The Mark of the Beast

[AK4]

Originally Posted by IF_u_knew
With what you have said here, it would not be to my benefit to continue discussing this. You have made your bed to your liking and seem very content this time to actually lie down in it. I concede.

Also if i may add, when you first came to this forum you had more thought provoking posts. You had alot more scripture to back up what you were trying to say, now (even though ive been gone for like 3 months i know you have ben as your mentor) you are starting to post posts like ben where it just isnt scriptural or you have nothing to back it up or as your mentor would only have as a come back "thats Pauline rhetoric" or "that verse is a interpolation of Paul and his cronies" but never have proof to back up what he says. Now you are doing the same thing and just expressing your feelings and not presenting the Word as you used to before being indoctrinated by ben and his beliefs.

Seriously, Katie, before i went on my hiatus for those months you brought more thought provoking posts, now you just seem as a ben "clone" with no substance like your teacher.

This is not an attack or nothing, just something to maybe give you something to think about. You may take it as criticism or a complement.

Anthony

 

[IAMABELIEVER]

Ah yes! The source of MANY nightmares during my childhood years. :cover: We even had to watch movies in church about this stuff. Our pastor was VERY into the end times, the anti christ, and the mark of the beast. He was fascinated with Israel, though he was SURE that the anti christ was coming from the Jewish People. Hmmm.. wonder WHERE anyone could get such an idea from?

2 Thess 1:8
In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ:


1 Thess 2:14-15
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: Who both killed the Lord Jesus, and their own prophets, and have persecuted us; and they please not God, and are contrary to all men:

And Titus 1:10-11, 14-16

Funny how Jesus was Jewish and a teacher of the Law; not an opposer of. I know the evangelicals support Israel for the sole purpose of having these prophecies of the anti christ come true... and it reminds me of Isaiah 66:4.

I think what you are proposing makes PERFECT sense. I refuse to wear anything with a cross. I do not see how wearing an instrument of death that MANY people (more than just Jesus) suffered AGONIZING and painful hours, even days on could be representative of Jesus' teachings. BLEH! :no: People would think it strange if I were to walk around with a guillotine hanging around my neck and proudly stating that I gloried in its use to bring down greed at one time. It is just ODD. BEN! This is brilliant! I see MUCH truth in what you say here.. though, don't expect anyone else (not many anyway) to agree with you. If they would be honest though, it does not take much to see that Paul had his own agenda that was VERY MUCH opposing to what Jesus' was trying to do.

I will glory in the cross because Jesus suffered the cross for me. The symbol of the cross isn’t something I wear around my neck, but it is a wonderful reminder to me of how much God loves us and the cost of our salvation. I have no problem understanding what it represents when I see someone wearing a cross. It’s also a reminder that there is no suffering that He doesn’t understand.

 

[IF_u_knew]

Also if i may add, when you first came to this forum you had more thought provoking posts. You had alot more scripture to back up what you were trying to say, now (even though ive been gone for like 3 months i know you have ben as your mentor) you are starting to post posts like ben where it just isnt scriptural or you have nothing to back it up or as your mentor would only have as a come back "thats Pauline rhetoric" or "that verse is a interpolation of Paul and his cronies" but never have proof to back up what he says. Now you are doing the same thing and just expressing your feelings and not presenting the Word as you used to before being indoctrinated by ben and his beliefs.

Seriously, Katie, before i went on my hiatus for those months you brought more thought provoking posts, now you just seem as a ben "clone" with no substance like your teacher.

This is not an attack or nothing, just something to maybe give you something to think about. You may take it as criticism or a complement.

Anthony

It's okay Anthony, I do not take this as either a criticism or a compliment. Just that you think you are being honest with how you are viewing things. True, Ben has showed me many passages in the Tanakh that have been key to my understanding. When I first came to this board, I am sure you can recall me saying that Ben has something I needed to hear. I had JUST arrived and did not know anyone from the other, but I knew that he would show me things that would finally start putting pieces into place for me concerning the Bible. And you know what? that is what happened. Ben did not tell me what to think. I came to the views via Proverbs 2:1-7. Have you read the thread I started to ask him questions? You can easily see that it is give and take.. not him telling me what to think. I say that because if you misjudge what I say as being representative of Ben's views, 1) that could be unfair to him due to the fact that I am opinionated and will likely say something that is NOT his view on the Scriptures and 2) it is unfair to me because my thoughts are my own and you are crediting them all to someone else just because they may be the same in this case.

I was relieved to see you back and know that you were okay considering the last time we were discussing the Scriptures. I was also disappointed to see the way you started out on Ben. When we last talked, even though I *was* of the same view point as far as our discussion, you had calmed down considerably and even became quite likeable in *your* true personality. I know that you have jealousy because even though you admit Ben and I have some of the same views, you did not talk to me the way you are talking to him. ANTHONY!!! I am not telling you this because I am trying to act like Jews are better than you, but because I had really hoped that you would come back and discuss your views with us in a friendly exchange.. like you were with me before you left. I do not expect everyone to see things my way, but for *YOU*.. I know you are capable of sharing your view with him in a friendly way because you did it with me.

The jealousy thing is not something you only suffer from. I was shocked when I first came to recognize it in my own self. Remember? http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/1367028-post147.html See it? :162: Oh yes, and it REALLY started coming out about a month after. Seriously, I could not understand why it was even there. But, then it became clear to me as I started having my view straightened out. THE NT sets it up to be that way! I do not know if that is intentional or what... but the fact remains, the NT is anti semitic. To step away from it and overcome that jealousy is to be able to go back and see clearly.

Anyway... I do not think ANYONE here expects you to drop everything you believe to view it their way; rather that you not be so hateful in your posts. I *know* that you are capable of discussing your views in a friendly manner.. and I would love to see you discussing here, with Ben, in a friendly give/take kind of exchange. As for me, I will no longer contend on this issue. I will put my insights into these discussions as long as some of you can back down a bit on your attempts to "put others in their place." It is the reason I do not post so much on this forum, because I will not lie... I am just as stubborn and opinionated as the rest of you , but I am not like some of you to where I can be in a heated conversation (to the degree they are here) and just get over it. I always feel bad and wonder if I said anything to cause another hurt. Well, that is where I stand.

 

[IF_u_knew]

I will glory in the cross because Jesus suffered the cross for me. The symbol of the cross isn’t something I wear around my neck, but it is a wonderful reminder to me of how much God loves us and the cost of our salvation. I have no problem understanding what it represents when I see someone wearing a cross. It’s also a reminder that there is no suffering that He doesn’t understand.

I have a necklace with a cross on it (just for honesty's sake; though ironically, I received the cross *the* day I had posted that). My mother lives in Africa and brought it to me on her last visit and I will wear it when she visits because I know she bought it as a kind gesture. Still, it feels weird to me considering what it is symbolic of. Jesus was not the only Jew who suffered HORRIFICALLY on them, ya know. :cover:

 

[AK4]

The jealousy thing is not something you only suffer from. I was shocked when I first came to recognize it in my own self. Remember? http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/1367028-post147.html

I will be a little boastful (if i am to ever be boastful, it is to be boastful in the Lord) here only this one time just to try to prove a point how i am no where close to being jealous.....i have no need for jealousy because as i stated before you should see your life in His Word, if you are His--the called AND chosen. Just as He (Jesus) came in the volumes of the Book (Ps 40:7, Heb 10:7), if you are in Him, the Book of Life (Psalms 56:8,Php 4:3, Rev 3:5, 21:27), then you are also written of in His Word. This Book of Life (Jesus) is also about His called AND chosen. These are to be like Him (1 John 3:2) because as Christ is, so are we (2 Cor 11:10) and as He is one with the Father so are we one with Him and the Father (John 17:20-23).

Do you have the eyes to see it? I could go on and on. Therefore what do i have to be jealous of? I see my life in Him, the Book of Life (just in case you havent put it together yet it the WHOLE OF HIS WORD, there is really no OT or NT, its all ONE). His sheep hear His voice (John 10:16, 10:27, Rev 3:20) and we have faith, knowledge, understanding and discernment to hear Him calling.

Jesus is, was, and will be so to most of humanity the book of the Revelation of Jesus Christ is book of confusion because they think its literal!!! and they have no idea what it means symbolically and spiritually. Its right there in the first verse---

The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified (symbolised) it by his angel unto his servant John:

Its the Christ revealling Himself to His servants. Do you get it? thats why i told you i know who and what Jesus is and who is His Father. Who is the God of "OT", Why God is not a man, changes not, how God is not the name of the Father, how the word GOD is more like a title--which explains this verse Joh 10:34. "The Revelation of Jesus Christ" was the most wonderful thing i have learned in the scriptures and it will be to you on day or age.

I didnt mean to make this that long but i could keep going. In short, i have no jealousy because i am in Him and He is in me and we are in the Father. If the book of Revelations (for that fact the Word of God) make no sense to you and you see it with only physical, carnal eyes and cant see symbolism and spiritual and cant realise that It (the whole Word of God) is a parable, then you are not His right now and you should be jealous of those who have eyes to see it.

Anthony <----not jealous, but anxious for the day when ALL will come to the knowledge of truth.

Oh yeah the reason for this post anyway, LOL

Faith is never written on the same line with knowledge, because where faith begins, knowledge ends;
and for lack of knowledge, people perish. That's in Hosea 4:6.

Ben :thud:

I give credit where credit is due. There is some truth to that statement. It is seen in most people of all religions---they just take what their pastor or teacher or what tells them and leave it at that, but what sayeth the scriptures

1Jo 4:1 - Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits (pastors, ministers, rabbis, teachers, etc etc and for you the jews, this even includes the Apostles and Paul writings) to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world.

(now i know you will try to say Paul writings dont stand up to the tanakh but here you are so very wrong as i and many others like gwk230 have been showing you and ben)

So where their faith begins, knowledge (of the true God) ends because they dont test the spirits to the Word of God.

Now the flip side to this is where faith begins , knowledge ends is where you have those who has been given faith (and so it begins) and the knowledge (the false knowledge that they thought they had of a god that they have been taught and all the other stuff in this world like religions, superstitions doctrines and traditions of devils/men and other stuff like global warming, aliens, and on and on and on) that knowledge ends, but a true new knowledge of the true God begins because you have tested the spirits of those perpetuating such lies.

That is what is means in Hosea 4. Look at what the word used there for knowledge means



[FONT=Arial, Helvetica]Strong's Number: [/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica]from (03045)[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica]Transliterated Word[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica]TDNT Entry[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica]Da`ath[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica]TWOT -[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica]Spelling[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica]Parts of Speech[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica]dah'-ath [/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica]Noun [/FONT]




[FONT=Arial, Helvetica]Definition[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica]

1. knowledge
   1. knowledge, perception, skill
   2. discernment, understanding, wisdom

[/FONT]
I believe you are a smart person. And weve debated before about discernment, understanding and wisdom. Lets put it in that Hosea 4:6 verse

My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge/discernment/understanding/wisdom/perception (eyes to see (Isa 42:20)), skill (to rightly divide the word, here a little there a little, line upon line, precept upon precept): because thou hast rejected knowledge/discernment/understanding/wisdom/perception, skill, I will also reject thee, that thou shalt be no priest to me: seeing thou hast forgotten the law of thy God, I will also forget thy children.

This is getting too long so i will stop here.

 

[IF_u_knew]

Jesus is, was, and will be so to most of humanity the book of the Revelation of Jesus Christ is book of confusion because they think its literal!!! and they have no idea what it means symbolically and spiritually. Its right there in the first verse---

Yes, I understand that many are seeing it as symbolic. I have no opinion on it personally. There are MANY things about the NT that have given me reason to let it alone.. meaning, I gave it almost 20 years and found *nothing* but confusion, doubt, and then ridicule and scoldings from others for even questioning. I *know* that the Tanakh is the Word of God and it is there where I find stability.. that would be due to the foundation of it, the Law of God... the NT threw that out and thus, there is not true stability to be found in the NT (minus some of the things Jesus said such as in Matthew 5:17-19... but again, he only confirmed the Tanakh and so, well.. surely you get my point).

then you are not His right now and you should be jealous of those who have eyes to see it.

It is fine to me that you and others disregard me.. I am not confirmed in the Tanakh as having the testimony established in me. I do encourage you and anyone else to see if what I say is the Truth or not. I do not claim to have all knowledge .. I do not believe that is something possible except for God <--- though that is infinite knowledge in His case... IMPOSSIBLE for us to have INFINITE knowledge.. there would be no point to our existence if we had it.

Anthony <----not jealous, but anxious for the day when ALL will come to the knowledge of truth.

That is what the Law of God and the testimonies of the prophets are for. But most of you seem to disregard them to put your trust in a man and we know what the Word says about trusting man.. it is a curse (Jer 17:5).. Remember the blessing and curse spoken in Deuteronomy 30.. this is why I am astounded that people claim to know the Truth and yet discard what even Jesus himself confirmed.


As for Hosea 4:6, the reason they perish is because of lack of knowledge and clearly by the 2nd half of that, it is the Law that brings knowledge for it is the Law being discarded that makes rejection a surety, no? It is more logical and less mystical, really.

 

[AK4]

Yes, I understand that many are seeing it as symbolic. I have no opinion on it personally. There are MANY things about the NT that have given me reason to let it alone.. meaning, I gave it almost 20 years and found *nothing* but confusion, doubt, and then ridicule and scoldings from others for even questioning. I *know* that the Tanakh is the Word of God and it is there where I find stability.. that would be due to the foundation of it, the Law of God... the NT threw that out and thus, there is not true stability to be found in the NT (minus some of the things Jesus said such as in Matthew 5:17-19... but again, he only confirmed the Tanakh and so, well.. surely you get my point).

Maybe you misunderstood me a little...Jesus is real. He is a man. He lived and died and rose from the dead. Hes not just symbolic. The parables from Genesis to Revelations are symbolic, the words spirit. The prophets, Jesus, and the Apostles spoke in parables and symbolic language.

Theres nothing wrong with questioning. The NT is not confusion at all when you have the understanding. Like the whole works thing. Well its too big of a subject to just post here, but people think James and Paul contradict each other when actually they are both directly in line with the teachings of Jesus. What has happen to bible translations and people with agendas have brought about these contradictions. For example it was Martin Luther who started and inserted the "faith alone" stuff. Check this out:

Biased Bible Translation

Martin Luther translated the New Testament into German. He translated Romans 3:28 as follows:
We hold that the human will be justified without the works of the law but only by faith.


Luther admits to adding the word "only" in the text but insists that his reasons for doing so are good ones. Notice that he is using his doctrine of Sola Fide (faith only) to guide his translation rather than being faithful to the text. Here are his words:

I was not depending upon or following the nature of language when I inserted the word "solum" (alone) in Rom. 3 as the text itself, and St. Paul's meaning, urgently necessitated and demanded it. He is dealing with the main point of Christian doctrine in this passage - namely that we are justified by faith in Christ without any works of the Law.

I also know that in Rom. 3, the word "solum" is not present in either Greek or Latin text - the papists did not have to teach me that - it is fact! The letters s-o-l-a are not there. And these knotheads stare at them like cows at a new gate, while at the same time they do not recognize that it conveys the sense of the text[/u] - if the translation is to be clear and accurate, it belongs there.


Martin Luther, the first Protestant "Reformer," invented the doctrine of Sola Fide (faith alone). The key ingredients of this doctrinal system:

• Salvation is by faith only -- good deeds (works) are of no consequence to salvation.
• Salvation occurs in an instant of time. One moment you are not saved; the next moment you are saved.
• Once saved, a person can't lose their salvation no matter what they do.
• There is the necessity of performing good deeds in a life of faith. But these deeds have no consequence for a person's salvation.

The Catholic Church - Martin Luther's Teachings

See and the many doctrines that came from just one word being added to Gods word and how it makes people think that Paul was writing contradictory to the Word.

It is fine to me that you and others disregard me.. I am not confirmed in the Tanakh as having the testimony established in me. I do encourage you and anyone else to see if what I say is the Truth or not.

I dont disregard anyone. In the past you and ben did get me to question Paul and by doing that it further strengthen my faith because God gave me the eyes to see the fluidity of his writings to everything else in the bible. Ive already thanked ben for this, so i shall thank you too. Thanks.

I do not claim to have all knowledge .. I do not believe that is something possible except for God <--- though that is infinite knowledge in His case... IMPOSSIBLE for us to have INFINITE knowledge.. there would be no point to our existence if we had it.

But what you havent "seen" in the scriptures is that God or the Lord (i say this trying not to confuse you even more) is willing/wanting to give all that He has to us too. He didnt just want creatures/pets like we do when we get ant farms and stuff. No He wants to be all in all. All that He has, He wants to give to His creatures. God is infinite right? So for infinity He will be giving to us more and more of Him and this is what the scriptures say (Isa 9:7, Luke 1:33, 1Co 15:28) (I know, i know, its hard to believe and i didnt believe it at first either, but that is what the scriptures say so you either believe them/God or dont, its "your" choice)

That is what the Law of God and the testimonies of the prophets are for. But most of you seem to disregard them to put your trust in a man and we know what the Word says about trusting man.. it is a curse (Jer 17:5).. Remember the blessing and curse spoken in Deuteronomy 30.. this is why I am astounded that people claim to know the Truth and yet discard what even Jesus himself confirmed.

I dont know how many times i keep telling you, that at least i dont disregard them. You cant disregard any of His Word its all there for a reason every last word, jot and tittle. Its trust in our creator, and to understand that itll once again lead you to know who and what is Jesus and who is His Father.

As for Hosea 4:6, the reason they perish is because of lack of knowledge and clearly by the 2nd half of that, it is the Law that brings knowledge for it is the Law being discarded that makes rejection a surety, no? It is more logical and less mystical, really.

Now read what ive underlined in your statement and read this

Romans 7:7-13 7 What shall we say, then? Is the law sin? Certainly not! Indeed I would not have known what sin was except through the law. For I would not have known what coveting really was if the law had not said, "Do not covet." 8 But sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, produced in me every kind of covetous desire. For apart from law, sin is dead. 9 Once I was alive apart from law; but when the commandment came, sin sprang to life and I died. 10 I found that the very commandment that was intended to bring life actually brought death. 11 For sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, deceived me, and through the commandment put me to death. 12 So then, the law is holy, and the commandment is holy, righteous and good. 13 Did that which is good, then, become death to me? By no means! But in order that sin might be recognized as sin, it produced death in me through what was good, so that through the commandment sin might become utterly sinful.

Your starting to sound like Paul too dear:yes:

 

[IF_u_knew]

Now read what ive underlined in your statement and read this

Romans 7:7-13 7 What shall we say, then? Is the law sin? Certainly not! Indeed I would not have known what sin was except through the law. For I would not have known what coveting really was if the law had not said, "Do not covet." 8 But sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, produced in me every kind of covetous desire. For apart from law, sin is dead. 9 Once I was alive apart from law; but when the commandment came, sin sprang to life and I died. 10 I found that the very commandment that was intended to bring life actually brought death. 11 For sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, deceived me, and through the commandment put me to death. 12 So then, the law is holy, and the commandment is holy, righteous and good. 13 Did that which is good, then, become death to me? By no means! But in order that sin might be recognized as sin, it produced death in me through what was good, so that through the commandment sin might become utterly sinful.

Your starting to sound like Paul too dear:yes:

<---- Who *doesn't* sound like Paul at one point or another.... he said so many different things it is no wonder to me that his religion caused a major splintering effect... meaning, well, how many different denominations and loners in christianity are there now?

Now, read the first part of Roman's 7. He is trying to divorce Israel from God.

I do not reject the Law. I have not died with JEsus... I am very much alive. For me, the Law contains Life and not death... it brought me back to Life. It is not a curse to me. I DO reject a blood covering of a man on a cross and rather accept the Law and the Life it has given me.

 

[AK4]

<---- Who *doesn't* sound like Paul at one point or another.... he said so many different things it is no wonder to me that his religion caused a major splintering effect... meaning, well, how many different denominations and loners in christianity are there now?

Now, read the first part of Roman's 7. He is trying to divorce Israel from God.

I do not reject the Law. I have not died with JEsus... I am very much alive. For me, the Law contains Life and not death... it brought me back to Life. It is not a curse to me. I DO reject a blood covering of a man on a cross and rather accept the Law and the Life it has given me.

No Paul isnt. You have alot of "garbage" still stuck in your head from other teachings you have heard, maybe from christainity or from judaism or maybe both.

Cant you see that the first six verses are a parable in itself? And then Paul explains it right afterwards and it doesnt really have to do with divorce at all. The same way Jesus taught in parables like the Sower of the seed. It had nothing really to do with farming did it? No, same as this one with Paul. Its not talking about divorce at all. Can you see it?

When Christ said to sell all of your possesions and follow Me are you to literally sell everything material you have or is He talking about getting rid of all the garbage teachings and prior beliefs from the religions of the world and the teachings of men and then follow Him? Can you see it yet? "If your right hand offend you, cut it off" is this literal too? Spiritual eyes to see will bring in soooo much knowledge. This is the jews and most of the world including most in christainity problem, they dont have the spiritual eyes to see so they take something like Romans 7:1-6 literally.

If you take that portion literally so many contradictions will pop up in just that one book. But God is not a god of confusion or contradictions so to those who dont see spiritually all you will see is contradiction. God plainly says He hates divorce and Jesus reiterates saying it wasnt that way in the beginning and yet you think Paul is coming right out and saying He divorced them? I pray you will see correctly one day.

And still this still sticks with the thread of the mark of the beast if you remember what i posted several posts ago. Maybe i should have put this sentence before the last paragraph

 

[Ben Sinai]

A Sinaiticist explanation of Rom. 7:1-6

Dead to Torah? Yes, to the parts of the Torah that you transgressed. For what is sin but transgression of the Torah. For if we be washed by the blood of the Anointed for all sins past, and those sins are transgression of the Torah, then one could say at that point and time we are dead to those parts of the Torah that was pointing its judgmental finger at us. Those laws can’t find us any longer to point its finger at us. Those laws that we have transgressed will no longer be mentioned to us as being unrighteousness. We are as dead to them. Sin is not a thing that can stand as witness against an individual. The Torah can. It is one of the three books that will be opened on the day of judgment. This is not a hard saying. But only once can we be washed and be as dead to these laws because we also find that the dear brother, and apostle, Sha’ul also stated that ………
&#12288;
Heb 10:26 For if we deliberately continue to sin after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins,
Heb 10:27 but only the terrifying prospect of Judgment, of raging fire that will consume the enemies.
Heb 10:28 Someone who disregards the Torah of Moshe is put to death without mercy on the word of two or three witnesses.
Heb 10:29 Think how much worse will be the punishment deserved by someone who has trampled underfoot the Son of Elohim; who has treated as something common the blood of the covenant which made him set-apart; and who has insulted the Ruach a Chodesh, giver of Elohim's grace!

 

[Ben Masada]

A Sinaiticist explanation of Rom. 7:1-6

Dead to Torah?

Ben: Only Gentiles are dead to Torah because they must be alive only to the Noahite laws.

Yes, to the parts of the Torah that you transgressed.

Ben: That's not true. One can be dead to Tora if he rejects it; not if he transgresses it. (Ezek. 18:21)

For what is sin but transgression of the Torah. For if we be washed by the blood of the Anointed for all sins past,

Ben: According to Habakkuk 3:13, the Anointed one is Israel. "And the Lord went out to save His People; His anointed one."

and those sins are transgression of the Torah, then one could say at that point and time we are dead to those parts of the Torah that was pointing its judgmental finger at us.

Ben: Any commandment of the Tora, if you transgress it, it will point its finger to you. It means you are not dead to it.

Those laws can&#8217;t find us any longer to point its finger at us. Those laws that we have transgressed will no longer be mentioned to us as being unrighteousness. We are as dead to them. Sin is not a thing that can stand as witness against an individual.

Ben: Only if a Jew quits his Jewishness and reverts himself to being a Gentile.

The Torah can. It is one of the three books that will be opened on the day of judgment. This is not a hard saying. But only once can we be washed and be as dead to these laws because we also find that the dear brother, and apostle, Sha&#8217;ul also stated that &#8230;&#8230;&#8230;

Ben: Yes, you are right on this one. Paul became dead to Tora when he quit being Jewish to found Christianity.
&#12288;
Heb 10:28 Someone who disregards the Torah of Moshe is put to death without mercy on the word of two or three witnesses.

Ben: Not after the establishment of the New Covenant. (Jer. 31:31-34)

Heb 10:29 Think how much worse will be the punishment deserved by someone who has trampled underfoot the Son of Elohim; who has treated as something common the blood of the covenant which made him set-apart; and who has insulted the Ruach a Chodesh, giver of Elohim's grace!

Ben: Yes, the son of Elohim, but according to Exodus 4:22,23. "Israel is My son;
let My son go, so that he may serve Me," says the Lord. That's the son of Elohim.

 

[Ben Sinai]

Ben: Only Gentiles are dead to Torah because they must be alive only to the Noahite laws.

&#12288;
That’s a very foolish thing to say being that the so called laws that were uttered unto Noah are also a part of the very Torah that you so foolishly state that those who must observe them are also dead to. Amazing.
&#12288;

Ben: That's not true. One can be dead to Tora if he rejects it; not if he transgresses it. (Ezek. 18:21)

&#12288;
This is a prime example of one who watches the first two minutes of a movie and decides to make up their minds as to what the entire movie is all about. Eze 18:21 has nothing to do with the point I clearly make as one reads the entire post as one paragraph and not all broken up to where there is no longer any textual comprehension of the intended statement. This type of tactic only leads to confusion and discourse which the sons of Helel are so proficient at.
&#12288;

Ben: According to Habakkuk 3:13, the Anointed one is Israel. "And the Lord went out to save His People; His anointed one."

&#12288;
But according to ……………..
&#12288;
1Sa 15:17 And Samuel said, When thou wast little in thine own sight, wast thou not made the head of the tribes of Yisrael, and Yah anointed thee king over Yisrael?
&#12288;
Sounds like a king got anointed over Yisrael. Also…………
&#12288;
Exo 29:29 And the holy garments of Aaron shall be his sons' after him, to be anointed therein, and to be consecrated in them.
&#12288;
Lev 4:3 If the priest that is anointed do sin according to the sin of the people; then let him bring for his sin, which he hath sinned, a young bullock without blemish unto Yah for a sin offering.
&#12288;
There is no argument that yes, Yisrael was anointed, but there is also no argument that individuals are also anointed. This being so, Yahshua Ha Moshiach, being a part of Yisrael, as well as being established as "You are a cohen forever, to be compared with Malki-Tzedek.", was also anointed and this is the anointed mentioned in whose blood one must be purified in hope to receive salvation.
&#12288;

Ben: Any commandment of the Tora, if you transgress it, it will point its finger to you. It means you are not dead to it.

&#12288;
So, just for clarification, if one sins, in other words, transgress the Torah, that specific statute that was transgressed would point at your act of iniquity. I understand this. But, at the time of Temple, if one was to do as stated in Torah and give a sacrifice for sin and be washed clean of this sin, or transgression of said statute and part of Torah, then this person would still be guilty of said transgression? And here I was under the impression that if one was forgiven of a sin that that is just what was done, they were forgiven. You seem to be insinuating that one is never forgiven therefore no one will enter into the Kingdom. If so then why even have Torah? For what purpose would it be if there is no forgiveness for sins? I believe I will continue to see it as I understand it as being when one is washed from their sins then those laws which they had broken will no longer be pointing their finger at them. Otherwise it would be against Torah and Torah would be broken.
&#12288;

Ben: Only if a Jew quits his Jewishness and reverts himself to being a Gentile.

&#12288;
LOL. You really don’t understand do you? Wow. My 3 year old grandson understands this so far. I really do not know what more I can say, or do, to get you to understand basic Hebraic Culturalisms.
&#12288;

Ben: Yes, you are right on this one.

&#12288;
Todah Ben but rather Sha’ul had it all right. Thanks for the thought though.
&#12288;

Paul became dead to Tora when he quit being Jewish to found Christianity.

&#12288;
Sha’ul became dead to those laws which were pointing their finger at him when he became purified and cleansed of sins past by the blood and faith of Yahshua Ha Moshiach Ben David. The man made religion of so called christianity was in no way founded by Sha’ul. It is untrue to state otherwise. One might as well say that Yah is christian. The so called religion of christianity was more than likely invented by disgruntled unbelieving jews in an attempt to discredit Yahshua and his disciples. It has been doing their bidding for close to two thousand years.
&#12288;

Ben: Not after the establishment of the New Covenant. (Jer. 31:31-34)

&#12288;
Again for clarification Ben, Are you saying that there will be no longer any Torah after that which is foretold in Jer 31:31-34? I really don’t read that here Ben. Are you saying that there will be no more Torah and therefore no more sin? Or are you saying that even if there is Torah that it won’t matter if one sins because it will be forgiven him? In either case I still don’t read that here either Ben.
&#12288;

Ben: Yes, the son of Elohim, but according to Exodus 4:22,23. "Israel is My son; let My son go, so that he may serve Me," says the Lord. That's the son of Elohim.

&#12288;
But according to …….
&#12288;
Gen 6:2 That the sons of Elohim saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.
&#12288;
Job 1:6 Now there was a day when the sons of Elohim came to present themselves before Yah, and the adversary came also among them.
&#12288;
Dan 3:25 He answered and said, Lo, I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire, and they have no hurt; and the form of the fourth is like the Son of Elohim.
&#12288;
Joh 1:12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of Elohim, even to them that believe on his name:
&#12288;
Rom 8:14 For as many as are led by the Ruach Ha Chodesh of Elohim, they are the sons of Elohim.
&#12288;
1Jn 3:1 Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of Elohim: therefore the world knoweth us not, because it knew him not.
&#12288;
………….shows that Yisrael is not the only one or ones that can be called the sons of Elohim. Remember that Adam was first created by Elohim and was the first son of Elohim. He was a Gentile.

 

[Ben Masada]

&#12288;
That&#8217;s a very foolish thing to say being that the so called laws that were uttered unto Noah are also a part of the very Torah that you so foolishly state that those who must observe them are also dead to. Amazing.

Ben: What I find amazing is to conclude that something is foolish, which you did not understand it. Who said that one is dead to something he observes? I would be a fool to say such a thing. Would you provide me with my saying that?
&#12288;

Eze 18:21 has nothing to do with the point I clearly make as one reads the entire post as one paragraph and not all broken up to where there is no longer any textual comprehension of the intended statement.

Ben: You seem to be too anxious to reply without focusing on the question. Here is what Ezekiel says: "But if the wicked man turns away from all the sins he committed, if he keeps all my statutes and does what is right and just, he shall surely live, he shall not die." That's what I meant by not being dead to the Law when one only transgresses it. One must reject it to be dead to the Law.
&#12288;
I believe I will continue to see it as I understand it as being when one is washed from their sins then those laws which they had broken will no longer be pointing their finger at them.

Ben: Nobody is free of sins. We live under the Law, which will be pointing a finger at us every time we transgress it.

&#12288;
Sha&#8217;ul became dead to those laws which were pointing their finger at him when he became purified and cleansed of sins past by the blood and faith of Yahshua Ha Moshiach Ben David.

Ben: How about the blood of the other thousands of Jews, who went through the same thing Jesus did? Their blood didn't count? You speak of the blood of Jesus as if he was the only Jew to be crucified by the Romans. Read Josephus.
&#12288;

&#12288;
Again for clarification Ben, Are you saying that there will be no longer any Torah after that which is foretold in Jer 31:31-34?

Ben: That's not what I said. The Law only exchanged places: From the tables of stone into the heart.
&#12288;

Gen 6:2 That the sons of Elohim saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.

Ben: In the original says, "The sons of heavens." That's a legendary fragment borrowed from ancient Mythology and brought from Babylon. The author incorporated it here in Genesis 6:2 not only to account for the prehistoric giants of Canaan, whom the Israelites called the Naphilim, but also to introduce the story of the flood with a moral orientation.
&#12288;
Job 1:6 Now there was a day when the sons of Elohim came to present themselves before Yah, and the adversary came also among them.

Ben: The book of Job is an allegory to teach about the place of Israel in the Council of God. Everything is allowed in an allegory. Even to see God and live.
&#12288;
Dan 3:25 He answered and said, Lo, I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire, and they have no hurt; and the form of the fourth is like the Son of Elohim.

Ben: That was a vision or lucid dream Nebuchadnezzar had. Everything is possible in a dream or lucid dream.
&#12288;&#12288;
&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;.shows that Yisrael is not the only one or ones that can be called the sons of Elohim. Remember that Adam was first created by Elohim and was the first son of Elohim. He was a Gentile.

Ben: But of none is said, "Israel is My son." (Exo. 4:22,23)

 

[Ben Sinai]

Question: Is your name Ben or are you using it in the Hebraic meaning “Son of”?
&#12288;

Ben: What I find amazing is to conclude that something is foolish, which you did not understand it. Who said that one is dead to something he observes? I would be a fool to say such a thing. Would you provide me with my saying that?

&#12288;
What you stated was foolish Ben, and what you have thus replied is untrue. I have never stated that anyone was dead to what they observe. As I have already stated Ben, read the whole of my post before jumping to conclusions.
&#12288;

Ben: You seem to be too anxious to reply without focusing on the question. Here is what Ezekiel says: "But if the wicked man turns away from all the sins he committed, if he keeps all my statutes and does what is right and just, he shall surely live, he shall not die." That's what I meant by not being dead to the Law when one only transgresses it. One must reject it to be dead to the Law.

&#12288;
What question? I posted a statement and you replied with your own statement. I see no question.
&#12288;
No one said that they were dead to the law as in not having to observe and obey them. It is an analogy, or parable if you will that I was expressing. You were the one that was all anxious to jump to your guns to reply to something that you had no understanding of. I understand what you are saying here, as pertaining to Ezekiel and I agree, but it still has nothing to do with what I was making a point on. You have misunderstood what I was saying and thus decided to express yourself when there was no need.
&#12288;

Ben: Nobody is free of sins. We live under the Law, which will be pointing a finger at us every time we transgress it.

&#12288;
Bingo! I agree with you on this statement Ben. That is truth. But once we have been washed of such sin, are we not free from it? Not free to continue to break it over and over again but free from it that one time? I understand it in this way. Hope you do. Otherwise your doomed with no forgiveness of sins. For even in the same chapter of Ezekiel that you have posted shows just one verse down that………..
&#12288;
Eze 18:22 All his transgressions that he hath committed, they shall not be mentioned unto him: in his righteousness that he hath done he shall live.
&#12288;
Therefore he is as dead to those laws that were pointing its judgmental finger at him. His slate has been cleansed, and washed, and those laws that he had broken cannot seek him out to witness against him because his sins are as if they had never happened. Do you understand what I am saying now? Whew!!!!!!!!! :areyoucra
&#12288;

Ben: How about the blood of the other thousands of Jews, who went through the same thing Jesus did? Their blood didn't count? You speak of the blood of Jesus as if he was the only Jew to be crucified by the Romans. Read Josephus.

&#12288;
No. Their blood does not count in this context. They are not the one that was raised up from the dead for the explicit purpose of the salvation of all those that obey and believe. Their deaths were no more, or less, important than anyone else’s that has died through out history. But you know, I know that you have used this same old rhetoric with everyone else and it doesn’t work any better with me. You continue to care about the world Ben. You love the world don’t you Ben? You care for fleshly things don’t you Ben? You serve this world, and the one you has control of it now, don’t you Ben? Warning Ben. There is one coming to destroy things that are as they are in this world Ben. You will be made to submit. Kinda like the “Borg” Ben. Resistance is futile Ben. Read the Tanach Ben! Maybe you will finally get some understanding of it.
&#12288;
2Ti 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto Elohim, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

Ben: That's not what I said. The Law only exchanged places: From the tables of stone into the heart.

&#12288;
But the heart only pumps blood Ben. What purpose is the Torah going to have in a blood pumping muscle called the heart Ben? Ben? Have you been drinking a little too much of the yayin? :drunk: Maybe you mean the “Mind” huh? Yah will place His word into the minds of those that seek it out to do it. To seek it is to study it. If it pleases Him He will allow you to be able to retain it and understand it. You must be of a willing and contrite mind though. Not full of oneself with all their earthly and fleshly thoughts and feelings. Yah’s word is neither earthly nor fleshly but spirit. These things have to do with spiritual matters and not that of the carnal earth and flesh matters.
&#12288;

Ben: In the original says, "The sons of heavens." That's a legendary fragment borrowed from ancient Mythology and brought from Babylon. The author incorporated it here in Genesis 6:2 not only to account for the prehistoric giants of Canaan, whom the Israelites called the Naphilim, but also to introduce the story of the flood with a moral orientation.

&#12288;
Original huh? In my various array of Hebrew text, no where does it state this as you have so conveniently offered. Care to state your source with a link, other than just “original“ ? The sons of Elohim are those that obeyed Torah. The giants are no more than men that had enough sustenance to be more powerful than others. Great men of power liken unto kings and rulers and such. Mighty men which were of old, men of renown. Prehistoric giants, please. There were men that were tall and strong as were sighted by those that went to spy out the land but not any so called prehistoric giants. The giants spoken of in Gen 6:2 is as the text has so simply, and correctly, stated without having to add to nor take away from. This isn’t christianity with their fairytales of the malachem having sex with female humans to produce any prehistoric giants. :biglaugh: And haven’t you heard, there’s a santa clause and a easter bunny too.
&#12288;

Ben: The book of Job is an allegory to teach about the place of Israel in the Council of God. Everything is allowed in an allegory. Even to see God and live.

&#12288;
And your point? There are still “sons of Elohim” here as written in the Hebrew text.
&#12288;

Ben: That was a vision or lucid dream Nebuchadnezzar had. Everything is possible in a dream or lucid dream.

&#12288;
As is everything is possible with Yah. Again “son/sons of Elohim” written by a Hebrew about Hebrews in Hebrew.
&#12288;&#12288;

Ben: But of none is said, "Israel is My son." (Exo. 4:22,23)

&#12288;
And? Your making a mute point with nothing to back it up. I agree that Yisrael was called the son of Elohim at the point and time it was used to express the will of Yah upon the pharaoh of Mitsrayim. This in no way contradicts the fact that there are individuals that are also considered the sons of Elohim. All you have is he said she said with your own thoughts and feelings with “NO” scriptural precedence to stand on. We do have a couple of places to lean on as to your statement of “none” and those would be…….
&#12288;
(Mat 3:17 KJV) And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.
&#12288;
As well as, (Mat 17:5 KJV), (Mar 1:11 KJV), (Mar 9:7 KJV), (Luk 3:22 KJV), (Luk 9:35 KJV), (2Pe 1:17 KJV) to name a few.

 

[Ben Masada]

Question: Is your name Ben or are you using it in the Hebraic meaning “Son of”?

My name is J. Ben Masada. My father was Masada Ben Avraham.
&#12288;
What question? I posted a statement and you replied with your own statement.

I meant a reply to an statement.
&#12288;
I understand what you are saying here, as pertaining to Ezekiel and I agree, but it still has nothing to do with what I was making a point on.

Ezekiel 18:21 was to prove my point, not yours.
&#12288;

Bingo! I agree with you on this statement Ben. That is truth. But once we have been washed of such sin, are we not free from it?

From the sin but not from the Law. We continue under the Law. And the forgiveness comes only after repentance, reparation and purpose to obey. (Isa. 1:18,19) That's the only way to set things right with God.
&#12288;
Eze 18:22 All his transgressions that he hath committed, they shall not be mentioned unto him: in his righteousness that he hath done he shall live.

As you can see, we live and are make righteous by obedience to the Law. Or by being forgiven by whoever we have offendend.
&#12288;
Therefore he is as dead to those laws that were pointing its judgmental finger at him. His slate has been cleansed, and washed, and those laws that he had broken cannot seek him out to witness against him because his sins are as if they had never happened.

You are wrong here. There is no one on earth who can live without sinning; and sin is the transgression of the Law. And that same Law that pointed its finger when we sinned will be there to point the same finger every time we transgress it. No one will ever be free of the Law by being dead to it. Thanks God for this provision of His grace.
&#12288;

&#12288;
No. Their blood does not count in this context. They are not the one that was raised up from the dead for the explicit purpose of the salvation of all those that obey and believe.

Prove it! Show me an eyewitness to the resurrection of Jesus. Then, if you obey the Law, you don't need a savior apart from God Himself. (Isa. 43:11)

Read the Tanach Ben! Maybe you will finally get some understanding of it.

I have read it and more than several times. There is nothing of the Pauline paraphernalia about Jesus.
&#12288;
But the heart only pumps blood Ben. What purpose is the Torah going to have in a blood pumping muscle called the heart Ben?

Sorry, I thought you understood analogy or metaphor.
&#12288;
Original huh? In my various array of Hebrew text, no where does it state this as you have so conveniently offered. Care to state your source with a link, other than just “original“ ? The sons of Elohim are those that obeyed Torah.

Well, my friend, I think you are going to content yourself with my being almost original with this one. Once I read a book about Assyrian and Babylonian ledgends and folklorics. Things about giants and legendary spirits like Lillith, a Babylonian demon who used to dwell in the wilderness and desolate places. Since I believe that Ezra, the most famous Scribe in the History of Israel put together most of the Torah and historical books, he had to add a lot of his own to explain what came down by word of mouth. Then, it was only obvious or natural to try to explain those giants the Israelites found in Canaan, whom they called the Naphillim by inserting that Babylonian fragment just prior to the Flood with the moral orientation vis-a-vis the increased corruption of Mankind. Then, the Jews returning from 70 years in Babylon brought a lot of those things with them. I believe Ezra inserted that Babylonian legendary fragment as an analogy to total corruption.
&#12288;

&#12288;
And? Your making a mute point with nothing to back it up. I agree that Yisrael was called the son of Elohim at the point and time it was used to express the will of Yah upon the pharaoh of Mitsrayim. This in no way contradicts the fact that there are individuals that are also considered the sons of Elohim. All you have is he said she said with your own thoughts and feelings with “NO” scriptural precedence to stand on. We do have a couple of places to lean on as to your statement of “none” and those would be……

If Exodus 4:22,23 is not a scriptural precedence to stand on, what do you want, the opinion of another man? If the Scriptures that Jesus used to handle is not enough for you as evidence, I don't wonder anymore why you go for the nonsense of the NT.
&#12288;

 

[Ben Sinai]

My name is J. Ben Masada. My father was Masada Ben Avraham.

&#12288;
So without answering my question you force me to assume that you use it in the Hebraic sense of “son of”. So being there is no “J” in the Hebrew is it safe to say that your first name starts with a “Y”?
&#12288;

Ezekiel 18:21 was to prove my point, not yours.

&#12288;
I fail to see your reasoning to post a reply to my point when the point you were trying to prove has nothing to do with the point in question. If you have a point to prove that is different than that of a OP then maybe you should have started a different thread on that point.
&#12288;

From the sin but not from the Law.

&#12288;
How so? Sin is an act that you commit. Sin is a transgression of a law. If the sin is forgiven then the law that was transgressed can no longer witness against you unless you transgress it again.
&#12288;

We continue under the Law.

&#12288;
I agree.
&#12288;

As you can see, we live and are make righteous by obedience to the Law. Or by being forgiven by whoever we have offendend.

&#12288;
Again I agree.
&#12288;

You are wrong here.

&#12288;
No I am not. You just don’t understand my point.
&#12288;

There is no one on earth who can live without sinning; and sin is the transgression of the Law.

&#12288;
I further agree.
&#12288;

And that same Law that pointed its finger when we sinned will be there to point the same finger every time we transgress it.

&#12288;
I also agree as long as you understand that when one was cleansed of the sin the law is not going to witness against them, hence they are as dead to that law, unless they transgress it again.
&#12288;

No one will ever be free of the Law by being dead to it.

&#12288;
That is not my meaning but it was your error in your understanding of what I stated. Here let me lend you a hand………..
&#12288;
I said “free from it” as to its witness against us that broke it once we have been cleansed from the transgression of it. Again as I have so stated that once we are cleansed it is as if we are dead to that specific law that we transgressed. Its not trying to look us up to say “Hey, he transgressed me so throw some of your wrath on him”. Did that help any?
&#12288;

Thanks God for this provision of His grace.

&#12288;
Todah Yah!!!!!!! All praise be to Yah!!!!!!! Halleluyah!!!!!!!
&#12288;

Prove it! Show me an eyewitness to the resurrection of Jesus. Then, if you obey the Law, you don't need a savior apart from God Himself. (Isa. 43:11)

&#12288;
No more than you can show an eyewitness of it not occurring.
&#12288;
All I have is what is written between Genesis and Revelation as an eye witness of all things. All Abraham had was faith. It was counted unto him as righteousness. I have patience. I obey the commandments of Yah and have the faith of Yahshua Ha Moshiach. I hope that this is also counted unto me as righteousness that I may obtain that beatific vision of eternal life. Isa 43:11 is correct. But if Yah uses another to do His will as He has done through out the whole of the scriptures then why is it so hard to accept? Yah first used the blood of goats and bulls but man made a mockery of it so Yah took it away for a time and exchanged the repetitive sacrifices for sin once in the blood of Yahshua. Now if we sin presumptuously there is no sacrifice but an ever fearful look over ones shoulder for the wrath of Yah.
&#12288;

I have read it and more than several times. There is nothing of the Pauline paraphernalia about Jesus.

&#12288;
Isa 53 explains a lot but I am sure you have some sort of thoughts and feelings you will share on this subject.
&#12288;

Sorry, I thought you understood analogy or metaphor.

&#12288;
I do. That’s why I went on to explain it.
&#12288;

Well, my friend, I think you are going to content yourself with my being almost original with this one. Once I read a book about Assyrian and Babylonian ledgends and folklorics. Things about giants and legendary spirits like Lillith, a Babylonian demon who used to dwell in the wilderness and desolate places. Since I believe that Ezra, the most famous Scribe in the History of Israel put together most of the Torah and historical books, he had to add a lot of his own to explain what came down by word of mouth. Then, it was only obvious or natural to try to explain those giants the Israelites found in Canaan, whom they called the Naphillim by inserting that Babylonian fragment just prior to the Flood with the moral orientation vis-a-vis the increased corruption of Mankind. Then, the Jews returning from 70 years in Babylon brought a lot of those things with them. I believe Ezra inserted that Babylonian legendary fragment as an analogy to total corruption.

&#12288;
This is what I understand of the problem with people putting what they think and what they feel into that of the true word of Yah. You have taken something that is so perverse and repulsive to Yah being in the form of some fragment of a pagan deity and belief system and said it was added by one of those chosen by Yah. One that is said to have had the hand of Yah on him. The Ruach Ha Chodesh if you may. That could be considered blasphemy against the ruach of Yah. I can’t have anything to do with such nastiness. Such perversions of the word are known as pure and unadulterated iniquity. Chatta’ah.
&#12288;
&#12288;

If Exodus 4:22,23 is not a scriptural precedence to stand on, what do you want, the opinion of another man? If the Scriptures that Jesus used to handle is not enough for you as evidence, I don't wonder anymore why you go for the nonsense of the NT.

&#12288;
No it is enough to show what I have already stated I agreed with but it doesn’t excuse the fact of the rest of my response. Yahshua always used the text of various scriptures in the correct context. Yahshua never stated that there was no such thing as an individual being a Moshiach. An Anointed one. This is something left only up to your “thoughts and feelings” interpretation.

 

[Ben Masada]

&#12288;
So without answering my question you force me to assume that you use it in the Hebraic sense of “son of”. So being there is no “J” in the Hebrew is it safe to say that your first name starts with a “Y”?

Ben: Right. In my Israeli documents it's "Y" and not "J."
&#12288;
I fail to see your reasoning to post a reply to my point when the point you were trying to prove has nothing to do with the point in question. If you have a point to prove that is different than that of a OP then maybe you should have started a different thread on that point.

Ben: All the passages in the thread are to prove my point. What's the big deal to understand here?
&#12288;
How so? Sin is an act that you commit. Sin is a transgression of a law. If the sin is forgiven then the law that was transgressed can no longer witness against you unless you transgress it again.

Ben: You are being redundant.
&#12288;
I also agree as long as you understand that when one was cleansed of the sin the law is not going to witness against them, hence they are as dead to that law, unless they transgress it again.

Ben: Anyone can see that you are playing with words to exhibit fake wisdom.
&#12288;
I said “free from it” as to its witness against us that broke it once we have been cleansed from the transgression of it. Again as I have so stated that once we are cleansed it is as if we are dead to that specific law that we transgressed. Its not trying to look us up to say “Hey, he transgressed me so throw some of your wrath on him”. Did that help any?

Ben: There is somehow a price to pay for transgressing the Law of cause and effect.
&#12288;
Todah Yah!!!!!!! All praise be to Yah!!!!!!! Halleluyah!!!!!!!

Ben: Come down from you high horses! I meant the Law, which was given as a result of God's grace.
&#12288;
No more than you can show an eyewitness of it not occurring.

Ben: How am I to prove what does not exist? The burden of proof is on the shoulders of the one who claims that a certain thing exists. In our case, you to prove the resurrection.
&#12288;
Isa 53 explains a lot but I am sure you have some sort of thoughts and feelings you will share on this subject.

Ben: What can be said to someone who has acquired preconceived notions from strange beliefs?
&#12288;
This is what I understand of the problem with people putting what they think and what they feel into that of the true word of Yah. You have taken something that is so perverse and repulsive to Yah being in the form of some fragment of a pagan deity and belief system and said it was added by one of those chosen by Yah. One that is said to have had the hand of Yah on him. The Ruach Ha Chodesh if you may. That could be considered blasphemy against the ruach of Yah. I can’t have anything to do with such nastiness. Such perversions of the word are known as pure and unadulterated iniquity. Chatta’ah.

Ben: You act like an anthropomorphic religious fundamentalist.
&#12288;
No it is enough to show what I have already stated I agreed with but it doesn’t excuse the fact of the rest of my response. Yahshua always used the text of various scriptures in the correct context. Yahshua never stated that there was no such thing as an individual being a Moshiach. An Anointed one. This is something left only up to your “thoughts and feelings” interpretation.

Ben: Moshiach and Anointed one are synonymous. In Habakkuk we have that Israel is the anointed one of the Lord. Therefore, the Messiah. And if the Suffering Servant of Isaiah 53 is the Messiah, Isaiah identifies that Servant with Israel by name, so that you won't have to assume that he was Yeshua. Read Isaiah 41:8,9; 44:1,2,21; 45:4.

 

[AK4]

Ben: Prove it! Show me an eyewitness to the resurrection of Jesus

Lol. Lets see, when in anything else that has happened in history is recorded in many other books or pottery or what have you we count them as proof, BUT when it comes to stuff about Jesus, especially the bible, it doesnt count as proof all of a sudden.

Really ben is that your argument? There is even secular records from people like Josephus and even in your talmud that says stuff of Jesus. Yet these dont count as proof?

We might as well throw out all history then.

 

[Ben Masada]

Lol. Lets see, when in anything else that has happened in history is recorded in many other books or pottery or what have you we count them as proof, BUT when it comes to stuff about Jesus, especially the bible, it doesnt count as proof all of a sudden.

Really ben is that your argument? There is even secular records from people like Josephus and even in your talmud that says stuff of Jesus. Yet these dont count as proof?

We might as well throw out all history then.

You haven't said a word to prove the resurrection of Jesus. Go ahead and use your own NT. Prove to me that he resurrected but clean of contradictions; otherwise it won't be beyond the shadow of a doubt. Can you do that? I am all ears.

 

[Ben Sinai]

Ben: All the passages in the thread are to prove my point. What's the big deal to understand here?

&#12288;
But the point of yours that you proved, which I agreed with has nothing to do with my point. They are two different animals YBM.
&#12288;

Ben: There is somehow a price to pay for transgressing the Law of cause and effect.

&#12288;
I agree. Even though we may have our spiritual lives saved, we will still need to look for some sort of punishment for those that do believe……….
&#12288;
Heb 12:6 For Yah disciplines those he loves and whips everyone he accepts as a son."
Heb 12:7 Regard your endurance as discipline; Elohim is dealing with you as sons. For what son goes undisciplined by his father?
Heb 12:8 All legitimate sons undergo discipline; so if you don't, you're a mamzer and not a son!
&#12288;

I meant the Law, which was given as a result of God's grace.

&#12288;
I understood with what you meant and agreed and that is why I thanked Him by Praising His set-apart name.
&#12288;

Ben: How am I to prove what does not exist? The burden of proof is on the shoulders of the one who claims that a certain thing exists. In our case, you to prove the resurrection.

&#12288;
What are you? A Sadducee? They didn’t take to the fact of a resurrection either. Being that you say that it doesn’t exist, then I have to quote from that one you love so well to quote but continue to take out of context and that would be, once again, from my great brother Yesha'yah……………
&#12288;
Isa 26:19 Your dead will live, my corpses will rise; awake and sing, you who dwell in the dust; for your dew is like the morning dew, and the earth will bring the dead to life.
&#12288;
If we are going to believe and use other parts of this good brothers book, then we are to accept the whole of it. Verse 19 speaks directly of a resurrection. What I have is the same as we have here. I have what is written in the writings of the talmidim of Yahshua that state he was resurrected. As well as the words coming from the lips of Yahshua himself, which are as what is written here. As well as other places through out the Tanach, which speak of the dead being made to live. You will state that this is no proof but I accept it as it is. Fact by the words of Yah and His true and righteous servants.
&#12288;

Ben: Moshiach and Anointed one are synonymous.

&#12288;
Yes they are. Just as a king is an anointed one. Just as a judge is an anointed one. It simply means that these individuals or peoples were chosen for a specific task or job. They all are types of Moshiachs but with different task and/or jobs
&#12288;

In Habakkuk we have that Israel is the anointed one of the Lord. Therefore, the Messiah.

&#12288;
Yes it does state this and it is well known that Moshiach means anointed. It is the same word but in different languages. Anointed is English while Moshiach is Hebrew. It is further well known that Yisrael was a chosen and anointed people with a purpose to be a light unto the nations. A Moshiach if you will. Our testimony is well documented. But as we read scripture we see that there have been many anointed with various task and jobs.
&#12288;

And if the Suffering Servant of Isaiah 53 is the Messiah, Isaiah identifies that Servant with Israel by name, so that you won't have to assume that he was Yeshua. Read Isaiah 41:8,9; 44:1,2,21; 45:4.

&#12288;
Well I see it a little differently.
&#12288;
Isa 41:2 Who has raised up one from the east? Whom called him to his foot in righteousness? He hands over nations to him, and makes him rule over kings. He gives them like the dust to his sword, like the driven stubble to his bow.
&#12288;
Then when you read the verses you offered 41:8-9 we have………
&#12288;
Isa 41:8 "But you, Yisra'el, my servant, Yacob whom I have chosen, the seed of Abraham my friend,
Isa 41:9 You whom I have taken hold of from the ends of the earth, and called from its corners, and said to you, 'You are my servant, I have chosen you and not cast you away;'
&#12288;
Now back in verse 2 we see “One” spoken of and this “One” is raised from the “East”. Here in 8 and 9 we see that the people are “from the ends of the earth” and not just “One from the east”. We further read……….
&#12288;
Isa 41:10 Don't you be afraid, for I am with you. Don't be dismayed, for I am your Elohim. I will strengthen you. Yes, I will help you. Yes, I will uphold you with the right hand of my righteousness.
&#12288;
What kind of a Moshiach Yisrael be? As you claim the title to be when using that all powerful christian stronghold of a word “messiah” as if it were the be all to end all to save the world. We see that even Yah Himself had to encourage them to be brave and not be afraid for He had His right hand, the One that was from the east that had been sitting at His right hand which He raised up, to defeat those that would do them harm.
&#12288;
44:1-2 and 21 as well as 45:4 are pretty much the same. I’m not quite sure what your point is unless your trying to say that Yisrael was chosen to be servants of Yah. I would then agree with you but hey, I as well am a servant of Yah as well as anyone else that obeys His word. Kinda like the brother whose name is Obadiah, or in the Hebrew vernacular, Ovadyah which means “Servant of Yah”.
&#12288;
Yesha'yah 53 is a prophecy of Yahshua Ha Moshiach Ben Dawid.
&#12288;

Ben: You are being redundant.

Ben: Anyone can see that you are playing with words to exhibit fake wisdom.

Ben: Come down from you high horses!

Ben: What can be said to someone who has acquired preconceived notions from strange beliefs?

Ben: You act like an anthropomorphic religious fundamentalist.

&#12288;
Very mature and intellectual.