The Taunting Riddle

[wizanda]

It amazes me that people don't see this; yet it is understandable, when John's made up gospel misrepresents Yeshua, and Paul finalizes it by making people follow evil as good.

Lets start at the point of entrapment:
So the parable of the wicked husbandmen (Matthew 21, etc), explains Isaiah 5 in an expanded context.... That those who think they get eternal life, and inheritance from Yeshua's death, are guilty of manslaughter.

At the end of the parable, Yeshua quotes Isaiah 28 about the chief corner stone, that the builders reject.
Isaiah 28 is a bed of adultery, that goes from 28:9-19 (rumor to rumor), with the corner stone in the middle of it, and explains that the covenant with death is disannulled before it even started (by Paul and John).

The reason they confused the matter, is they've taken Isaiah 53 and ran with it; without realizing at the start it defines it as a rumor.
They've also not realized that Isaiah 8, which lays the snare and explains that it is to catch out "those quick to take the spoils"; links with Zechariah 5, explaining the city built upon blood shed (Habakkuk 2) is to catch out those that would swear falsely, and those caught red handed, literally covered in the blood of the saints.

The real outcome for Yeshua's death was to fulfill Zechariah 11; which states if 30 pieces of silver are paid for the price of his head, and put in the potters field in the house of Israel, than inheritance and grace is cut off, thus ending the Abrahamic covenant and divorcing Israel.

Now there are tons of interlinking metaphors and descriptors, there is reams of explanation possible; yet just wanted to write it out, since it so complex and see how short one could make it.

 

[2ndpillar]

It amazes me that people don't see this; yet it is understandable, when John's made up gospel misrepresents Yeshua, and Paul finalizes it by making people follow evil as good.

Lets start at the point of entrapment:
So the parable of the wicked husbandmen (Matthew 21, etc), explains Isaiah 5 in an expanded context.... That those who think they get eternal life, and inheritance from Yeshua's death, are guilty of manslaughter.

At the end of the parable, Yeshua quotes Isaiah 28 about the chief corner stone, that the builders reject.
Isaiah 28 is a bed of adultery, that goes from 28:9-19 (rumor to rumor), with the corner stone in the middle of it, and explains that the covenant with death is disannulled before it even started (by Paul and John).

The reason they confused the matter, is they've taken Isaiah 53 and ran with it; without realizing at the start it defines it as a rumor.
They've also not realized that Isaiah 8, which lays the snare and explains that it is to catch out "those quick to take the spoils"; links with Zechariah 5, explaining the city built upon blood shed (Habakkuk 2) is to catch out those that would swear falsely, and those caught red handed, literally covered in the blood of the saints.

The real outcome for Yeshua's death was to fulfill Zechariah 11; which states if 30 pieces of silver are paid for the price of his head, and put in the potters field in the house of Israel, than inheritance and grace is cut off, thus ending the Abrahamic covenant and divorcing Israel.

Now there are tons of interlinking metaphors and descriptors, there is reams of explanation possible; yet just wanted to write it out, since it so complex and see how short one could make it.

Dear wiz,
Nice try. Zechariah 11 is about 3 shepherds, two of which are to pasture the "flock doomed for slaughter". The 3rd shepherd in the reference was Judas Iscariot and his 30 pieces of silver. The other two shepherds, who were to die in the same generation (month), were Peter and Paul. Peter being the "worthless shepherd", as are his heirs the popes, who do not care, tend or feed the sheep, and the 1st shepherd, or staff being Paul, who was named "Favor", for his false gospel of grace. (Ze 11)

 

[wizanda]

Zechariah 11 is about 3 shepherds, two of which are to pasture the "flock doomed for slaughter".

The 3 shepherds hated and abhorred the person sent; thus matching what we find in the first lines of Isaiah 53.
This means it wasn't the disciples, yet the shepherds who were over the people; thus Yeshua challenged 3 sects of Judaism, the Pharisees, the Sadducees and the Levites (lawyers).
The foolish shepherd who left the flock, and reestablished were the Pharisees; as Paul and John were Pharisees...Plus Pharisee Judaism is now orthodox.

 

[sojourner]

It amazes me that people don't see this; yet it is understandable, when John's made up gospel misrepresents Yeshua, and Paul finalizes it by making people follow evil as good.

Lets start at the point of entrapment:
So the parable of the wicked husbandmen (Matthew 21, etc), explains Isaiah 5 in an expanded context.... That those who think they get eternal life, and inheritance from Yeshua's death, are guilty of manslaughter.

At the end of the parable, Yeshua quotes Isaiah 28 about the chief corner stone, that the builders reject.
Isaiah 28 is a bed of adultery, that goes from 28:9-19 (rumor to rumor), with the corner stone in the middle of it, and explains that the covenant with death is disannulled before it even started (by Paul and John).

The reason they confused the matter, is they've taken Isaiah 53 and ran with it; without realizing at the start it defines it as a rumor.
They've also not realized that Isaiah 8, which lays the snare and explains that it is to catch out "those quick to take the spoils"; links with Zechariah 5, explaining the city built upon blood shed (Habakkuk 2) is to catch out those that would swear falsely, and those caught red handed, literally covered in the blood of the saints.

The real outcome for Yeshua's death was to fulfill Zechariah 11; which states if 30 pieces of silver are paid for the price of his head, and put in the potters field in the house of Israel, than inheritance and grace is cut off, thus ending the Abrahamic covenant and divorcing Israel.

Now there are tons of interlinking metaphors and descriptors, there is reams of explanation possible; yet just wanted to write it out, since it so complex and see how short one could make it.

You lost my respect here:

John's made up gospel misrepresents Yeshua

With this as a premise, the rest of the OP is also vapid nonsense.

 

[Kolibri]

when John's made up gospel misrepresents Yeshua, and Paul finalizes it by making people follow evil as good.

Paul's writings were put to parchment prior to John's, by at least 30 years.

I have not been following your dissertation regarding John's writings, so I can not comment specifically about the arguments you use regarding this charge of falseness. You would think though that if one of the 12 foundations stones of the congregation of God defected that he would have been replaced as was Judas Iscariot, and some note of it would have been made somewhere. Can you provide documentation? Or is this an dissertation because of perceived conflicts in what was taught? I have not yet been shown a conflict that could not be harmonized once one lets go of preconceived ideas of what *must* be true.

 

[wizanda]

Paul's writings were put to parchment prior to John's, by at least 30 years.

In terms of the theological aspects, people use John as a foundation to what they think jesus was saying, and then follow Paul's theology, thinking they're following Yeshua.

You would think though that if one of the 12 foundations stones of the congregation of God defected that he would have been replaced as was Judas Iscariot, and some note of it would have been made somewhere.

In terms of the prophetic implications explained above, and by Yeshua warning people about those that come after, using the term Ego I-mee (I AM) to deceive many; John fulfills prophecy to the letter, with 7x 'I Am' statements (+1).

Can you provide documentation? Or is this an dissertation because of perceived conflicts in what was taught?

Been told by a Jewish professor that no one else has seen John as being false; so there isn't documentation, other than by me. So here is the thread with some of the many points listed.

 

[Kolibri]

In terms of the prophetic implications explained above, and by Yeshua warning people about those that come after, using the term Ego I-mee (I AM) to deceive many; John fulfills prophecy to the letter, with 7x 'I Am' statements (+1).

I see from the other thread you have thought long and hard about your belief regarding John. I have not really read thru it all, perhaps someday I will look at it in more detail. For now I will briefly address the one also mentioned in this thread. I do not want to put you on the defensive, however I disagree with the idea that Jesus was trying to make himself equal to God as related in an unbiased rendering of the book. (Others will counter the bias claim but that really is their own bias as well. )

Using this Greek to English rendering of "I Am" in John is deceiving.
Remember the one in Exodus 3:14 is Hebrew to English.
These passages coming from 2 different languages to English, and from the English, people are then trying to connect them as the same person to fit their doctrine. In the gospel of John, Jesus was never referring to him as the "I AM" no matter what Bible translators tried to make it look that way via red lettering or all caps.

So God said to Moses: "I Will Become What I Choose (or "want.") to Become." (or "I Will Prove to Be What I Will Prove to Be.")" - Ex 3:14 NWT (2013 Revision)

Jesus said to them: "Most truly I say to you, before Abraham came into existence, I have been." - John 8:58 NWT (2013 Revision)

I tried to look for the 7x 'I Am' statements (+1) specifically to find the other 6 to 7, but I am not frequently reading a Bible that uses that rendering as general reading.

 

[wizanda]

I tried to look for the 7x 'I Am' statements (+1) specifically to find the other 6 to 7, but I am not frequently reading a Bible that uses that rendering as general reading.

Just look on Google, you can find countless sites claiming jesus as being god because of them.

To simplify it though, its not his way of speech in John (no parables, arrogant, egotistical, argumentative, etc), we find nothing like it in the synoptic gospels; he speaks entirely differently and his theology is completely different as well.

 

[Kolibri]

Just look on Google, you can find countless sites claiming jesus as being god because of them.

To simplify it though, its not his way of speech in John (no parables, arrogant, egotistical, argumentative, etc), we find nothing like it in the synoptic gospels; he speaks entirely differently and his theology is completely different as well.

92% of this gospel is new material not covered by the other 3. However all 4 Gospels have a different stated purpose. And since John's was written last, he was very selective in the events he chose to chronicle. As he himself wrote: "To be sure, Jesus also performed many other signs before the disciples, which are not written down in this scroll." (John 20:30) and "There are also, in fact, many other things that Jesus did, which if ever they were written in full detail, I suppose the world itself could not contain the scrolls written." (John 21:25)

His state purpose: "But these have been written down so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and because of believing, you may have life by means of him." (John 20:31) Despite that so much of this material is new, does that stated theme have any variance to the accounts and teachings recorded in the other 3 gospels? What is different in theology? One or two items at a time please. Too much information and I will go bug eyed and just go to bed at it is 4:30am here.

 

[wizanda]

What is different in theology?

We're better to take this topic to the other thread, on the topic of John's gospel being false.

Yet in context of this thread, the prophecies don't add up with what John has ascribed....So John's gospel is like a forged golden ticket into Charlie's Chocolate Factory; yet within it, people won't get anything, as it isn't the words or teachings of Yeshua.

• Yeshua came to feed the flock for slaughter (Zec 11); John is making out he came to bring salvation to the world, through his death.
• Yeshua points to God in heaven; John makes out the father is within jesus.
• John claims the world is run by the devil and that the Jews are his children; Yeshua says that God is the lord of the living and though he challenges hypocrisy within their teachings, he isn't calling a whole people Raca (worthless rag).
• ...etc...

 

[2ndpillar]

The 3 shepherds hated and abhorred the person sent; thus matching what we find in the first lines of Isaiah 53.
This means it wasn't the disciples, yet the shepherds who were over the people; thus Yeshua challenged 3 sects of Judaism, the Pharisees, the Sadducees and the Levites (lawyers).
The foolish shepherd who left the flock, and reestablished were the Pharisees; as Paul and John were Pharisees...Plus Pharisee Judaism is now orthodox.

Dear wiz,
Matthew 27:9-10 clearly quotes Zechariah 11:11 & 12, with respect to one of the shepherds being Judas Iscariot. The other two died in the same generation per Zechariah 11:8. Isaiah 53 has little to do with Zechariah 11, except that "the Lord my God" commanded that "the flock doomed to slaughter" be pastured (Ze 11:4). Yeshua took the worthless shepherd, Peter (Ze 11:17), who would not feed, tend, or care for the sheep, and the covenant breaker Paul, who would " break my covenant which I had made with all the people" (Ze 11:10), under the guise of Paul's gospel of Grace. The gospel of lawlessness, in which the covenant made with Abraham, the circumcision, is annulled by Paul.

 

[wizanda]

Dear wiz

Thank you for a very interesting take on Zechariah 11....

Do you realize the first lines of Zechariah 11:1-3 are about the second temple destruction?
Why would the disciples be responsible for that?

If the 3 shepherds are the sects of Judaism, who we can clearly see hated Yeshua (which the disciples didn't); when they paid the 30 pieces of silver, it makes a clear divorce.

The fulfillment written in Matthew 27:3-10, was saying that they (priests/shepherds) paid the price for his head, Judas was only a go between.... It was the Sanhedrin that paid the money for him, and brought the field.

 

[wizanda]

Now the discussion is about Zech 11, and how it supposedly only fits with 3 of the gospels and not with John.
As i understand it, sheeplike people were “the flock meant for the killing” in that governmental shepherds were exploiting them. With one staff called “Pleasantness” and the other “Union,” Zechariah acted like a shepherd carrying a staff to guide the flock and a rod to ward off beasts. (Psalm 23:4) He foreshadowed Jesus, who was sent to be a spiritual shepherd but was rejected by the Jews. As Zechariah broke the staff Pleasantness, God quit dealing pleasantly with the Jews, breaking his covenant with them. Then he calls for his wages, and they weigh him out 30 pieces of silver. Jehovah orders Zechariah to throw it into the treasury and, with superlative sarcasm, says, “the magnificent value with which they valued me.” (11:12,13) This found a parallel in Mt 27:5,6. The timing fits with the "nailing [of the Law] to the torture stake." (Col 2:14) And as Zechariah broke the staff Union, God’s canceling of the Law covenant with Israel left the Jews without a theocratic bond of union. Their religious disunity worked out disastrously for them with the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans in 70 C.E.

I do not see how Zech 11 supports Mt and counters John at the same time.

Zechariah was a prophet, so Zechariah 11 isn't talking about himself; it is prophesying what will happen with Yeshua, and the destruction of the 2nd temple (Zec 11:1-3).

Zechariah 11 doesn't fit with John in multiple places; yet was more meaning the overall prophecies taking place.... One point is that 'jesus didn't come to condemn the world, yet offer it salvation'; which clearly if the 2nd temple destruction was due to his death, then that is condemnation of a whole nation.

The two words are better translated, 'pleasantness' as 'grace' and the word 'union' as 'inheritance'. Then when you look at the parable of the wicked husbandmen, where Yeshua refers to the inheritance, and the nation being removed from the people, it makes more sense.

Plus it is quite clear that allot of Yeshua's ministry, exists around the concepts of grace and inheritance.

 

[Kolibri]

grace I would say is an imprecise word. It has about 14 English definitions. How can the common English reader know which is meant? Typically from the Greek it is better translated "undeserved kindness." The Hebrew word(s) are that are commonly translated "grace."? Maybe someone else would know and can refine our understanding of them. Or have something to say about this:

The two words are better translated, 'pleasantness' as 'grace' and the word 'union' as 'inheritance'

 

[2ndpillar]

Zechariah was a prophet, so Zechariah 11 isn't talking about himself; it is prophesying what will happen with Yeshua, and the destruction of the 2nd temple (Zec 11:1-3).

Zechariah 11 doesn't fit with John in multiple places; yet was more meaning the overall prophecies taking place.... One point is that 'jesus didn't come to condemn the world, yet offer it salvation'; which clearly if the 2nd temple destruction was due to his death, then that is condemnation of a whole nation.

The two words are better translated, 'pleasantness' as 'grace' and the word 'union' as 'inheritance'. Then when you look at the parable of the wicked husbandmen, where Yeshua refers to the inheritance, and the nation being removed from the people, it makes more sense.

Plus it is quite clear that allot of Yeshua's ministry, exists around the concepts of grace and inheritance.

Dear wiz,
You are mixing up the "Xtian" ministry, which is about the grace gospel of Paul "Favor", and the inheritance of the holder of the keys of David, by Peter "Union", with the gospel of Yeshua, which is the gospel of the kingdom. The gospel of the kingdom is antithetical to the gospel of grace. The term "union" or " cords" fits better with the context of the passage of Ze 11:14, whereas the bonds between Judah and Israel were broken. "Union" fits best with Peter's role in breaking the bonds between Judah and Israel, but "cords" fits better with respect to the manner in which Peter was prophesized to die per John 21:18.

 

[2ndpillar]

Thank you for a very interesting take on Zechariah 11....

Do you realize the first lines of Zechariah 11:1-3 are about the second temple destruction?
Why would the disciples be responsible for that?

If the 3 shepherds are the sects of Judaism, who we can clearly see hated Yeshua (which the disciples didn't); when they paid the 30 pieces of silver, it makes a clear divorce.

The fulfillment written in Matthew 27:3-10, was saying that they (priests/shepherds) paid the price for his head, Judas was only a go between.... It was the Sanhedrin that paid the money for him, and brought the field.

Dear wiz,
You might want to reread Ze 11:1-3. It is directed at Lebanon and Jordan. The second temple, whose construction was inaugurated by the decree of Cyrus the Great, was destroyed in approximately 70 A.D. during the generation of Peter, Paul, and Judas, who apparently were "annihilated" just previous to that destruction.(Ze 11:8) Peter and Paul's flock has lived on, and are "doomed to slaughter" (Ze 11:7). Zechariah 12, is about this generation, and with respect to the nations trying to destroy Jerusalem, and as in the Israel wars of the mid 20th century, the nations trying to destroy Jerusalem were struck down. According to Ze 14, the nations will eventually "capture" Jerusalem, and then they will be struck by a plague and "their flesh will rot while they stand on their feet" (radiation poisoning). Then the "Lord will be king over all the earth" (Ze 14:9).

 

[2ndpillar]

Thank you for a very interesting take on Zechariah 11....

Do you realize the first lines of Zechariah 11:1-3 are about the second temple destruction?
Why would the disciples be responsible for that?

If the 3 shepherds are the sects of Judaism, who we can clearly see hated Yeshua (which the disciples didn't); when they paid the 30 pieces of silver, it makes a clear divorce.

The fulfillment written in Matthew 27:3-10, was saying that they (priests/shepherds) paid the price for his head, Judas was only a go between.... It was the Sanhedrin that paid the money for him, and brought the field.

Dear wiz,
One of the shepherds, Paul, was clearly, by his supposed admission, of the sect of Pharisee.

As for a divorce, there was no divorce. A divorce did not require 30 pieces of silver. What required 30 pieces of silver was the price of an adulteress (Hosea 3). The adulteress, bought with grain, priced at 30 pieces of silver , would be the " flocked doomed to slaughter", would be the flock of Peter and Paul. She was supposed to stay with Hosea for "many days", but after many days, Israel will return and "seek the Lord their God". (Hosea 3:5)

 

[wizanda]

What required 30 pieces of silver was the price of an adulteress (Hosea 3).

Says 15 shekels?

 

[2ndpillar]

Says 15 shekels?

 

[2ndpillar]

Dear wiz,
You should read more carefully. It says for 15 shekels of silver and a homer and half of barley, which is another 15 shekels worth of grain. 15 + 15 = 30 shekels