Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2
Ben Masada

The Truth About Revelation 14:12

286 posts in this topic

The Truth About Revelation 14:12

Needless to ask any Christian, about the Faith of Jesus, he was a loyal Jew whose Faith was called Judaism. That his main role according to Matthew 5:17-19 was to confirm Judaism to the letter. He even explained with his parable of the Richman and Lazarus that to listen to "Moses" which means the Law, was the only way to prevent one from joining the Richman in hell. That's according to Luke 16:29-31.

Now, by the Law and the Prophets he meant in a word Judaism which was his Faith and which was exactly what Isaiah meant with his formula to test those who would speak the Truth. "To the Law and the Testimony (in a word Judaism) if they don't speak according to this word, it is because there is no truth in them." (Isa.8:20)

Now, after all that needed to be said, what is the truth about Revelation 14:12? "Here is the patience of the Saints of the Most High; here are they who keep the commandments of God and the Faith of Jesus."

Being all said above that Judaism was the Faith of Jesus, it is only obvious that the saints of the Most High in Revelation 14:12 is a reference to the Jewish People. Otherwise, where would be the Christian connection with the commandments of God and the Faith of Jesus when the Pauline habit was to teach throughout his Letters that they had been abolished?

Ben

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Transfiguration : of Jesus, Horus. Two men with Jesus in transfiguration : Moses , Elijah(prophet). Whoever and wherever you are whenever you wait them ;Moses , Elijah and Jesus(your ego and real self) , they are with you. Giving you resurrection, ascension and transfiguration. Giving you salvation; healing.

"We only feed you for Allah's sake. We desire from you neither reward nor thanks. " Koran 76:9

The gospel of christ preached from paleolithic man to this days,to the poor and hungry , though diversely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Transfiguration : of Jesus, Horus. Two men with Jesus in transfiguration : Moses , Elijah(prophet). Whoever and wherever you are whenever you wait them ;Moses , Elijah and Jesus(your ego and real self) , they are with you. Giving you resurrection, ascension and transfiguration. Giving you salvation; healing.

"We only feed you for Allah's sake. We desire from you neither reward nor thanks. " Koran 76:9

The gospel of christ preached from paleolithic man to this days,to the poor and hungry , though diversely.

Sorry Abba, but I see this post of yours as a non-sequitur to the thread. I read and found no way how to relate to the thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Ben Masada

uncomfort with my post ? Sorry. What I mean on the post is , Jesus is not only Ideal man/ good Rabbi for Judaism and Jews. But for Egyptian Religion as He is Horus, for Islam as he is Muhamed ( 2nd coming ?that kind of stuff ), for christianity as new symbol of fish out of water. For Waaqefanaa Oromo's religion etc.

When you read in gospel , transfiguration of Jesus , you encounter Moses and Elijah, prototype of law and prophet. And in another gospel verse, Abraham say to rich man in hell Moses and prophet are sufficient for salvation. Sure ,it is. But ben masada remember all these bible heroes and egyptian gods are not literaly real, they walked not as you are walking.

THE FAITH OF jesus is not only Judaism, but Waaqefanaa etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

The Truth About Revelation 14:12

Needless to ask any Christian, about the Faith of Jesus, he was a loyal Jew whose Faith was called Judaism. That his main role according to Matthew 5:17-19 was to confirm Judaism to the letter. He even explained with his parable of the Richman and Lazarus that to listen to "Moses" which means the Law, was the only way to prevent one from joining the Richman in hell. That's according to Luke 16:29-31.

Now, by the Law and the Prophets he meant in a word Judaism which was his Faith and which was exactly what Isaiah meant with his formula to test those who would speak the Truth. "To the Law and the Testimony (in a word Judaism) if they don't speak according to this word, it is because there is no truth in them." (Isa.8:20)

Now, after all that needed to be said, what is the truth about Revelation 14:12? "Here is the patience of the Saints of the Most High; here are they who keep the commandments of God and the Faith of Jesus."

Being all said above that Judaism was the Faith of Jesus, it is only obvious that the saints of the Most High in Revelation 14:12 is a reference to the Jewish People. Otherwise, where would be the Christian connection with the commandments of God and the Faith of Jesus when the Pauline habit was to teach throughout his Letters that they had been abolished?

Ben

I wonder how your intepretation of Revelation 14:2 fits with Revelation 1:5.

"and from Jesus Christ the faithful witness, the firstborn of the dead, and the ruler of kings on earth. To him who loves us and has freed us from our sins by his blood..." (Revelation 1:5 ESV)

If Jesus fulfilled the Law, why was He crucified rather than blessed?

"And if you faithfully obey the voice of the Lord your God, being careful to do all his commandments that I command you today, the Lord your God will set you high above all the nations of the earth. And all these blessings shall come upon you and overtake you, if you obey the voice of the Lord your God." (Deuteronomy 28:1, 2 ESV)

If Jesus was faithful to Judaism, why was He crucified? It would seem like He died not for His sins but the sins of everyone else, as the apostles testified.

"But he was wounded for our transgressions; he was crushed for our iniquities; upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace, and with his stripes we are healed." (Isaiah 53:5 ESV)

Now, if Jesus died for our sins and the curse of the Law (Deut. 28:15-68 ) that was intended for us was placed on Him, then the Law has been circumvented. Otherwise, we would be punished according to the Torah.

Additionally, the Law changed before Jesus came due to the fact that the Levites were no longer permitted to do the services outlined in the Torah after their desecration of the temple, which was witnesses by Ezekiel.

"Because they ministered to them before their idols and became a stumbling block of iniquity to the house of Israel, therefore I have sworn concerning them, declares the Lord God, and they shall bear their punishment. They shall not come near to me, to serve me as priest, nor come near any of my holy things and the things that are most holy, but they shall bear their shame and the abominations that they have committed. Yet I will appoint them to keep charge of the temple, to do all its service and all that is to be done in it." (Ezekiel 44:12-14 ESV)

Only the Levitival sons of Zadok were allowed to enter the Holy Place and Most Holy for the new temple. As was seen during the days of Hyrcanus, the high priesthood changed forcefully, and also afterward, as Pharisees and Sadducees fought for the high priesthood. When there is a change in priesthood, there must be a change in the Law. According to Josephus, the priesthood was forcibly changed when Pompey removed the Saduccees from office and replaced them with the Pharisees. Additionally, in 66 CE, John of Gischala forced the high priest out and chose one who had no clue what to do.

In addition, if Jesus is the Messiah, then He is both king and high priest, one after the order of Melchizidek, whom was not a Levite.

"For every high priest chosen from among men is appointed to act on behalf of men in relation to God, to offer gifts and sacrifices for sins. And no one takes this honor for himself, but only when called by God, just as Aaron was. So also Christ did not exalt himself to be made a high priest, but was appointed by him who said to him, "You are my Son, today I have begotten you"; as he says also in another place, "You are a priest forever, after the order of Melchizedek." (Hebrews 5:1, 4-6 ESV) "Now if perfection had been attainable through the Levitical priesthood (for under it the people received the law), what further need would there have been for another priest to arise after the order of Melchizedek, rather than one named after the order of Aaron? For when there is a change in the priesthood, there is necessarily a change in the law as well. (Hebrews 7:11, 12 ESV)

Beside all of this, the Torah was handed down through covenant made with Israel on Mount Sinai. The nullification of that covenant by no means nullifies the covenant that God made with Abraham beforehand.

The big announcement of Christianity is that everybody (not just Jews) can receive acceptance into the covenant of Abraham through Jesus, whose flesh was mutilated on our behalf so that we all could enter through faith and repentance (a circumcised heart.) So those in Revelation 14:2 who are elect are the first disciples of Christ, whom were the first among men to enter the New Covenant that Jeremiah mentioned, when the Spirit filled their hearts with the Law of the New Covenant (the teachings of Jesus.)

"Behold, the days are coming, declares the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah, not like the covenant that I made with their fathers on the day when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, my covenant that they broke, though I was their husband, declares the Lord. But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the Lord : I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts. And I will be their God, and they shall be my people. And no longer shall each one teach his neighbor and each his brother, saying, "Know the Lord," for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest, declares the Lord. For I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more." (Jeremiah 31:31-34 ESV)

Until that day, the Israelites recited commandments written on stone by an angel. A greater law has come by the very Spirit of God. The Law of the New Covenant written on the hearts of the faithful is far more superior to the Law that Moses received engraved on stone tablets.

Edited by Bluefinger
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Hi Ben Masada

uncomfort with my post ? Sorry. What I mean on the post is , Jesus is not only Ideal man/ good Rabbi for Judaism and Jews. But for Egyptian Religion as He is Horus, for Islam as he is Muhamed ( 2nd coming ?that kind of stuff ), for christianity as new symbol of fish out of water. For Waaqefanaa Oromo's religion etc.

When you read in gospel , transfiguration of Jesus , you encounter Moses and Elijah, prototype of law and prophet. And in another gospel verse, Abraham say to rich man in hell Moses and prophet are sufficient for salvation. Sure ,it is. But ben masada remember all these bible heroes and egyptian gods are not literaly real, they walked not as you are walking.

THE FAITH OF jesus is not only Judaism, but Waaqefanaa etc.

Sorry Abba Muda, but I can't compromise my view that Jesus' Faith was not only Judaism. There was nothing in Jesus to resemble mythology or the absorption of any other faith. However, I ought to tell you that I accept only 20% of the NT as worthy believing to have come from Jesus and about him. The other 80% is made up of anti-Jewish interpolations to promote the Pauline policy of Replacement Theology. I have enough in my hands to fight against and no need to add the myths of other faiths.

Edited by Ben Masada

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I wonder how your intepretation of Revelation 14:2 fits with Revelation 1:5.

Rev.1:5 has nothing to do with the Faith of Jesus.

If Jesus fulfilled the Law, why was He crucified rather than blessed?

Jesus was crucified because his disciples were acclaiming him king of the Jews in Jerusalem. (Luke 19:37-40)

If Jesus was faithful to Judaism, why was He crucified? It would seem like He died not for His sins but the sins of everyone else, as the apostles testified.

Not according to Jeremiah 31:30 No one is supposed to die for the sins of another.

Additionally, the Law changed before Jesus came due to the fact that the Levites were no longer permitted to do the services outlined in the Torah after their desecration of the temple, which was witnesses by Ezekiel.

The Levites stopped officiating because the Temple had been destroyed. Wait and you will see them back when the Temple is rebuilt.

In addition, if Jesus is the Messiah, then He is both king and high priest, one after the order of Melchizidek, whom was not a Levite.

Jesus was not the Messiah. The Messiah cannot be an individual. The individual is born, lives his span of life and dies. The Messiah is not supposed to die but to remain as a People before the Lord forever. (Jer.31:35-37)

Beside all of this, the Torah was handed down through covenant made with Israel on Mount Sinai. The nullification of that covenant by no means nullifies the covenant that God made with Abraham beforehand.

This doctrine of nullification of the Sinaitic covenant is part of the Pauline policy of Replacement Theology. (Gal.4:21-31)

The big announcement of Christianity is that everybody (not just Jews) can receive acceptance into the covenant of Abraham through Jesus, whose flesh was mutilated on our behalf so that we all could enter through faith and repentance (a circumcised heart.) So those in Revelation 14:2 who are elect are the first disciples of Christ, whom were the first among men to enter the New Covenant that Jeremiah mentioned, when the Spirit filled their hearts with the Law of the New Covenant (the teachings of Jesus.)

There is no grafting of Gentiles into God's Covenant with His People without conversion to Judaism. (Isa.56:1-8)

Until that day, the Israelites recited commandments written on stone by an angel. A greater law has come by the very Spirit of God. The Law of the New Covenant written on the hearts of the faithful is far more superior to the Law that Moses received engraved on stone tablets.

You are simply trying to promote the Pauline policy of Replacement Theology which some scholars have declared to be a kind of Christian anti-Semitism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Ben Masada has a point. It's interesting how Christians reinterpreted prophecies from The Bible in order to make it seem like they were all fulfilled by Jesus.

Edited by Arpee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rev.1:5 has nothing to do with the Faith of Jesus.

So you quote one part of Revelation and use it to back your theology, but then say another part of Revelation has nothing to do with the Faith of Jesus?

Jesus was crucified because his disciples were acclaiming him king of the Jews in Jerusalem. (Luke 19:37-40)

If I'm not mistaken, a prophet was required to anoint the king of the Jews. Who anointed Simon, Hyrcanus, Alexander Janus, or even Herod, Herod Jr., and Herod Agrippa for that matter? He couldn't have been crucified solely because he claimed to be the king of the Jews in Jerusalem, especially with backing from John the Baptist, whom was considered to be a prophet.

Not according to Jeremiah 31:30 No one is supposed to die for the sins of another.

Then why the sacrifices?

The Levites stopped officiating because the Temple had been destroyed. Wait and you will see them back when the Temple is rebuilt.

So the Jews have been breaking the Torah for over 2,000 years. And you want me to convert to Judaism? Looking at what happened to them, I don't think I want to do that.

Jesus was not the Messiah. The Messiah cannot be an individual. The individual is born, lives his span of life and dies. The Messiah is not supposed to die but to remain as a People before the Lord forever. (Jer.31:35-37)

This isn't a theology laid out in the Torah though.

And the issue I have with that theology is that it is one laid out by the same rabbis that God exiled out of Jerusalem in the first century. If they were correct in their interpretation, you'd figure that the messiah would have definitely come (even if it was the people) and delivered them from the Romans like they expected. History speaks loudly that the rabbis were wrong. So, why would I follow their teachings?

My persistent question is, if the rabbis followed the Torah in the first century, why were they cast out and the people allowed to be slaugtered, especially if the Torah said that nothing like that would happen to them if they obeyed God's commands? (Deut. 28:1-14.)

This doctrine of nullification of the Sinaitic covenant is part of the Pauline policy of Replacement Theology. (Gal.4:21-31)

It's not a doctrine. And it's not nullified. To those who place themselves under the Sinaitic covenant, they fall under both the blessings and curses of the law. For those under the new covenant, the curse had been laid on Jesus and they have received the inheritance of the promises that God made to Abraham.

It's not Replacement Theology. And this is the thing I really wanted to talk about. God chose Abraham because Abraham was compassionate, loved righteousness, and desired justice; the things that God desires (Jeremiah 9:24.) Not only that, Abraham wanted righteousness for the rest of the world. That was the kind of person that God wanted to model His kingdom after. It had less to do with the flesh than it did with the heart. God wanted people set apart for His righteousness.

Why? So that the world would be blessed. This is most obvious in Genesis 18:19-20, where God talks about blessing Abraham and then immediately turns to address the outcry against Sodom. Why are these so close together? I think the OT is consistent in saying that righteousness is what God desires and He wants to bless all nations, not just the Jews. Sodom stood in the way of that, and so God removed it. That is what Jesus criticized the religious leaders of his time about. They were good at following the Law, but they were not righteous.

So, when Jesus came, He opened up the kingdom of God, the promises of Abraham, to both Jews and Gentiles. If He did not, then the Jews have been under the curse of the Law for over 2,000 years. If the Sinaic Covenant was sufficient, the Jews would not have had to wait that long. And if the rabbis were correct about the Messiah, then the Jews would not have had to wait that long. And if the rabbis were correct in their interpretation of the Torah, then they would not have had to wait that long to receive the promises of Abraham. If they have done everything right, why did they face so much oppression and persecution, things consistent with the curses of the Torah in Deuteronomy 28:15-68?

There is no grafting of Gentiles into God's Covenant with His People without conversion to Judaism. (Isa.56:1-8)

Seeing that the Christians (both Jews and Gentiles) enjoyed the blessings of God and the Jews experienced curses for over 2,000 years, I'm having a tough time believing that.

You are simply trying to promote the Pauline policy of Replacement Theology which some scholars have declared to be a kind of Christian anti-Semitism.

Nope, not anti-Semitic. If you look at Revelation 7, you'll see two separate crowds: The elect among the Jews and the Gentiles. Again in Revelation 11, when the temple was consigned to destruction, two witnesses, both the elect Jews and the Gentiles, enjoy the blessings of Abraham. In Romans 11, both the elect of Israel and the Gentiles enjoy the blessings and riches of God.

There is no replacement theology. Jesus said that if the eye of the body is dark then the whole body is dark. He was talking about the religious leaders of his time. They misled the Jews into destruction and being cast out from the promises. For over two thousand years, they suffered scorn and oppression, not including what they suffered for hundreds of years before that. But that didn't mean that all Jews were excluded from the promises. THAT is what Paul was pointing out in Romans 11, which is mistaken from replacement theology. God preserved a minority, chosen ahead of time, to receive the promises. This minority went throughout the world preaching the Gospel of Jesus and it was received greatly by the Gentiles. And since then, the Gentiles have been greatly blessed.

Again, not replacement theology, since a minority was preserved.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ben Masada has a point. It's interesting how Christians reinterpreted prophecies from The Bible in order to make it seem like they were all fulfilled by Jesus.

I'm interested in the promises of Abraham. Nearly everything in the Torah related to those promises.

When the Jews were exiled by Babylon, it was evident that they were banished from the promises. When they were allowed to return, they given the opportunity to take part in the promises again.

Given that, when the Jews were exiled by Judea, one could easily determined that they were banished from the promises again.

Christianity's story is that Jesus is the way to the promises, and all that trust in Him, both Jews and Gentiles, are the seed of Abraham. That is consistent throughout the New Testament.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no replacement theology. Jesus said that if the eye of the body is dark then the whole body is dark. He was talking about the religious leaders of his time. They misled the Jews into destruction and being cast out from the promises. For over two thousand years, they suffered scorn and oppression, not including what they suffered for hundreds of years before that. But that didn't mean that all Jews were excluded from the promises. THAT is what Paul was pointing out in Romans 11, which is mistaken from replacement theology. God preserved a minority, chosen ahead of time, to receive the promises. This minority went throughout the world preaching the Gospel of Jesus and it was received greatly by the Gentiles. And since then, the Gentiles have been greatly blessed.

Again, not replacement theology, since a minority was preserved.

REPLACEMENT THEOLOGY

Replacement Theology is as old as Christianity itself, considering that the etymology of the expression acquired its real meaning with the rise of Christianity.

Some people object to the focusing on Christianity for the reason why Replacement Theology originated, because the Jewish People was not the only ancient people with the original claim to be God's chosen People.

It's true that a few other ancient peoples upheld the same claim, but there was never one to rise with the claim that a people had been replaced by another as God's chosen People.

Christianity became the first religious organization to rise with the claim that a change had occurred in the designs of God, which would define the rejection of the Jewish People, and replacement with Christianity.

The classical NT document, which would give rise to this Christian policy is found in Galatians 4:21-31. Paul would compare God's Covenant with the Jewish People as Hagar, who was Sara's slave girl, and the Jews as her son, who was rejected even to share with Isaac, the inheritance of Canaan. On the other hand, he compares Christianity to Sara and Christians to her son Isaac.

To conclude, Paul appeals to cast out the slave girl together with her son for the obvious reason that Israel, the Jewish People, would never be an heir with the son of the one born free.

That's the picture of Replacement Theology and not simply a people claiming Divine election. A group of Interfaith Scholars have classified Replacement Theology as a kind of Anti-Semitism.

Ben

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

REPLACEMENT THEOLOGY

Replacement Theology is as old as Christianity itself, considering that the etymology of the expression acquired its real meaning with the rise of Christianity.

If you think of it in the way that lawful citizens become criminals while they break the law while immigrants can receive citizenship if they obey the law, then yes, I guess its pretty old. But that's not what you're talking about, is it?

Some people object to the focusing on Christianity for the reason why Replacement Theology originated, because the Jewish People was not the only ancient people with the original claim to be God's chosen People.

It's true that a few other ancient peoples upheld the same claim, but there was never one to rise with the claim that a people had been replaced by another as God's chosen People.

Christians are not chosen people by birthright, circumcision, or law. So in any case, we have less to brag about than the Jews.

Christianity became the first religious organization to rise with the claim that a change had occurred in the designs of God, which would define the rejection of the Jewish People, and replacement with Christianity.

Wrong. Judaism is.

"You were unmindful of the Rock that bore you, and you forgot the God who gave you birth. "The Lord saw it and spurned them, because of the provocation of his sons and his daughters. And he said, "I will hide my face from them; I will see what their end will be, For they are a perverse generation, children in whom is no faithfulness. They have made me jealous with what is no god; they have provoked me to anger with their idols. So I will make them jealous with those who are no people; I will provoke them to anger with a foolish nation. For a fire is kindled by my anger, and it burns to the depths of Sheol, devours the earth and its increase, and sets on fire the foundations of the mountains. "And I will heap disasters upon them; I will spend my arrows on them; they shall be wasted with hunger, and devoured by plague and poisonous pestilence; I will send the teeth of beasts against them, with the venom of things that crawl in the dust. Outdoors the sword shall bereave, and indoors terror, for young man and woman alike, the nursing child with the man of gray hairs. I would have said, "I will cut them to pieces; I will wipe them from human memory," had I not feared provocation by the enemy, lest their adversaries should misunderstand, lest they should say, "Our hand is triumphant, it was not the Lord who did all this." (Deuteronomy 32:18-27 ESV)

It was not uncommon for God to stir up jealousy among the Jews by giving their portion to those who did not know God or His commands. What was uncommon for the Jews is to think that God was at all concerned about the rest of the world. This is equatable to the accusations that atheists throw at Christians for saying that the majority of the world's population will burn in hell for eternity. Appalling.

The Christian claim has not been that Christians have replaced the Jews. Not at all. This is a conversation killer and I feel like it is intended by you to shut this conversation down by painting me out to be antisemitic when that is far from the truth. As a child of Abraham by faith in Christ, the affairs of the Jewish people are VERY important to me.

The classical NT document, which would give rise to this Christian policy is found in Galatians 4:21-31. Paul would compare God's Covenant with the Jewish People as Hagar, who was Sara's slave girl, and the Jews as her son, who was rejected even to share with Isaac, the inheritance of Canaan. On the other hand, he compares Christianity to Sara and Christians to her son Isaac.

His only reason for doing so was because Israel's justification was based upon works of the Torah while the disciple of Christ is justified by faith in the promise. One is a child of a servant and the other is a child of a king. This isn't something to be offended about. The Jews of Jesus' day sought to obtain the promises through observing the Torah. Even the Torah said that if they did, the promises would be theirs. And if they didn't, then the Torah said that the promises would be revoked from them, as we saw from the Babylonian exile.

But I want to talk more about replacement theology. The reason why I say Christianity is not replacement theology is because Christianity is a faith that begins with repentance, the circumcision of the heart.

To conclude, Paul appeals to cast out the slave girl together with her son for the obvious reason that Israel, the Jewish People, would never be an heir with the son of the one born free.

The thing is, Sarah tried to obtain the promise by force. And so did the Jewish leaders. They figured that, if they obeyed the Torah, then the promises would be theirs. They failed to remember that God was concerned about the ENTIRE world, not just them. He had consecrated Israel to administer steadfast love, justice, and righteousness throughout the earth. Seeing that God did not spare the Jewish Nation in 70 CE, two thousand years and going, it is evident that they failed to do that.

That's the picture of Replacement Theology and not simply a people claiming Divine election. A group of Interfaith Scholars have classified Replacement Theology as a kind of Anti-Semitism.

Ben

Then we must be thinking about two different theologies. The one I am talking about is a theology where the kingdom of God isn't just in a little spot east of the Mediterranean, but covers the entire earth. That means, the inheritance doesn't just include the Jews. That would be Exclusion Theology. And that is no less offensive than the version of replacement theology you have been talking about. The truth of the kingdom can't be any more clear. Evidently we needed a change in culture to blur the picture.

In this country, a person born here is a citizen by birthright. If the citizen breaks the law, he then becomes a criminal, having his normal rights revoked. An immigrant can become a citizen if he just shows he can obey the law. In one case, the natural citizen threw off his inheritance while, in the other, the immigrant put on his inheritance.

Now, if the Torah and the Sinai Covenant were still in effect, by the Torah's direction, the Jews would have never lost their inheritance and the other nations would have never been blessed with the promises of Abraham, even before Jesus came. But that was not the case. Therefore, one can deduce from all of this that the main point Christianity was making was NOT that the Jews were replaced. It was rather that the other nations were INCLUDED.

Paul's argument, beside all of this, was PRIMARILY for the first century Jews and their children.

"For he is our God, and we are the people of his pasture, and the sheep of his hand. Today, if you hear his voice, do not harden your hearts, as at Meribah, as on the day at Massah in the wilderness, when your fathers put me to the test and put me to the proof, though they had seen my work. For forty years I loathed that generation and said, "They are a people who go astray in their heart, and they have not known my ways." Therefore I swore in my wrath, "They shall not enter my rest." (Psalms 95:7-11 ESV)

The door is always open, to anyone, regardless of race, gender, social status, or whether someone is or is not circumcised. There is no room to boast.

Edited by Bluefinger
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Then we must be thinking about two different theologies. The one I am talking about is a theology where the kingdom of God isn't just in a little spot east of the Mediterranean, but covers the entire earth. That means, the inheritance doesn't just include the Jews. That would be Exclusion Theology. And that is no less offensive than the version of replacement theology you have been talking about. The truth of the kingdom can't be any more clear. Evidently we needed a change in culture to blur the picture.

If the version of Replacement Theology is not offensive, how do you explain this? Paul said that there was a change of the Jewish Priesthood from the Levites to Jesus. Is this inclusion of the Jewish Priesthood or replacement of the Jewish Priesthood with that of Jesus? Unless I am completely illiterate that's replacement to me. Paul continued and said that with the replacement of the Jewish Priesthood there was also a change in the Law. So far, two things he has taken away from the Jews. the Priesthood and the Law. Last but not least, he said Jesus became the guarantee of a better covenant than the Jewish Sinaitic one. Was this an inclusion of the Jews or replacement of the Jewish covenant? As Paul was concerned we have these three Jewish pillars of our Faith removed: Priesthood, Law and our Covenant. In other words, Jews are not supposed to exist as Judaism has been erased from their culture through Replacement Theology.(Heb.7:12,22) Yes, you are right. Replacement Theology is indeed offensive but to the Jewish People, not to Christians.

Edited by Ben Masada

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just for interest, not all translations of this verse make it out as if the author is referring to the faith of Jesus. For example:

NIV: This calls for patient endurance on the part of the people of God who keep his commands and remain faithful to Jesus.

ESV: Here is a call for the endurance of the saints, those who keep the commandments of God and their faith in Jesus.

NASB: Here is the perseverance of the saints who keep the commandments of God and their faith in Jesus.

In other words, the original Greek manuscripts had the meaning to refer to dedication to Jesus, faith in Jesus, rather than following the faith OF Jesus. Just a thought to consider. I generally use four different versions of the Bible when studying, to get a comprehensive view of different translators and their approach. Of the four I generally use (three of them quoted above already), only the RSV translates it as the faith "of" Jesus. And even with this translation, one could potentially argue that the intention of the author was to refer to the faith one has in Jesus' Messiah-status. This seems more likely when you take into consideration the rest of Revelation, which speaks often of Jesus' divine nature (see Bluefinger's earlier post/s, he's brought up Revelation 1:5 already, among others).

Just a thought :)

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

If the version of Replacement Theology is not offensive, how do you explain this? Paul said that there was a change of the Jewish Priesthood from the Levites to Jesus.

Who was Melchizedek that he should have been able to bless Abraham, the father of many nations? Jesus is priest after the order of Melchizedek. If Aaron came from Abraham, and Abraham was blessed by Melchizedek, then Jesus is priest after the order of Melchizedek is blessed and instituted the priesthood. And, of course, we know that the king of Israel is of the order of Melchizedek.

"The LORD has sworn and will not change his mind, 'You are a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek.'" - Psalm 11:4

Is this inclusion of the Jewish Priesthood or replacement of the Jewish Priesthood with that of Jesus?

Jesus instituted the Levites. That's what the rabbis didn't understand. If The Lord of the priests becomes the high priest, then the priesthood isn't replaced, its fulfilled. The Levites failed, the Law did not bring righteousness, and Israel forsook the first covenant. Even after all the commitment that Ezra put into restoring what little Israel still had, the nation would never be the same again. Even Ezekiel was told that the whole body of the Levites, save for the priests of Zadok, was prohibited from serving The Lord in the Holy of Holies.

Next questions: Did the Jews observe that command? Were the priests of Zadok the only ones that the rabbis let minister to The Lord?

Unless I am completely illiterate that's replacement to me. Paul continued and said that with the replacement of the Jewish Priesthood there was also a change in the Law.

Melchizedek, who did not belong to Aaron, blessed Abraham. So it could be said that the order of Melchizedek is higher than the Levites; or that Melchizedek blessed the Levites. Melchizedek was neither a Jew nor a seed of Abraham, but was still priest of the Most High. Paul was saying that One greater than the Levites had come, One from the order of Melchizedek. One could even say that Jesus instituted the order of Melchizedek and is therefore greater than both Melchizedek and Abraham.

If that is the case, then neither the priesthood or the Law is lost, but are actually fulfilled in the One who came before them and set them in place. If Jesus, who is priest before all priests, invites all who believe to share in His inheritance, then all who believe are priests of God.

So far, two things he has taken away from the Jews. the Priesthood and the Law. Last but not least, he said Jesus became the guarantee of a better covenant than the Jewish Sinaitic one. Was this an inclusion of the Jews or replacement of the Jewish covenant?

Taken from the Jews? I think I see where you are misunderstanding me. Jesus offered up to the Jews daily what God had in store for them. The rabbis rejected it and so did those that followed them. They are not replaced though. The hand is always open. The Gentiles were included but the Jews refused to take part in it. That doesn't mean that they can't. If they were excluded, then they would not be granted entry.

Rather, the rabbis believed in Replacement Theology. They believed that since God chose them out of all the peoples that God would destroy the rest of the world OR give it to the Jews to rule. And so the mentality was that the Gentiles, my ancestors, were fuel for the fires of hell. They were chaff to keep the fires of the local landfill going.. I don't know what is worse, Christian Replacement Theology or Jewish Replacement (or Exclusion) Theology.

Beside all that, which one of these things, the priesthood, the Law, or the covenant, have actually been fulfilled in the Jews? The priesthood is lost, the Law is still being argued over, and the Jews were exiled for breaking their end of the covenant. So, what do the Jews have now that they didn't previously reject?

Jesus didn't change the Law. The rabbis did. Jesus fulfilled the Law. The rabbis didn't. If it were no so, Jesus' name would have been lost in history and the rabbis would have been praised. The temple would have never been destroyed. The Jewish Nation would have conquered the Roman Empire. All of this, if the rabbis had actually adhered to the priesthood, obeyed the Law, and kept their end of the covenant. Instead, they delivered over The Lord of all three of those things and led the people into destruction.

Yet Jesus rose to life. His disciples are praised in countries all over the world, as the stories of their courage and faith are read in several different languages. The promises of Abraham aren't just reserved to the circumcised Jews that follow the rabbis, but are open to all that believe in the name of Jesus, the Emperor of this world.

If the rabbis were correct, none of this would be so. The Jews would not have been exiled, ridiculed, chased down, oppressed, and harassed for two thousand years if they had listened to Moses and the Prophets. So, Jesus didn't replace the Law. The rabbis did.

As Paul was concerned we have these three Jewish pillars of our Faith removed: Priesthood, Law and our Covenant. In other words, Jews are not supposed to exist as Judaism has been erased from their culture through Replacement Theology.(Heb.7:12,22) Yes, you are right. Replacement Theology is indeed offensive but to the Jewish People, not to Christians.

I find this an ironic statement. The rabbis during Jesus' time taught that all uncircumcised non-Jews are fuel for the fires of hell. Exclusion theology. Then, their kingdom gets exiled and they are excluded from the promises of Abraham. (You call that Replacement Theology.) But Paul held out hope for the Jews, believing that one day, they will look upon the one they pierced and mourn for Him like they would for an only Son. And then all of Israel would be saved; both the circumcised Jews and the uncircumcised Gentiles. (I call that Inclusion Theology.)

Even if you look at Revelation 7, 10:11, 11, and 12:17; it can be determined fairly easily that a remnant was spared out of Israel so that God's promises endure. That remnant brought the Inclusion Gospel to both the Jews and the Gentiles. Among the Jews, a small fraction believed while the majority rejected it, thanks in part to the rabbis. The Gentiles, however, believed by the thousands. Christianity went on conquer the Roman Empire while Judaism had to be kept in secret.

Now, by reading Deuteronomy 28, who would you say received the blessings of the Law and who would you say received the curses of the Law? The followers of the rabbis or the followers of Jesus? That is the main issue here. Not about Jews and Gentiles. It's about which teacher would you follow. Its like the rebellion at Korah. Those who followed Dathan were misled into their demise while those who followed Moses were spared. The earth opened up and swallowed the rebellion. Those that followed the rabbis rebelled against Rome and were destroyed. The Gospels say that it because they rebelled against the Messiah.

In addition, Christianity doesn't reserve Palestine to God's people. Jesus runs the entire earth (Rev. 1:5.) The earth belongs to God and everything in it. Abraham's blessings continue throughout the earth (Galatians 3:140.) Israel had the special mission of bringing the world INTO the kingdom of God, but they rejected it, insisting to keep to themselves while the rest of the world burns outside the city.

That doesn't mean that Jews today are wicked, evil, and depraved. It just means that the generation that rejected the Messiah were rejected. If one follows that generation, does he not partake in their circumstance? And so there we have it: The faith of Jesus is not the faith of the rabbis. If it were so, Jesus Christ would not have become exalted all over the earth.

Edited by Bluefinger
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Truth" in some lunatic "revelation" is a contradiction in terms.

This thread is nonsensical.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Truth" in some lunatic "revelation" is a contradiction in terms.

This thread is nonsensical.

A revelation is proven true if what it says will happen actually comes to pass. If the revelation of Jesus Christ is true, it is of utmost importance to search out.

It isn't good enough to say that the words are meaningless, confusing, or cryptic. Cancer is meaningless, confusing, and cryptic. That does not get us off the hook from searching it out and finally understanding it. Or we can sit around and watch our loved ones perish because nobody understands it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ben can't handle equality for all peoples in the eyes of God. He thinks that anything challenging his "Chosen Ones" status is antisemitic and so we suffer about a hundred different discussions from him on this board that all keep repeating the same thing over and over again. Grossly mischaracterizing (sp?) Christianity and making the same ludicrous claims ad nauseum like "80% of the New Testament is antisemitic"...bu blah blah blah. It's still kosher to go around and slaughter the Philistines next door because you're Chosen and they're not.

Far better to be an open-minded seeker than a bitter denier.

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just for interest, not all translations of this verse make it out as if the author is referring to the faith of Jesus. For example:

NIV: This calls for patient endurance on the part of the people of God who keep his commands and remain faithful to Jesus.

ESV: Here is a call for the endurance of the saints, those who keep the commandments of God and their faith in Jesus.

NASB: Here is the perseverance of the saints who keep the commandments of God and their faith in Jesus.

In other words, the original Greek manuscripts had the meaning to refer to dedication to Jesus, faith in Jesus, rather than following the faith OF Jesus. Just a thought to consider. I generally use four different versions of the Bible when studying, to get a comprehensive view of different translators and their approach. Of the four I generally use (three of them quoted above already), only the RSV translates it as the faith "of" Jesus. And even with this translation, one could potentially argue that the intention of the author was to refer to the faith one has in Jesus' Messiah-status. This seems more likely when you take into consideration the rest of Revelation, which speaks often of Jesus' divine nature (see Bluefinger's earlier post/s, he's brought up Revelation 1:5 already, among others).

Just a thought :)

I am aware of those versions you mention above but I preferred to use the most popular translation adopted by the whole English world: The KJV. "Here is the Patient of the saints; those who keep the commandments of God and the Faith of Jesus." Since we don't have such an item in the Tanach, the problem remains a Christian problem. And a Christian problem because "Of Jesus" can by no way mean the same as "In Jesus."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who was Melchizedek that he should have been able to bless Abraham, the father of many nations? Jesus is priest after the order of Melchizedek. If Aaron came from Abraham, and Abraham was blessed by Melchizedek, then Jesus is priest after the order of Melchizedek is blessed and instituted the priesthood. And, of course, we know that the king of Israel is of the order of Melchizedek.

"The LORD has sworn and will not change his mind, 'You are a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek.'" - Psalm 11:4

The Truth About Melchizedek

Here is a column which I consider will crack under the building of Christianity. Who was Melchizedek? This man was a pagan Canaanite king, who happened to be the king of Salem, ancient name for Jerusalem.

Abram had just returned from a battle with five kings, and, on his way to Bethshevah, he paused in Jerusalem for a repast. He and his men were tired and weary of the military campain. Melchizedek, afraid perhaps that Abram would take on him too and conquer Jerusalem out of his hands, immediately brought forth bread and wine to him and his troops. For Abram, it was a relieve. He didn't have to fight another king

Now, please, I must remind you that I am reading from the originals in Hebrew and not from the Gentile adulterated version of the KJV. Why would Melchizedek prefer to feed Abram and his army instead of fighting him? Because he, Abram, and not Melchizedek was the priest of God most High, whose seed would be of a nation of priests and kings. (Exo. 19:6; Isa. 61:6)

Then, as Melchizedek served the food and drink, he blessed Abram. Please focus on how he blessed Abram. "Blessed be Abram of God Most High." It means that Melchizedek would recongnize that Abram was the one Priest of God the Most High. Creator of the universe." Then, for all the bread and wine, and that blessing of recognition of who Abram really was, Abram shared with him a tenth of the spoils taken from the kings in battle.

Now, let us check Psalm 110:4, which in the KJV says, "The Lord has sworn and will not repent, you are a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek." This is a Christian gloss plagiarized by Paul and grossly forged by the Church in the 4th Century under the excuse of pious forgery.

Here is what Psalm 110:4 says in the originals in Hebrew: "The Lord has sworn and will not relent, you are a priest forever; a rightful king by My decree." As you can see, it has nothing to do with king Melchizedek, king of Salem, but rather to David in the type level of interpretation, which points to the archetype level in Israel, the seed of Abraham as a nation of priests and kings. (Exo. 19:6; Isa. 61:6) Obviously, only the High Priest of the Most High would produce a generation of priests and kings through Israel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Ben can't handle equality for all peoples in the eyes of God. He thinks that anything challenging his "Chosen Ones" status is antisemitic and so we suffer about a hundred different discussions from him on this board that all keep repeating the same thing over and over again. Grossly mischaracterizing (sp?) Christianity and making the same ludicrous claims ad nauseum like "80% of the New Testament is antisemitic"...bu blah blah blah. It's still kosher to go around and slaughter the Philistines next door because you're Chosen and they're not.

Far better to be an open-minded seeker than a bitter denier.

[media=]

[/media]

Jews kill only in self-defense. How about the millions of Jews killed throughout History by Christians by way of pogroms, blood libels, Crusades, Inquisition and last but not least the Holocaust, was it in self-defense? The problem with you is that Jews are supposed to stand on the front side of the barrow and never on the trigger side. I am sorry to disappoint you.

Edited by Ben Masada

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am aware of those versions you mention above but I preferred to use the most popular translation adopted by the whole English world: The KJV. "Here is the Patient of the saints; those who keep the commandments of God and the Faith of Jesus." Since we don't have such an item in the Tanach, the problem remains a Christian problem. And a Christian problem because "Of Jesus" can by no way mean the same as "In Jesus."

I'm sorry, Ben, but I reject the KJV. The KJV is 402 years old, written in English that is now sometimes obsolete, and translated from an inferior set of ancient documents. Most Christians I know today use a modern version of the Bible. Only certain KJV-only'ists (as I call them) believe only in the authority of the KJV. Under the circumstances, it appears you are picking a 402-year old version of the text to support your preconceptions when modern translations make it clear what the intentions of the author is. If you knew about these versions and chose to ignore them, then all it proves is you are dishonest in attempting to preach your beliefs about Jesus to the rest of us on the internet. Not the first time this has happened either. You knew Jesus' comments to the Samaritan were allegorical and yet you still cited it as proof that Jesus was bigoted, when you later admitted he wasn't and you were just trying to make a point.
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

The Truth About Melchizedek

Here is a column which I consider will crack under the building of Christianity. Who was Melchizedek? This man was a pagan Canaanite king, who happened to be the king of Salem, ancient name for Jerusalem.

Abram had just returned from a battle with five kings, and, on his way to Bethshevah, he paused in Jerusalem for a repast. He and his men were tired and weary of the military campain. Melchizedek, afraid perhaps that Abram would take on him too and conquer Jerusalem out of his hands, immediately brought forth bread and wine to him and his troops. For Abram, it was a relieve. He didn't have to fight another king

Something isn't working out here. Abram tithed Melchizedek. Also, Paul was under the impression that Melchizedek's blessing meant something. So did King David in his psalm. If King David thought highly of Melchizedek's order, what Jew is justified in contradicting him?

Now, please, I must remind you that I am reading from the originals in Hebrew and not from the Gentile adulterated version of the KJV. Why would Melchizedek prefer to feed Abram and his army instead of fighting him? Because he, Abram, and not Melchizedek was the priest of God most High, whose seed would be of a nation of priests and kings. (Exo. 19:6; Isa. 61:6)

Then, as Melchizedek served the food and drink, he blessed Abram. Please focus on how he blessed Abram. "Blessed be Abram of God Most High." It means that Melchizedek would recongnize that Abram was the one Priest of God the Most High. Creator of the universe." Then, for all the bread and wine, and that blessing of recognition of who Abram really was, Abram shared with him a tenth of the spoils taken from the kings in battle.

Now, let us check Psalm 110:4, which in the KJV says, "The Lord has sworn and will not repent, you are a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek." This is a Christian gloss plagiarized by Paul and grossly forged by the Church in the 4th Century under the excuse of pious forgery.

Here is what Psalm 110:4 says in the originals in Hebrew: "The Lord has sworn and will not relent, you are a priest forever; a rightful king by My decree." As you can see, it has nothing to do with king Melchizedek, king of Salem, but rather to David in the type level of interpretation, which points to the archetype level in Israel, the seed of Abraham as a nation of priests and kings. (Exo. 19:6; Isa. 61:6) Obviously, only the High Priest of the Most High would produce a generation of priests and kings through Israel.

Okay. Thanks for explaining. But what does the name Melchizedek mean?

If you look up the etymology, you'll find that it was not a gross forgery. It was an interpretation by Paul. The rightful king, or righteous king, is what Melchizedek means. In that case, "a priest forever; a rightful king (Melchizedek) by my decree," is not a gross forgery.

Also, I find it hard that a 4th century Christian would have forged David's writings given the schism that Greek Christians and Hebrew Christians had over the change in the Sabbath observation to Sunday. The Greek theology seemed to be greatly disinterested in David and Abraham (and Melchizedek for that matter) since many Greeks (especially the Alexandrian school of thought) believed that such characters in the Old Testament were really physical types of a spiritual reality. And since Trinitarianism dominated the theology of the 4th century, I find it unlikely that a Melchizedek forgery ever made it.

If it were a forgery, the forgery would have occurred within the first two centuries of Christianity's existence, when Judaism was still the primary opponent to Christianity. That places it within Paul's time. And I don't think Paul would have forged it, especially knowing the great opposition he faced from Jews in the synagogues and public forum and from close Jewish friends of his. A Pharisee would not have been that careless with Scripture. (They preferred to make up their own traditions, according to Josephus.)

Edited by Bluefinger
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sorry, Ben, but I reject the KJV. The KJV is 402 years old, written in English that is now sometimes obsolete, and translated from an inferior set of ancient documents. Most Christians I know today use a modern version of the Bible. Only certain KJV-only'ists (as I call them) believe only in the authority of the KJV. Under the circumstances, it appears you are picking a 402-year old version of the text to support your preconceptions when modern translations make it clear what the intentions of the author is. If you knew about these versions and chose to ignore them, then all it proves is you are dishonest in attempting to preach your beliefs about Jesus to the rest of us on the internet. Not the first time this has happened either. You knew Jesus' comments to the Samaritan were allegorical and yet you still cited it as proof that Jesus was bigoted, when you later admitted he wasn't and you were just trying to make a point.

Well, what I have to say is that the more and more modern is a translation of the Bible made, the more are the temptations to fit in the religious preconceived notions of the translator. And when you show your preference for modern translations in spite of ancient ones, it only conveys that you don't care for the originals. Can you realize the danger here? As the Tanach is concerned I can never bring to you a testimony from the originals in Hebrews because you will reject it on the basis of being too ancient. The Christian faction of "Messianic Judaism" is translating a super modern Bible where every reference to Jesus in their opinion is made to be a nominal reference. Imagine the boom that this method will cause in future generations that never had any contact with older translations?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Something isn't working out here. Abram tithed Melchizedek. Also, Paul was under the impression that Melchizedek's blessing meant something. So did King David in his psalm. If King David thought highly of Melchizedek's order, what Jew is justified in contradicting him?

Okay. Thanks for explaining. But what does the name Melchizedek mean?

If you look up the etymology, you'll find that it was not a gross forgery. It was an interpretation by Paul. The rightful king, or righteous king, is what Melchizedek means. In that case, "a priest forever; a rightful king (Melchizedek) by my decree," is not a gross forgery.

Also, I find it hard that a 4th century Christian would have forged David's writings given the schism that Greek Christians and Hebrew Christians had over the change in the Sabbath observation to Sunday. The Greek theology seemed to be greatly disinterested in David and Abraham (and Melchizedek for that matter) since many Greeks (especially the Alexandrian school of thought) believed that such characters in the Old Testament were really physical types of a spiritual reality. And since Trinitarianism dominated the theology of the 4th century, I find it unlikely that a Melchizedek forgery ever made it.

If it were a forgery, the forgery would have occurred within the first two centuries of Christianity's existence, when Judaism was still the primary opponent to Christianity. That places it within Paul's time. And I don't think Paul would have forged it, especially knowing the great opposition he faced from Jews in the synagogues and public forum and from close Jewish friends of his. A Pharisee would not have been that careless with Scripture. (They preferred to make up their own traditions, according to Josephus.)

Bluefinger, I have clearly explained in the thread that the originals in Hebrew do not mention "According to the order of Melchizedek" but "By My decree." And by the way, Abraham did not tithe Melchizedek. He just shared with him a portion of the spoils in payment for his gracious welcome. Since Abraham was not of the kind to take things free he decided not to owe him any favor. There was absolutely no homage by Abraham toward Melchizedek. That payment meant nothing in terms of returning the tithe. The idea was many years later copied by the Levites as an inspiration to build the tithing system. That's all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.