Resurrection? Why?

[M0nkey]

the “one” being able to speak on His behalf is the Word of God… I don’t have to speak on behalf of God… only I am trying to point out that the NT is not based on the Tanakh and that Christianity’s beliefs are based on something else altogether.

Then how do you explain the fact that the early community of the Church was from the Jew? Was St. Paul a Gentile? St. Peter? St. Martha? St. Mathias? Have you spent any time reading the history of the early Church? There are unavoidable historical facts surrounding Christianity, which is more than you can say about your man made religion.

 

[ryanoneil]

Job, being the metaphorical archetype for Israel, doesn’t need a Messiah. Job 40:1,14 is enough to know this.

I don’t know what you are trying to say. Why would God give Israel kings, he made covenants with, and the prophet’s speak of a coming Messiah if one wasn’t needed?

As far as a Saviour, there is only ONE for this blessed People and that is God… and HE is the Saviour of Israel and there is no other. Isaiah 45:16-25.

Correct!

Not to be disrespectful, but rather honest… Jesus could have used a saviour his ownself, no? Else, where is he?

He is the savior. Seated at the right hand of the Father in heaven.

Have you ever read I Kings 18… along with the charge given in Malachi 4? The call to sacrifice. One has to wonder why 2,000 years is not long enough for the understanding to start sinking into the minds of mankind as to Who the Saviour really is. That would be God and not the Son… the Son is Israel according to the Tanakh Exodus 4:22,23 and Hosea 11:1. The Son was waiting on His God, the Saviour of Israel.

I’ve already agreed Israel is identified as the son of God, and I understand you do not reconize Jesus the way I do.

Will you answer yes or no, please?

Does God identify an individual as His son in 2 Samuel 7:14?

When man dies, there is no returning. This is the gracious judgment of God given in Genesis 3. Men would go insane if they were left in the void of timeless eternity (and in fact, many brilliant minds, physicists, have done just so committing suicide realizing that infinity is a reality that is not ours to understand). Life would not be near as sweet or meaningful. Jesus was not at all exempt from the Natural Law that was established by our Creator from the foundation of the world.

Why would you consider it a void of timeless eternity when God is there?

Life as we know it will be changed at the end of time. Mankind (and the race of Israel) will not exist end as we know it (for eternity). Suns and planets die (and eventually the entire universe must experience this). Some day the Natural Law will cease but it will not be in spite of the Lord. When this happens is when we will be resurrected. We will become a new creation outside of time. We may not understand it, but infinity is a reality that exists. God swore an “eternal covenant” with David.

That Servant is named in Isaiah 49:3. Isaiah 45:19… there is nothing hidden that will not be revealed… just takes time and knowledge coupled with understanding to see.

Just as the Son of David is distinguished as God’s son, so is the Servant distinguished from Israel in Isaiah 49:5- 6.

And… how has that worked out for you … dying to yourself, that is? I find it impossible personally. It does not at all speak to Life and rather it speaks to death… the guilt that was experienced by the slavish mentality of the children. Evolve in the Light of God’s Truth… don’t trespass another’s right to Life, respecting them… and live as a man rather than an animal and you are good to learn and grow!! THIS IS the heart of God. Remember… God is the creator of Life and life, here, His creation is where it is we are in His presence. What would we benefit to merely exist for death when we are capable of living in Life??

Dying to myself is not easy. I believe it will be a life long experience. It may seem impossible but it is not. Other wise Moses would have never said "Hear, O Israel! The LORD is our God, the LORD alone! Therefore, you shall love the LORD, your God, with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your strength." These are words of life which necessarily require us to die to ourselves. That is what really living life is and it is why we were created.

That is why Jesus said “Amen, amen, I say to you, unless a grain of wheat falls to the ground and dies, it remains just a grain of wheat; but if it dies, it produces much fruit.” (John 12:24)

We don’t exist for death. That is why there is an afterlife.

Really, I do see you have the capability of opening your eyes. I can’t and won’t do it for you though. I do enjoy our discussions but you come here with too much of what you are told rather than what is true to Life… what we are witnessing even today… the Truth of God’s Word being displayed before us. Jesus said, we speak that we DO know, and testify that we have seen… and still, you receive not our witness.

Why not?

I do believe. Jesus goes on to say:

If I tell you about earthly things and you do not believe, how will you believe if I tell you about heavenly things? No one has gone up to heaven except the one who has come down from heaven, the Son of Man. (John 3:12-13)

(Luke 22:19-20) This is the fulfillment of: (Jer 31:31-34

Prove it… what is said in the last verse of Isaiah 52 for the purposes of Isaiah 53:11 is more of a testament to what has and is happening and it is spoken of in Jeremiah 31:27 as well. That is the bloodline, or rather the seed, spread to the nations… and yet, because it is not mystical, it is rejected? I find it to be absolutely brilliant in the Light of the Truth… more so than I did under the waiting for Jesus. Jesus, a man, I prayed asking for his truth… then I threw it out to seek the Truth only to find the Voice of God really is as it is testified Deut 4:12. I would rather serve God, the Creator of Life, while I have life than be under the illusion that I could exist as a god with eternal life. Admittedly… that’s just me though. I am perfect as I AM. God created me and I see what He creates is indeed good… why don’t Christians do the same… that it (including me) has to be perfected according to their imaginations to be called good?

Speaking of Isa 53:10-11… how has that worked out for Israel … dying to themselves (life as an offering for sin), that is? Does that speak to Life or to death?

If you really think that (most) Christians believe we will exist as Gods you are mistaken. Is that what Independant Baptist believe?

Peace

 

[Vico]

simplynoone, you wrote:

Again, not to AT ALL sound rude, but of course you are not debating me. The Word of God trumps the word of hellenistic ideas. One is able to speak on His behalf and the other has to resort to a magician’s trick.

and

the “one” being able to speak on His behalf is the Word of God… I don’t have to speak on behalf of God… only I am trying to point out that the NT is not based on the Tanakh and that Christianity’s beliefs are based on something else altogether

Good, I understand then that you are not trying to speak for God. As to the basis of Christianity, one must define Christianity.

Certainly Christianity was established by Christ through Peter, and as such came to commit the Nicene Constantinopolitan Creed (381 AD) in writing. And, reviewing history, we have had several schisms from the Catholic Church over time, with the earliest ones being the Assyrian Church of the East, and the Oriental Orthodox. And much later the Radical Reformation, represented by the Anabaptists and Baptists, rejecting the Creed and the authority of the Church. Not accepting the Creed leads to a very different definition of Christianity than that of those accepting it.

To tie this back into resurrection, so as not to diverge from the topic, resurrection is included in the Nicene Constantinopolitan Creed:

“… he was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate, and suffered, and was buried, and the third day he rose again, according to the Scriptures, and ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of the Father; …”

 

[StillWondering]

On a Journey Home episode, didn’t the guess, St. Paul (payed by Kevin O’Brian) said that without the Resurrection of Christ we have nothing? I thought it meant to show the Jesus is the Messiah prophesied in the Old Testament.

 

[Vico]

StillWondering, that is an interesting statement that without the resurrection we have nothing, because the scriptures would not have been fulfilled, as mentioned in Luke.

Luke 24:44-46

44 And he said to them: These are the words which I spoke to you, while I was yet with you, that all things must needs be fulfilled, which are written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me. 45 Then he opened their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures.

46 And he said to them: Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise again from the dead, the third day:

Interestingly, the Saducees did not believe in resurrection (Matt 22:23)

23 That day there came to him the Sadducees, who say there is no resurrection;

but resurrection is accepted in Isaiah 26:19:

19 Thy dead men shall live, my slain shall rise again: awake, and give praise, ye that dwell in the dust: for thy dew is the dew of the light: and the land of the giants thou shalt pull down into ruin.

and in Job 19:25-26:

25 For I know that my Redeemer liveth, and in the last day I shall rise out of the earth.
26 And I shall be clothed again with my skin, and in my flesh I will see my God.

and Daniel 12:2:

2 And many of those that sleep in the dust of the earth, shall awake: some unto life everlasting, and others unto reproach, to see it always.

 

[simplynoone]

I believe the book does not speak for you, but it’s your own interpretation that speaks for God’s true word. Tell me, you have still not rendered what occurred to the promises made to David, unless according your authority of interpretation God lied to David and to Abraham. There has to be a tangible and concrete answer, otherwise you’ll be lost in occult ideas that are misleading and self perpetuated.

Okay, well, I’ll agree with the latter half of your first sentence I guess… though that is based on the Word as well as applying what is inherently given to me by God… that’d be my mind.

I am unsure why you are not satisfied in regards to David. As for Abraham, just line it up Gen 17 with Psalm 78:5… if you read on, you will see that it was from the line of Judah, that’d be also the seed of David that God chose. Are they not part of the Abraham’s seed?

What is more practical, to say the children are the promise kept to Abraham and further, the promise to David or to say that a man who is not around is the promise? The latter is the more mystical and the less logical given that if he is not here, then his reign was indeed not everlasting.

 

[simplynoone]

Then how do you explain the fact that the early community of the Church was from the Jew? Was St. Paul a Gentile? St. Peter? St. Martha? St. Mathias? Have you spent any time reading the history of the early Church? There are unavoidable historical facts surrounding Christianity, which is more than you can say about your man made religion.

I grew up being soaked in the history of the early church according to Christianity. It was not until I researched Judaism from the time right after the return from babylonian captivity and throughout the first century that I realized Christianity was merely the part of those with political agendas trying to hellenize the Light that is Judaism for the purposes of being able to maintain control.

The truth does indeed set one free… thus the need for the hellenization of the Jewish.

Paul, I suspect, was not a Jew but rather converted. I will accept that maybe perhaps his parents were converted… but regardless he obviously did not have any understanding of the Tanakh given the passages he pulled out to support his new found religion lacked a thorough understanding of what surrounded those passages.

If we look at the Rabbis after the return of the babylonian captivity as well as those throughout the first part of the first century, it is easy to see how Paul and his fellow pushers of Christianity distorted the Truth for their own gain. They have taken many of the Rabbis in Judaism and mutilated what it is they were teaching… and they dimmed the light that men such as Judah, son of the priest Mattathias, and his brothers fought so hard to keep lit. They fought against the hellenistic alters and the hellenistic priests that the Jewish converts in the political arena were hell bent on bringing into the temples.

I think there is far more evidence for what I am saying both historically and in your own NT than you are going to be willing to admit. You can say I am teaching a manmade religion and although yes, my allegience is to Judaism, there is hardly anyway you can accuse me of making up my own since I am not pushing a religion onto anyone and rather trying to bring Truth to this bag of lies that is Christianity.

Why not bring me some of these historical facts you are claiming that support Jesus indeed walked the earth as a demigod, was crucified, and rose after 3 days and 3 nights in the tomb and is, even now, alive. I would be interested in seeing this. In fact, even the NT gospels were written well after the events of Jesus’ life and they are so riddled with inconsistencies that it is hard to believe that anyone could buy into such fairytales; especially today in the year 2009. Ezekiel 18 directly refutes this mythological view of Jesus that is being taught to even the most innocent of us all, the children.

 

[simplynoone]

ryanoneil;551818 I don't know what you are trying to say. Why would God give Israel kings:

Israel didn’t need kings… it is what they asked for in not understanding the role they were meant to be.

Let’s go back to Abraham. In Gen 18:17-19 … this is the reason why Abraham was chosen…because God knew Abraham would command his children and his household after him to keep the Way of the Lord, to do justice and judgment. And you will understand the point of the Tanakh by verse 17… and this was the vision to Abraham of the Word of the LORD as spoken in Genesis 15:1.

The Kings were asked for before it was understood the role of the People by the People themselves.

He is the savior. Seated at the right hand of the Father in heaven.

Jesus is not the Saviour of anyone. He was trying to teach the People of their role… nothing more. Other Rabbis were doing this same thing at this same time. That he was made a demigod was the agenda against the Judaism and the Light the Jewish were trying to bring forth to the world.

Does God identify an individual as His son in 2 Samuel 7:14?

It is speaking of the seed of David (read the context). This is done more than once in the Tanakh… that a People are spoken of as an indivdual. AGAIN… Exodus 4:22,23 just for one example of such.

Why would you consider it a void of timeless eternity when God is there?

I said it is a void to us. In other words, it is the mystery that as long as we are to exist, will in its entirety remain a mystery… only in this creation are able to gain knowledge of God. This is the darkness that Amos says is the day of the Lord… he is wondering why it is being sought for when it is darkness for us and not light… to what end is it to us to attain the infinite?

Life as we know it will be changed at the end of time. Mankind (and the race of Israel) will not exist end as we know it (for eternity). Suns and planets die (and eventually the entire universe must experience this). Some day the Natural Law will cease but it will not be in spite of the Lord. When this happens is when we will be resurrected. We will become a new creation outside of time. We may not understand it, but infinity is a reality that exists. God swore an “eternal covenant” with David.

Jeremiah 33:21,22 … if the natural laws ever cease to exist, so does the covenant with the seed of David. Only God is eternal.

Just as the Son of David is distinguished as God’s son, so is the Servant distinguished from Israel in Isaiah 49:5- 6.

There is the remnant (preserved) of Israel, the People and then there are those of the People that would/will remain in Diaspora.

Dying to myself is not easy. I believe it will be a life long experience. It may seem impossible but it is not. Other wise Moses would have never said “Hear, O Israel! The LORD is our God, the LORD alone! Therefore, you shall love the LORD, your God, with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your strength.” These are words of life which necessarily require us to die to ourselves. That is what really living life is and it is why we were created.

Also attributed to Moses are the words in Deut 30:11-20. That is the difference between Judaism and Christianity. The Jews choose life… Christians seek death.

That is why Jesus said “Amen, amen, I say to you, unless a grain of wheat falls to the ground and dies, it remains just a grain of wheat; but if it dies, it produces much fruit.” (John 12:24)
We don’t exist for death. That is why there is an afterlife.

Ecc 9:10 as well as many other passages in there say otherwise. There is no life in death. After life is death. That is why “we speak that we do know…” Given that the only experience you have besides life isn’t really an experience (unless you remember before you were born… which, do you?), it is not what you know that you are testifying to… only ever what you have been told.

I do believe. Jesus goes on to say:
If I tell you about earthly things and you do not believe, how will you believe if I tell you about heavenly things? No one has gone up to heaven except the one who has come down from heaven, the Son of Man. (John 3:12-13)

Exactly… and it is true… if I say to you that the resurrection is Israel and you can see this and yet deny it as being the resurrection spoken of in the Tanakh, then you are not going to believe me when I say the People are being perfected and the soul will be restored in the land… that would be the temple.

It is not heavenly things that Christians believe, but rather mystical tales woven in the imagination of man and spoken out of their mouth. There is NOTHING that can testify to any of these beleifs being held to and worse, being forced on the rest of us, as being truth.

If you really think that (most) Christians believe we will exist as Gods you are mistaken. Is that what Independant Baptist believe?

Go back to Genesis 3… what is it the serpent tells Eve? Now, tell me… if God is Eternal Life and this is the end to which most Christians seek, the truth of this matter is, they are seeking to be God-like (that’s actually putting it rather mildly).

 

[simplynoone]

Certainly Christianity was established by Christ through Peter, and as such came to commit the Nicene Constantinopolitan Creed (381 AD) in writing. "

No it was not… it was established by Paul. Peter did not even agree with Paul and this is evidenced in your NT. Must I show you this? That would be rather embarrassing that I know the NT better than a Christian though, wouldn’t it? I’ll give you a hint… try Galatians… clearly Paul tries to destroy any credibility of Peter, thus at least making him consistent in his command to the Christians to “shut the mouths of the Jews.”

 

[simplynoone]

On a Journey Home episode, didn’t the guess, St. Paul (payed by Kevin O’Brian) said that without the Resurrection of Christ we have nothing? I thought it meant to show the Jesus is the Messiah prophesied in the Old Testament.

Paul does say in the NT that if Jesus is not resurrected, then his (Paul’s) gospel is in vain. I think this is true… that it is in vain. 2.000 years … makes me think of I Kings 18… anyone else?

What it could not show though, is that Jesus is the Messiah prophesied in the Tanakh… else, I’d like to see it. As far as resurrection goes, that is for Israel as clearly shown in Hosea 6:2. That is an “us”… not “him.” Just look to the Land to see that one in the Light of all its glory… the Word of the LORD speaks truth, not mysticism.

 

[Vico]

No it was not… it was established by Paul. Peter did not even agree with Paul and this is evidenced in your NT. Must I show you this? That would be rather embarrassing that I know the NT better than a Christian though, wouldn’t it? I’ll give you a hint… try Galatians… clearly Paul tries to destroy any credibility of Peter, thus at least making him consistent in his command to the Christians to “shut the mouths of the Jews.”

Peter and Paul did have different opinions. Peter wanted to limit baptism to Jews and Paul wanted to allow Gentiles. In the end all were allowed. However, that is beside the point, what I am referring to the establishment of the Church by Christ in Matthew 16:18:

18 And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

 

[StillWondering]

Paul, I suspect, was not a Jew but rather converted. I will accept that maybe perhaps his parents were converted… but regardless he obviously did not have any understanding of the Tanakh given the passages he pulled out to support his new found religion lacked a thorough understanding of what surrounded those passages.

This ignores Philippians 3:5-6. In speaking about himself, St. Paul stated: " Circumcised on the eighth day, of the race of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrew parentage, in observance of the law a Pharisee, in zeal I persecuted the church, in righteousness based on the law I was blameless."

This clearly shows St. Paul is a Jew, and a Jew among Jew indeed. He fully observed the Mosaic Law since his birth, during his persecution of the Jews, and up to his conversion. In this passages leading up to this passage, he is speaking about false claims and false works. In the passage immediately following Phil 3:5-6, he explains and exclaims how he came to believe and what he is doing now (being an Apostle and spreading the Gospel) are true and to know this “Christ Jesus” in order to share in his suffering, conforming to his death, and possibly his resurrection.

 

[StillWondering]

Peter and Paul did have different opinions. Peter wanted to limit baptism to Jews and Paul wanted to allow Gentiles. In the end all were allowed. However, that is beside the point, what I am referring to the establishment of the Church by Christ in Matthew 16:18:

18 And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

From what I read, I wanted to clarify that neither had trouble baptizing the gentiles (well Peter needed explaining from God directly – silly Peter being childish like the rest of humanity) . Read Acts chapters 10 and 11, with Peter’s final remark at 11:17 on this subject. As for Paul, he is the “Apostle to the Gentiles” after all, you can find his acceptance of gentiles all over his letters and the acts, in fact it was in Antioch where he first preached the Good Word that people were called Christians.

 

[StillWondering]

No it was not… it was established by Paul. Peter did not even agree with Paul and this is evidenced in your NT. Must I show you this? That would be rather embarrassing that I know the NT better than a Christian though, wouldn’t it? I’ll give you a hint… try Galatians… clearly Paul tries to destroy any credibility of Peter, thus at least making him consistent in his command to the Christians to “shut the mouths of the Jews.”

This is a biased based comment because if you actually read Paul’s account he mentions many times how he is one of many trying to reach out to the world and preach about Christ. He also came to Jerusalem to get proper approval from Peter and John among the community of elders that what he is teaching is correct (Acts 15: 7-11 speaks about Peter making the final call on the meet at Jerusalem).

If those that claim that Jesus is not who he and all his Apostles claim to me, open your thoughts and read through their letters and anthologies found in the NT. You cannot read with the assumption that this is not true. Read with the assumption that “while I think it is not true I will hold off judgment until I read because I am reading to assess the possibility that it may be true.”

 

[StillWondering]

**Isaiah 44:6-26 So… please read this passage before answering your reply … **

**Besides just words (which if they were able to be PROOF in and of itself, could be used as proof that a rabbit is rushing around with a pocket watch saying “the time is late for a very important date”) where is your proof?; because the King of Israel, the LORD, is proving HIS words … and I can show it by pointing you to Israel and the People being raised to the Land even now. His work is good, don’t you agree? **
I am not **trying to mock, but at the same time, why doesn’t your god speak on his own behalf like the God of Israel is doing right now… in THESE times? **

I have read over Isaish 44: 6-26 and I’m not sure why you bring this up, it does not invalidate or even imply anything bad about Catholicism. Just to be clear that we are on the same page, we believe in one God. He is the God of Abraham, the God of Issac, the God of Jacob. We do not believe in Idols either because that would be a big big sin for us since we follow the ten commandments.

 

[Vico]

StillWondering, you wrote:

"I have read over Isaish 44: 6-26 and I’m not sure why you bring this up, it does not invalidate or even imply anything bad about Catholicism. Just to be clear that we are on the same page, we believe in one God. He is the God of Abraham, the God of Issac, the God of Jacob. We do not believe in Idols either because that would be a big big sin for us since we follow the ten commandments. "

I suppose simplynoone will reply to your question, it seems that she does not believe in the Holy Trinity.

 

[StillWondering]

StillWondering, you wrote:

"I have read over Isaish 44: 6-26 and I’m not sure why you bring this up, it does not invalidate or even imply anything bad about Catholicism. Just to be clear that we are on the same page, we believe in one God. He is the God of Abraham, the God of Issac, the God of Jacob. We do not believe in Idols either because that would be a big big sin for us since we follow the ten commandments. "

I suppose simplynoone will reply to your question, it seems that she does not believe in the Holy Trinity.

Yeah not believing in the Holy Trinity is totally independent of this passage. It is simply not addressed. From what I understand, Mosaic Law was very strict on how to interact with God.

The point being that Isaish 44:6-26 seems to be in accord with Catholicism and I do not see any particular point addressed by simplynoone’s post.

In addition, the comments regarding Peter and Paul and the Jews and Gentiles is pretty clear from the NT. They did not have trouble with baptizing Gentiles, nor issues with Peter’s authority. What I have already written is correct in itself to the best of my knowledge. The dispute that Peter, with the council, had to definitively announce was particular teachings that were spreading around including one that required Gentiles to obey Mosaic Law. The council declared Gentiles converting to the faith, do not have to observe Mosaic Law.

 

[Vico]

StillWondering, I mentioned disbelief in the Holy Trinity, because if Christ were not God, then worshiping Him would be idolatrous, and simplynoone specifically references the Old Testament writings on idolatry.

In the original statement of simplynoone, she asks: “why doesn’t your god speak on his own behalf like the God of Israel is doing right now… in THESE times?”

and she previously said:

“…I realized Christianity was merely the part of those with political agendas trying to hellenize the Light that is Judaism for the purposes of being able to maintain control.”

So, of course, not accepting the New Testament will lead to non-acceptance of the Holy Trinity, and to disbelief in the resurrection.

 

[ryanoneil]

Israel didn’t need kings… it is what they asked for in not understanding the role they were meant to be.

Let’s go back to Abraham. In Gen 18:17-19 … this is the reason why Abraham was chosen…because God knew Abraham would command his children and his household after him to keep the Way of the Lord, to do justice and judgment. And you will understand the point of the Tanakh by verse 17… and this was the vision to Abraham of the Word of the LORD as spoken in Genesis 15:1.

The Kings were asked for before it was understood the role of the People by the People themselves.

For the most part I agree with you, but I must challenge what you are saying. They did know what was meant to be, but didn’t accept it. In the ancient family, fathers were both “kings” and “priests,” leading the family in worship and sacrifice. When God bore the people out of Egypt He revealed to them, at Sinai, that Israel was to be for the family of nations what the first-born was in the ancient family system - priest and king.

But there was a big “if” in all of what God said at Sinai: "If you hearken to My voice and keep My covenant, you shall be My special possession…a kingdom of priests " (see Exodus 19:5). And no sooner had Israel ratified its covenant with God, than the people fell into idolatry. So, it is disingenuous to say they didn’t understand. Later, when they requested a king in the time of Samuel, they wanted a king “as the other nations have.” They understood an earthly monarch contradicted God’s sovereignty over Israel, but they were more concerned with having a king to fight battles and conquer territories for them.

Does God identify an individual as His son in 2 Samuel 7:14?

It is speaking of the seed of David (read the context). This is done more than once in the Tanakh… that a People are spoken of as an indivdual. AGAIN… Exodus 4:22,23 just for one example of such.

I here what you are saying and I don’t entirely disagree, but you are purposfully ignoring an important aspect of the Bible. God consented to the People’s request for an individual king and used it to fulfill His own covenant plan for Israel and the world. The king was established to be an earthly manifestation of God’s rule over the world. To say that the seed of David refers ONLY to the People as a whole, is to discount what God has done. 2 Samuel 7:14 is NOT speaking about the People as a whole. It is speaking of individual kings from the line of David.

Yes, many times the People are spoken of as an individuals (ie Ex 4:22) but sometimes they are not.

**“I myself have installed my king on Zion, my holy mountain.” I will proclaim the decree of the LORD, who said to me, “You are my son; today I am your father. With an iron rod you shall shepherd them, like a clay pot you will shatter them.” (Ps 2:7-9)

I myself make him firstborn, Most High over the kings of the earth.
Forever I will maintain my love for him; my covenant with him stands firm.
I will establish his dynasty forever, his throne as the days of the heavens.
If his descendants forsake my law, do not follow my decrees,
If they fail to observe my statutes, do not keep my commandments,
I will punish their crime with a rod and their guilt with lashes.
But I will not take my love from him, nor will I betray my bond of loyalty.
I will not violate my covenant; the promise of my lips I will not alter.
By my holiness I swore once for all: I will never be false to David. (Ps 89:28-36)**

 

[StillWondering]

StillWondering, I mentioned disbelief in the Holy Trinity, because if Christ were not God, then worshiping Him would be idolatrous, and simplynoone specifically references the Old Testament writings on idolatry.

In the original statement of simplynoone, she asks: “why doesn’t your god speak on his own behalf like the God of Israel is doing right now… in THESE times?”

and she previously said:

“…I realized Christianity was merely the part of those with political agendas trying to hellenize the Light that is Judaism for the purposes of being able to maintain control.”

So, of course, not accepting the New Testament will lead to non-acceptance of the Holy Trinity, and to disbelief in the resurrection.

Thanks Vico for clarifying it. The claim the Catholicism is a Hellenization of the truths of Judaism by simplynoone if unfounded. We are definitely believe in one God and do not subscribe to neo-pagan, new age religions, nor ancient pagan religions.