Matthew 11:10 - Exodus 23:20

[keypurr]

:thumb:

And one other thing I might add about pure Hebrew, (not Aramaic) is that in my opinion it is both "the food of Angels" and "the tongue of Angels", (of which Paul writes) because the Torah was given through the instrumentality of the Elohim-Angels, (Acts 7:53). Even in the first century it did not technically have vowels or the vowel pointing which it has today, (which was added much later by the Masoretes). This fact alone is all the more reason for the Apostolic writers to bring the Gospel of Yeshua to the nations in Greek because of the already extant Greek Septuagint. But as I said, not that what you have acquired is bad in any way, and it is probably better than most; but as I said also just be careful, (and prayerful) because there is no perfect translation. They say the Greek came from Aramaic Peshitta(s) but in my own opinion they cannot prove what they assert. That is just my opinion.

Thanks again friend, I will be careful not to jump at anything different from my thoughts.

 

[daqq]

Exodus 33:7-11 Septuagint (Brenton Translation)
7. And Moses took his tabernacle and pitched it without the camp, at a distance from the camp; and it was called the Tabernacle of Testimony: and it came to pass that every one that sought the Lord went forth to the tabernacle which was without the camp.
8. And whenever Moses went into the tabernacle without the camp, all the people stood every one watching by the doors of his tent; and when Moses departed, they took notice until he entered into the tabernacle.
9. And when Moses entered into the tabernacle, the pillar of the cloud descended, and stood at the door of the tabernacle, and God talked to Moses.
10. And all the people saw the pillar of the cloud standing by the door of the tabernacle, and all the people stood and worshipped every one at the door of his tent.
11. And the Lord spoke to Moses face to face, as if one should speak to his friend; and he retired into the camp: but his servant Joshua the son of Naue, a young man, departed not forth from the tabernacle.
http://biblehub.com/sep/exodus/33.htm

So then, Yochanan Eliyahu the Immerser is the voice of the Cryer in the wilderness and the Malak of YHWH that goes before us, to lead us in the Way that the Father has prepared, through the desert journey and into the Land. But the Commander inside the Tent is Yeshua the Son of Perpetuity, (bin Nun) and Yeshua the Son of Perpetuity abides inside the tabernacle-tent of the man because Yhoshua is a typology shadow of the Word of YHWH abiding in our hearts, minds, and souls, tenting with us.

Messiah Yeshua Says: I Yeshua have dispatched my messenger to testify unto you these things for the congregations. I am the Riza and the Genos of David, the Star, the Bright, the Morning Dawn.

Yochanan Eliyahu the Immerser Says: He who testifies these things says, Yea, I come quickly! Amen. Come, Master Yeshua.

:sheep:

 

[Ben Masada]

Matthew 11:10 - Exodus 23:20

About the quotes above, the one of Matthew 11:10 is a reference to Ezra as the messenger sent before the Jews in exile in Babylon to prepare the People for the arrival of the remnant of Israel from exile at the end of the 70 week/years captivity in Babylon. The Tanach sources are found in Isa. 40:3 and Mal. 3:1.

Exodus 23:20 points to Hovav the brother-in-law of Moses who was son of Jethro (Numb. 10:28-31)

 

[daqq]

About the quotes above, the one of Matthew 11:10 is a reference to Ezra as the messenger sent before the Jews in exile in Babylon to prepare the People for the arrival of the remnant of Israel from exile at the end of the 70 week/years captivity in Babylon. The Tanach sources are found in Isa. 40:3 and Mal. 3:1.

Exodus 23:20 points to Hovav the brother-in-law of Moses who was son of Jethro (Numb. 10:28-31)

Matthew 11:10 is already proven by the quotes on page one of this thread to have been taken directly from Exodus 23:20. That does not mean it does not also imply Malachi 3:1 and Isaiah 40:3 because even as Mark 1:2-3 shows, (also quoted on page one of this thread) it does indeed point also to Isaiah 40:3. Malachi 3:1 builds on and refers to Isaiah 40:3 while Isaiah 40:3 clearly speaks of Exodus 23:20. However the huge mistake is in assuming that Yeshua quotes Malachi 3:1 when in fact he is written by the authors to have distinctly and specifically quoted Exodus 23:20 in Matthew 11:10 and Luke 7:27, whereas in Mark 1:3, the author himself quotes Exodus 23:20 and again therein applies the passage to Yochanan the Immerser. There is no way you can "prove" anything outside of this and remain within the boundaries laid out in the apostolic writings on this matter. You may not believe them but that remains what they indeed say and have written.

As for whether Hobab is the brother-in-law of Moses, (Numbers 10:29) or the father-in-law of Moses, (Judges 4:11) it is probably not that the KJV and some other translations rendered one passage incorrectly but rather that it highlights the fact that there is more than one priesthood in play in the Torah, (as we were just discussing in my other thread here). And yet how can both be true? It is true if Raguel is one-united of the seven holy malakim who watch, (1Enoch 20:4). Therefore I said, in the other thread, "his Excellence", (Yithrow) Raguel, who is one-united of the seven Elohim princes of beginning, (and thus the Melki-Tzedek Elohim Priesthood is implied).

 

[Ben Masada]

Matthew 11:10 is already proven by the quotes on page one of this thread to have been taken directly from Exodus 23:20. That does not mean it does not also imply Malachi 3:1 and Isaiah 40:3 because even as Mark 1:2-3 shows, (also quoted on page one of this thread) it does indeed point also to Isaiah 40:3. Malachi 3:1 builds on and refers to Isaiah 40:3 while Isaiah 40:3 clearly speaks of Exodus 23:20. However the huge mistake is in assuming that Yeshua quotes Malachi 3:1 when in fact he is written by the authors to have distinctly and specifically quoted Exodus 23:20 in Matthew 11:10 and Luke 7:27, whereas in Mark 1:3, the author himself quotes Exodus 23:20 and again therein applies the passage to Yochanan the Immerser. There is no way you can "prove" anything outside of this and remain within the boundaries laid out in the apostolic writings on this matter. You may not believe them but that remains what they indeed say and have written.

As for whether Hobab is the brother-in-law of Moses, (Numbers 10:29) or the father-in-law of Moses, (Judges 4:11) it is probably not that the KJV and some other translations rendered one passage incorrectly but rather that it highlights the fact that there is more than one priesthood in play in the Torah, (as we were just discussing in my other thread here). And yet how can both be true? It is true if Raguel is one-united of the seven holy malakim who watch, (1Enoch 20:4). Therefore I said, in the other thread, "his Excellence", (Yithrow) Raguel, who is one-united of the seven Elohim princes of beginning, (and thus the Melki-Tzedek Elohim Priesthood is implied).

The Priests of the Most High

They were the Patriarchs: Abraham, Isaac and Jacob whose seed would be to HaShem a Kingdom of priests and a holy nation. (Exodus 19:6) Only of such a trinity would be possible a kingdom of priests and a holy nation to be called the priests of the Most High.

According to Genesis 14, there was a war of four kings against Sodom and Gomorrah when Lot the nephew of Abraham had been captured and, Abraham mustered 318 of his servants and went out to fight the four kings and was miraculously victorious over them all.

In his return to Beersheba, Abraham stopped by Jerusalem and, Melchizedek, afraid perhaps that Abraham could take Jerusalem, he offered bread and wine to the Priest of the Most High God and blessed him thus: "Blessed be Abram of the Most High God." (Genesis 14:19)

Now, Abraham, being a prince of justice aka "Melchizedek" who never liked to take any thing for free, commanded that 10% of the lute from the war be given to the king of Jerusalem who just by coincidence, happened to be called Melchizedek but, the Priest of the Most High was Abraham.

Melchizedek was a pagan priest of the Canaanites which, among the offices of his priesthood was to sacrifice the firstborn of his people to Baal Molech the main god of the Canaanites as part of their religious culture of the time.

 

[Omniskeptical]

Melchizedek was a pagan priest of the Canaanites which, among the offices of his priesthood was to sacrifice the firstborn of his people to Baal Molech the main god of the Canaanites as part of their religious culture of the time.

You possibly know such. You are impugning an innocent man. At best, you could show he was a Canaanite, and you probably can't that.

 

[Ben Masada]

You possibly know such. You are impugning an innocent man. At best, you could show he was a Canaanite, and you probably can't that.

The Truth About Melchizedek

Here is a column which I consider will crack under the building of Christianity. Who was Melchizedek? This man was a pagan Canaanite king, who happened to be the king of Salem, ancient name for Jerusalem.

Abram had just returned from a battle with five kings, and, on his way to Beersheba, he paused in Jerusalem for a repast. He and his men were tired and weary of the military campaign. Melchizedek, afraid perhaps that Abram would take on him too and conquer Jerusalem out of his hands, immediately brought forth bread and wine to him and his troops. For Abram, it was a relieve. He didn't have to fight another king.

Now, please, I must remind you that I am reading from the originals in Hebrew and not from the Gentile adulterated version of the KJV. Why would Melchizedek prefer to feed Abram and his army instead of fighting him? Because he, Abram, and not Melchizedek was the priest of God most High, whose seed would be of a nation of priests and kings. (Exod. 19:6; Isa. 61:6)

Then, as Melchizedek served the food and drink, he blessed Abram. Please focus on how he blessed Abram. "Blessed be Abram of God Most High." It means that Melchizedek would recognize that Abram was the one Priest of God the Most High. Creator of the universe." Then, for all the bread and wine, and that blessing of recognition of who Abram really was, Abram shared with him a tenth of the spoils taken from the kings in battle.

Now, let us check Psalm 110:4, which in the KJV says, "The Lord has sworn and will not repent, you are a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek." This is a Christian gloss plagiarized by Paul and grossly forged by the Church in the 4th Century under the excuse of pious forgery.

Here is what Psalm 110:4 says in the originals in Hebrew: "The Lord has sworn and will not relent, you are a priest forever; a rightful king by My decree." As you can see, it has nothing to do with king Melchizedek, king of Salem, but rather to David in the type level of interpretation, which points to the archetype level of Israel, the seed of Abraham as a nation of priests and kings. (Exod. 19:6; Isa. 61:6) Obviously, only the High Priest of the Most High would produce a generation of priests and kings through Israel.

 

[daqq]

The Priests of the Most High

They were the Patriarchs: Abraham, Isaac and Jacob whose seed would be to HaShem a Kingdom of priests and a holy nation. (Exodus 19:6) Only of such a trinity would be possible a kingdom of priests and a holy nation to be called the priests of the Most High.

According to Genesis 14, there was a war of four kings against Sodom and Gomorrah when Lot the nephew of Abraham had been captured and, Abraham mustered 318 of his servants and went out to fight the four kings and was miraculously victorious over them all.

In his return to Beersheba, Abraham stopped by Jerusalem and, Melchizedek, afraid perhaps that Abraham could take Jerusalem, he offered bread and wine to the Priest of the Most High God and blessed him thus: "Blessed be Abram of the Most High God." (Genesis 14:19)

Now, Abraham, being a prince of justice aka "Melchizedek" who never liked to take any thing for free, commanded that 10% of the lute from the war be given to the king of Jerusalem who just by coincidence, happened to be called Melchizedek but, the Priest of the Most High was Abraham.

Melchizedek was a pagan priest of the Canaanites which, among the offices of his priesthood was to sacrifice the firstborn of his people to Baal Molech the main god of the Canaanites as part of their religious culture of the time.

What you say is so far outside of even Judaism it would be hilarious if it were not so atrocious. Everyone pretty much agrees that Melki-Tzedek is Shem the son of Noach according to the sages. :Shimei:

:sheep:

 

[Ben Masada]

What you say is so far outside of even Judaism it would be hilarious if it were not so atrocious. Everyone pretty much agrees that Melki-Tzedek is Shem the son of Noach according to the sages. :Shimei:

:sheep:

To say that the Canaanite pagan king/priest of Salem was from Shem a son of Noah, means nothing. All Israel came from Shem a son of Noah. The Jewish Logic about being a priest according to the order of Melchizedek has absolutely nothing to do with the pagan king of Salem who happened to be a priest for the Canaanites and offered the firstborns of many of his people to Baal Molech.

A priest according to the order of Melchizedek was used in Israel as only an expression to represent a king/priest that was not from the lineage of Aaron. David was called one whose Tribe would become to the Lord a kingdom of priests and a holy nation. (Exod. 19:6) And that's a message to be spoken to the children of Israel, especially Judah which was the Tribe of David.

 

[daqq]

To say that the Canaanite pagan king/priest of Salem was from Shem a son of Noah, means nothing. All Israel came from Shem a son of Noah. The Jewish Logic about being a priest according to the order of Melchizedek has absolutely nothing to do with the pagan king of Salem who happened to be a priest for the Canaanites and offered the firstborns of many of his people to Baal Molech.

A priest according to the order of Melchizedek was used in Israel as only an expression to represent a king/priest that was not from the lineage of Aaron. David was called one whose Tribe would become to the Lord a kingdom of priests and a holy nation. (Exod. 19:6) And that's a message to be spoken to the children of Israel, especially Judah which was the Tribe of David.

Where did I say "from Shem"? I clearly said IS Shem. If Melki-Tzedek is Shem the son of Noach, as most of Judaism believes, then you are calling Shem the son of Noach a Canaanite who offered his firstborn to Baal and, as Omniskeptical already pointed out, what you are doing is lashon hara at the very least.

 

[daqq]

Your cult believes that John the Baptist was the preexistent one that created Israel by bringing them out of bondage in Egypt - that John the Baptist is the great "I AM".
If you want to promote your cult, then start an original post of your own, rather than trying to force your "John the Baptist" doctrine on my posts that have NOTHING to do with John the Baptist.
Since you say you "love the word of God", then it should be no problem for you to publish the Old Testament scriptures that teach of John the Baptist's preexistence.

Your posts from the thread below had everything to do with Yohanan the Immerser but you refuse to see it. Anyways, I need not start another thread when none of your kind have ever refuted this one which has been around long enough for anyone to have an opportunity to refute it if they so desired. As you can see it has not been done. For those interested this comes up from yet more places where those such as beameup have been shown time and time again how they misapply and misappropriate scripture redirecting everything according to the flesh mindset and the faulty eternal son doctrine. I never said anything about pre-existence in any of my statements. In fact it was clearly stated to beameup in one of the posts how Yeshua emphatically states that all the Prophets and the Torah prophesied until Yohanan. However beameup rejects the Testimony of Yeshua in favor of his own man-made doctrines handed down from carnal men.

Still rejecting the Testimony of Yeshua?

Take your pick from the T/R, W/H, or any other text:

Matthew 11:10 Textus Receptus
10 ουτος γαρ εστι περι ου γεγραπται ιδου εγω αποστελλω τον αγγελον μου προ προσωπου σου ος κατασκευασει την οδον σου εμπροσθεν σου

Matthew 11:10 Westcott-Hort
10 ουτος εστιν περι ου γεγραπται ιδου εγω αποστελλω τον αγγελον μου προ προσωπου σου ος κατασκευασει την οδον σου εμπροσθεν σου

Both the T/R and the W/H quote Exodus 23:20a WORD FOR WORD from the Septuagint:

Exodus 23:20 LXX-Septuagint
20 και ιδου εγω αποστελλω τον αγγελον μου προ προσωπου σου ινα φυλαξη σε εν τη οδω οπως εισαγαγη σε εις την γην ην ητοιμασα σοι

Matthew 11:10b -- "ιδου εγω αποστελλω τον αγγελον μου προ προσωπου σου"
Exodus 23:20a -- "ιδου εγω αποστελλω τον αγγελον μου προ προσωπου σου"

"ιδου εγω αποστελλω τον αγγελον μου προ προσωπου σου"
"Behold, I send My Messenger-Angel before your face"

Yeshua therefore clearly states that Yohanan EliYahu is the Malak of Exodus 23:20-23; and the Name of the Father is indeed in the name EliYahu, (El and Yah), and there is no other place where this clear emphatic statement quoted above may be found in the scripture. Those who say that this Matthew statement and its companion passages are quoted from Malachi 3:1 are liars, who cannot tell the difference between "μου" and "σου", "me" and "you", "my" and "thy", or "me" and "thee", and unfortunately for you that cancels out most every commentary of the so-called scholars I have ever read. Just because they all agree to blindly run toward the precipice all together does not make the herd correct.

EDIT - Addendum:

Malachi 3:1 KJV (Hebrew Text)
1 Behold, I will send my messenger, and he shall prepare the way before me: and the Lord, whom ye seek, shall suddenly come to his temple, even the messenger of the covenant, whom ye delight in: behold, he shall come, saith the LORD of hosts.

Malachi 3:1 Brenton English Translation (Greek Text)
1 Behold, I send forth my messenger, and he shall survey the way before me: and the Lord, whom ye seek, shall suddenly come into his temple, even the angel of the covenant, whom ye take pleasure in: behold, he is coming, saith the Lord Almighty.

Malachi 3:1 LXX-Septuagint
1 ιδου εγω εξαποστελλω τον αγγελον μου και επιβλεψεται οδον προ προσωπου μου και εξαιφνης ηξει εις τον ναον εαυτου κυριος ον υμεις ζητειτε και ο αγγελος της διαθηκης ον υμεις θελετε ιδου ερχεται λεγει κυριος παντοκρατωρ

Malachi 3:1a
1 ιδου εγω εξαποστελλω τον αγγελον μου και επιβλεψεται οδον προ προσωπου μου"

Exodus 23:20a -- "ιδου εγω αποστελλω τον αγγελον μου προ προσωπου σου"
Matthew 11:10b -- "ιδου εγω αποστελλω τον αγγελον μου προ προσωπου σου"

:sheep:

It is not hard to see it unless one does not want to see it.
Here it is again for you in plain simple English:

:readthis:

Matthew 11:10 KJV
10 For this is he, of whom it is written, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee.

Mark 1:2 KJV
2 As it is written in the prophets, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee.

Luke 7:27 KJV
27 This is he, of whom it is written, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee.

Exodus 23:20 KJV
20 Behold, I send an Angel before thee, to keep thee in the way, and to bring thee into the place which I have prepared.

Exodus 23:20 Septuagint (Brenton English Translation)
20 And, behold, I send my angel before thy face, that he may keep thee in the way, that he may bring thee into the land which I have prepared for thee.

Malachi 3:1 KJV
1 Behold, I will send my messenger, and he shall prepare the way before me: and the Lord, whom ye seek, shall suddenly come to his temple, even the messenger of the covenant, whom ye delight in: behold, he shall come, saith the LORD of hosts.

Malachi 3:1 Septuagint (Brenton English Translation)
1 Behold, I send forth my messenger, and he shall survey the way before me: and the Lord, whom ye seek, shall suddenly come into his temple, even the angel of the covenant, whom ye take pleasure in: behold, he is coming, saith the Lord Almighty.

The only thing you have shown to be easy is how easily you will fall down and worship man or angel without even knowing for sure what you worship. Therefore you show yourself worse off than the woman at the well; for when Yeshua told her the truth she believed him, but I have shown you his words here and you reject his words yet again while claiming that you worship him and not even knowing whether it is him or not in the passage you quote to make your case! Worse yet when you are shown the error of your way you claim to see! Therefore you remain blind just as the Pharisees whom you denounce as having been blind! :crackup:

Therefore within the context of Matthew 11:9-15 Yeshua emphatically states that Yohanan is the Malak of Exodus 23:20-23 because, according to the author of the text, Yeshua quotes Exodus 23:20a and even states, "IT IS WRITTEN", which you have plainly and openly denied by saying that it is found nowhere just because the truth does not suit your paradigm.

Matthew 11:9-15
9 But what went you out to see? A prophet? Yea, I say unto you, and exceedingly more than a prophet.
10 For this is he of whom it is written, Behold, I send My angel before your face, [Exodus 23:20a LXX] which shall prepare your way before you.
11 Verily I say unto you, Among them that are born of women there hath not risen a greater than Yohanan the Immerser: notwithstanding he that is least in the kingdom of the heavens [the Son of man] is greater than he.
12 And from the days of Yohanan the Immerser until now the kingdom of the heavens suffers violence, and the violent take it by force:
13 for all the Prophets and the Torah prophesied until Yohanan.
14 And, if you will receive it, this is EliYahu that is about to come.
15 The one having ears to hear, let hear.

All the Prophets and the Torah prophesied until Yohanan, according to the Master, and Yohanan is the Malak-Messenger of Exodus 23:20-23 according to the Testimony of Yeshua: but you once again do not believe the Testimony of Yeshua, and therefore you have not the grace of Elohim upon you because the Testimony of Yeshua is the Spirit of Grace and you refuse to apply it to yourself and in your doctrine. Therefore the wrath of Elohim abides upon you because you do not believe the one whom the Father has sent.

Did you catch that final statement BM?

All the Prophets and the Torah prophesied until Yohanan, according to the Master, and Yohanan is the Malak-Messenger of Exodus 23:20-23 according to the Testimony of Yeshua: but you once again do not believe the Testimony of Yeshua, and therefore you have not the grace of Elohim upon you because the Testimony of Yeshua is the Spirit of Grace and you refuse to apply it to yourself and in your doctrine. Therefore the wrath of Elohim abides upon you because you do not believe the one whom the Father has sent.

 

[daqq]

It's not quite that simple. Let's take a comprehensive look into the Old Testament:

Behold, I send an ANGEL before thee, to keep thee in the way, and to bring thee into the place which I have prepared. Beware of him, and obey his voice, provoke him not; for he will not pardon your transgressions: for MY NAME IS IN HIM. - Exodus 23:20-21

I noticed that you continually avoid the fact that an "Angel" accepts WORSHIP.
It is apparent that you do not take "the whole council of God", but instead
"pick-and-choose" which portions fit your Watchtower Society paradigm.
All heresies stem from eisegesis... "reading into the text what you want"
based on pre-conceived ideas. This is what those of "Judaism" have been doing since 70 A.D.

:mock:

You speak in opposition to the Testimony of Yeshua and therefore the spirit of your testimony is the spirit of antichrist, (for testimony is spirit). It has already been shown to you from the Testimony of Yeshua that the name of the Messenger is EliYahu, (Yohanan, if you will receive it), and therefore, indeed, the name of the Father is in him, (El and Yah, that is, EliYahu).

John 3:36
36 The one who is faithfully trusting into the Son has life aionion: but the one disbelieving the Son shall not see life; contrariwise, the wrath of Elohim remains-abides upon him.

Additionally you have no clue of the difference between bowing or prostrating as if to a king, (like king David), and true worship and reverence which are reserved only for the Father.