I fear I'll get to work before being able to respond to all this thread, so I'm making a note upfront that I'm being brisk to facilitate responding, but not because it's my "mood". So hear my happy when you read (between the written lines) and receive me with joy, and I look forward to however much time I get to participate today! If nothing else, on the way home tonight and this evening!
Israel in spirit - he is not a Jew who is one on the outside; he is a Jew who is one on the INSIDE
This is about people, the Jews, living up to their "name". I get frustrated how it is that people can't see he was chastising the Jews, not opening it up for other people to become like the Jews in a "spiritual sense".
We were each created by our Father in heaven, and each have a life to live. We shouldn't be clamoring to make ourselves "Jews" in a spiritual sense, nor Israelites.
To be a true Jew, as a Jew, you must be circumcised both in and out—in that day. That's all Paul was saying.
Some of what he (?) wrote was true and accurate; some was not.
"Every Scripture is God-breathed and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work."
You don't believe "all scripture is inspired"?
What books have you cut out of the canon as from false prophets and what books have you added? (You shake my confidence both in the purity of our association, as well as then chink away at one's faith in the Word as the word of God.)
You consider Isaiah's prophecy bad? "unlike any since Ephraim broke away from Judah" — interesting place for that notation in scripture.
For those listening to this conversation and who perhaps believe as AGuest that "don't "look" to Paul, [because] some of what he (?) wrote was true and accurate; some was not." I offer that you consider what Paul did not write, and is in scripture. Paul's name is mentioned 130-155 times in the book of Acts. "Jesus" was mentioned by the name 67 times. Of course he was in spirit form and as the resurrected Word of God, and the majority of the instances of "Jesus" name being used in the book of Acts is specifically in chapter 9 in the account of Saul on the road to Damascus, meeting the Christ in spirit, and being called to his ministry.
I make a note, personally, here. The apostles appointed a 12th to replace Judas, yet Christ himself appointed his apostles while on earth. I respect Paul as being the twelfth apostle, as he was appointed by our Christ, and recognize that the apostle who met the requirements designated by the men left behind is not mentioned in the scripture beyond (basically) being appointed by men.
The apostles, meanwhile, all reference Paul in writings, and you have to cut a significant portion of canonized scripture out if you find Paul to be a false prophet. You'd have to cut out all 'his' letters, and in it the "great sacred secret" of the body of Christ.
So I'd like more detail here. That's a bold claim to refute all scripture as being inspired, Paul as being false prophet (they are each either one or the other) and rejecting what you deem good versus bad. I have faith that the Word of God is protecting the word of God.
Regarding the use of "Lord".
First, please respond to the concept of the "lowest common denominator". I cannot know if you have considered this in your study, nor if the concept has struck the heart strings, as I hear only your argumentation and didn't find that in the response…
You reason and give the example that there are "Lord this" and "Lord that". Precisely, AG, precisely. "Lord" is now such a common term. I have many thousands of "Lords" in my family tree referring to thousands of men. Meanwhile, when people translated the Word of God into the words of modern languages they translated both "Ba'al" and "adon_" and the proper name of God into one and the same "Lord".
Thus, each time you say "Lord" you are lowering the esteem of both our Creator and his Salvation.
It personally causes a strange flutter of upset that I now am suppressing each time I read "Jahveh" in your posts, or "Jah". You refer to "Jehovah" as a false god, but cannot see past the forest for the trees for your own "Jahveh". It's simply a name that is not the divine name. He gave us criteria in scripture to discern the name, if we should seek it. So while "your Lord" the spirit voice gave you that name, I immediately now reject anything "your Lord" says as being from a false spirit.
Secondly, we entered into the "ba'al" "lord" conversation because this was to me a further point of evidence in "testing the spirit".
Could or can you recognize that to call him "lord" is to bring him down to the level of men on earth, and into the same melting pot (culturally speaking) as the first and most prominent false god of scripture, "ba'al".
You're a lawyer. In building arguments for court, there are premises upon which you build, and then you test your premises or argument by working backwards. Looking for the weak link.
Unless you're about to tell me that you actually use the original Hebrew and Greek words, you are using a title which in so manner specifically designates the most high God. The title can be used for any god. You use a name which in no way indicates you know the most high God, as the name isn't even based on his chosen language of Hebrew.
I don't enjoy arguing.
I would love to hear that you see that Sarah didn't call Abraham "lord". The word didn't exist. Someone translated what she called him, later, into the same word they translated "ba'al".
At the end of the night the masquerade ball will come to an end, and when all is unmasked the faces of the righteous will shine, and darkness shall be forgotten.
Right now at least we agree "lord" means anything under the sun that you submit to in either human form or spirit.
I can send you many songs from an artist I know who prays to the Devil. He calls him "my Lord". You wouldn't know he prays to the Devil, as his prayers are sincere and you'd find them compelling.
Since he uses "my Lord" no one is the wiser besides those who knows better.
I know many people today who use just that trick to mask that the Lord they refer to is the Devil, and they worship Satan. I hurt each time a see an innocent Christian get snatched up because they didn't know better.
"that the "those" are the non-Israelite nations who JOIN to Israel."
No, I don't mean that. I mean that Israel is an always is simply Israel, as is Judah. When Hosea wrote the words of this prophecy, he didn't write a double-entendre, he wrote a prophecy of restoration for the lost sheep of the house of Israel.
In no way shape or form do I believe anyone changes "nationality" or "race", we are who we are, and we were each created and are each special as we are. We don't need nor do the scriptures teach that we shall all become something else to receive the blessings.
There is no scripture which says their is neither Jew nor Greek but that they are all Israel. No, they're all a new creation which has nothing to do with the past designations that little man puts people into.
Move forward, look ahead, not behind us in the past. There are things to come which are for all the people of all the nations. People who promote that we become Israel or are spiritual Jews or should be as Christians (despite who or whatever we really are genetically) are as good as making the same argument as the Jews in the Christian congregation that Paul was refuting.
You're a lawyer, break down his argument with his cross-references. Elijah spoke of 10-Israel. Hosea spoke of 10-Israel. "Goyim" was used by the Jews for referencing 10-Israel AND everyone else that weren't Jews.
We don't have to be Israel or Jew to get anything. We simply have to be a part of the new covenant new creation, symbolized by our participation and discernment of the body, and remembrance of the sacrificial blood which bought us from the earth, and us access to a spiritual life.
I'm glad you're so enlightened that you can use the generic terms and not have confusion. I have a heart which yearns for accuracy and purity and specifics, thanks to knowing how others manipulate the innocent and how Satan masquerades as "the Lord", as an angel of light.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=jY6xQAiQEf8
However, consider that since you are a very vocal person, what you say and teach others may not be as easily understood by them as it is for you.
That was part of the problem
It is that problem that I seek to shed light on for others, and in doing so I recognize that Hosea speaking to Israel, and do not refer to "Lord". Since you are aware of the problem, I'll respect that you either choose to contribute to it, or to assist others in avoiding it, helping them readjust their thinking despite the inundation of "the Lord" in every shape form and spirit in the world today. Or you can just defend yourself.
You refer to "the true name" and then use the letter J. (A new letter and sound.)
You ignore the convention in Hebrew of elision (contraction) in the use of Jahveh. (You clearly use "Jah" in reference to what should be the elision.)
You ignore the poet David and his indication of a three syllable name indicated through his poetry. We know that he was loved by our Father for this poetry, thus I have faith that it was preserved and serves a point of significance for us today, and there seems to be no higher purpose than to help reveal the name of our Father.
You use a "V" sound (as well as "J" letter which confuses as to which sound it refers to) which denies the vowel breathing sounds of Hebrew, witnessed by Josephus. Genesis 2:7, Isaiah 42:5, Job 33:4
You state your assertions as if fact, and teach others with a robust voice.
should have been properly preserved.
Yes, it should have. But it wasn't. So we seek, and it is incumbant upon us, to be clear and accurate and precise, and pure. Or we just use "Lord". I prefer to help others to recognize the folly in using "Lord" how very imprecise it is as a term, how it refers both to Satan as well as to anyone else you wish.
Regarding the bride, we should set that aside. Yes, people come to his house. But being in his house doesn't mean you're his bride. There are more members to the family than just the bride and Lamb, there is also the entire body of Christ. See? Bride and bridegroom the Lamb; body of Christ. They are different designations to be clear. If you blur it all together well, then it doesn't mean as intended.
You argue that people have to be apart of the bride. Then leap to that is the new covenant. There's line, "some drink to remember, some drink to forget". Some drink as the bride (accepting the same cup as our Christ), some drink as remembrance (of his sacrifice). We are all, both, apart of the new covenant. But some as the body and some of that body called out or chosen as his bride. Same household, but we can't all be the same body member. (I am serious; what of Paul's teachings do you reject? I would like to see what truth could be discerned even yet, based on eliminating those books. I see it as a challenge, and fun. Sharpening for my mind!)
Again, I believe that any man woman or child is capable of being anointed by holy spirit and apart of the new covenant. But that is not the same as being the bride. At least I do not believe so, and have proven it to myself. The most basic is that then there is no reason to use the term "Body of Christ" as opposed to "bride" as two separate distinctions in scripture (unless there was a meaning and intent to the designations).There is plenty of evidence in Revelation that the bride is distinctly of Israelite "blood" as it were. This doesn't change that through Christ we have come near and are now fellow citizens of NEW Jerusalem (literally, "the new city of peace founded by God"). She is the city, we are the citizens. She is the bride, we are her household. He is her husband (to be), we are their family. There is the bride, and the virgins.
Trust me. I'm single, and 33 years old. This is a very emotional year for me. Suddenly awakened, and I only want one husband. I get it. I want to be (of the) bride, too. But I can't will it to be, we have to be chosen. Isaiah 4. The scriptures state when it is that the bride will be revealed, and the sons of righteousness. So while I hope in my heart of hearts to be chosen as a member of his bride, I am thrilled because I know that I am of his body. It's just the woman in me, who is single, and heartbroken (like David's psalms) who wants to be either the woman adorned by stars in Revelation, or the bride of Christ, in a similar manner as a little girl fed Disney fairy tale stories wishing on a star.
I'm leaving off here to post this. I got to your 1-4 list. I'll pick up if I can in the office. Otherwise this will be the first half, and I'll see you again when I'm online again soon!
