Be not Deceived

[BigChrisfilm]

jamestheprophet - let he who is without sin cast the first stone- - -you are without sin?

CHRIST THE MESSIAH WAS WITHOUT SIN!!! Yet He did not cast the first stone at anyone. He loved and forgave, He showed kindness...He is the Alpha and Omege, the same now as in the begining. He loved without thought then, He threw NO STONES, He took refuge with sinners. This Christ and Father you speak of appears to be full of anger, the WORD showed us only a Christ of love.
God Bless

Yes, but we must also realize that God is a God of love, and he loves justice as well. He is not some squishy God, he is a wrathful, just judge of all the world. So God could be angry at sin, and still be a God of love.

 

[InHisSpirit]

I see your point Bigchrisfilm, but the point am trying to make, is the op is making it sound like there will be no forgiveness for something like the mispronouncing His name, even believers who have professed a relationship with Christ.

 

[CaDan]

Could SpaceCat be smelling . . . . Montanism?

 

[IamGodslittlegirl]

Sorry about that. I missed it is all. The simple truth is I am only relaying a message from my Heavenly Father and my Brother Yeshua. They are extremely offended by both Christmas and Easter since they are both satanic high days (Holidays). We have been given the date of his birth and we know exactly when he died. He was born during the feast of Tabernacles and he died on the first day of Passover. He rose from the dead on the third day of Passover. Therefore we have absolutely no business partaking in any satanic ritual. None whatsoever.

James, there is no 3rd day of Passover /Pesach. Pesach is only one day, then comes the Feast of Unleavened Bread. Jesus arose on the 2nd day of Unleavened Bread.

However, the Bible is not clear exactly when the feasts actually occurred by way of the actual calendar. We simply do not have exact dates, as He willed it. It is not important. What is important is that we live because He lives.

 

[IamGodslittlegirl]

The common Jews of Yeshua’s day could not speak, read or write Greek neither could the common Roman. The common Roman only knew Latin. That is why the first Bible was translated into Latin. Greek was a language used by the educated elite such as Paul and not the common man. Acts the 4 Chapter the 14 verse clearly states that the disciples were unlearned and ignorant men. They only know Hebrew. Yeshua taught the people in the language they understood which was Hebrew.

Writings from that time period discovered in Israel have been written in Hebrew. The Dead Sea scrolls (Hebrew: מגילות ים המלח) comprise roughly 825-872 documents, including texts from the Hebrew Bible. Most all of the original writing by the first disciples were actually written and recorded in Hebrew then translated later into Greek or Latin depending on who did the translating and when it was first translated. Then in the 14th Century the Bible was translated from Latin into English by John Wycliffe.

Despite the number of different translation the Bible as we know it today is still the exact same as the original Hebrew text with a few mistakes like names. In the Greek text of the Old Testament, translated around 280BC "IESOUS" is spelled Joshua (English) or Yeshua (Hebrew). "IESOUS" is translated in the New Testament to the word Jesus. Likewise Iakob translated in the Old Testament is Jacob and in the New Testament it is James. Yes it is the same with John and all of the other Disciples. Same Greek word with two entirely different translations one Old Testament and the other New Testament. James no matter when or where it was written it is still pronounces and spelled James throughout the English speaking world so the same must be true with Greek.

Since the 2 Testaments cannot agree we must go to the original Hebrew or Yeshua as the Lord’s proper and/or given name. I’m sure my friend Juan would answer me if every time I called himSi I called his name Cadillac or Buick or Eddy or George. His name is Juan. Well guess what the Lord’s name is Yeshua and yes he too gets upset when people do not address him by his name.

James, I think you may want to review historical records, because what you are hearing does not line up with it.

Greek was the language of commerce and of the Jews, along with some Aramaic. Hebrew was spoken in the synagogues [Greek word] Roman influence had predominated the land of Israel since around 300 BCE. Latin was spoken by some romans, it was the court language - and possibly used by the some of the Roman army. Jesus spoke Greek on a number of occasions in the Gospels, and so did the disciples. Jesus also spoke Greek to Pilot. It is also recorded that Jesus spoke Aramaic from the cross.

The problem, is that there are no original fragments of any Hebrew of the NT. We do have Greek fragments from around the 2nd century, if memory serves me right. The DSS are of the OT only and include quite a number of Greek writings, so we know that Greek was a common language of the first century. We also know that a Greek translation of the OT was being worked on well before the first century - and being translated by 70 top Jewish scholars, so they must have known Greek [LXX/Septuagint].

There are also Jewish artifacts and Jewish ossuries coming from the first century with Greek inscriptions. Plus, the coins of the first century had Greek on one side of the coin, so obviously the Jews could read their money

The Latin Vulgate NT was translated from the Greek, not the Hebrew.

Although the disciples were considered unlearned men, this did not mean they couldn't speak the languages of the day. Many of them were fishermen who sold their catch to Greeks. Then there is Matthew who took taxes for the Roman govt. Obviously these men knew Greek or they would not be able to communicate with the Romans.

There is a problem with your receptor, God does not make things up to soothe your theology when historically, His Word proves you wrong.

ps: do you believe that the NT is the inspired Word of God?

pps: please show proof that the disciples wrote the NT in Hebrew. thanx.

ppps: not to be tedious, but the Torah was not written in Hebrew - it was written in proto type canaanite. Then there was paleo Hebrew which looked and sounded nothing like what Hebrew did in the first century. Not only that, the OT mss includes borrowed words of latin, greek, and aramaic. Today's Modern Hebrew has evolved even further away from the masoretic mss that we have our translations based on. There are no "original" OT mss left - they disintegrated

 

[desmalia]

IamGodsLittleGirl, thank you for your peaceful, truthful, patient words in this thread. Yours is a voice of reason.

Spacecat, I believe you have hit the nail on the head, my friend.

Some interesting articles (and from more respectable sites than some guy's homepage on "Aloha.net", I might add!):

From bible.org:
Now it logically follows that if Jesus Christ lived (need it be said?), he must have been born. The Gospels tell us that his birth was shortly before Herod the Great died. Herod's death can be fixed with certainty.
Josephus records an eclipse of the moon just before Herod passed on. This occurred on March 12th or 13th in 4 B.C. Josephus also tells us that Herod expired just before Passover. This feast took place on April 11th, in the same year, 4 B.C. From other details supplied by Josephus, we can pinpoint Herod the Great's demise as occurring between March 29th and April 4th in 4 B.C.
It might sound strange to suggest that Jesus Christ was born no later than 4 B.C. since B.C. means 'before Christ.' But our modern calendar which splits time between B.C. and A.D. was not invented until A.D. 525. At that time, Pope John the First asked a monk named Dionysius to prepare a standardized calendar for the western Church. Unfortunately, poor Dionysius missed the real B.C./A.D. division by at least four years!
Now Matthew tells us that Herod killed Bethlehem's babies two years old and under. The earliest Jesus could have been born, therefore, is 6 B.C. Through a variety of other time indicators, we can be relatively confident that the one called Messiah was born in either late 5 or early 4 B.C.

And for an interesting breakdown on the semantics of why we use the name JESUS in English, click here.

James, you came in here, guns blazing, with judgements that you cannot back up biblically. Not to mention you have claimed things in error. In short, you have not provided any validity to your claims. You are anonymous on this site (as are we all), so we can only weigh your words against more of your words, and of course the attitude you project, but not your actions. You suggest that anyone who even questions you must not really be saved, and further, that they are rejecting God's revelation as spoken by you. God has commanded us to test all these things against His word. Yet you are offended when we do. Do you expect that all of God's people should blindly follow anyone who claims to be a prophet?

There is some truth to what you are speaking. However, that's not enough for me to take you seriously because there is also error. There is also a great deal of condemnation and bitterness in your words. We are commanded to hold one another accountable, but we are also commanded not to condemn one another.

If it is God's truth that you seek in your life and that you desire to proclaim, then I strongly urge you to test the spirit that has your ear. And please ask yourself whether you are speaking these things out of love for God's children or out of anger and bitterness.

 

[CaDan]

The Latin Vulgate NT was translated from the Greek, not the Hebrew.

IIRC, Jerome translated the NT from the Greek (since that is what it was written in). He translated the OT from the Hebrew, although he did consult the Septuagint in doing so.

I could be wrong about that though.

 

[Theophorus]

IIRC, Jerome translated the NT from the Greek (since that is what it was written in). He translated the OT from the Hebrew, although he did consult the Septuagint in doing so.

I could be wrong about that though.

I believe you are right. Though there are ancient texts referred to as the old vulgate.

I am still interested in why he does not use the name for Christ that the apostles used. And they were Jewish.

I have asked twice but to no avail.

 

[ArcticFox]

I have placed James on my IGNORE list, and I would advise others to do the same. More for his sake than anyone else, because James needs a better outlet for his zeal than what he is pursuing now.

James is not a troll, but his posts often create a similar reaction from everyone. Let's consider what is best for his spiritual health as well as our own.

 

[Theophorus]

I have placed James on my IGNORE list, and I would advise others to do the same. More for his sake than anyone else, because James needs a better outlet for his zeal than what he is pursuing now.

James is not a troll, but his posts often create a similar reaction from everyone. Let's consider what is best for his spiritual health as well as our own.

Good advice. Though I think it prudent not to deride the name of Christ in any form.

 

[IamGodslittlegirl]

I am still interested in why he does not use the name for Christ that the apostles used. And they were Jewish.

I have asked twice but to no avail.

Are you speaking about JamestheProp as to why he doesn't use Christos? I could probably give you a pretty good answer.

 

[CaDan]

I believe you are right. Though there are ancient texts referred to as the old vulgate.

I am still interested in why he does not use the name for Christ that the apostles used. And they were Jewish.

I have asked twice but to no avail.

This is my theory (and it is only a theory).

Almost all of our written history of the early Church comes from the Greek speaking Diaspora. In that group, personal names would be Grecianized. So in our written records, we see a Grecianized version of Y'shua.

John P. Maier devotes a couple of pages to the question of the "actual" name of Jesus in Vol. 1 of "A Marginal Jew."

 

[IamGodslittlegirl]

This is my theory (and it is only a theory).

Almost all of our written history of the early Church comes from the Greek speaking Diaspora. In that group, personal names would be Grecianized. So in our written records, we see a Grecianized version of Y'shua.

John P. Maier devotes a couple of pages to the question of the "actual" name of Jesus in Vol. 1 of "A Marginal Jew."

You might be interested in this article:

http://www.seekgod.ca/htwhatsinaname.htm

 

[CaDan]

You might be interested in this article:

http://www.seekgod.ca/htwhatsinaname.htm

Thanks for the link!

 

[thereselittleflower]

Rhamiel – It is very simple Easter and Christmas are both lies of Satan. Neither of then has anything to do with the Lord's birth, life, crucifixion, death or resurrection. They are lies plain and simple.

I am sorry, but this is not true. I am sorry you have believed a falsehood.

As far as tithing. If We as individuals are the Only TRUE Church and if it is true that our churches are Satanic temples where should we be paying our tithes? Certainly not to Satan’s Temples of ungodliness!

Again, I am sorry, but you are not speaking the truth (in general). We as individuals ae not the only true Church. The Church is a collective, the Body of Christ, which is many . . . Your "IF" conditional premise is faulty and so is leading you to erroneous conclusions.

Give and it shall be given unto you. Pressed down shaken together and running over shall men give unto your bosom.

Yes . . . . . yet this passage has been taken over by those who preach a properity gospel when the scriptures warn us against those who preach that gain is godliness. . . . .

1 Timothy 6:5
Perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth, supposing gain to be godliness: from such withdraw thyself.​

Is it possible that when we pay our tithes to Satan that we are actually robbing from our brothers and sisters? And more importantly from ourselves and our own families? God’s true Storehouse.

I am sorry that you believe such error regarding the Church. You mix valid points with error and so either make what is valid appear to be in error, or what is error appear to be valid.

There is no strict tithing required of Christians. We are not held to a particular percentage. We are to give according to our means, this is true . . however, to tithe to the Church is not to give ou tithes to Satan.

You have entered upon error in your zeal.

Our Father love to reward His Children. He can only reward us when we are obedient to him. He says for us to give and what do we do. We give all right. We let some fancy dan preacherman talk us into giving to his church where he uses God’s money for his own private purposes. There have been many a time the Lord has sent me to a church asking for help and have been flatly turned away still in need. I wiped the dirt from my shoes as I walked out of the church.

Yes, these places exist. That does not make all churches as this.

Oh yea for some of your information. I have been incarcerated for witnessing to people on the streets and for baptizing students during Spring Break in the ocean.

I do not doubt you. I have to wonder though, in America if this is where you are, how you would be incarcerated for such unless you were breaking some law and being a disturbance by doing so.

I do not have a paper from some preacher factory saying that I am able to witness (Preach) or baptize. I have had people curse at me and toss their garbage at me from their cars as I was witnessing to people.

Again, I have to wonder, if you are in America, what you were actually doing if you were arrested for such activity, if you were violating laws you shouldn't have been violating.

Once while I was awaiting trial on a false charge I was able to witness the Lord Yeshua reach down into that jail cell and save a young man who was contemplating taking his own life. Another time, several months later, I saw the Lord Yeshua heal several people in another jail cell I was being held in. So I know that no matter where a person is sent that the Lord Yeshua has a purpose for them to be there.

Yes, Jesus has a purpose for all of us being where we are. . . . . .

The Lord Yeshua told me that the world hates Him. How much more is the world going to hate me whom he has sent into the world in His Name?

One must be careful to differentiate between actually being sent in Jesus' name and being sent by one's imagination . . . . . between doing what Jesus actually wants us to do, an what we imagine He wants us to do . . . . .

However I do not have to worry about pleasing men or appeasing men. I do what the Lord tells me to do in spite of what any man or woman many think of say.

The question is who is telling you what to do? From your words in this thread, I cannot see that you are doing what the Lord tells you to do, as your words immediately below betray:

My Heavenly Father says Easter and Christmas are satanic celebrations and that is all I really need to know.

That right there, in the context of your post and this thread, tells me it is not our Heavenly Father you are listening to . . . our Heavenly Father says no such thing, at least when it comes to the Christian celebrations of Christmas and Easter. These are Christian celebrations celebrating the birth, death and resurrection of our Lord. Our Heavenly Father does not say these are satanic. You do, but our Heavenly Father does not.

My Heavenly Father tells me to warn others about Easter and Christmas so they may not burn in the Lake of Fire or go to that place where there is weeping and gnashing of teeth and I do not hesitate to warn them.

Our Heavenly Father gives no such warning. Our Heavenly Father does not send those who honor Christ's birth, death and resurrection by celebrating Christmas and Easter to the Lake of Fire or to the outer darkness because they do so.

If they listen then I have gained a brother or a sister. However if they refuse to listen and just want to argue then they have lost everything including their very life.

Your words are not the words of our Heavenly Father. Your words are not the message of our Heavenly Father.

Your words promote error and division among Christ's Body.

Your words condemning those who celebrate Christmas and Easter to hell are promoting falsehood and error; not the words of our Heavenly Father.


.

 

[thereselittleflower]

Theophorus That is not entirely true.

Having completed his Temple service on the third Sabbath of Sivan, Zacharias returned home and soon conceived his son John. So John the Baptist was conceived shortly after the third Sabbath of the month of Sivan (First week of June). http://www.aloha.net/~mikesch/sukkoth.htm John was born during Passover. Mary conceived the Lord Yeshua six months later or around the first week of November and delivered the Lord Yeshua 40 weeks later in September during festival of Tabernacles. The Bible says she carried him full term.

Likewise the bible is very specific as to when he was crucified and died, the first day of Passover and when, he was resurrected three days later on the third day of Passover.

Christmas is the satanic high day for the birth of the sun or the Winter Solstice and Easter is a satanic fertility ritual. Neither of which has anything to do with the Lord’s Birth, Death or Resurrection.

And so we get to it . . . . the old "if it is similar, it must be the same" argument.

Similarity does not equal sameness James.

That it does is itself a lie of the devil.

We, as Chrisitans, are to be redeeming the time:

Colossians 4:5
Walk in wisdom toward them that are without, redeeming the time.​

The Church is about redemption, and in redeeming time, the Church takes back what Satan stole . . .

The date we celebrate is not important. WHAT we celebrate is.

You once belonged to Satan, no? You had to be redeemed, no?

Did your redemption, of one who once belonged to Satan, make the Body of Christ satanic?

No, of course not . . . you were REDEEMED. You were brought out of darkness into the light. You were taken out of Satan's hands and put into God's hands.

It is no different with redeeming time. . . .

To take what once belonged to Satan and redeem it by creating a Christian celebration in its place is a marvolous thing. Redeeming the time by creating a Christian celebration does not make the Christian celebration and Church any more Satanic than your own redemption makes you or the Church satanic. . . .

If these celebrations are satanic, then your own redemption and everyone else's must be called into question too.


The Church has redeemed the time these celebrations occur in. They Church took these times back from the kingdom of darkness and made them solidly part of the kingdom of light. They have been redeemed.


Any voice that speaks differently is not from heaven . . . . . .


.

 

[ArcticFox]

The Church has redeemed the time these celebrations occur in. They Church took these times back from the kingdom of darkness and made them solidly part of the kingdom of light. They have been redeemed.


Any voice that speaks differently is not from heaven . . . . . .


.

I wanted to agree with you in general, but to qualify a statement. I don't believe that the celebration of Christmas, Easter, or any other "Christian holiday" is of any great importance in the faith. Paul speaks about having our faith between ourselves and God, and he addresses this very issue of celebrating days (Romans 14). We should not judge anyone who chooses not to celebrate, but neither should the abstainer judge the one who celebrates.

 

[IamGodslittlegirl]

To take what once belonged to Satan and redeem it by creating a Christian celebration in its place is a marvolous thing. Redeeming the time by creating a Christian celebration does not make the Christian celebration and Church any more Satanic than your own redemption makes you or the Church satanic. . . .

The Church has redeemed the time these celebrations occur in. They Church took these times back from the kingdom of darkness and made them solidly part of the kingdom of light. They have been redeemed.

the winter and spring solstice is still celebrated by several religions not of God, so how does christianity redeem that which is still satan's? what is satan's belongs to satan. what is God's belongs to God. you cannot take what is unclean [satan's] and "redeem" it to make it God's [clean]. The Scripture is clear, the unclean makes the clean, unclean. The only exception is the souls of men, by which we are redeemed/purchased by the blood of Christ and translated from darkness into His glorious Light.

could you also provide scriptural proof that the church can or did redeem things from the kingdom of darkness and turn them into the kingdom of light?

by the way, what is it that you think satan stole that we have to get back?

thanx

ps: christmas and easter are man made celebrations. they have nothing to do with God - He is not the Author of them. they were created by man to worship God and if you chose to celebrate that is your decision, but these celebrations do not belong to God. They belong to man.

 

[Theophorus]

the winter and spring solstice is still celebrated by several religions not of God, so how does christianity redeem that which is still satan's? what is satan's belongs to satan. what is God's belongs to God. you cannot take what is unclean [satan's] and "redeem" it to make it God's [clean]. The Scripture is clear, the unclean makes the clean, unclean. The only exception is the souls of men, by which we are redeemed/purchased by the blood of Christ and translated from darkness into His glorious Light.

could you also provide scriptural proof that the church can or did redeem things from the kingdom of darkness and turn them into the kingdom of light?

Christ shined His light in the darkness. All of creation groans for salvation. Death is even transformed, or had its sting removed.

Are you saying that God cannot triumph over the evil ones "celebrations"?

ps: christmas and easter are man made celebrations. they have nothing to do with God - He is not the Author of them. they were created by man to worship God and if you chose to celebrate that is your decision, but these celebrations do not belong to God. They belong to man.

Mat 12:
25And Jesus knew their thoughts, and said unto them, Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand:
26And if Satan cast out Satan, he is divided against himself; how shall then his kingdom stand?

 

[CaDan]

the winter and spring solstice is still celebrated by several religions not of God, so how does christianity redeem that which is still satan's? what is satan's belongs to satan. what is God's belongs to God. you cannot take what is unclean [satan's] and "redeem" it to make it God's [clean]. The Scripture is clear, the unclean makes the clean, unclean. The only exception is the souls of men, by which we are redeemed/purchased by the blood of Christ and translated from darkness into His glorious Light.

could you also provide scriptural proof that the church can or did redeem things from the kingdom of darkness and turn them into the kingdom of light?

by the way, what is it that you think satan stole that we have to get back?

thanx

ps: christmas and easter are man made celebrations. they have nothing to do with God - He is not the Author of them. they were created by man to worship God and if you chose to celebrate that is your decision, but these celebrations do not belong to God. They belong to man.

Acts 10. Romans 14. I Corinthians 7. I can continue if necessary.

Your theology of clean and unclean is precisely backwards.