The Gift that keeps on taking

[Luke65]

I assure you he did not say that “they will say”… they say it better because it is the truth … and Jesus made it quite clear that he agreed…

No, you’re assuming that Jesus agreed. That’s the point I’m trying to make to you - don’t assume! If you’re going to interpret the old and new wine as the Old and New Testament, and that’s what you’re doing, then you have to admit that some of the Jews chose to accept the New Testament - so there were exceptions. But you won’t allow that Jesus was one of the exceptions! But it was Jesus Himself who said He was bringing the “good news” - the Gospel:

Luke 4 (NIV)

17The scroll of the prophet Isaiah was handed to him. Unrolling it, he found the place where it is written:
18"The Spirit of the Lord is on me,
because he has anointed me
to preach good news to the poor.
He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners
and recovery of sight for the blind,
to release the oppressed,
19to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor."[e]

20Then he rolled up the scroll, gave it back to the attendant and sat down. The eyes of everyone in the synagogue were fastened on him, 21and he began by saying to them, “Today this scripture is fulfilled in your hearing.”

And it was Jesus Himself who said that He was bringing the New Covenant that He promised Israel through His prophet Jeremiah, as we’ve already seen. And He said that the wine of the New Covenant is His blood. So, in reality, the wine in the parable represents the Old and New Covenant, not the Testaments, which is why Jesus did not say to preserve the old wine - the old wine was gone! Just as the Old Covenant is gone. But the Old Testament is preserved, as we already saw.

Jews do not believe in drinking blood nor will you find a man on the list of acceptable sacrificial animals given in the Laws that came via the enlightenment of Moses.

“We are not like Moses, who would put a veil over his face to keep the Israelites from gazing at it while the radiance was fading away. But their minds were made dull, for to this day the same veil remains when the old covenant is read. It has not been removed, because only in Christ is it taken away.” (2 Corinthians 3:13-14)

well, let’s not be coy … the words are written by man. That is a fact. Jeremiah 17:5 says that to trust in a man is a curse. This is true.

“Coy”? Then you’re cursed, too? Of course, when you know that the Scriptures have God for their Author, then you know that those who are cursed are those who refuse to believe the good news.

In Proverbs 2:1-7, we are told to cry out to God for understanding. Deut 4:12 is clear how it is we will “hear” His “Voice.” Zech 13:9 says these will be the People who He will call His and who will KNOW their God… the God of Israel.

Only through Christ can your veil be removed.

So, what is truth…

…asked Pontius Pilate.

your version, to accept it as it is written and never question anything? That is only acceptable for minds that are turned off.

Who said I never questioned? Is it impossible for you fathom that someone else could be ahead of you in their faith journey? Have I not demonstrated that? I have come to a knowledge of the truth, and what I have learned is that its all true - the Bible, OT and NT, is the inerrant Word of God - just as He promised…

“Seek and you will find” (Matthew 7:7)

“Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.” (John 8:32)

 

[ryanoneil]

The gift that Moses commanded is in Lev 14:1-32 and is tailored to his ability to pay.

With the wineskins, Jesus is saying it is impossible to inaugurate the New Covenant while maintaining the Old. Which is why Jeremiah said “It will not be like the covenant I made with their fathers the day I took them by the hand to lead them forth from the land of Egypt”. The abundance of New Covenant grace can not be contained in the structure of the Old Covenant.

Read the companion verses in Mat 9:16-17.

 

[simplynoone]

Ok…so after reading this tread i must agree here with luke. You truly need to learn how to read.

From Luke 5 (NIV)
**Jesus Questioned About Fasting **

38No, new wine must be poured into new wineskins. 39And no one after drinking old wine wants the new, for he says, ‘The old is better.’ "

Jesus himself didn’t say the old wine was better, he says that those who tasted the old wine will say it tasted better.

How in the heck are you all arguing with me when you your ownselves are putting up the words that are of Jesus. He doesn’t say they are wrong, does he? He doesn’t argue to what is truth in life, right? No! And of course they will say the old is better because IT IS!! Come on… I KNOW I am not the only one here who is privy to the world of wine (it isn’t REALLY blood you are drinking ya know… it is wine they are giving you… though apparently they have the goods on the best of the wine… the REALLY potent stuff considering most of you believe it actually is blood you are drinking ). Wine that has aged truly is better than new wine. Are you going to call me a liar now too?

“he” says the old is better because it IS better… else, Jesus would have said, “but really the old is not better.”

Whether he said “they will say” or “they say”, CLEARY he is not the one saying the old wine is better. You also misunderstand what he is saying he he talks about wine. He is not talking about an actual physical book like the old or new testament or the bible or tanakh. He is talking about a teaching. Anyone who lived under the old law and ways would say it was better. Its not enough to read, you have to read in context.

I am the one who posted up the whole of that parable, no? So, that should justify me when I say that I am reading it in its context. Else, show me where he says, “but the old wine really is Not better.” Can you do that?

Well, if you never believed in the eucharist then no wonder you ended up falling away. The Eucharist is very important and without a proper understanding of it you can be lead in different directions.

Right… just show me where in the sacrificial laws that a man was on the acceptable list of sacrifices… Jesus his own self pointed to the Law of Moses (Matthew 5:17-19). I can show you in Psalm where it is NOT acceptable. I’ll wait for your proof though first. Just one reference where it is acceptable in the Tanakh for a man to be literally sacrificed for the sins of the world.

Wait Wait, wasn’t Jeremiah himself a man? If we shouldn’t trust words written by men then you shoulnd’t trust a single word in the entire bible, old testament or new. Luke backed you into a corner with his comment and you couldn’t find a way out so instead you attacked the authenticity of the bible. But that blows a HUGE hole in your original argument because it relies on the very same text who’s credibility you challenged.

Actually read what I said which includes reading the passages I posted.

Of course, I don’t at all hide the fact that I would not cry to see the NT taken off of the Tanakh and even more so, would love to see it happen, seeing that the literal interpretation of the gospels does NOT AT ALL find a base support from the Tanakh.

 

[StrawberryJam]

You say that there are many things you can’t imagine that they did that were best and yet God still blessed them despite what you are saying in regards to her and her husband. (again, the irony of what Sarah says in Genesis 21:6 strikes me as funny right now).

Do you really not have a sense of humor that you can’t appreciate what it is Sarah appreciated? Not only do I find it humorous, but I find it to be very comforting.

I would imagine so.

Blessed a union of that type? Sure. By reason of heard heart? Is there another reason?

How many concubines are allowed today for Jews?

 

[simplynoone]

No, you’re assuming that Jesus agreed. That’s the point I’m trying to make to you - don’t assume! If you’re going to interpret the old and new wine as the Old and New Testament, and that’s what you’re doing, then you have to admit that some of the Jews chose to accept the New Testament - so there were exceptions. But you won’t allow that Jesus was one of the exceptions! But it was Jesus Himself who said He was bringing the “good news” - the Gospel:
Luke 4 (NIV):17-20
And it was Jesus Himself who said that He was bringing the New Covenant that He promised Israel through His prophet Jeremiah, as we’ve already seen. And He said that the wine of the New Covenant is His blood. So, in reality, the wine in the parable represents the Old and New Covenant, not the Testaments, which is why Jesus did not say to preserve the old wine - the old wine was gone! Just as the Old Covenant is gone. But the Old Testament is preserved, as we already saw.

I already touched on the Old wine being better than the new… else you can show me where he said it wasn’t. As for the New Covenant, what you posted has nothing to do with the New Covenant. Jesus was born UNDER the New Covenant spoken of in Jeremiah that was already active… else, he would not have had the GORGEOUS writing of the Tanakh in which he referred to. Such a writing does NOT come from hearts of stone, ya know. How are you people not moved by such Beauty?? You obviously are not or you could not bear to refer to it as the “Old” testament. It is a Testament to Life … and last time I checked, we ARE still existing in Life.

“We are not like Moses, who would put a veil over his face to keep the Israelites from gazing at it while the radiance was fading away. But their minds were made dull, for to this day the same veil remains when the old covenant is read. It has not been removed, because only in Christ is it taken away.” (2 Corinthians 3:13-14)

Geez!! Hi disciple of Paul! Doesn’t seem to be working out too well for you Christians… that being, having the veil lifted. If it had been, you would cast aside that hellenistic view and pant after the living waters that are flowing from the Gorgeous Tanakh, the Word of the LORD… of which is on the side we would find the stories of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (and God is ALWAYS referred to, even by the ignorant, as being the God of those 3 blessed men!! ).

“Coy”? Then you’re cursed, too? Of course, when you know that the Scriptures have God for their Author, then you know that those who are cursed are those who refuse to believe the good news.

Not sure… even if I am cursed, I will still bless God and this creation of His. I do know that I threw not only the NT out, but the Tanakh out as well (with great force, mind you) and begged for the Truth and nothing but… no matter how scary. I now find I can relate to Job, who refused to be the hypocrite before God; Abraham in Genesis 15 and his gorgeous wife Sarah Gen 21:6; Jacob when he wrestled to be called Israel; what the children of Israel went through in Exodus 5; Moses’ burden; Hannah’s grief and then elation at hearing the blessing on her life; David’s realization at the GREAT Beauty in the Law that can’t compare to covering one’s guilt through innocent blood; Solomon’s understanding that Life is where we are in the presence of God, Life; Hosea’s words that it is truly lack of knowledge and not lack of faith that causes God’s People to perish; the understanding of the Secret that is with the prophets and why to which Amos was given revelation of; the GORGEOUS love of God spoken of in Ezekiel 16; and His, God’s willingness to be tested as spoken of in Malachi 3 so that we may follow the directive given in Joshua 24.

I may be cursed… but at least I am cursed with the best of them!!

Only through Christ can your veil be removed.

I still will choose the God of Israel.

…asked Pontius Pilate.

And you have no answer do you? I refer you to Isaiah 45:14-25 Gorgeous… that’s the Saviour of Israel, the Redeemer of Jacob… and He is One LORD… God, the Creator of the heavens and earth… not at all a man (Hosea 11:9).

Who said I never questioned? Is it impossible for you fathom that someone else could be ahead of you in their faith journey? Have I not demonstrated that? I have come to a knowledge of the truth, and what I have learned is that its all true - the Bible, OT and NT, is the inerrant Word of God - just as He promised…

Not me… and no… it is not impossible for me to see you ahead of me on the journey of “faith” since I am not on a journey of faith my ownself (Hosea 4:6). I don’t go off of faith. I go by knowledge… thus, you have beat me in the “faith department” because I don’t need it.

“Seek and you will find” (Matthew 7:7)

“Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.” (John 8:32)

Won’t argue here and even will add Proverbs 2:1-7 (from the “old” side) to better clarify how and Who to seek from.

 

[Luke65]

How in the heck are you all arguing with me when you your ownselves are putting up the words that are of Jesus. He doesn’t say they are wrong, does he? He doesn’t argue to what is truth in life, right? No! And of course they will say the old is better because IT IS!! Come on… I KNOW I am not the only one here who is privy to the world of wine (it isn’t REALLY blood you are drinking ya know… it is wine they are giving you… though apparently they have the goods on the best of the wine… the REALLY potent stuff considering most of you believe it actually is blood you are drinking ). Wine that has aged truly is better than new wine. Are you going to call me a liar now too? “he” says the old is better because it IS better… else, Jesus would have said, “but really the old is not better.”

Now you know why He talks to you in parables.

Right… just show me where in the sacrificial laws that a man was on the acceptable list of sacrifices… Jesus his own self pointed to the Law of Moses (Matthew 5:17-19). I can show you in Psalm where it is NOT acceptable. I’ll wait for your proof though first. Just one reference where it is acceptable in the Tanakh for a man to be literally sacrificed for the sins of the world.

“But he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds we are healed… Yet it was the LORD’s will to crush him and cause him to suffer, and though the LORD makes his life a guilt offering, he will see his offspring and prolong his days, and the will of the LORD will prosper in his hand. After the suffering of his soul, he will see the light of life and be satisfied; by his knowledge my righteous servant will justify many, and he will bear their iniquities. Therefore I will give him a portion among the great, and he will divide the spoils with the strong, because he poured out his life unto death, and was numbered with the transgressors. For he bore the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.” (Isaiah 53:5-12)

 

[simplynoone]

The gift that Moses commanded is in Lev 14:1-32 and is tailored to his ability to pay.

With the wineskins, Jesus is saying it is impossible to inaugurate the New Covenant while maintaining the Old. Which is why Jeremiah said “It will not be like the covenant I made with their fathers the day I took them by the hand to lead them forth from the land of Egypt”. The abundance of New Covenant grace can not be contained in the structure of the Old Covenant.

Read the companion verses in Mat 9:16-17.

I have read this in Leviticus and still can’t find the reasoning of the “secret” given that it is an offering that is there… meaning it was not unknown (obviously, as I have stated) for those with the skin disease to be healed. That “gift” is used and made to be secretive is what makes me suspicious. Someone on here posted that gift is translated in other ways according to KJV… thus, any clue as to this and any answer as to why something that was already not unknown had to be kept a secret? \

I do know that in Job, he makes mention of it being shameful that persons are accepted secretly and nowhere in this particular passage of Leviticus can I see the command for it to be done in secret… mighty suspicous to me personally, but perhaps you have some Light to shed on this for me? …

If you read the whole passage in Jeremiah 31, the covenant is that the Law will be written on their hearts… that doesn’t mean the old covenant is abolished, only that they will understand it and keep it from a willing heart rather than out of fear. Else, show me where the Law is being abolished as Paul claims in Ephesians. Jesus said quite the opposite (Matt 5:17-19) and thus confirmed that he was already under the New Covenant. The New Covenant DOES NOT abolish the old… just, again, that it would be obeyed willingly rather than out of fear.

 

[simplynoone]

I would imagine so.

Blessed a union of that type? Sure. By reason of heard heart? Is there another reason?

How many concubines are allowed today for Jews?

So, do you think God blessing both Hagar and even more so, Sarah, judgments on His part that were misguided? If not, then did God play the game of favourtism in blessing them whilst they were in their “sins” (assuming that I am judging correctly the intent of your last question… to which I will accept correction if my assumption is based on a misunderstanding)?

 

[simplynoone]

Now you know why He talks to you in parables.

Do you think it could it have anything at all to do with Ezekiel 14: 7-23? Or would it be more pertaining to what is spoken of in the last chapter of Ecclesiastes? I don’t think these are really acceptable though to the Christian doctrines.

Just speculating here…

By the way Isaiah 53:11 does not contradict at all what is said in Ezekiel 14, saying these 3 souls, Noah, Job, and Daniel shall but deliver THEIR OWN souls (compared in a rather consistent way to the one whose knowledge would justify the many, no? The Servant is, after all named, in Isaiah 49:3); of course they would not THEMSELVES be able to deliver even their own sons and daughters… but their knowledge gained would indeed be the justification of any individual who understands the knowledge brought forth via their stories. Job 40:1,14 confirms this idea of Ezekiel’s clearly as well; that they would deliver their own souls and not the souls of another (unless an individual is given the understanding of the knowledge brought forth, of course).

What do you think?

 

[ryanoneil]

I have read this in Leviticus and still can’t find the reasoning of the “secret” given that it is an offering that is there… meaning it was not unknown (obviously, as I have stated) for those with the skin disease to be healed. That “gift” is used and made to be secretive is what makes me suspicious. Someone on here posted that gift is translated in other ways according to KJV… thus, any clue as to this and any answer as to why something that was already not unknown had to be kept a secret? \

I do know that in Job, he makes mention of it being shameful that persons are accepted secretly and nowhere in this particular passage of Leviticus can I see the command for it to be done in secret… mighty suspicous to me personally, but perhaps you have some Light to shed on this for me? …

“Tell no one” isn’t a secret about the lepers offering, it is about Jesus balancing when he reveals that he is the messiah (and the ensuing conflict with the authorities). The “hour” for that revelation has not arrived at that point.

If you read the whole passage in Jeremiah 31, the covenant is that the Law will be written on their hearts… that doesn’t mean the old covenant is abolished, only that they will understand it and keep it from a willing heart rather than out of fear. Else, show me where the Law is being abolished as Paul claims in Ephesians. Jesus said quite the opposite (Matt 5:17-19) and thus confirmed that he was already under the New Covenant. The New Covenant DOES NOT abolish the old… just, again, that it would be obeyed willingly rather than out of fear.

The New Covenant doesn’t abolish the Old Covenant. The NC fulfills and makes the OC complete. It includes and concludes it, by perfecting and transforming it. The moral law (Ten Commandments) is retained while the sacrificial laws (and other made for a hard hearted people) expire. They expire because the law is written on their hearts.

One such example is old law, which forbad the touching of lepers. That law had had no power over Jesus. Far from being defiled by touching the leper, Jesus healed him.

 

[simplynoone]

“Tell no one” isn’t a secret about the lepers offering, it is about Jesus balancing when he reveals that he is the messiah (and the ensuing conflict with the authorities). The “hour” for that revelation has not arrived at that point.

Messiah simply means anointed.
Zechariah 4:11-14
Hosea 14
Jeremiah 31
Ezekiel 18

Jeremiah 33:24-26 … The anointed and the New Covenant is the house of Israel and the house of Judah.

And it is true… that God did not speak these things in secret… Isaiah 45:19-21. What still is a secret, is that Jesus is confirmed as the Messiah… for that is nowhere written in the Tanakh.

The New Covenant doesn’t abolish the Old Covenant. The NC fulfills and makes the OC complete. It includes and concludes it, by perfecting and transforming it. The moral law (Ten Commandments) is retained while the sacrificial laws (and other made for a hard hearted people) expire. They expire because the law is written on their hearts.

The Sacrificial Laws are not expired…

The Romans destroyed the Temple and another people came in and put into place the abomination of desolations. But in time, well… one has to wonder, how will the Christians react when they see the temple rebuilt and the sacrificial Laws able to be carried out again?

The New covenant did not change ANYTHING about the Laws… it only is said that it will be written on their hearts rather than in stone. Now… since the New Covenant does not expire any of the Laws, one has to wonder where you have gained your information that the sacrificial Laws are expired when this New Covenant (the one NOT abolishing any of the Law) is confirmed as the everlasting covenant between God and Israel.

The NT perhaps? Can it be confirmed in the Tanakh… that it would expire? One thing we can know for sure… man was never on the Sacrificial List of acceptable animals for atonement… thus, that rules out Jesus being the sacrifice for sins. The Tanakh indeed speaks directly against such a thing as a man being a sacrifice for another numerous times.

One such example is old law, which forbad the touching of lepers. That law had had no power over Jesus. Far from being defiled by touching the leper, Jesus healed him.

I think this has to do with wisdom… knowing metaphorical language from the literal. For instance, I do not at all believe that when it calls for someone to be stoned, it is speaking literally. It is speaking metaphorically… and understanding this language is where the DEEP wisdom of the Laws given to Israel is found. That comes way of Proverbs 2:1-7.

 

[ryanoneil]

“Tell no one” isn’t a secret about the lepers offering, it is about Jesus balancing when he reveals that he is the messiah (and the ensuing conflict with the authorities). The “hour” for that revelation has not arrived at that point.

Messiah simply means anointed.
Zechariah 4:11-14
Hosea 14
Jeremiah 31
Ezekiel 18

Jeremiah 33:24-26 … The anointed and the New Covenant is the house of Israel and the house of Judah.

I’m sure you are aware that there are many types of annointing and annointed.

The anointed of Zech 4:14 are Joshua, the anointed high priest, and Zerubbabel, the anointed prince.
Please explain where the annointed Messiah is desribed in Hosea 14 and Ezek 18.
I agree with you about Jeremiah 31, though our understanding may be different. Which house became indestinguishable from the gentiles? Do you believe the gentiles are included in the New Covenant through that house?
In Jer 33:15 the annointed is the just shoot of David who is successor on the throne of the house of Israel, and the New Covenant is “with” the houses. They are not “the” covenant. Yes, the prophets consistantly talk about the restoration of the people, but it seems you alway excluded how much the prophets are concerned about the return of a Davidic King.

And it is true… that God did not speak these things in secret… Isaiah 45:19-21. What still is a secret, is that Jesus is confirmed as the Messiah… for that is nowhere written in the Tanakh.

The Tenakh consistantly writes of the Messiah king. Of course Jesus wasn’t revealed by name because he had not arrived yet. Of course I recognize what is prophecied as the restoration of the people as priest, prophet, and king, but where does the Tahakh identified and confirm who the singular theocratic Davidic King is?

The Sacrificial Laws are not expired…

The Romans destroyed the Temple and another people came in and put into place the abomination of desolations. But in time, well… one has to wonder, how will the Christians react when they see the temple rebuilt and the sacrificial Laws able to be carried out again?

The New covenant did not change ANYTHING about the Laws… it only is said that it will be written on their hearts rather than in stone. Now… since the New Covenant does not expire any of the Laws, one has to wonder where you have gained your information that the sacrificial Laws are expired when this New Covenant (the one NOT abolishing any of the Law) is confirmed as the everlasting covenant between God and Israel.

Christian reactions will be mixed if the temple is rebuilt (as there are thousands of denominations).

If the New Covenant is not like the one made with their fathers and the law is placed within law within the people and write it upon their hearts, why would particular laws written for a heardend hearted people remain? The Ten commandments are the moral law that remain written on the heart. The second law cannot remain because deals with Israel’s fallen condition, unless you are suggesting that the fallen condition is everlasting as well. There can be no going back to the good old days, because the good old days were not so good. Else, what need is their for a New and everlasting covenant.

The sacrifice of Malichi 1:11 will be a pure offering and not like that of the fathers of old.

The NT perhaps? Can it be confirmed in the Tanakh… that it would expire? One thing we can know for sure… man was never on the Sacrificial List of acceptable animals for atonement… thus, that rules out Jesus being the sacrifice for sins. The Tanakh indeed speaks directly against such a thing as a man being a sacrifice for another numerous times.

You are compairing apples and oranges.

Because of his affliction he shall see the light in fullness of days; Through his suffering, my servant shall justify many, and their guilt he shall bear. Therefore I will give him his portion among the great, and he shall divide the spoils with the mighty, Because he surrendered himself to death and was counted among the wicked; And he shall take away the sins of many, and win pardon for their offenses. (Isa 53:11-12)

One such example is old law, which forbad the touching of lepers. That law had had no power over Jesus. Far from being defiled by touching the leper, Jesus healed him.

I think this has to do with wisdom… knowing metaphorical language from the literal. For instance, I do not at all believe that when it calls for someone to be stoned, it is speaking literally. It is speaking metaphorically… and understanding this language is where the DEEP wisdom of the Laws given to Israel is found. That comes way of Proverbs 2:1-7.

I’m sure there is metaphorical meaning, but you are ignoring the fact that concrete law were set up. People were really stoned to death, lepers were exiled, and ritual purification ceremonies were enforced.

 

[simplynoone]

I’m sure you are aware that there are many types of annointing and annointed.

The anointed of Zech 4:14 are Joshua, the anointed high priest, and Zerubbabel, the anointed prince. Please explain where the annointed Messiah is desribed in Hosea 14 and Ezek 18.

Interesting, isn’t it?? Numbers 16:2,6,8 … this fascinates me. The LORD tells Moses to appoint a ruler over each tribe. He appoints Caleb as the Prince over Judah (ahem… just like Cyrus appoints Zerubbabel as govenor/prince of Judah) and Oshua (Joshua) is appointed ruler over Ephraim (Jeshua is called the high priest).

This gets even all the more intriguing when dig deeper into the definitions of the names, some of the teachings of Jesus… but let’s stick to what you are enquiring about that I brought up.

Hosea 8 … this is where it talks about the house of Israel, by the name of Ephraim, being swallowed up by the Gentiles. In Hosea 14 and Ezekiel 14,18 we see how the three protypes that will escape the “wrath” of God (Hosea 14 and 18 clarify). Remember… these are the scattered among the nations. To those who are called to the covenant, they will know… whether Jew or Gentile. Gentiles of course are limited only by the Noahide Law, the commands are inferred in Genesis 9.

In Ezekiel, we find out whose judgments were not up to par with the Judgments of God. Now, perhaps you can understand the role of Jeshua/Joshua (of Ephraim ahem)… the high priest. That correlation is found in Genesis 14:18-20, and that should further your understanding of the Eunuchs spoken of in Isaiah 56:4-5.

I agree with you about Jeremiah 31, though our understanding may be different. Which house became indestinguishable from the gentiles? Do you believe the gentiles are included in the New Covenant through that house?

Clearly there will be Gentiles (and in fact ARE Gentiles) joining to the covenant as we can see in Isaiah 56. But the new covenant takes the two houses and turns into one… for they serve ONE King and that is God. They are the “sons of Jacob” (Judah, aka the Jewish) and they, as a Nation, are known as Israel.

Gentiles of course are promised under the Noahide Law (Genesis 9) that if they obey the 7 (very (should be) common sense) commands inferred, their seed will remain on the earth as well. That is the covenant between God and mankind and the Jewish are the signature on that covenant.

In Jer 33:15 the annointed is the just shoot of David who is successor on the throne of the house of Israel, and the New Covenant is “with” the houses. They are not “the” covenant. Yes, the prophets consistantly talk about the restoration of the people, but it seems you alway excluded how much the prophets are concerned about the return of a Davidic King.

That would be the spirit of David. Now, now… nothing mystical here. Example: have you ever heard someone say, “she has a sweet spirit like so and so?” Same thing. You can read about David’s spirit in Psalm 119… this he learned after he had shed innocent blood and it was the Law that really ended up converting his soul Psalm 19:7 and not the shed blood. He repented … for he realized that his shedding the blood was HIS OWN attempt to cover his own sin… and one can’t cover their sins before God… face it!!! This is something we hear echoed from the beginning… Genesis 3… When Adam and Eve ACCEPTED their judgment (they did NOT get out of the judgment), THEN God covered their nakedness.

That is the spirit of David, only under the new understanding… the more sinister… that man’s blood would, could, and will NEVER be an atonement for sin. To those who are more sensitive (I can testify to this being a fact), it is like the pea under the mattress… any attempt to actually believe that someone else could be the “whipping boy” is tooooo uncomfortable. I finally found my peace and then joy (via the understanding I was given) when I let go of the whipping boy and quit believing blood could “cover”/atone for my sins. Facing the Judgments, sure, is hard to grin and bear at all times… but the result is enlightenment that can only come from God… and that is the most unexplainable part that I don’t even try… rather I refer you to Proverbs 2:1-7.

 

[simplynoone]

The Tenakh consistantly writes of the Messiah king. Of course Jesus wasn’t revealed by name because he had not arrived yet. Of course I recognize what is prophecied as the restoration of the people as priest, prophet, and king, but where does the Tahakh identified and confirm who the singular theocratic Davidic King is?

I assume you are referring to 2 Samuel 7. The answer is in 2 Chronicles 1. And if we take into account what is said in Zechariah 4:6… well, when the Temple is built, then the promise is fulfilled (for wisdom and understanding that can only come from God) and the Law will be dealt with in just that… wisdom and understanding… and it will happen. You know why? it says so in the very last verse of Exodus 39 (I am throwing in the one just prior, but the one highlighted in red is one of my FAVOURITES! )

According to all that the LORD commanded Moses, so the children of Israel made all the work.
And Moses did look upon all the work, and, behold, they had done it as the LORD had commanded, even so had they done it: and Moses blessed them.

Isaiah 45:17-25

“who hath declared this from ancient time? who hath told it from that time? have not I the LORD? and there is no God else beside me; a just God and a Saviour; there is none beside me.” See, THAT’s the God of Israel, the same one spoken of by Jeremiah the prophet in Jeremiah 51:15

Christian reactions will be mixed if the temple is rebuilt (as there are thousands of denominations).

That is sad… since it is clearly there that the Temple will be rebuilt … only this time according to the commandment of God…

Personally, I can see why the last one had to go. Herod had his hand in it … as well as he and others of like mind whose hand helped in defiling it.

Still… the Laws are set and the Temple will see its accomplishment.

If the New Covenant is not like the one made with their fathers and the law is placed within law within the people and write it upon their hearts, why would particular laws written for a heardend hearted people remain? The Ten commandments are the moral law that remain written on the heart. The second law cannot remain because deals with Israel’s fallen condition, unless you are suggesting that the fallen condition is everlasting as well. There can be no going back to the good old days, because the good old days were not so good. Else, what need is their for a New and everlasting covenant.

Uhm… because, God is not only a creator, but He is THE Creator… I doubt 4.5 billion years with only the last, what is it? 10,000 years that we have history of mankinds footsteps on the earth is all that He is able to create… and if there is more to be created (which there is), then surely, He, being THE Creator, will do it. Thus the need for the everlasting covenant with a People and the assurance to those who keep to the Noahide Laws for mankind in general (that their seed will remain on the earth as well).

Remember the verse I posted in Psalm? His understanding, His knowledge is infinite!! That’s a VERY long time. We are blessed to be able to breathe in this, His creation… even if only for our lifetime.

The sacrifice of Malichi 1:11 will be a pure offering and not like that of the fathers of old.

Tell me what you are seeing here… exactly, please.

Because of his affliction he shall see the light in fullness of days; Through his suffering, my servant shall justify many, and their guilt he shall bear. Therefore I will give him his portion among the great, and he shall divide the spoils with the mighty, Because he surrendered himself to death and was counted among the wicked; And he shall take away the sins of many, and win pardon for their offenses. (Isa 53:11-12)

I think Jeremiah 30 answers this much too perfectly, really. That is the Jewish (of Judah… and those join (back) to who understand), now called Israel.

I’m sure there is metaphorical meaning, but you are ignoring the fact that concrete law were set up. People were really stoned to death, lepers were exiled, and ritual purification ceremonies were enforced.

Yes, of course. The Law was still written “in stone” at that time … That is why the need for it to be written on the heart… so that it is no longer a burden, but rather it is a gorgeous understanding between God and His People. The Laws are not without purpose… but to understand that purpose is something only you can full understand when God “teaches” you from His own “mouth”… Proverbs 2:1-7… just like Adam and the Woman… time to suck it up and REALLY show how much you trust God by throwing out the blankies and accepting His judgments… either His judgments are good or they are not… no amount of Jewish blood will change the reality of this fact.

 

[simplynoone]

The Tenakh consistantly writes of the Messiah king. Of course Jesus wasn’t revealed by name because he had not arrived yet. Of course I recognize what is prophecied as the restoration of the people as priest, prophet, and king, but where does the Tahakh identified and confirm who the singular theocratic Davidic King is?

I assume you are referring to 2 Samuel 7. The answer is in 2 Chronicles 1. And if we take into account what is said in Zechariah 4:6… well, when the Temple is built, then the promise is fulfilled (for wisdom and understanding that can only come from God) and the Law will be dealt with in just that… wisdom and understanding… and it will happen. You know why? it says so in the very last verse of Exodus 39 (I am throwing in the one just prior, but the one highlighted in red is one of my FAVOURITES! )

According to all that the LORD commanded Moses, so the children of Israel made all the work.
And Moses did look upon all the work, and, behold, they had done it as the LORD had commanded, even so had they done it: and Moses blessed them.

Isaiah 45:17-25

“who hath declared this from ancient time? who hath told it from that time? have not I the LORD? and there is no God else beside me; a just God and a Saviour; there is none beside me.” See, THAT’s the God of Israel, the same one spoken of by Jeremiah the prophet in Jeremiah 51:15

Christian reactions will be mixed if the temple is rebuilt (as there are thousands of denominations).

That is sad… since it is clearly there that the Temple will be rebuilt … only this time according to the commandment of God…

Personally, I can see why the last one had to go. Herod had his hand in it … as well as he and others of like mind whose hand helped in defiling it.

Still… the Laws are set and the Temple will see its accomplishment.

If the New Covenant is not like the one made with their fathers and the law is placed within law within the people and write it upon their hearts, why would particular laws written for a heardend hearted people remain? The Ten commandments are the moral law that remain written on the heart. The second law cannot remain because deals with Israel’s fallen condition, unless you are suggesting that the fallen condition is everlasting as well. There can be no going back to the good old days, because the good old days were not so good. Else, what need is their for a New and everlasting covenant.

Uhm… because, God is not only a creator, but He is THE Creator… I doubt 4.5 billion years with only the last, what is it? 10,000 years that we have history of mankinds footsteps on the earth is all that He is able to create… and if there is more to be created (which there is), then surely, He, being THE Creator, will do it. Thus the need for the everlasting covenant with a People and the assurance to those who keep to the Noahide Laws for mankind in general (that their seed will remain on the earth as well).

Remember the verse I posted in Psalm? His understanding, His knowledge is infinite!! That’s a VERY long time. We are blessed to be able to breathe in this, His creation… even if only for our lifetime.

The sacrifice of Malichi 1:11 will be a pure offering and not like that of the fathers of old.

Tell me what you are seeing here… exactly, please.

Because of his affliction he shall see the light in fullness of days; Through his suffering, my servant shall justify many, and their guilt he shall bear. Therefore I will give him his portion among the great, and he shall divide the spoils with the mighty, Because he surrendered himself to death and was counted among the wicked; And he shall take away the sins of many, and win pardon for their offenses. (Isa 53:11-12)

I think Jeremiah 30 answers this much too perfectly, really. That is the Jewish (of Judah… and those who join (back) to the covenant), now called Israel.

I’m sure there is metaphorical meaning, but you are ignoring the fact that concrete law were set up. People were really stoned to death, lepers were exiled, and ritual purification ceremonies were enforced.

Yes, of course. The Law was still written “in stone” at that time … That is why the need for it to be written on the heart… so that it is no longer a burden, but rather it is a gorgeous understanding between God and His People. The Laws are not without purpose… but to understand that purpose is something only you can full understand when God “teaches” you from His own “mouth”… Proverbs 2:1-7 (besides, He won’t enlighten us all EXACTLY the same… but it will be consistent and it won’t be the same thing for another 2,000 years… that is boring)… just like Adam and the Woman… time to suck it up and REALLY show how much you trust God by throwing out the blankies and accepting His judgments… either His judgments are good or they are not… no amount of Jewish blood will change the reality of this fact.

 

[ryanoneil]

Clearly there will be Gentiles (and in fact ARE Gentiles) joining to the covenant as we can see in Isaiah 56. But the new covenant takes the two houses and turns into one… for they serve ONE King and that is God. They are the “sons of Jacob” (Judah, aka the Jewish) and they, as a Nation, are known as Israel.

Gentiles of course are promised under the Noahide Law (Genesis 9) that if they obey the 7 (very (should be) common sense) commands inferred, their seed will remain on the earth as well. That is the covenant between God and mankind and the Jewish are the signature on that covenant.

My question to you is: What does turning the two houses into one mean? Especially in light of Zechariah.

Then I took my staff “Favor” and snapped it asunder, breaking off the covenant which I had made with all peoples;
that day it was broken off. The sheep merchants who were watching me understood that this was the word of the LORD.
I said to them, “If it seems good to you, give me my wages; but if not, let it go.” And they counted out my wages, thirty pieces of silver.
But the LORD said to me, “Throw it in the treasury, the handsome price at which they valued me.” So I took the thirty pieces of silver and threw them into the treasury in the house of the LORD.
Then I snapped asunder my other staff, “Bonds,” breaking off the brotherhood between Judah and Israel.
The LORD said to me: This time take the gear of a foolish shepherd.
For I will raise up a shepherd in the land who will take no note of those that perish, nor seek the strays, nor heal the injured, nor feed what survives–he will eat the flesh of the fat ones and tear off their hoofs!
Woe to my foolish shepherd who forsakes the flock! May the sword fall upon his arm and upon his right eye; Let his arm wither away entirely, and his right eye be blind forever!
(Zech 11:10-178)

Doesn’t this symbolizie the breaking of any tie of unity between the believing and unbelieving remnant of God’s people? Could it be that the union is not really about holy bloodlines? Otherwise wouldn’t the entire nation be included. And refering back to Isa 56, isn’t this really saing that God’s family will be those who hear and obey His commandments?

I’m not suggesting that the holy bloodline will cease to exist, just that it will not be the deciding factor in God’s eyes. Because He says:

Let not the foreigner say, when he would join himself to the LORD, “The LORD will surely exclude me from his people”; Nor let the eunuch say, “See, I am a dry tree.” For thus says the LORD: To the eunuchs who observe my sabbaths and choose what pleases me and hold fast to my covenant, I will give, in my house and within my walls, a monument and a name Better than sons and daughters; an eternal, imperishable name will I give them. (Isa 56:3-5)

In Jer 33:15 the annointed is the just shoot of David who is successor on the throne of the house of Israel, and the New Covenant is “with” the houses. They are not “the” covenant. Yes, the prophets consistantly talk about the restoration of the people, but it seems you alway excluded how much the prophets are concerned about the return of a Davidic King.

That would be the spirit of David. Now, now… nothing mystical here. Example: have you ever heard someone say, “she has a sweet spirit like so and so?” Same thing. You can read about David’s spirit in Psalm 119… this he learned after he had shed innocent blood and it was the Law that really ended up converting his soul Psalm 19:7 and not the shed blood. He repented … for he realized that his shedding the blood was HIS OWN attempt to cover his own sin… and one can’t cover their sins before God… face it!!! This is something we hear echoed from the beginning… Genesis 3… When Adam and Eve ACCEPTED their judgment (they did NOT get out of the judgment), THEN God covered their nakedness.

But a just shoot is a person and not a spirit. It is talking about a Davidic King.

And when your time comes and you rest with your ancestors, I will raise up your heir after you, sprung from your loins, and I will make his kingdom firm. (2 Sam 7:12)

**On that day I will raise up the fallen hut of David; I will wall up its breaches, raise up its ruins, and rebuild it as in the days of old (Amos 9:11)

But you, Bethlehem-Ephrathah too small to be among the clans of Judah, From you shall come forth for me one who is to be ruler in Israel; Whose origin is from of old, from ancient times. (Therefore the Lord will give them up, until the time when she who is to give birth has borne, And the rest of his brethren shall return to the children of Israel.) He shall stand firm and shepherd his flock by the strength of the LORD, in the majestic name of the LORD, his God; And they shall remain, for now his greatness shall reach to the ends of the earth (Micah 5:1-3)**

 

[ryanoneil]

I assume you are referring to 2 Samuel 7. The answer is in 2 Chronicles 1. And if we take into account what is said in Zechariah 4:6… well, when the Temple is built, then the promise is fulfilled (for wisdom and understanding that can only come from God) and the Law will be dealt with in just that… wisdom and understanding… and it will happen. You know why? it says so in the very last verse of Exodus 39 (I am throwing in the one just prior, but the one highlighted in red is one of my FAVOURITES! )

According to all that the LORD commanded Moses, so the children of Israel made all the work.
And Moses did look upon all the work, and, behold, they had done it as the LORD had commanded, even so had they done it: and Moses blessed them.

Isaiah 45:17-25

“who hath declared this from ancient time? who hath told it from that time? have not I the LORD? and there is no God else beside me; a just God and a Saviour; there is none beside me.” See, THAT’s the God of Israel, the same one spoken of by Jeremiah the prophet in Jeremiah 51:15

But this speaks of the people and not the theocratic king (singular).

Christian reactions will be mixed if the temple is rebuilt (as there are thousands of denominations).

That is sad… since it is clearly there that the Temple will be rebuilt … only this time according to the commandment of God…

Personally, I can see why the last one had to go. Herod had his hand in it … as well as he and others of like mind whose hand helped in defiling it.

Still… the Laws are set and the Temple will see its accomplishment.

Where does it say a Temple will be built after the destruction of the last one (in the Law and Prophets)?

If the New Covenant is not like the one made with their fathers and the law is placed within law within the people and write it upon their hearts, why would particular laws written for a heardend hearted people remain? The Ten commandments are the moral law that remain written on the heart. The second law cannot remain because deals with Israel’s fallen condition, unless you are suggesting that the fallen condition is everlasting as well. There can be no going back to the good old days, because the good old days were not so good. Else, what need is their for a New and everlasting covenant.

Uhm… because, God is not only a creator, but He is THE Creator… I doubt 4.5 billion years with only the last, what is it? 10,000 years that we have history of mankinds footsteps on the earth is all that He is able to create… and if there is more to be created (which there is), then surely, He, being THE Creator, will do it. Thus the need for the everlasting covenant with a People and the assurance to those who keep to the Noahide Laws for mankind in general (that their seed will remain on the earth as well).

Remember the verse I posted in Psalm? His understanding, His knowledge is infinite!! That’s a VERY long time. We are blessed to be able to breathe in this, His creation… even if only for our lifetime.

What do you think the nature of this new creation is? It should be revealed by the prophets after all.

The sacrifice of Malichi 1:11 will be a pure offering and not like that of the fathers of old.

Tell me what you are seeing here… exactly, please.

Catholics see this pointing to the Sacrifice of the Mass.

Because of his affliction he shall see the light in fullness of days; Through his suffering, my servant shall justify many, and their guilt he shall bear. Therefore I will give him his portion among the great, and he shall divide the spoils with the mighty, Because he surrendered himself to death and was counted among the wicked; And he shall take away the sins of many, and win pardon for their offenses. (Isa 53:11-12)

I think Jeremiah 30 answers this much too perfectly, really. That is the Jewish (of Judah… and those join (back) to who understand), now called Israel.

It sounds like you saying the blood of Jews, and Gentiles joined to them, will justify many and bear their guilt.

Yes, of course. The Law was still written “in stone” at that time … That is why the need for it to be written on the heart… so that it is no longer a burden, but rather it is a gorgeous understanding between God and His People. The Laws are not without purpose… but to understand that purpose is something only you can full understand when God “teaches” you from His own “mouth”… Proverbs 2:1-7… just like Adam and the Woman… time to suck it up and REALLY show how much you trust God by throwing out the blankies and accepting His judgments… either His judgments are good or they are not… no amount of Jewish blood will change the reality of this fact.

It sounds like you are saying the blood of Jews will not justify many and bear thier guiIt. I do trust God. I believe His is the perfect sacrifice.

Peace

 

[simplynoone]

My question to you is: What does turning the two houses into one mean? Especially in light of Zechariah.

(Zech 11:10-178)

Doesn’t this symbolizie the breaking of any tie of unity between the believing and unbelieving remnant of God’s people?

ALL people belong to God. But those who are God’s PEOPLE that He calls His PEOPLE also have walked through the fire (the one that Christians are too afraid to acknowledge they are in) and they return the Love (Knowledge) and call ONLY Him their God … never a man.

Could it be that the union is not really about holy bloodlines? Otherwise wouldn’t the entire nation be included. And refering back to Isa 56, isn’t this really saing that God’s family will be those who hear and obey His commandments?

Want to know the secret that isn’t so secret??? WE ALL ARE GOING TO DIE … AND RIGHT NOW WE ALL ARE LIVING IN THE PRESENCE OF GOD … we ALL are the created of our Creator and this IS His creation… Is it good? Only some choose to HEAR the Voice of God in Truth NO MATTER WHAT that may bring … judgments are not road blocks, they are what pave the road to know Him. And to those, He will call them His People and THEY shall say, the LORD is my God! … Zechariah 13:9

The Jewish, those who are born into or join to the covenant, as we know it… they are the signature to our, the Gentiles’, existence.

I’m not suggesting that the holy bloodline will cease to exist, just that it will not be the deciding factor in God’s eyes. Because He says:

**Let not the foreigner say, when he would join himself to the LORD, “The LORD will surely exclude me from his people”; Nor let the eunuch say, “See, I am a dry tree.” **

For thus says the LORD: To the eunuchs who observe my sabbaths and choose what pleases me and hold fast to my covenant, I will give, in my house and within my walls, a monument and a name Better than sons and daughters; an eternal, imperishable name will I give them. (Isa 56:3-5)

**I separated the last two verses, for they are speaking specifically to the Eunuch and God forbid that any should try to relate themselves to what the Eunuchs have specifically gone through so as to deny them what rightfully is belonging to them. **

**I think the blood very much has to do with it … the shed blood of importance is the shed blood of the Jewish that the Gentiles have caused by their own hands. The redemptive blood is the seed having gone into the Gentiles … and again, these would know … for they will no doubt hear the Voice of God because there is not a judgment so scary as to be cut off from God Himself. As long as we are living, none of us are “cut off” from God who is the Creator of Life … some just will hear the Voice … and as Adam and the Woman tried to hide themselves but couldn’t when they heard it, neither will they hide but face the Voice as they are. Gentiles will indeed hear and see this and wonder … and some will take hold of it knowing that it does indeed testify to Life more than all the rest of what they were being fed. And these Gentiles will abide by the Noahide Covenant spoken in Genesis 9. They are just as precious to the Creator for they are part of His creation … but the Eunuchs have earned what they are given. **

But a just shoot is a person and not a spirit. It is talking about a Davidic King.
But you, Bethlehem-Ephrathah too small to be among the clans of Judah, From you shall come forth for me one who is to be ruler in Israel; Whose origin is from of old, from ancient times. (Therefore the Lord will give them up, until the time when she who is to give birth has borne, And the rest of his brethren shall return to the children of Israel.) He shall stand firm and shepherd his flock by the strength of the LORD, in the majestic name of the LORD, his God; And they shall remain, for now his greatness shall reach to the ends of the earth (Micah 5:1-3)

Did you know David, the lesson learned through experience and turning to the Law for comfort, was born in Bethlehem … too small to be among the thousands of Judah … Solomon his son… the seed.

It is a wonder that this is not understood when we read all of it … the 7 shepherds, the 8 principal men, the remnant of Jacob that tarrieth not for man nor waiteth for the sons of men.

Considering the 8 principal men :

Jeremiah 52:25; Isaiah 16:8; Isaiah 28:25; Proverbs 4:7

There is a reason why I will defend the book of Matthew being written by one who was indeed knowledgable… this is because of the strategically set stumbling blocks that are placed and then this wise separating strategy is testified to in Isaiah 28… I can say Matthew was my saving grace in that I was forced to seek the Tanakh and the more I was to seek the Tanakh for the proof that he was wrong, the more I found that he was rather instead subtle ahem "be wise as serpents … " and to buy it as it is much like most people do with the painting of the crossing of the Delaware where the truth is painted in the picture, but it is not what you think you see… the truth is painted in the book of Matthew as well, but if you don’t question what is wrong on the surface, you will miss out.

Let me start you out, if you don’t mind. Can you explain all the oddities of the genealogy of Matthew 1? It doesn’t fit in with the genealogies of the Tanakh for there are four names missing … but much is written in greater depth there that the Tanakh does indeed play witness to; of course the surface reader will miss it. There is a reason why Matthew 5:17-20 is given… let us not forget that the pharisees and scribes knew what Jesus was speaking of … the righteousness that exceeds does not condemn them neither does it negate their important roles, rather it is just different and has to do with the Eunuchs as well … well, this too is testified of in Isaiah.

 

[simplynoone]

But this speaks of the people and not the theocratic king (singular).

The only “singular” King is the Word of God; but that is never written by A (singular) man.

Where does it say a Temple will be built after the destruction of the last one (in the Law and Prophets)?

In Ezekiel … and then in the 40’s which speaks of the sanctuary, it even says that those who enter will not only be circumcised in heart, but they MUST be circumcised in the flesh as well. That would be consistent with Genesis 17 where Abraham is told that not only his seed would be circumcised, but those of his house as well.

What do you think the nature of this new creation is? It should be revealed by the prophets after all.

Jeremiah 31:
**22 **How long wilt thou go about, O thou backsliding daughter? for the LORD hath created a new thing in the earth, A woman shall compass a man.
**23 **Thus saith the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel; As yet they shall use this speech in the land of Judah and in the cities thereof, when I shall bring again their captivity; The LORD bless thee, O habitation of justice, and mountain of holiness.

Possibly not what you were expecting. Who can cry (mourn) better than a woman? Justice … that is the new creation. Where we quit judging based on the opinions of those who don’t know and start waking up to the FACT that we are in the creation of Life and it was meant for the living and not the dead. The Law that was given via Moses, if followed for one who does not understand but asks for understanding according to Proverbs 2, they (the Law) will teach you of this new creation and in fact, you will become a new creation because Wisdom, that is of God, will have her way with you … only you need submit to what you fear most … that is Life.

Catholics see this pointing to the Sacrifice of the Mass.

Have you read the rest of it? Remember, the priest that is spoken of by the psalmist is also mentioned via prototype in Genesis 14:18-20 … and also remember that Hosea 7:8-10 says what is the fate of the house of Israel (also known as Ephraim… not to be confused with Israel… the new creation… what the sons of Jacob (of Judah that is) are now called by). So many condemn and never consider.

It sounds like you saying the blood of Jews, and Gentiles joined to them, will justify many and bear their guilt.

Well, I was trying to draw the line between the Jews and those who are to join back to the covenant that is the signature. Jeremiah 31 has the reference I have given before. When the house of Israel was “annihilated” … the house of Judah, the Jewish (the ones who wrote the Tanakh), mourned for their loss and understanding came. Then, the Jewish were spread in so many more ways than one by seed into the nations.

It sounds like you are saying the blood of Jews will not justify many and bear thier guiIt. I do trust God. I believe His is the perfect sacrifice.

His what? His sacrifice? He never sacrificed … only ever we did. He created those that lit the fire, but those in it, the fire, still seem to have no clue that they DID sacrifice Him, God, in order to rather accept a man whom they felt could cover their sins.

 

[Robert_in_SD]

A man, being healed of his leprosy, was told by Jesus to go to the priests…

How does Jesus specifically mention the OT is better than the NT when the NT wasn’t written until long after His Ascension?
simply:

Now… here is the thing, in both exodus and deuteronomy it is commanded to not receive gifts, for they pervert the eyes of righteous judgment. Offerings for the house of God are allowed by the children, but gifts of strangers is a no-no. Next, in the Laws given by Moses, the only gifts that I can find that are acceptable are those of service. ahem

So, are you saying that the cure of the leper was a gift wrongfully offered by Jesus to the priests of the temple? Could it not be read that Jesus was offering the cured leper to His Father in Heaven by a manner that His audience would understand… presenting the man to the priests of the Temple. Also, was it not the role of the priests to determine whether or not a man was “clean” or “unclean.” I understood the reason why Jesus asked the man not to tell anyone was so the temple priests would declare him clean, and not “fudge” their decision if they knew it was Jesus who was responsible for the cure. That seems like the logical reason for the command to silence.
simply:

Most interesting is what is said regarding the gifts given by Abraham… He gave ALL he had to his son Isaac… to the concubines and their children, he gave gifts so as to send them away from his son (in other words, trying to bribe them so they would keep their greedy hands off of what he gave to his son). The Christians have the memory of Jesus they can worship. Why is it then so many still seek to replace the Jewish? Is it not enough, the New Testament? Why, if you are given this Jewish man, is it not enough?

So, you are saying that Catholics (christians in general) are like the concubines who are given Jesus, but want the “inheritence” of the “chosen people?” First, it was not the jews who “gave” us Jesus. Jesus came for all of us through the Jews; the Jews were chosen people, they did not choose God - God chose them for His purposes. Because that’s the case then I think you misunderstand the Catholic position. The Catholic Church is a New Covenant church… we see our relationship with God as arising from the covenant that was made with the blood of Jesus. We acknowledge that the covenant established by Abraham is still in effect, and we honor the Jews for that tradition of faithfulness. That being said, we also believe that the same God who made that covenant with the Jews made the New Covenant for all people… including the Jews.
simply:

Why insult the Jewish by saying things such as, “when you convert you will then be a completed Jew?” (which I have seen spoken on this board by Catholics as well other Christians, and even in many other places across the internet).

I do not see this as an insult. Converted Jews like Rosalind Moss have said the same about themselves. It is not a claim of any sort of personality or intellectual defect, but a recognition (from the Catholic perspective) that Jesus Christ is the Messiah and the Kingdom of God has been established.
simply:

The Son, the People, is having to come to you all now to shed Light on the matter because the Christians have not thought the gift given good enough and are busy trying to convert the Jewish to Christianity. At least, this is my perception of what is happening.

I don’t think you should view sincere attempts to convert (even if done clumsily) as a personal attack upon you or the Jewish people. I also do not think that your perception is a fair assessment of the Church’s position with respect to what Pope John Paul II referred to as our elder brothers in the faith.
simply:

Jesus apparently agrees… just read Matthew 15:4-9:

[4] For God commanded, Honor your father and your mother,' and, He who speaks evil of father or mother, let him surely die.’
[5] But you say, If any one tells his father or his mother, What you would have gained from me is given to God, he need not honor his father.' [6] So, for the sake of your tradition, you have made void the word of God. [7] You hypocrites! Well did Isaiah prophesy of you, when he said: [8] This people honors me with their lips,
but their heart is far from me;
[9] in vain do they worship me,
teaching as doctrines the precepts of men.’"I’m not sure I understand how you are interpreting this passage. Are you saying that Catholics should consider Jews as their parents, and honor them as such simply because Jesus was a Jew? If that’s your point I think you’d better re-read Matthew. Jesus was speaking of the Pharisees and scribes of the temple when he said the above. While it is true that salvation is from the Jews, it does not follow that modern Jews should be sacrosant when it comes to evangelization. As long as it is done in charity and good will, I see nothing wrong with presenting the Gospel from the Christian point of view and letting people make up their own minds about its veracity. Apparently you have rejected the Christian position, but I do not think you speak for all Jews on the matter. And I do not think all Jews are hypersensitive to attempts at evangelization.
simply:

Catholicism is born from Judaism …, how is that honoring your parent to disregard the Light that was promised to you (not sacrifice… that was NOT the Light)?

We do honor the chosen people in our way, and pray that one day we will be united in faith with them - not in a way that destroys or waters down the Jewish culture, but in a way that exhalts it and glorifies it.
simply:

Melchizedek, king of Salem, brought more to Abraham than do those saying they are the replacement of the Jewish, the children of Abraham. That’d be found in Genesis 14.

Read Hebrews, Chapter 7.
simply:

I am beside myself to figure out how the sacrifice of a Jew along with insulting judgments of the Jewish is actually considered acceptable gifts. Insane, no? Or am I wrong… would any one here willingly accept such treatment if your family was the one being treated as the Jewish are being treated…

It is not the sacrifice of a Jew, but the sacrifice of the Second Person of the Trinity itself that is the gift. And it is not a gift that we offered to God, but a sacrifice by God Himself on our behalf. (Like Abraham sacrificing his own Son in submission to God’s command… but consummated.)

[13] Greater love has no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.
[14] You are my friends if you do what I command you.
[15] No longer do I call you servants, for the servant does not know what his master is doing; but I have called you friends, for all that I have heard from my Father I have made known to you. (Jn 15:13-15)

Peace,
Robert