The Mark of the Beast

[Ben Masada]

No, you misunderstood. No one has forgotten verse 19. No one is saying that the law has been abolished.

Ben: Read Ephesians 2:15. Paul says it very clearly that the Law of Commandments was abolished on the cross. That's not what Jesus meant. Someone must be lying here, and I don't think it was Jesus.

Not even Paul is saying that. Sure it is what most christian preachers would have you believe but it just isn’t true. Lets take a little look see as to what is really being stated here………
Mat 5:17 "Don't think that I came to destroy the Torah or the Prophets. I didn't come to destroy, but to fulfill.

Ben: Why don't you continue? Matthew 5:17-19 does not finish with verse 17. Jesus said that we all must do the same and teach them without any change.

As he stated that he didn’t come to destroy but to do our fathers commandments. So lets see what Sha’ul has to say as to what it is that Yah used Yahshua for.

Eph 2:13 But now in the Anointed Yahshua you who once were far off are made near in the blood of the Anointed.

Ben: Read Habakkuk 3:13. The anointed one is Israel, the Jewish People and not one Jew in particular.


Eph 2:14 For he is our peace, who made both one, and broke down the middle wall of partition,

Ben: What wall of partition are you talking about? I don't recall to have read in the Scriptures about a partition wall between Jews and Gentiles.

Eph 2:15 having abolished in the flesh the hostility, the Torah of commandments contained in ordinances, that he might create in himself one new man of the two, making peace;

Ben: Now, do you believe your own words that Paul abolished Torah of commandments? You are contradicting yourself from your first paragraph in this post.


Eph 2:16 and might reconcile them both in one body to Elohim through the stake, having killed the hostility thereby.

Ben: What hostility are you talking about? I think this is a cop-out to justify Paul's words of contradiction against Jesus.

Yah used Yahshua to be the embodiment of the sacrifice of animals which took away the hostility of man slaughtering animals every time he gets himself in a pickle with sin.

Ben: So, what happened? Because the sacrifices continued for another 40 years as a proof that the cessation of the sacrifices was because the Temple was destroyed and not because of the sacrifice of Jesus. And you speak of the sacrifice of Jesus as if he was the only Jew to be crucified by the Romans. Read Josephus. The Romans crucified thousands of Jews in the same manner as they did Jesus. The sacrifice of the the others does not count?

Yahshua is doing the law of the sacrifice once for sins past as well as performing the duties of the priests by standing before Elohim perpetuating for our sins present.

Ben: Jesus was a religious Jewish man who knew very well from the Scriptures that's against the Law for a man to die for another. As you can see, the whole thing is Pauline rhetoric.

 

[jtartar]

Christians, especially Protestants, and among them, the Seventh-Day Adventists in particular, enjoy to talk about the mark of the Beast; and with fantastic definitions, that only make a ridiculous picture of themselves. Then, they charge each other with the potential to
get the mark of the Beast. They think of almost everything but the real thing, which is given by the NT itself.

The mark of the Beast appears in conjunction with the Antichrist. Morphologically, the term Antichrist is composed of two words:
Anti and Christ. Anti means to stand against or to contradict. Christ means what Christians believe Jesus was. So, what stands against
Christ is only obvious that it means the Antichrist.

According to Matthew 5:17, Jesus declared that he had not come to abolish the Jewish laws. Then, 30 years later, Paul came and said
that what Jesus said was not true, but rather that the Jewish laws were abolished on the cross. (Ephe. 2:15)

As we can see, Paul stood against what Jesus said by contradicting his words about his purpose regarding the Jewish laws. If Jesus was
indeed Christ, as Christians believe he was, it's only obvious that Paul acted as the Antichrist.

Now, where did Paul say the Jewish laws were abolished? On the cross. And what did the cross mean to him? "God forbid," he said, "that I should glory in anything save in the cross." The cross meant the glory of Paul. (Gal. 6:14)

Now, we have the mark of the Beast: The cross, a symbol of shame and a curse to the Anointed of the Lord, who, in the words of Habakkuk 3:13, is the People of Israel, the Jewish People.

Now, your comments are welcome.

Ben :yes:

Ben Masada,
It is amazing to me that you condemn Christianity, but you do not even obey your own laws, or what the Hebrew Scriptures prophesy.
The scripture at Matt 5:17 says that Jesus came, not to destroy the law, but to FULFILL it. When Jesus fulfilled everything written about him in the law, the law code came to an end, it was superceded by the New Covenant, Heb 8:13.
Have you never read what Jeremiah wrote about the Mosaic Law Covenant being an interim covenant, a de bene esse covenant, Jere 31:31-34. The New Covenant was instituted on the night before Jesus died, Luke 22:19,20, Heb 8:6-13.
Many scriptures point to the coming of the Messiah, some saying 200 scriptures refer to the Messiah. Mathematicians say it is mathematically impossible for any person except the Messiah to fulfill even 10 of these prophecies. Isa 11:1-4 refers to the Messiah, Micah 5:2 refers to the Messiah, Zech 9:9 speaks of the Messiah.
It is very interesting that you do not know what many, even of the Jews know. The prophecy recorded by Daniel at Dan 9:24-27, tells of the exact time of the coming of the Messiah, his death at the middle of the 70 week, and the continuing of the Mosaic Covenant for the Jews,until the end of the 70th week. This prophecy started in the year 455BC and ended in 36CE. This was no coincident, Luke even writes that the people were in expectation of the Messiah in the year 29CE, the exact time that Jesus came to be baptized by John the baptist, Luke 3:15. The 70 weeks were weeks of years, so the entire prophecy amointed to 490 years, from 455BC until 36CE, Neh 2:1-5, Dan 9:25, Num 14:34, Eze 4:6.

 

[Ben Masada]

Ben Masada, It is amazing to me that you condemn Christianity, but you do not even obey your own laws, or what the Hebrew Scriptures prophesy.

The scripture at Matt 5:17 says that Jesus came, not to destroy the law, but to FULFILL it. When Jesus fulfilled everything written about him in the law, the law code came to an end, it was superceded by the New Covenant, Heb 8:13.

Ben: I knew already that Paul was the one who declared that the Law met its end on the cross. But that's not what Jesus declared. When he said that he didn't come to abolish anything, he explained that himself and all the Jewish People were supposed to fulfill the Law and teach it without any change at all even down to the dot of the letter. (Mat. 5:19)

Have you never read what Jeremiah wrote about the Mosaic Law Covenant being an interim covenant, a de bene esse covenant, Jere 31:31-34.

Ben: I think you should read the quotation first before bringing it to us here. That New Covenant was made with the House of Israel and the House of Judah. It has nothing to do with Gentiles.

The New Covenant was instituted on the night before Jesus died, Luke 22:19,20, Heb 8:6-13.

Ben: This is Replacement Theology.

Many scriptures point to the coming of the Messiah, some saying 200 scriptures refer to the Messiah. Mathematicians say it is mathematically impossible for any person except the Messiah to fulfill even 10 of these prophecies. Isa 11:1-4 refers to the Messiah, Micah 5:2 refers to the Messiah, Zech 9:9 speaks of the Messiah.

Ben: You are right that all the passages above speak of the Messiah, but the collective Messiah, who is Israel, the Jewish People, and not of an individual Messiah.

It is very interesting that you do not know what many, even of the Jews know. The prophecy recorded by Daniel at Dan 9:24-27, tells of the exact time of the coming of the Messiah, his death at the middle of the 70 week, and the continuing of the Mosaic Covenant for the Jews,until the end of the 70th week. This prophecy started in the year 455BC and ended in 36CE. This was no coincident, Luke even writes that the people were in expectation of the Messiah in the year 29CE, the exact time that Jesus came to be baptized by John the baptist, Luke 3:15. The 70 weeks were weeks of years, so the entire prophecy amointed to 490 years, from 455BC until 36CE, Neh 2:1-5, Dan 9:25, Num 14:34, Eze 4:6.

Ben: The prophecy of the 70 week/years of Daniel 9:24-27 has nothing to do with Jesus but everything to do with Israel, the People. Besides, that's a Jewish prophecy. You cannot pick up a Jewish prophecy and interpret it according to Christianity, because it will fail at the onset.

 

[gwk230]

No, you misunderstood. No one has forgotten verse 19. No one is saying that the law has been abolished.

Ben: Read Ephesians 2:15. Paul says it very clearly that the Law of Commandments was abolished on the cross. That's not what Jesus meant. Someone must be lying here, and I don't think it was Jesus.

It is so very clear that no one is lying. Sha’ul in no way meant that the Torah was nailed to any fictitious cross of tammuz. The death stake only set aside the “hostility” that is mentioned below which is understood to be the law of commandments or rather the killing of the innocent animals for the perpetuation for our sins that was commanded in the Torah.

Not even Paul is saying that. Sure it is what most christian preachers would have you believe but it just isn’t true. Lets take a little look see as to what is really being stated here………

Mat 5:17 "Don't think that I came to destroy the Torah or the Prophets. I didn't come to destroy, but to fulfill.

Ben: Why don't you continue? Matthew 5:17-19 does not finish with verse 17. Jesus said that we all must do the same and teach them without any change.

I was trying to make a point which I did but you failed, evidently, to recognize it. That aside, I do agree with you on what Yahshua stated as to what he said in verse 19. I do agree that we should keep all the Torah. We should also teach it exactly as it is written as well. Keywords are in front of us though. I used “Exactly” as you used ”without any change”. Are we to continue sacrificing without a Temple or an established priesthood of the sons of Aharon? Not me. But Yahshua’s death and the spilling of his blood now covers the sins past of those that believe and obey.

As he stated that he didn’t come to destroy but to do our fathers commandments. So lets see what Sha’ul has to say as to what it is that Yah used Yahshua for.

Eph 2:13 But now in the Anointed Yahshua you who once were far off are made near in the blood of the Anointed.

Ben: Read Habakkuk 3:13. The anointed one is Israel, the Jewish People and not one Jew in particular.

Respectfully then could you kindly explain why it is that these individuals were considered Yah’s anointed……..


Lev 4:3, 5, 16
Lev 6:22
1Sam 24:6, 10
1Sam 26:9, 11, 16, 23
2Sam 1:14, 16
2Sam 23:1
Isa 45:1


The Hebrew Word “Moshiach” can be used in both the singular and the plural. Yes a chosen peoples are considered anointed as well as someone as some very biblical important individuals of let’s say Moshe’, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Noah, Joshua, as well as Prophets and last but certainly not least, Yahshua Ha Moshiach Ben Dawid.

Eph 2:14 For he is our peace, who made both one, and broke down the middle wall of partition,

Ben: What wall of partition are you talking about? I don't recall to have read in the Scriptures about a partition wall between Jews and Gentiles.

Act 10:28 And he said unto them, Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Hebrew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation; but Elohim hath shewed me that I should not call any man common or unclean.


Maybe not in what I consider scripture but there was an ecclesiastical law pertaining to the clean being set apart from the unclean. And if memory fails me not there was also the inscription on the balustrade, or rather soreg, that surrounded the Temple proper that was inscribed in both Greek and Latin that stated “No Gentile shall enter inward of the partition and barrier surrounding the Temple, and whosoever is caught shall be responsible to himself for his subsequent death.” This was also found back in 1935 just outside the Lion’s Gate of the Old City and is now on display in the Rockefeller Archaeological Museum in Jerusalem.

Eph 2:15 having abolished in the flesh the hostility, the Torah of commandments contained in ordinances, that he might create in himself one new man of the two, making peace;

Ben: Now, do you believe your own words that Paul abolished Torah of commandments? You are contradicting yourself from your first paragraph in this post.

Now Ben, that’s simply not true. You again have misunderstood the meaning of the passages in question. The Torah is well known for being broken down into three parts: Holiness, human relations and the sacrificial laws. The laws of holiness are those laws pertaining to the way Yah commands us to observe and worship Him. The laws of human relations are to do with how we treat each other. And the laws pertaining to sacrifice will also contain those to do with the Temple as well as the priest; none of which have been destroyed and or abolished. The “law” of the “commandments” given that is within the “ordinances” which is the “hostility” that his “flesh” abolished. The law itself wasn’t abolished because he did that part of the law with his flesh once and for all for all sins past. There is no more need, at this time and age, for further bloodshed for sin.

 

[gwk230]

Eph 2:16 and might reconcile them both in one body to Elohim through the stake, having killed the hostility thereby.

Ben: What hostility are you talking about? I think this is a cop-out to justify Paul's words of contradiction against Jesus.

I’m sorry you once again misunderstood. Let me further attempt to simplify and clarify my position. The hostility is as I have stated which was the killing of the poor little animals for our own mistakes. The animals did nothing wrong. We did. But in order for us to live and have sin blotted out of the book of remembrance their blood was spilled over and over and over and over again and again and again etc. etc. etc. etc. We were such a bloody people. Heck we still are. So stiff-necked and hard headed. Just outright soddishness. Sha’ul never contradicted Yahshua. Christian preachers teach this by twisting the true meaning of the truth to fit their own agendas.

Yah used Yahshua to be the embodiment of the sacrifice of animals which took away the hostility of man slaughtering animals every time he gets himself in a pickle with sin.

Ben: So, what happened? Because the sacrifices continued for another 40 years as a proof that the cessation of the sacrifices was because the Temple was destroyed and not because of the sacrifice of Jesus. And you speak of the sacrifice of Jesus as if he was the only Jew to be crucified by the Romans. Read Josephus. The Romans crucified thousands of Jews in the same manner as they did Jesus. The sacrifice of the the others does not count?

With all due respect, there is no proof that those that believed on Yahshua ever sacrificed after Yahshua’s death. Not to mention, even though it was law that Jerusalem was the place for sacrificing, the northern tribes did sacrifice in other places for many years until Yah had enough. I don’t see your point.


Not all that were put to death were considered as Yah’s sacrifice. I also do not see that any of those that lost their lives by being placed on the death stake was considered sacrifices. Does anyone’s death deserve to be considered any less than another? A death is a death right? Yahshua’s death had a different purpose. The others were not of the same purpose for Yah. Yet theirs was a purpose of Yah but it was of a different purpose. Yahshua’s death was for the salvation of those that chose to believe and obey. I know not the purpose of Yah for the deaths of all the others as well as the deaths of all that have died since the beginning of time.

Yahshua is doing the law of the sacrifice once for sins past as well as performing the duties of the priests by standing before Elohim perpetuating for our sins present.

Ben: Jesus was a religious Jewish man who knew very well from the Scriptures that's against the Law for a man to die for another. As you can see, the whole thing is Pauline rhetoric.

I’ve been wrong before so I do ask with all sincerity of where in all of Torah is it stated that one cannot give his or her life for another or others? I find that John wrote that Yahshua stated…………


Joh 15:13 Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.


Any way’s, since when did Yah care about flesh?

 

[Ben Masada]

It is so very clear that no one is lying. Sha’ul in no way meant that the Torah was nailed to any fictitious cross of tammuz. The death stake only set aside the “hostility” that is mentioned below which is understood to be the law of commandments or rather the killing of the innocent animals for the perpetuation for our sins that was commanded in the Torah.

When Jesus confirmed the Law down to the least of the commandments, he did not distinguish between commandments and commandments. What gives you or Paul the right to specify what Jesus meant and what he didn't?

I do agree with you on what Yahshua stated as to what he said in verse 19. I do agree that we should keep all the Torah. We should also teach it exactly as it is written as well. Keywords are in front of us though. I used “Exactly” as you used ”without any change”. Are we to continue sacrificing without a Temple or an established priesthood of the sons of Aharon? Not me. But Yahshua’s death and the spilling of his blood now covers the sins past of those that believe and obey.

It's only obvious that we cannot sacrifice without a Temple. But they will return when the Temple is rebuilt. Considering that the sacrifices continued for another 40 years after Yeshua's crucifixion, it only proves that the laws pertaining to sacrifices was not what was in Paul's mind in Ephesians 2:15.

Respectfully then could you kindly explain why it is that these individuals were considered Yah’s anointed……..

Lev 4:3, 5, 16;

Lev 6:22; 1Sam 24:6, 10; 1 Sam 26:9, 11, 16, 23; 2 Sam 1:14, 16; 2 Sam 23:1; Isa 45:1

There are different kinds of anointing in the Bible. Priestly anointing, Kingly anointing, even the anointing of a holy place like the altar in the Temple. But there is obviously an enormous difference between such anointing and the anointing of the People as a People.

The Hebrew Word “Moshiach” can be used in both the singular and the plural. Yes a chosen peoples are considered anointed as well as someone as some very biblical important individuals of let’s say Moshe’, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Noah, Joshua, as well as Prophets and last but certainly not least, Yahshua Ha Moshiach Ben Dawid.

Yeshua was not Messiah ben David. According to Isaiah, who identifies Israel by name with the Suffering Servant, who was Messiah ben Joseph, Judah is the one who became Messiah ben David. (Isa. 41:8,9; 44:1,2,21; 45:4) Paul didn't have what it takes to make of Jesus the Messiah. Not for lack of trying though.

Act 10:28 And he said unto them, Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Hebrew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation; but Elohim hath shewed me that I should not call any man common or unclean.

And that's the barrier you think Paul meant when he said it was abolished on the cross? How do you explain then that Jesus had an aversion to Gentiles during all his life, as even to forbid his disciples not to bring the gospel to the Gentiles? (Mat. 10:6)

Maybe not in what I consider scripture but there was an ecclesiastical law pertaining to the clean being set apart from the unclean. And if memory fails me not there was also the inscription on the balustrade, or rather soreg, that surrounded the Temple proper that was inscribed in both Greek and Latin that stated “No Gentile shall enter inward of the partition and barrier surrounding the Temple, and whosoever is caught shall be responsible to himself for his subsequent death.” This was also found back in 1935 just outside the Lion’s Gate of the Old City and is now on display in the Rockefeller Archaeological Museum in Jerusalem.

Sorry fella, but you are being too naive to think that Paul meant that kind of barrier. When Paul said that "Christ was the end of the Law" he did mean Torah Law. (Rom. 10:4) Otherwise, he would not, soon afterwards, declare that "The one who observes the Law shall live by it." That's obvious that this was what he meant by separation between Jews and Gentiles. Sometimes it helps to use some Logic.

The law itself wasn’t abolished because he did that part of the law with his flesh once and for all for all sins past. There is no more need, at this time and age, for further bloodshed for sin.

Now, and again, you are leaving verse 19 of Matthew 5 our of the equation. Yeshua did not abolish any of the laws, or he would be lying by saying that heaven and earth would rather pass away than any of the commandments be abolished. It's an exercise in futility to try to look for an excuse to Paul's contradiction of Yeshua's words.

 

[Ben Masada]

I’m sorry you once again misunderstood. Let me further attempt to simplify and clarify my position. The hostility is as I have stated which was the killing of the poor little animals for our own mistakes. The animals did nothing wrong. We did. But in order for us to live and have sin blotted out of the book of remembrance their blood was spilled over and over and over and over again and again and again etc. etc. etc. etc. We were such a bloody people. Heck we still are. So stiff-necked and hard headed. Just outright soddishness. Sha’ul never contradicted Yahshua. Christian preachers teach this by twisting the true meaning of the truth to fit their own agendas.

Sorry, but you are the one who misunderstands what Paul meant. Read Ephesians 2:11-15. He would talk about the covenants with Israel, which in his view would exclude the Gentiles, and about the circumcision, which would separate one from the other. No wonder he would teach the Jews to abandon Moses, to stop circumcising their children and to denounce the Jewish customs in a plea to facilitate the admission of Gentiles. (Acts 21:21) No, Gwk, Paul didn't mean sacrifices but the Law of commandments that Jesus did not abolish.

Does anyone’s death deserve to be considered any less than another? A death is a death right? Yahshua’s death had a different purpose. The others were not of the same purpose for Yah. Yet theirs was a purpose of Yah but it was of a different purpose. Yahshua’s death was for the salvation of those that chose to believe and obey. I know not the purpose of Yah for the deaths of all the others as well as the deaths of all that have died since the beginning of time.

I am glad you asked if anyone's death deserves to be considered any less than another. Why then, do you consider the death of Jesus as if he was the only Jew crucified by the Romans? Read Josephus. The Romans crucified thousands of Jews exactly in the same manner. Didn't the blood of the others have the same color? Didn't they have nerves to feel the same pain? Have mercy!

I’ve been wrong before so I do ask with all sincerity of where in all of Torah is it stated that one cannot give his or her life for another or others? I find that John wrote that Yahshua stated.

Joh 15:13 Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.Any way’s, since when did Yah care about flesh?

And it just happens that you are wrong on this one too. Here are a few quotations which forbid a man to die for another: Deuteronomy 24:16; II Kings 14:6; Jeremiah 31:30; Ezekiel 18:4,20. What John states is Pauline rhetoric.

 

[gwk230]

When Jesus confirmed the Law down to the least of the commandments, he did not distinguish between commandments and commandments. What gives you or Paul the right to specify what Jesus meant and what he didn't?

For me Sha’ul has the right because he lived then and spoke with, not only the Talmidim of Yahshua themselves, but with Yahshua’s Brother Yacob. He knew what was taught by Yahshua as well as what was being professed by His Talmidim. He understood the full meaning of it. I am only expressing what I understand Sha’ul is expressing in truth. I have yet to see any contradictions thus far in all the years of my study and with all due respect Ben, you have yet to show me any as well.

It's only obvious that we cannot sacrifice without a Temple. But they will return when the Temple is rebuilt.

I agree. Your right on point Ben.

Considering that the sacrifices continued for another 40 years after Yeshua's crucifixion, it only proves that the laws pertaining to sacrifices was not what was in Paul's mind in Ephesians 2:15.

Being that the sacrifices continued another, and I quote you, “40 years” after Yahshua’s death has nothing at all to do with the fact that the people will do whatever they choose to do until someone stops them. The Temple veil was torn in twain. Guess what man did? They sewed it back together and continued in their vain oblations. Which after a period of time of those that professed the good news tried, to their end in trying, to get the people to see the truth, which was at hand, Yah had had enough and allowed Rome to finish it. As Yahshua prophesied that not a stone will remain standing and there isn’t until this day.

There are different kinds of anointing in the Bible. Priestly anointing, Kingly anointing, even the anointing of a holy place like the altar in the Temple. But there is obviously an enormous difference between such anointing and the anointing of the People as a People.

Really? And here I would think most would understand it as one, or many, was just simply chosen for a reason or reasons. What makes choosing of many so much more important than the choosing of one? If any are chosen, be it one or many, are they not chosen by the same one singularly? The one that chooses may choose those differently as to the task at hand and even though the various task may be awarded different importance, isn’t it that those chosen are no more less important for their chosen task? We each are chosen to do as we are commanded. It is those that hear and obey which are most important. Mind you, not just to hear, but to do as well.

Rom 2:13 For it isn't the hearers of the law who are righteous before Elohim, but the doers of the law will be justified

Yeshua was not Messiah ben David. According to Isaiah, who identifies Israel by name with the Suffering Servant, who was Messiah ben Joseph, Judah is the one who became Messiah ben David. (Isa. 41:8,9; 44:1,2,21; 45:4) Paul didn't have what it takes to make of Jesus the Messiah. Not for lack of trying though.

Sha’ul didn’t have to make Yahshua Ha Moshiach ben David. Yah Elohim had already done that.

Lets look a little before Isa 41:8-9 and we will read………

Isa 41:1 Keep silence before me, O islands;(Gentiles) and let the people renew their strength: (The Hebrew Yisraelites) let them come near; then let them speak: let us come near together to judgment.
Isa 41:2 Who raised up the righteous man from the east, (Speaking of Yahshua) called him to his foot, (When he transcended to the right hand of Elohim) gave the nations before him,(Gave him rulership over all things) and made him rule over kings? he gave them as the dust to his sword, and as driven stubble to his bow. (speaking of the millennium reign.)
Isa 41:3 He pursued them, and passed safely; even by the way that he had not gone with his feet.
Isa 41:4 Who hath wrought and done it, calling the generations from the beginning? I Yah, the first, and with the last; I am he.

Yah raised up Yahshua to be Moshiach.

There is little need to answer the other verses you quoted for they only say the same as Is 41:8-9. We all know that Yisrael and Yadah together were a chosen people out of the Gentiles. But just as Abram was chosen to sire many nations and Moshe’ was raised up to lead the people out of Mitsrayim so has Yahshua been chosen and raised up to be Ha Moshiach.

And that's the barrier you think Paul meant when he said it was abolished on the cross? How do you explain then that Jesus had an aversion to Gentiles during all his life, as even to forbid his disciples not to bring the gospel to the Gentiles? (Mat. 10:6)

At that point it was only meant to be taught to those who knew the Torah. To the Hebrew first then the Gentile. Later He sent them…………

Mat 28:18 Yahshua came to them and spoke to them, saying, "All authority has been given to me in heaven and on earth.
Mat 28:19 Therefore go, and make disciples of all nations, immersing them in the name of the Father and of the Son,
Mat 28:20 teaching them to observe all things that I commanded you. Behold, I am with you always, even to the end of the age." Amein.

Your going to have to read more than a couple of verses in a book to get the full understanding dear Ben. I wouldn’t expect that you would go to the last 30 minutes of a movie that you paid your hard earned money for and try to understand it all. Nor would you go to the end of a book and read the last two chapters and claim to understand the whole book.

Sorry fella, but you are being too naive to think that Paul meant that kind of barrier. When Paul said that "Christ was the end of the Law" he did mean Torah Law. (Rom. 10:4) Otherwise, he would not, soon afterwards, declare that "The one who observes the Law shall live by it." That's obvious that this was what he meant by separation between Jews and Gentiles. Sometimes it helps to use some Logic.

But see logic doesn’t work here. That is what you think and feel. “These are not your ways but these are My ways saith Yah.” Logic is what gets you into trouble when trying to simply read and understand the true word of Yah in all its simplicity.

Ben what did the sacrifice for sin do? Wasn’t its purpose to wipe the slate clean for that sin? The sin that was already committed? It’s the spilling of the blood of the sacrifice correct?

Rom 10:4 For the Anointed is the fulfillment of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes.

So those who believe know that the spilling of Yahshua’s blood covered their sins past.

Now, and again, you are leaving verse 19 of Matthew 5 our of the equation. Yeshua did not abolish any of the laws, or he would be lying by saying that heaven and earth would rather pass away than any of the commandments be abolished. It's an exercise in futility to try to look for an excuse to Paul's contradiction of Yeshua's words.

Ben I have in no way stated or implied that Yahshua or Sha’ul ever claimed the destruction or the abolition of any of the Torah. I really cannot understand why you continue to say so. It really doesn’t make you look good at all to continue to profess falsehoods about my statements.

 

[gwk230]

Sorry, but you are the one who misunderstands what Paul meant.

No you did. LOL and we continue in this endless charade like little grade school children with yes you did and no I didn’t. LOL

Read Ephesians 2:11-15. He would talk about the covenants with Israel, which in his view would exclude the Gentiles, and about the circumcision, which would separate one from the other. No wonder he would teach the Jews to abandon Moses, to stop circumcising their children and to denounce the Jewish customs in a plea to facilitate the admission of Gentiles. (Acts 21:21) No, Gwk, Paul didn't mean sacrifices but the Law of commandments that Jesus did not abolish.

Sha’ul in no way whatsoever taught the Hebrews not to circumcise. It was about the Gentiles that was learning and that may become grafted in that was in question Ben.

Act 21:21 They have been informed about you, that you teach all the Hebrews who are among the Gentiles to forsake Moshe, telling them not to circumcise their children neither to walk after the customs.

They were informed by who Ben? Who? Come on lets take a little look into the truth and stop all this infantile character bashing of a true teacher of Yahshua and the Torah.

Who are those that informed those in Yerushaliam of these lies?

Act 15:1 And certain men which came down from Judaea taught the brethren, and said, Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved.

Certain men? Who were these certain men Ben?

Act 14:2 But the unbelieving Hebrews stirred up the Gentiles, and made their minds evil affected against the brethren.
Act 14:3 Long time therefore abode they speaking boldly in the Master, which gave testimony unto the word of his grace, and granted signs and wonders to be done by their hands.
Act 14:4 But the multitude of the city was divided: and part held with the Hebrews, and part with the apostles.
Act 14:5 And when there was an assault made both of the Gentiles, and also of the Hebrews with their rulers, to use them despitefully, and to stone them,
Act 14:6 They were ware of it, and fled unto Lystra and Derbe, cities of Lycaonia, and unto the region that lieth round about:
Act 14:7 And there they preached the gospel.

Dissenters and saboteurs were these men. They are the "WHO" and the "THEY" and the "CERTAIN" spoken of here.

Act 14:19 And there came thither certain Hebrews from Antioch and Iconium, who persuaded the people, and, having stoned Sha'ul, drew him out of the city, supposing he had been dead.
Act 14:20 Howbeit, as the disciples stood round about him, he rose up, and came into the city: and the next day he departed with Barnabas to Derbe.

They spewed lies about the apostles and this is why..............

Act 15:2 Therefore when Sha'ul and Barnabas had no small discord and discussion with them, they appointed Sha'ul and Barnabas, and some others of them, to go up to Yerushalayim to the apostles and elders about this question.

And now we see just how those in Yerushalayim handled the issue by writing unto the assemblies………..

Act 15:24 Because we have heard that some who went out from us have troubled you with words, unsettling your souls, saying, 'You must be circumcised and keep the Torah,' to whom we gave no commandment;
Act 15:25 it seemed good to us, having come to one accord, to choose out men and send them to you with our beloved Barnabas and Sha'ul,
Act 15:26 men who have risked their lives for the name of our Master Yahshua the Anointed.

I am glad you asked if anyone's death deserves to be considered any less than another.

You are? Good, then when you say……….

Why then, do you consider the death of Jesus as if he was the only Jew crucified by the Romans? Read Josephus. The Romans crucified thousands of Jews exactly in the same manner. Didn't the blood of the others have the same color? Didn't they have nerves to feel the same pain? Have mercy!

I see you stopped reading right after I said ……….

Does anyone’s death deserve to be considered any less than another?

Because I continued to write……….

A death is a death right? Yahshua’s death had a different purpose. The others were not of the same purpose for Yah. Yet theirs was a purpose of Yah but it was of a different purpose. Yahshua’s death was for the salvation of those that chose to believe and obey. I know not the purpose of Yah for the deaths of all the others as well as the deaths of all that have died since the beginning of time.

I did mention not just the others that lost their fleshly lives during that time as well as all peoples that have lost their lives from the beginning of time.

And it just happens that you are wrong on this one too.

Really? How so?

Here are a few quotations which forbid a man to die for another: Deuteronomy 24:16; II Kings 14:6; Jeremiah 31:30; Ezekiel 18:4,20. What John states is Pauline rhetoric.

Come on Ben. These have nothing to do with saying a man cannot lay his FLESHLY life down for another. These verses you have quoted here have to do with ones spiritual life. Yahshua laid down his life of flesh and blood. Not his spiritual life. He laid down his common worldly life. Not his eternal kingdom life. Basic Ben, really basic.

 

[smitten508]

The word fullfil is translated to accomplish. That can mean to complete, when something is complete it is done. Not done away with, but finished. This being said, it is useless to argue the value of law with a Christian. Now on to the antichrist and mark. The mark is probably a mystery to us. If the world knew it was "the mark" then no one would take it. That is why we must watch like preparing for a theif at night...

 

[gwk230]

The word fullfil is translated to accomplish. That can mean to complete, when something is complete it is done. Not done away with, but finished. This being said, it is useless to argue the value of law with a Christian. Now on to the antichrist and mark. The mark is probably a mystery to us. If the world knew it was "the mark" then no one would take it. That is why we must watch like preparing for a theif at night…

As far as “Translations” of words in English I would ask to which language you are “Translating” to being that the “Translation” you have offered is in English as well. I, on the other hand, looked into the “Definition” of the word “Fulfill” at Merrian-Websters online and they stated that the word “Fulfill” meant simply “TO DO”. Which I agree if one goes to Shabbat class on the Shabbat this would mean that they fulfilled the law, which was commanded to have a holy convocation, for that week. Just as Yahshua stated. He in no wise came to destroy the law but “TO DO” them. For if he hadn’t done the laws then wouldn’t he have sinned?


Why don’t we do a little lesson here in what words mean. You know, what their definitions are. We first need to go and read exactly what is being said. Do we do this in English? Lets look at the Greek first. In Matthew 5:17 we see the last word of this verse in English is “Fulfill” and this was translated from the Greek word “Pleroo” which I will now post Strong’s Greek definition…………


G4137


πληρόω


plēroō


play-ro'-o


From G4134; to make replete, that is, (literally) to cram (a net), level up (a hollow), or (figuratively) to furnish (or imbue, diffuse, influence), satisfy, execute (an office), finish (a period or task), verify (or coincide with a prediction), etc.: - accomplish, X after, (be) complete, end, expire, fill (up), fulfil, (be, make) full (come), fully preach, perfect, supply.


We see that the simple meaning of this word is “TO DO”. Now lets look at verse 5:18 where the last word here in English is the word “Fulfilled” which was translated from the Greek “Ginomai” which I will also post Strong’s Greek definition…………..


G1096


γίνομαι


ginomai


ghin'-om-ahee


A prolonged and middle form of a primary verb; to cause to be (“gen” -erate), that is, (reflexively) to become (come into being), used with great latitude (literally, figuratively, intensively, etc.): - arise be assembled, be (come, -fall, -have self), be brought (to pass), (be) come (to pass), continue, be divided, be done, draw, be ended, fall, be finished, follow, be found, be fulfilled, + God forbid, grow, happen, have, be kept, be made, be married, be ordained to be, partake, pass, be performed, be published, require, seem, be showed, X soon as it was, sound, be taken, be turned, use, wax, will, would, be wrought.


We see the simple meaning of this word was simply to finish or make done, ended or made complete.


Yahshua did not finish nor end the law but he simply did the law but he did state that none of the law would be made complete or ended until all was made complete or ended.

 

[Ben Masada]

For me Sha’ul has the right because he lived then and spoke with, not only the Talmidim of Yahshua themselves, but with Yahshua’s Brother Yacob. He knew what was taught by Yahshua as well as what was being professed by His Talmidim. He understood the full meaning of it. I am only expressing what I understand Sha’ul is expressing in truth. I have yet to see any contradictions thus far in all the years of my study and with all due respect Ben, you have yet to show me any as well.

So, you have yet to see any contradiction in what Paul taught vis-a-vis what Yeshua taught. Well, the day has arrived. Jesus declared that the he didn't come to abolish the Law and Paul said that the Law was abolished in the cross. (Mat. 5:17 x Ephe. 2:15)
Of course, you see no contradiction. I don't wonder. The blinders must be on. Let's try something else. The converts of the disciples of Yeshua would become staunch defenders of the Law. But Paul would teach the Jews to abandon Moses, to stop circumcising their children, and to denounce the Jewish customs. ( Acts 21:20 x Acts 21:21) Suppose you still don't see contradiction? What's the use to continue? I am persuaded that the blinders can't come off.

The Temple veil was torn in twain. Guess what man did? They sewed it back together and continued in their vain oblations.

Let's do this: You pick up your own NT and prove to me that they sewed the veil of the Temple back after your alleged claim that it had been torn in twain and I'll become a Christian. If you can't prove it, I hope you will get embarrassed and stop stating what you can't prove.

Rom 2:13 For it isn't the hearers of the law who are righteous before Elohim, but the doers of the law will be justified

Paul must have been under the influence of some kind of drug to state such a thing, because he condemned himself, as he was neither a hearer nor a doer but an abolisher of the Law. (Ephe. 2:15)

Yah raised up Yahshua to be Moshiach.
There is little need to answer the other verses you quoted for they only say the same as Is 41:8-9. We all know that Yisrael and Yadah together were a chosen people out of the Gentiles. But just as Abram was chosen to sire many nations and Moshe’ was raised up to lead the people out of Mitsrayim so has Yahshua been chosen and raised up to be Ha Moshiach.

At least, God raised Moses to bring the People out of Egypt back to the Promised Land. What did Yeshua do? When he was born Israel was suffering under Roman eccupation, during his lifetime, that occupation only became worse. When he died the Land was destroyed and the People spelled unto the four corners of the earth. He did the opposite of what the Messiah is supposed to do. So much for the Messiah. Have mercy and use a little Logic for a change.

At that point it was only meant to be taught to those who knew the Torah. To the Hebrew first then the Gentile. Later He sent them.

Who said "to the Hebrew first and then the Gentile? " Not Yeshua. Yeshua said to the Hebrew ONLY. (Mat. 15:24) Who changed "only" to "first" you or Paul?

Your going to have to read more than a couple of verses in a book to get the full understanding dear Ben. I wouldn’t expect that you would go to the last 30 minutes of a movie that you paid your hard earned money for and try to understand it all. Nor would you go to the end of a book and read the last two chapters and claim to understand the whole book.

Your reasoning does not apply in this simile. Whatever you have written so far, I find no light in it. Even the quotations don't fit. I am sorry.

Ben what did the sacrifice for sin do? Wasn’t its purpose to wipe the slate clean for that sin? The sin that was already committed? It’s the spilling of the blood of the sacrifice correct?

Animal sacrifices were never meant for forgiveness of sins. They
were but symbols to the supreme sacrifice of the people.

So those who believe know that the spilling of Yahshua’s blood covered their sins past.

How about the blood of the other thousands of Jews who where crucified just like Jesus? Their blood doesn't count? Had they no nerves to feel the same pain? Was not their blood of the same color?

Ben I have in no way stated or implied that Yahshua or Sha’ul ever claimed the destruction or the abolition of any of the Torah. I really cannot understand why you continue to say so. It really doesn’t make you look good at all to continue to profess falsehoods about my statements.

It's not my image that looks bad but the one of Paul's, if you focus on Ephesians 2:15, Acts 21:21; Romans 10:4 and Galatians 4:21-31. It's not you who originated these negative statements about the Law or the Torah, but, as a Christian, you promote Pauline heresies.

 

[Ben Masada]

Sha’ul in no way whatsoever taught the Hebrews not to circumcise. It was about the Gentiles that was learning and that may become grafted in that was in question Ben.

Act 21:21 They have been informed about you, that you teach all the Hebrews who are among the Gentiles to forsake Moshe, telling them not to circumcise their children neither to walk after the customs.

They were informed by who Ben? Who? Come on lets take a little look into the truth and stop all this infantile character bashing of a true teacher of Yahshua and the Torah.

Very good! I like the challenge. I'll tell you by who. The Asiatic Jews who arrested him and caused him to disappear from Israel for good by forcing his exile to Rome under chains. Read Acts 21:27,28. That was the Festival of Shavuot and the Asiatic Jews were in Jerusalem, and arrested Paul at the Temple.

Who are those that informed those in Yerushaliam of these lies? [/qauote]

They were not lies. We have enough of history to believe that Paul was preaching against God's Covenant with Israel. Read Galatians 4:21-31.

Act 15:1 And certain men which came down from Judaea taught the brethren, and said, Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved.

Those men had been sent from the Nazarene headquarters in Jerusalem, with the purpose to salvage the Nazarene synagogues that Paul had overturned into Christian churches.

Dissenters and saboteurs were these men. They are the "WHO" and the "THEY" and the "CERTAIN" spoken of here.

How convenient! When the shoe hurts in the other foot, suddenly they are dissenters and saboteurs. But those put before Pilate to shout "crucify him" you guys don't agree that they were dissenters and saboteurs but the Jewish People. How convenient!

They spewed lies about the apostles and this is why.

They didn't spew lies about the apostles. They said the truth about Paul. The apostles had nothing to do with the fact.

Act 15:2 Therefore when Sha'ul and Barnabas had no small discord and discussion with them, they appointed Sha'ul and Barnabas, and some others of them, to go up to Yerushalayim to the apostles and elders about this question.

Barnabas by then had already regretted to have invited Paul to help him with the work in Antioch. Barnabas had already realized that he had lost his synagogue to Paul. The loss of the Nazarene
synagogue of Antioch caused Barnabas to lose his high position among the Nazarenes. That's why Jerusalem was sending "Judaizers" to try to recover the synagogues they were losing to Paul. And that's the main reason why Paul and Barnabas parted friendship for good. That going up to Jerusalem to solve that dissension was the chance Paul wanted to let Jerusalem know in whose hands was the Diaspora at. The Apostles understood and resigned themselves to that reality by reverting their converts back to the condition of Gentiles by recommending that they at least observed the Noahite laws. (Acts 15:28,29)

 

[gwk230]

I am persuaded that the blinders can't come off.

I assure you that my vision is quite clear but yours is of much debate. No where in Eph. 2:15 is it stated that the Torah has been abolished or destroyed. For whatever reason you seem to think so but it just isn’t there. But hey guy, if that’s what you want to believe then by all means “Go for it!“

Let's do this: You pick up your own NT and prove to me that they sewed the veil of the Temple back after your alleged claim that it had been torn in twain and I'll become a Christian. If you can't prove it, I hope you will get embarrassed and stop stating what you can't prove.

Well first off, the sewing of the veil was figurative Ben. I’m sure the Cohen allowed it to stay in disrepair. How embarrassing this must have been for all to see. But It wouldn’t surprise me being that this has been the case before where Yah’s house was allowed to lay in waste. The Temple has been desecrated by the veil being torn in twain, from top to bottom, but they continued to use it anyways. I am sure Yah looked unto their offerings as He did Kayin’s.

Why, by the name of Yah, would I want you to become a christian? Your too funny. They don’t have it anymore right than you do. I guess in your case, though, it really wouldn’t matter.

What did Yeshua do?

As I have said before, and having to repeat myself is becoming common with responding to you Ben, Yahshua did nothing of himself but by the will of Yah.

use a little Logic for a change.

Typical………..

1Co 1:19 For it is written, "I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, I will bring the discernment of the discerning to nothing."
1Co 1:20 Where is the wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the Torah scholar of this world? Hasn't Elohim made foolish the wisdom of this world?
1Co 1:21 For seeing that in the wisdom of Elohim, the world through its wisdom didn't know Elohim, it was Elohim's good pleasure through the foolishness of the preaching to save those who believe.
1Co 1:22 For Hebrews ask for signs, Greeks seek after wisdom,
1Co 1:23 but we preach the Anointed crucified; a stumbling block to Hebrews, and foolishness to Greeks,
1Co 1:24 but to those who are called, both Hebrews and Greeks, the Anointed is the power of Elohim and the wisdom of Elohim.
1Co 1:25 Because the foolishness of Elohim is wiser than men, and the weakness of Elohim is stronger than men.

Logic of man will not work as I have said before because this, the word of Yah, isn‘t based on what YOU think and feel.……….

Isa 55:8 For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, says YAH.
Isa 55:9 For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.

Logic seems to really be working for the people so far huh? Hehehehehe

Who said "to the Hebrew first and then the Gentile? " Not Yeshua. Yeshua said to the Hebrew ONLY. (Mat. 15:24) Who changed "only" to "first" you or Paul?

Yahshua said Hebrew only? LOL………. Ben, please read your bible more.

Ben this is becoming quite comical with you having me to repost what I have already posted to answer the same question. Are you not paying attention? Oh what the heck! Just for you this one more time. Now pay close attention.

Mat 28:19 Therefore go, and make disciples of all nations, immersing them in the name of the Father and of the Son,
Mat 28:20 teaching them to observe all things that I commanded you. Behold, I am with you always, even to the end of the age." Amein.

I think “all nations” is a bit more than “Hebrew ONLY”.

Your reasoning does not apply in this simile.

Don’t just make an empty statement Ben, prove it. Give us more than just your say so.

Whatever you have written so far, I find no light in it. Even the quotations don't fit.

I completely understand your frustrations. I suggest that you study more so you won’t continue to show your ignorance of the scripture when posting.

I am sorry.

One of your most honest replies to date.

Animal sacrifices were never meant for forgiveness of sins.

Then why was there a sin sacrifice? Why did the Cohen sprinkle the blood on the Mercy Seat? I understand that obedience is always better than sacrifice but come on. Yah required blood to be spilt. Leviticus is full of offerings and sacrifices for sin.

They were but symbols to the supreme sacrifice of the people.

Explain? I mean I understand that those poor little animals had to lose their life or those who sinned surely would lose their‘s.

How about the blood of the other thousands of Jews who where crucified just like Jesus? Their blood doesn't count? Had they no nerves to feel the same pain? Was not their blood of the same color?

So here we go again, around round we go. We are discussing one individual here and not every person that has lost their lives since the beginning of time. You know, in a way I really do not feel so sorry for my ancestors that lost their lives then or during the Babylonian captivity or any other time for that matter. If they had only obeyed the commands of Yah as a people then all these deaths may have not occurred and you wouldn’t be so caught up in the sacrificial spilling of their blood for their own detestable abominations. But continue in your love for flesh and the world Ben. I’m sure it works quite well for you.

It's not my image that looks bad but the one of Paul's, if you focus on Ephesians 2:15, Acts 21:21; Romans 10:4 and Galatians 4:21-31. It's not you who originated these negative statements about the Law or the Torah, but, as a Christian, you promote Pauline heresies.

So you admit to lying about what I posted? Wow. And still you continue. This is hilarious calling me a christian. I see your emotions are getting the best of you. You seem cornered with dropping to the level of name calling.

You lie about what I say and then you put it off on Sha’ul. What a joke.

Maybe if you say it over and over and long enough you might get it to be true. Not!

Sha’ul in no way whatsoever taught the Hebrews not to circumcise. It was about the Gentiles that was learning and that may become grafted in that was in question Ben.

Very good! I like the challenge. I'll tell you by who. The Asiatic Jews who arrested him and caused him to disappear from Israel for good by forcing his exile to Rome under chains. Read Acts 21:27,28. That was the Festival of Shavuot and the Asiatic Jews were in Jerusalem, and arrested Paul at the Temple.

Yes in deed it was and they being like Korach, Datan, and Aviram spreading discord amongst the brethren and misrepresenting that which Sha’ul was actually doing and teaching. Same as you today with your ignorance of the truth.

 

[gwk230]

They were not lies. We have enough of history to believe that Paul was preaching against God's Covenant with Israel. Read Galatians 4:21-31.

If they were stating that Sha’ul was teaching the Hebrews not to circumcise then it was lie’s. Sha’ul, as well as the other apostles, knew full well who they were…………….

Gal 2:4 This was because of the false brothers secretly brought in, who sneaked in to spy out our liberty which we have in the Anointed Yahshua, that they might bring us into bondage;
Gal 2:5 to whom we gave no place in the way of subjection, not for an hour, that the truth of the Good News might continue with you.

As far as the epistle to the Galatians is of concern, most of all of what is spoken is of the circumcision of the Gentiles as well as sacrificing after the Temple had been desecrated and taking on the faith of Yahshua Ha Moshiach ben David. Something you as well as others have to remember is that Sha’ul was appointed emissary to the UNCIRCUMCISION and Kefa was emissary to the circumcision.

Those men had been sent from the Nazarene headquarters in Jerusalem, with the purpose to salvage the Nazarene synagogues that Paul had overturned into Christian churches.

Rubbish. They were spies and deceitful men trying to discredit Yahshua as well as those who brought the good news of him. Again, liken unto Korach, Datan, and Aviram.

Act 13:45 But when the Hebrews saw the multitudes, they were filled with envy, and spake against those things which were spoken by Sha‘ul, contradicting and blaspheming.

This sort of thing is nothing new. What about those that spewed their filth about Stephen?

Act 6:8 Stephen, full of faith and power, performed great wonders and signs among the people.
Act 6:9 But some of those who were of the synagogue called "The Libertines," and of the Cyrenians, of the Alexandrians, and of those of Cilicia and Asia arose, disputing with Stephen.
Act 6:10 They weren't able to withstand the wisdom and the Spirit by which he spoke.
Act 6:11 Then they secretly induced men to say, "We have heard him speak blasphemous words against Moshe and Elohim."
Act 6:12 They stirred up the people, the elders, and the scribes, and came against him and seized him, and brought him in to the council,
Act 6:13 and set up false witnesses who said, "This man never stops speaking blasphemous words against this holy place and the Torah.
Act 6:14 For we have heard him say that this Yahshua of Nazareth will destroy this place, and will change the customs which Moshe delivered to us."

Just as you Ben, ever spewing your discord with untruths over a true teacher of Torah and Yahshua.

How convenient! When the shoe hurts in the other foot, suddenly they are dissenters and saboteurs. But those put before Pilate to shout "crucify him" you guys don't agree that they were dissenters and saboteurs but the Jewish People. How convenient!

Ben, I assure you that my stance is sure and my feet feel no hurt but you seem to be ever tripping over yours.

Who are you guy’s? Are you trying to take another one of your vain stabs at me Ben?

We are not speaking of those that sided with the militant, Barabbas, that they have known wishing that he would be the one to gather the people together and rise up and over throw the Romans and kick them out of Yisrael. That was the sign they would understand for a Moshiach as you have stated. We are discussing those that spread discord with lies and heresies about Yahshua and those that teach of the good news.

Barnabas by then had already regretted to have invited Paul to help him with the work in Antioch.

And this is stated where? Of his regret?

Barnabas had already realized that he had lost his synagogue to Paul.

Again I ask where all this is written? Where is it ever stated that a synagogue belonged to anyone but Yah? Other than those that fell into the hands of paganism. If you are trying to say that Barnabas won over the synagogue that was already in place in Antioch then are saying that Sha’ul some how won it from Barnabas I ask once more where any of this is written?

The loss of the Nazarene synagogue of Antioch caused Barnabas to lose his high position among the Nazarenes.

Yet again and again I ask where is all this stated Ben? Or is it possible you have just simply dreamed up all this?

That's why Jerusalem was sending "Judaizers" to try to recover the synagogues they were losing to Paul. And that's the main reason why Paul and Barnabas parted friendship for good.

Now I might buy this to be true as far as the Pharisees and Sadducees sending spies to get info on Yahshua’s elect but it wasn’t just against Sha’ul that they were doing this. It was done because of the good news of Yahshua was being taught to everyone. As far as any main reason of the split between Sha’ul and Barnabas we see……….

Act 15:36 After some days Sha'ul said to Barnabas, "Let's return now and visit our brothers in every city in which we proclaimed the word of YAH, to see how they are doing."
Act 15:37 Barnabas planned to take Yochanan, who was called Mark, with them also.
Act 15:38 But Sha'ul didn't think that it was a good idea to take with them someone who had withdrawn from them in Pamphylia, and didn't go with them to do the work.
Act 15:39 Then the contention grew so sharp that they separated from each other. Barnabas took Mark with him, and sailed away to Cyprus,
Act 15:40 but Sha'ul chose Sila, and went out, being commended by the brothers to the grace of Elohim.
Act 15:41 He went through Syria and Cilicia, strengthening the assemblies.

Wonder why this Yochanan, who was called Mark, left them in Pamphylia? There was work to be down and this guy didn’t go. Why? What would have been more important than the work of Yah? Doesn’t sound like this guy was all that sincere about the work at hand and I applaud Sha’ul with his decision.

That going up to Jerusalem to solve that dissension was the chance Paul wanted to let Jerusalem know in whose hands was the Diaspora at.

Now this is complete rubbish. There is no such rendering in all of scripture nor is there any such occurrence within any historical records. This is a complete fictional fabrication. I’m surprised you would spew such garbage Ben. You should be ashamed of yourself.

The Apostles understood and resigned themselves to that reality by reverting their converts back to the condition of Gentiles by recommending that they at least observed the Noahite laws. (Acts 15:28,29)

The Apostles understood and resigned nothing. Kefa spoke first on this issue before that of Barnabas and Sha’ul…………..

Act 15:7 When there had been much discussion, Kefa rose up and said to them, "Brothers, you know that a good while ago Elohim made a choice among you, that by my mouth the nations should hear the word of the Good News, and believe.
Act 15:8 Elohim, who knows the heart, testified about them, giving them the Holy Spirit, just like he did to us.
Act 15:9 He made no distinction between us and them, cleansing their hearts by faith.
Act 15:10 Now therefore why do you tempt Elohim, that you should put a yoke on the neck of the disciples which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?
Act 15:11 But we believe that we are saved through the grace of Master Yahshua, just as they are."

So now I suppose you will say Kefa was bad as well.

 

[Ben Masada]

I assure you that my vision is quite clear but yours is of much debate. No where in Eph. 2:15 is it stated that the Torah has been abolished or destroyed. For whatever reason you seem to think so but it just isn’t there.

When Jesus said that he had not come to abolish the Law, and every single commandment down to the letter in Matthew 5:17-19, he meant the Torah. That's what we understand as the book of the Law. When Paul said in Romans 10:4 that "Christ is the end of the Law," he meant the Torah. But hey, you too are free to think whatever you want. But don't expect me to accept the testimony of an apostate from Judaism.

Well first off, the sewing of the veil was figurative Ben. I’m sure the Cohen allowed it to stay in disrepair. How embarrassing this must have been for all to see. But It wouldn’t surprise me being that this has been the case before where Yah’s house was allowed to lay in waste. The Temple has been desecrated by the veil being torn in twain, from top to bottom, but they continued to use it anyways. I am sure Yah looked unto their offerings as He did Kayin’s.

What is figurative is the allegation that the veil of the Temple was torn. There is nowhere in our tradition that this ever happened. What gives Gentiles the right to fabricate their "things" and insert them into the Jewish culture?

Mat 28:19 Therefore go, and make disciples of all nations, immersing them in the name of the Father and of the Son,

How about, "and of the Holy Ghost?" Your Bible does not have that? Jesus could have never said that, because he was a religious Jew and this language is not Jewish. It's Pauline par excellence. Read Acts 19:4.

Mat 28:20 teaching them to observe all things that I commanded you. Behold, I am with you always, even to the end of the age."

What Jesus commanded is in Matthew 5:17-19: The Law and the Prophets, which is Judaism in a word.

I think “all nations” is a bit more than “Hebrew ONLY”.

Get the New American version of the Bible and you will see that's written, "My mission is only to the House of Israel." (Mat. 15:24)

I completely understand your frustrations. I suggest that you study more so you won’t continue to show your ignorance of the scripture when posting.

And I do understand your dirty Psychology. You enjoy the thought that others, reading this, might think that you are scholastically pinning down a member of the People who wrote the Bible, but you are mistaken. The whole issue is that you ignore my quotations as proofs of what I am saying.

Then why was there a sin sacrifice? Why did the Cohen sprinkle the blood on the Mercy Seat? I understand that obedience is always better than sacrifice but come on. Yah required blood to be spilt. Leviticus is full of offerings and sacrifices for sin.

When Isaiah said to reason together and set things right with God, he did not recommend to offer sacrifices but to repent and obey. Only morons believe that the blood of animals serves to forgive one's sins. Besides, the system of animal sacrifices had nothing to do with God. The People was allowed to adopt it from the Gentiles in order to help establish a religious mentality. The People had just come out of 400 years of slavery in Egypt It's only natural that slaves could not understand that they were supposed to worship God in Spirit.

So here we go again, around round we go. We are discussing one individual here and not every person that has lost their lives since the beginning of time.

That's so convenient! Christians speak about the crucifixion of Jesus as if he was the only Jew to be crucified by the Romans. When I mention others, they get upset.

Sha’ul in no way whatsoever taught the Hebrews not to circumcise. It was about the Gentiles that was learning and that may become grafted in that was in question Ben.

Are you positive? Why don't you read Acts 21:21? It says in there that Paul would teach the Jews to abandon Moses, to give up the circumcision of their children and to renounce the Jewish customs. Check it out. It's better than to return here and give others the impression than I don't know how to read.

Yes in deed it was and they being like Korach, Datan, and Aviram spreading discord amongst the brethren and misrepresenting that which Sha’ul was actually doing and teaching. Same as you today with your ignorance of the truth.

I am sure you don't even know what the truth is. Do you wanna try a definition or you want me to tell you?

 

[Ben Masada]

If they were stating that Sha’ul was teaching the Hebrews not to circumcise then it was lie’s. Sha’ul, as well as the other apostles, knew full well who they were.

If Paul did not have even a word to defend himself, your denial is pure rubbish.

Gal 2:4 This was because of the false brothers secretly brought in, who sneaked in to spy out our liberty which we have in the Anointed Yahshua, that they might bring us into bondage;

Not true. They had been sent from Judea to salvage the Nazarene synagogues that Paul had robbed them from. And all because Paul was never able to build a church from scratch. All his churches throughout Asia Minor had been built on the foundations of the Nazarenes.That's why he got upset that some were indeed going back to the Nazarenes. READ GALATIANS 1:6. That's what he used to call "the other gospel.
.

As far as the epistle to the Galatians is of concern, most of all of what is spoken is of the circumcision of the Gentiles as well as sacrificing after the Temple had been desecrated and taking on the faith of Yahshua Ha Moshiach ben David. Something you as well as others have to remember is that Sha’ul was appointed emissary to the UNCIRCUMCISION and Kefa was emissary to the circumcision.

On the contrary. Peter happened to be in Jerusalem when Paul went there for that Council meeting, Peter took the benche and said for all to hear that he and not Paul, was the one selected to be the one from whose lips the Gentiles would hear the gospel. Paul never in his life left the Jews in peace. Since Damascus and until Rome, his concern were not the Gentiles but Jews. Why don't you prove to me that he ever built a church with Gentiles?

Again I ask where all this is written? Where is it ever stated that a synagogue belonged to anyone but Yah? Other than those that fell into the hands of paganism. If you are trying to say that Barnabas won over the synagogue that was already in place in Antioch then are saying that Sha’ul some how won it from Barnabas I ask once more where any of this is written?

Does it matter to tell you where what I say is written? You are not interested in the truth. You are consumed inside with envy and jealousy to take your time to verify what I say. But I'll try again once more. When the Synagogue of Antioch was growing out of proportions, the headquarters in Jerusalem sent Barnabas to Antioch. READ ACTS 11:22. They would not have sent him if that was not a Nazarene Synagogue. Then, instead of doing what he was supposed to do, he went after Paul in Tarsus to invite him over to help him with the work, because they had been old friends. READ ACTS 11:25. Then, Paul accepted the invitation and after a whole year preaching that Jesus was Christ, the disciples started being called Christians. READ ACTS 11:26. That's when Christianity started. And from then on, all Paul's life was to rob the Nazarenes of their synagogues. Even at his last station in Rome, he would not leave the Jews in peace. READ ACTS 28:17.

Act 15:7 When there had been much discussion, Kefa rose up and said to them, "Brothers, you know that a good while ago Elohim made a choice among you, that by my mouth the nations should hear the word of the Good News, and believe.

That's the only thing not rubbish you have quoted. Why? Because this shows that Peter was the one selected to be the Apostle to the Gentiles, and not Paul. This only loved to say that he would go to the Gentiles but never left the Jews in peace.

 

[smitten508]

As far as “Translations” of words in English I would ask to which language you are “Translating” to being that the “Translation” you have offered is in English as well. I, on the other hand, looked into the “Definition” of the word “Fulfill” at Merrian-Websters online and they stated that the word “Fulfill” meant simply “TO DO”. Which I agree if one goes to Shabbat class on the Shabbat this would mean that they fulfilled the law, which was commanded to have a holy convocation, for that week. Just as Yahshua stated. He in no wise came to destroy the law but “TO DO” them. For if he hadn’t done the laws then wouldn’t he have sinned?


Why don’t we do a little lesson here in what words mean. You know, what their definitions are. We first need to go and read exactly what is being said. Do we do this in English? Lets look at the Greek first. In Matthew 5:17 we see the last word of this verse in English is “Fulfill” and this was translated from the Greek word “Pleroo” which I will now post Strong’s Greek definition…………


G4137


À»·Á¿
É


pleroo


play-ro'-o


From G4134; to make replete, that is, (literally) to cram (a net), level up (a hollow), or (figuratively) to furnish (or imbue, diffuse, influence), satisfy, execute (an office), finish (a period or task), verify (or coincide with a prediction), etc.: - accomplish, X after, (be) complete, end, expire, fill (up), fulfil, (be, make) full (come), fully preach, perfect, supply.


We see that the simple meaning of this word is “TO DO”. Now lets look at verse 5:18 where the last word here in English is the word “Fulfilled” which was translated from the Greek “Ginomai” which I will also post Strong’s Greek definition…………..


G1096


³¹
½¿¼±¹


ginomai


ghin'-om-ahee


A prolonged and middle form of a primary verb; to cause to be (“gen” -erate), that is, (reflexively) to become (come into being), used with great latitude (literally, figuratively, intensively, etc.): - arise be assembled, be (come, -fall, -have self), be brought (to pass), (be) come (to pass), continue, be divided, be done, draw, be ended, fall, be finished, follow, be found, be fulfilled, + God forbid, grow, happen, have, be kept, be made, be married, be ordained to be, partake, pass, be performed, be published, require, seem, be showed, X soon as it was, sound, be taken, be turned, use, wax, will, would, be wrought.


We see the simple meaning of this word was simply to finish or make done, ended or made complete.


Yahshua did not finish nor end the law but he simply did the law but he did state that none of the law would be made complete or ended until all was made complete or ended.

In both of your Greek definitions, both words contained an effect to mean completed... As in sacrificial, mosaic and levitical laws. Jesus Himself said that to love God and love neighbor is what ALL of the law and ALL of the prophets hung on. The completed I refer to is all the "red tape" within the Judaism of the time. Not the completion of the SPIRIT of the law... Sorry if there was a misunderstanding.

 

[gwk230]

In both of your Greek definitions, both words contained an effect to mean completed... As in sacrificial, mosaic and levitical laws.

​

​

​

I will agree with Yahshua completing the Torah as it is each mans duty to do. Otherwise he would have sinned. I do like your separating the Torah into different categories. I only see where you have put “mosaic” as one of your categories. The whole of the Torah was given unto Moshe at Mt. Sinai. We have the laws of cleanliness and sanctification and the dietary laws and sacrificial laws and laws pertaining to how we observe Yah as well as laws pertaining to how we treat each other, etc. etc. etc. Yahshua completed each of these in their time and due season as each man of the covenant is required to do. He could have never been Yah’s sacrifice otherwise. He had to be unblemished. ​

​

​

Jesus Himself said that to love God and love neighbor is what ALL of the law and ALL of the prophets hung on.

​

​

​

Yes, I agree. The Torah is the image and the likeness of Yah and it can be nothing but love for us to do the Torah. For it is said that Torah is for our good and that we may live longer if we perform it. Its our instruction manual for life. ​

​

​

The completed I refer to is all the "red tape" within the Judaism of the time. Not the completion of the SPIRIT of the law...

​

​

​

I disagree if you are saying that the Torah was ended because of Yahshua but will agree that he only completed, as in doing, the Torah. Those of us who believe on Yahshua know, that because Yah used Yahshua as His sacrifice, that we no longer have to sacrifice animals for sin.​

​

​

Rom 7:6 But now we have been released from this aspect of the Torah, because we have died to that which had us in its clutches, so that we are serving in the new way provided by the Spirit and not in the old way of outwardly following the letter of the law.​

​

​

This is speaking only of that part of the Torah that deals with sacrifice. The sacrificial laws. If this is what you are trying to convey then I am in total agreement.​

​

​

Sorry if there was a misunderstanding.

​

​

​

Oh don’t worry about it. If I only had a nickel for every time that there was a misunderstanding on this forum I would undoubtedly be the richest man in the entire universe. J​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

 

[AK4]

Ben has been systematically picking apart your religion - in a very clever way. I understand - he feels his religion has been hijacked... correct me if I am wrong of course Ben.

Ben and I probably agree on more than he realizes... (Maybe Jesus was married, maybe he didn't die on the cross, heck - maybe that is his family buried at the Talpiot Tomb (that last one is me - I know .. widely criticized) The point is... no one can be 100 % positive on much that happened such a long time ago.......

anyways - If my beliefs were the one's being attacked I would fight back with more fervor. But - You may be more of a gentleman than myself

Im sorry i havent posted in a long while (maybe three months now), but to call what ben does clever is amusing to me:biglaugh::biglaugh:. Its very easy to shut him down if you read the posts where i refuted with him you would notice how utterly ....(whats a nice word) eerr let me just say how he was shut down.

you are right he tries to shut down christainity, which isnt hard to do because traditional christainity is just as much hypocrites as the judaism religion is.

Anyway, please give credit where credit is due and to ben...it is not due.

ps. Ben this was not an attack at/on you. I was just stating the facts