Israel, the Servant of God

IndigoChild5559 said:

God can forgive whomever he wishes without any activity on the part of the pentiant. But what he requires from us is repentence, meaning to turn away from the sin and turn back to God. Psalm 51:19 The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit; a broken and a contrite heart, O God, Thou wilt not despise.

Click to expand...

Psalm 51:19 in context is said because David wanted to give sacrifices but they were unacceptable because of his sin. It doesn't mean that repentance alone is the only sacrifice required.

IndigoChild5559 said:

What needs to change is your mistaken idea that God asked us to make a sin offering for intentional sins. Turn to Leviticus 4 and read the chapter on sin offerings. You will notice that not only does the introduction say it is for unintentional sins, but all of the examples given are all unintentional sins.

Click to expand...

That's true but why does God not require sacrifices for intentional sins? Because he has his own sacrifice waiting.

IndigoChild5559 said:

You believe this only because you think Jesus said it and that what Jesus says is somehow important. The truth is that apart from Christians, the entire world notes that good people do exist.

Click to expand...

Yes Jesus said it; but it also just makes sense. Use logic.

IndigoChild5559 said:

No, you are having problems confusing your sets with your subsets. Yes blood can atone, but there is atonement without blood as well, and forgiveness with only repentence.

Click to expand...

Forgiveness with only repentance because the price has already been paid by God.

God redeems the soul of his servants. (see Psalm 34:22) so there is a price God pays for them.

IndigoChild5559 said:

Repentence is much MUCH harder than making a sin offering. Really, he demands more of the intentional sinner by requiring them to alter their lives.

If you were God and someone intentionally murdered someone, would you let them get off scot free by simply offering a token of a burnt offering? Or would you demand more of them than that, demand that they change their ways, turn from their sin, and turn back to God's law?

Click to expand...

You're right of course but there is also a required sacrifice. This is only consistent.

Redemptionsong said:

I was under the impression l had answered your question.

Click to expand...

You seem to be dodging again. Or are you telling me that every single time a person in the Bible says "I am in sheol", he's not talking about himself but about Jesus?
If that's the case, then at least you have admitted that Jonah himself was not dead. Case closed. Bye again.

Redemptionsong said:

What the JPS says in its notes will help to bring some clarity.
'An alternative and more common type of translation, which is at home in christological interpretation, is represented by "And l will pour out a spirit of compassion and supplication on the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem, so that, when they look on the one whom they have pierced, they shall mourn for him, as one mourns for an only child, and weep bitterly over him, as one weeps over a firstborn"(NRSV)

The notes also refer to the expression 'in that day' which we find used extensively throughout the Prophets as the day of the Lord's appearance.

Click to expand...

All in my opinion: Considering that the Lord is said to appear twice, which one do you think this passage applies to? I also like the moment where the Lord speaks in His own Person, "they will look to me whom they pierced." In consideration, both to one degree or another, in all senses.

Harel13 said:

You seem to be dodging again. Or are you telling me that every single time a person in the Bible says "I am in sheol", he's not talking about himself but about Jesus?
If that's the case, then at least you have admitted that Jonah himself was not dead. Case closed. Bye again.

Click to expand...

Yes, l believe in all cases where we have use of the first person calling to God from 'she'ol' we have a prophecy of Jesus. But because the whole word of God is a parable, the passages have a double application. The first of these applications is a reference to the 'earthly' individual (David, Jonah or other) whilst the second is to the 'heavenly' fulfilment, to Christ.

Then we have the issue of what is meant by 'death'. I've been referring to 'death' as the death of the body in the first instance, followed a short while after by the sleep of the soul. Death of both body and soul must result from the withdrawal of life (God is life) but since God never abandons his 'faithful servant' one could argue that death never fully takes place. So, the question is, how can one die yet not be abandoned by life? The answer, l believe, is that the body dies, and the soul descends into 'she'ol', but the soul of the 'faithful' is preserved and raised in a new incorruptible body.

In Psalm 23, the phrase 'the valley of the shadow of death' is used. This appears to be about as close as the faithful servant gets to death (of both body and soul) as is possible. But to argue that a person in 'the valley of the shadow of death' is still alive in the physical body flies in the face of the final verse which states, 'and l will dwell in the house of the LORD for ever', something one cannot do in a corruptible body.

When Jesus was crucified, his body died, but his soul descended into 'she'ol'. Like Jonah, he remained in this condition for three days and nights until finally 'spewed' up onto dry land.

As l see it.

Redemptionsong said:

Like Jonah, he remained in this condition for three days and nights until finally 'spewed' up onto dry land.

Click to expand...

It is this sentence that has convinced me that you are simply ignoring the fact that you have yet to demonstrate what evidence you have that Jonah was literally dead, and care not to even try. As long as you think you can twist any verse in scripture to somehow refer to Jesus without any real basis.

Well, I'm truly done now. See you on some other thread, maybe.

P.S. You can reply to this post if you want, but I see no point in continuing this sham of a debate any longer.

Lain said:

All in my opinion: Considering that the Lord is said to appear twice, which one do you think this passage applies to? I also like the moment where the Lord speaks in His own Person, "they will look to me whom they pierced." In consideration, both to one degree or another, in all senses.

Click to expand...

Yes, l think it wise to apply the broadest meaning.

Harel13 said:

It is this sentence that has convinced me that you are simply ignoring the fact that you have yet to demonstrate what evidence you have that Jonah was literally dead, and care not to even try. As long as you think you can twist any verse in scripture to somehow refer to Jesus without any real basis.

Well, I'm truly done now. See you on some other thread, maybe.

P.S. You can reply to this post if you want, but I see no point in continuing this sham of a debate any longer.

Click to expand...

Ok. 'Til we meet again!

2ndpillar said:

The "broad" "way" to "destruction", which the "many" follow to "destruction", is preached by the false prophets, with Paul being the foremost. Those false prophets who say "Lord, Lord", and perform miracles in my name, I will deny them by saying "I never knew you; Depart from me, you who practice lawlessness" (Matthew 7:13 & 22-23).

The same applies to the gospel of the church of the tares, in that the "stumbling blocks" (Peter), and those who "Commit lawlessness", will be gathered out and cast into the furnace of fire (Matthew 13:40-42).

As for your "epistles", most of them are attributed to Paul, whether he wrote them or not. A false prophet is not the best source if one is seeking Truth of any matter, which in the end, requires two witnesses to confirm any matter (Matthew 18:16).

Matthew 18:16 16 But if they will not listen, take one or two others along, so that 'every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.'

Click to expand...

The problem with your approach to Peter and Paul is that you have condemned them based on a private interpretation of certain passages of scripture. For such an interpretation to 'hold water' it must also be shown to be consistent with what Peter and Paul say in their epistles. By not referring to those epistles, you're condemning the apostles as 'false prophets' without evidence that they are, truly, the subject of the prophecies.

Redemptionsong said:

The problem with your approach to Peter and Paul is that you have condemned them based on a private interpretation of certain passages of scripture. For such an interpretation to 'hold water' it must also be shown to be consistent with what Peter and Paul say in their epistles. By not referring to those epistles, you're condemning the apostles as 'false prophets' without evidence that they are, truly, the subject of the prophecies.

Click to expand...

Well, Peter, as a fisherman, probably never personally wrote anything, and no one has any idea who supposedly wrote 2 Peter. It was the actions and words of Yeshua, which pointed out the position Peter was to take. It was fulfilled per the actions of Peter per Acts 15:7, whereas Peter supposedly left the flock (lost sheep of Israel) (Matthew 10:5-7), and went to the Gentiles, in disregard what Yeshua told Peter in John 21:15-16. It was the prophecy of Isaiah, which pointed out the path of Peter in his Isaiah 22:15-25 prophecy, with him trying to make a home in the "rock", and shaming your master's house (Zechariah 13:4). It was Zechariah 13:7, referred to by Yeshua in Matthew 26:31, which pointed out Peter would be the start of the "falling away". As for 1 Peter, if you want truth, just read the quotes from the OT, without the commentary, in the form used in the OT.

Isaiah 28:15-17 You boast, "We have entered into a covenant with death, with the realm of the dead we have made an agreement. When an overwhelming scourge sweeps by, it cannot touch us, for we have made a lie our refuge and falsehood our hiding place." So this is what the Sovereign LORD says: "See, I lay a stone in Zion, a tested stone, a precious cornerstone for a sure foundation; the one who relies on it will never be stricken with panic. I will make justice the measuring line and righteousness the plumb line; hail will sweep away your refuge, the lie, and water will overflow your hiding place.

The Word, the Spirit of Truth, based on righteousness and justice is the rock, not Peter, nor Paul, and your "covenant with death", Paul's gospel of grace, will be washed away with "hail".


As for Paul, I would hope you would already know what he supposedly wrote, and that was a message that the law was nailed to the cross. (Colossians 2:14). As for the covenant made with Abraham (father of nations), he taught the Gentiles that that covenant was broken off (Zechariah 11:10), and the Gentiles/nations, did not have to, nor should they abide by it. Galatians 5:3-4 Of course, Ephraim remains scattered among the nations/Gentiles, and when given a new heart and spirit, will "keep My ordinances" (Ezekiel 36). At that time, the survivors of the nations/Gentiles, will only be able to say, "our fathers have inherited nothing but falsehood" (Jeremiah 16:19). You have not made that confession, nor have you came through the "great tribulation". Apparently judgment day, the day of the Lord, the great tribulation, is at the door (Matthew 24), and per Zechariah 13:8, only 1 in 3 will make it through that baptism of fire alive.

2ndpillar said:

Well, Peter, as a fisherman, probably never personally wrote anything, and no one has any idea who supposedly wrote 2 Peter. It was the actions and words of Yeshua, which pointed out the position Peter was to take. It was fulfilled per the actions of Peter per Acts 15:7, whereas Peter supposedly left the flock (lost sheep of Israel) (Matthew 10:5-7), and went to the Gentiles, in disregard what Yeshua told Peter in John 21:15-16. It was the prophecy of Isaiah, which pointed out the path of Peter in his Isaiah 22:15-25 prophecy, with him trying to make a home in the "rock", and shaming your master's house (Zechariah 13:4). It was Zechariah 13:7, referred to by Yeshua in Matthew 26:31, which pointed out Peter would be the start of the "falling away". As for 1 Peter, if you want truth, just read the quotes from the OT, without the commentary, in the form used in the OT.

Isaiah 28:15-17 You boast, "We have entered into a covenant with death, with the realm of the dead we have made an agreement. When an overwhelming scourge sweeps by, it cannot touch us, for we have made a lie our refuge and falsehood our hiding place." So this is what the Sovereign LORD says: "See, I lay a stone in Zion, a tested stone, a precious cornerstone for a sure foundation; the one who relies on it will never be stricken with panic. I will make justice the measuring line and righteousness the plumb line; hail will sweep away your refuge, the lie, and water will overflow your hiding place.

The Word, the Spirit of Truth, based on righteousness and justice is the rock, not Peter, nor Paul, and your "covenant with death", Paul's gospel of grace, will be washed away with "hail".


As for Paul, I would hope you would already know what he supposedly wrote, and that was a message that the law was nailed to the cross. (Colossians 2:14). As for the covenant made with Abraham (father of nations), he taught the Gentiles that that covenant was broken off (Zechariah 11:10), and the Gentiles/nations, did not have to, nor should they abide by it. Galatians 5:3-4 Of course, Ephraim remains scattered among the nations/Gentiles, and when given a new heart and spirit, will "keep My ordinances" (Ezekiel 36). At that time, the survivors of the nations/Gentiles, will only be able to say, "our fathers have inherited nothing but falsehood" (Jeremiah 16:19). You have not made that confession, nor have you came through the "great tribulation". Apparently judgment day, the day of the Lord, the great tribulation, is at the door (Matthew 24), and per Zechariah 13:8, only 1 in 3 will make it through that baptism of fire alive.

Click to expand...

I believe that to judge fairly you should listen to the testimony of the defendant as well as considering the evidence of the prosecution. You may have your doubts about who authored the books of the NT, but at the end of the day we have the internal integrity of the words to consider.

Paul did not teach that the law was not of God, or that it was not necessary. He taught that the law was for transgressors, to lead them into the way of righteousness. So who is righteous? As it turns out, only God is truly righteous, so unless you 'put on' the righteousness of God you cannot claim to be 'of His people'.

How do you think righteousness is achieved?

Redemptionsong said:

I believe that to judge fairly you should listen to the testimony of the defendant as well as considering the evidence of the prosecution. You may have your doubts about who authored the books of the NT, but at the end of the day we have the internal integrity of the words to consider.

Paul did not teach that the law was not of God, or that it was not necessary. He taught that the law was for transgressors, to lead them into the way of righteousness. So who is righteous? As it turns out, only God is truly righteous, so unless you 'put on' the righteousness of God you cannot claim to be 'of His people'.

How do you think righteousness is achieved?

Click to expand...

Yeshua said he didn't come for the righteous, for why would they need to repent, they know the "narrow way" to righteousness (Matthew 7:14), but he came for the sinners, who are on the broad road to destruction (Matthew 7:13), who need to confess their sins, repent, be baptized, and produce good fruit (Matthew 3 & 9:13). That was his message. If you repent, and are baptized in the Spirit, such as born of God, you cannot sin (1 John 3:9). Transgressors need to actually repent, as in actually turning away from sin, and get baptized in the Spirit. It is the son who reveals the Father (Matthew 11:25-27). You will not find the Spirit of Revelation by way of sinners, whose prayers are not heard by God. (John 9:31). Peter, the "worthless shepherd" of Zechariah 11:16-17, would not feed, care or tend the sheep, as instructed by Yeshua in John 21:15-16, but went to the "flock doomed for slaughter", the Gentile church, bought for the equivalence of 30 shekels of silver (Hosea 3), instead of the lost sheep of Israel, as directed per Matthew 10:5-6 and John 21:15-16. 1 Peter quotes Leviticus 19:2, whereas "You shall be holy, for I the Lord your God am holy", but the context is left out, which it requires keeping the commandments, such as "everyone of you shall reverence his mother and his father and you shall keep my sabbaths" (Leviticus 19:3). There is no integrity in the tare seed, planted by the devil (Matthew 13) Yeshua came to be a light to the OT, the Law and the prophets, to reveal the mystery of the kingdom of heaven. His light/message was not understood (John 1:5). The "many" chose the wide way to destruction (Matthew 7:13). The "wicked"/lawless cannot understand (Daniel 12:10) & Matthew 13:13).

King James Bible Matthew 9:13
But go ye and learn what that meaneth, I will have mercy/loyalty and not sacrifice: for I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.

The "mercy/loyalty", is required of men, not God. The next sentence requires knowledge of God, which apparently doesn't come to those who consider themselves wise and educated (Matthew 11:25-27).

Matthew 11:25-27 At that time Jesus said, “I praise You, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that You have hidden these things from the wise and intelligent and have revealed them to infants. 26“Yes, Father, for this way was well-pleasing in Your sight. 27“All things have been handed over to Me by My Father; and no one knows the Son except the Father; nor does anyone know the Father except the Son, and anyone to whom the Son wills to reveal Him.

2ndpillar said:

Yeshua said he didn't come for the righteous, for why would they need to repent, they know the "narrow way" to righteousness (Matthew 7:14), but he came for the sinners, who are on the broad road to destruction (Matthew 7:13), who need to confess their sins, repent, be baptized, and produce good fruit (Matthew 3 & 9:13). That was his message. If you repent, and are baptized in the Spirit, such as born of God, you cannot sin (1 John 3:9). Transgressors need to actually repent, as in actually turning away from sin, and get baptized in the Spirit. It is the son who reveals the Father (Matthew 11:25-27). You will not find the Spirit of Revelation by way of sinners, whose prayers are not heard by God. (John 9:31). Peter, the "worthless shepherd" of Zechariah 11:16-17, would not feed, care or tend the sheep, as instructed by Yeshua in John 21:15-16, but went to the "flock doomed for slaughter", the Gentile church, bought for the equivalence of 30 shekels of silver (Hosea 3), instead of the lost sheep of Israel, as directed per Matthew 10:5-6 and John 21:15-16. 1 Peter quotes Leviticus 19:2, whereas "You shall be holy, for I the Lord your God am holy", but the context is left out, which it requires keeping the commandments, such as "everyone of you shall reverence his mother and his father and you shall keep my sabbaths" (Leviticus 19:3). There is no integrity in the tare seed, planted by the devil (Matthew 13) Yeshua came to be a light to the OT, the Law and the prophets, to reveal the mystery of the kingdom of heaven. His light/message was not understood (John 1:5). The "many" chose the wide way to destruction (Matthew 7:13). The "wicked"/lawless cannot understand (Daniel 12:10) & Matthew 13:13).

King James Bible Matthew 9:13
But go ye and learn what that meaneth, I will have mercy/loyalty and not sacrifice: for I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.

The "mercy/loyalty", is required of men, not God. The next sentence requires knowledge of God, which apparently doesn't come to those who consider themselves wise and educated (Matthew 11:25-27).

Matthew 11:25-27 At that time Jesus said, “I praise You, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that You have hidden these things from the wise and intelligent and have revealed them to infants. 26“Yes, Father, for this way was well-pleasing in Your sight. 27“All things have been handed over to Me by My Father; and no one knows the Son except the Father; nor does anyone know the Father except the Son, and anyone to whom the Son wills to reveal Him.

Click to expand...

You accept that Jesus came to save sinners, and that sinners need to repent. Do you accept that sinners need to place faith in Jesus as Saviour from sin? Do you also accept that the 'baptism in the Spirit' was received by the first believers at Pentecost?

Redemptionsong said:

You accept that Jesus came to save sinners, and that sinners need to repent. Do you accept that sinners need to place faith in Jesus as Saviour from sin? Do you also accept that the 'baptism in the Spirit' was received by the first believers at Pentecost?

Click to expand...

And what unknown author wrote that narrative? You need two or three witnesses to substantiate any matter (Matthew 18:16) & (Deuteronomy 19:15), and I think an unknown author with possible ties to the false prophet Paul falls a little short. As for believing in "Jesus as Saviour", is kind of the same misquote that was used in 1 Peter 2:6, with respect to Isaiah 28:16, which leads people down the wrong path. The tested stone will be the actual "Word of God", based around "justice" and "righteousness", not some reimagined faith in a name. By the way "Yeshua" means YHWY saves. The latin translation for the name Jesus would be "earth pig". The translation for Yeshua Christ, would be "YHWY saves anointed". It would indicate that God saves the Christ, not that God saves those who believer in the name "Jesus Christ". You can call on the name of the Lord all you want, and do miracles in my name, but according to Matthew 7:21-23, if you commit lawlessness, one is toast.

Isaiah 28:16 New American Standard Bible
16Therefore thus says the Lord GOD,
“Behold, I am laying in Zion a stone, a tested stone,
A costly cornerstone for the foundation, firmly placed.
He who believes in it will not be disturbed.

17“I will make justice the measuring line
And righteousness the level;
Then hail will sweep away the refuge of lies
And the waters will overflow the secret place.

The hail and floods are mentioned in how the house of the tares, those who do not heed "these words of mine" will succumb/fall, which will happen in "that day" (Isaiah 22:25) & (Matthew 7:24-27).


The "tested stone", is the Spirit of Revelation/prophecy (the Word of God) (Revelation 19:10) & (Matthew 16:17-18). The rock (petra) (foundation stone) is the Spirit of Revelation (Word of God), and not Petros (Peter), a small stone. The Protestant belief that the "rock" is "Thou are the Christ, the son of the living God", won't even get them a small cup of coffee. The devil and demons already know that, and have reservations for the pit for the 7th millennium, corresponding to the 7th day.

Matthew 16:17-18 Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven. 18 And I tell you that you are Peter (petros), and on this rock (petra) I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.

2ndpillar said:

And what unknown author wrote that narrative? You need two or three witnesses to substantiate any matter (Matthew 18:16) & (Deuteronomy 19:15), and I think an unknown author with possible ties to the false prophet Paul falls a little short. As for believing in "Jesus as Saviour", is kind of the same misquote that was used in 1 Peter 2:6, with respect to Isaiah 28:16, which leads people down the wrong path. The tested stone will be the actual "Word of God", based around "justice" and "righteousness", not some reimagined faith in a name. By the way "Yeshua" means YHWY saves. The latin translation for the name Jesus would be "earth pig". The translation for Yeshua Christ, would be "YHWY saves anointed". It would indicate that God saves the Christ, not that God saves those who believer in the name "Jesus Christ". You can call on the name of the Lord all you want, and do miracles in my name, but according to Matthew 7:21-23, if you commit lawlessness, one is toast.

Isaiah 28:16 New American Standard Bible
16Therefore thus says the Lord GOD,
“Behold, I am laying in Zion a stone, a tested stone,
A costly cornerstone for the foundation, firmly placed.
He who believes in it will not be disturbed.

17“I will make justice the measuring line
And righteousness the level;
Then hail will sweep away the refuge of lies
And the waters will overflow the secret place.

The hail and floods are mentioned in how the house of the tares, those who do not heed "these words of mine" will succumb/fall, which will happen in "that day" (Isaiah 22:25) & (Matthew 7:24-27).


The "tested stone", is the Spirit of Revelation/prophecy (the Word of God) (Revelation 19:10) & (Matthew 16:17-18). The rock (petra) (foundation stone) is the Spirit of Revelation (Word of God), and not Petros (Peter), a small stone. The Protestant belief that the "rock" is "Thou are the Christ, the son of the living God", won't even get them a small cup of coffee. The devil and demons already know that, and have reservations for the pit for the 7th millennium, corresponding to the 7th day.

Matthew 16:17-18 Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven. 18 And I tell you that you are Peter (petros), and on this rock (petra) I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.

Click to expand...

Isaiah 28:16, which you have quoted above, makes it clear that the cornerstone is Christ, and that 'he who has belief in it will not be disturbed'. Christ, as God's Son, is also the rock that comes to earth. This rock was present amongst the lsraelites in their journeys through the wilderness.

Once again, the only way you are able to present a coherent message is by rejecting books of the Bible! The problem is, by rejecting books like Luke and Acts, you make it impossible to confirm the identity of the Messiah because, amongst other things, Luke's genealogy is necessary, and works in combination with the genealogy of Matthew's Gospel.

As for the outpouring of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost, you could not have had a more public testimony! Thousands of pilgrims witnessed the disciples speaking in their own [pilgrim] native tongues, and three thousand Jewish pilgrims responded to Peter's call to repent and believe. As a result, three thousand Jewish pilgrims would have returned to their homes eager to share the good news. This could hardly be described as an event without witnesses!

Then we come to the question of what is meant by 'salvation'. It's clear that Jesus did not come to deliver the Jews from their Roman occupiers, or to raise an army to make war against foreign enemies. So, 'salvation' must have had a spiritual meaning, and one that accords with lsaiah 61, just as Jesus had proclaimed in the synagogue.

So, how is a man set free from sin?

If, as we are told, a person cannot achieve righteousness, and life with God, without first being set free of sin, then he has no chance of salvation from death.

As the 'Lamb of God', Jesus offered himself as the Passover Lamb, whose spilt blood enabled the slaves to go free.

Redemptionsong said:

Isaiah 28:16, which you have quoted above, makes it clear that the cornerstone is Christ, and that 'he who has belief in it will not be disturbed'. Christ, as God's Son, is also the rock that comes to earth. This rock was present amongst the lsraelites in their journeys through the wilderness.

Once again, the only way you are able to present a coherent message is by rejecting books of the Bible! The problem is, by rejecting books like Luke and Acts, you make it impossible to confirm the identity of the Messiah because, amongst other things, Luke's genealogy is necessary, and works in combination with the genealogy of Matthew's Gospel.

As for the outpouring of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost, you could not have had a more public testimony! Thousands of pilgrims witnessed the disciples speaking in their own [pilgrim] native tongues, and three thousand Jewish pilgrims responded to Peter's call to repent and believe. As a result, three thousand Jewish pilgrims would have returned to their homes eager to share the good news. This could hardly be described as an event without witnesses!

Then we come to the question of what is meant by 'salvation'. It's clear that Jesus did not come to deliver the Jews from their Roman occupiers, or to raise an army to make war against foreign enemies. So, 'salvation' must have had a spiritual meaning, and one that accords with lsaiah 61, just as Jesus had proclaimed in the synagogue.

So, how is a man set free from sin?

If, as we are told, a person cannot achieve righteousness, and life with God, without first being set free of sin, then he has no chance of salvation from death.

As the 'Lamb of God', Jesus offered himself as the Passover Lamb, whose spilt blood enabled the slaves to go free.

Click to expand...

Well, you are not free from sin, and will remain with your "plagues" (Revelation 18:4), and will eventually die (Jeremiah 31:30) for your own iniquity. The blood of the lamb was to keep away the angels of death, and was applied on the door lintels. In the coming sweep of angels, those with the mark of the beast with two horns like a lamb, the Roman emperor Constantine, will have to drink of the "cup of His anger" (Revelation 14:10). And the one's with the mark of God (Deuteronomy 6:8), will be passed over (survive)(Joel 2:32).
As for being freed from sin, David sinned, confessed, repented, and produced good fruit, and was reunited with the presence of God, which was to come out from among the walking dead.
As for your "Isaiah 61", maybe you should read the whole context of Isaiah 60-61. This has to do with the gathering of Israel, whereas the wealth of the nations will come to you (Jerusalem) (Zechariah 14:14) which is with regard to the day of the Lord (Zechariah 14:1-6) & (Joel 2:31-3:2), whereas the nations/Gentiles will be judged, and Jerusalem and Judah/Jews "restored" (Joel 3:1) As for their anointed, David (Ezekiel 36 & 37), he will rule a reunited Ephraim and Judah/Jews, on the land given to Jacob (Ezekiel 37). And the Gentiles/"strangers" will be your "farmers and vinedressers" (Isaiah 61:5), as stated in Isaiah 14:1-3). The "strangers"/Gentiles will "attach themselves to the house of Jacob", and "Israel will possess them as an inheritance"... "as male and female servants".
King David gave you a path to righteousness, and the false prophets of Matthew 7:13 gave you a wide path to "destruction". Which path have you chosen?
As for the "geneology" given in Matthew, it doesn't add up, and is not required. As for a singular witness, professing 1000s of people spoke in tongues, well I guess if they didn't also pick up snakes, drink poison, cast out demons, and heal the sick, I guess that non allowable witness was not actually witnessing "believers" (Mark 16:16-18). By the way, when was the last time you healed the sick, or cast out demons. The pope tried to cast out demons and failed miserably. I think there is something lacking in your narrative.
If "Christ (the Word made flesh) is the rock come to earth", according to you, then I guess, that "rock" wouldn't be Peter, or the professing that "Christ is the son of God". The basis of the "rock" would then be the "Word" which is based on "justice" and "righteousness" (Isaiah 28:16-17), and the house/woman/adulteress of falsehoods and deception, would be swept away with "hail" and "waters"/"floods" (Isaiah 28:16-17) & (Matthew 7:27). The Lord doesn't restore Judah and Jerusalem until the "day of the Lord" (Joel 3:1-2)

Yeshua message was the Kingdom of God/heaven, and he stated his kingdom, at that time was not of this world. Right now, the spiritual battles rage in heaven.

As for the original Jewish text for Isaiah 28:16, see following quote below. As noted in Matthew 16:17, the "rock" is the revelation by My Father in heaven, which is the Spirit of Revelation, such as with the "anointing", and is noted in Revelation 19:15, as the manifestation of the "Word of God". Apparently, the Gentile church is switching the "Word of God", which includes the gospel of the "kingdom", for a bogus name, apparently spoken in vain, for they apparently can't heal the sick. The Gentile church, has in the main, expanded the translation to meet their views, to their detriment.

. Isaiah 28:16 Interlinear: Therefore, thus said the Lord Jehovah: 'Lo, I am laying a foundation in Zion, A stone -- a tried stone, a corner stone precious, a settled foundation, He who is believing doth not make haste. (biblehub.com)

2ndpillar said:

Well, you are not free from sin, and will remain with your "plagues" (Revelation 18:4), and will eventually die (Jeremiah 31:30) for your own iniquity. The blood of the lamb was to keep away the angels of death, and was applied on the door lintels. In the coming sweep of angels, those with the mark of the beast with two horns like a lamb, the Roman emperor Constantine, will have to drink of the "cup of His anger" (Revelation 14:10). And the one's with the mark of God (Deuteronomy 6:8), will be passed over (survive)(Joel 2:32).
As for being freed from sin, David sinned, confessed, repented, and produced good fruit, and was reunited with the presence of God, which was to come out from among the walking dead.
As for your "Isaiah 61", maybe you should read the whole context of Isaiah 60-61. This has to do with the gathering of Israel, whereas the wealth of the nations will come to you (Jerusalem) (Zechariah 14:14) which is with regard to the day of the Lord (Zechariah 14:1-6) & (Joel 2:31-3:2), whereas the nations/Gentiles will be judged, and Jerusalem and Judah/Jews "restored" (Joel 3:1) As for their anointed, David (Ezekiel 36 & 37), he will rule a reunited Ephraim and Judah/Jews, on the land given to Jacob (Ezekiel 37). And the Gentiles/"strangers" will be your "farmers and vinedressers" (Isaiah 61:5), as stated in Isaiah 14:1-3). The "strangers"/Gentiles will "attach themselves to the house of Jacob", and "Israel will possess them as an inheritance"... "as male and female servants".
King David gave you a path to righteousness, and the false prophets of Matthew 7:13 gave you a wide path to "destruction". Which path have you chosen?
As for the "geneology" given in Matthew, it doesn't add up, and is not required. As for a singular witness, professing 1000s of people spoke in tongues, well I guess if they didn't also pick up snakes, drink poison, cast out demons, and heal the sick, I guess that non allowable witness was not actually witnessing "believers" (Mark 16:16-18). By the way, when was the last time you healed the sick, or cast out demons. The pope tried to cast out demons and failed miserably. I think there is something lacking in your narrative.
If "Christ (the Word made flesh) is the rock come to earth", according to you, then I guess, that "rock" wouldn't be Peter, or the professing that "Christ is the son of God". The basis of the "rock" would then be the "Word" which is based on "justice" and "righteousness" (Isaiah 28:16-17), and the house/woman/adulteress of falsehoods and deception, would be swept away with "hail" and "waters"/"floods" (Isaiah 28:16-17) & (Matthew 7:27). The Lord doesn't restore Judah and Jerusalem until the "day of the Lord" (Joel 3:1-2)

Yeshua message was the Kingdom of God/heaven, and he stated his kingdom, at that time was not of this world. Right now, the spiritual battles rage in heaven.

As for the original Jewish text for Isaiah 28:16, see following quote below. As noted in Matthew 16:17, the "rock" is the revelation by My Father in heaven, which is the Spirit of Revelation, such as with the "anointing", and is noted in Revelation 19:15, as the manifestation of the "Word of God". Apparently, the Gentile church is switching the "Word of God", which includes the gospel of the "kingdom", for a bogus name, apparently spoken in vain, for they apparently can't heal the sick. The Gentile church, has in the main, expanded the translation to meet their views, to their detriment.

. Isaiah 28:16 Interlinear: Therefore, thus said the Lord Jehovah: 'Lo, I am laying a foundation in Zion, A stone -- a tried stone, a corner stone precious, a settled foundation, He who is believing doth not make haste. (biblehub.com)

Click to expand...

If Jesus were not alive and reigning, He would not answer prayer and heal. I have regularly prayed for the Lord to heal, and Jesus has answered many of my prayers. I myself was immediately healed after prayer. So, it appears as if we really do have different experiences of God. I believe in the Gospel of grace and mercy, whilst you would have us all follow the works of the Law.

As for the genealogies of Jesus, I think you'll find that they are an essential ingredient in distinguishing the Messiah. Only a combination of the two genealogies provide us with Jesus' human, royal and legal lines of descent, whilst allowing for his not being the true son of Joseph. This allows Jesus to be both fully human and fully God.

The Genealogies of Jesus
R.A.Torrey
1. The genealogy given in Matthew is the genealogy of Joseph, the reputed father of Jesus, his father in the eyes of the law. The genealogy given in Luke is the genealogy of Mary, the mother of Jesus, and is the human genealogy of Jesus Christ in actual fact. The Gospel of Matthew was written for Jews. All through it Joseph is prominent, Mary is scarcely mentioned. In Luke, on the other hand, Mary is the chief personage in the whole account of the Saviour’s conception and birth. Joseph is brought in only incidentally and because he was Mary’s husband. In all of this, of course, there is a deep significance.
2. In Matthew, Jesus appears as the Messiah. In Luke He appears as ‘the Son of Man’, our Brother and Redeemer, who belongs to the whole race and claims kindred with all kinds and conditions of men. So in Matthew, the genealogy descends from Abraham to Joseph and Jesus, because all the predictions and promises touching the Messiah are fulfilled in Him. But in Luke the genealogy ascends from Jesus to Adam, because the genealogy is being traced back to the head of the whole race, and shows the relation of the Second Adam to the First.
3. Joseph’s line is the strictly royal line from David to Joseph. In Luke, though the line of descent is from David, it is not the royal line. In this Jesus is descended from David through Nathan, David’s son indeed, but not in the royal line, and the list follows a line quite distinct from the royal line.
4. The Messiah, according to prediction, was to be the actual son of David according to the flesh (2 Samuel:12-19; Psalm 89:3, 4,3 4-37; 132:11; Acts 2:30; 13:22,23; Romans 1:3; 2 Timothy 2:8). These prophecies are fulfilled by Jesus being the Son of Mary, who was a lineal descendant of David, though not in the royal line. Joseph, who was of the royal line, was not his father according to the flesh, but was his father in the eyes of the law.
5. Mary was the descendant of David through her father, Heli. It is true that Luke 2:30 says that Joseph was the son of Heli. The simple explanation of this is that , Mary being a woman, her name according to Jewish usage could not come into the genealogy, males alone forming the line, so Joseph’s name is introduced in the place of Mary’s, he being Mary’s husband; Heli was his father-in-law and so Joseph is called the son of Heli, and the line thus completed. While Joseph was son-in-law of Heli, according to the flesh he was in actual fact the son of Jacob (Matt.1:16).
6. Two genealogies are absolutely necessary to trace the lineage of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, the one the royal and legal, the other the natural and literal, and these two genealogies we find, the legal and royal in Matthew’s Gospel, the Gospel of law and kingship; the natural and literal in Luke’s, the Gospel of humanity.
7. We are told in Jeremiah 22:30 any descendant of Jeconiah could not come to the throne of David, and Joseph was of this line, and while Joseph’s genealogy furnished the royal line for Jesus, his son before the law, nevertheless Jeremiah’s prediction is fulfilled to the very letter, for Jesus, strictly speaking, was not Joseph’s descendant and therefore was not of the seed of Jeconiah. If Jesus had been the son of Joseph in reality, He could not have come to the throne, but He is Mary’s son through Nathan, and can come to the throne legally by her marrying Joseph and so clearing His way legally to it.’

Redemptionsong said:

If Jesus were not alive and reigning, He would not answer prayer and heal. I have regularly prayed for the Lord to heal, and Jesus has answered many of my prayers. I myself was immediately healed after prayer. So, it appears as if we really do have different experiences of God. I believe in the Gospel of grace and mercy, whilst you would have us all follow the works of the Law.

As for the genealogies of Jesus, I think you'll find that they are an essential ingredient in distinguishing the Messiah. Only a combination of the two genealogies provide us with Jesus' human, royal and legal lines of descent, whilst allowing for his not being the true son of Joseph. This allows Jesus to be both fully human and fully God.

The Genealogies of Jesus
R.A.Torrey
1. The genealogy given in Matthew is the genealogy of Joseph, the reputed father of Jesus, his father in the eyes of the law. The genealogy given in Luke is the genealogy of Mary, the mother of Jesus, and is the human genealogy of Jesus Christ in actual fact. The Gospel of Matthew was written for Jews. All through it Joseph is prominent, Mary is scarcely mentioned. In Luke, on the other hand, Mary is the chief personage in the whole account of the Saviour’s conception and birth. Joseph is brought in only incidentally and because he was Mary’s husband. In all of this, of course, there is a deep significance.
2. In Matthew, Jesus appears as the Messiah. In Luke He appears as ‘the Son of Man’, our Brother and Redeemer, who belongs to the whole race and claims kindred with all kinds and conditions of men. So in Matthew, the genealogy descends from Abraham to Joseph and Jesus, because all the predictions and promises touching the Messiah are fulfilled in Him. But in Luke the genealogy ascends from Jesus to Adam, because the genealogy is being traced back to the head of the whole race, and shows the relation of the Second Adam to the First.
3. Joseph’s line is the strictly royal line from David to Joseph. In Luke, though the line of descent is from David, it is not the royal line. In this Jesus is descended from David through Nathan, David’s son indeed, but not in the royal line, and the list follows a line quite distinct from the royal line.
4. The Messiah, according to prediction, was to be the actual son of David according to the flesh (2 Samuel:12-19; Psalm 89:3, 4,3 4-37; 132:11; Acts 2:30; 13:22,23; Romans 1:3; 2 Timothy 2:8). These prophecies are fulfilled by Jesus being the Son of Mary, who was a lineal descendant of David, though not in the royal line. Joseph, who was of the royal line, was not his father according to the flesh, but was his father in the eyes of the law.
5. Mary was the descendant of David through her father, Heli. It is true that Luke 2:30 says that Joseph was the son of Heli. The simple explanation of this is that , Mary being a woman, her name according to Jewish usage could not come into the genealogy, males alone forming the line, so Joseph’s name is introduced in the place of Mary’s, he being Mary’s husband; Heli was his father-in-law and so Joseph is called the son of Heli, and the line thus completed. While Joseph was son-in-law of Heli, according to the flesh he was in actual fact the son of Jacob (Matt.1:16).
6. Two genealogies are absolutely necessary to trace the lineage of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, the one the royal and legal, the other the natural and literal, and these two genealogies we find, the legal and royal in Matthew’s Gospel, the Gospel of law and kingship; the natural and literal in Luke’s, the Gospel of humanity.
7. We are told in Jeremiah 22:30 any descendant of Jeconiah could not come to the throne of David, and Joseph was of this line, and while Joseph’s genealogy furnished the royal line for Jesus, his son before the law, nevertheless Jeremiah’s prediction is fulfilled to the very letter, for Jesus, strictly speaking, was not Joseph’s descendant and therefore was not of the seed of Jeconiah. If Jesus had been the son of Joseph in reality, He could not have come to the throne, but He is Mary’s son through Nathan, and can come to the throne legally by her marrying Joseph and so clearing His way legally to it.’

Click to expand...

Per your Luke being the genealogy of Mary, according to Luke 1:2, "Joseph was the son of David". Despite Mr Torrey, present Jewish tradition traces one's Jewishness to women, traditional Jewish genealogy, and the transfer of land and dynasty, was with respect to men. Also Matthew seems to drop out several kings in his genealogy, other than the discrepancy between the genealogy of Luke. Matthew also seemed to be a little free and loose with his additions with respect to generations. The end game seems to be to come up with 42 generations, such as 42 months, which has symmetry with the remaining time of the "another" beast, which is time, times, and half a time (Daniel 7:25). If you claim Mary can be part of the genealogy, what about David's daughters? Did part of Israel travel to Ireland, and then to Scotland? Does not Scotland claim to have the throne of David? (Jeremiah 43:6). Keep in mind that the throne of David was not to be overthrown, and some apparently claim England has claims on that throne, which has supposedly existed to this day from the time of Jeremiah. It may be a stone throne, but it is an inscribed stone throne. I think all the kings and queens of Britain are crowned on that throne. Maybe Mr. Torrey, knows less than he thinks.

As for self healing, the body regularly self heals. The point of Mark 16:18, was that the sign was for "believers" who are baptized (in the Spirit), can "lay hands on the sick, and they will recover". If that is a problem, possibly you could instead go to Washington, and cast out demons, "in my name" (Matthew 7:22-23) & (Mark 16:17). It would be smartly appreciated by the "despicable".

2ndpillar said:

Per your Luke being the genealogy of Mary, according to Luke 1:2, "Joseph was the son of David". Despite Mr Torrey, present Jewish tradition traces one's Jewishness to women, traditional Jewish genealogy, and the transfer of land and dynasty, was with respect to men. Also Matthew seems to drop out several kings in his genealogy, other than the discrepancy between the genealogy of Luke. Matthew also seemed to be a little free and loose with his additions with respect to generations. The end game seems to be to come up with 42 generations, such as 42 months, which has symmetry with the remaining time of the "another" beast, which is time, times, and half a time (Daniel 7:25). If you claim Mary can be part of the genealogy, what about David's daughters? Did part of Israel travel to Ireland, and then to Scotland? Does not Scotland claim to have the throne of David? (Jeremiah 43:6). Keep in mind that the throne of David was not to be overthrown, and some apparently claim England has claims on that throne, which has supposedly existed to this day from the time of Jeremiah. It may be a stone throne, but it is an inscribed stone throne. I think all the kings and queens of Britain are crowned on that throne. Maybe Mr. Torrey, knows less than he thinks.

As for self healing, the body regularly self heals. The point of Mark 16:18, was that the sign was for "believers" who are baptized (in the Spirit), can "lay hands on the sick, and they will recover". If that is a problem, possibly you could instead go to Washington, and cast out demons, "in my name" (Matthew 7:22-23) & (Mark 16:17). It would be smartly appreciated by the "despicable".

Click to expand...

Torrey explains all the usual queries, including the issue of the paternal line. It makes perfect sense, but only when Matthew is read in conjunction with Luke.

What l'm waiting to see are the actual words of Peter and Paul that you believe show them to be false prophets. What did they say that can be used as evidence that these men were teaching a doctrine of lawlessness?

Redemptionsong said:

Torrey explains all the usual queries, including the issue of the paternal line. It makes perfect sense, but only when Matthew is read in conjunction with Luke.

What l'm waiting to see are the actual words of Peter and Paul that you believe show them to be false prophets. What did they say that can be used as evidence that these men were teaching a doctrine of lawlessness?

Click to expand...

Actually, the lawless churches, the daughters of Babylon, are built on both Peter and Paul, by the machinations of the Roman emperor Constantine, the beast with two horns like a lamb, who was to deceive those who dwell on the earth (Revelation 13). Peter is probably unfairly given responsibility for propping up the teacher of lawlessness, Paul, which was actually probably done by someone assuming Peters identity in 2 Peter. Paul is given the liability for stating that the Gentiles were not under the law, by way of the cross, whether he personally did or not. The actual "nations"/Gentiles were never under the law, but every person is under the Law of keeping the Commandments (Ecclesiastes 12:13). In the day of the Lord, the survivors of the nations/Gentiles, will keep the feast of Booths, which is part of the law (Zechariah 14:16), or suffer the consequences. Paul was also propping up the notion that those with enough faith, didn't have to keep the law. You must have been sleeping through my previous post, for Peter is identified as a "stumbling block to me" in Matthew 16:23, and in Matthew 13:41-42, the angels will gather out the "stumbling blocks", Peter and the pope (Isaiah 22:25), and those "who commit lawlessness" at the "end of the age", and then the angels will throw them into the fire.. Until the "end of the age", all the tares will be under the protection of Yeshua (Matthew 13:30). Now that we are at the "end of the age", that protection has been rescinded. Apparently, "His angels" are coming for those who "commit lawlessness". The Gentile/nations, in general, do not keep the laws given to Israel, nor the Law of God, but the "house of Israel" is "scattered" among the nations (Ezekiel 36). In general, the Gentile followers of Paul, keep the decrees of the beast with two horns like a lamb, the Roman emperor Constantine, which is to say, when they die, they will remain in their graves until the great white judgment (Revelation 20), and will drink from the cup of God's anger (Revelation 14:10).

Redemptionsong said:

Are Jews (as 'Israel') correct in claiming to be the 'My [God's] servant' ? [Isaiah 42:1];

[JPS] 'This is My servant, whom I uphold, My chosen one, in whom I delight. I have put my spirit upon him,
He shall teach the true way to the nations'/

[KJV] 'Behold my servant, whom I uphold; mine elect, in whom my soul delighteth; I have put my spirit upon him: he shall bring forth judgment to the Gentiles'

Is this a future hope for national Israel? If so, it must occur after the Gentiles have been taught the 'true way' (by the Church). Do Jews have the 'spirit upon him'?

Click to expand...

Yes......... The God of Israel is their God, was always their God from the beginning.

So..... Yes. Or did you think that Jesus was ever there for Gentiles?