time of Ahaz had rejected God's Covenant to establish one with Assyria, they had rejected God's Covenant and doomed themselves to the fate of Ephraim. But because of God's promise to David that his Tribe would remain forever as a Lamp in Jerusalem, the judgment which was supposed to fall on Judah, lighted upon Israel as the redeemer of Judah. (Isa. 9:8; Psalm 78;67-69; and I Kings 11:36) So, the annual prophecy of the Scapegoat taking the sins of Judah to the East desert of Judah towards Assyria was fulfilled in Ephraim.

 

[kylixguru]

------------

Jbug, as a matter of fact, Jesus did not come to eliminate the Law, as he declared himself that he came to fulfill it and make sure that we all his correligionary Jews were liable to do the same. Read Matthew 5:17-19; but as you present the allegory of the widow who got free of the law with the death of her husband, you agree with the rest of the Christian world that Jesus abolished the Law with his fulfilment of it, according to Paul in Ephesians 2:15, which constitutes Replacement Theology.

The Law was NOT abolished. It was satisfied in the respect that because God came to earth in the flesh, as manifested in the person Jesus Christ, and was put to death, the put away bride was enabled to overcome the point of law that otherwise would have forever barred her husband from receiving her as a bride again.

Where Christians have gone wrong, and were I most definitely do not join in with them, is only those who have their spirit in harmony with the Law of God and who wish to enter into covenant with Him again, according to the terms of His Laws, are allowed to be received into a new covenant. Christianity does not actually offer that covenant in fulfillment. Christianity merely represents a futuristic view of preparing for the time ahead when that new covenant would be available, which most assuredly shall be made according to law. The 'Good News' of the Gospel is that the penalty for our sins was mediated for us by way of Jesus doing what He did. His death was one essential aspect of what the law requires before we could be rejoined to God in a covenantal relationship.

This won't happen until after all of the terms of our punishment are fulfilled, which is the parts Jesus indicated were yet to come to pass. This is what Paul understood. He knew the entire landscape and that the time would come when the scattered people of the northern kingdom would be gathered back together again and given what was promised to them in their resurrection.

However, he knew that when they came forth in their resurrection they brought with them their former adultery, etc. and that the consequences of this would be a period of great apostasy and deception that God the Father would come in the midst of it all and have to personally put an end to it when it had served is purpose. See 2 Thessalonians 2. The apostasy of which he speaks is standing at the time when Jesus returns, which means there had to be a restoration of things not too long prior to this falling away. This is why yet another has to come and make a restitution of all things to prepare the way for the Father to sit upon His throne over the Kingdom in victory.

Paul also seemed to understand that the people of the southern kingdom were to be given the same cup as those of the northern kingdom. The people of the southern kingdom have been gathered back to their lands, just as the covenant terms promise. Only in their case they were gathered once before and then scattered again when they were given Aholah's cup (at Masada). And, since they have Aholah's cup, they shall be gathered again but they shall be given over into the hand of their enemy. Thus, the State of Israel shall become a world headquarters for their adversary and not their God. Well, in truth, it is their God acting in the capacity as their adversary. Only the wise shall understand this. God said if ye walk contrary to Him that He shall walk contrary to you. That is what is happening right now. See Leviticus 26.

And Jesus did not establish any new covenant, because when he came, he was already under the New Covenant predicted by Jeremiah in 31:31.

I agree He didn't establish a new covenant. He understood that the Kingdom would not come in victory until the 'world to come'. Your timing for the New Covenant only pertained to the southern kingdom since their period of punishment was much shorter than the northern kingdoms period of judgment. However, they apostatized and were stoned to death as an adulteress again when they were handed their sister Aholah's cup. They too were destined to wait in accordance to the people of the northern kingdoms timeline to be able to be received into a new covenant that would be fully eligible.

And according to this New Covenant, no one is supposed to die for the iniquities of another. Every one is supposed to die for his own iniquity. (Jer. 31:30) Therefore, Jesus was crucified on political charges for being proclaimed king of the Jews.

Jesus died in order to fulfill the law so that the people of Israel could become eligible to be received into covenant with God again. The law required it. If you say otherwise then you don't understand the law or you are willfully doing what you accuse the Christians of doing.

God and Israel had been husband and bride all right. But because Judah of the time of Ahaz had rejected God's Covenant to establish one with Assyria, they had rejected God's Covenant and doomed themselves to the fate of Ephraim. But because of God's promise to David that his Tribe would remain forever as a Lamp in Jerusalem, the judgment which was supposed to fall on Judah, lighted upon Israel as the redeemer of Judah. (Isa. 9:8; Psalm 78;67-69; and I Kings 11:36) So, the annual prophecy of the Scapegoat taking the sins of Judah to the East desert of Judah towards Assyria was fulfilled in Ephraim.

This is wishful thinking. I have looked over the passages you cite here and they do not explicitly establish what you are trying to establish. Not only that, your manner of understanding them is blatantly in contradiction with many other prophesies of the restoration of all 12 tribes of Israel, not just yours. It is you who teaches a silly "replacement theology" that has Israel being lost forever so that Judah would be spared forever. No such replacement ever took place. Judah was given Israel's "cup" to drink deep and wide from and it certainly is doing so right now. She is on the brink of being fully overcome by the hand of her enemy, right on schedule.

Also, the promise through David was NOT to David's tribe. It was to David's own posterity. It is entirely feasible, and required for other prophecies to have their fulfillment, that two individuals who have the seed of David in them, but who are of the tribe of Ephraim and Joseph respectively, shall be the promised advents of Messiah that are foretold. Ephraim being the one that is killed physically and spiritually in consequence of being the ringleader in the ancient northern kingdom's apostasy (adultery). Thus, Ephraim as a tribe is blotted out and suffers the consequences of that as laid out in Deuteronomy 29:18-29. Ephraim is currently manifesting as the USA right now in order to have this consequence play out. However, as God promises, He shall not make a complete and utter annihilation of Ephraim. In His wisdom and foreknowledge, he established things such that those of Ephraim who repent fully can claim their standing in Israel by way of the provisions for Joseph's tribe. Joseph's tribe was not replaced by Ephraim or Manasseh's tribes. Rather, he retained a tribe with the terms being (paraphrasing) "whoso of thy seed not belonging to these two tribes shall be thine". So, when Ephraim's tribe is blotted out, they are yet of Joseph's seed and now they are not of Ephraim's tribe. Thus, they are eligible to stand in Joseph's tribe. However, they actually have to understand these things, as well as understand their own apostasy, to know to do this.

Anyway, I actually get the sense I am more or less just thinking out loud here. It's not very likely I have developed this material above sufficiently well for the average Bible student to make good use of. So, I'll shush.

 

[kylixguru]

------------

Jbug, as a matter of fact, Jesus did not come to eliminate the Law, as he declared himself that he came to fulfill it and make sure that we all his correligionary Jews were liable to do the same. Read Matthew 5:17-19; but as you present the allegory of the widow who got free of the law with the death of her husband, you agree with the rest of the Christian world that Jesus abolished the Law with his fulfilment of it, according to Paul in Ephesians 2:15, which constitutes Replacement Theology.

The Law was NOT abolished. It was satisfied in the respect that because God came to earth in the flesh, as manifested in the person Jesus Christ, and was put to death, the put away bride was enabled to overcome the point of law that otherwise would have forever barred her husband from receiving her as a bride again.

Where Christians have gone wrong, and were I most definitely do not join in with them, is only those who have their spirit in harmony with the Law of God and who wish to enter into covenant with Him again, according to the terms of His Laws, are allowed to be received into a new covenant. Christianity does not actually offer that covenant in fulfillment. Christianity merely represents a futuristic view of preparing for the time ahead when that new covenant would be available, which most assuredly shall be made according to law. The 'Good News' of the Gospel is that the penalty for our sins was mediated for us by way of Jesus doing what He did. His death was one essential aspect of what the law requires before we could be rejoined to God in a covenantal relationship.

This won't happen until after all of the terms of our punishment are fulfilled, which is the parts Jesus indicated were yet to come to pass. This is what Paul understood. He knew the entire landscape and that the time would come when the scattered people of the northern kingdom would be gathered back together again and given what was promised to them in their resurrection.

However, he knew that when they came forth in their resurrection they brought with them their former adultery, etc. and that the consequences of this would be a period of great apostasy and deception that God the Father would come in the midst of it all and have to personally put an end to it when it had served is purpose. See 2 Thessalonians 2. The apostasy of which he speaks is standing at the time when Jesus returns, which means there had to be a restoration of things not too long prior to this falling away. This is why yet another has to come and make a restitution of all things to prepare the way for the Father to sit upon His throne over the Kingdom in victory.

Paul also seemed to understand that the people of the southern kingdom were to be given the same cup as those of the northern kingdom. The people of the southern kingdom have been gathered back to their lands, just as the covenant terms promise. Only in their case they were gathered once before and then scattered again when they were given Aholah's cup (at Masada). And, since they have Aholah's cup, they shall be gathered again but they shall be given over into the hand of their enemy. Thus, the State of Israel shall become a world headquarters for their adversary and not their God. Well, in truth, it is their God acting in the capacity as their adversary. Only the wise shall understand this. God said if ye walk contrary to Him that He shall walk contrary to you. That is what is happening right now. See Leviticus 26.

And Jesus did not establish any new covenant, because when he came, he was already under the New Covenant predicted by Jeremiah in 31:31.

I agree He didn't establish a new covenant. He understood that the Kingdom would not come in victory until the 'world to come'. Your timing for the New Covenant only pertained to the southern kingdom since their period of punishment was much shorter than the northern kingdoms period of judgment. However, they apostatized and were stoned to death as an adulteress again when they were handed their sister Aholah's cup. They too were destined to wait in accordance to the people of the northern kingdoms timeline to be able to be received into a new covenant that would be fully eligible.

And according to this New Covenant, no one is supposed to die for the iniquities of another. Every one is supposed to die for his own iniquity. (Jer. 31:30) Therefore, Jesus was crucified on political charges for being proclaimed king of the Jews.

Jesus died in order to fulfill the law so that the people of Israel could become eligible to be received into covenant with God again. The law required it. If you say otherwise then you don't understand the law or you are willfully doing what you accuse the Christians of doing.

God and Israel had been husband and bride all right. But because Judah of the time of Ahaz had rejected God's Covenant to establish one with Assyria, they had rejected God's Covenant and doomed themselves to the fate of Ephraim. But because of God's promise to David that his Tribe would remain forever as a Lamp in Jerusalem, the judgment which was supposed to fall on Judah, lighted upon Israel as the redeemer of Judah. (Isa. 9:8; Psalm 78;67-69; and I Kings 11:36) So, the annual prophecy of the Scapegoat taking the sins of Judah to the East desert of Judah towards Assyria was fulfilled in Ephraim.

This is wishful thinking. I have looked over the passages you cite here and they do not explicitly establish what you are trying to establish. Not only that, your manner of understanding them is blatantly in contradiction with many other prophesies of the restoration of all 12 tribes of Israel, not just yours. It is you who teaches a silly "replacement theology" that has Israel being lost forever so that Judah would be spared forever. No such replacement ever took place. Judah was given Israel's "cup" to drink deep and wide from and it certainly is doing so right now. She is on the brink of being fully overcome by the hand of her enemy, right on schedule.

Also, the promise through David was NOT to David's tribe. It was to David's own posterity. It is entirely feasible, and required for other prophecies to have their fulfillment, that two individuals who have the seed of David in them, but who are of the tribe of Ephraim and Joseph respectively, shall be the promised advents of Messiah that are foretold. Ephraim being the one that is killed physically and spiritually in consequence of being the ringleader in the ancient northern kingdom's apostasy (adultery). Thus, Ephraim as a tribe is blotted out and suffers the consequences of that as laid out in Deuteronomy 29:18-29. Ephraim is currently manifesting as the USA right now in order to have this consequence play out. However, as God promises, He shall not make a complete and utter annihilation of Ephraim. In His wisdom and foreknowledge, he established things such that those of Ephraim who repent fully can claim their standing in Israel by way of the provisions for Joseph's tribe. Joseph's tribe was not replaced by Ephraim or Manasseh's tribes. Rather, he retained a tribe with the terms being (paraphrasing) "whoso of thy seed not belonging to these two tribes shall be thine". So, when Ephraim's tribe is blotted out, they are yet of Joseph's seed and now they are not of Ephraim's tribe. Thus, they are eligible to stand in Joseph's tribe. However, they actually have to understand these things, as well as understand their own apostasy, to know to do this.

Anyway, I actually get the sense I am more or less just thinking out loud here. It's not very likely I have developed this material above sufficiently well for the average Bible student to make good use of. So, I'll shush.

 

[Ben Masada]

The Law was NOT abolished. It was satisfied in the respect that because God came to earth in the flesh, as manifested in the person Jesus Christ,

Stop the cop-out Jbug, abolished and satisfied is the same here. Read Matthew 5:19. Since you repeat the same thing over and over again, it is because you don't read the quotations I provide. So I will type it here for you. "Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven; but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. " WHOSOEVER, Jesus meant, and not only himself, needed to fulfill the Law. And God did not come to earth in flesh. This is pure idolatry. According to Ezekiel, God manifests His glory my means of Israel. Read Ezekiel 20:41.

The 'Good News' of the Gospel is that the penalty for our sins was mediated for us by way of Jesus doing what He did. His death was one essential aspect of what the law requires before we could be rejoined to God in a covenantal relationship.

For an individual to die for another is against the Scriptures. Therefore, Jesus did not die for the sins of no one. He died because some fundamentalist jerks were proclaiming him king of the Jews in a place where Caesar was king. That's why Pilate put him on the cross. The plate Pilate wrote and nailed on the top of his cross was clear enough for the reason why he was crucified.

This won't happen until after all of the terms of our punishment are fulfilled, which is the parts Jesus indicated were yet to come to pass. This is what Paul understood. He knew the entire landscape and that the time would come when the scattered people of the northern kingdom would be gathered back together again and given what was promised to them in their resurrection.

I told you already and repeat here: Bodily resurrection is against the natural laws and the Scriptures. Quote to me a reference to bodily resurrection in the Scriptures. You think I am supposed to take your word for it. I can't. It has to be written.

The apostasy of which he speaks is standing at the time when Jesus returns, which means there had to be a restoration of things not too long prior to this falling away. This is why yet another has to come and make a restitution of all things to prepare the way for the Father to sit upon His throne over the Kingdom in victory.

Two wrongs here. First, Jesus will never return because according to Job 10:21, those who go to the land of darkness and shadow of death shall never return.

Only the wise shall understand this. God said if ye walk contrary to Him that He shall walk contrary to you. That is what is happening right now. See Leviticus 26.

Yes, only the wise shall undestand this but you don't. Jeremiah said that as long as the sun is in the sky for a light by day, and the moon and stars for lights by night, Israel (Judah) will remain as a People before the Lord forever.

Jesus died in order to fulfill the law so that the people of Israel could become eligible to be received into covenant with God again. The law required it. If you say otherwise then you don't understand the law or you are willfully doing what you accuse the Christians of doing.

See how much you know of what you are talking about? Jesus died on political charges. Because some jerks were proclaiming him king of the Jews. That was more than a reason for Pilate to crucify one more Jew. According to Josephus, he crucified thousands of Jews. Jesus was not the only one, as Christians like to think.

It is you who teaches a silly "replacement theology" that has Israel being lost forever so that Judah would be spared forever. No such replacement ever took place. Judah was given Israel's "cup" to drink deep and wide from and it certainly is doing so right now. She is on the brink of being fully overcome by the hand of her enemy, right on schedule.

You too, just like any other Christian cannot open your mouth without having to promote the Pauline policy of Replacement Theology.

Ephraim is currently manifesting as the USA right now in order to have this consequence play out. However, as God promises, He shall not make a complete and utter annihilation of Ephraim.

I remember to have asked for an evidential quotation about Ephraim being the USA. You can't quote because it is not true. And with regards to God's promise that He shall not make a complete annihilation is of Judah and not Ephraim. Read Jeremiah 46:28. I don't know why I keep giving replies to your posts because you can't produce an evidence for anything you say.

In His wisdom and foreknowledge, he established things such that those of Ephraim who repent fully can claim their standing in Israel by way of the provisions for Joseph's tribe.

Wrong! Anyone claiming any relation with Ephraim is welcome to join Judah but through conversion. They have got lost and assimilated with the Gentiles.

Joseph's tribe was not replaced by Ephraim or Manasseh's tribes. Rather, he retained a tribe with the terms being (paraphrasing) "whoso of thy seed not belonging to these two tribes shall be thine". So, when Ephraim's tribe is blotted out, they are yet of Joseph's seed and now they are not of Ephraim's tribe. Thus, they are eligible to stand in Joseph's tribe. However, they actually have to understand these things, as well as understand their own apostasy, to know to do this.

Wrong again! The Psalmist made it very clear that God refused the Tabernacle of Joseph and chose not the Tribe of Ephraim; but chose the Tribe of Judah, the Mount Zion on which He loved.

 

[Muffled]

But the problem is that you are vandalizing my religion by picking up one from us to make of him a Greek demigod. This is distortion of Judaism in the sight of the nations, as if there is place in Judaism for Greek Mythology. We would not be having this conversation if you picked up someone else from another religion like Buddha, Ghandi, or Zoroaster, or anyone else. But a Jew cannot be God. Who has decided that God recognized that there are demons, you? That's much more of a foolishness than my words seem to you. Therefore, you have made mine the point to defend.

That isn't the question. The question is can God be a Jew? I believe that God can do whatever He wants.When you start telling God what He can and can't do, you are in a very precarious position.

You make it sound like it is Judaism that determines what God should be (a man devised religion) instead of God determining what Judaism should be.

Jesus equated Himself with God and then rose from the dead to prove it. I haven't decided anything. I have just believed His words.

If it is your religion then it is not God's religion. You can do whatever you want but you just might be crispy crittered for it. Some old time Jews decided to do some self religion by adding in worship of Asherah and the city of Jerusalem was torched by the Babylonians for it. If Christianity had been false God should have torched the Christians instead of the Jews.

 

[Muffled]

So, you mean to imply that Abraham was an outlaw? There are only three classes
of beings as the Law is concerned: Those who are above the Law, those who are under the Law and the outlaws. Above the Law, only God is. Under the Law are the Law abiding citizens. Outlaws are the criminals.

The Covenant God established with Abraham was based not on faith but on the everlasting commandment of the the circumcision, which would define God's relationship with Abraham and his seed. Read Genesis 17:7, 13. Then, when Paul preached against circumcision, he was preaching against the everlasting Word of God. (Acts 21:21)

Jesus said that He established a new covenant (He couldn't do that if were not God). The reason is that Jews never kept the old covenant so it wasn't worth keeping. Lu 22:20 And the cup in like manner after supper, saying, This cup is the new covenant in my blood, even that which is poured out for you.

In that passage it was reported that an accusation by Jews was being made that he preached that people should not circumsize children. It was a false accusation. Paul taught that Circumcision was meaningless to Christians.
Rom 5:2 Behold, I Paul say unto you, that, if ye receive circumcision, Christ will profit you nothing.
3 Yea, I testify again to every man that receiveth circumcision, that he is a debtor to do the whole law.
4 Ye are severed from Christ, ye who would be justified by the law; ye are fallen away from grace.

 

[Muffled]

God is not above the law. Nobody is. Although there can be executive pardons issued by the King. But, there yet must be a pardon issued. And, this is according to law. Thus, nobody is above the law. It pertains to all, God included.

The Bible takes a different view of this.

Jesus healed people on the Sabbath contrary to the law. This is direct proof that God considers Himself above the law.

 

[Ben Masada]

That isn't the question. The question is can God be a Jew? I believe that God can do whatever He wants.When you start telling God what He can and can't do, you are in a very precarious position.

You make it sound like it is Judaism that determines what God should be (a man devised religion) instead of God determining what Judaism should be.

Jesus equated Himself with God and then rose from the dead to prove it. I haven't decided anything. I have just believed His words.

If it is your religion then it is not God's religion. You can do whatever you want but you just might be crispy crittered for it. Some old time Jews decided to do some self religion by adding in worship of Asherah and the city of Jerusalem was torched by the Babylonians for it. If Christianity had been false God should have torched the Christians instead of the Jews.

----------------------
God can be even a cow if He wants. But who decided that he was a Jew, you, or the Hellenistic Gentiles who wrote the gospels? And you are totally wrong to say that we are determining what God can or cannot be. He just is not what you or the Hellenisits of the NT proclaimed Him to be. And by "a man devised religion" can you show me one that is not? Don't say Christianity because it was devised by Paul in Antioch about 30 years after Jesus had been gone, and Paul was a man.(Acts 11:26)

Jesus did not equate himself with God because he was a Jew and a Jew would never be that insane. And then "rose from the dead to prove it?" Prove it yourself with your own NT. Show me an eyewitness to the resurrection of Jesus and I'll reconsider my views. And you add that's because you have believed his words. You have believe the words of the Hellenist writers of the NT about 50+ years after Jesus had been gone. Only Paul started writing about 30 years afterwards.

God does not have religion. All religions on earth are man's religions. The very few Christians in Israel at the time of the destruction of the Temple were not torched because they refused to fight the Romans by betraying their own country.