Looking for the Two Witnesses? Look no further

[HannibalFlavius]

I feel that since God has no respect for ethnicity regarding eternal salvation that keeping the Law cannot apply differently regarding salvation to different ethnic groups.

Even if I accept that it was not Pauls explicit teaching to forsake the law, the fact still remains that he did not follow it. He only preached that the Law was not what saved, but you seem to insist that for Jews it is a requirement that faith for Jews mandate adherance to the law of Moses, but this was actually the precise thing that Paul was against.

Tell me what the following passage from Galatians means to you then, so I can understand you.

I don't know what Bizzaro Paul you are speaking of, Paul kept the law and he proved that he had been keeping the law and that he would keep it the rest of his life.

It is right there in acts as I showed you.

So you think he is a liar.

I don't understand your logic, its in black and white for you yourself to read.

What else is there to say?

What about the liars who were paid to lie against Stephen, they lied saying that Stephen was teaching Jews not to keep the law.

A lie is a lie, how do you figure that liars were paid if they weren't lying?

 

[Bible2]

HannibalFlavius said in post 21:

So you think he is a liar.

No. Paul didn't object to the charges in Acts 21:21, because they were true (Galatians 2:11-21, Galatians 4:21 to 5:8, Galatians 3:2-25, Romans 7:6; 2 Corinthians 3:6-18, Ephesians 2:15-16, Colossians 2:14-17). And he didn't object to the request in Acts 21:23-24a, because of the principle in 1 Corinthians 9:20, and because the practices of the Old Covenant Mosaic law in themselves are still holy, for the Old Covenant Mosaic law in itself is still holy (Romans 7:12). So Paul wasn't sinning by participating in them. Also, Acts 21:24b doesn't require that the charges in Acts 21:21 were false. All Acts 21:24b means is that if Paul agreed to the request in Acts 21:23-24a, the charges in Acts 21:21 might be negated in the minds of Jews who (mistakenly) thought that Jews still had to keep the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law.

*******

HannibalFlavius said in post 15:

. . . if you were somehow correct that Paul taught against the keeping of the commandments of God, I would have no use for him at all.

That would be a serious mistake. For Paul taught against only the keeping of the letter of the commandments of the Old Covenant Mosaic law (Romans 7:6, Galatians 2:11-21, Galatians 4:21 to 5:8, Galatians 3:2-25), which was abolished on the Cross of Jesus (Ephesians 2:15-16, Colossians 2:14-17; 2 Corinthians 3:6-18).

Paul never taught against the keeping of Jesus' New Covenant/New Testament commandments (John 14:15, Hebrews 7:12, Galatians 6:2; 1 Corinthians 14:37) or the spirit of the Old Covenant Mosaic law (Romans 7:6, Galatians 5:14, Romans 13:8-10, Matthew 7:12).

For the basis for Paul's theology is direct revelation to him from Jesus Christ (Galatians 1:11-12). That's why his theology is in accord with what the Old Testament foretold (Acts 26:22-23), with what the New Testament Gospels describe (Matthew 16:21, Matthew 26:28; 1 Corinthians 15:1-4), and with what the other apostolic writings in the New Testament say (2 Peter 3:15-16).

The basis for Paul's authority, his being an apostle of Jesus (1 Corinthians 9:1), is his being an eyewitness of Jesus (1 Corinthians 9:1) and receiving his ministry directly from Jesus (Acts 26:16-18, Acts 9:10-22). When the other apostles saw how greatly Jesus worked through Paul, they accepted him as a fellow apostle (Galatians 2:9, Acts 14:14). Peter even expressly wrote to believers confirming that all of Paul's epistles are from God, are scripture (2 Peter 3:15-16). There's no reason to reject Paul's apostolic authority (1 Corinthians 14:36-37). His faithful apostolic work on behalf of Jesus proves that he's not a false apostle (Matthew 7:16-18). And after his conversion, Paul fulfilled many of the signs spoken of by Jesus regarding true believers (Mark 16:17-18, Acts 19:11-12; 1 Corinthians 14:18, Acts 28:3-5, Acts 28:8).

Also, because of the wonderful example of Saul the persecutor becoming Paul the apostle (1 Timothy 1:12-17), we should never give up on any unbelievers, no matter how hostile they are to Christians and the Christian faith. Instead, we should keep praying for them that God would miraculously save their souls. And because of the example of Saul becoming Paul, those who have persecuted Christians and reviled the Christian faith in the past, but now feel God's gifts of repentance and faith (2 Timothy 2:25, Ephesians 2:8) moving within them, shouldn't think that what they've done against Christians and the Christian faith (whether in word or deed) in the past disqualifies them from being able now to repent and ask God's forgiveness and receive his salvation through their faith in Jesus (Colossians 1:21-22).

 

[HannibalFlavius]

No. Paul didn't object to the charges in Acts 21:21, because they were true (Galatians 2:11-21, Galatians 4:21 to 5:8, Galatians 3:2-25, Romans 7:6; 2 Corinthians 3:6-18, Ephesians 2:15-16, Colossians 2:14-17). And he didn't object to the request in Acts 21:23-24a, because of the principle in 1 Corinthians 9:20, and because the practices of the Old Covenant Mosaic law in themselves are still holy, for the Old Covenant Mosaic law in itself is still holy (Romans 7:12). So Paul wasn't sinning by participating in them. Also, Acts 21:24b doesn't require that the charges in Acts 21:21 were false. All Acts 21:24b means is that if Paul agreed to the request in Acts 21:23-24a, the charges in Acts 21:21 might be negated in the minds of Jews who (mistakenly) thought that Jews still had to keep the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law.

*******



That would be a serious mistake. For Paul taught against only the keeping of the letter of the commandments of the Old Covenant Mosaic law (Romans 7:6, Galatians 2:11-21, Galatians 4:21 to 5:8, Galatians 3:2-25), which was abolished on the Cross of Jesus (Ephesians 2:15-16, Colossians 2:14-17; 2 Corinthians 3:6-18).

Paul never taught against the keeping of Jesus' New Covenant/New Testament commandments (John 14:15, Hebrews 7:12, Galatians 6:2; 1 Corinthians 14:37) or the spirit of the Old Covenant Mosaic law (Romans 7:6, Galatians 5:14, Romans 13:8-10, Matthew 7:12).

For the basis for Paul's theology is direct revelation to him from Jesus Christ (Galatians 1:11-12). That's why his theology is in accord with what the Old Testament foretold (Acts 26:22-23), with what the New Testament Gospels describe (Matthew 16:21, Matthew 26:28; 1 Corinthians 15:1-4), and with what the other apostolic writings in the New Testament say (2 Peter 3:15-16).

The basis for Paul's authority, his being an apostle of Jesus (1 Corinthians 9:1), is his being an eyewitness of Jesus (1 Corinthians 9:1) and receiving his ministry directly from Jesus (Acts 26:16-18, Acts 9:10-22). When the other apostles saw how greatly Jesus worked through Paul, they accepted him as a fellow apostle (Galatians 2:9, Acts 14:14). Peter even expressly wrote to believers confirming that all of Paul's epistles are from God, are scripture (2 Peter 3:15-16). There's no reason to reject Paul's apostolic authority (1 Corinthians 14:36-37). His faithful apostolic work on behalf of Jesus proves that he's not a false apostle (Matthew 7:16-18). And after his conversion, Paul fulfilled many of the signs spoken of by Jesus regarding true believers (Mark 16:17-18, Acts 19:11-12; 1 Corinthians 14:18, Acts 28:3-5, Acts 28:8).

Also, because of the wonderful example of Saul the persecutor becoming Paul the apostle (1 Timothy 1:12-17), we should never give up on any unbelievers, no matter how hostile they are to Christians and the Christian faith. Instead, we should keep praying for them that God would miraculously save their souls. And because of the example of Saul becoming Paul, those who have persecuted Christians and reviled the Christian faith in the past, but now feel God's gifts of repentance and faith (2 Timothy 2:25, Ephesians 2:8) moving within them, shouldn't think that what they've done against Christians and the Christian faith (whether in word or deed) in the past disqualifies them from being able now to repent and ask God's forgiveness and receive his salvation through their faith in Jesus (Colossians 1:21-22).

You people are seriously confused.

Paul never taught Jews to forsake the law.

You are applying what he said to Gentiles to Jews and it cant be done.

If Paul or Jesus taught against the commandments of God, Jesus can not be the Messiah, and I would have no use for Paul.

The Messiah comes to teach Torah Bible, He is the messenger of the covenant. He comes teaching, not doing away with the law and the prophets.

You have both doing away with the law and the prophets, although Jesus tells us plain out, he did not come to do away with the law.

You are treading on dangerous ground in trying to prove that Jesus could not have been the Messiah.

 

[ancientsoul]

heard one time that Paul understood people were misunderstanding him, so he addressed it again in 2 thess ... a furthering of the thought in an effort to help souls hear it in the manner intended ... often wondered if this is the point where thoughts branch away from the message ... haven't gotten to it, but somewhere there has to be an explanation as to the supposed contradiction ... we can't claim the Word doesn't contradict itself, and then set it against itself ... there has to be a REASON it apppears to contradict ... anyway, just a thought ...

liar is such an ugly word ... no matter who's using it ... unless it's the Lord ...

afterthought ... another thought ... could it be an example of what happens when we step out of Spirit ...you're only a liar if you do it deliberately ... your mistaken if you didn't intend it that way ... who hasn't done that thing right here ... in this forum ... just sayin ... and isn't the example to look at the intent ... another, just sayin' ... there is a REASON why it is what it is ...

 

[HannibalFlavius]

heard one time that Paul understood people were misunderstanding him, so he addressed it again in 2 thess ... a furthering of the thought in an effort to help souls hear it in the manner intended ... often wondered if this is the point where thoughts branch away from the message ... haven't gotten to it, but somewhere there has to be an explanation as to the supposed contradiction ... we can't claim the Word doesn't contradict itself, and then set it against itself ... there has to be a REASON it apppears to contradict ... anyway, just a thought ...

liar is such an ugly word ... no matter who's using it ... unless it's the Lord ...

afterthought ... another thought ... could it be an example of what happens when we step out of Spirit ...you're only a liar if you do it deliberately ... your mistaken if you didn't intend it that way ... who hasn't done that thing right here ... in this forum ... just sayin ... and isn't the example to look at the intent ... another, just sayin' ... there is a REASON why it is what it is ...

When looking at the decision whether or not gentiles should keep the law like Jews kept the law, it should be obvious that Jews were still keeping the law.

Its very hard for me to see a person trying to twist acts to try and show that nobody is supposed to keep the law.

The question of Jews continuing in the law was never in question.

The debate whether gentiles also had to keep the law went on for decades, it is extremely obvious that Jews became even more zealous in keeping the law, and extremely obvious that Jews are to keep the law unlike Gentiles.

When I see people trying to make Paul look like a liar and a deceiver, it's very depressing.

It is so obvious that Jews were never meant to stop keeping the law, that when I see somebody contradicting what is seen in acts, I can't help but think that they know the truth but refuse to admit the truth.

It is way too obvious that Jews never stopped keeping the law.

I just don't know what to think of people when they want to do away with Jews keeping the law.

The gentile is let out of keeping it like Jews, but they go way too far when they speak against the law and then try to say the Jew is wrong in keeping it.

It amazes me because the truth is so obvious, I can't help but think they know the truth but will not accept the truth.

 

[Aijalon]

I don't know what Bizzaro Paul you are speaking of, Paul kept the law and he proved that he had been keeping the law and that he would keep it the rest of his life.

It is right there in acts as I showed you.

So you think he is a liar.

I don't understand your logic, its in black and white for you yourself to read.

What else is there to say?

What about the liars who were paid to lie against Stephen, they lied saying that Stephen was teaching Jews not to keep the law.

A lie is a lie, how do you figure that liars were paid if they weren't lying?

Sorry, HannibalFlavius, I cannot continue this discussion with you from here. Since you say I am wrong or Paul is a liar, then debating further is moot.

The body of evidence in Paul's teachings were that he did not adhere to the law. If you will not at least explain the meaning of the passage I cited, in light of your view that Paul followed the law, then I will not be able to have a discussion with you.

It seems that you really do wish that I ignore the teachings of Paul in his epistles in favor of the idea that he did follow the law based on one passage in Acts where he followed an optional ritual of purification at the advice of his friends.

My use of the word deception may have been a poor choice, either way it doesn't make Paul a deciever or liar in my mind, it is a compromise he made in order to gain access to the Jews who were OPPOSED TO CHRIST.

The Jews he saught to preach to were the ones that followed the law and REJECTED CHRIST. The law was an obstacle to them because they believed they were justified by it.

Since we know and it is CLEAR that Paul taught that justifcation is not by the law, we know he would not have a problem practicing Torah laws as a matter of custom. It was a custom.

His practice of this custom was not even close to a "proof" that he followed all the law. It is not expressly said by him or his friends that his aim was to proove himself a follower of the law - YOU ARE ASSUMING THIS WAS HIS MOTIVE.

It is clear to me that you wish to confuse the people of this forum into believing that a Jew's love for Christ and faith in Jesus is not enough for salvation, they must also follow the Torah law.

I have noticed that you do not regularly post in the Messianic Forum, and your list your faith as "Other-Church". It would seem that you are not a Jewish Christian at all, but rather a more of a Judaizer.

Do you believe in Jesus as High Priest? If you believe that all people have access to the High Priest Jesus, and that he is Lord of all, how can you say there are two standards of faith, one for Jews and one for Gentiles?

How does a Gentile have favour from God without the law, but Jew must follow the law to gain it? If Paul followed the law then, how does he then preach that the Gentiles need not do so? I cannot understand it.

 

[HannibalFlavius]

My use of the word deception may have been a poor choice, either way it doesn't make Paul a deciever or liar in my mind, it is a compromise he made in order to gain access to the Jews who were OPPOSED TO CHRIST.

The word deceptions used by you is not out of line.

That is exactly what you say Paul is doing.

If Paul made a huge show in taking vows in order to prove without a doubt that he himself walked accordingly to the law, and you say he was deceiving and in other words, just plain out lying, then deception is the perfect word for what he did, according to you.

If Paul was indeed lying through his teeth and deceiving these people, then he is just a plain deceiving liar and not worth the trouble of looking up any of his words that you want me to look at.

Paul went out of his way in a big show of keeping the letter of the law to prove these,'' so called liars.'' exactly that,'' Liars.''

But as far as you are concerned, there were no liars were there?

So your point of view is that is was a lie that liars were lying against Paul because you say Paul didn't follow the law and taught people not to follow the law. So the conclusion is naturally that there were no liars to begin with.

But you would have me believe that Paul is disproving liars that aren't really lying?

You would also have me believe that no liars were paid to lie about Stephen teaching Jews not to keep the law.

Because if Stephen truly was teaching Jews not to keep the law, then why would liars have to be paid?

And if Paul is trying to disprove the lies told about him, why would he disprove those lies if they were not lies?

You aren't making a bit of sense, you are just trying to disprove many stories in the bible.

There were no liars at all were there?

Paul went out of his way to prove that he himself went on keeping the letter of the law, He went out of his way to prove the liars wrong.


YOU ARE SAYING THIS DIDN"T HAPPEN.

OR

YOU ARE SHOWING PAUL TO BE THE BIGGEST NO GOOD DECIEVING LIAR OF ALL.

YOU ARE TRYING TO PROVE PAUL TO BE THE LOWEST SORT OF MAN I HAVE EVER SEEN.

But just keep doing it.

It doesn't make any common sense at all, but carry on.

A child could read it and understand, but you cannot.

You try and twist it to some unholy, ungodly events of a lowlife man who is a liar and the lowest sort of people with no integrity at all, and then you want me to read his other words.

Never mind what Jesus said, if Jesus contradicts Paul the liar{says you} then Jesus must be wrong?

 

[Aijalon]

Actually you are the one making him out to be a liar, because you refute what he teaches. Your whole dialogue about him as a liar is rediculous, and it isn't what "I want you to read" it is the Bible.

I explained my stance on the scripture you posted, and you will not address the ones I poste. You either want to argue your side without looking at evidence that contradicts you, or, you don't even believe all of the epistles are valid writings.

In either case I am out.

 

[HannibalFlavius]

Actually you are the one making him out to be a liar, because you refute what he teaches. Your whole dialogue about him as a liar is rediculous, and it isn't what "I want you to read" it is the Bible.

I explained my stance on the scripture you posted, and you will not address the ones I poste. You either want to argue your side without looking at evidence that contradicts you, or, you don't even believe all of the epistles are valid writings.

In either case I am out.

You have explained that Paul is a man who lies, and who has no integrity.

You show Paul who is a man that will readily lie for his own benefit.

Why in the world do you think you have the truth from a man who readily lies about what he believes and what he practices?

Are you not getting this?

I don't know how much clearer I could be or the scripture could be.

If Paul was lying there, {AS YOU SAY AND BELIEVE} then he is lying wherever he goes{AS YOU SAY AND BELIEVE.}

YOU SAY that I am the one making him out to be a liar when IN FACT< YOU ARE MAKING HIM OUT TO BE A LIAR!



Do you really not understand?

Do I have to say it again?

PAUL WENT OUT OF HIS WAY TO MAKE A BIG SHOW THAT WOULD PROVE TO EVERYONE THAT HE CONTINUED KEEPING THE TORAH AND TO PROVE THAT HE NEVER TAUGHT JEWS TO STOP KEEPING THE TORAH.

THIS IS WHAT IT STATES IN THE SCRIPTURE!!!!!!!!!



You cannot have it both ways Ai, you think that Paul is deceiving and lying to everyone.

And now you want me to read his {TRUTH?}


WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT COTTON PICKER?



Are we speaking the same language?

Who is the guy who agrees with you?

Maybe I can make some sense from him.

HAHAHA WHAT?:o

 

[intojoy]

Ham nibble flavonois one of the two witnesses

........ Yea no

 

[Bible2]

HannibalFlavius said in post 23:

You are applying what he said to Gentiles to Jews and it cant be done.

Paul taught the same thing to Jews (e.g. Galatians 2:11-21). And he says "we" in Romans 7:6.

HannibalFlavius said in post 23:

The Messiah comes to teach Torah Bible, He is the messenger of the covenant.

Jesus didn't come to teach the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law, "For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ" (John 1:17).

Jesus is the messenger and mediator of the New Covenant (Hebrews 12:24), which is "not according" to the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law (Jeremiah 31:31-32).

Jesus shows in the Sermon on the Mount how his New Covenant, Christian commandments are stricter than the letter of the commandments of the Old Covenant Mosaic law. For the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law forbade murder (Matthew 5:21, Exodus 20:13), whereas Jesus' New Covenant law forbids even calling people names (Matthew 5:22). And the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law forbade adultery (Matthew 5:27, Exodus 20:14), whereas Jesus' New Covenant law forbids even looking at another woman with lust (Matthew 5:28). And the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law permitted divorce and remarriage (Matthew 5:31, Deuteronomy 24:1-2), whereas Jesus' New Covenant law forbids it (Matthew 5:32, Mark 10:11-12, Luke 16:18), except for a single exemption granted only to husbands who discover that their newlywed wife isn't a virgin, but had committed fornication (Matthew 19:9).

Jesus also shows in the Sermon on the Mount that while his New Covenant, Christian law is stricter than the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law, at the same time it's also more merciful. For the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law required taking an eye for an eye (Matthew 5:38, Deuteronomy 19:21), whereas Jesus' New Covenant law requires turning the other cheek (Matthew 5:39). And the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law required hatred for one's enemies (Matthew 5:43, Deuteronomy 23:6), whereas Jesus' New Covenant law requires love for one's enemies (Matthew 5:44). And the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law, the ministration of death (2 Corinthians 3:7), required, for example, that adulterers be put to death (Leviticus 20:10), whereas Jesus showed mercy to the woman caught in adultery (John 8:4-11). And, for another example, the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law required that anyone who does any work on the sabbath is to be put to death (Exodus 31:14, Numbers 15:32-36), whereas Jesus allowed his disciples to work on the sabbath and said they were guiltless (Matthew 12:1-8), just as Jesus himself worked on the sabbath (John 5:17-18).

So in obeying Jesus' New Covenant commandments (Matthew 5:19 to 7:29, John 14:15; 1 Corinthians 14:37), believers, whether Jews or Gentiles, are both more merciful and loving, and they also exceed in righteousness those who try to keep the abolished letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law (Matthew 5:20-48, Ephesians 2:15-16, Colossians 2:14-17, Romans 7:6; 2 Corinthians 3:6-18, Hebrews 7:18-19).

HannibalFlavius said in post 23:

He comes teaching, not doing away with the law and the prophets.

Matthew 5:17-18 means that Jesus came the first time not to abolish the prophecies in the Mosaic law and the Old Testament prophets regarding the Christ's first coming, but to fulfill all those prophecies (Luke 24:44-48; e.g. Acts 3:22-26, Isaiah 53). Matthew 5:17-18 can't mean that Jesus came not to abolish the letter of the commandments of the Old Covenant Mosaic law, for he did come to do that, on the Cross (Ephesians 2:15-16, Colossians 2:14-17, Romans 7:6; 2 Corinthians 3:6-18, Hebrews 7:18-19). Also, Matthew 5:17-18 can't mean that Jesus came to fulfill the letter of all the Old Covenant Mosaic law's commandments, for he couldn't possibly have done that. For example, some of those commandments applied only to women after childbirth (Leviticus 12:4-8), or to wives suspected of adultery by their husbands (Numbers 5:19-31).

As the Christ (Matthew 5:17, Luke 24:44-46), the mediator of the New Covenant (Matthew 26:28, Hebrews 12:24, Hebrews 7:22, Hebrews 8:6-8), Jesus had the divine authority to contradict the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law's commandments and replace them with his own, even better, New Covenant commandments (Matthew 5:38-44, Matthew 19:7-9, John 8:5-7), such as those he gave in the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5:19 to 7:29) and in the epistles of Paul the apostle (1 Corinthians 14:37; 1 Thessalonians 4:2). And as the Christ, Jesus had the divine authority to allow his disciples to break the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law's commandments (Matthew 12:1-8).

 

[Bible2]

Aijalon said in post 26:

. . . it doesn't make Paul a deciever or liar in my mind, it is a compromise he made in order to gain access to the Jews who were OPPOSED TO CHRIST.

That's right, and also to maintain access to all Jews who believed in Christ. I.e., when Paul was among only Jews who (mistakenly) thought that they were still under the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law, his merely acting like he also was still under it (1 Corinthians 9:20, Acts 21:26) was to maintain his credibility among those Jews, in the hope that this would give him sufficient continued access to them (cf. Acts 16:3), give him enough more time with them to where he might be able to gradually persuade them to accept his (correct) point of view (1 Corinthians 9:20) that the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law was abolished on Jesus' Cross for both Jews and Gentiles (Ephesians 2:15-16, Colossians 2:14-17, Romans 7:6; 2 Corinthians 3:6-18, Hebrews 7:18-19, Hebrews 10:9b, Galatians 3:2-25, Galatians 2:11-21, Galatians 4:21 to 5:8).

 

[Lollerskates]

The two witnesses are right here in these Christian forum.


I don't say that I am both the witnesses because I still lack what it takes to be both but I'm not far from it.

Go to, and look in the Messianic forum and you will find people in there that have the testimony of Jesus and who keep the commandments of God.

These people are made of 3 parts just like everyone is made of 3 parts.

Two parts of them are two witnesses within them that testify of who they are.

They will have the spirit of Elijah that comes to prepare a highway for gentiles who wish to return to their first love in coming back to the roots of the first traditions and ways that Jesus and the disciples taught.

I wouldn't say all Messianics have the two witnesses, but I can name a few members of the Messianic forum that are in fact,'' Moses AND Elijah.''

Those who keep the commandments of God and also have the testimony of Jesus.


Likewise in speaking of the false prophet and the Antichrist, they are also two spirits that testify within a single person.

When Jesus showed us what the kingdom of heaven looks like, he showed us Elijah, Moses, and Jesus standing as one.

Likewise, the two sons of Thunder stood with Peter symbolizing One, a different view of the kingdom of heaven in 3 parts.

Jesus, Moses, and Elijah stood there and talked about what Jesus was to accomplish.

We are shown 3 people from the very beginning that represent a whole.

There were 3 in the garden that represented a single entity.

Those in the garden had 3 sons to represent a whole, Noah had 3 sons to represent a whole. There are two kingdoms and a city in between them that represent a whole.

There are 3 sections of the Temple that show a whole Body.

There are 3 main feasts of God which show a whole body.


The idea is to die everyday to yourself and to let Jesus live.

Jesus lives there as the spirit in you but there is still the body and the soul.

A perfect Christian who has achieved a perfect walk with God is to have 3 spirits that all agree and are one together, The blood, the water and the spirit.

A perfect follower of Jesus is a picture of the kingdom of heaven in 3 parts.

He is Moses, he is Elijah, and he is Jesus because he dies to himself daily.

His body goes around working to help others, and the law of the Lord is continually in his mouth. He loves the Lord with his whole body and soul, and he goes out in search of the lost sheep of Israel as a good shepherd would do.

He prepares a highway for gentiles wanting to return to the father and the brother, and he prepares the gentile in accepting the feasts of his God.

He prepares the gentile in teaching him the appointed visitation days of God and he continually tries to restore the hearts of the children back to the fathers and the hearts of the father's back to the children in bringing respect back to the Torah, the law of God given to the servant of God, Moses.


On the other hand we have a beast and a false prophet who stands against all that is called of God. He seeks to abolish the law of God and his duty is to turn the children of Israel away from keeping the commandments and feasts of God.

He also has 3 parts just as the kingdom of heaven has 3 parts, and with his body and soul, and spirit he seeks to change the times and seasons of God and to do away with the things of God.

He sits in his Temple opposing the very word of God and thinks he is a God because he thinks he has an authority that is above God.

But to find the two witnesses is no hard thing, I could point you to people here in these forums who are indwelled with the spirit of Moses and Elijah.

And, what exactly excludes you from being one of the "two witnesses," with all do respect and laud?

The "two witnesses;" there is a rumor that the KJV translated this as "two" witnesses, instead of "witnesses." In the companion of Daniel 11, we see there are not "two" wise ones, but many. These are translational errors/misinterpretations. Don't discount yourself. In Daniel 11, there are only "witnesses," not "two." Now, I understand the "two" bit points to motifs of the bible (two pillars/duality and such.) But, who knows in the end?

God is a paradoxically inclined "entity" (and I used entity because calling Him something that is described by language cannot fully qualify His power.)

 

[ancientsoul]

And, what exactly excludes you from being one of the "two witnesses," with all do respect and laud?

The "two witnesses;" there is a rumor that the KJV translated this as "two" witnesses, instead of "witnesses." In the companion of Daniel 11, we see there are not "two" wise ones, but many. These are translational errors/misinterpretations. Don't discount yourself. In Daniel 11, there are only "witnesses," not "two." Now, I understand the "two" bit points to motifs of the bible (two pillars/duality and such.) But, who knows in the end?

God is a paradoxically inclined "entity" (and I used entity because calling Him something that is described by language cannot fully qualify His power.)

something i noticed in Zechariah 3:7 ... went to this verse because it is a verse that goes with zechariah 4:14 ... those that stand by ... when examining this verse, noticed it means many people ... not just two ... both verses refer to those who stand by ... before getting sidetracked was examining the possibility that the 'two' are the house of Judah and the house of Jacob ... both branches off the anointed one ... in Zechariah 4:14 ... what started me thinking is that Jesus is the Anointed One ... so how can there be two anointed ones ... there could be if they had Jesus anointing on them and were a branch off Him ... (poorly worded maybe)

if it were ... not saying is ... haven't gotten far enough to believe one way or another ... but am leaning this way:

house of Judah ... the law ... in a sense that would be the spirit of Moses ... those who carry the law ...

house of Jacob ... the Spirit i.e. those carrying the spirit of Elijah ... he never said Elijah would come, but 'the spirit of Elijah' ...

don't remember who posted that little sentence on one of these threads ... but it's where i am in the bigger picture


"the two witnesses ... the law and the Spirit" ...

we can 'see' the spirit of both in Revelation 11:6 ...

These have the power to shut up heaven, that it rain notin the days of their prophecy:

i.e. 'the spirit of Elijah'

and have the power over waters to turn them to blood, and to smite the earth with all plagues, as often they will.

i.e. the 'spirit of Moses'

much more work to do, but left off with those thoughts ... i see it as a definite possibility ...

never made it to Daniel 11 ... but sure will ... ty, for your post ... it was helpful ... and good food for thought ...

 

[ancientsoul]

to clarify ... poorly worded it when i said 'He never said' ... should have said, 'shouldn't overlook this verse' ...

Luke 1:10 ... And he shall go before him in the power and spirit of Elijah ...

we're to worship Him in Truth (theWord) and in the Spirit ... the possibility i offered would fit ...

by including 'the power' it would seem to mean he carried an anointing ...

 

[Lollerskates]

something i noticed in Zechariah 3:7 ... went to this verse because it is a verse that goes with zechariah 4:14 ... those that stand by ... when examining this verse, noticed it means many people ... not just two ... both verses refer to those who stand by ... before getting sidetracked was examining the possibility that the 'two' are the house of Judah and the house of Jacob ... both branches off the anointed one ... in Zechariah 4:14 ... what started me thinking is that Jesus is the Anointed One ... so how can there be two anointed ones ... there could be if they had Jesus anointing on them and were a branch off Him ... (poorly worded maybe)

if it were ... not saying is ... haven't gotten far enough to believe one way or another ... but am leaning this way:

house of Judah ... the law ... in a sense that would be the spirit of Moses ... those who carry the law ...

house of Jacob ... the Spirit i.e. those carrying the spirit of Elijah ... he never said Elijah would come, but 'the spirit of Elijah' ...

don't remember who posted that little sentence on one of these threads ... but it's where i am in the bigger picture


"the two witnesses ... the law and the Spirit" ...

we can 'see' the spirit of both in Revelation 11:6 ...

These have the power to shut up heaven, that it rain notin the days of their prophecy:

i.e. 'the spirit of Elijah'

and have the power over waters to turn them to blood, and to smite the earth with all plagues, as often they will.

i.e. the 'spirit of Moses'

much more work to do, but left off with those thoughts ... i see it as a definite possibility ...

never made it to Daniel 11 ... but sure will ... ty, for your post ... it was helpful ... and good food for thought ...

to clarify ... poorly worded it when i said 'He never said' ... should have said, 'shouldn't overlook this verse' ...

Luke 1:10 ... And he shall go before him in the power and spirit of Elijah ...

we're to worship Him in Truth (theWord) and in the Spirit ... the possibility i offered would fit ...

by including 'the power' it would seem to mean he carried an anointing ...

Yes these are good points. This is more to what I was alluding to also. The "two" motif is prevalent in the old and new testament. Two pillars, carnality and spirituality, sin and righteousness, law and grace boundary, etc. Us - the one's that aren't perfected - are in a state of duality. The only human that is in unity, especially with God, is Christ.

So, given that The Apocalypse (Revelation) is a book of imagery almost in its totality, keeping in context with the literary flow of the book makes me question whether the "two" witnesses are actually "two" specific people - especially given Daniel 11. Moreover, in the old testament, at least two people were needed to qualify to convict some of a sin. In the same way, "two witnesses" could be an allusion to the necessary amount of people needed to witness the atrocities of the Beast Kingdom, and give "account" to convict. It is also a reference to Judah and Israel (being split into two from unity.)

I haven't learned enough either - I don't think anyone has. But, these things are just what I have observed from my study.

 

[zeke37]

I'm not really sure I followed all that. Are you playing devils advocate for the sake of argument?

Of course he's not a liar. He was simply doing what the elders told him to do.

where is that written?

If he really followed the law, why would they need to tell him what to do? This makes no sense.

they had conflicting ideas of how to keep the Law in light of Christ.
Paul kept the Law, but did so as if the Law was fulfilled in Christ
and that differed from the way of the elders

You know, I've asked you a lot of questions already and you don't answer them, you just want to trap me into accepting that Paul either followed the law, or was a liar. Well he didn't follow the law, but your premise that he was a liar is foolishness.

Why, ohhhh WHY does he himself say in his letters he is not under the law??? Why?

the "curse" is to try to keep the Law without Christ.
Paul was not under THAT curse

But if you wish, why don't we skip what Paul said and talk about what Jesus said, since that seems to be in conflict with what Paul said as you see it.

he did not imply that
Paul and Jesus compliment each other perfectly

What part of the law must ethnic Jews follow? Just feasts? Or more?

the WHOLE Law, but they should be doing so fulfilled in Christ.
if they don't, then they are under the curse of the Law

Are gentiles obligated to do the same?

the Corinthians were gentiles...
Paul taught them to keep the feasts, but the fulfilled version, in 1Co5

 

[HannibalFlavius]

Yes these are good points. This is more to what I was alluding to also. The "two" motif is prevalent in the old and new testament. Two pillars, carnality and spirituality, sin and righteousness, law and grace boundary, etc. Us - the one's that aren't perfected - are in a state of duality. The only human that is in unity, especially with God, is Christ.

So, given that The Apocalypse (Revelation) is a book of imagery almost in its totality, keeping in context with the literary flow of the book makes me question whether the "two" witnesses are actually "two" specific people - especially given Daniel 11. Moreover, in the old testament, at least two people were needed to qualify to convict some of a sin. In the same way, "two witnesses" could be an allusion to the necessary amount of people needed to witness the atrocities of the Beast Kingdom, and give "account" to convict. It is also a reference to Judah and Israel (being split into two from unity.)

I haven't learned enough either - I don't think anyone has. But, these things are just what I have observed from my study.

They are two witnesses to a wedding, there are things greater than being a bride. We are all brides in a sense, but the ones going out to collect brides is the friend of the bridegroom and attends to the bridegroom, the other attends the bride, and he is her witness, and these are friends and family of the groom who is to be married to many brides, but it is better to collect brides than to be a bride. They are many people who have this spirit of calling gentiles back to the wedding canopy.

 

[HannibalFlavius]

Matthew 5:17-18 means that Jesus came the first time not to abolish the prophecies in the Mosaic law and the Old Testament prophets regarding the Christ's first coming, but to fulfill all those prophecies (Luke 24:44-48; e.g. Acts 3:22-26, Isaiah 53). Matthew 5:17-18 can't mean that Jesus came not to abolish the letter of the commandments of the Old Covenant Mosaic law, for he did come to do that,

You wrote all that stuff about what you think Paul is saying but if Paul is contradicting Christ, then its Paul that has the problem, not Christ.

Now you put part of this scripture up in what looks like an attempt to disprove what Jesus actually said, He also told us to we better keep the law better than the Pharisees, and told us to listen to the high priest..

Here is the scripture that you seem to be trying to disprove.

Jesus is making the letter of the law much more harder to keep and if we don't keep the harder version then we are in trouble. You seem to be saying that he is saying the opposite.

The Fulfillment of the Law
17“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.
Murder
21“You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘You shall not murder,a and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.’ 22But I tell you that anyone who is angry with a brother or sisterbc will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to a brother or sister, ‘Raca,’d is answerable to the court. And anyone who says, ‘You fool!’ will be in danger of the fire of hell.
23“Therefore, if you are offering your gift at the altar and there remember that your brother or sister has something against you, 24leave your gift there in front of the altar. First go and be reconciled to them; then come and offer your gift.
25“Settle matters quickly with your adversary who is taking you to court. Do it while you are still together on the way, or your adversary may hand you over to the judge, and the judge may hand you over to the officer, and you may be thrown into prison. 26Truly I tell you, you will not get out until you have paid the last penny.
Adultery
27“You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’e 28But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart. 29If your right eye causes you to stumble, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. 30And if your right hand causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell.
Divorce
31“It has been said, ‘Anyone who divorces his wife must give her a certificate of divorce.’f 32But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, makes her the victim of adultery, and anyone who marries a divorced woman commits adultery.
Oaths
33“Again, you have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘Do not break your oath, but fulfill to the Lord the vows you have made.’ 34But I tell you, do not swear an oath at all: either by heaven, for it is God’s throne; 35or by the earth, for it is his footstool; or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the Great King. 36And do not swear by your head, for you cannot make even one hair white or black. 37All you need to say is simply ‘Yes’ or ‘No’; anything beyond this comes from the evil one.g
Eye for Eye
38“You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’h 39But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. 40And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well. 41If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles. 42Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.
Love for Enemies
43“You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbori and hate your enemy.’ 44But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. 46If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? 47And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? 48Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

1Then Jesus spoke to the crowds and to His disciples, 2saying: “The scribes and the Pharisees have seated themselves in the chair of Moses; 3therefore all that they tell you, do and observe, but do not do according to their deeds; for they say things and do not do them. 4“They tie up heavy burdens and lay them on men’s shoulders, but they themselves are unwilling to move them with so much as a finger. 5“But they do all their deeds to be noticed by men; for they broaden their phylacteries and lengthen the tassels of their garments. 6“They love the place of honor at banquets and the chief seats in the synagogues, 7and respectful greetings in the market places, and being called Rabbi by men. 8“But do not be called Rabbi; for One is your Teacher, and you are all brothers. 9“Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven. 10“Do not be called leaders; for One is your Leader, that is, Christ. 11“But the greatest among you shall be your servant. 12“Whoever exalts himself shall be humbled; and whoever humbles himself shall be exalted.

 

[HannibalFlavius]

Matthew 5:17-18 means that Jesus came the first time not to abolish the prophecies in the Mosaic law and the Old Testament prophets regarding the Christ's first coming, but to fulfill all those prophecies 8).

You must be a Preterist but it doesn't matter that you say all the prophecies have been fulfilled when anyone can clearly know that they in fact have not been fulfilled.

I don't even know how people could say such a thing, I mean, I know Preterist of however you spell it exists, but I just consider that they don't know much about the history of Israel.

There are way too many specific prophecies about specific people that have never been fulfilled.