Yeshua's death

[BilliardsBall]

This is why Paul and John are so in error, as they're trying to graft people onto a broken covenant.


So clearly God stated he would divorce them, and Yeshua then gave them the certificate of divorce, which they signed by their own declaration (30 pieces of silver); the divorce has been served.

God took them back after the Exile.

Yet not if it is for a reason...So Yeshua came as the bridegroom to Israel; they put him to death, case closed. That really doesn't make for a happy marriage; if your betrothed puts you to death, before the wedding day.


So Yeshua marries the new kingdom, not the old full of iniquity.... This is why when satan offered him to rule over this world, he declined it.

Well, you wouldn't accept Paul's statement that "it was in the predetermined plan of God to sacrifice Jesus" or that "their rejection is life for the world" but you would recognize, I hope, that the gospels say the people came to make Jesus king by force!

And the 30 pieces of silver bought the price of the potter's field as Jeremiah foresaw--it was not a Get for divorce. God hates divorce (Malachi) and lives in heaven where "He does whatever pleases him" (Psalms).

 

[wizanda]

Well, you wouldn't accept Paul's statement that "it was in the predetermined plan of God to sacrifice Jesus"

Human sacrifice is illegal.

And the 30 pieces of silver bought the price of the potter's field

And I said unto them, If ye think good, give me my price; and if not, forbear. So they weighed for my price thirty pieces of silver. (13) And the LORD said unto me, Cast it unto the potter: a goodly price that I was prised at of them. And I took the thirty pieces of silver, and cast them to the potter in the house of the LORD.

Jeremiah only talks about buying a field, not the reason behind it.

 

[Zardoz]

I would have to respectfully disagree with the divorce analogy.

Separation, most assuredly, but divorce... no.

My Rebbi told us time and again, that G-d cannot go back on His word... that we were bound to an eternal covenant, that G-d would hold us to.

He cannot change. Being perfect, His covenants are perfect.

Therefore, I believe that every Covenant is in full force and binding.

The Covenant with Noah, is still fully binding.

Every covenant is built on the preceding one, a clarification and refinement. Not annulling, but renewing.

 

[Kenny]

Human sacrifice is illegal.
.

Yet YHWH asked Abraham to do it.

One could probably say that Abraham was stopped, however, the act meant something or G-d would never have asked him to do it in the first place.

 

[BilliardsBall]

All,

Human sacrifice is illegal. Sinners killed Christ. And?

Jeremiah was buying a burial ground, not a home for a divorcee. And the Pharisees saw the 30 pieces as the price of blood, not a Get.

The myth of the broken covenant with Israel underlies most of what is wrong with Reformed and Catholic theology and has been used as partial justification in the deaths of millions of born again believers and children of Israel. Shame! I also respectfully disagree.

 

[Sariel]

Yet YHWH asked Abraham to do it.

One could probably say that Abraham was stopped, however, the act meant something or G-d would never have asked him to do it in the first place.

Human sacrifice was common practice at that time in the near east. If anything, I'd say the binding of Isaac shows that the God of Israel doesn't require such an offering as the neighboring gods. Humans have no place in the sacrificial system anywhere in the Torah and is condemned.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Human sacrifice was common practice at that time in the near east. If anything, I'd say the binding of Isaac shows that the God of Israel doesn't require such an offering as the neighboring gods. Humans have no place in the sacrificial system anywhere in the Torah and is condemned.

Luckily Y'shua is not a mere man only, but Ha Shem, a rock, a sun, a shield... a lamb, a worthy sacrifice...

 

[Kenny]

Human sacrifice was common practice at that time in the near east. If anything, I'd say the binding of Isaac shows that the God of Israel doesn't require such an offering as the neighboring gods. Humans have no place in the sacrificial system anywhere in the Torah and is condemned.

I agree about humans. The binding could also mean that there was no other way and that God was bound to His word from Gen 3:15 before an animal was killed as a substitute for Adam and blood covenant began.

It is interesting that Abraham said to the two servants that we (him and his son) were going to worship and return. If he had every intention to obey God's command to sacrifice son, he also believed that God was going to resurrect Isaac, the promise. Somehow I think Abraham saw the Mashiach, the promise of the seed of the woman that would crush the head of the serpent.

 

[wizanda]

The myth of the broken covenant with Israel underlies most of what is wrong with Reformed and Catholic theology and has been used as partial justification in the deaths of millions of born again believers and children of Israel. Shame!

First off, what the church does or makes up, isn't within what I'm saying; it is like a jellyfish without a head, stinging everything it touches. As it clearly doesn't follow Yeshua's teachings in the synoptic gospels; yet follows what came after (John, Paul, Simon), and claims it to be the same.

So if your right eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one of your body parts than to have your whole body thrown into hell (Gehenna). (30) And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away from you. It is better for you to lose one of your body parts than to have your whole body go into hell (Gehenna)." (31) "It was also said, 'Whoever divorces his wife must give her a written notice of divorce.'

"Woe to the worthless shepherd, who deserts the flock! May the sword strike his arm and his right eye. May his arm wither and his right eye be completely blind."

The only reference to the right eye and the right arm in the Bible, it clearly looks like Yeshua is referencing it.
What is interesting, is in Islamic texts there is the ideas of the Dajjal being blind in an eye, so is Armilus in Jewish texts.... Between both: they speak of a false representation of the Messiah, that shall reign through deception. The other clues in Jewish texts about Armilus, is it sort of points blatantly at the Roman Catholic church, as does Revelations. In descriptions of the Dajjal, it is also presented the idea of a false white 'jesus'; instead of a brownish Yeshua.

The covenant couldn't be in effect, when the 2nd temple was torn down; as how could God maintain a covenant to protect the children of Abraham in the land, when the whole place was destroyed?

Luckily Y'shua is not a mere man only, but Ha Shem, a rock, a sun, a shield... a lamb, a worthy sacrifice...

Still not getting it, so the God of the Bible, who created the Laws.... Killed himself as a sacrifice, breaking lots of his laws, in lots of places, to achieve it; so he could get everyone to follow him doing this?

To even debate the topic if atonement through Yeshua's death/sacrifice means anything, you've got to notice the ending of the parable of the wicked husbandmen.
The 'master' comes and destroys the people who killed his son; so that day hasn't come yet, as that would be when God reigns in the Messianic age.

People seem to miss the end of the parable of the wicked husbandmen and apply that its only about the Jews, which in some context applies....Yet:

The person who falls over this stone will be broken to pieces, but it will crush anyone on whom it falls."

Many make haste to the spoils and miss the snare, that is laid out in Isaiah 8; when clearly Immanuel is within that as well.

 

[BilliardsBall]

First off, what the church does or makes up, isn't within what I'm saying; it is like a jellyfish without a head, stinging everything it touches. As it clearly doesn't follow Yeshua's teachings in the synoptic gospels; yet follows what came after (John, Paul, Simon), and claims it to be the same.



The only reference to the right eye and the right arm in the Bible, it clearly looks like Yeshua is referencing it.
What is interesting, is in Islamic texts there is the ideas of the Dajjal being blind in an eye, so is Armilus in Jewish texts.... Between both: they speak of a false representation of the Messiah, that shall reign through deception. The other clues in Jewish texts about Armilus, is it sort of points blatantly at the Roman Catholic church, as does Revelations. In descriptions of the Dajjal, it is also presented the idea of a false white 'jesus'; instead of a brownish Yeshua.

The covenant couldn't be in effect, when the 2nd temple was torn down; as how could God maintain a covenant to protect the children of Abraham in the land, when the whole place was destroyed?

Still not getting it, so the God of the Bible, who created the Laws.... Killed himself as a sacrifice, breaking lots of his laws, in lots of places, to achieve it; so he could get everyone to follow him doing this?

To even debate the topic if atonement through Yeshua's death/sacrifice means anything, you've got to notice the ending of the parable of the wicked husbandmen.
The 'master' comes and destroys the people who killed his son; so that day hasn't come yet, as that would be when God reigns in the Messianic age.

People seem to miss the end of the parable of the wicked husbandmen and apply that its only about the Jews, which in some context applies....Yet:

Many make haste to the spoils and miss the snare, that is laid out in Isaiah 8; when clearly Immanuel is within that as well.

I want to make out clearly what I understand you are saying.

1. The gospel is not trusting in Y'shua's sacrifice only--what evangelicals believe and have been persecuted for over the past millennia. It is some kind of "do the Bible" works law like that of the Roman "church", JW's, Mormons, etc.?

2. Peter, Mary and the 120 who were all in one accord at Pentecost and who all preached the gospel of my #1 at Pentecost are all wrong. You do not believe in any NT book but the synoptic gospels and Jude, John, Peter, the writer of Hebrews, etc. are all wrong/false? This despite the fact that these books are used by evangelicals and conservatives unto their death from the persecuting groups?

3. Paul, who disagreed with many of the 120 and "opposed them to their face" is also very wrong?

 

[wizanda]

I want to make out clearly what I understand you are saying.

1. The gospel is....

A living gospel like Yeshua taught, where we walk the extra mile helping everyone and following Yeshua's teachings. Paul teaches a dead gospel, where it is based on accepting jesus died for you. Then John's gospel can be used as a foundation, to believing jesus was sent to die for you.
Yeshua didn't come teaching a gospel about his death; he came teaching the way of heaven.

2. are all wrong/false?

• Matthew
• Mark
• Luke
• James
• Jude
• Revelations

Even though the above, have got edits, at least they condemn Balaam teachings; where as the others condone it (John, Paul and Simon the stone (petros)).

3. Paul, is also very wrong?

Yes, Paul is just blatantly wrong.

 

[Faybull]

A living gospel like Yeshua taught, where we walk the extra mile helping everyone and following Yeshua's teachings. Paul teaches a dead gospel, where it is based on accepting jesus died for you. Then John's gospel can be used as a foundation, to believing jesus was sent to die for you.
Yeshua didn't come teaching a gospel about his death; he came teaching the way of heaven.

• Matthew
• Mark
• Luke
• James
• Jude
• Revelations

Even though the above, have got edits, at least they condemn Balaam teachings; where as the others condone it (John, Paul and Simon the stone (petros)).

Yes, Paul is just blatantly wrong.

What exactly are Balaam's teachings?

 

[wizanda]

What exactly are Balaam's teachings?

O My people, remember now What Balak king of Moab counseled, And what Balaam the son of Beor answered him, From Acacia Grove to Gilgal, That you may know the righteousness of the Lord.”
6 With what shall I come before the Lord, And bow myself before the High God?
Shall I come before Him with burnt offerings, With calves a year old?
7 Will the Lord be pleased with thousands of rams, Ten thousand rivers of oil?
Shall I give my firstborn for my transgression, The fruit of my body for the sin of my soul?
8 He has shown you, O man, what is good; And what does the Lord require of you But to do justly, To love mercy, And to walk humbly with your God?

So Balaam was going to tell Balak that by sacrificing thousands of cattle, he could receive favor from God like Moses had. Yet he was stopped, as God never required sacrifice; it something we've done to please God, yet God has never required it.
So Balaam teachings is stating God needed sacrifice; whereas God wants obedience to the Law.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Um, based on your gospel I can go to Heaven giving the least of these a cup of water (Matthew 25, or is that an edit, and how would you know which are edits and insertions since no other scholar knows?)!

Also, Balaam taught Balak to stumble the Israelites via sexual immorality (Jude!) and not sacrifice. Memory tells me Balaam OFFERED SACRIFICES while dealing with Balak from the first.

 

[wizanda]

Um, based on your gospel I can go to Heaven giving the least of these a cup of water (Matthew 25

Well yes, unconditional love is a requirement to heaven. The church of Philadelphia (brotherly love) is one which is saved in Revelations. Doing good works, counts in your favor for getting into heaven.

or is that an edit, and how would you know which are edits and insertions since no other scholar knows?!

We can't be sure, we can tell odd things though, like the end of the books, have edits which are blatant in many places. So having more than one witness, to verify the statements, is always useful.

Jude!

Jude 1:11Woe unto them! for they have gone in the way of Cain (killed their brother), and ran greedily after the error of Balaam (Micah 6:5-8 = God doesn't require sacrifice i.e Paul and John's teachings) for reward, and perished in the gainsaying of Core (will be destroyed for boasting they've got more favor with God).

So to summarize, there was a division of the early church between Ebionites and Paulinites; where some categorically contested that Yeshua could be a human sacrifice....So my assumption is Jude was referencing this.

Also, Balaam taught Balak to stumble the Israelites via sexual immorality and not sacrifice.

Balaam told Balak, "Build for me here seven altars and prepare here for me seven bulls and seven rams. (2) So Balak did just as Balaam instructed. Balak and Balaam offered a bull and a ram on each altar.

Not sure where the bit about sexual immorality is?

 

[BilliardsBall]

Well yes, unconditional love is a requirement to heaven. The church of Philadelphia (brotherly love) is one which is saved in Revelations. Doing good works, counts in your favor for getting into heaven.

We can't be sure, we can tell odd things though, like the end of the books, have edits which are blatant in many places. So having more than one witness, to verify the statements, is always useful.
Jude 1:11Woe unto them! for they have gone in the way of Cain (killed their brother), and ran greedily after the error of Balaam (Micah 6:5-8 = God doesn't require sacrifice i.e Paul and John's teachings) for reward, and perished in the gainsaying of Core (will be destroyed for boasting they've got more favor with God).

So to summarize, there was a division of the early church between Ebionites and Paulinites; where some categorically contested that Yeshua could be a human sacrifice....So my assumption is Jude was referencing this.


Not sure where the bit about sexual immorality is?

Sexual immorality and idolatry are in both testaments re: Balaam and the error of the peoples, but you may have a different translation than me, and that's fine.

Which non-Ebionite apostles killed their brethren?

And there are no blatant edits "at the ends of the books". The only one worth mentioning is Mark 16 because people are uptight ending with "the tomb is empty and the people feared."

And I've got to tell you, based on my often-conditional love, I'd be worried for myself if what you say is right.

 

[Eileen]

Ken S commented concerning human sacrifice--Yet YHWH asked Abraham to do it. Abraham came from and was surrounded by cultures where human sacrifice was considered an expression of commitment to a god or a way to get something from that god. Abraham was willing to make that commitment but HaShem stopped him because He wanted to teach Abraham that although He wanted His people to be totally committed to Him human sacrifice was not the way to show that commitment nor was human sacrifice a way to get something from HaShem. Just a thought.

 

[LionofJuda]

shalom! i think the most important part of Yeshua's role is by His death. Without the shedding of blood, there is no remission of sins. the animal sacrifices commanded by Hashem in the Torah were but shadow of the final and ultimate sacrifice which is the death of Yeshua.

 

[roberto]

I'm curious if Messianics have any significant views about the actual death of Yeshua. Is the main emphasis solely put on his life and teachings or is there some important role his death served?

He had to prove by his death that he was the true Messiah.

Mat 12:40 For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the whale, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.

There is another messiah around that was in the grave for only two days..........(he resurrected on Sunday)