I'm sorry mercy1061 but I do not understand how what you are saying applies to what I am saying at all?
Upvote
0
what exactly did he mean? ...no man comes to the Father except by me
- Thread starter rick357
- Start date
Torah Emuna you made the statement early in this post that Yeshua taught his diciples as a rabbi of his day would...which leads me to believe you do not consider him a deciever...if I have not asumed to much then can you expound on what he meant by the statement in the OP
Upvote
0
I never read the Torah (Genesis, Exodus, Lev, Numbers, Deut) mention Muslims, Buddhists or Mormons.
Upvote
0
HannibalFlavius
Well-Known Member
I pretty much believe this some what, that salvation is broad.
But in my view, salvation is for suckers who don't know the differences between salvation and reward.
I believe in the resurrection and I believe all people will be resurrected, everyone who has ever been born will stand on Earth at the same time and be judged.
Salvation is when you are resurrected but then turn into ashes, still saved, still go to heaven, but the reward of staying resurrected is a reward.
That the Temple has 3 sections, and the Temple was deigned in the design of heaven, and people who live by the flesh will be found in the outer court of gentiles when they are judged.
The temple being designed as heaven would show 3 progressive steps.
And this sounds logical because if God is truly a God of fairness and justice, then everyone will not be treated the same, and some have obtained a better resurrection while others just obtained salvation.
That everyone who has been born will stand at one time, those who are to turn to ashes are resurrected in a body of corruption, and those who have obtained reward are resurrected in incorruption.
Upvote
0
Salvation is not for a future event...salvation is when the strong man of Adamic nature is bound and his teaching of death and treasure of bondage is spoiled and Yeshua takes residance in that house and brings life
It is a passing from the way of death to the way of life...let him who stole steal no more.....and such were some of you but...saved....just because most use it as a way to excuse sin does not mean YHWH does not save from sin....and reward only comes when his life has overcome your death.
Upvote
0
Of cource he was not a deciever. I am unaware of anything Jesus said that was antagonistic toward the Torah. But I also do not think that everything ascribed to him in the New Testament actually came out of his mouth. The text we have today has been redacted many times and some of what Jesus allegedy said was added later and reflected ideas that were not his, but were Pauline in nature. Much of that can be detected fairly easy though.
Upvote
0
It does not mention Christians or Messianics either. Some Torah concepts are clearly universal.
Upvote
0
If I decide what Yeshua said and didnt say then I can make him agree with anything...that said there is nothing he said which does not agree with Torah....and as to Paul all he says agrees with both Yeshua and Torah...if you beloeve this is not true please give an example....also as this is your reply to my post I assume "no man comes to the Father except by me" would in yoir mind be an add on?
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
No, I didn't say that either mercy1061. This is what I said "ALL men have access to the Creator so of course that includes gentiles. It includes Muslims, Buddhists, Mormons, and Jehovah's Witnesses too. Christianity excludes all who do not believe in Jesus from accessing the Creator. That is NOT a Torah concept."
To which you responded "I never read the Torah (Genesis, Exodus, Lev, Numbers, Deut) mention Muslims, Buddhists or Mormons."
In turn, I responded with this "It does not mention Christians or Messianics either. Some Torah concepts are clearly universal."
So I'm not sure where you got confused but your last reply clearly has nothing to do with my last post. Perhaps you should read through the last 3 or 4 posts of our conversation in this thread. To avoid further confusion you really should include the quote you are replying to inside your posts. That is why everyone else does it.
Shalom
Upvote
0
Actually it IS a future event according to the Apostle Paul.
Philippians 3:10-14 CJB
(10) Yes, I gave it all up in order to know him, that is, to know the power of his resurrection and the fellowship of his sufferings as I am being conformed to his death, (11) so that somehow I might arrive at being resurrected from the dead. (12) It is not that I have already obtained it or already reached the goal - no, I keep pursuing it in the hope of taking hold of that for which the Messiah Yeshua took hold of me. (13) Brothers, I, for my part, do not think of myself as having yet gotten hold of it; but one thing I do: forgetting what is behind me and straining forward toward what lies ahead, (14) I keep pursuing the goal in order to win the prize offered by God's upward calling in the Messiah Yeshua.
Shalom
Upvote
0
To say that you can make Jesus agree with "anything" is clearly exaggerating, but I get your point. Most students of the New Testament already decide for themselves what the authors said or didn't say, and are not even aware of it. Obviously you have to be extremely careful with this practice but if you know the speaker well enough, you can discern whether or not he actually said something. I most certainly would not suggest this practice to a novice though. In many places if you accept the text "as is" then he either goes against the Torah or contradicts himself. Take your pick?
Personally I don't believe he did either one. I believe there were redactions to the New Testament where words were placed in Jesus' mouth.
If you leave today's modern text "as is" there most certainly are contradictions.
I strongly disagree if you leave the text "as is" and the Apostle Paul is way more problematic than Jesus.
That particular verse is indeed suspicious but I'll have to do a little research on it before I can say definitively. I'll try to give you a few examples shortly.
Shalom
Upvote
0
I have decided to begin with the example of John 14:6. I would like you (and Hoshiyya if he wishes) to help me find the relevant information to study this out. I studied the modern Christian claim that Jesus is G-d manifested in the flesh many years ago. What I found out is that the early Jewish Christians never taught or believed that. In the acts of the Apostles we read that James was the head figure of the Jerusalem Church. That is historically accurate, they met in an upper room of the Temple complex, and were considered to be very pious Jews. Jewish sources tell us that they called him Ya'akov HaTzadik (James the Just). None of this would have been even remotely possible if they proclaimed that Jesus was G-d in the flesh. There is no way they could have preached that in the Beit HaMikdash without being stoned to death.
I'm thinking that the doctrine of Jesus' "diety" either began with the Apostle Paul or possibly the emperor Constantine. It certainly did not begin with Jesus or the twelve.
Anyway I wanted to let you know where I'll be going with this so you can take part in the research. How about you find out everything you can concerning James the Just? Meanwhile I'll try to drum up some information on the Netzarim, an early Messianic sect that rejected the doctrine of Jesus' diety as heresy.
Shalom
Upvote
0
I did some research into Messianic History and James the Just among other things. http://www.christianforums.com/t4145248-4/
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Greetings
As you state most decide their belief and then try to find things in scripture to support their view....I agree as would anyone who cared to notice
...this is not a NT only occurance...the Judaism of first century second temple worship had several sects all believing their flavor was supported by Torah
.even modern rabbinic has those who are seperatist to the point even reformed are not seen as following Torah....then Schneerson includes all to the extent that even "righteous gentiles" are to be seen as in line with Torah
my point is yes we all look at Torah through our perception...including you and me....hence the phrase respect..to look again....if we respect each other we will not dismiss differing views but look again to consider that maybe one may see something the other missed and both come away wiyh a clearer view.....we must also respect what is written and before dismissing it.... with the idea that your own understanding could be wrong or biased you should find why it was said
As to the asertion of "know the speaker well enough". not many days ago I celibrated my 22nd wedding anniversary so with the year we knew each other before we where married I have known this woman and loved her intimatly for my entire adult life....and yet there are times I have no idea where she has drawn her conclusions from....so the idea one knows Yeshua well enough to edit the scripture seems invalid.
Most so called contradictions are a problem of two sided coins....one on one side saying it has certain image and script plain to see....and another on the other side saying no this is its image and script....these arguments can and in some cases have gone for years....but for the coin to be valid both sides must be one.
As to Paul their are certain restictions on this sight about anti Pauline teaching so a full discusion of this could not happen by post....but could happen by private messages
As for me I believe he is the greatest teacher of Torah ever to come out from Adam...IMHO
Upvote
0
Two wrongs do not make a right. Just because there are different Christian sects, does that mean I should reject the New Testament altogether?
I believe that is what I have set out to do.
I think your argument here is invalid. It is apples and oranges.
You lost me here.
I will not be teaching anything just making observations.
Shalom
Upvote
0
Every word we write or speak which is seen or heard is teaching. The question would be what are we teaching and does it honor YHWH....for in the end we can only teach what and who we are
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
The problamatic part of using historical sources is they are written by men who have most assuredly incoperated thier own thoughts....it is YHWH who must agree that our testimony of what is his truth is correct so would it not be wiser to use scripture to validate our opinion of scripture
If all men agree with me....it should be obvious I can still be wrong.....study of history and commentary can be benificial but can not be the foundation of our thought and understanding....if our foundation is based on the word of YHWH then it can be determined if what was said can stand apon that foundation.
As to the incarnation of Messiah...he is a man who had been God.....consider this.......
There was a king who set aside his robe his crown his ring and all his authority to his father....he left his throne his castle his court and went into the far reaches of the kingdom to the peasants that worked the land....for many years he lived in a peasants hut ate a peasants food wore a peasants clothes and worked a peasants job....when he returnd to his father he made him a king second to the throne.....so the question we are posing is when he lived amoung the peasants was he a king or a peasant or both.....my answer is a peasant who knew he had been king and would be again....so considerd it not to be in rebellion to speak of kingship
Upvote
0
Similar threads
