By the way -- if you claim to be a Christian...

[Subduction Zone]

This is false

Assumption based on assumption and missing important details
I would rather question the validity of those claims

What assumptions were made? How are you going to show that it is false?

Not all foreign Roman citizens had two names , and those who had were mostly in Rome and were given the right to have a Latin name because of interest and nothing more.Also there was a different kind of citizenship for foreigners.

True, not all did. But where on Earth did you get that claim that only in Rome would they have two names. It would make much more sense that someone with a foreign name that was also Roman would adopt a Roman one.

Many also think that Josephus was born as Josephus but in fact he was Yosef ben Matityahu.
Do you know at what point Yosef Ben Matityahu resolved to become Josephus, the Roman?

I have no idea. So what? Like Paul he may have been born Roman but had a foreign name. If one wanted to go anywhere in the Roman hierarchy a Roman name was probably a must. But since you are challenging my source you need to provide your sources first. A bad argument on its own will not help you.

Also Jews were kicked out of Rome from January AD 41 until January AD 53.

Were they? They may have been, but that is just a non sequitur. It has nothing to do with the argument.

But yes , God did not change his name.
The question is when did he started using that name.

And now this is all a waste of time since you agreed with me. According to this article he was born Jewish, but also a Roman citizen, though some claim he became a citizen later, but at any rate it appears that he used the name Paul when dealing with Romans and Greeks:

Paul the Apostle - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[YoursTrue]

I am so annoyed when people go into one-way discussion..

I still try to find out why would he say petra and i can't

I'd like to go over this as much as possible, if possible. OK?
We know that many (hundreds of millions) persons are Roman Catholic and profess that Peter was the first pope. When asked about this, they may refer to the words of Jesus to Peter: “Thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church.” (Matthew 16:18) But does that really mean that Jesus meant by those words, that Peter is the rock on which His church is built? I'd like to examine this further, so I look forward to your response.

 

[2ndpillar]

the scapegoat was sent out into the desert to apease the Desert God Azazel.

So, you are saying that God required Israel to appease some Desert god Azazel, in which "Azazel" was supposedly the fallen angel who introduced the weapons of war and deception to women by means of ornaments. Azazel - Wikipedia All this done by symbolically putting the sins of Israel on the head of a goat. I don't know, you might want to requestion your gender studies professor as what she was thinking.

The Book of Enoch brings Azazel into connection with the Biblical story of the fall of the angels, located on Mount Hermon, a gathering-place of the demons of old.[29] Here, Azazel is one of the leaders of the rebellious Watchers in the time preceding the Flood; he taught men the art of warfare, of making swords, knives, shields, and coats of mail, and taught women the art of deception by ornamenting the body, dyeing the hair, and painting the face and the eyebrows, and also revealed to the people the secrets of witchcraft and corrupted their manners, leading them into wickedness and impurity until at last he was, at Yahweh's command, bound hand and foot by the archangel Raphael and chained to the rough and jagged rocks of [Ha] Dudael (= Beth Ḥadudo), where he is to abide in utter darkness until the great Day of Judgment, when he will be cast into the fire to be consumed forever.[30]

 

[2ndpillar]

I'd like to go over this as much as possible, if possible. OK?
We know that many (hundreds of millions) persons are Roman Catholic and profess that Peter was the first pope. When asked about this, they may refer to the words of Jesus to Peter: “Thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church.” (Matthew 16:18) But does that really mean that Jesus meant by those words, that Peter is the rock on which His church is built? I'd like to examine this further, so I look forward to your response.

The Catholics believe that Peter is the rock the church is built on. The Protestants believe that believing that Yeshua, is Christ, the son of God, is the rock the church is built on. Both are incorrect. The petra (foundation stone) is that the Spirit of Prophecy/Revelation, which includes the testimony of Yeshua (Rev 19:10), is the rock the church is built on. At the time of the implementing of the Roman Church in 325 A.D. by way of the Roman emperor Constantine, the Pontifex Maximus, the title taken by the pope, was with regards to being the head of the pagan church, in charge of taking care of the gods and the calendar. Both the "beast", Julius Caesar, a Pontifex Maximus, and the pope, changed the calendar. At the time of setting up dogmas of the Roman Catholic Church, at the Nicaean Council, the bishop of Rome, didn't even show up. Some think he had gout and could not travel.

 

[2ndpillar]

Or the whole Jesus story could be just a lot of myths.

Anything is possible, but reality shows that what Yeshua and the prophets said is playing out historically. You can expect Armageddon (Har-Magedon), and the sky to fall (Revelation 16:16-21. Keep in mind that Megido (Har-Magedo) is where the Kaiser (Caesar) and the Ottomans armies were destroyed in 1918. Keep in mind that missiles, out of the sky, are falling on Israel almost every day.

 

[Sargonski]

So, you are saying that God required Israel to appease some Desert god Azazel, in which "Azazel" was supposedly the fallen angel who introduced the weapons of war and deception to women by means of ornaments. Azazel - Wikipedia All this done by symbolically putting the sins of Israel on the head of a goat. I don't know, you might want to requestion your gender studies professor as what she was thinking.

The Book of Enoch brings Azazel into connection with the Biblical story of the fall of the angels, located on Mount Hermon, a gathering-place of the demons of old.[29] Here, Azazel is one of the leaders of the rebellious Watchers in the time preceding the Flood; he taught men the art of warfare, of making swords, knives, shields, and coats of mail, and taught women the art of deception by ornamenting the body, dyeing the hair, and painting the face and the eyebrows, and also revealed to the people the secrets of witchcraft and corrupted their manners, leading them into wickedness and impurity until at last he was, at Yahweh's command, bound hand and foot by the archangel Raphael and chained to the rough and jagged rocks of [Ha] Dudael (= Beth Ḥadudo), where he is to abide in utter darkness until the great Day of Judgment, when he will be cast into the fire to be consumed forever.[30]

View attachment 88702

Azazal is a desert God .. Pay no attention to Second Temple - non cannonical apocryphia and bastardization of the term Angel.

Just like Ha Satan is no Angel .. Do you not understand that Ha Satan is a God .. Chief God over the Earth - a Son of the Supreme one - El Oliun.

You are trying to project 3rd Century BC Monotheistic beliefs onto 10th Century BC Pagan Israelites .. who, to a person - all believed in the existence of other Gods.

So in the story of Job - when the "sons of God" are visiting the Most High God in heaven - ( some kind of celebration in the clouds) The Most High God - El Shaddai - has a conversation with one of these Sons of the God.

El El Shaddai - El Oliun - El Elyon - according to Ugarit literature - has 70 sons .. these are the son's mentioned in Deut 32:8 -- .. to whome the various people of the earth were allocated .. YHWH's share being Jacob.

So hearken not to "The book of Enoch" to tell you about Israelite religious beliefs in the 10th century AD .. but to the religious beliefs of the Israelites .. Same as everyone else in the Region.

 

[metis]

And "thou art Petros" means your new name is "pebble/little stone", which is not the foundation stone (petra) of the church. Saul was given the name "Paul", which means "small" which goes along with anyone annulling the "smallest" of the letters of the Law or the prophets, will be called "least".(Mt 5:19)l

You continue to miss the point as Jesus clearly was using a play on words, plus there's no different word in Aramaic between stone and pebble.

 

[metis]

The wicked/lawless, whether scholars, or clergy, did not understand the scripture, as stated in Matthew 13:13-14, to affectively obscure that which was already stated in parables, as in already obscured.

So, you know more than these scholars and clergy, most of which have studied scripture and language for decades?

 

[ElishaElijah]

You misunderstand the sacrament- Your Sins are not forgiven because the Scapegoat dies --- your sins are forgiven because you asked for repentance . there is no forgiveness without repentence goat .. or no goat. The Scapegoat is the payment had to be made on your behalf for that forgiveness to be granted upon repentence . . should the sin be other than the unforgivable .. and then u in deep doo doo

Not sure why you’re posting your comment…
What did the Bible say about how a person receives Eternal Life and the forgiveness of sins?

 

[ElishaElijah]

As a Christian I believe this to be accurate:

Shields of Strength on Instagram: "Brilliant"

69K likes, 1,430 comments - shieldsofstrength on January 30, 2024: "Brilliant"

www.instagram.com

 

[2ndpillar]

So, you know more than these scholars and clergy, most of which have studied scripture and language for decades?

The "fat" shepherds, those who are strong, who do not feed or heal the sheep, "I will destroy" (Ezekiel 34:10 &16). It is Yeshua who says that those who say they are wise and intelligent, will not understand (Matthew 11:25). Apparently, your scholars, with decrees in fluid soft science, have less understanding than babes/infants. They may or not be able to recite the traditions of men, but then that is all they possess.

Matthew 11:25 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.

Ezekiel 34:10 ‘Thus says the Lord GOD, “Behold, I am against the shepherds, and I shall demand My sheep from them and make them cease from feeding sheep. So the shepherds will not feed themselves anymore, but I shall deliver My flock from their mouth, that they may not be food for them.”’”
Ezekiel 34:16 “I will seek the lost, bring back the scattered, bind up the broken, and strengthen the sick; but the fat and the strong I will eliminate. I will feed them with judgment.

 

[2ndpillar]

You continue to miss the point as Jesus clearly was using a play on words, plus there's no different word in Aramaic between stone and pebble.

A "pebble" is a small "stone". Nothing on which to build a structure. It would be like building a "house" on sand (Matthew 7:26)

Matthew 7:26 “And everyone who hears these words of Mine, and does not act upon them, will be like a foolish man, who built his house upon the sand.

 

[2ndpillar]

Azazal is a desert God .. Pay no attention to Second Temple - non cannonical apocryphia and bastardization of the term Angel.

Just like Ha Satan is no Angel .. Do you not understand that Ha Satan is a God .. Chief God over the Earth - a Son of the Supreme one - El Oliun.

You are trying to project 3rd Century BC Monotheistic beliefs onto 10th Century BC Pagan Israelites .. who, to a person - all believed in the existence of other Gods.

So in the story of Job - when the "sons of God" are visiting the Most High God in heaven - ( some kind of celebration in the clouds) The Most High God - El Shaddai - has a conversation with one of these Sons of the God.

El El Shaddai - El Oliun - El Elyon - according to Ugarit literature - has 70 sons .. these are the son's mentioned in Deut 32:8 -- .. to whome the various people of the earth were allocated .. YHWH's share being Jacob.

So hearken not to "The book of Enoch" to tell you about Israelite religious beliefs in the 10th century AD .. but to the religious beliefs of the Israelites .. Same as everyone else in the Region.

Job portrays Satan as a son of God, whereas there were also other sons of God at the meeting, and some, which were called "watchers" (Genesis 6), rebelled against God, and took daughters of men for wives, and their children were known as "men of renown" (Genesis 6:4), who eventually died, and their spirits were known as demons, who possess men, as in the "false prophet" and the "beast" (Revelation 16:13). As the 1st Commandment notes, there are other gods, and as Revelation notes, the "dragon"/"devil"/"Satan"/"Serpent" will be the god authority over the "beast" (kings of earth) (Revelation 13 & 17 & 20:2). The "beasts" will rule under the authority of the dragon, until all the kingdoms of the beasts are defeated at the same time (Daniel 2). And where did your "canon" come from, but from a self-righteous bishop, Athanasius, in 367 A.D., who had worked under the "beast with two horns like a lamb", Constantine, well after the falling away. (Matthew 24:10) I think you have attended too many classes on the traditions of men. As for the 70 sons, that would refer to the offspring of Noah (Genesis 10), from whom Jacob was a later offspring of Shem, who was one of the original sons of Noah.

 

[metis]

A "pebble" is a small "stone". Nothing on which to build a structure. It would be like building a "house" on sand (Matthew 7:26)

Matthew 7:26 “And everyone who hears these words of Mine, and does not act upon them, will be like a foolish man, who built his house upon the sand.

Repeating the same ole same ole doesn't miraculously make it right. Theologians well know that Jesus and the Twelve mainly spoke Aramaic causally and Hebrew at shul. There is 0 indication they spoke Greek. Therefore, the fact that Jesus starts out with "Thou art Peter...", whereas Peter had already been named as such previous to this, logically indicates that Jesus was using a play-on-words for a very specific reason, and the subsequent actions by the Twelve tell us that.

As far as your last sentence above, it seems you are assuming I built my "house upon the sand", so why would you say that? Are you judging me?

 

[metis]

The "fat" shepherds, those who are strong, who do not feed or heal the sheep, "I will destroy" (Ezekiel 34:10 &16). It is Yeshua who says that those who say they are wise and intelligent, will not understand (Matthew 11:25). Apparently, your scholars, with decrees in fluid soft science, have less understanding than babes/infants.

What a pathetically arrogant statement the above is.

Plus, it's quite obvious you have never been involved in serious Torah and/or Bible study, because if you had you would well know that intelligent scholars can read the same narrative and possibly come up with different interpretations. IMO, you're way too much into yourself.

 

[ElishaElijah]

What a pathetically arrogant statement the above is.

Plus, it's quite obvious you have never been involved in serious Torah and/or Bible study, because if you had you would well know that intelligent scholars can read the same narrative and possibly come up with different interpretations. IMO, you're way too much into yourself.

Well, the goal of biblical hermeneutics is to find out what the author meant by what He said and many times the scholars of the day, the religious leaders got it wrong. Most didnt even recognize their Creator when He was right in front of them. Jesus called fishermen, tax collectors and sinners.
There is only 1 correct interpretation but many applications.

 

[metis]

Well, the goal of biblical hermeneutics is to find out what the author meant by what He said and many times the scholars of the day, the religious leaders got it wrong. Most didnt even recognize their Creator when He was right in front of them. Jesus called fishermen, tax collectors and sinners.
There is only 1 correct interpretation but many applications.

IYO, but you ain't the final answer.

BTW, I'm much more impressed with those who actually act with love and compassion as Jesus taught versus those who are so arrogant they think they know-it-all. Maybe reread Jesus' Parable of the Sheep & Goats, and just a reminder that the "Goats" believed about Jesus but not in him.

 

[ElishaElijah]

IYO, but you ain't the final answer.

BTW, I'm much more impressed with those who actually act with love and compassion as Jesus taught versus those who are so arrogant they think they know-it-all. Maybe reread Jesus' Parable of the Sheep & Goats, and just a reminder that the "Goats" believed about Jesus but not in him.

That’s nice but doesn’t really mean anything on these forums. You always post that parable like it’s some big revelation. Anyone born again will live a life pleasing to God, walking in the Spirit.
Plus it’s not my opinion it what the Bible says and that’s the final answer.

 

[Sargonski]

Job portrays Satan as a son of God, whereas there were also other sons of God at the meeting, and some, which were called "watchers" (Genesis 6), rebelled against God, and took daughters of men for wives, and their children were known as "men of renown" (Genesis 6:4), who eventually died, and their spirits were known as demons, who possess men, as in the "false prophet" and the "beast" (Revelation 16:13). As the 1st Commandment notes, there are other gods, and as Revelation notes, the "dragon"/"devil"/"Satan"/"Serpent" will be the god authority over the "beast" (kings of earth) (Revelation 13 & 17 & 20:2). The "beasts" will rule under the authority of the dragon, until all the kingdoms of the beasts are defeated at the same time (Daniel 2). And where did your "canon" come from, but from a self-righteous bishop, Athanasius, in 367 A.D., who had worked under the "beast with two horns like a lamb", Constantine, well after the falling away. (Matthew 24:10) I think you have attended too many classes on the traditions of men. As for the 70 sons, that would refer to the offspring of Noah (Genesis 10), from whom Jacob was a later offspring of Shem, who was one of the original sons of Noah.

Holy Carp ... what part of "Lose the 3rd Century BC Aphocrypha" was not made clear. You are misrepresenting and misquoting the Bible

1) The other Gods up in heaven celebrating with the God Supreme are not called "Watchers" .. nor were they known as Watchers by the people during the Time Job was written .. ~1000 BC .. Sorry .. know nothing about these other Gods in attendance other than of Ha Satan -- the Adversary God Sends to test people when so desired .. the God who Tests Jesus in the Desert .. this God both a Son of the Supreme one and Chief God on Earth - This God never acts outside the will of the Supreme one .. and we are given no indication that the other Gods in attendance to either .. OK .. U Understand ?

2) We have other Son's of Gods mentioned in Genesis 6 .. but the text does not say that these Gods Rebelled against God in taking daughters of men for wives. Why are you falsely citing the Bible ?

The text just states that there were Son's of Gods who came down from the sky and took wives of the daughters of men - repeating a well known story from the universal creation story circulating at the time. Everyone believed this .. "Sky People came down -- created a hybrid human " .. the various intereactions between these "Adamu" and the Gods discussed in great detail -- "In the Religion of the Day" .. U Understand .. not the religion of 300 BC that you desperately want to insert ..

Now .. perhaps some divine beings fell from grace at a later date .. but this is not what Genesis 6 is saying.

6 When human beings began to increase in number on the earth and daughters were born to them, 2 the sons of God saw that the daughters of humans were beautiful, and they married any of them they chose. 3 Then the Lord said, “My Spirit will not contend with[a] humans forever, for they are mortal[b]; their days will be a hundred and twenty years.”

4 The Nephilim were on the earth in those days—and also afterward—when the sons of God went to the daughters of humans and had children by them. They were the heroes of old, men of renown.

Here we simply have Sons of God having children and making wives with daughaters of Humans .. actually getting married to them and presumably co-habitating. Precisely ZERO about these Gods (or sky people) participating in some act of rebellion on this basis.

You also have Nephilium -- who are the offspring of the coupling of these Sons of God and Humans .. the great hero's of Old - Men of Renoun. Nothign is said about these offspring of man and God turning into demons. Why have you insterted this falsehood into the text ?

Revelation has ZERO bearing on who these Gods being discussed in Job and Genesis are. One question you should be asking is who the other God's in the creation of Humans were .. who is the "US" humans are in the Image of .. as per the Religious beliefs of the Day .. What did people writing this story believe about the Gods in that story .. and those who read the story in 1000 BC ? .. the answer to which Revelations has ZERO Relevance.

 

[Dimi95]

I'd like to go over this as much as possible, if possible. OK?
We know that many (hundreds of millions) persons are Roman Catholic and profess that Peter was the first pope. When asked about this, they may refer to the words of Jesus to Peter: “Thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church.” (Matthew 16:18) But does that really mean that Jesus meant by those words, that Peter is the rock on which His church is built? I'd like to examine this further, so I look forward to your response.

The dogma of papal infallibility is rejected by Eastern Orthodoxy.

"Papal infallibility is a dogma of the Catholic Church which states that, in virtue of the promise of Jesus to Peter, the Pope when he speaks ex cathedra is preserved from the possibility of error on doctrine "initially given to the apostolic Church and handed down in Scripture and tradition.It does not mean that the pope cannot sin or otherwise err in some capacity, though he is prevented by the assistance of the Holy Spirit from issuing heretical teaching even in his non-infallible Magisterium, as a corollary of indefectibility."

Does that mean the succesors of the first Bishop of "Jerusalem"(for example) are not prevented by the Holy Spirit from issuing heretical teaching?

Let's see what James says

James 2:1
"My brothers and sisters, believers in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ must not show favoritism."

There is no biblical or historical evidence for the claims of the Roman Church that Peter was the first pope.

Peter himself did not claim authority , rather he discussed everything with the other disciples.That was for 10 centuries , untill someone decided to leave the traditions , invent new dogmas and claimed authority over all churches.