things are different now...for me

[IMJerusha]

I do

Vundabar!

is the issue, and I don't ---not just because its in parenthesis which means editorialization on the part of translators and not in the original but because it fundamentally changes the purpose of the law...clean and unclean...separation...Yah's and not Yah's

That's fine, however, not all do. And to state that that is editorializing on the part of translators seems a bit judgmental on your part.

Peter's vision was symbolic to spreading the message to the those formerly considered unclean...please be careful with applying literal to symbolic...we don't eat Christ, walk through Him like a door, or light our darkened basements with His light.

You're interpreting much like the translators you accuse of editorializing.

many have eaten of His bread and died...not lived forever as He said

Everyone dies and everyone lives forever...whether in heaven or hell is up to Yeshua.

by their fruits we will know them...
their conclusions might have come from not understanding or yes, evil intent...

if Peter understood and accepted the parenthesis in Mark he would not have argued "I haven't eaten unclean" because he could have since before the death and resurrection of Yahusha...

but it was clearly understood

"When they heard this, they had no further objections and praised God, saying, “So then, even to Gentiles God has granted repentance that leads to life.”

see? there's no "and YAY we get to eat fried bacon!!


there is no need for the later implications of the vision which are false...the vision was understood by Peter and others as preaching to the unclean not eating it...


twisting and distorting the law...is changing it...and dietary laws are much bigger than jots or tittles combined...but the essence of understanding clean and unclean is a value known since Noah...

translator's might not have meant to...but it is corrupting the word and the law...and that is indeed evil...

btw pagan is merely meaning "not of Yah"

Did Yeshua twist and distort the Law? He is our sin sacrifice, is He not? And if we return to the sacrifice system, what does that say of Yeshua's sacrifice? Clearly you believe keeping Kashrut is salvific and I will, therefore, not discuss this further with you. You've gone somewhere that I will not go.

 

[IMJerusha]

I'm sorry, did I say it was?

Did you?

you know it can be, for example 1 out of every 10,000 people are allergic to shell fish and can die instantly from anaphylactic shock should they consume it, not eating what is not called food in the Bible would "save" a person from death in that case....but I digress.

Yup, and I've seen folks die from choking on carp bones. Carp is deemed Kosher.

I didn't feel the need to say his whole name here every time we spoke of him.

OK.

Mark Twain once said, and I tend to agree, that the purpose of words is to communicate thoughts to one another. Since it was you whom brought him up by his full name it seemed there would be no miscommunication as to whom we are referring to in the discussion when saying David.

OK.

is there another David in the thread that where you confused?

I'm a bit more cautious and formal when using names of people I claim to know nothing about.

I'm guessing the answer is no, so you did know whom we were talking about, and this is just nitpicking like people do over spelling when they know very well what the other person is trying to convey....I'm not on any basis with him, haven't spoken to him yet, I am speaking to you, I thought.

I'm a bit more cautious and formal when using the names of people I claim to know nothing about especially after having announced no knowledge of them but if you feel this is a petty nitpick on my part, then that's how you feel.

I beleive we are saying the same thing (highlighted), and have been all along, since I too do not agree with him siding with tradition over the older manuscripts..... ?

It was difficult to tell.

that being said, I will reiterate, that the discussion over his choice of method for making a Jewish NT would be better fitting between him and me.

Go for it. lain:

again, never said it was.

And so, the meaning behind "For your own sake?"

don't trust me on it, do your own research, if at the end of that you still want to disparage me (though you probably won't) so be it, I've got broad shoulders, so pile it on. :idea:

Wouldn't dream of it....for my own sake.

I think we are going down a rabbit trail here are are too far removed from the original discussion to even remember what the point is (at least I am). it's all good, all is forgiven, and peace be with you in the name of Y'shua, Amen.

OK, and also with you.

truly sorry if my choice of words offend you, I refer to anything from 2000 years or more ago as ancient, it's nothing personal toward anyone or anything.

You know as well as I do that the term "ancients" is used to refer to P'rushim. "Sages" is another similar term.

I asked for clarity on what your warning was about because I have no idea what is is in reference to, and all I get is you think I already know? how is that Loving me to leave me in the dark on this matter?

I don't think there were any muddy waters from the gitgo but I did clarify for you.

is it even important? :think: if so, let it be known.

In context with Clefty's post and your response, I think it's important or I would not have posted Yeshua's warning.

there is if there is no real good reason for it.

The question of Kashrut for salvation is a very good reason.

 

[jamie]

Everyone dies and everyone lives forever...whether in heaven or hell is up to Yeshua.

The NT says eternal life is a gift from Jesus, it's not something people have innately.

It is not possible to live forever in "hell" which is the English translation of three different Greek words, none of which supports eternal life.

 

[jamie]

Did Yeshua twist and distort the Law? He is our sin sacrifice, is He not? And if we return to the sacrifice system, what does that say of Yeshua's sacrifice?

It says nothing about Jesus' sacrifice. Animal sacrifices were for reconciliation not salvation. No one has ever been "saved" by animal blood.

The animal sacrifices during Christ's millennial reign have nothing to do with salvation.

 

[Angel4Truth]

Animal sacrifices were for reconciliation not salvation. No one has ever been "saved" by animal blood.

.

Leviticus 17:11: "For the soul of the flesh is in the blood and I have assigned it for you upon the altar to provide atonement for your souls; for it is the blood that atones for the soul.

 

[IMJerusha]

The NT says eternal life is a gift from Jesus, it's not something people have innately.

I didn't state eternal life is an innate gift.

It is not possible to live forever in "hell" which is the English translation of three different Greek words, none of which supports eternal life.

:idunno: Revelation 20:10 "And their Seducer, The Devil, was cast into The Lake of Fire and Brimstone where The Beast and The False Prophet are, and they shall be tormented day and night for the eternity of eternities."

Do you not believe in eternal life? Revelation 22:19 “And whoever subtracts from the words of the Scripture of this prophecy, God shall subtract his part from The Tree of Life and from The Holy City, those things which are written in this book.”

 

[IMJerusha]

It says nothing about Jesus' sacrifice. Animal sacrifices were for reconciliation not salvation. No one has ever been "saved" by animal blood.

The animal sacrifices during Christ's millennial reign have nothing to do with salvation.

What exactly do you think salvation is? It is the restoring of a pure relationship with God.

 

[jamie]

Leviticus 17:11: "For the soul of the flesh is in the blood and I have assigned it for you upon the altar to provide atonement for your souls; for it is the blood that atones for the soul.

Atonement refers to reconciliation, not salvation. We are not saved by anyone's death including Jesus' death, much less the death of an animal or bird.

 

[clefty]

That's fine, however, not all do. And to state that that is editorializing on the part of translators seems a bit judgmental on your part.

If Yahusha had actually said that it would not have to be included in parenthesis...is the point...Yahusha did not clearly say that therefore it is in parenthesis...

yes it is judgmental on my part...I judge it according to everything else in scripture and it does not compute...

You're interpreting much like the translators you accuse of editorializing.

am I? The interpretation for Peter's vision is clearly written

Acts 11:18 When they heard this, they had no further objections and praised God, saying, “So then, even to Gentiles God has granted repentance that leads to life.”

no where is it written that it means all meat is clean or kosher is nullified...it was meant unclean Gentiles are to be given the gospel...it is why Peter is known as the apostle to the Gentiles

Everyone dies and everyone lives forever...whether in heaven or hell is up to Yeshua.

don't be so dismissive...I was showing that even Yahusha said "eat of this bread and you will never die" but everybody who ate of it did die the first death...

Did Yeshua twist and distort the Law?

no because He did not say what was in the parenthesis...see how simple that is? If He had said "all food is clean" there would be no need for the part in the parenthesis....

He is our sin sacrifice, is He not? And if we return to the sacrifice system, what does that say of Yeshua's sacrifice?

I think you switched issues here...we were talking about dietary laws not sacrifice system...

but no Passover was not a sin sacrifice...it was an action that saved them from the Angel of death as it recognized those who obeyed, those of the house of Israel.

Obedience spared them...

Clearly you believe keeping Kashrut is salvific and I will, therefore, not discuss this further with you. You've gone somewhere that I will not go.

again...NO law is salvific...but in keeping it (trying to) obedience is a sign of fealty and faithfulness...

its the obedience to the law not the law itself...it dooms us

kashrut is not salvific but it does identify who we are...and actually might be better for us...

and it requires obedience if it is still binding...which is what I thought we were discussing...

I am impressed it is... you however are not moved by Rauch to think so...

 

[jamie]

I didn't state eternal life is an innate gift.

You said, "Everyone dies and everyone lives forever...whether in heaven or hell is up to Yeshua."

To live forever requires eternal life, what do you believe is the source of the ability to live forever?

 

[jamie]

What exactly do you think salvation is? It is the restoring of a pure relationship with God.

One of the fundamental doctrines of Christ is eternal judgment. Salvation means being redeemed from the penalty of eternal death.

 

[jamie]

but no Passover was not a sin sacrifice...it was an action that saved them from the Angel of death as it recognized those who obeyed, those of the house of Israel.

Obedience spared them...

Only the firstborn were ever in jeopardy of death. The same is true today.

 

[clefty]

Only the firstborn were ever in jeopardy of death. The same is true today.

sometimes I understand you


sometimes I don't...

 

[jamie]

sometimes I understand you

sometimes I don't...

I'm always happy to explain. Not all Egyptians died when the death angel passed through, only the firstborn.

For Jacob's people the blood on the door frame caused the angel to keep going.

Today the church of God represents the firstborn of the Father. Jesus' blood of the NT observed annually protects the church from time and chance.

 

[jeremysdemo]

You know as well as I do that the term "ancients" is used to refer to P'rushim. "Sages" is another similar term.

Indeed it is, but not by me, if I want to refer to the P'rushim I will refer to them by name, likewise the Soferim (which can often be mistaken for one another in the NT) or a Hakham who's Sephardic usage it is a synonym for "rabbi". (but that is whole other topic altogether)

clefty was clearly making a reference to a saying of Messiah I am familiar with, at the time these above would have been the ancients or Sages, but now 2000 years later his sayings too are considered ancient, at least by me.

but then what does Ezra say? nothing new under the sun....

so they too can be traced back to a much further time...Son of Man comes to mind...which Messiah used.

The question of Kashrut for salvation is a very good reason.

true, but I fail to see how we are in any disagreement over that. :think:

 

[clefty]

I'm always happy to explain. Not all Egyptians died when the death angel passed through, only the firstborn.

ok - with ya so far

For Jacob's people the blood on the door frame caused the angel to keep going.

ok- yes

Today the church of God represents the firstborn of the Father.

ok what?

Yahusha is still the first born of the father and the first fruit and yes the Passover lamb- which was not the first born but merely male, sheep or goat, unblemished, year old, and held captive since the 10th of the first month of the year.

The church of god is not the first born, but the bride to the first born of Yah.

Jesus' blood of the NT observed annually protects the church from time and chance.

From time and chance? Disobedience will still keep us unprotected by not covering our doors frames in the sacrificed blood- symbolically of course-but the second death after judgement is real and personal not the church-

The angel of death will not pass over unless it sees the blood.

 

[jamie]

The church of god is not the first born, but the bride to the first born of Yah.

That's one thought, but here's another.

To the general assembly and church of the firstborn which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect... (Hebrews 12:23)​

 

[jamie]

That thou shalt set apart unto the LORD all that openeth the matrix, and every firstling that cometh of a beast which thou hast; the males shall be the LORD'S. (Exodus 13:12)​

The word "openeth" and the word "firstling" are the Hebrew word peter. Jesus told his disciples in Matthew 16:18 that they were peter, all of them, not just Simon.

Paul said, "And not only they, but ourselves also which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body." (Romans 8:23)

Many people are not familiar with Israel's holy days which is a real disadvantage to them in understanding the NT which is written from a Jewish perspective by Jews.

Pentecost is the feast of the firstfruits.

Ye shall bring out of your habitations two wave loaves of two tenth deals, they shall be of fine flour, they shall be baken with leaven, they are the firstfruits unto the LORD. (Leviticus 23:17)​

This is one of the Sabbaths that foreshadowed things to come for Christ and his body (the church). Colossians 2:17

Jesus was the wave sheaf, the first of the firstfruits, and the harvest of firstfruits is pictured by Pentecost.

If you want to know God's plan of salvation for mankind become familiar with Leviticus 23. It's laid out in those observances.

If you have questions, just ask.

 

[clefty]

That's one thought, but here's another.

To the general assembly and church of the firstborn which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect... (Hebrews 12:23)​

Church OF the first born which is yahusha - so it's the church of yahusha

Not

Church, the first born or church which is the first born or even the first born church or church of first borns

We are in his family he is our eldest brother the first of our father and he is the first fruit

 

[jamie]

Church OF the first born which is yahusha - so it's the church of yahusha

Not

Church, the first born or church which is the first born or even the first born church or church of first borns

We are in his family he is our eldest brother the first of our father and he is the first fruit

Actually, the word "church" would have been better translated as assembly. Jesus is not an assembly of one.

However, if your mind is made up on the subject, so be it. I'm not here to argue with you. Go ahead and twist scripture to say whatever you want it to say.

:wave: