A Challenge to Our Intelligence.

[josie_L]

**Jesus was part of the Messiah as long as he lived, for being one of the Jewish People. If you believe that the Suffering Servant of Isaiah 53 is the Messiah, mind you that Isaiah
identifies that Servant with Israel by name so that you won’t have to think that he could have been a single individual. Read Isaiah 41:8,9; 44:1,2,21; 45:4. **

List of Jewish messiah claimants:

Cyrus the Great[1] (c. 600 or 576 BCE — August 530 or 529 BCE)

Alexander the Great[2] (July 20, 356 BCE — June 10 or June 11, 323 BCE)

Judas son of Hezekiah (Ezekias) (c. 4 BCE)

Simon son of Joseph (c. 4 BCE) a former slave of Herod the Great who rebelled. The

messiah of Gabriel’s Revelation.

Athronges (c. 4-2? BCE)

**Jesus (c. 30-33 or 36 CE) in the Roman province of Iudaea **

Theudas (44-46)

Menahem ben Judah partook in a revolt against Agrippa II in Judea

Simon bar Kokhba (died c. 135), defeated in the Bar Kokhba revolt

Moses of Crete (5th century)

Isḥaḳ ben Ya’ḳub Obadiah Abu 'Isa al-Isfahani of Ispahan lived in Persia during the reign of

the Umayyad Caliph 'Abd al-Malik ibn Marwan (684-705).

Yudghan, lived and taught in Persia in the early eighth century disciple of Isḥaḳ ben

Ya’ḳub Obadiah Abu 'Isa al-Isfahani of Ispahan

Serene (Sherini, Sheria, Serenus, Zonoria, Saüra) (c. 720)

David Alroy or Alrui (c. 1160)

Abraham Abulafia (b. 1240)

Nissim ben Abraham (c. 1295) active in Avila.

Moses Botarel of Cisneros (c. 1413)

Asher Kay (1502) a German near Venice.

David Reubeni (early sixteenth century).

Solomon Molcho (early sixteenth century).

Sabbatai Zevi (alternative spellings: Shabbetai, Sabbetai, Shabbesai; Zvi, Tzvi) (1626-1676)

Barukhia Russo (Osman Baba), successor of Sabbatai Zevi.

Miguel (Abraham) Cardoso (b. 1630)

Mordecai Mokiakh (“the Rebuker”) of Eisenstadt (active 1678-1683)

Jacob Querido (d. 1690), said to be the reincarnation of Shabbetai Zevi.

Löbele Prossnitz (Joseph ben Jacob), early eighteenth century

Jacob Joseph Frank (1726-1791), founder of the Frankist movement.

Shukr Kuhayl I, 19th-century Yemenite pseudo-messiah

Judah ben Shalom (Shukr Kuhayl II), 19th-century Yemenite pseudo-messiah

Menachem Mendel Schneerson; a 20th century Rabbi and charismatic leader who is
believed to be the Messiah by many of his adherents.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_Messiah_claimants

So are you telling me that the Jews interpreted scriptures wrongly for centuries?

 

[Ben_Masada]

Do you not see the difference between a religion and a name? That the name Christian began at that time in no way means our religion only started at that time.

 

[Ben_Masada]

Perhaps the most difficult part of the Tanach for me to accept (psychologically) was the part about the seed of the serpent being bruised on the head and the seed of the woman being bruised on the heel. When my head was attacked it was with the heel of a female – albeit at the direction of another male. My head was upon the ground – hence the similarity to the prostration of Joshua – and the vision was reinforced multiple times and also later in life in another near-death event. That event – a Motorcycle accident wherein I was pinned beneath a vehicle – was very similar in feeling to a dream I had [about it] the night before. The vision was very brief, the confusion very real, and the fear, trauma, estrangement and curiosity were beginning to bother me. By that time, I still had not read the Bible; I was discouraged from doing so by a parent and what I had heard about the 10 commandments was that you are supposed to respect your parents. I do not consider myself or the Christ to be anti-Semitic. But, the genocides that were promoted in the Tanach and the inferences about the retribution that may occur to the “wicked vinedressers/ tenants” in the New Testament only serve to remind of the principle about the necessity for the keeping of the commandments of God by the Hebrew people unless God turns and does to them as He had thought to do unto others. Also, many of the prophetic works I have carried out after the ones already mentioned have been [specifically] inclusive of victims of other races. That first example of the young Hebrew and the anti-Semite is not necessarily divorced from the others as they are all co-relevant with each other. One of the underlying principles has been the issue of the attack upon the head by a perpetrator, and this, I correlated to mean – not that the victims were the seed of the serpent – but that the head of the body is as the heel of the soul. I guess that’s what I mean by practical theology. I don’t know how to really explain that one much more than I already have. Also, sometimes I am encouraged by the appearance of the visions concurrent with [a forced] prostration, (and trauma); and infer that I may be to Christ what Joshua was to Moses: a successor. Not that I am replacing Christ, but that that is part of how I view the role of the “Comforter” as well.

**Wow! AM, you must have had a real negative experience in your life. In turne to say a word about those genocides reported by the Tanach, it was very common of that time among migrations tribes looking for a place to settle. The actions of the Hebrews have been described by the Tanach, but other people of the same time did even worse. They would kill to the last, even of women children and the wold. As long as any threat was eliminated.

And about the seed of the serpent being bruised on the head, and the seed of the woman being bruised on the heel, that’s a metaphorical allegory. I see the woman as Israel, according to Amos 5:2, and the seed as Judah, according to Isaiah 7:14,15,22;8:8. And by being bruised on the head, that of the other nations, God will eventually bring an end to them. But of Israel, God will only chastise as she deserves. (Jer. 46:28)**

 

[Ben_Masada]

Certainly not an atheist in the sense that he would not believe in God no matter what… a sceptic, more probably. And, like Dostoievski pointed out in The Brothers Karamazov, if Thomas did not want to believe he would not have believed when Jesus appeared. Dostoievski called Thomas (and also Alexei karamazov) a “realist”…

And you don’t find anything worthy learning from the words of Dostoievski? It seems to me that those who believe without verification or knowledge, live in a world of dreams.

 

[Ben_Masada]

Very good, Y. For Yeshua (Jesus) is a short form of the name Yehoshua (Joshua)! but tell me, why did those who went to ask questions to John the Baptist ask him: “Are you the Prophet?” (John 1, 21)“The Prophet”, not “one of the prophets”!! so Israel was not only expecting the Messiah (and the Jews of today still are, which is very good. And so should we all. He who has found must still be seeking again and again…), but also “the Prophet”, whom Moses called “a prophet like me”…

The Jews of today still expecting the Messiah? Very few who are still stuck to the slavish attitude of Egypt. We are no longer expecting a Messiah. We believe in the Isaiah’s views that the Messiah is Israel, the Jewish People. If you believe like every Christian does, that the Suffering Servant of Isaiah 53 is the Messiah, mind you that Isaiah identifies that Servant with Israel by name, so that you don’t have to assume that he could be an individual.(Isa. 41:8.9; 44:1,2,21; 45:4)

 

[Ben_Masada]

By the way, Ben, I believe we should clarify some terms if this discussion carries on. Some of our troubles may be coming from a difference in the way we treat certain words.

Evidence and proof are two different things.

Evidence is simply something that can, at the very least arguably, point toward a certain conclusion. By its nature evidence can sometimes be subjective. One person may think the evidence definitely points toward a certain conclusion, while another may be able to say “But couldn’t this explain it instead?” This is why evidence alone does not prove anything except that a certain conclusion is possible and therefore not irrational. I would say that it can also prove that a certain conclusion is probable, but due to its subjective nature this depends on who is looking at the evidence.

Proof is evidence that has reached such a level so as to irrefutably confirm a certain conclusion. Proof is objective. No one can deny what it means, or else it isn’t proof. Proof leaves no room for “alternate explanations” or else it isn’t proof. Pretty much, if anyone who isn’t something of a “troll” can argue that the evidence may mean something different than what it is originally contended to mean, it is probably only evidence, and not proof.

All proof is evidence, but not all evidence is proof.

The trouble is, on this thread, I feel that you have often given evidence and expected us to treat it as proof. Likewise, when we have given you evidence of our own beliefs, you have insisted “That’s not proof!” when we never intended to say it was proof, only evidence–the evidence, from where we stand, is quite strong for our beliefs, but due to the possibly subjective nature of evidence, as opposed to proof, you may see it differently.

Blessings in Christ,
KindredSoul

Thanks for the good instructions. I did get the message. In fact, it came to confirm my awareness of the difference.

 

[Newbie2]

KindredSoul;5728513:

**There were no Christians before Antioch. And the disciples started being called Christians with Paul. All you need is to use your own NT to show me where were they before Paul. **

If you’re saying that Christians were not called Christians early on, i.e. there were no Christians in name, fine, that’s supported in scripture. But if you’re saying there were no Christians before Paul, please answer:

1. Who was Paul persecuting before his conversion, if not Christians?
2. What religion were the approximately three thousand added to in Acts 2:41?

 

[Ben_Masada]

You were not there, sir! Moreover you forget that Ananias WAS in Damascus and that he laid his hands on Saul in Jesus’ name. It is Jesus Himself who asked him to do so. Ananias was at first reluctant to do so. Only when Jesus told him that He had chosen Saul to preach in His name (not Saul’s, Jesus’!!) did Ananias accept.Not very different from Moses’ hesitations when God told him He was sending him to Egypt…

You must not forget who Luke was: One of Paul’s disciples. What disciple would not confirm the words of his master? Without question; even if they were lies.

 

[djeter]

A Challenge to Our Intelligence

That’s about another puzzle that has been insulting our intelligence for 2000 years: The Roman guards who were asked of Pilate to watch the tomb for three days.(Mat. 27:64)

According to the writer of the gospel of Matthew, the chief priests had to break the Sabbath and, worse than that, a Shabbaton, because it was the first day of Passover, the 14th of Nisan, to go deal with Pilate about surveillance of a dead in the graveyard.

This is an evidence that the guys who wrote the gospels had a very poor knowledge of Jewish culture and customs to picture religious Jewish priests dealing with Pilate on that Sabbath for a group of soldiers to guard the tomb and to prevent anyone from desecrating it.

So, those priests were supposed to take those soldiers to the graveyard, which priests were forbidden to enter, especially on the Sabbath, and do the physical work to seal the tombstone. And all during that Shabbaton.

When that Sabbath was over, which in Israel is at sunset, the same gospel writer sends some women to the tomb with the purpose to anoint Jesus’ body. The man had probably forgotten the guards to prevent the approach of any suspect.

The women had one thought in mind only: Who would remove the tombstone. No one thought about how to fight the soldiers to approach the tomb. Obviously they would know they were there. Evidently, the three days they were supposed to watch the tomb turned out to be one.

When the women got there the place was deserted. Instead of the guards, the author reports about an earthquake, when an angel came down from heaven and removed the stone; but the women could not do their job, because there was no one in the tomb; Jesus was not there. Even the angel had been cheated form being an eyewitness.

Obviously, Jesus had been removed from that tomb even before the guards had been settled at the area to watch.

Then the soldiers that the women had not seen at the tomb, appeared at the house of the priests to say that the tomb was empty and of course, to get a good bribe with the advice to spread around that while they were sleeping, Jesus’ disciples had come by night and stolen the body. That’s the insult to the intelligence even of a moron, let alone to those who have a mind to think.

How could intelligent Jews give such an advice? How could the soldiers know that the tomb robbers had been Jesus’ disciples if they had been sleeping? What about Roman military discipline? The soldiers would all be executed according to Roman military laws. Josephus, who would go down to small details even of family intrigues, never mentioned a word about such a thing.

That’s the puzzle that has been insulting our intelligence for too long. Any suggestions?

Ben

Well Ben, here are some arguments to the contrary…

payingattentiontothesky.com/2009/09/23/the-resurrection/

dj

 

[Ben_Masada]

Here is the link to The Interview.

This link to “The Interview” has nothing to do with the book I read by Joseph Mendson. It must be another book by another author with the same name. The book “The Interview”
I read was about an interview of the Author with the writers of the NT in a hot discussion about the contradictions of the NT. Obviously, the book in your link is not the same.

 

[KindredSoul]

**There were no Christians before Antioch. And the disciples started being called Christians with Paul. All you need is to use your own NT to show me where were they before Paul. **

You just totally ignored the entire point of my post that the “beginning of a religion” and the “first time a religion’s present day name is used” are two different things. Your logic in ignoring that difference would put Judaism in as much trouble as it would put Christianity in, if not more. It’s like you didn’t read a word I wrote. I won’t repeat myself any further; it’s in the other post if you want to read it and actually pay attention to what was being said.

Listen KindredSoul, can you see the difference between faith and hope? The Jewish Faith is based on the hope of the feasible. Things of this life. The Christian Faith is based on faith; I mean, in the hope of what cannot be verified. That’s where we differ, and so does Christian faith from Jewish hope.

For all intents and purposes, Christians define faith in similar terms to “hope of the feasible,” meaning you’re just defining your terms differently and our Faith is indeed based on the same kind of grounds as yours, by that definition. Just because you don’t believe our Faith is feasible, or as it seems maybe don’t believe that hope in the spiritual, miraculous or afterlife is feasible, doesn’t mean it isn’t. That’s the whole crux of this debate–you imagine that if you don’t find something feasible (which means probable and can be a synonym for possible), it must be impossible for any rational person to find it feasible unless he’s just being stubborn. It seems to denote an inability, or unwillingness, to think beyond yourself, intellectually speaking, and it may even denote the attitude that your mind is the sole and perfect example of intelligence and rationality, so that anyone who sees things differently must be unintelligent or irrational; suffice to say, the latter would be quite arrogant and, ironically, opinionated rather than based in provable fact.

**Do I say Islam is wrong? No. Do I need to fight Islam? Neither. But because they don’t use Jews to distort the image of Judaism. **

We disagree on what does and doesn’t distort the image of Judaism. I’m sorry, you have not proven that anyone who disagrees with you on this matter is irrational and not intelligently entitled to have a different conclusion than you. You have stated that we are irrational, and you have shown what you consider to be evidence for it–on which we disagree after having reviewed that same evidence (note again the subjective nature of evidence as different from proof)–but you have never shown irrefutable, objective proof. If you had, this discussion would have been over and you would have convinced us. It is as simple as that.

See what I mean? Your statement above that, “Christianity is fulfilled Judaism” is Replacement Theology, which some Schollars classify as a kind of Antisemitism.

If I were to say that it was somehow racist (let’s call it anti-Gentilism) for Jews, by converse, to believe they are the sole people to whom God’s word was given fully, I would rightly be accused of spouting craziness for suggesting that Jews, just by being true to their religion, are racist against Gentiles. The reverse accusation against Christians is just as ridiculous, especially since Christians are not a race and can easily (and in many instances does) include Jewish people. If Jews aren’t to be accused of racism for their nation-centric religious views, it makes even less sense for Christians to be accused of antisemitism (a type of racism) for our not-at-all race specific views which would accept every race, including every last Jewish person, with equal joy.

Then, you say that I have proved nothing for disagreeing. Christianity cannot be fulfilled Judaism because, otherwise, Judaism would become obsolete. If you read Matthew 5:18,19, Jesus declares to have come to confirm Judaism down to the letter, and to warn us all to keep on observing it as such.

I won’t repeat my argument on that matter: We’ve already discussed that, several pages ago, and you haven’t convinced me that my earlier explanation was wrong. I haven’t convinced you that it was right either. Which one of us gets to say “That’s just because you’re being either irrational or stubborn, or else you would admit that I’m right” when we both have given arguments that we think are sound but the other side disagrees with? Do you not see the problem of making the “you only still disagree because you’re being irrational/stubborn” accusation? It’s a mightily subjective accusation that either side could just as easily make.

Thanks for the good instructions. I did get the message. In fact, it came to confirm my awareness of the difference.

Well, if you have already known the difference between evidence and proof, you will realize, and should have realized a long time ago, that you may have given evidence–and due to the potentially subjective nature of evidence, we see it differently than you–but you have not given proof. As I said above (unless you really are attacking us and plan to break out the ad hominem, unprovable accusation of “irrational” or “stubborn”) if you had proof, we would all see it and we would simply agree with you, whether gladly or grudgingly. And as you are not showing proof, you will not accomplish what you hope to (for Christians to stop believing what we believe) and threads like this because mere pointless “he said she said” matches.

Blessings in Christ,
KindredSoul

 

[Lapell]

I think, KindredSoul, that our friend is more interested in talking than in listening, in looking like he wins an argument than in accepting what his demonstration or non-demonstration of his argument would lead us all to.Always dismissing an embarrassing argument, not really demonstrating it like a true logician would do and dismissing any of our conclusions with his magic phrases without truly demonstrating them to the end.
I doubt he’d really be a Jew. A real Jew would not be afraid to go to the end of his demonstration of what he affirms, he would not just repeat his affirmations over and over without showing us how they are true, if they are… He must not be a real Jew then…

 

[Angelo_Michael]

**Wow! AM, you must have had a real negative experience in your life. In turne to say a word about those genocides reported by the Tanach, it was very common of that time among migrations tribes looking for a place to settle. The actions of the Hebrews have been described by the Tanach, but other people of the same time did even worse. They would kill to the last, even of women children and the wold. As long as any threat was eliminated.

And about the seed of the serpent being bruised on the head, and the seed of the woman being bruised on the heel, that’s a metaphorical allegory. I see the woman as Israel, according to Amos 5:2, and the seed as Judah, according to Isaiah 7:14,15,22;8:8. And by being bruised on the head, that of the other nations, God will eventually bring an end to them. But of Israel, God will only chastise as she deserves. (Jer. 46:28)**

I guess that is my point: even though the situations were traumatizing and painful I would still consider them “positive” experiences because my faith was strengthened at those times as well.

I think it is a credit to the Tanach – (not that God needs my approval) – that it depicts both the sins and righteousness of the Hebrews; and that genocide is given a causative stimulus, (trespass against God), and that the Hebrews are not immune to to the effects of sin themselves. I also remember what was said concerning the sins of Manasseh, the ancestor of Joseph, the descendant of David. How it was that his sins surpassed those of the peoples that God had driven out before the Israelites. Yet, the promises made unto David prevailed and Judah was merely taken captive rather than destroyed; either out of the mercy of God, the credit due David; or some other, or any mix of, reasons.

Also, I do not intend to justify or authorize the Nazi persecution of the Jews in our recent history/times. I myself have German heritage and I remember what is said by Christ, that a persons enemies are those of their own household. An extended association (c/w)ould correlate the members of one’s own race [and/or religion] as their [potential] enemies. Also I consider the words/ concepts, “The Lamb slain from the foundation of the world (Rev. 13:8),” and “Who is on the LORD’s side? let him come unto me. (Exodus 32:26).”

Generally, I consider anyone “like unto Abel [and/or Christ]” – which would include the many Jews persecuted by the Nazi’s – on the same side of the Lord’s battle as I.

 

[Angelo_Michael]

Moreover, Ben, I wonder how you justify your requirement for understanding and knowledge considering the work of Abraham pertaining to his offering of Isaac? I generally presume that Abraham did not know that God was going to intervene upon the sacrifice and that it was essentially a test of his faith. Not that Abraham is without understanding, but that God would not have disclosed this information to him in order to verify his faith. And so, if Abraham must have worked without full knowledge in order to obtain the blessings Hebrews inherit; then why would/do you make a prerequisite of [full] knowledge for faith? Also, am I misunderstanding your concepts or assertions?

 

[Newbie2]

So, what are you saying, Ben? Re: post #246

 

[Ben_Masada]

You just totally ignored the entire point of my post that the “beginning of a religion” and the “first time a religion’s present day name is used” are two different things. Your logic in ignoring that difference would put Judaism in as much trouble as it would put Christianity in, if not more.

 

[Ben_Masada]

Moreover, Ben, I wonder how you justify your requirement for understanding and knowledge considering the work of Abraham pertaining to his offering of Isaac? I generally presume that Abraham did not know that God was going to intervene upon the sacrifice and that it was essentially a test of his faith. Not that Abraham is without understanding, but that God would not have disclosed this information to him in order to verify his faith. And so, if Abraham must have worked without full knowledge in order to obtain the blessings Hebrews inherit; then why would/do you make a prerequisite of [full] knowledge for faith? Also, am I misunderstanding your concepts or assertions?

**When Abraham arrived in Canaan and settled himself in Beersheva, he would observe how the Canaanites would demonstrate their love for their gods by offering their firstborn in burning sacrifice. That extreme love and loyalty would impress him. Morever, he probably would wonder how he could demonstrate his love for the Monotheistic Creator of the Universe. Then, perhaps, taken over by these thoughts, he might have slumbered and had a vision, when he would go through the motions of taking Isaac and heading towards the Mountain to demonstrate his love for God by sacrificing Isaac in a burning holocaust. Conveniently, the sheep was there in a bush to be the substitution for his firstborn Isaac. That was God’s way through that vision, to show to Abraham that the Israelites, his descendants, it would be different from the Pagans. The firstborn would be doomed but redeemed.

Well, Angelo Michael, my point is that the binding of Isaac happened during a vision and not in reality.**

 

[Angelo_Michael]

**When Abraham arrived in Canaan and settled himself in Beersheva, he would observe how the Canaanites would demonstrate their love for their gods by offering their firstborn in burning sacrifice. That extreme love and loyalty would impress him. Morever, he probably would wonder how he could demonstrate his love for the Monotheistic Creator of the Universe. Then, perhaps, taken over by these thoughts, he might have slumbered and had a vision, when he would go through the motions of taking Isaac and heading towards the Mountain to demonstrate his love for God by sacrificing Isaac in a burning holocaust. Conveniently, the sheep was there in a bush to be the substitution for his firstborn Isaac. That was God’s way through that vision, to show to Abraham that the Israelites, his descendants, it would be different from the Pagans. The firstborn would be doomed but redeemed.

Well, Angelo Michael, my point is that the binding of Isaac happened during a vision and not in reality.**

**From my understanding and perspective you are inherently contradicting yourself in that you are introducing your own notions as to the account of Abraham’s acts (which are originally related by Moses) while previously declaring, “I see what is written as proof, until you show me another axiom that contradicts it.” **

Consider Genesis 22:
1: And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham, and said unto him, Abraham: and he said, Behold, here I am.
2: And he said, Take now thy son, thine only son Isaac, whom thou lovest, and get thee into the land of Moriah; and offer him there for a burnt offering upon one of the mountains which I will tell thee of.
3: And Abraham rose up early in the morning, and saddled his ***, and took two of his young men with him, and Isaac his son, and clave the wood for the burnt offering, and rose up, and went unto the place of which God had told him.
4: Then on the third day Abraham lifted up his eyes, and saw the place afar off.
5: And Abraham said unto his young men, Abide ye here with the ***; and I and the lad will go yonder and worship, and come again to you,
6: And Abraham took the wood of the burnt offering, and laid it upon Isaac his son; and he took the fire in his hand, and a knife; and they went both of them together.
7: And Isaac spake unto Abraham his father, and said, My father: and he said, Here am I, my son. And he said, Behold the fire and the wood: but where is the lamb for a burnt offering?
8: And Abraham said, My son, God will provide himself a lamb for a burnt offering: so they went both of them together.
9: And they came to the place which God had told him of; and Abraham built an altar there, and laid the wood in order, and bound Isaac his son, and laid him on the altar upon the wood.
10: And Abraham stretched forth his hand, and took the knife to slay his son.
11: And the angel of the LORD called unto him out of heaven, and said, Abraham, Abraham: and he said, Here am I.
12: And he said, Lay not thine hand upon the lad, neither do thou any thing unto him: for now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son from me.
13: And Abraham lifted up his eyes, and looked, and behold behind him a ram caught in a thicket by his horns: and Abraham went and took the ram, and offered him up for a burnt offering in the stead of his son.
14: And Abraham called the name of that place Jehovah-jireh: as it is said to this day, In the mount of the LORD it shall be seen.
15: And the angel of the LORD called unto Abraham out of heaven the second time,
16: And said, By myself have I sworn, saith the LORD, for because thou hast done this thing, and hast not withheld thy son, thine only son:
17: That in blessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying I will multiply thy seed as the stars of the heaven, and as the sand which is upon the sea shore; and thy seed shall possess the gate of his enemies;
18: And in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed; because thou hast obeyed my voice.

**Furthermore, it has not been my intention to discredit [this] Scripture; in fact, most/some of the work that I have been granted inherently testifies of it’s merit. For instance, in the revelation concerning the Tsunami and hurricanes of New Orleans, two precursors to the event were authorized; and each was separate, and the relationship between the two was similar to that of Saul and David. The older precursor/portent to the validity of my statements (for the information revealed was critical and eccentric and witness was necessary for the accuracy of, and/or my ability or authority to relate, such info) was a man who’s death was also tied into his sin; and [the prophecy of] his death was both intended as the rod of correction, and an intercession for his sin. Again, the younger portent’s disappearance and/or death was intended to parallel, not only with the persecution of Job, but with Abraham’s offering of Isaac (in that the offering is presented from Abraham’s sons and that I also, on behalf of God, tried to warn others about his situation; i.e. a suicidal tendency inspired by an anti-Christ resentment of his [race,] faith and works), the life and princely shepherd rule of David ([at least] in that among the victims who would be killed and resurrected he would/will be as a prince), and the eventuality of Enoch (for, as it were, “God took him”). **

 

[Ben_Masada]

Ben Masada;5732089:

If you’re saying that Christians were not called

Christians early on, i.e. there were no Christians in name, fine, that’s supported in scripture. But if you’re saying there were no Christians before Paul, please answer:

1. Who was Paul persecuting before his conversion, if not Christians?
2. What religion were the approximately three thousand added to in Acts 2:41?

**1) Paul was persecuting Jesus’ disciples who belonged to the Sect of the Nazarenes. Read Acts 9:1-3. When Paul took letters from the High Priest in Jerusalem to arrest those who followed the New Way, he went to the synaguoges of Damascus. Christians did not gather in synagogues. The Nazarenes did. So much so that when he tried to join the Sect of the Nazarenes, the Apostles did not believe in him and were afraid of him because of his persecutions. Paul never in his life persecuted a single Christian. Logic dictates that one does not found a religion to persecute the adepts. (Acts 11:26)

1. First of all, Peter was not a Christian but a Jewish member of the Sect of the Nazarenes. Hundreds from among the Gentiles did convert through his work, since he was the real Apostle to the Gentiles, (Acts 16"5) but they would become Nazarene Jews, staunch deffenders of the Law. (Acts 21:20) And second, that speech in Acts 2 was never delivered by Peter. Read Acts 2:14. A Jew, as Peter was, would never introduce himself to an assembly of Jews by saying, “You who are Jews here in Jerusalem, listen to me…” That’s a Gentile, probably Luke himself, who wrote that speech. And it was never delivered; not in Jerusalem, at least. **

 

[Ben_Masada]

From my understanding and perspective you are inherently contradicting yourself in that you are introducing your own notions as to the account of Abraham’s acts (which are originally related by Moses) while previously declaring, “I see what is written as proof, until you show me another axiom that contradicts it.”

There is no doubt that I see what is written as proof of the Truth, but the Truth is not always in the letter of the writing. Visions are granted based on metaphorical language and allegories. One errs for being too literal in the Scriptures. Therefore, you are mistaken to think that I am contradicting myself. I can see the Truth beyond the letter.