IndigoChild5559
Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
You keep doing these bizarre word associations as if they have some sort of meaning.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Jewish Messiah
- Thread starter Rival
- Start date
IndigoChild5559
Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
No reason to think that at all.
WonderingWorrier
Active Member
Their meaning could be found here in Ezekiel:
And the gates of the city shall be after the names of the tribes of Israel: three gates northward; one gate of Reuben, one gate of Judah, one gate of Levi.
And at the east side four thousand and five hundred: and three gates; and one gate of Joseph, one gate of Benjamin, one gate of Dan.
And at the south side four thousand and five hundred measures: and three gates; one gate of Simeon, one gate of Issachar, one gate of Zebulun.
At the west side four thousand and five hundred, with their three gates; one gate of Gad, one gate of Asher, one gate of Naphtali.
It was round about eighteen thousand measures: and the name of the city from that day shall be, The Lord is there.
Ezekiel 48:31-35
Because I could also show the bizarre word associations that Im talking about as parts of this city.
North - West - East
Cattle - Goat - Sheep
Lion - Leopard - Wolf
Bear - Deer - Horse
Like the wolf is with the lamb because Joseph is with Benjamin in the East side of the city.
Joseph is sheep:
Give ear, O Shepherd of Israel, thou that leadest Joseph like a flock; thou that dwellest between the cherubims, shine forth. Psalm.
Benjamin is wolf:
Benjamin shall ravin as a wolf: in the morning he shall devour the prey, and at night he shall divide the spoil. Genesis.
The wolf and the lamb are together in the East:
And at the east side four thousand and five hundred: and three gates; and one gate of Joseph, one gate of Benjamin, one gate of Dan.
I can show 10 animals and their tribal placement in the city if you want. Not sure about the other two.
I have also talked about corn, oil, and wine. According to the city the East side is the place of Wine, while the west side is the place of Oil.
North - West - East
Bread - Oil - Wine
Corn - Olive - Grape
Ephraim is of Joseph in the East. That is why Ephraim is associated with wine.
And they of Ephraim shall be like a mighty man, and their heart shall rejoice as through wine: yea, their children shall see it, and be glad; their heart shall rejoice in the Lord. Zechariah.
While Asher is in the West:
At the west side four thousand and five hundred, with their three gates; one gate of Gad, one gate of Asher, one gate of Naphtali.
And Asher is associated with Oil:
And of Asher he said, Let Asher be blessed with children; let him be acceptable to his brethren, and let him dip his foot in oil.
The city is a city of words. So even though I try to explain things with sets of threes they still fit into this city structure.
Kelly of the Phoenix
Well-Known Member
Iron rusts 
WonderingWorrier
Active Member
Yes thats right.Iron rusts
Their gold and silver was just rusty iron:
Your gold and silver is cankered; and the rust of them shall be a witness against you, and shall eat your flesh as it were fire. Ye have heaped treasure together for the last days. James.
But all the silver, and gold, and vessels of brass and iron, are consecrated unto the Lord: they shall come into the treasury of the Lord. Joshua.
But if Iron represents the Earth then Earthly gold and silver would be just Iron.
As it says:
And thy heaven that is over thy head shall be brass, and the earth that is under thee shall be iron. Deuteronomy.
So it seems to be talking about heavenly treasure, rather than earthly treasure. The heaven above the Earth is the brass.
It seems Jesus knew that too.
"Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth and rust doth corrupt, and where thieves break through and steal:
But lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt, and where thieves do not break through nor steal:"
Matthew 6:19-20
South - North - West - East
Iron - Brass - Silver - Gold
The Earth and the heavens is the treasury of the lord.
paarsurrey
Veteran Member
paarsurrey said: post #157
Right?
But the book of " Revelation " is not from Jesus so one's assertion, "The speech of the prophets is a sign language. Their words are symbols and with the symbols they are doing signs" is not relevant here , I understand, right?
Regards
Right?
"The speech of the prophets is a sign language. Their words are symbols and with the symbols they are doing signs."
But the book of " Revelation " is not from Jesus so one's assertion, "The speech of the prophets is a sign language. Their words are symbols and with the symbols they are doing signs" is not relevant here , I understand, right?
Regards
Last edited:
WonderingWorrier
Active Member
Hadith are authenticated by the supposed line of transmission of who said what. But if signs can be seen in the Hadith that is in line with the signs of the prophets and can be proven to be so then which is more relevant? The clear signs shown or the supposed said line of transmission?
Can the signs authenticate Hadith better than rumours of who said it or didnt say it?
paarsurrey
Veteran Member
"The speech of the prophets is a sign language."
Does one mean that they (the prophets) never talk in real terms, please?
Regards
WonderingWorrier
Active Member
They speak in their own terms. They dont make sense in our terms. But listening to their terms shows that they are in fact correct in their own unique way and that is what makes them real.
paarsurrey
Veteran Member
"The speech of the prophets is a sign language."
paarsurrey #168:
Does one mean that they (the prophets) never talk in real terms, please?
"Luke 1:35 :And the angel answering, said to her: The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the most High shall overshadow thee. And therefore also the Holy which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God."
So "Son of God " is not in real terms, please, right?
Regards
Last edited:
WonderingWorrier
Active Member
In the terms of the prophets "Son of God" is real.
Son of God = Star.
When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy? Job 38:7
Just as Wife of God = Sun (according to the terms of the prophets).
I talked about the Wife of God in this post while trying to explain the marriage of the lamb. As you can see it also says the children are as Olive plants:
And I mentioned the star in this post:
So I can put these two explanation posts together to help explain to you the term Son of God.
Bread - Oil - Wine
Corn - Olive - Grape
Moon - Star - Sun
So the son of God is the Oil, it is the Olive tree, it is the star. It is a specific position which can be confirmed.
Therefore saying "Son of God" is not our term, it is a term of the prophets. And it can be confirmed so it is real.
paarsurrey
Veteran Member
The promises of G-d with Abraham, one comes up with, were spiritual for the verities Abraham had achieved by worshiping One G-d alone , by obeying G-d's commandments and his resolve to train his offspring with them, these were not racial traits but moral and spiritual, as one gets to know, right?
later when Abraham's offspring hitherto associated with the term Israelite- a spiritual* title , as long as they remained attached/focused on the spiritual aspects they got G-d's blessings, when they themselves got focused on the worldly aspects and changed/distanced/overwhelmed as denoted by the new name (Jew/Yehuda) , they got deprived from the blessings, one gets it.
Right?
Regards
_________________
~* Israel-meaning G-d's wrestler
~*"Israel was understood to mean "a man seeing God": from ʾyš (man) rʾh (to see) ʾel (God).[8]"
The Old Testament pseudepigrapha, Volume 2. Charlesworth, James H. London: Darton, Longman & Todd. 1983–1985. p. 703. ISBN 0232516278. OCLC 14814462.
~*"Jacob was the son of Isaac and the grandson of Abraham. Like them, Jacob had righteous desires and sought the Lord’s blessings.
At a crucial moment in his life, “Jacob wrestled with a serious challenge. His agency was tested. Through this wrestle, Jacob proved what was most important to him. He demonstrated that he was willing to let God prevail in his life. In response, God changed Jacob’s name to Israel, meaning ‘let God prevail.’ God then promised Israel that all the blessings that had been pronounced upon Abraham’s head would also be his” (Russell M. Nelson, “Let God Prevail,” Oct. 2020 general conference [Ensign or Liahona, Nov. 2020, 92]). Taking this new name was a sign of receiving the covenant his father and grandfather had received."
Why did God change Jacob’s name to Israel?
An answer to the question: “Why did God change Jacob’s name to Israel?”.
www.churchofjesuschrist.org
Last edited:
IndigoChild5559
Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
Since "Israelite" and "Jews" are interchangable, the Israelite messiah (an expression that only you use) would be identical to the Jewish messiah.
Readers and @paarsurrey :
This silly claim that the term "Israelite" (which refers to 12 tribes or Kingdoms) and "Jews" (which refers to the kingdom of JUDAH) has already been debunked here at the following link : (click on the blue text and it will take you to the thread where you first lost this same debate)
The Didache
Repeating a debunked personal theory simply wastes credibility.
So @paarsurrey you are correct that the Messiah was not simply a Messiah for only the kingdom of Judah, but was a Messiah for ALL of Israel.
Clear
δρτζτζτζω πλυσ
Last edited:
IndigoChild5559
Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
I don't give a flying leap what the Didache says. I care what the Tanakh says.
The word "Jew" (Yehudi) refers to the inhabitants of the KINGDOM of Judah, NOT the tribe of Judah. Originally the Kingdom of Judah contained Benjamin, Levi, and Judah. However, when the northern kingdom fell, refugees fled south to Jerusalem. Thus, the Kingdom of Judah came to include all 12 tribes. This means that "Jew" refers to all 12 tribes.
Last edited:
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber
That's like saying Germans object to the terminology of translating guten Morgen to good morning. No, Germans don't say the actual phrase good morning in German, but it's what they're saying when they say guten Morgen.
InChrist
Free4ever
Many Christians also believe the Messiah will rule during the messianic era.
InChrist
Free4ever
And David Koresh was a Christian.
That makes his views common Christian ones.
David Koresh was not a Christian. He was a false christ.
In Matthew 24:23–24, Jesus says, “And then if anyone says to you, ‘Look, here is the Christ!’ or ‘Look, there he is!’ do not believe it.
What does it mean that there will be false christs in the end times? | GotQuestions.org
What does it mean that there will be false christs in the end times? What is a false christ? What is a false messiah?
www.gotquestions.org
1) Regarding IndigoChild5559s’ personal theory that Hebrew=Israelite=Jews
IndigoChild5559 said : “I don't give a flying leap what the Didache says. I care what the Tanakh says. (post #175)
You are confused. No one referred to the Didache.
That is simply the name of the link where you introduced your personal theory where you claimed : "Hebrews=Israelite=Jews". (IndigoChild5559 in post #32)
We are talking about your personal interpretation of what you read. The point is that your interpretation is, historically, incorrect.
2) The ancient term "Hebrews" and "Israelites" does NOT simply mean "Jews".
A "Jew" is, historically, from the single tribe of Judah and it came to signify the kingdom of Judah. A "Jew" may also be an adherent to the "Jewish" religion. These are two different things.
While there was always a mixture of tribes and nations, this mixing of nations and kingdoms did not magically create a monolithic group of "Jews".
For example, greeks and pagans also lived in the area inhabited by the Kingdom of Judah. However, simply living among Jews did not make the the greeks and pagans "Jews" just as it did not make a person born into ephraim, or Asher, (i.e. an "Ephraimite" or an "Asherite") into someone born into Judah (i.e. a Jew).
If I simply move to Israel and live among the Jews the rest of my life (perhaps I take a job in Israel...), this does not and will not make me a "Jew" just as an ephraimite does not become a Jew simply by living among them.
Many different family names may be represented at a family reunion, still, this does not turn the "Johnsons" into "Smiths" at a Smith family reunion.
3) The "Ten lost tribes" (i.e. the "Kingdom of Isreal") are not "Jews" but are yet "Israelites"
As you become more familiar with the Tanakh and Jewish history, you will notice that the ten “lost” tribes that made up the Kingdom of Israel were not part of the kingdom of Judah (Jews), yet they are of Israel.
Their descendants can certainly be from any other of the twelve tribes (and thus be an "israelite" and be a Christian, or Hindu, or athiest, etc. Thus, the majority of "Israelites" nowadays (if one can still be from one of the other eleven tribes....) may not be "Jewish" at all. Yet they remain an “Israelite” in origin. Without more data, one simply cannot know.
The pictures below are simply one version of the distribution of tribes and kingdoms
4) Mis-labeling or stereotyping does not create factual change of the nature of persons or things
You are mis-using the term “Jew” in this case.
For example, when the Kingdom of Judah was taken captive into Babylon, The Jews, the Ephraimites, Asherites, Gadites, Manasseh-ites, the greeks and pagans and other individuals taken captive with them may have all been referred to as “Jews” but Historically, this is incorrect. The pagans and Greek prisoners still remained pagans and greeks and not Jews.
While generalizations or improper use of cultural and racial terms happens all the time such as referring to all individuals living in Russian as "Russians" or referring to all individuals with brown skin as "Mexicans", still, this does not make a German living in russia, a "russian" nor does it make a Guatemalan, a "Mexican" simply by calling him one. Even derogatory usage of terms such as calling a "cheap" person a "Jew" simply because they are careful with their money is still as incorrect as it is improper. The Babylonia may have called all of their captives "Jews" in a non- specific and demeaning use of the term "jew".
I can call my Cat a "Jew" or a "Goldfish", but it still doesn't make cat a "jew" or a "Goldfish" simply by using incorrect terms.
5) Personal interpretations of the Old Testament (Tanakh) do not create historical realities
While you may interpret the Old Testament (Tanakh) any way you want, your interpretation must remain in the world of personal opinion and personal dogma and it cannot survive in the religious historians world. You will simply have to accept that religious historians disagree with your theory and use words differently than you do.
Creating new historical theories is difficult and requires logic and supporting data (which your personal theory lacks). Because your theory lacks logic and supporting data, I can't imagine religious historians or linguists will ever have any interest in your theory or your personal interpretation on this specific point.
Re-defining historical definitions is difficult and fraught with problems when the theory underlying your redefinition lacks logic and sufficient historical data to support it.
Clear
IndigoChild5559 said : “I don't give a flying leap what the Didache says. I care what the Tanakh says. (post #175)
You are confused. No one referred to the Didache.
That is simply the name of the link where you introduced your personal theory where you claimed : "Hebrews=Israelite=Jews". (IndigoChild5559 in post #32)
We are talking about your personal interpretation of what you read. The point is that your interpretation is, historically, incorrect.
2) The ancient term "Hebrews" and "Israelites" does NOT simply mean "Jews".
A "Jew" is, historically, from the single tribe of Judah and it came to signify the kingdom of Judah. A "Jew" may also be an adherent to the "Jewish" religion. These are two different things.
While there was always a mixture of tribes and nations, this mixing of nations and kingdoms did not magically create a monolithic group of "Jews".
For example, greeks and pagans also lived in the area inhabited by the Kingdom of Judah. However, simply living among Jews did not make the the greeks and pagans "Jews" just as it did not make a person born into ephraim, or Asher, (i.e. an "Ephraimite" or an "Asherite") into someone born into Judah (i.e. a Jew).
If I simply move to Israel and live among the Jews the rest of my life (perhaps I take a job in Israel...), this does not and will not make me a "Jew" just as an ephraimite does not become a Jew simply by living among them.
Many different family names may be represented at a family reunion, still, this does not turn the "Johnsons" into "Smiths" at a Smith family reunion.
3) The "Ten lost tribes" (i.e. the "Kingdom of Isreal") are not "Jews" but are yet "Israelites"
As you become more familiar with the Tanakh and Jewish history, you will notice that the ten “lost” tribes that made up the Kingdom of Israel were not part of the kingdom of Judah (Jews), yet they are of Israel.
Their descendants can certainly be from any other of the twelve tribes (and thus be an "israelite" and be a Christian, or Hindu, or athiest, etc. Thus, the majority of "Israelites" nowadays (if one can still be from one of the other eleven tribes....) may not be "Jewish" at all. Yet they remain an “Israelite” in origin. Without more data, one simply cannot know.
The pictures below are simply one version of the distribution of tribes and kingdoms
4) Mis-labeling or stereotyping does not create factual change of the nature of persons or things
You are mis-using the term “Jew” in this case.
For example, when the Kingdom of Judah was taken captive into Babylon, The Jews, the Ephraimites, Asherites, Gadites, Manasseh-ites, the greeks and pagans and other individuals taken captive with them may have all been referred to as “Jews” but Historically, this is incorrect. The pagans and Greek prisoners still remained pagans and greeks and not Jews.
While generalizations or improper use of cultural and racial terms happens all the time such as referring to all individuals living in Russian as "Russians" or referring to all individuals with brown skin as "Mexicans", still, this does not make a German living in russia, a "russian" nor does it make a Guatemalan, a "Mexican" simply by calling him one. Even derogatory usage of terms such as calling a "cheap" person a "Jew" simply because they are careful with their money is still as incorrect as it is improper. The Babylonia may have called all of their captives "Jews" in a non- specific and demeaning use of the term "jew".
I can call my Cat a "Jew" or a "Goldfish", but it still doesn't make cat a "jew" or a "Goldfish" simply by using incorrect terms.
5) Personal interpretations of the Old Testament (Tanakh) do not create historical realities
While you may interpret the Old Testament (Tanakh) any way you want, your interpretation must remain in the world of personal opinion and personal dogma and it cannot survive in the religious historians world. You will simply have to accept that religious historians disagree with your theory and use words differently than you do.
Creating new historical theories is difficult and requires logic and supporting data (which your personal theory lacks). Because your theory lacks logic and supporting data, I can't imagine religious historians or linguists will ever have any interest in your theory or your personal interpretation on this specific point.
Re-defining historical definitions is difficult and fraught with problems when the theory underlying your redefinition lacks logic and sufficient historical data to support it.
Clear
Last edited:
Flankerl
Well-Known Member
Nah he said he was it, that makes it true.David Koresh was not a Christian. He was a false christ.
In Matthew 24:23–24, Jesus says, “And then if anyone says to you, ‘Look, here is the Christ!’ or ‘Look, there he is!’ do not believe it.
What does it mean that there will be false christs in the end times? | GotQuestions.org
What does it mean that there will be false christs in the end times? What is a false christ? What is a false messiah?www.gotquestions.org
Also bringing up false Prophets towards Jews as a Christian is beyond hilarious.