Let There Be Light and There Was Light

[kylixguru]

Let There Be Light and There Was Light - Today, 07:48 PM

It has been an a "tohu vavohu" among many questioners, especially Christians, even many Jews, to come up with an explanation for that kind of light in Genesis 1:3 wen the sun, which gives light by day was created only on the 4th day of creation. The embarrassment is that at both, Atheists laugh. And not because they know any better in terms of an adequate answer, but for two other reasons: First, because they look for answer only in Science; and of course it is not there but in Theology. And in Theology, they laugh at us for they think
that we are all speaking about an anthropomorphic god, which, as I don't blame them: It indeed never existed.

But what light is indeed the Torah writer referring to when he reports of God as declaring, "Let there be light?"

Since before the creation of the universe it was already in the designs of God to provide for salvation of Mankind, a People whom salvation would come from, in the words of Jesus himself in John 4:22.

When for good, the Assyrians removed Israel from existence by replacing the Northern population of the Galilee with Gentiles, and after the Jews or Southern pupulation was taken for an temporary exile of 70 years in Babylon, and the time had arrived for their return to the Land of Israel, Prophet Isaiah said that the people who walked in darkness, he meant the Gentiles in Galilee, had seen a great light as the Jewish People was returning to the Land of Israel. (Isa. 9:2)

Then, later, he confirms that light of Genesis 1:3 when he explained that Israel had been assigned as light to the nations. (Isa. 42:6) But the light was to remain divided from the darkness, so that both should exist in the same world; although, in the language of the Essenes, there would always be a conflict between the children of Light and the children of darkness. Between Jews and Gentiles.

Jesus was aware of this Light as he delivered his famous Sermon of the Mount to a crowd of Jews, when he said to them: "You are the Light of the world." (Mat. 5:14) The reason why he said "you are" and not "you have" is that what one has, it can be taken away, but what one is he is no matter what. Individually, we have the light the world needs to know God. But as a People, we are the light of Genesis 1:3, which the world needs for salvation.

Ben

The Light being spoken of in Genesis 1:3 is the fulness of the Gospel that the Father would endeavor to establish at the time when the Kingdom would be established in power and glory. It could have come by way of the Jews except for the fact that they rejected John the Baptist (the Elias/Elijah) and so he turned the keys against them and turned them over to blindness and darkness which resulted in them putting the newly birthed source of that Light to death.

A careful examination of Genesis 49:10 indicates the scepter would leave Judah and go to Shiloh, which is "to whom it rightly belongs" which is the birthright tribe of Ephraim. Thus, the establishment of that Light went into a period of abeyance until the stage was set for Ephraim to be established and to head up the gathering of the dispersed tribes of the northern kingdom from among the Gentiles.

Unfortunately, Ephraim falters worse than the Jews faltered and so the scepter moves again and goes back to Joseph's House who must redeem and complete what Ephraim attempted and failed miserably at.

The timing for the House of Joseph to pick up the pieces of Ephraim's botched attempt is upon us right now. The excellent news for the Jewish people (Judah's true descendents and not the Edomite imposters who have weidled their way in) is they shall be among the first to be gathered in and restored.

Who shall rouse up Judah in the last days? Shiloh! Who is Shiloh? He is the advent of the Father who comes at the end of the old creation and the beginning of the new creation. He comes from the House of Joseph to bring in the Kingdom victoriously and He gathers in all of the tribes of the House of Israel and establishes them as a sovereign nation. He is who rules over the Light on Day 1 of the new creation. He is the Messiah the Jewish people are yet waiting for to establish them again as a sovereign nation. This will happen because of the Light the Father offers them that they shall recognize and have ignited within and they shall be a very formidable power to assist in building the true Zion instead of their current efforts to build up the Edomite Zion.

 

[Ben Masada]

As if being Jewish is 'special'?

Now that the Carpenter has laid out His teachings.....
No one is special.

Light of the world?....anyone teaching parables...yes.
Anyone teaching favored race or culture?...no.

Well my friend, I put all the necessary quotations down for evidences of my assertions. If the Biblical message is not of your taste, you can go ahead and blame:
a) Jesus who said that the Jews are the light of the world. (Mat. 5:14)
b) Isaiah who said that Israel was set asside as light unto the nations. (Isa.42:6)
c) Ezekiel who said that by means of Israel God reveals Himself to the world. (Ezek. 20:41)
d) The Psalmist who said that God entrusted His Word to Israel only and to no other people on earth. (Psalm 147:19,20)
e) Isaiah who said that when the nations get hungry for the Word of God, they will address themselves to Zion, which is a sysnonym for the Jewish People. (Isa. 2:2,3)
f) Zechariah who said the time will come when many from the nations will reach for the garment of the Jews and beg to let them join for having finally recognized that God is indeed with us. (Zech. 8:23)
g) Isaiah who said that if you want to join us, that's how. (Isa. 56:1-8)

 

[Ben Masada]

The Light being spoken of in Genesis 1:3 is the fulness of the Gospel that the Father would endeavor to establish at the time when the Kingdom would be established in power and glory. It could have come by way of the Jews except for the fact that they rejected John the Baptist (the Elias/Elijah) and so he turned the keys against them and turned them over to blindness and darkness which resulted in them putting the newly birthed source of that Light to death.

A careful examination of Genesis 49:10 indicates the scepter would leave Judah and go to Shiloh, which is "to whom it rightly belongs" which is the birthright tribe of Ephraim. Thus, the establishment of that Light went into a period of abeyance until the stage was set for Ephraim to be established and to head up the gathering of the dispersed tribes of the northern kingdom from among the Gentiles.

Unfortunately, Ephraim falters worse than the Jews faltered and so the scepter moves again and goes back to Joseph's House who must redeem and complete what Ephraim attempted and failed miserably at.

The timing for the House of Joseph to pick up the pieces of Ephraim's botched attempt is upon us right now. The excellent news for the Jewish people (Judah's true descendents and not the Edomite imposters who have weidled their way in) is they shall be among the first to be gathered in and restored.

Who shall rouse up Judah in the last days? Shiloh! Who is Shiloh? He is the advent of the Father who comes at the end of the old creation and the beginning of the new creation. He comes from the House of Joseph to bring in the Kingdom victoriously and He gathers in all of the tribes of the House of Israel and establishes them as a sovereign nation. He is who rules over the Light on Day 1 of the new creation. He is the Messiah the Jewish people are yet waiting for to establish them again as a sovereign nation. This will happen because of the Light the Father offers them that they shall recognize and have ignited within and they shall be a very formidable power to assist in building the true Zion instead of their current efforts to build up the Edomite Zion.

I have two things to remind you of. First, that you are promoting Replacement Theology. The second thing is that you are absolutely wrong about Shiloh. To claim that Shiloh is a reference to Jesus, you have nothing to quote as an evidence in the only Scriptures that Jesus considered the Word of God. Now, here is the truth about Shiloh with all the necessary quotations you need to possess the truth:

S H I L O H - Genesis 49:10

When Jacob thought he was about to die, he invited all his sons unto himself at his deathbed for the last blessings. At the turn of Judah, Jacob said that the scepter would not depart from his Tribe until Shiloh came.

Christians in general assume that's a prophecy about Jesus, and I have researched about the matter, and happened to have found out that's not true.

The Tribe of Judah had grown to become the leader over all the other Tribes, and kept the monopoly to exert hegemony over them all. That's the scepter that would not depart from Judah till Shiloh came.

After the death of Solomon, Prophet Ahijah from Shiloh took his coat and went out to meet Jeroboam, who was the leader of forced labor among the Northern Tribes. As the Prophet met Jeroboam, he tore his coat in twelve parts and gave ten to Jeroboam, saying that God had decided to split the Tribes in two Kingdoms, and that ten of those Tribes would be governed by Jeroboam. That's when Shiloh came, and Judah lost the hegemony over ten of the Tribes. (I Kings 11:29-32) It's important to understand that Shiloh is not the Prophet who came from his home city
called Shiloh, but the split between the Tribes and the secession of the Ten Tribes.

Rehoboam, the King who had succeeded Solomon his father did not understand and started preparing the Country for civil war when Shemaiah, the man of God dissuaded him by making him understand that Shiloh had come. He got it and recalled the Army. (I Kings 12:21-24)

Now, kindly share with me your comments.

Ben

 

[esmith]

The Light being spoken of in Genesis 1:3 is the fulness of the Gospel that the Father would endeavor to establish at the time when the Kingdom would be established in power and glory. It could have come by way of the Jews except for the fact that they rejected John the Baptist (the Elias/Elijah) and so he turned the keys against them and turned them over to blindness and darkness which resulted in them putting the newly birthed source of that Light to death.

I don't know where you are getting this from, but why are you disseminating such ant-semantic rhetoric. As far as I am concerned, you need to tone it down. This type of hate speech has caused to many problems in the world today and isn't really welcome or necessary.

Another view on the subject:
As is well documented in the Synoptic Gospels, Jesus was promulgating that the "End-Of-Time" was at hand (Mark 9:1 for instance). He was causing disruptions at the Temple, and elsewhere, during the Passover Festival. In previous years there had been riots and Pontius Pilate, with his troops, was in Jerusalem during this period to insure that there were no problems. Pilate was not an "easy" governor. Jesus was brought before him on charges and Pilate had him executed as a common criminal. Is it possible that Jesus was responsible for his own death?

 

[kylixguru]

I don't know where you are getting this from, but why are you disseminating such ant-semantic rhetoric. As far as I am concerned, you need to tone it down. This type of hate speech has caused to many problems in the world today.

If you don't know where I am coming from then how are you convinced I am speaking in hatred? How about you do what we are here to do and first find out where I am coming from? As far as I'm concerned you need to get the trigger on your H-bomb a lot less hair triggered.

I am opposed to the kind of hate in this world that motivates people to murder others and bring upon themselves innocent blood, such as was the case with the people of whom I spoke. History shows there was a significant number of individuals murdered for the sake of religious suppression and political expediency by the Jewish leadership. Jesus merely happened to be one of them.

If I was outright advocating more people be killed for the sake of religious suppression and political expediency then perhaps you ought to go ahead and pull that trigger on the H-bomb.

Is it hateful to point out theological "cause and effect" where the flaws of character and heart are exposed that lead up to shedding innocent blood? I seek no revenge or wish no ill upon the Jewish people for what they did. I merely wish for them to take a step back and consider the evidences I offer.

The very Torah itself lays the foundation for what must happen in order for the atonement on behalf of the entire people of Jacob to be worked out. There are three distinct animals that are "for the people" in the Yom Kippur ritual. These three animals represent the individuals who work out the atonement. They also happen to correspond with what the Christians call the Trinity. Each member of the Godhead is a distinct personage and has a distinct advent. Jesus came as one of 3 divine advents in order to fulfill His part. Jesus was the fulfillment of the first goat who was slain. The Gentiles under Ephraim's banner are who burned the ram, which was even worse. In consequence of this atrocity the tribe of Ephraim is blotted out per Deuteronomy 29:18-20 as is evidenced by Joseph and Manesseh being listed as a tribe in Rev 1:7 but Ephraim being absent. This list of tribes is the list of names of the tribes that are part of the Kingdom when it is established in victory. This victory won't happen until the 3rd advent of God to fulfil the 2nd goat of Yom Kippur (who is supposed to escape alive, not be tumblied over a cliff to his death as Edom would like) comes under Joseph's banner and finishes the job that was given to Ephraim.

Isaiah also spoke very clearly about the 3 distinct advents of Deity. In chapter 11 he talks about the stem (stump) and the rod (sprout from the stump) and the branch (that grows up from the roots out of dry ground). The implication here is the first divine advent is stumped, the second is burned to the ground and the third survives against all odds and obtains the victory.

So, why should the Jewish people think they are going to enjoy the advent of the victorious Messiah until the one slain and the one burned first suffer their tragedy? And, if they consider themselves to have been first up at bat, why is it such a difficult stretch of reason for them to consider the possibility they had a part in the first of the two tragedies?

Perhaps you should call my ideas here "Double Replacement Theology"?

There is a very good lesson all of humanity would greatly benefit from in learning from the mistakes of character and heart that caused both the Jews and the Gentiles (under Ephraim's banner) to be so blind and do such an atrocity to even murder their own divine King.

Also, why accuse me of being anti-Semitic? I am a full-blooded descendent of Semetic ancestry and I have no issues with self-loathing. I wish to see the Semitic peoples of Israel rise to the stature of heart and character that they truly become the light and life of the world to bring in the golden age of peace, prosperity and joy. All 12 tribes, not just my own.

Have a nice day!

 

[kylixguru]

Another view on the subject:
As is well documented in the Synoptic Gospels, Jesus was promulgating that the "End-Of-Time" was at hand (Mark 9:1 for instance). He was causing disruptions at the Temple, and elsewhere, during the Passover Festival. In previous years there had been riots and Pontius Pilate, with his troops, was in Jerusalem during this period to insure that there were no problems. Pilate was not an "easy" governor. Jesus was brought before him on charges and Pilate had him executed as a common criminal. Is it possible that Jesus was responsible for his own death?

That is how I understand things happened, though I don't get the same conclusion you do.

Who laid the charges and for what reason?

If Jesus was innocent of doing anything making him worthy of being put to death, his blood is still on the hands of those who murdered him by the hand of the Gentiles.

Have a nice day!

 

[Ben Masada]

That is how I understand things happened, though I don't get the same conclusion you do.

Who laid the charges and for what reason?

If Jesus was innocent of doing anything making him worthy of being put to death, his blood is still on the hands of those who murdered him by the hand of the Gentiles.

Have a nice day!

I'll tell you who laid the charges: Some of the stupid followers of Jesus who proclaimed Jesus king of the Jews. Wasn't it the reason why he was crucified? Well, Pilate made it very clear as he wrote on that plate that he nailed on the top of Jesus' cross. That he was king of the Jews. I enjoy to watch TV Evangelists. When I see them putting up the same claim that Jesus was or is the king of the Jews, the only thing that comes to my mind is that the descendants of those stupid guys are back. Those of then and these of today are the responsible for the reason Jesus was crucified. Political reasons.

 

[kylixguru]

I have two things to remind you of. First, that you are promoting Replacement Theology.

I'm sorry but I don't recall you ever having mentioned that to me before. Also, I am not familiar with the vernacular here. You put it in proper case so I assume you are referring to some pre-packaged notions that may or may not apply to what I've said. I can only infer you are responding to me suggesting the scepter eventually goes back to the birthright tribe of Israel in the last days. Yes?

The second thing is that you are absolutely wrong about Shiloh.

I'm sorry but I don't recall you ever establishing this before such that I can now be reminded of this. Is there a reason you feel the need to put my alleged incorrectness in the context of your side of the dialog before we have even had sufficient dialog to draw conclusions from?

To claim that Shiloh is a reference to Jesus, you have nothing to quote as an evidence in the only Scriptures that Jesus considered the Word of God.

If you would, please do me the courtesy of reading what I wrote again. I did not claim Jesus was Shiloh. What I did claim was that in the last days (that would be Day 6 and 7 of this Creation) there would be an advent of Deity who would come to gather in all of the peoples of dispersed Israel (of both the northern and southern kingdom) who would be the Messiah that would establish the Kingdom. It says to me in very clear terms that when this advent occurs the scepter would leave the House of Judah and go to the one to whom the right belongs, which is a clear reference to the Birthright. It is at least clear that it was going to leave Judah at that time.

Now, here is the truth about Shiloh with all the necessary quotations you need to possess the truth:
S H I L O H - Genesis 49:10
When Jacob thought he was about to die, he invited all his sons unto himself at his deathbed for the last blessings. At the turn of Judah, Jacob said that the scepter would not depart from his Tribe until Shiloh came.

You need to take Jacob's blessings to his sons in the full context. The things he spoke of to them pertained specifically to the last days. Since there are 7 Days in a Creation he was specifically referring to Day 6 and Day 7. Thus, the complete fulfillment of this prophecy shall not be accomplished until sometime after about 1000 AD. This precludes Jesus from being the direct manifestation of the coming of the Shiloh Messiah.

Christians in general assume that's a prophecy about Jesus, and I have researched about the matter, and happened to have found out that's not true.

As do I, unless you ascribe it to Him because He has spiritual union with the future advents who manifest the Shiloh Messiah. The easiest way to prove it wasn't talking about Jesus is because Jesus was of the House of Judah. He claimed to be the King which means He held the scepter by right because it was yet ascribed to the House of Judah. So, how does Him holding the scepter as King cause the scepter to depart from Judah's House? It doesn't and therefore Jesus is not the direct fulfillment there on that count either.

The Tribe of Judah had grown to become the leader over all the other Tribes, and kept the monopoly to exert hegemony over them all. That's the scepter that would not depart from Judah till Shiloh came.
After the death of Solomon, Prophet Ahijah from Shiloh took his coat and went out to meet Jeroboam, who was the leader of forced labor among the Northern Tribes. As the Prophet met Jeroboam, he tore his coat in twelve parts and gave ten to Jeroboam, saying that God had decided to split the Tribes in two Kingdoms, and that ten of those Tribes would be governed by Jeroboam. That's when Shiloh came, and Judah lost the hegemony over ten of the Tribes. (I Kings 11:29-32) It's important to understand that Shiloh is not the Prophet who came from his home city called Shiloh, but the split between the Tribes and the secession of the Ten Tribes.

Yes, the kingdoms were divided but I do not see where you have established an actual transfer of the scepter from Judah's tribe to one of the other tribes. You also have to indicate how this timing would qualify for being in the 'last days' as Jacob entailed and how there is a major gathering of a dispersed people. The timing you offer here is very premature, the scepter remained with Judah long past this time, the dispersion of the people had not yet happened so there was no need to do any gathering, no everlasting kingdom bringing in a golden age resulted from the advent of a very special King immediately subsequent to this timing, and so on.

Rehoboam, the King who had succeeded Solomon his father did not understand and started preparing the Country for civil war when Shemaiah, the man of God dissuaded him by making him understand that Shiloh had come. He got it and recalled the Army. (I Kings 12:21-24)

I looked at this reference in the KJV and saw no mention of the coming of Shiloh being the basis. It simply said the king was told that the division of the kingdoms was in accordance with God's will and that they should not use force of arms to go contrary to that.

Now, kindly share with me your comments.
Ben

Have a nice day!

 

[kylixguru]

I'll tell you who laid the charges: Some of the stupid followers of Jesus who proclaimed Jesus king of the Jews.

This sounds like you are talking about those who promulgated the basis upon which the Jewish leaders of the time decided to lay charges. Yes? If not, please help me understand your logic. Are you simply trying to say no individual should ever have come to fulfil Messianic prophecy because that claim alone makes you worthy of death?

Wasn't it the reason why he was crucified?

The reason He was crucified was to fulfill his part of the Day of Atonement ritual that was playing out at the "all of creation" level. He was the first goat slain.

Well, Pilate made it very clear as he wrote on that plate that he nailed on the top of Jesus' cross. That he was king of the Jews.

I have often wondered if some of the leadership outright understood what must happen to the first advent of Messiah and therefore quietly watched knowing that what happened absolutely had to happen. Pilate was correct in what he wrote and it greatly annoyed a good number of those in the Jewish leadership. I suspect Pilate knew a lot more than we are led to believe. Was he not acting in the capacity of a priest to examine the animal being offered and pronounce he finds no blemish in it? These parallels continue in such a remarkable way that I am astounded more Jewish people don't pay much attention to it.

I enjoy to watch TV Evangelists. When I see them putting up the same claim that Jesus was or is the king of the Jews, the only thing that comes to my mind is that the descendants of those stupid guys are back. Those of then and these of today are the responsible for the reason Jesus was crucified. Political reasons.

So you are sympathetic to those who murder innocent people simply for political expediency?

 

[Ben Masada]

I'm sorry but I don't recall you ever having mentioned that to me before. Also, I am not familiar with the vernacular here. You put it in proper case so I assume you are referring to some pre-packaged notions that may or may not apply to what I've said. I can only infer you are responding to me suggesting the scepter eventually goes back to the birthright tribe of Israel in the last days. Yes?

No. Israel never had the brthright. This was granted to Judah, whose scepter over ten of the Tribes he lost when they split away from Judah to form the Kingdom of the North under Jeroboam. (Gen. 49:10)

I'm sorry but I don't recall you ever establishing this before such that I can now be reminded of this. Is there a reason you feel the need to put my alleged incorrectness in the context of your side of the dialog before we have even had sufficient dialog to draw conclusions from?

You are a christian, aren't you? I guess you are supposed to know these things.

If you would, please do me the courtesy of reading what I wrote again. I did not claim Jesus was Shiloh. What I did claim was that in the last days (that would be Day 6 and 7 of this Creation) there would be an advent of Deity who would come to gather in all of the peoples of dispersed Israel (of both the northern and southern kingdom) who would be the Messiah that would establish the Kingdom. It says to me in very clear terms that when this advent occurs the scepter would leave the House of Judah and go to the one to whom the right belongs, which is a clear reference to the Birthright. It is at least clear that it was going to leave Judah at that time.

Here is what you wrote:

"Who shall rouse up Judah in the last days? Shiloh! Who is Shiloh? He is the advent of the Father who comes at the end of the old creation and the beginning of the new creation. He comes from the House of Joseph to bring in the Kingdom victoriously and He gathers in all of the tribes of the House of Israel and establishes them as a sovereign nation. He is who rules over the Light on Day 1 of the new creation. He is the Messiah the Jewish people are yet waiting for to establish them again as a sovereign nation. This will happen because of the Light the Father offers them that they shall recognize and have ignited within and they shall be a very formidable power to assist in building the true Zion instead of their current efforts to build up the Edomite Zion."

Who is Shiloh? He is the Messiah... If you are a Christian, which your post reveals you as being one, then the Shiloh must be Jesus, the Messiah. I gave the proper quotation that Shiloh is the event that caused the split between the Tribes.

You need to take Jacob's blessings to his sons in the full context. The things he spoke of to them pertained specifically to the last days. Since there are 7 Days in a Creation he was specifically referring to Day 6 and Day 7. Thus, the complete fulfillment of this prophecy shall not be accomplished until sometime after about 1000 AD. This precludes Jesus from being the direct manifestation of the coming of the Shiloh Messiah.

The last days here is a reference to the last days of united Israel till Shiloh came. Then, again you say that Jesus will be the diret manifestation of the coming of the Shiloh Messiah. That's where you are mistaken.

As do I, unless you ascribe it to Him because He has spiritual union with the future advents who manifest the Shiloh Messiah. The easiest way to prove it wasn't talking about Jesus is because Jesus was of the House of Judah. He claimed to be the King which means He held the scepter by right because it was yet ascribed to the House of Judah. So, how does Him holding the scepter as King cause the scepter to depart from Judah's House? It doesn't and therefore Jesus is not the direct fulfillment there on that count either.

Jesus was not of the House of Judah, if he was not a biological son of Joseph's who was the one from the House of Judah. Since he was adopted, he was a Jew without a Tribe. According to Judaism Tribal inheritance cannot pass down through adoption, as Christians claim that Jesus was adopted by Joseph and not his biological son.

Yes, the kingdoms were divided but I do not see where you have established an actual transfer of the scepter from Judah's tribe to one of the other tribes. You also have to indicate how this timing would qualify for being in the 'last days' as Jacob entailed and how there is a major gathering of a dispersed people. The timing you offer here is very premature, the scepter remained with Judah long past this time, the dispersion of the people had not yet happened so there was no need to do any gathering, no everlasting kingdom bringing in a golden age resulted from the advent of a very special King immediately subsequent to this timing, and so on.

This only tells me you did not understand the thread if you read it at all. The transfer of the scepter occurred when Ten Tribes left Judah and followed Jeroboam to organized themselves independently as the kingdom of the North.

I looked at this reference in the KJV and saw no mention of the coming of Shiloh being the basis. It simply said the king was told that the division of the kingdoms was in accordance with God's will and that they should not use force of arms to go contrary to that.

Yes, that they should not react to the split of the Tribes because the Shiloh of the prophecy of Jacob had arrived in accordance with God's will.

 

[Ben Masada]

This sounds like you are talking about those who promulgated the basis upon which the Jewish leaders of the time decided to lay charges. Yes? If not, please help me understand your logic. Are you simply trying to say no individual should ever have come to fulfil Messianic prophecy because that claim alone makes you worthy of death?

The Jewish leaders would not lay charges of death on a fellow Jew who came to confirm the most important thing to a Jew, which is God's Law. (Mat. 5:18,19) So the accusation that the Jews condemned Jesus to death is an anti-Semitic interpolation of the Hellenistic Gentiles who wrote the gospels. And regarding the messianic prophecies, they were fulfilled by the Suffering Servant of Isaiah 53, whom the Prophet identifies him with Israel by name if you read Isaiah 44:8,9; 44:1,2,21. Therefore, the Messiah is collective in the People of Israel and not an individual in particular.

The reason He was crucified was to fulfill his part of the Day of Atonement ritual that was playing out at the "all of creation" level. He was the first goat slain.

Goats were slain or sacrificed for thousands of years evey year. How could Jesus have been the first? If you are referring to a human goat, you need to read Josephus who asserts that the Romans crucified thousands of Jews only in the First Century in the very same manner they crucified Jesus. How about the blood of the others, doesn't count?

I have often wondered if some of the leadership outright understood what must happen to the first advent of Messiah and therefore quietly watched knowing that what happened absolutely had to happen.

They couldn't do anything. The power in Israel was in the hands of the Romans.

Pilate was correct in what he wrote and it greatly annoyed a good number of those in the Jewish leadership. I suspect Pilate knew a lot more than we are led to believe.

You suspect wrongly. Pilate did not need a good reason to crucify a Jew, according to Josephus. What he wrote on that plate was only a political reason to crucify one more Jew.

Was he not acting in the capacity of a priest to examine the animal being offered and pronounce he finds no blemish in it? These parallels continue in such a remarkable way that I am astounded more Jewish people don't pay much attention to it.

That's a hypothetical assumption in order to justify the Pauline policy of Replacement Theology.

So you are sympathetic to those who murder innocent people simply for political expediency?

I am rather sympathetic to those who are victims of blood libel as the Jews have been in the hands of Christianity since the false accusation that they were responsible for the death of Jesus.

 

[kylixguru]

The Jewish leaders would not lay charges of death on a fellow Jew who came to confirm the most important thing to a Jew, which is God's Law. (Mat. 5:18,19)

The ritual performances in the Law indicate they would do exactly that.
The political climate of the time strongly suggests the Jewish leaders had divided loyalties.

The wealthy Jews and those in high positions complied with the occupiers, the Romans, to protect their wealth and their interests, and to maintain their positions. Also, the Romans granted them special privileges. (This is normally the case in most occupations of nations.) In return the Romans held them accountable for the actions of their people. The Romans appointed the high priests, and the high priests bribed the Romans. Josephus wrote, �But as for the high priest, Ananias � was a great hoarder up of money: he therefore cultivated the friendship of Albinus {Roman procurator from 62 to 64 CE}, and of the high priest [Jesus], by making them presents.� [3] There was religious-political corruption, which caused a conflict between the common people and the high priests. The high priests were Sadducees and they collaborated with the rich Jews (which Josephus calls �men of power&#65533. Josephus wrote, �� while the Sadducees are able to persuade none but the rich, and have not the populace obsequious to them {the crowds were not eager to obey them} �� [4] Since the high priests were appointed by the kings (who, in turn, were appointed by the Romans) they often took the side of the Romans in convincing people to stop rioting. For instance, when the Jews protested the taxation of Quirinius (around 6-7 CE) and Judas the Galilean instigated a revolt, the high priest Joazar, took the side of the Romans and persuaded the multitude to comply. [5] Because the leading priests were appointed by the kings and because they took the side of the Romans (in keeping order), the multitude of Jerusalem was against them. Josephus wrote, �About this time king Agrippa gave the high priesthood to Ishmael � And {as a result} now arose a sedition {revolt} between the high priests {Josephus uses this term to refer to the wealthy, leading priests � there was only one high priest} and the principal men of the multitude of Jerusalem.� [6]

So the accusation that the Jews condemned Jesus to death is an anti-Semitic interpolation of the Hellenistic Gentiles who wrote the gospels.

There were a good number of individuals they had put to death for claiming to be the Messiah. Jesus was simply one of many.
Did you forget I consider myself of Semitic ancestry and am very comfortable with that?

And regarding the messianic prophecies, they were fulfilled by the Suffering Servant of Isaiah 53, whom the Prophet identifies him with Israel by name if you read Isaiah 44:8,9; 44:1,2,21. Therefore, the Messiah is collective in the People of Israel and not an individual in particular.

I agree there is a correct manner in which Messiah can be considered or related to as a societal body. There is also a correct manner in which Messiah is manifested by 3 distinct individual personages who represent the head of these societal bodies.

Be careful about assuming exclusivity when it is not explicitly established somehow.

You seem to do this where a number of things are concerned. The things in your logic that appear as gaping holes to me are a product of things you take for granted that are part of the paradigm you have been entrained to. Thus, I'll try to be as patient as I can with you. We have major gaps between us.

jbug: The reason He was crucified was to fulfill his part of the Day of Atonement ritual that was playing out at the "all of creation" level. He was the first goat slain.
Goats were slain or sacrificed for thousands of years evey year. How could Jesus have been the first?

What I mean is there were three animals at the centerpiece of this ritual who were to stand in place of the people and make an atonement for all their sins. There were two goats and a ram. What I was saying is that these animals have a human counterpart when the ritual is carried out for all of creation and that Jesus was acting in fulfillment of what the first of the two goats was supposed to do. He was slain. The ram is burned. The second goat is who establishes the kingdom in victory. That second goat is who the Jews are awaiting that escapes alive into the wilderness and defeats the Serpent, except somehow the Edomite incursion in their religious practices have them thinking this goat should be shoved over a cliff backwards to fall to his death. Oops. Too bad they must not of known what that ritual was given to depict at the "all of creation" level.

If you are referring to a human goat, you need to read Josephus who asserts that the Romans crucified thousands of Jews only in the First Century in the very same manner they crucified Jesus. How about the blood of the others, doesn't count?

The only blood that counted was the blood of the man who was ordained of God to fulfill that part of things for all of creation.

jbug: I have often wondered if some of the leadership outright understood what must happen to the first advent of Messiah and therefore quietly watched knowing that what happened absolutely had to happen.
They couldn't do anything. The power in Israel was in the hands of the Romans.

That's an overstatement to pass the buck.

jbug: Pilate was correct in what he wrote and it greatly annoyed a good number of those in the Jewish leadership. I suspect Pilate knew a lot more than we are led to believe.
You suspect wrongly. Pilate did not need a good reason to crucify a Jew, according to Josephus. What he wrote on that plate was only a political reason to crucify one more Jew.

On the first point, I know I'm right. On the second point, I merely suspected something. Do you know if Pilate had a habit of hanging that sign over all of the Jews he crucified?

jbug: Was he not acting in the capacity of a priest to examine the animal being offered and pronounce he finds no blemish in it? These parallels continue in such a remarkable way that I am astounded more Jewish people don't pay much attention to it.
That's a hypothetical assumption in order to justify the Pauline policy of Replacement Theology.

Paul certainly knows a lot more about the purpose of the law than you. I'll take Paul's words over yours any day.

jbug: So you are sympathetic to those who murder innocent people simply for political expediency?
I am rather sympathetic to those who are victims of blood libel as the Jews have been in the hands of Christianity since the false accusation that they were responsible for the death of Jesus.

Therefore, you have a deep seated bias that most definitely clouds your ability to particiapte in an objective dialog. I will bear this handicap in mind as I continue to dialog with you.

Please bear in mind, the fact that some idiots in the past used what you see as mere allegations as a pretense to commit an atrocity against the Jewish people actiually has no direct bearing on whether their was culpability on the part of the Jews in regard to Jesus or not.

If you find yourself unable to objectively participate in such discussion then you really ought to take a timeout and simmer down some. It is this very kind of resentment born from bias you are demonstrating here that leads to atrocities being committed.

Accusing me of being an anti-Semite and promoter of hate speech for simply wishing to objectively participate in this dialog as I have was way over the top. I am the least bit intimidated by it.

 

[kylixguru]

... Israel never had the brthright. This was granted to Judah ...

Huh? The birthright was lost by Reuben and it clearly was given to Joseph and then to Ephraim. Where on earth is their room for the word "never" that you used here? The only thing Judah got at a much later time was the scepter, which he would only hold for a temporary period of time when in the last days it would go back to whom it rightly belongs. The birthright stayed right where it was put and never went to Judah.

You are a christian, aren't you? I guess you are supposed to know these things.

I am a person who reveres Jesus Christ as my King and my Lord and my Savior. However, it would be a very big mistake to try and stereotype me as a mainstream Christian.

Here is what you wrote:
"Who shall rouse up Judah in the last days? Shiloh! Who is Shiloh? He is the advent of the Father who comes at the end of the old creation and the beginning of the new creation. He comes from the House of Joseph to bring in the Kingdom victoriously and He gathers in all of the tribes of the House of Israel and establishes them as a sovereign nation. He is who rules over the Light on Day 1 of the new creation. He is the Messiah the Jewish people are yet waiting for to establish them again as a sovereign nation. This will happen because of the Light the Father offers them that they shall recognize and have ignited within and they shall be a very formidable power to assist in building the true Zion instead of their current efforts to build up the Edomite Zion."
Who is Shiloh? He is the Messiah... If you are a Christian, which your post reveals you as being one, then the Shiloh must be Jesus, the Messiah. I gave the proper quotation that Shiloh is the event that caused the split between the Tribes.

Your willingness to make assumptions based on the stereotype you are trying to impose upon me is giving you difficulty in actually having a productive dialog here.

Look in the scholarship of your own Jewish faith and you will find a component of them who believe in three distinct Messianic advents. Jesus was merely one of three advents of Messiah, the Son. I was speaking of the advent of the Father who shall be a man who is partly a descendent of Jesse (David's father) but whose primary ancestry and tribal lineage is of the House of Joseph.

Thus, the Second Coming of Christ won't be exclusively manifested by a bodily return of Jesus Christ Himself in the flesh as typical Christians think. There is also an individual person who obtains spiritual union with the soul of Jesus Christ and becomes one with Him the same way Jesus claimed to be one with His Father. IOW, the vine will be extended to include yet another personage into union in the Godhead.

Each cycle of Creation has an advent of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost. Thus, the Eternal Father of the new Creation now in the making is due on the scene anytime now to perform the work of gathering in all the dispersed of Israel, which includes Judah, under the birthright banner of Joseph.

The last days here is a reference to the last days of united Israel till Shiloh came. Then, again you say that Jesus will be the diret manifestation of the coming of the Shiloh Messiah. That's where you are mistaken.

You are discounting what I am saying based on a misunderstanding. Also, you did not address the other elements I brought up. You have not properly addressed the scattering of Israel that obviously had to occur first before they would be gathered back together.

As I read things, the northern Kingdom was put under judgment for 2,730 (390x7) years while the southern Kingdom was put under judgment for 280 (40x7) years. The Kingdom cannot be established in victory for all of Israel until God's judgment waged against the northern kingdom for their infidelity is expired. See Ezekiel 4 and take into account the 7x multiplier in God's Law (Lev 24 or 26) when His nation won't be reformed by a judgment.

When Jesus came to those of the southern kingdom their shorter period of judgment had expired and they were qualified to receive their King. However, their brother tribes were still dispersed among the Gentiles under judgment and were not scheduled to be gathered for quite some time yet. Thus, your timing for this is impossible. In fact, you don't even seem to ascribe much of any significance to Shiloh at all other than to justify the division of the kingdom into two kingdoms. Shiloh's purpose is to gather the people, not divide them! There division at that time was of God because it was His will that they should become divided and then scattered precisely so that in the last days they would be gathered and united again. That's pretty much the whole point of Ezekiel's book to teach us how this should play out.

Jesus was not of the House of Judah, if he was not a biological son of Joseph's who was the one from the House of Judah. Since he was adopted, he was a Jew without a Tribe. According to Judaism Tribal inheritance cannot pass down through adoption, as Christians claim that Jesus was adopted by Joseph and not his biological son.

What of a child born of a woman who was of the House of Judah and sired by a Man considered more mighty than Abraham himself? Would your priests yet deny such a child a fully legitimate standing in his mother's tribe? Will you please show me the basis for this in the Torah if it is so?

This only tells me you did not understand the thread if you read it at all. The transfer of the scepter occurred when Ten Tribes left Judah and followed Jeroboam to organized themselves independently as the kingdom of the North.

Just because I don't agree with something does not mean I do not understand it. You, on the other hand, seem to be having difficulties staying with me. Also, of what tribe was Jeroboam?

Yes, that they should not react to the split of the Tribes because the Shiloh of the prophecy of Jacob had arrived in accordance with God's will.

Nowhere that I am aware of is this explicitly claimed. This appears to be some kind of a clever workaround for what purpose I cannot fully put my finger on yet.

If a tribe has "the scepter" it means that tribe has the ordained right to politically rule over all of the other tribes. There was nothing said about the scepter itself being divided anywhere. Rather, there is prophesy about there being "one fold and one shepherd over all Israel" and that the Shiloh Messiah is the One who accomplishes this in the last days when it is time to gather in the lost tribes from their dispersion. Shiloh is the Stone of Israel and the Shepherd that Jacob promised would come by way of Joseph. This is a reference to the advent of the Father who stands at the head of the new Creation.

Have a nice day!

 

[esmith]

What of a child born of a woman who was of the House of Judah and sired by a Man considered more mighty than Abraham himself? Would your priests yet deny such a child a fully legitimate standing in his mother's tribe? Will you please show me the basis for this in the Torah if it is so?!

I am not as eloquent as you are, but let me give this try.

Does not 1 Chronicles 22:9 say that the linage of rule has to go through the house of Solomon? If you say Mary was of the House of Judah through Nathan not Solomon isn't that in direct opposition of 1 Chronicles 22:9?
Also just curious who are you referring to in " House of Judah and sired by a Man considered more mighty than Abraham "?

 

[kylixguru]

I am not as eloquent as you are, but let me give this try.

Does not 1 Chronicles 22:9 say that the linage of rule has to go through the house of Solomon? If you say Mary was of the House of Judah through Nathan not Solomon isn't that in direct opposition of 1 Chronicles 22:9?

Ok, this is yet another distinct aspect that bears inquiry. You are now making reference to the passage of the royal scepter which is a distinct matter from the tribe of an individual. Are you aware of any law that precludes the process of adoption applying where inheritances are concerned?

As far as I'm concerned we have two points here:
Jesus inherited his tribal standing in Judah from his mother Mary.
Jesus inherited his right to hold the scepter via adoption to Joseph.

Also just curious who are you referring to in "House of Judah and sired by a Man considered more mighty than Abraham"?

Scripture answers this sufficiently clear. The "highest" is God the Eternal Father, the divine Personage to Whom Jesus prayed and referred to as His Father.

Have a nice day!

 

[esmith]

Ok, this is yet another distinct aspect that bears inquiry. You are now making reference to the passage of the royal scepter which is a distinct matter from the tribe of an individual. Are you aware of any law that precludes the process of adoption applying where inheritances are concerned?

As far as I'm concerned we have two points here:
Jesus inherited his tribal standing in Judah from his mother Mary.
Jesus inherited his right to hold the scepter via adoption to Joseph.

From what I understand of Jewish Law that linage can not be passed through the mother, only the father. Someone more knowledge of Jewish Law than me can confirm that.

Also, does not Jewish Law state that adoption does not pass on linage and if it did does not the listed linage of Joseph go through the cursed King Jeconiah?

Scripture answers this sufficiently clear. The "highest" is God the Eternal Father, the divine Personage to Whom Jesus prayed and referred to as His Father.

Have a nice day!

If the virgin birth is true that would mean that God took the throne away from David’s house, which would mean God violated an oath.

 

[Ben Masada]

The ritual performances in the Law indicate they would do exactly that. The political climate of the time strongly suggests the Jewish leaders had divided loyalties.

Divided loyalties is not the term but discordances of opinions whose good example of it we had between Hillel and Shamai, which served only to enrich Jewish Literature.

There were a good number of individuals they had put to death for claiming to be the Messiah. Jesus was simply one of many.

Jesus never claimed to be the Messiah. Messiah in Greek means Christ, and this term was fabricated by Paul about 30 years after Jesus had been gone. The place was Antioch where Paul had spent a whole year preaching about Jesus as Christ. That's where and when his disciples were called Christians for the first time. (Acts 11:26)

Did you forget I consider myself of Semitic ancestry and am very comfortable with that?

How could I remember something that you have never told me? That was funny!

I agree there is a correct manner in which Messiah can be considered or related to as a societal body. There is also a correct manner in which Messiah is manifested by 3 distinct individual personages who represent the head of these societal bodies.

I am willing and even happy to hold a dialogue with you, but there is something I don't see in your posts, which you are going to get used to. You must quote your assertions before I get tired to waste my times with my replies.

Be careful about assuming exclusivity when it is not explicitly established somehow.

Wherever in my replies to your posts, it seems to you that I am being exclusive, I quote the source to explain my exclusivity away. You just keep doing the same and everything will be alright.

You seem to do this where a number of things are concerned. The things in your logic that appear as gaping holes to me are a product of things you take for granted that are part of the paradigm you have been entrained to. Thus, I'll try to be as patient as I can with you. We have major gaps between us.

I believe we do. Otherwise we would not be on the opposite sides of the fence.

What I mean is there were three animals at the centerpiece of this ritual who were to stand in place of the people and make an atonement for all their sins. There were two goats and a ram. What I was saying is that these animals have a human counterpart when the ritual is carried out for all of creation and that Jesus was acting in fulfillment of what the first of the two goats was supposed to do. He was slain. The ram is burned. The second goat is who establishes the kingdom in victory.

Here is a good example of your first failure. Where are the quotations for such an arrangement of two goats and a ram, and of Jesus acting in fulfillment of what the first of the two goats was supposed to do? I do not accept hypothetical assumptions based on pre-conceived Christian notions. I am ready to reconsider my views but you must play according to the rules, because I do have a mind of my own.

That second goat is who the Jews are awaiting that escapes alive into the wilderness and defeats the Serpent, except somehow the Edomite incursion in their religious practices have them thinking this goat should be shoved over a cliff backwards to fall to his death. Oops. Too bad they must not of known what that ritual was given to depict at the "all of creation" level.

The second goat does not escape alive into the wilderness, the High Priest would lay his hands on his head, meaning a symbolical trnasfer of the sins of all Israel and let him go into the wilderness toward the East. I see in the ritual the symbolical prediction of Israel, the Ten Tribes, or Messiah ben Joseph, who would be removed from existence as they were taken by the Assyrians Eastward to Assyria as a redeeming agent for Judah who would stay in Jerusalem as a Lamp forever, according to God's promise to David in I Kings 11:36.

The only blood that counted was the blood of the man who was ordained of God to fulfill that part of things for all of creation.

According to whom, you or Paul? Do you see what I mean? You don't quote anything you say as if I am supposed to take your word for it. I tell you that this problem is what will make our dialogue impossible to continue.

That's an overstatement to pass the buck.

No, it is not. Rome had removed from Israel to exercise its power to condemn anyone to death.

the first point, I know I'm right. On the second point, I merely suspected something. Do you know if Pilate had a habit of hanging that sign over all of the Jews he crucified?

Quotations please. I accept quotations from your NT which is not anti-Jewish, but you must quote your claims.

Paul certainly knows a lot more about the purpose of the law than you. I'll take Paul's words over yours any day.

Any day? Let us take them now. Read Matthew 5:17-19. Jesus came to confirm God's Law down to the letter and warn us all to do the same. And he made it very clear that he had not come to abolish the Law. 30 years later, Paul came, and in a Letter to the Ephesians he said that the Law was abolished on the cross. Whose cross? Obviously, Jesus' cross. So, either Jesus or Paul was lying. You take your pick. I take the side of Jesus. It means that Paul's was the lying tongue.

Therefore, you have a deep seated bias that most definitely clouds your ability to particiapte in an objective dialog. I will bear this handicap in mind as I continue to dialog with you.

And you have a serious problem with not quoting what you say. I will try to be patient at least till the next answer from you. If you don't quote your assertions, we are finished.

Please bear in mind, the fact that some idiots in the past used what you see as mere allegations as a pretense to commit an atrocity against the Jewish people actiually has no direct bearing on whether their was culpability on the part of the Jews in regard to Jesus or not.

What do you mean, like the idiots who still proclaim the reason why Jesus was crucified? That he was the king of the Jews? They are so stupid as Luke was when he accused the Jews with having crucified Jesus. (Acts 2:36) Perhaps the idiot did not know. A Gentile who never saw Jesus and wrote his book 50+ years after Jesus had been gone.

You find yourself unable to objectively participate in such discussion then you really ought to take a timeout and simmer down some. It is this very kind of resentment born from bias you are demonstrating here that leads to atrocities being committed.

I think you are the one who cannot participate in such a discussion without bias. You not only act under Christian pre-conceived notions but also go without quoting one single reference.

Accusing me of being an anti-Semite and promoter of hate speech for simply wishing to objectively participate in this dialog as I have was way over the top. I am the least bit intimidated by it.

I accused you of promoting the Pauline policy of Replacement Theology. If you agree with the Scholars who have classified it as a kind of religious Antisemitism, then you have confessed being one yourself. Don't pass that buck on me. This only depicts insecurity of your part.

 

[Blackheart]

The Jewish leaders would not lay charges of death on a fellow Jew who came to confirm the most important thing to a Jew, which is God's Law. (Mat. 5:18,19) So the accusation that the Jews condemned Jesus to death is an anti-Semitic interpolation of the Hellenistic Gentiles who wrote the gospels. And regarding the messianic prophecies, they were fulfilled by the Suffering Servant of Isaiah 53, whom the Prophet identifies him with Israel by name if you read Isaiah 44:8,9; 44:1,2,21. Therefore, the Messiah is collective in the People of Israel and not an individual in particular.

Can the jews possibly be guilty of anything? (severe sarcasim included) How ridiculous to say that this is the result of anti semitisim. At the end of the day if Jesus had lived in Scotland then the Scottish would of condemed him. It was the plan from the begining. It's nothing to do with blaming the Jews (or at least it shouldnt be). Jews cannot be blamed for what happened in the same way that I wouldnt blame the English for what Jack The Ripper did. A bunch of guys thought they knew best and did what they thought was best; end of story. Their religion/creed is irrelevant but when you try to simply say that its anti semitisim to say that the bibke is correct, it almost makes me think that if thats the best defence the jews have then maybe they are guilty of something????

 

[kylixguru]

From what I understand of Jewish Law that linage can not be passed through the mother, only the father. Someone more knowledge of Jewish Law than me can confirm that.

There is knowledge of Caleb whose father was not an Israelite who was given his standing in Israel in the tribe of Judah. Happened then, it can happen again.

Also, does not Jewish Law state that adoption does not pass on linage and if it did does not the listed linage of Joseph go through the cursed King Jeconiah?

As I already said, Jesus' tribal assignment comes by way of his mother so this is a moot issue where adoption is concerned.

Also, you raise an interesting point about a cursed king. Could it be that the curse is tied directly to the actual blood lineage? Therefore, if an individual comes in from the outside with a lineage free of that curse they can receive inheritance, etc. (including the royal scepter), via adoption.

Looks to me like a very precise orchistration of things to produce a "lamb without blemish".

If the virgin birth is true that would mean that God took the throne away from David’s house, which would mean God violated an oath.

Not if Jesus was adopted to Joseph and the son of Mary.

 

[kylixguru]

Divided loyalties is not the term but discordances of opinions whose good example of it we had between Hillel and Shamai, which served only to enrich Jewish Literature.

Moot point.

Jesus never claimed to be the Messiah. Messiah in Greek means Christ, and this term was fabricated by Paul about 30 years after Jesus had been gone. The place was Antioch where Paul had spent a whole year preaching about Jesus as Christ. That's where and when his disciples were called Christians for the first time. (Acts 11:26)

He called himself the light and the life of the world.

How could I remember something that you have never told me? That was funny!

Apparently you missed one of my previous posts. You called me that before (or I suppose someone else could of) and I responded with that bit of data.

I am willing and even happy to hold a dialogue with you, but there is something I don't see in your posts, which you are going to get used to. You must quote your assertions before I get tired to waste my times with my replies.

When I dialog with people I assume they are versed in scripture. If they are not, then I am glad to provide references upon their request. Yom Kippur with the 3 animals offered on behalf of the people is in Leviticus 16 and the "stem", "rod" and "branch" passage is in Isaiah chapter 11. There are others but that should be sufficient for now. I find out how sincere people are at learning when they ask for references. So, don't be bashful.

Wherever in my replies to your posts, it seems to you that I am being exclusive, I quote the source to explain my exclusivity away. You just keep doing the same and everything will be alright.

You said there won't ever be an individual Messiah personage, whether one or three, because Messiah is a group. You have not proven that I can see any basis to exclude singular personages from having a Messianic role to play as individuals.

I believe we do. Otherwise we would not be on the opposite sides of the fence.

Yep.

Here is a good example of your first failure. Where are the quotations for such an arrangement of two goats and a ram, ...

This is found at the centerpiece of chapter 16 of the centerpiece of Leviticus which is the centerpiece of the law. This is pretty important stuff so I'm delighted to be able to introduce you to this material.

...and of Jesus acting in fulfillment of what the first of the two goats was supposed to do? I do not accept hypothetical assumptions based on pre-conceived Christian notions. I am ready to reconsider my views but you must play according to the rules, because I do have a mind of my own.

I am not aware of any Christians who read Yom Kippur as I do. I've seen a couple that came close but they insisted Jesus fulfilled all three of the animals. He used some pretty painfully twisted logic to do that and I eventually got bored going in circles with him so we relented.

jbug:That second goat is who the Jews are awaiting that escapes alive into the wilderness and defeats the Serpent, except somehow the Edomite incursion in their religious practices have them thinking this goat should be shoved over a cliff backwards to fall to his death. Oops. Too bad they must not of known what that ritual was given to depict at the "all of creation" level.

The second goat does not escape alive into the wilderness, the High Priest would lay his hands on his head, meaning a symbolical transfer of the sins of all Israel and let him go into the wilderness toward the East. I see in the ritual the symbolical prediction of Israel, the Ten Tribes, or Messiah ben Joseph, who would be removed from existence as they were taken by the Assyrians Eastward to Assyria as a redeeming agent for Judah who would stay in Jerusalem as a Lamp forever, according to God's promise to David in I Kings 11:36.

If you check the history the practise of killing that second goat crept in as a corruption of the ordinance. In my version of the Bible (I use the KJV) there are instructions to kill the first goat and the ram but there were no instructions to kill the third animal. It is true it takes upon it all of the sins of the people. Guess what its job is to do with that cup of iniquity? It pours it out upon those who have been ordained of Him to be vessels of wrath. He distributes it all out like he is settling up a transaction. They are poured out upon the Serpent who ends up being cast down from his position of power. The adversary was ordained to buffet and punish adulterous Israel but it shall all come back upon those who carried it out. All those who have repented and qualified to have their sins remitted are washed clean and received back into a new covenant with God.
I would like to hear more of what you have to say about Messiah ben Joseph being associated to the second goat.

As I see it:
The first goat was of Judah.
The ram was of Ephraim.
The second goat shall be of Joseph.

According to whom, you or Paul? Do you see what I mean? You don't quote anything you say as if I am supposed to take your word for it. I tell you that this problem is what will make our dialogue impossible to continue.

Look at Yom Kippur. Would just any old goat do? No. And, once selected and set apart for the job, how would the priests like it if someone did a switcheroo on the critter to be used in the offering. I think he would be pretty upset about that. So, according to Law.

(To be continued...)