- Nov 25, 2017
- 4,861
- 1,022
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Private
No, it was the sect of the Pharisees Jesus spoke concerning I am pretty sure.
Not them only, but of the Sadduccees also.
Upvote
0
No, it was the sect of the Pharisees Jesus spoke concerning I am pretty sure.
Thanks but one that I am not sure is correct lol. But the view I have of the passage is also due to the surrounding passages. How I am looking at those I don't think you agree with. Or perhaps I am misunderstanding terms or things you have said so far. So that is why I have been very narrow in my responses. LOL if I attempted to address your other comments I am afraid the post would have been enormous enough to nauseate us both. Plus I am not sure I would have addressed then well enough to be all that clearly written to weave it to these points I am now. But will say this I think Paul was speaking as a Jew under the law of Moses specifically. Since as I mentioned before, I think there is a difference between the death men die in Adam (all men from Adam), and the death men die as a direct condemnation and judgement of sin, cutting his life short.
Ro 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:
Here is what I am talking about.
13 (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.
14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam’s transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.
Even though we do not sin like Adam did we die.
How did Adam sin? God gave him a direct command which he disobeyed (lacking faith in the punishment)
Adam's life doesn't seem to have been cut short, rather he was cut off from living forever. The death all men die
Yes that would have been the sectarian bent of the high priests. But the judges were from the sect of the Pharisees.Not them only, but of the Sadduccees also.
Yes that would have been the sectarian bent of the high priests. But the judges were from the sect of the Pharisees.
In other words the Sanhedrin pronounced no sentence from that seat that both sects had not agreed upon to be law. Apart from the seat, all their sectarian views were in dispute Therefore Pharisaic doctrine was "traditions" they imposed on the followers of their sect. But both sects sat in offices of jurisprudence. So everything which was not sectarian, that they agreed upon were applicable as law. The Pharisees to try and apply their traditions as law at that time would have been equal to what people complain about today as Judges which attempt to legislate from the bench. The force of law rested upon the priests, specifically the high priest in the matter of difficult matters to hard for the lower courts.
All that post was about is,I recognize this, a prophecy Jacob gave for the tribe of Judah in the last days...
Gen 49:10
10 The sceptre shall not depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver from between his feet, until Shiloh come; and unto him shall the gathering of the people be.
KJV
But like Apostle Paul said in 1 Timothy 1, the law was made for the ungodly and unrighteous, and thus many of God's laws are still in effect today among Christian society. But that is not what The New Covenant is about. The New Covenant is about The Gospel of Jesus Christ, the Promise by Faith. That also is what the topic of this thread is about, not specifics dealing with lawyers.
Levi and Judah....TWO FAMILES CHOSENI recognize this, a prophecy Jacob gave for the tribe of Judah in the last days...
Gen 49:10
10 The sceptre shall not depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver from between his feet, until Shiloh come; and unto him shall the gathering of the people be.
KJV
Levi and Judah....TWO FAMILES CHOSEN
19 And the word of the LORD came unto Jeremiah, saying,
20 Thus saith the LORD; If ye can break my covenant of the day, and my covenant of the night, and that there should not be day and night in their season;
21 Then may also my covenant be broken with David my servant, that he should not have a son to reign upon his throne; and with the Levites the priests, my ministers.
22 As the host of heaven cannot be numbered, neither the sand of the sea measured: so will I multiply the seed of David my servant, and the Levites that minister unto me.
Jer 33:24 Considerest thou not what this people have spoken, saying, The two families which the LORD hath chosen, he hath even cast them off? thus they have despised my people, that they should be no more a nation before them.
THAT'S STRANGE, your interpretation of that!
The actual subject God is talking about with the "two families" is about the "house of Judah" and the "house of Israel", NOT just the tribes of Judah and Levi.
Jer 33:7-8
7 And I will cause the captivity of Judah and the captivity of Israel to return, and will build them, as at the first.
8 And I will cleanse them from all their iniquity, whereby they have sinned against me; and I will pardon all their iniquities, whereby they have sinned, and whereby they have transgressed against me.
KJV
Jer 33:14-15
14 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will perform that good thing which I have promised unto the house of Israel and to the house of Judah.
15 In those days, and at that time, will I cause the Branch of righteousness to grow up unto David; and he shall execute judgment and righteousness in the land.
KJV
And of course, that "Branch of righteousness" is about Jesus Christ for those events are still future.
But I find it very telling of your influences outside Scripture that you would be blinded by what these actual Jeremiah 33 Scriptures are about, and how you instead wrongly apply it to the tribes of Judah and Levi. Per God's old historical split of Israel into two separate kingdoms per 1 Kings 11 thru 2 Kings 17, the "house of Judah" included the tribes of Judah, Benjamin, and Levi. The "house of Israel" included the rest of the Israelite tribes. They even had war against each other, until God brought the kings of Assyria upon the ten northern tribe kingdom of the "house of Israel", and removed them from the land, the "house of Judah" left in the land only. You might want to brush up on your Bible history and quit listening to those you're heeding.
THAT'S STRANGE, your interpretation of that!
No the original subject concerned the lawgiver between Judah's feetThe actual subject God is talking about with the "two families" is about the "house of Judah" and the "house of Israel", NOT just the tribes of Judah and Levi.
And who is the fourth born of Leah?Gen 49:10
10 The sceptre shall not depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver from between his feet, until Shiloh come; and unto him shall the gathering of the people be.
KJV
Oh so you interpret the above to be Israel that is the law giver between Judah's feet?
Or
24 Considerest thou not what this people have spoken, saying, The two families which the LORD hath chosen, he hath even cast them off? thus they have despised my people, that they should be no more a nation before them.
How is it that
Two chosen familes being cast off causes the people to be despised and makes them no more a nation before him?
No the original subject concerned the lawgiver between Judah's feet
Sorcerers lie about history.
It's a form of exploitation.
All tribes were punished after turning the Torah into a dual house of civil war.
Yet still to this era the enemy sows the same form of strife upon every governing body that serves this world.
Warning to all posters ploying with private interpretations of The Holy Word given Prophets from Havel(Abel) till the last..
Remember the warning of destruction given to those who pervert both ole sh'auls letters and The Letters written by the prophets and recorded for centuries by Honorable men.
Vain fruitless arguments in the guise of guile will not be dismissed lightly..
Seems to me that manners of humility have been replaced with lack of manners.
Ask amiss and this is what will be found in conversation over the internet forums. A multitude of unbridled tongues that chatter about only to hear their own voice.
Instead of listening and waiting in patience for fruits in the spirit of knowledge.
Crying for milk from a mother that is hated reveals more than a mere lack of compassion.
It reveals a toothless lion in dire desperation to be fed till it's dying breath.
Instead of attempting to process the English word definition of covenant with a number of debates that have nothing to do with The Most High.
I strongly suggest readers look closer at the Hebrew surrounding such an English word.
Blessings Always.
Way above my head.And who is the fourth born of Leah?
Who is born on the fourth yom of creation.
.
If you dare to challenge with a vague garment.
Be prepared to answer with understanding in the spirit.
The Torah is washed upon the feet of Those who walk humbly.
Who is between yhdh feet ?
Gen 49:10
10 The sceptre shall not depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver from between his feet, until Shiloh come; and unto him shall the gathering of the people be.
KJV
Oh so you interpret the above to be Israel that is the law giver between Judah's feet?
Or
24 Considerest thou not what this people have spoken, saying, The two families which the LORD hath chosen, he hath even cast them off? thus they have despised my people, that they should be no more a nation before them.
How is it that
Two chosen familes being cast off causes the people to be despised and makes them no more a nation before him?
No the original subject concerned the lawgiver between Judah's feet
Reading from Psalms about a promise given by Ya'akov without respect for Torah is a form of insult to The Entire inheritance and promise given byPs 60:7
7 Gilead is mine, and Manasseh is mine; Ephraim also is the strength of mine head; Judah is my lawgiver;
KJV
Reading from Psalms about a promise given by Ya'akov without respect for Torah is a form of insult to The Entire inheritance and promise given by
The Holy One.
And your actual point on my coverage of the Jer.33 subject of the two houses? All it seems you did was issue vaguely directed threats regarding God's law.
Per 1 Kings 11, God split old Israel into two separate kingdoms because of what Solomon did (1 Kings 11:1-11).
Then when God gave Jeroboam of the tribe Ephraim ten tribes to reign over as king of Israel in the north at Samaria, Jeroboam blew it by setting up two golden calf idols in the north instead. And that caused God to end the northern "kingdom of Israel" by scattering the ten tribes out of the land (1 Kings 12 thru 2 Kings 17).
So in both cases, the children of Israel rebelled against God by falling into pagan idol harlot-ship. God simply kept His promises of Deuteronomy 4 & 28 of what He would do to Israel if they rebelled against Him.
And your actual point on my coverage of the Jer.33 subject of the two houses? All it seems you did was issue vaguely directed threats regarding God's law.
Per 1 Kings 11, God split old Israel into two separate kingdoms because of what Solomon did (1 Kings 11:1-11).
Then when God gave Jeroboam of the tribe Ephraim ten tribes to reign over as king of Israel in the north at Samaria, Jeroboam blew it by setting up two golden calf idols in the north instead. And that caused God to end the northern "kingdom of Israel" by scattering the ten tribes out of the land (1 Kings 12 thru 2 Kings 17).
So in both cases, the children of Israel rebelled against God by falling into pagan idol harlot-ship. God simply kept His promises of Deuteronomy 4 & 28 of what He would do to Israel if they rebelled against Him.
There was never two houses.
....