The Pharisee, Sadducee, & Sanhedrin Deception

Joined
Mar 17, 2017
Messages
2,342
Unfortunately the NT has a lot of double talk.

On one hand Jesus is God, in the next passage he is the son.

One one hand keep the Law, in the next, do away with it

The NT is capable of supporting what ever argument put forth. That's why it's referred to as a BOOK OF CONFUSION.
For you I would focus on what Yahda said... The NT is Full of double talk. Try to understand each book chapter by chapter, rather than just isolating a few verses.

Shalom
Neither of you can show Jesus and Jesus alone, having "double talk" when it comes to the law. And that makes both of your points, null in void.

And to Yahda, you cant show Jesus saying He Himself was God either.. So again your points are null in void. And understand I use the terms "Jesus" and "God" loosely, as those are pagan insertions into Hebrew texts. No Hebrew at that time would name their child "Jesus" and they certainly didnt worship Gad/God/fortune
 

King David

Established
Joined
Mar 13, 2017
Messages
338
Neither of you can show Jesus and Jesus alone, having "double talk" when it comes to the law. And that makes both of your points, null in void.

And to Yahda, you cant show Jesus saying He Himself was God either.. So again your points are null in void.
Okay, let's take the chapter you quoted out of and see if there's a contradiction here.

As you wrote in Mat 5:17, Jesus says that he didn't "come to destroy the law....and that it will by no means pass away till all is fulfilled."

The problem is that later in Matthew 5:38 Jesus says, "You have heard it was said, 'an eye for an eye..'" Then in verse 5:39 he says, "BUT I tell you not to resist an evil person..."

So right there we have the Law changed.

Additionally, Jesus did not reveal the author of "eye for an eye," because the author is Yahuwah, the Father -- who does not change Malachi 3:6. So in effect Jesus minimized what Yahuwah said and gave himself the authority to change what was written.

He does this with the divorce law in Matthew 19:8 as well. He says, "Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts, permitted you to divorce your wives." But the truth is that the law came from Yahuwah and was told to Moses. If you go and read any of the Law of Torah it repeatedly says, "Yahuwah spoke to Moses."

The reason that So Many Christians are blinded from seeing the truth in Matthew 5:38-39 as well as Mat 19:8-9, is because Satan put a huge stumbling block that gets all the attention. That stumbling block is the mysterious "Fulfillment of the Law."

Jesus' death, even though it is meaningless according to Deuteronomy 24:16, Jeremiah 31:30, and Ezekiel 18:20, which says, "No man can die for another man's sin" is heralded as the "Fulfillment of the Law." This is what is causing you to miss what is later written in Matthew 5:38-39. Your unyielding faith in a pagan god that you've trusted for so many years (as I did) is not letting you see the truth.

First you have to humble yourself. Then you have to learn the Law. If you don't firmly grasp what is written in the Law of Torah, then you will continue to be mislead. This Law is coming back according to Isaiah 1:26 and 2:3.

What will also help you understand the Truth is mediating on Ezekiel 46:12, which describes the Temple and the Messiah doing sacrifices soon. If there are going to be sacrifices performed again, by the Messiah (Michael from Daniel 12), then Jesus could not have been the final sacrifice that fulfilled any law. Nor could he be the Messiah.

If you Really desire to understand, then go back and try to understand the chapters of the NT as a whole. You will see that they are Full of double speak and misleading doctrine. The Father does not speak like this. You will see that the NT contradicts what the Old Testament says and pulls many scriptures out of context.

Again I say to you, please look into Ezekiel 40-48, especially Ezekiel 42:13 and 46:12, which prove that Saul is a liar when he said Jesus "did away with the first, (sacrifices) to establish the second," and that, "we are sanctified...once for all" Hebrews 10:9-10.

Shalom
 
Last edited:
Joined
Mar 17, 2017
Messages
2,342
Well KD I agree with your premise on humbling oneself and learning the law. You wouldnt know this, but I feel like I did do this. I've been all around the block when it comes to the bible. I've been a christian who believed that a literal Jesus died for my sins and that all I had to do was believe to be saved. Thats how I was raised. My mom especially is a strict Christian. Then I went to the belief of OT only. Then I went to gnosticism/buddhism/ a little of Hinduism. And eventually made my way back to the bible. So I've definitely felt my way around belief systems, before coming back to the covenant made to Israel (and Israel alone btw ;)). So thats one. Two, Matthew 5:38 is not a law nor does it even contradict an eye for an eye. An eye for an eye means that if I steal from you that I have to give restitution plus a fifth. It has nothing to do with YOU who was stolen from. YOU who was stolen from does not have to do anything in regards to an eye for an eye. So what he SUGGESTED there has nothing to do with the law. And in regards to divorce, think clearly here. Do you think the Most High, in the beginning (meaning Genesis) WANTED divorce? Like when He made Adam and Eve, do you think He wanted to give them the opportunity if they so chose, to divorce? Or do you think that came later? Answer is easy for me, because I assume in the beginning once man had a wife and woman had a husband, that they were to be together forever. Divorce came later, which is what "Jesus" was pointing out.

You may take "fulfill" to mean something about "Jesus dying for sins" but I dont since He never said He came to do such a thing. I personally take it in accordance with Jeremiah 8:8 which says the lying pen of the scribes handled the law FALSELY, i.e. they corrupted the law with their own desires/wishes. When He came, He came to put the law back in place as it was originally intended, which is probably why He said that IN THE BEGINNING we were not to divorce. I cant even lie, the same verses you're pointing to, I used to point to when I was an OT only guy. But in context, they dont really make sense because theres alot of things that can be pointed out, even in the OT that dont really go together. Such as David, the King of Israel, being a descendant of a Moabite, when Moabites were NOT to be accepted into the congregation of Israel according to Deuteronomy 23. I absolutely know and understand that the NT has some contradictions with the OT, but Im waiting for you to bring them up according to the words of Jesus. Most of the contradictions you'll find, belong to Paul and the letters of "Peter" (which was probably just Paul).. NOT the words of Jesus...
 

King David

Established
Joined
Mar 13, 2017
Messages
338
Well KD I agree with your premise on humbling oneself and learning the law. You wouldnt know this, but I feel like I did do this. I've been all around the block when it comes to the bible. I've been a christian who believed that a literal Jesus died for my sins and that all I had to do was believe to be saved. Thats how I was raised. My mom especially is a strict Christian. Then I went to the belief of OT only. Then I went to gnosticism/buddhism/ a little of Hinduism. And eventually made my way back to the bible. So I've definitely felt my way around belief systems, before coming back to the covenant made to Israel (and Israel alone btw ;)). So thats one. Two, Matthew 5:38 is not a law nor does it even contradict an eye for an eye. An eye for an eye means that if I steal from you that I have to give restitution plus a fifth. It has nothing to do with YOU who was stolen from. YOU who was stolen from does not have to do anything in regards to an eye for an eye. So what he SUGGESTED there has nothing to do with the law. And in regards to divorce, think clearly here. Do you think the Most High, in the beginning (meaning Genesis) WANTED divorce? Like when He made Adam and Eve, do you think He wanted to give them the opportunity if they so chose, to divorce? Or do you think that came later? Answer is easy for me, because I assume in the beginning once man had a wife and woman had a husband, that they were to be together forever. Divorce came later, which is what "Jesus" was pointing out.

You may take "fulfill" to mean something about "Jesus dying for sins" but I dont since He never said He came to do such a thing. I personally take it in accordance with Jeremiah 8:8 which says the lying pen of the scribes handled the law FALSELY, i.e. they corrupted the law with their own desires/wishes. When He came, He came to put the law back in place as it was originally intended, which is probably why He said that IN THE BEGINNING we were not to divorce. I cant even lie, the same verses you're pointing to, I used to point to when I was an OT only guy. But in context, they dont really make sense because theres alot of things that can be pointed out, even in the OT that dont really go together. Such as David, the King of Israel, being a descendant of a Moabite, when Moabites were NOT to be accepted into the congregation of Israel according to Deuteronomy 23. I absolutely know and understand that the NT has some contradictions with the OT, but Im waiting for you to bring them up according to the words of Jesus. Most of the contradictions you'll find, belong to Paul and the letters of "Peter" (which was probably just Paul).. NOT the words of Jesus...
Thank you for sharing that...

I humbly suggest you look into the Law again.

The Law that states "an Eye for an eye" is written in Exodus 21:24. It has never had anything to do with theft, but rather with harm against someone else that is a result of anger or malicious intent.

The Law that has to do with theft is talked about in the next chapter (Exodus 22) and specifically gives guidance on the measures that should be taken against a thief.

The Most High wrote the Law and declared that divorce is legal. Whatever anyone's interpretation of Yahuwah's motives are, His Law still remains unchanged.

"When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house." Deuteronomy 24:1

The beautiful thing about reflecting on this law is that the man must first be clean...

Jesus (Zeus) changed the Law and made it of no effect. As a side note, he also changed the law of adultery by not taking action to find the other participant (John 8), which is what a righteous Judge would have done.
 

King David

Established
Joined
Mar 13, 2017
Messages
338
"So what you are essentially saying is that you have no evidence, you have nothing but your feelings." DD

Your feelings lead you to cling to Satanically inspired documents, of which the originals and all other "evidence" to Jesus (Zeus) are safely kept where?

In the Vatican...

Lol :)
 

Yahda

Veteran
Joined
Mar 14, 2017
Messages
711
Neither of you can show Jesus and Jesus alone, having "double talk" when it comes to the law. And that makes both of your points, null in void.

And to Yahda, you cant show Jesus saying He Himself was God either.. So again your points are null in void. And understand I use the terms "Jesus" and "God" loosely, as those are pagan insertions into Hebrew texts. No Hebrew at that time would name their child "Jesus" and they certainly didnt worship Gad/God/fortune

John 10:30 "I and the father are one"

Not only is that double talk, for example in the next instances he's the son, but it's basically once again a reference to him being God and God being him when we know God is God alone. There is no one like him, by him, beside(s) him etc etc..

As far as Jesus, Yashuah, Zeus, Yashimyac.....whatever. He has so many identities who can keep up ? I see NO difference between Jesus, Yeshua, black, white, purple or brown. They all represent the same thing. Kill the silly semantics.
 
Joined
Mar 17, 2017
Messages
2,342
Thank you for sharing that...

I humbly suggest you look into the Law again.

The Law that states "an Eye for an eye" is written in Exodus 21:24. It has never had anything to do with theft, but rather with harm against someone else that is a result of anger or malicious intent.

The Law that has to do with theft is talked about in the next chapter (Exodus 22) and specifically gives guidance on the measures that should be taken against a thief.

The Most High wrote the Law and declared that divorce is legal. Whatever anyone's interpretation of Yahuwah's motives are, His Law still remains unchanged.

"When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house." Deuteronomy 24:1

The beautiful thing about reflecting on this law is that the man must first be clean...

Jesus (Zeus) changed the Law and made it of no effect. As a side note, he also changed the law of adultery by not taking action to find the other participant (John 8), which is what a righteous Judge would have done.
How exactly is he changing the law when you say an eye for an eye doesnt apply to theft? The law doesnt command how the victim reacts, it commands the judgement AGAINST the doer. He doesnt change the judgement against the doer. If this is the best you have of Him changing the law, then you dont really have much..

As well, you want to ignore the fact that He said IN THE BEGINNING it was not so when thats completely true. Genesis says a man and woman come together to form one flesh. Flesh cannot be divided by flesh. So again, in the beginning, it was not so for divorce. But later He says Moses permitted it because of the hardness of men's hearts. Now if you want to nitpick Him using "Moses" and not the Most High, then you must also do the same when the bible says Joshua (not the Most High) stopped the sun right?

As for John 8, that was a later addition. It wasnt in the original texts.
 
Joined
Mar 17, 2017
Messages
2,342
John 10:30 "I and the father are one"

Not only is that double talk, for example in the next instances he's the son, but it's basically once again a reference to him being God and God being him when we know God is God alone. There is no one like him, by him, beside(s) him etc etc..
Genesis 2
24 Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.

Man and woman come together to be ONE but that doesnt mean the man is the woman and the woman is man. And since Genesis 3 says that woman is to be subject to the husband, it also doesnt necessarily mean they're equal altogether. Same concept here, and there.

As far as Jesus, Yashuah, Zeus, Yashimyac.....whatever. He has so many identities who can keep up ? I see NO difference between Jesus, Yeshua, black, white, purple or brown. They all represent the same thing. Kill the silly semantics.
No they dont represent the same thing, just like the different names people say the Most High has, do not equal the same thing.
 

Yahda

Veteran
Joined
Mar 14, 2017
Messages
711
Genesis 2
24 Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.

Man and woman come together to be ONE but that doesnt mean the man is the woman and the woman is man. And since Genesis 3 says that woman is to be subject to the husband, it also doesnt necessarily mean they're equal altogether. Same concept here, and there.



No they dont represent the same thing, just like the different names people say the Most High has, do not equal the same thing.

You comparing man and woman ( DUST) to God is hilarious. God say there is NONE like Him. He makes that very clear.

NO ONE can open their mouth and say " they and the father are ONE.

As far as you all Jesus, Zues, yeshuah....I don't feel the need to debate a name God NEVER mentioned. Out of all those names, colors and shapes God NEVER mentioned ONE of them. Not a single ONE.

You mean God can mention devils, Satan, Moses, David, Abraham, Israel, Jacob, Michael......but not this great savior ???? Yeah ok smh.
 

JoChris

Superstar
Joined
Mar 15, 2017
Messages
6,168
You comparing man and woman ( DUST) to God is hilarious. God say there is NONE like Him. He makes that very clear.
Very first chapter of bible:

Genesis 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

 

Yahda

Veteran
Joined
Mar 14, 2017
Messages
711
Very first chapter of bible:

Genesis 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

Why do you get God and man being ONE from that ?
 

Yahda

Veteran
Joined
Mar 14, 2017
Messages
711
@JoChris


Yeah yeah....Jesus is God, man, the son, Yashuah, Elijah, the savior, Elijah, Israel......it just does not stop.

Thanks but no thanks for the link. I will never indulge in such blasphemy. I KNOW BETTER.

Anyway.


Isaiah 45:1- there is no other apart from me

Isaiah 46:9- I am God there is no one else or NONE like me

Deuteronomy 4: 35- The Lord alone is God there is no other besides him

Isaiah 45:22- Turn to me and be saved for I am God. TO ME, TO ME, TO ME every knee will bow and every tongue will confess.....however Christine doctrine teach other wise

Good day !
 
Joined
Mar 17, 2017
Messages
2,342
You comparing man and woman ( DUST) to God is hilarious. God say there is NONE like Him. He makes that very clear
How did I compare man and woman to God? I compared man and woman being two separate entities but coming together to be ONE. I guess this doesnt need to go further than this, because I see you have to have it spelled out for you to believe anything, even though Moses was also ONE with God just as Adam and Eve were.
NO ONE can open their mouth and say " they and the father are ONE.
So says you. But you arent God yourself to make this claim...

As far as you all Jesus, Zues, yeshuah....I don't feel the need to debate a name God NEVER mentioned. Out of all those names, colors and shapes God NEVER mentioned ONE of them. Not a single ONE.

You mean God can mention devils, Satan, Moses, David, Abraham, Israel, Jacob, Michael......but not this great savior ???? Yeah ok smh.
God is still the savior no matter what. And you guys trust in the bible hand over foot even though the bible in Jeremiah's time was being corrupted let alone today when it gets printed by the very elite you guys say is controlled by Satan...Tisk tisk tisk...
 
Top