The Gift that keeps on taking

[simplynoone]

I don’t think i need say more… You need to learn not to oppose the OT and the NT, but to let one shed light on the other, otherwise, you are prone to many serious errors!

True … I was told that Jesus is the only begotten Son of God. Yet, Exodus 4:22,23 as well as Hosea 11:1 says the Son is Israel.

Thus, John 3:16 is speaking of Israel as a whole and not only Jesus. And Jesus was teaching his disciples how to call to the house of Israel …

Matthew 15:24; Ezekiel 34:28-31

… not the world. Christians teach that Jesus came to save the sins of the world and yet your own NT says differently. His mission was the house of Israel (Ephraim) who had been scattered among the Gentiles Hosea 8:8. Also, his mission was not to rescue them out of the world … only to turn their hearts back to their fathers and to their God.

John 17:9,15
I pray for them (the Son of God, Israel): I pray not for the world, but for them which thou hast given me; for they are thine.
I pray not that thou shouldest take them out of the world, but that thou shouldest keep them from the evil.

---

Who is in error … the Christian doctrines or me (because I base my doctrine on what is written and not on what is implied)? Or perhaps there are other errors you would like to point out. It would be much more beneficial to the discussion if you would be specific, please. I am ready to learn.

 

[Lapell]

First, I am relieved to see someone with at least the common sense to say that the NT is explained by the Tanakh. Believe it or not, I have heard too many times that it is the other way around.

Second, I believe that it completes the Tanakh; but in the sense of what is said in Jeremiah 17:5,9-10.

I don’t know now if I really put it right… How it was taught is that the NT can’t be understood properly without the TaNaKH. Anyhow, the TaNaKH (plus the Deuterocanonical Books) and the New Testament ARE inter-related. You put it well by saying the NT completes the OT. Only, the NT can’t just stand by itself without the OT, just as the OT is incomplete without the NT.

 

[simplynoone]

I’m sorry I don’t have alot of time to talk. I can appreciate what you are saying but we believe in a more literal fulfillment of those verses- related to 2 Sam 7:16 which says there will always be an heir of David seated upon his throne.

As do I. Don’t over look 2 Samuel 7:14… Jeremiah 30. It is a People, Israel. Jeremiah 33:7 … as at the first? Deuteronomy 8:5 Exodus 4:22,23. He promised … and God is not like a man that He should repent. That He chastises His People is the promise being fulfilled. You say you believe in a literal fulfillment and yet, what the Tanakh says, as I have shown, is more literal a fulfillment than what is being taught in Christianity.

 

[Lapell]

True … I was told that Jesus is the only begotten Son of God. Yet, Exodus 4:22,23 as well as Hosea 11:1 says the Son is Israel.

Thus, John 3:16 is speaking of Israel as a whole and not only Jesus. And Jesus was teaching his disciples how to call to the house of Israel …

Matthew 15:24; Ezekiel 34:28-31

… not the world. Christians teach that Jesus came to save the sins of the world and yet your own NT says differently. His mission was the house of Israel (Ephraim) who had been scattered among the Gentiles Hosea 8:8. Also, his mission was not to rescue them out of the world … only to turn their hearts back to their fathers and to their God.

John 17:9,15
I pray for them (the Son of God, Israel): I pray not for the world, but for them which thou hast given me; for they are thine.
I pray not that thou shouldest take them out of the world, but that thou shouldest keep them from the evil.

---

Who is in error … the Christian doctrines or me (because I base my doctrine on what is written and not on what is implied)? Or perhaps there are other errors you would like to point out. It would be much more beneficial to the discussion if you would be specific, please. I am ready to learn.

O.K., your question contains many things. In my next posts, I 'll try to address them one by one, God willing…

 

[simplynoone]

That portion devoted to God residing in the Heavenly Jerusalem for eternity. Where the sword is truely beaten into plowshares and sword is not raised against one another.

John 17:3 And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.

---

Revelation 19:10 says that the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy and the testimony of the prophets is … WORSHIP GOD. That means that the anointed, the Son of man is the Word spoken through the prophets (the fire … Deut. 4:12) and that Jesus was testifying to that Word and to the Son of God, Israel is the truth … Matthew 5:17-19. And to know God is to know His Law. Hosea 4:6 … to know is life (faith is the end of knowledge). It does mean that we live eternally in some mystical realm of Jerusalem … rather, we know God, life … and to know Life is only by way of God’s Law (which is cause and effect). When we start to see the effects of our actions and we are able to acknowledge them, then we can have freedom to know how to cause what is good.

John 5:19-24 I have told you, the Son is Israel as is testified in the Scriptures. Notice in 24, he that believeth IS passed (meaning, it is and NOT that it will be … thus, negating those who think mystically) from death into life. Psalm 146 … Jesus, the Jewish rabbi, is dead and will not return. To trust in him and believe that you will live eternally is missing the whole point of the Tanakh and what Jesus was teaching about them.

Deuteronomy 33:27-29

 

[Lapell]

Thus, John 3:16 is speaking of Israel as a whole and not only Jesus. And Jesus was teaching his disciples how to call to the house of Israel …

Matthew 15:24; Ezekiel 34:28-31

… not the world. Christians teach that Jesus came to save the sins of the world and yet your own NT says differently. His mission was the house of Israel (Ephraim) who had been scattered among the Gentiles Hosea 8:8.

And what makes you say that the “House of Israel” can’t just be the whole of Israel, not just Ephraim to the exclusion of Judah? Wasn’t King David’s Kingdom the Kingdom of… Israel (undivided then)? Therefore, the expression “House of Israel” IS correct here. Moreover, Jesus was ministering not only in"Ephraim" (Samaria and Galilee), but also in Judah (Judea)!

 

[Lapell]

Also, his mission was not to rescue them out of the world … only to turn their hearts back to their fathers and to their God.

You seem to confuse the Messiah’s mission with that of Prophet Elijah’s (Mal. 4, 5-6)…

 

[Lapell]

John 17:9,15
I pray for them (the Son of God, Israel): I pray not for the world, but for them which thou hast given me; for they are thine.
I pray not that thou shouldest take them out of the world, but that thou shouldest keep them from the evil.

First, you shouldn’t add to what is written. “Them” stands for his faithful apostles, also quite simply. AND IT DOESN’T STOP THERE!!! He also prayed also for those who believe in Him through their predication. (v.20)

 

[Lapell]

Thus, John 3:16 is speaking of Israel as a whole and not only Jesus. And Jesus was teaching his disciples how to call to the house of Israel …

Here you should have read what’s WITHIN the verse:"…so that EVERYONE WHO BELIEVES IN ME will not die but have eternal life."
(John 17,3) “This is eternal life: to know you (Father), the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you sent.”

 

[Lapell]

True … I was told that Jesus is the only begotten Son of God. Yet, Exodus 4:22,23 as well as Hosea 11:1 says the Son is Israel.

Thus, John 3:16 is speaking of Israel as a whole and not only Jesus. And Jesus was teaching his disciples how to call to the house of Israel …
Here again, read John 3,16 within its own context, so take the whole of Jesus’ answer to Nicodemus, John 3, 10-20. A sentence doesn’t make sense taken out of its context, and many errors happen because sentences are taken out of their context… (continued)

 

[Lapell]

John 3, 13-15 :No one has gone to heaven except the Son of Man, who came from heaven.
As Moses lifted up the snake on a pole, so the Son of Man must be lifted up. Then everyone who believes in him will have eternal life.
v. 16: For God so loved the world that He gave His only Son, so that everyone who believes in him will not die but will have eternal life."
He who believes in the Son of Man will have eternal life, says verse 15. And in verse 16, everyone who believes in the “only” Son of God will have eternal life.
Though John changes the way he calls him, it’s really the same one person… The Church has always taught it from the very beginning, and the New Testament comes from the Church.

 

[Lapell]

Who is in error … the Christian doctrines or me (because I base my doctrine on what is written and not on what is implied)?

(I put “my” in bold letters, not simplynoone.) If the doctrine you preach were from God, you wouldn’t call it :“my doctrine”…

 

[Lapell]

Matthew 15:24; Ezekiel 34:28-31. Christians teach that Jesus came to save the sins of the world and yet your own NT says differently.

One verse doesn’t make a whole book, my friend, be careful!
John the Baptist told the people when Jesus appeared: “Behold the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world.” (John 1, 29) Jesus never told him: “Please don’t say that!”
(And please note John 1,32-34, at the end of which John the Baptist declares: “I have seen this and have declared that this is the Son of God.”)

 

[Lapell]

In the context, Jesus was telling the Canaanite woman that if she were to seriously ask him, a Jew, to cure her daughter in the Name of the God of Israel, she should know that she would have first to refrain from worshipping idols for good.

 

[simplynoone]

Sorry, Pilate is asking if he is the king of the Jewish nation. Read verse 35.

No … Pilate is the one who called him the King of the Jews. But Jesus is clear when he says repeatedly “thou sayest it” that Pilate is the one who gave him that title; and it was given mockingly. The NT testifies to this clearly. John 19:19

That is not what end means in this verse. It means for this reason. Jesus is not saying what you imply. He said he had a kingship in verse 36.

Jesus is not denying his royal mission. He is disassociating from the political form of government Pilate was concerned with, and turning the focus toward heaven.

He, Jesus, is not claiming to have any kingdom. He does not say “but my kingdom is thus and thus.”

Jesus backed away from the people in (John 6:15) because his kingdom is heavenly and spiritual and Israel wanted him to overthrow the Romans and reestablish thier national independence in Palestine.

He never claimed to have a kingdom … he was testifying to the truth of the prophets. He was a witness of the truth. That does not make it his kingdom.

Jesus accepted the title of Messiah and Son of David.

The woman said to him, “I know that the Messiah is coming, the one called the Anointed; when he comes, he will tell us everything.” Jesus said to her, “I am he, the one who is speaking with you.” (John 4:25-26)

Jesus told her, “I am the resurrection and the life; whoever believes in me, even if he dies, will live, and everyone who lives and believes in me will never die. Do you believe this?” She said to him, “Yes, Lord. I have come to believe that you are the Messiah, the Son of God, the one who is coming into the world.” (John 11:25-27)

Psalm 147:19-20 … if you can read what he says here and not understand that he is not speaking as one man but on the behalf of a People in whom the testimony is established, then you do not yet understand the Law (Deuteronomy 4:15,16). If you think that the Kingdom to which Jesus is referring is HIS and that HE is King, then you do not worship the God of Israel Psalm 147.

I met a Jew who, when he spoke to me, it is like he knows me … to the point I have felt the same way that this woman felt toward Jesus. But I know better than to assume he God … he is a son of David and one of the Messiah. He would not have me to think of him more highly than the others of the Messiah (Israel) and God is who he gives praise to. Jesus confirmed this was his idea in mind as seen in John 4:22,24.

Salvation is of the Jews and our Saviour is God!

Isaiah 63:7-8
**I will mention the lovingkindnesses of the LORD, and the praises of the LORD, according to all that the LORD hath bestowed on us, and the great goodness toward the house of Israel, which he hath bestowed on them according to his mercies, and according to the multitude of his lovingkindnesses. **

** For he said, Surely they are my people, children that will not lie: so he was their Saviour.**

---

He is NOT a man, but He is THE Holy Spirit and His ways are eternal and He does not change. Hosea 9:11; Malachi 3:6 <---- what Jesus was testifying to in fact.

A Jew would never believe him/herself to be God. If Jesus believed this, then he was not a Jew … only one who was posing as a Jew.

 

[simplynoone]

You put it well by saying the NT completes the OT. Only, the NT can’t just stand by itself without the OT, just as the OT is incomplete without the NT.

Just please be sure to note that I am only saying the NT completes it under the context of Jeremiah 17:5,9-10

The NT reads very much like a “double edged sword” … and only through an intimate knowledge of the Tanakh have I come to realize that Jesus, being a Jew, never validated Christianity and its doctrinal beliefs. That came from Paul.

 

[Lapell]

A Jew would never believe him/herself to be God. If Jesus believed this, then he was not a Jew … only one who was posing as a Jew.

Again, my friend, be very careful. Read the Gospels in their context before you put verses together.
If God assumed the human nature by taking the form of a man, and of a Jew at that, would He then not have the right to think of Himself as Who He would happen to be: God?
Are you trying to tell God how to be God and how to act as such?

 

[simplynoone]

And what makes you say that the “House of Israel” can’t just be the whole of Israel, not just Ephraim to the exclusion of Judah? Wasn’t King David’s Kingdom the Kingdom of… Israel (undivided then)? Therefore, the expression “House of Israel” IS correct here. Moreover, Jesus was ministering not only in"Ephraim" (Samaria and Galilee), but also in Judah (Judea)!

Jesus was teaching the Jews their role as Messiah. I do not believe that only the house of Israel was “swallowed” up by the Gentiles, but also a portion of the house of Judah. Of course, this is stated in both Jeremiah 31:27 and Joel 3:6.

 

[simplynoone]

You seem to confuse the Messiah’s mission with that of Prophet Elijah’s (Mal. 4, 5-6)…

Elijah was a “messianic” figure in Israel. And the similarities are indeed striking regarding the NT in light of I Kings 18.

 

[Lapell]

Just please be sure to note that I am only saying the NT completes it under the context of Jeremiah 17:5,9-10

The NT reads very much like a “double edged sword” … and only through an intimate knowledge of the Tanakh have I come to realize that Jesus, being a Jew, never validated Christianity and its doctrinal beliefs. That came from Paul.

Sorry, madame! This you heard from some Jews who don’t believe in Jesus as their Messiah, certainly. I know for a fact that some of them say the same thing.
Paul started preaching Jesus as the awaited Messiah after he received a vision of the resurrected Jesus on his way to Damascus as told in the Acts of the Apostles, and he met with Peter and some Apostles to make sure what he was preaching was kosher doctrine in their view. They confirmed that his message was the same Gospel they were preaching. Paul tells this in his letter to the Galatians.