Youtube comments of Scented-leaf Pelargonium (@scented-leafpelargonium3366).
-
220
-
86
-
83
-
75
-
66
-
54
-
48
-
47
-
38
-
38
-
36
-
32
-
28
-
26
-
25
-
24
-
24
-
22
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
19
-
18
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
14
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
10
-
I came across a lot of beggars on a weekend to Dublin, which I was not accustomed to in the same numbers in my native Belfast in the north of Ireland. I gave a few quite generous donations as I walked in a good mood as I was on holiday, but after a while I realised I could soon spend my budget for my weekend vacation on so many begging people.
I wondered did the government not help with benefits etc like they do in Northern Ireland.
Eventually I had to say, "Sorry, I have given to quite a few others already." I noticed that when they got turned down they were no longer nice and polite. One youngish Romany girl when I said "Sorry" after she pleaded for "Change! Change!" spat at me and cursed me in her native language. She turned from a gentle smiling angel into a vile cursing demon!
I was surprised and suddenly glad that I did not give her money, as her act was obviously a ruse and covered up the vileness of her true personality, and I was only a commodity as an easy source of unearned money (earned by me, not her!), and I remember it to this day.
I was brought up to give to people even when in doubt, which my grandfather taught me, but life can teach one lessons, that makes it more difficult to discern any genuineness.
I give to charities of my choice, but now only rarely to very convincing or needy beggars.
As my mum would say, "But for the Grace of God there go I," but then I wouldn't want to rip off genuine well-meaning people in order to support a scam, but not a genuine need. ๐
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
ย @Pilot1947ย Well, it's on plenty of Christmas cards. "Jesus Christ was born in Bethlehem of Judea ('Jew-dea')." Read Matthew 2:1 in the New Testament. Have you led such a sheltered life?
The land is even called Israel by an angel in Matthew 2:19-21, where it is written:
19. "Now when Herod was dead, behold, an angel of the LORD appeared in a dream to Joseph (Yosef) in Egypt,
20. saying, 'Arise, take the young Child and His mother, and go to the LAND OF ISRAEL, for those who sought the young Child's life are dead.'
21. Then he arose, took the young Child and His mother, and came into the LAND OF ISRAEL."
Are you going to contest every Christian church and cathedral around the globe? โ๏ธโช๐โฆ
That's Who said that. Have you any better alibi? He wasn't an Arab born in Arabia. ๐
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
Why are only "Catholic" and "Orthodox" valid? The early Church was Jewish for the first 100 years until the razing of Jerusalem by the Europeans (Rome) in 135 CE, and most churches across Europe are named after Jews, such as St Peter's, St Paul's, St. Mary's etc. The first Church was not called Roman Catholic or Greek Orthodox, both named so by Gentiles, or non-Jews.
The Church of Jesus Christ or Ha-Kehilat shel Yeshua Ha-Mashiach in Hebrew was supposed to be "One New Man" made up of both Jews and Gentiles, breaking down the wall of partition, which denominationalism has only redivided by lack of acceptance and doctrinal superiority.
There are few Jews in today's churches due to many centuries of hate-filled sermons against them rooted in the Gentile early Church Fathers and by even murdering them in the Christian nations due to warped doctrine and Gentile-only Church teaching against all things "Jewish."
The word "Catholic" means "universal" which the united Church should be, not just one system that rejects all others because they feel the more superior or entitled. The word "church" (KEHILAH) means CONGREGATION or gathering of PEOPLE, not a building or an institution, and no one wing should have dominance or superiority over another or of any.
The name "Peter" means "stone" but Yeshua ("Jesus") is the Rock. Peter was MARRIED as Yeshua went to heal his mother-in-law in one of the Gospel accounts, and you don't have a mother-in-law unless you have a wife! The Papal example of enforced celibacy as a holy order is nowhere based on Scripture. Yeshua didn't marry, but He certainly didn't forbid His disciples to.
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
ย @Lui_Jackalย Well I find the term "Christian priesthood" a bit of an anomaly as the office of "priest" is not listed anywhere in the New Testament, only pastors, teachers, deacons, prophets, evangelists, bishops etc., but no more "priests," save for the spiritual application where ALL believers collectively are spiritual kings and priests and saints, but not as a title of office.
Otherwise we could call our pastors a king as well!
Only the JEWS had a functioning PRIESTHOOD, the very people you so disdainfully describe, must actually be emulated enough (at least their 'system') by Christians in order to keep the obsolete order of "priests" going!
That is why the Jews DO have something to do with conversation on the "Christian priesthood" as the Jews were ordained BY GOD to have a priesthood, but the New Testament Church ISN'T (apart from only spiritually as I have said). Jesus is a great High Priest (COHEN GADOL), but then He's got Jewish bloodline both Aaronic and Davidic. The Gentiles are only "grafted in" spiritually to the rich commonwealth of Israel as branches and Israel is the root, which Paul warns us not to despise, "for the root supports you" and not the other way round.
The early Church was 100% Jewish in Jerusalem and had a golden age of 40 years until the Temple was destroyed by Europeans from Rome in 70 CE. There still remained a vibrant Jewish Church there until the city was ethnically cleansed of Jews again by Roman Europeans in 135 CE with some 13 Jewish bishops up to that point. Then the Gentiles named the city after Hadrian.
A Jew would make much more sense of the "eucharist" you speak about because the unleavened bread and wine are symbols in the Jewish Passover with the story of the Passover lamb being slaughtered as told to their familes each year. A clear connection can be easily made if a Gentile Christian ever loved or cared enough for them to ever engage with them on the matter.
Christians who attend "mass" and celebrate "Easter" with eggs and rabbits know less about the symbolism of why the feast exists than the Jews who were part of the story of the Passover redemption. Jesus Himself as a circumcisd Jew instituted the feast for both Jews and Gentiles.
In fact it was some 15 years before Peter would even consider letting any Gentiles into the Jewish Church until God had to apprehend him by a vision in Joppa/Jaffa where I used to live in the 1990's. So the Jewish Church thrived for a good 100 years from Yeshua's ("Jesus") death until the razing of Jerusalem in 135. And now the haughty Gentiles say they are not welcome!
The majority of Jews don't yet acknowledge the Messiah but Paul clearly explains this as a "mystery" from God as He had "blinded them" for a season, but a full restoration is yet to come.
However, the majority of Gentiles also don't acknowledge the Messiah, but they are blinded by the devil, not by God. You describe the word "synagogue" as if it just pertains to Jews (in a negative way), however the word "sinagoga" in Greek or "Beit Knesset" in Hebrew is just a generic term for a "meeting house" of place of gathering, so Gentiles can meet in a "meeting house" (synagogue/sinagoga) too, it is not an exclusively Jewish word, but Gentile Christians treat it as such. Instead they prefer the word "church" to describe their buildings, but this is not the Biblical usage either. The word for "church" in Greek and in Hebrew simply means a CONGREGATION ("KEHILAH"), not a building.
The building is the synagogue! But in their eagerness to separate and distance themselves from the "perfidious Jews" Gentile Christians and the early Church Fathers tried to make this distinction, but it does not match Biblical grammar or usage. Just because it was used in the New Testament to describe where some Jews met at those times does not make the generic terminology solely a Jewish one! This antipathy to all things "Jewish" has been endemic in the Gentile Church for centuries, yet their clergy want to call themselves "priests"! Seems illogical.
The original "One New Man" Church instituted by Yeshua was for BOTH Jews AND Gentles(and still is!), not exclusively for non-Jews as you seem to suggest by saying, "Why would a Jew attend a catholic or orthodox mass and receive the euchatist?" I would say the Church is open to ALL, including all the Gentiles, who are in the majority. Why too would they attend either?
For a start those within the churches need to make them welcome with Christ's love.
That's the bit that's sadly lacking among all the self-righteousness and judgement.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
ย @nadiar.7788ย God never told Solomon to have multiple wives, but he did ask him what he did want, and he said he wanted wisdom, and as a result he was the known as the wisest man on earth, and seemingly with that God-given wisdom he accumulated a whole host of females! ๐
On the other hand, one could view it that it was the females that caused him to lose that wisdom! God never told millions of Gentile denominational Christians to hold a day on the first day of the working week to venerate the resurrection either, but men will do as THEY see fit.
If God's Son is the SAME yesterday, today and forever, how come His holy given Name, YESHUA, which means "salvation," has CHANGED COMPLETELY into the man-made transmogrified name "Jesus" which He would never have heard in His lifetime? Men will do as THEY see fit. ๐
God's Commandments are righteous and everlasting, yet I know that countless professing Christians totally disregard the Fourth Commandment concerning keeping the SEVENTH DAY holy as the Sabbath of the LORD, which even Yeshua said was "made for MAN," and which He reiterated in the New Testament by saying it was "LAWFUL to do good on the SABBATH."
I do recall Sodom & Gomorrah ("S'DOM & AMORAH") and most Christians misapply the story to be an exclusively male homosexual plot, and thus even words like "Sodomy" and "Sodomite" have entered the English vocabulary as words to describe gay people, often very pejoratively by self-righteous Christian ministers and by heterosexual homophobes within "straight" society.
This all stems down to one small word in Genesis 19:4 where the English Bibles read that "MEN" surrounded Lot's house wanting to carnally "know" the two angels who had come there.
However, Hebrew is a very chauvinistic language, and plurals are always written exclusively as MALE, unless it is a group of ONLY FEMALES, then the word will be spelt as a FEMALE PLURAL.
However, for gatherings of BOTH MALES AND FEMALES, the group would be described as MALE, as in this instance as "MEN," which in some cases could be ONLY MEN, but we can only know from context, and so we must look for it in the passage. There are different words for "MEN"/"MAN" in Hebrew, such as ADAM, GEVERIM, ISH, and ANASHIM, all with differing roots giving them different nuances. The word used here is ANASHIM, which is related to root word ANUSH, meaning "HUMAN," not just strictly "male," but more accurately describes "PEOPLE."
But this "MEN" anomaly gets repeated throughout Scripture when describing MIXED-SEX groups of people as "MEN," such as "men of Jerusalem" at the Day of Pentecost in Acts, and "men of Galilee" when the angels addressed the crowd after the Ascension on the Mount of Olives.
These were not "men only" events, even though the word "men" is used and rendered so in English. The same applies when the New Testament refers to "sons of God," it does not mean that no women will get to heaven or receive salvation. We come across this male plural in the Bible.
However, this is DOUBLY backed up in the Sodom verse (19:4) as it ALSO has the SINGULAR word for "PEOPLE," in English when it cites "PEOPLE from every quarter" (of the city), and not only "MEN"!
However, narrow-minded bigotted people will not want to hear this truth. This is the small Hebrew word "AM," as in "AM ISRAEL" or the "PEOPLE OF ISRAEL," so even if you insist that the word ANASHIM is 100% "MEN" (even though it is not elsewhere in Scripture), this secondary usage of the word "PEOPLE" clearly proves that this was an event concerning "PEOPLE," and not just a gathering of exclusively male homosexuals. Why would Lot offer his daughters to a crowd of homosexuals?! ๐ค
Rather, the fate of Sodom (and Gomorrah, for it was not linked to the event at Lot's house) was decided by God in the PREVIOUS CHAPTER when Abraham bargains with God on behalf of his nephew Lot to save the cities, but it was revealed that there were not even 5 righteous people in the two cities (apart from Abraham's relatives) and so their fate was sealed. It was already PREDETERMINED before this incident outside Lot's house. If it was only concerning that, then God owes Gomorrah an apology, for they were not even involved in it. ๐
The truth is that the whole city (or both cities) were corrupt and depraved, and although I am sure homosexuality and lesbianism was practised there alongside every other kind of sexual deviation, such as adultery, fornication, lust, orgies, incest, voyeurism, bestiality etc etc.
This crowd were bent on sexually molesting these two angelic visitors that Jude mentions as going after "strange flesh." The Hebrew grammar shows that this is a MIXED-SEX gathering.
So, you ask me to recall Sodom & Gomorrah, and I do, but not in the same exclusively homosexual way that most Gentile Christians do, who are focussed only on the word "men."
That in know way lessens the gravity of where the Bible proscribes homosexuality in both the Old and New Testaments, so it is not a "get out clause," but just an honest reading of the text.
I spent time explaining this to my father, who replied, "I still prefer it the old way"! ๐
Man-made influence holds strong, even over the authority and truth of Scripture, which is why Yeshua said that the TRADITIONS OF MEN make the Word of God of none-effect.
Thus is true here of the intetpretation of Sodom, of cancelling out the Sabbath of the LORD, in favour of the uncommanded "Sun"-day named after the SUN but not the SON, and replacing the Passover of the LORD, on which date Yeshua died and asked to remember His atoning DEATH, not ever His birth or resurrection, "as often as ye do this" i.e. celebrate Passover, not "do this as often as you like," which is basically what happens in most Gentile churches on their Roman "moveable" feast of "Easter," named after the pagan godess Eostre/Eastre with weekly and annual "Lord's Suppers" being held at breakfast time when it is illegal normally to drink wine.
God may not change, but Christians have changed much about Him and His Word in order to fit into their own doctrine. At the Name of YESHUA every knee shall bow, but who will know it? ๐คฏ
Shavua tov - have a good week! ๐ค
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
They're chanting "from the river to the sea - free Palestine" - do they know what they are saying? They are demanding the wiping out of an entire population because they are Jews!
From the Jordan River (which is Hebrew, not Arabic) to the Mediterranean Sea in Israel is the entire historical land of Canaan (about the size of Wales), known as Judea after the Tribe of Judah who lived there, but "Palestine" that they call for to be free is not actually geographically or historically "from the river to the sea", but is the ancient land of PHILISTIA, where the ancient Philistines dwelt, who used to attack and terrorise ancient Israel, the most famous one being the giant Goliath. However, this territory is not Israel or Canaan, but the narrow coastal strip of land where Gaza is today. That is "Palestine"! ๐
The Jewish boy king David felled the giant by a small pebble and a sling-shot. Israel may appear like little Jewish David among the many powerful oil-rich Arab nations that surround it, including the modern day Philistines or "Palestinians," although they are in reality migratory Arabs from Arabia, but being small does not mean that Israel will lose the battle.
Ireland backs the Muslims in this case to wipe out all traces of Christian and Jewish holy places in the Land of the Bible by the Islamists in their new Caliphate, yet the churches in Ireland are named after Jews who lived in Israel, such as St Mary's, St Joseph's etc., and they worship a Jew who was born in Israel, not "Palestine", yet they hate the land of Israel! ๐คฏ
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
ย @paulwilliams1050ย That's because I was replying to the comment stating that society had gone ahead of the Church (morally), and I made the point that the Church was only 2,000 years old.
I did not say that there were no moral codes before the Church, but the commenter alluded to the Church being the moral compass for society, which would limit it to 2,000 years, so better not to just use the Church as the only moral framework with which to quote as being superceded.
Certainly the Bible encodes God's commands as early as in the Garden of Eden, Noah the Gentile who knew the differentation between clean and unclean animals long before Sinai, boarding the unclean animals in twos and the clean animals in seven pairs (14 animals, enough for food), and of course Abraham who obeyed God's commandments and laws, so God did communicate with human beings before there was even a Church or a national Israel.
So my point was that the Church is not the only vessel through which God bestowed morality, and therefore it limits the argument somewhat to cite only an insitution that is less than 2, 000 years old. I don't dispute that ancient cultures had no sense of morality before the Church, although some, such as with Sodom, and even the last days of the Roman Empire did demonstrate a demise in morality that even God took notice of in the former case, although I would dispute that it was solely over homosexuality if the Hebrew grammar for the word "men" in English translations of the Bible is anything to go by, as ANASHIM means "people" in male plural and is related to the root word ANUSH, meaning "human," not exclusively "MALE."
That is why elsewhere, such as in Acts, the "men of Galilee" after the Ascension, and the "men of Jerusalem" on the Day of Pentecost also includes females at those gatherings, as does the male plural "sons of God," plus Genesis 19:4 also uses the English word "people" in the same verse where it mentions "people from every quarter" (of the city), which is the small Hebrew word "AM," which is the SINGULAR word for "people," as in "AM ISRAEL" or the "PEOPLE OF ISRAEL."
Read those verses using the word "people" and the event is not exclusively homosexual at all, but a crowd of lust-crazed "people" intent on sexually molesting Lot's angelic visitors in an orgy of unbridled passion and immorality, which is why Lot offered his two daughters instead, which would not be of much use to a crowd of male-only exclusively homosexual men, which most Christians interpret the passage as meaning. So if we do moralise against others, we must make sure that we are not misprojecting the original intent of the passage from which we quote it.
I do not know the arguments of Christopher Hitchens whom you accuse me of copycatting, rather I formulate my own arguments based on reading the Bible in its original Hebrew text.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
ย @Kosmos12345678ย I never said it's okay not to believe in the Son of God, did I? I said Christians are praying for other Christians, not the whole WORLD as God does by loving it.
My point is they're okay up the ladder and only concerned for their own wellbeing in their group.
That has nothing to do with belief in the Son of God but the insular self-seeking thinking of many Christians towards only themselves and their protection, and to pot with the rest of the world. At least that's how it sounds reading some of the comments on here, including cheeky ones who say how dare I? How dare they judge and condemn me so self-righteously!!! ๐คฏ
More Gentile Christians distort the Apostle John by ADDING TO SCRIPTURE that he was in the Spirit on "Sun"-day, when the Bible says no such thing, but simply the Lord's day, which "Sun"-day is never once called anywhere in the whole of Scripture, but just the first day of the working week. Some say the Lord's day in Revelation 1:10 is of the apocalypic end of days, and thus meaning the great and terrible Day of the LORD. The only day of the week that ever uses the word "Lord" in describing it is with the "Sabbath of the LORD", which is rightly by that definition "the Lord's Day." ๐
Whichever, it is it is NOT cited as "Sun"-day (named after the SUN, but not the SON) which is a CLEAR DISTORTION OF THE APOSTLE JOHN, or Yochanan, but it is not up to me to expostulate "How dare you!" Those words are for God to utter and judge righteously and without guile for every idle word that a man speaks he shall give account of it in the Day of Judgement. (!!!)
The Apostle John founded the Quartodeciman Sabbath-keeping churches of Asia Minor who remembered the Lord's death on the Biblical date of Passover, Nisan 14th in God's calendar which Yeshua (before His given Name was changed to "Jesus" by the Gentiles) kept all of His life right up until His very last day, leaving instructions to remember His sacrificial atoning DEATH (not His birth or resurrection), which alone wrought for us salvation (the meaning of His Name) by the shedding of blood as the Passover sacrifice ("therefore let us keep the feast").
He is our Passover Lamb, not our Easter Bunny! ๐ฐ
The Quartodecimans did not keep the Roman "Easter," named after a pagan goddess Eostre/Eastre, and neither did the pre-Roman Celtic Church in Britain and Ireland until the Synod of Whitby in 664 when the king of Northumbria, Oswy, was swayed by the wily Roman prelates who would have argued with the Irish missionaries about "how dare they" keep the Passover of the LORD instead of the papal "Easter"! The king capitulated and the British Church became Roman ever since, with even the so-called "Protestants" keeping the Roman feasts and 'holy days', such as the Mass of Christ ("Christ-Mass") etc without question to this very day, and DISTORTING THE APOSTLE JOHN into the bargain by reading "Sun"-day into his words when it simply is not there!
"Sun worshippers!" (By the name of their uncommanded worship day.)
Please channel your outbursts of anger elsewhere as your example of your religion is very offputting. ๐คฎ
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
ย @BillY-tw8xcย Hamas attacks Israel, which is just as bad and a brutal approach too. Israel left Gaza in 2005, so how are they occupying Gaza? The Gazans have their own democratically elected Government who are responsible for the Palestinian Arabs' affair in their territory.
All countries have to border another unless they are an island, and Israel cannot help being next to Gaza, but having a border does not mean occupation, even if there is some co-operation on the provision of things like the passage of electicity, water, and other essentials, much of which infrastructure Israel improved during their tenure there, unlike the governments of Egypt or Gaza.
The Arabs were offered a 2 state solution to adopt in 1947 by the UN, but they REFUSED IT!!! ๐คฏ
So how do you figure that that would end the conflict?! Haven't you heard their genocidal calls "from the River to Sea" which means the anihilation of the Jews and the state of Israel 100%!
Then they will be the brutal occupiers. The Arabs were massacring more than 75+ years ago, if you consider the wiping out of the ancient community of Palestinian Jews of Hebron in 1929, then Judea before Jordan annexed it illegally and re-named it the "West Bank" in order to cover up any Jewish legitimacy. No state Arab or otherwise will stop the Islamists hating the Jews. ๐
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
ย @lorrygeewhizzbang9521ย Well, not OFFICIALLY, although it does get used in some circumstances.
It is actually based on the ancient coat of arms of the province of Ulster, which is the Red Hand of Ulster on a red cross with pale yellow background, which was adapted to make a flag with a white background with the adaptation of the Crown on top of the Red Hand, but this was later withdrawn from OFFICIAL use, even though there are many of them flying in my neighbourhood as the 12th of July approaches here in County Down, but they do tend to get used by unionist Protestants so not viewed as being representative of all the citizens of Northern Ireland.
However, the Red Hand is an ancient symbol found on many Irish documents and civic buildings across Ireland, including Dublin, so it isn't strictly a Protestant symbol, but the addition of the Crown gave it a British significance. However, even the Province of Ulster has nine counties, with only six in Northern Ireland and another three in the Republic of Ireland, and the Red Hand belongs to both Irish and British regions of the Province. One's a flag, the other a coat of arms. You will not see the Northern Irish flag at any official events, only the British Union flag.
However, thank you for pointing it out. That is why it does not come up as an "emojji". ๐ฌ๐ง ๐ค
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
ย @gtaambassador744ย Well, to answer your questions without attracting further condemnation, criticism or hostility from your good self, and I am not a fan of 'labels,' I think you would have to properly define your questions using the more accurate terms "practising Christian" and "practising homosexual," as it is possible to desist from practising both.
I think whatever I answer I will still come under fire, which is why I have learned in life, especially in dealing with Christian people trying to find information on you, that one is perhaps best to keep one's own counsel, as I have suffered in the past at the hands of people for being open.
The truth is that in my life I have experienced both camps, but never the twain can meet. At age 15 I was induced into Christianity by attending a local YMCA in my home town in Northern Ireland during the years of the Protestant-Catholic "Troubles," and I was led in the "Sinner's Prayer" by a couple in their living room who were volunteers at the YMCA in June 1981. However, at such a young impressionable age I had not yet encountered adult sexual matters, which began to develop in the next two or three years after that, but not in a way that I expected, and so I had to keep my feelings (towards members of my own sex) a very big secret, as I had already heard some very vitriolic sermons on "Sodomites," (a word I never found in the Bible specifying a homosexual) and I knew that I now faced a very lonely problem on my own to make sense of.
Anyhow, as my teens progressed, after being quite a zealot giving out Christian literature in my town in the shelters where drunks hung out and in the bars and pubs as an underage minor, I realised that some of my former school friends were talking quite openly about being "gay" etc.
It was not overnight, but just as a young heterosexual youth (if you can remember) starts to feel more attractions to the opposite sex, this was happening to me, but not with the opposite sex.
No amount of prayers seemed to change those feelings to become solely towards women, even though I had plenty of opportunities with very many pretty girls, as I was the better looking of my younger twin brother and me. After a bitter divorce between my parents, I chose to remain with my father and brother, while my sister and mother left on Christmas Day when we were 12 to another man who would eventually become my stepfather. It was not a Christian home.
I was the first Christian in my family, but within the course of time, my father, brother, aunt, uncle, cousins and grandmother all became Christians being somewhat influenced by myself, except for my mother and younger sister who had left to live in Great Yarmouth, England.
My mother invited me to come to England to visit around that time, and I ended up getting a summer chef's job there in a holiday park. However, my boss there was gay and lived with his partner, and they were friendly with a lesbian couple who worked there as bar staff, and they often invited me to sit with them after work. I had also been cycling some miles to attend a little Assemblies Of God church there, but I was beginning to get an increasing conflict with my inner feelings, which I could see other people openly expressing in front of me, and with the teaching of the Bible which said these things were wrong. I returned back home to Dad's in N. Ireland after the summer and my boss had given me a black & white copy of a newspaper called Gay News which listed pubs and venues in Northern Ireland etc., which was found wrapped up in a towel in my drawer in my bedroom by grandmother looking for laundry. My father approached me that day with an ultimatum. "No son of mine is gay! This is a Christian house! Burn the newspaper or leave!" I said that burning the newspaper wouldn't solve anything, and I left. I was 18.
I never lived with my father again.
After this a school friend who was gay told me of an elderly gay landlord just across the road on the seafront of where my father's house was, and he could see where I was living. Many gay people frequented that house and soon I realised that I could not be gay and go to church.
Northern Ireland is a very judgemental place to live, and I was not attracted to the narrow pulpitism that emanated from any congregations I had attended, and the hateful way they spoke of gay people, calling them "queer" and other pejoratives did not attract me to their brand.
I ended up moving back to England where I got a job as Sous Chef in a good hotel, and my mother and sister ended up being supportive of my homosexual conundrum, and I ended up in a two-year relationship that ended rather dramatically after I found a letter from someone else under the stair carpet. I moved in with a Christian couple who rented me a room and I attended a small Elim Church there. I planned to return to N.I., but thought of a break in between and looked at the prices of a Holy Land Tour to Israel, but they were all very expensive, so I ignored that.
Then another Christian guy renting a room in the same place handed me a Christian magazine called Jobs Abroad. It covered mostly clergy and missionary positions (excuse the pun) and I was about to set it down when I spotted a job for Chef/Catering Manager, Israel. I ended up writing off and I got a reply from the Anglican Church's 200-year-old Mission To The Jews saying that the post had been taken. The magazine was already 3 months out of date. However, they continued, another vacancy had opened up at our Guest House in Tel-Aviv, so if you still feel led, please apply. Soon I had an interview, and after training set off to live a missionary life in Israel.
After 4 years I met a young Israeli on the beach and we became friends. I was in my twenties.
At this point I was attending a group led by the Pastor of the Messianic Hebrew Jewish Christian Congregation or "Kehilah" that met on the premises where I was chef, and the group was for Christians (Jewish, Hebrew-speaking) struggling with homosexuality, about seven of us, both men and women. After a few weeks they said I needed to open up more, but with this friendship now developing into a relationship with the young Israeli guy, I knew I could lose my job.
The pastor assured me that anything said within those four walls would go no further, and so I shared that I had met someone, but was not sure where it was going. I was due that week to go back to the UK at the 4-year juncture for a 3-month furlough, and they promised they would pray for me. In London I was able to stay with a Christian who had been a volunteer in Israel after I arrived in from the flight. The next morning I received a phone call from my boss from Israel asking about the relationship with the Israeli. The pastor told him everything. I lost my job.
However, I got a job as Chef de Partie in King Solomon Fine Dining Restaurant at the Hilton Tel-Aviv where I fed the rich and famous, including both British & Israeli Prime Ministers. I felt betrayed by the pastor and stayed away from Christian congregations while adapting to life in Israeli society, staying another 6 years, with a Filipino partner for 5 of those years. He ended up becoming a Christian by listening to my Gospel CDs and reading my books and literature.
After 10 years I returned home and bid Tel-Aviv goodbye or "shalom." I connected with the Irish Branch of the Missionary Society I had worked for in Israel and got voted onto their Committee and I got asked to do talks about Israel, do Passover meals and to teach basic Hebrew.
For about 10 years I remained totally celibate and got involved in Messianic Jewish work by holding Sabbath meetings and teachings from a Hebraic perspective, and even testified on television about about being a Christian and struggling with homosexuality. The local newspapers published the story, but twisted my words somewhat to make it more favourable to the LGBT community, and as a result many Christians shunned me. That still goes on.
My love affair with the Church and Christians was beginning to wear thin. Next the Messianic pastor confronted me about being gay, due to some gossip that had broken out. I admitted the fact, but assured him that I was living a celibate Christian life, but he said, "Until we can trust you, we need to ask you not to come to the congregation." Christianity & me did not mix!
I attended an online Christian Counselling group during the Covid period, similar to the one in Tel-Aviv, and a Brazilan guy asked for my e-mail and we corresponded, but it awoke something in me that reminded me of my loneliness. Christians continued to shun and avoid me.
In the end I realised that I will never fit in with these people, no matter what I do.
I later met a person with a similar story to me and we connected. That was 2 years ago and we are both happy. The atrraction back to the condemnation of Christianity is not convincing.
I hope that answers your questions, but most complain if a reply is too long.
Shalom ๐ฟ๐
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
ย @83croissantย There's no pagan reason for the DATE, but there might be in some of the naming. The Church doesn't use the DATES given to us by God in the Bible anyhow, but prefers to tie these events to days of the week instead. Passover is the date, which falls on Nisan 14th, (which starts at sunset tomorrow when Yeshua would have met for the "Last Supper," but the Church will commemorate it on a day of the week two days later on Maundy Thursday).
The following daylight part of Nisan 14th will continue on Wednesday, which was the period during which the crucifixion took place. It is all in one 24 hour sunset-to-sunset day the TWO events of the Last Supper and the crucifixion, but with the Gentiles moving the timing of God's days in Genesis 1:5: where "... the evening and the morning were the first day," using the lights in the sky to divide the days, which the papal calendar now does at midnight instead, thus it takes TWO DAYS for denominational Christians to commemorate the Last Supper & the crucifixion.
I wouldn't call the calendar in the Bible "Jewish" as other tribes of Israel would have used it, not only Judah, and even before the Jews the Scriptures seemed to have days and years as cited in Genesis and elsewhere. The Quartodeciman churches of Asia Minor kept the date of Nisan 14th and they were not Jewish, so I prefer to call it the Biblical calendar, as it is used in the Bible.
Plus the "Jewish" calendar begins with Creation & Adam, which is clearly PRE-Jewish.
The lunislolar calendar you mention now includes "moveable feasts" as Easter has to chase Passover every year, but only using words like vernal equinox etc to avoid even naming it. So the Jews are not in vogue in Church circles, even though the entire early Church was Jewish! ๐
Yes, the date (or 'day') was set in Rome long before Christianity came to Northumbria, but it was also rejected across Asia Minor by the Sabbath-keeping churches founded by John the Apostle, from whom the Celtic Church in Ireland and Britain took their practices from, eshewing the rulings of the Council of Nicea for some 300 years, until the Synod of Whitby in 664.
So the Irish had THEIR date set too! Only theirs was based on actual dates in Scripture.
God's feasts haven't moved yet, but the Church's have in order to pass over Passover. ๐คฏ
2
-
ย @1cruzbat1ย Yes, there is still freedom of religion, which means less freedom for others. I can ignore or not celebrate, but these things were never a part of the early Church, so everyone could meet together in one accord as there were no other distractions, additions or differences.
Nowadays one has to suffer such man-made inventions as Lent, Ash Wednesday, Mother's Day, which one cannot avoid as they become ritualistic fixtures on the yearly calendar of the Church.
That is NOT freedom of religion, but the opposite with all sorts of things being foisted onto us.
I don't think Yeshua the Founder of the Church would uphold half of these traditions either, as He said that the traditions of men made the Word of God of none-effect. His Name was later changed to "Jesus" by the non-Jews, but He would not ever have heard "Jesus" in His lifetime.
Enjoy your flowers. At least they are created by God! ๐ผ๐ธ๐ป๐น๐ต๐ท๐บ ๐ฟ๐โ๐๐
2
-
ย @MagnaMater2ย The word "spring" as in jump or skip is "PESACH" in ancient Hebrew, which is the word translated into English as "PASSOVER," which also falls each Spring, and is often related to Easter, in that it originates in the story of the Israelites in slavery in Egypt, and they daubed the blood of a spring lamb on the doorposts of their houses which protected them from the Angel of Death as it "passed over" their houses, thus the spectre of death "skipped" or "jumped" over them, which feast day when the Passover lambs were later being offered as a sacrifice in the Temple in Jerusalem that Yeshua, later re-named "Jesus" by the Gentiles or non-Jews, died on, thus He became the symbol of the Passover lamb, as He shed His blood in the same manner, and thus the Christian religion was born, at Springtime, which gives new birth, rather than at winter when many celebrate the birth of Yeshua, although no actual date is given.
So the Spring is full of optimism and symbolism, and Passover is an ancient part of that. ๐ฟ
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
ย @corvusglaive4804ย It is not up to heterosexuals, whether they be Conservative or not, to decide the fate or practice of another segment of society made up of capable thinking human beings that can conduct their own affairs, likes and dislikes, and ways to establish a relationship.
Why should gay people have to get permission from heterosexuals to do the same in ceremony what they do without having to check with the gay community if it is 'acceptable' in THEIR eyes?!
Marriage is as much an exclusively heterosexual institution as much as paying tax is just a heterosexual thing. A rule and an obligation can apply to any group, not just a high "elite."
Heterosexuals don't "own" marriage. They may have practised it up until now in order to have their unions recognised in public before their community, friends and family, but with new laws recognising the UNIONS of same-sex couples, there is no logical reason why they should be refused an identical basic right, and not to accept what heterosexuals have decided for them as "their own version of it," the "their" being the heterosexuals who are offering the "version."
Why is marriage created for heterosexual couples, while "civil partnerships" created for same-sex couples? Who is doing the "creating" of these things and deciding who gets what?
If gays can't marry, then let all heterosexuals just have "civil partnerships," because the gay community have decided that that is what is to be set up for them as a new "version" of marriage. Then everyone would be equal without marriage, but still forging life-long unions.
What's good for the goose is good for the gander, and why should one group of society project their views and protestations over another group in telling adults how to unify relationships?! ๐
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
The book of James is so named to flatter King James by having his name in the Bible. This Jewish author and brother of Yeshua, later re-named "Jesus" by the Gentiles, was called Ya-akov or Jacob in its angicised form, not "James." Mind, you the 'name' of "Jesus" did not exist in 1611 when the KJV was published as the letter "J" did not yet exist in the English alphabet, so it would have been rendered "Iesus" via the Latin via the Greek "Iesous" but all ignore the actual Hebrew Name YESHUA, meaning "salvation," that He was given by the Angel of the LORD in the Bible.
Thus the transmogrified 'name' of "Jesus" which has no intrinsic meaning of its own in English is only 400 years old, and was never heard of for the first 1,600 years of the Church, never mind by Yeshua Himself during His lifetime. Yet Christians blindly sing songs like "How sweet the name of "Jesus" sounds in a believer's ear" etc. But how does it sound in Yeshua's ear? ๐
The KJV also erroneusly adds the pagan word "Easter" into the book of Acts in place of the original Bibical word "Passover" the word that God gave and Yeshua used for this feast.
There have been many adjustments to the KJV over the centuries, such as adding the newly-invented 'name' of "Jesus" with a "J" over the previous 1611 "Iesus" so it is hardly inerrant as it is translated as all foreign language versions are by non-perfect human beings, whereas the original text such as the Hebrew 'Tanach' or "Old" Testament has much less chance of error.
However even differing interpretations of the original text can result in variance in doctrine.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@maisobh9390 : The capital of "Palestine" or historically in the Bible PHILISTIA is the city of Gaza, capital of the Philistines who always picked fights and fought bitter wars with Israel. It is the Philistines who sent Delilah to deceive Samson the Strongman of Israel by cutting his hair and getting him killed, and it was in Philistia that the giant Goliath came against the shepherd boy David in his might, later to become the illustrious King David of Israel but little Jewish David slayed the boasting giant with a sling and a smooth pebble between the eyes in God's strength.
This region has a warring history and Israel has always had many enemies, but they ALWAYS survived. There are no Sumerians, Parthians, Medes, Assyrians, Hittites, Amalekites, Edomites, Moabites, Canaanites, Girgashites, and all the other "ites" including the Philistines today, who either came against Israel or tried to take their land, but never succeeded and became nothing.
But Israel is still a people before the LORD God of Israel. They come from the same forefather as their Semitic cousins the Arabs, namely Abraham/Ibrahim (Avraham), and the Arabs dwelt in Arabia and the Jews in Judea. What is unfair about that? But now the Arabs want Judea too!
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
ย @TheJohnnyJohnnyย Well, I would check the Bible, not the Talmud. It is read worldwide by Jews and non-Jews alike, upheld in Courts of Law as a symbol of truth and taught in churches and cathedrals across the globe, and the history in it is borne out by modern archaeology.
That Book clearly defines the nuances between Canaan, Israel & Judaea & Philistia, from which the true colonialists from Europe get their label Palestine named after the ancient Philistines.
I'm sure a clear reading of its pages will help with your confusion concerning colonialism, as it is far from a fairy tale, but is one of the greatest realities concerning the future as well as the past. Israel's exiles have always been followed by promises of return to their land, and this current movement is the fulfilment of some 2,000 years of wandering, persecution & murder.
"For the time to favour Zion has come."
"When the LORD shall build up Zion, He shall appear in His glory."
๐ซ๐ซ๐ซ ๐ ๐๐๐
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
ย @learningnevaends6026ย I am not saying anything of the sort as the application of the video is about a Christian mother objecting Christian terms to what her child does in school. ๐
My response was to point out that those same Christians indocrinate children with agendas of their own, albeit a religious belief or moral outlook, but it is still being foisted onto children in the same forceful and insidious way. If you want to apply the argument to other religions that is up to you, but I did not feel the need to as the subject was to do with a Christian's objections, not that of another faith. Why are you trying to drag me into a bigger argument that is not there?
If it were a Muslim objecting in the video, then I might respond concerning a madrassa, but it is not, and considering it is only my own life experience to be forced to go to "Sunday School" in my culture, bribed by sweets and "prizes" in order to indocrinate me, that is all I can really refer to.
I'm sure if a Muslim was concerned about madrassas they would express it, but very few adherents to a religion are brave or free enough to think beyond their indocrinated state.
That's why it took Someone like Yeshua, whom the Gentiles later changed into "Jesus," to object to religious strongholds and hypocrisy which thrive whenever man-made tradition takes over.
These self-righteous religious always act like the Pharisees trying to catch people out and trip them up by hypothetical arguments that have nothing to do with God, but is just THEIR opinion.
2
-
2
-
ย @dareemmanuel6079ย There are at least five different Hebrew words rendered as "Law" in English translated copies of the Bible, and they are not all the same in meaning, nuance or application.
For instance a HOK or HUKKIM is a law or rule pertaining the Temple, the Tabernacle and in particular blood sacrifices that were nailed to the Tree, as the New Testament points out.
When I lived in Israel and something "illegal" was being referred to, it was called "LO HOKI," or "not legal/lawful." However the word most commonly attacked by Gentile denominational Christians as "LAW" is the Hebrew word "TORAH," which is the rough term also given to the first five books of the Bible, but its intrinsic meaning is "TEACHING," which does not sound so legalistic as "LAW." In fact my Hebrew teacher in Tel-Aviv was called a "MORAH," which is the linked root word for "TEACHER," which is also the intrinsic meaning of the name of the site where the Temple was built and where also Yeshua taught in its precincts, which was Mount Moriah, as "MORI-YAH" means "The LORD is My Teacher." Thus in Hebraic terms the TORAH or LAW OF GOD, is more accurately understood as the TEACHING OF GOD, and even Yeshua's TEACHING in the New Testament is the very same word TORAH rendered into Greek, and then into English often as "DOCTRINE." So you are RIGHT to say that the LAW is a (school) TEACHER, as the Scriptures are actually affirming its intrinsic meaning and purpose, to TEACH us about God and about sin.
The Bible says that sin is a trangression of the Law, so if the School Master has gone away, as you put it, then you are saying that GOD'S TEACHING ("TORAT ELOHIM") is a worthless thing, and if TORAH is rejected by Christians under grace through faith, then that would include the teaching of Yeshua too ("TORAT YESHUA"), as the two are bound together in the same meaning & word.
If Law isn't necessary now, as you say, then there is no recorded measure for right and wrong, and we all do what we feel is right in each man's own eyes, which is a Biblical description of when men stray from God, which makes Gentile Christians basically LAW-LESS, the one thing that Yeshua will cite on that day when those who did great things in His Name (most likely the man-made "Jesus" over the God-given YESHUA, meaning "salvation"), "I never KNEW you. Depart from Me, you who practise LAW-LESS-NESS." Being saved does not cancel out God's TEACHING, which most Gentile Christians refer to in rather a limited and negative understanding as "LAW."
God's TEACHING/"LAW"/ "TORAH" may be written in our hearts now because we heed it and honour it, not because we reject it, ignore it, break it, or teach that it has been done away with, as the written LAW/"TORAH"/"TEACHING" still stands. Yeshua came as no one can keep it 100%.
But that does not mean that God's standards have changed, but that through faith we obey.
There is already enough confusion about what is inspired by the Holy Spirit or not with so many differing demoninations and sects all claiming inspired truth direct from the Holy Spirit, yet they strongly disgree. A house divided against itself cannot stand. That is why God gave the Bible in written format as no one can argue with or doubt the written word, yet many make it obsolete, by refusing to honour or heed GOD'S LAW or TEACHING, which Yeshua said not one jot or tittle would pass away from until ALL BE FULFILLED, and that will not be until He returns again.
You also have some knowledge, which for me too is refreshing. However I have difficulty with your analysis and matching it to what the Hebrew Bible says in its original intention & meaning.
You say that the LAW/"TEACHING"/"TORAH" was "never final," so what will God use to on Judgement Day to assess those who have fallen into sin, or will He just rely on the Holy Spirit?
Noah also found GRACE in the eyes of the LORD in the Old Testament BEFORE THE LAW ("TEACHING") was written down at Sinai, yet He knew the distinctions between CLEAN & UNCLEAN animals, as God boarded them upon the Ark in TWOS & SEVENS, the smaller number for UNCLEAN scavenging animals just for breeding purposes, as they were created to play a vital ecological role in cleaning the planet of detritus and rotting carcasses, whereas the CLEAN animals were boarded in larger numbers, seven being the number of perfection in the Bible, because God permitted them to eat as FOOD, long before there was any written LAW/"TEACHING," so Noah must have had it WRITTEN ON HIS HEART, just as you say Christians today do under grace. You mention Abraham, but the Bible says that Abraham kept God's Laws and Commandments, so he wasn't as LAW-LESS as today's modern Christians boast to be.
You told me not to limit the story next time and to give the full picture, so I hope this is a bit fuller for you for you to analyse and compare to Scripture to see if it contradicts God's Word.
Shalom-peace ๐ฟ๐
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Is Hebron (Hebrew placename) not the burial place of Abraham, Isaac & Jacob and their wives who were the Patriarchs and Matriarchs of the Jewish/Israel nation, so how is their presence there "illegal"? Most of the placenames in the Holy Land are in Hebrew, not Arabic.
The Arabs lived in Arabia, and the Jews lived in Judea, each area named after the people, but now the Arabs claim Judea too, saying the Jews belong nowhere. They are both Semitic ("Shemitic") peoples (from Noah's son Shem) and descend from a common Patriarch Abraham and both were allocated land in the Middle East. Surely both peoples have a right to live in their historic lands. The problem is the worldview that only Arabs can live in the Middle East and have erased the Hebrew name of Judea and Israel into replacement terms of "West Bank" & "Palestine," named after the Philistines, not the Jews/Israel, which was the land of Philistia which roughly corresponds with the coastal Gaza strip today, not the whole land of Canaan.
Before 1948, under both British and Turkish governance, the Arabs and Jews were both called "Palestinian," the name never only pertaining to the Arabs only, and many Jews living there today had parents and grandparents who were "Palestinian" so it should really be "Arab Palestinians" in these political debates, just as the term "anti-Semitic" cannot apply to an Arab as he is Semitic too. But the world prefers the 'softer' Semitic term rather than the more accurate "anti-Jewish."
Even modern Bible maps use titles like "Palestine in the Time of Jesus" which is innacurate, if not biased, as the Gospel of St Matthew clearly describes an angel telling St Joseph when the Holy Family had fled to Egypt for protection from the killing of Jewish babies in Bethlehem (a Jewish town where King David was born), that he was to take the Child and His Mother and return to the "Land of Israel," (not "Palestine"), yet the Bible publishers write "Palestine"!
Political debate is important, but so is the correctness of the terminology and names we use if we want to stick to the truth of history and not be swayed by one-sided rhetoric & propaganda.
I'm sure there are many "Palestinian" Jews who can remember their families' homes in Hebron (Hevron) before the Arab massacre of the Jewish community there in 1929. And that was long before there was a State of Israel. There are grievances in every conflict, but dig into Jewish history as well to get a bit of balance and you might find that the Arabs haven't fared as badly.
I worked with both peoples for over a decade and they have more in common that you'd think.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
ย @christinapsalmist4267ย But truth is often twisted in their message and practice with so many man-made creeds and traditions on top just like the religious Pharisees in Yeshua's day.
He did not invent the Mass of Christ ("Christ-Mass"), "Easter" named after the pagan goddess Eostre/Eastre, "Lent", the abolition of the Sabbath rest day on the 7th or last day of the week, or the relegation of the Passover of the LORD on Nisan 14th, the date upon which Yeshua died, to be forgotten, when Yeshua asked to remember His sacrificial atoning DEATH "as often as ye do THIS" (i.e. commemorate the date of Passover), not "do this as often as you like," which is what badically happens in most Gentile denominational churches today with mini "Lord's Suppers" being held at breakfast time when it is illegal elsewhere to buy or consume wine in public, and often with leavened bread instead of unleavened bread as leaven is a symbol of sin which was why the unleavened bread which was the bread of affliction for the Israelites in Egypt is the perfect representation for His sinless body broken and afflicted for us to bring us salvation.
The abomination of eating unclean animals and sewage-imbibing shellfish is also ignored by grace-filled Christians who without the Sabbath and God's law are both restless and lawless.
If truth is to be preached, taught or shared, it must not be tampered with or added onto in these ways, otherwise it is like adding brick dust into a bag of flour as the product you are promoting is adulterated to a point that it can become worthless. The truth will set you free, but not error! ๐คฏ
1
-
ย @Leira-et9bwย I don't see the word RITUALLY in there. Adding that gives a doctrinal slant. We are not to add to God's word. It's the same when they add the word CEREMONIAL to the Hebrew word TORAH usually negatively rendered as LAW by Gentile translators, although it's intrinsic meaning in Hebrew is the much more positive "TEACHING" from the related root word "MOREH/MORAH" meaning "TEACHER" as in Mount Moriah, which is MORI-YAH, God is my Teacher.
It is just the word "LAW" ("TORAH"/TEACHING"), not "CEREMONIAL LAW" in the original text.
Translators can have a doctrinal agenda when choosing words in order to give an impression that will influence the reader into his/her persepective, but not necessarily what God wrote.
For example there is no "RITUALLY" in the same verse in the NKJV where it says: "Hear and understand: Not what goes into the mouth defiles a man; but what comes out of the mouth, this defiles a man." It wasn't about what people eat, but about commiting sins by one's mouth.
He was previously dealing with a bunch of religious hypocrites keeping traditions of men, but not of God, such as religious people today can just as easily add their own vain traditions.
As Yeshua pointed out in vs 9: "And in vain they worship Me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men." Such additional traditions include Christ-Mass, Easter, Lent etc.
We should not quote Scripture with the main purpose to dilute and cancel out God's law.
For in that day, He will say (to professing Christians who did great works like casting out demons etc), "Depart from Me, ye who work LAW-LESSNESS." You can only be lawless if you disregard or minimize God's law/"teaching" for sin is a trangression of the law, not just a twinge of our own conscience. Adding the word "RITUAL" suggests that one is obeying God in vain.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
ย @maxmentone5373ย I think you will find they are the one and the same. Read Scripture instead of fantasizing in your own head to suit your preferred rationale. Yeshua prayed to the LORD God of Israel, and He was the King of the Jews, the Lion of the Tribe of Judah, and Messiah of Israel.
It is the devil who opposes Israel and the Jews for it is through them that God chose to send His Son to provide salavation for the world and He says that unless the sun, moon and stars cease to exist then Israel will always remain a nation before Him. You view is human prejudice.
For every idle word that a man shall speak, he shall give account of it in the Day of Judgement.
Remember your statement above, for even the Gates of Pearl through which one will enter if they get to heaven will have the names of the Twelve Tribes of Israel on them, no one else. ๐
You undermine God's supreme authority and right to determine HIS will, not yours, and that same "Jesus" who was named by His Father God YESHUA, meaning "salvation", will return to Jerusalem for His own people the Jews, which is why the devil hates them, as he wants to thwart God's plan and blinds and decieves gullible people out there to hate them as well.
He will return as conquering King wiping out all of Israel's enemies who come against her at the Battle of Armageddon, just outside His hometown of Nazareth as prophesied in Scripture.
Everything you have said is utter hate-filled garbage and will be judged by Yeshua Himself! ๐
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
ย @ahintofhish07ย Well obviously the authorities knew the Jewish family posed a much lesser risk to them than the people who are hostile towards Israel and many are ready to do harm.
Security is a pain in the neck and an inconvenience but it is there to save lives. If you have a problem with it maybe you should direct your disatisfaction/anger to those who actively oppose Israel, even though it was legally founded by the United Nations. If haters stop so does security.
There were always two long queues under scrutiny and in zoned off areas in airports when I travelled by air and they were only for Northern Ireland and Israel, two countries I have lived in.
I grew up with security in Northern Ireland just like Israeli children do and I did not realise that other countries did not have this until I went to England and stood at a shop door waiting to be searched but no one was there and there was more than just one entrance and exit but many doors! The only thing that causes security is hatred and terror attacks, no other reasons.
No one wants to inconvenience anyone or discriminate against any person, but risk is risk.
The Arabs are famous for hating Israel & attacking, which is why the Jews don't trust them.
Most Israelis I knew were moderate and simply wanted to live in peace. Arabs wanted Jihad.
As they say in Israel you don't make peace with your friends, you make peace with your enemies, and Israel only has to lose ONE war! Not all Muslims are suicide bombers, but all suicide bombers are Muslim, in Israel anyhow. I've never heard of a Jewish suicide bomber yet.
Both sides need to compromise, but while "from the river to the sea" remains a watchword the stalemate will remain, or worse. The sad thing is as cousins they both have a lot in common!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
This is all reported very wrong! Queen Elizabeth was standing in for her husband HRH The Duke of Edinburgh, Prince Philip, who would normally inspect the guards on such occasions, but he had been suffering ill health and was standing down from a lot of his royal duties. When the Duke does this, he always allows the visiting head of state to go before him as a matter of courtesy. On this occasion Her Majesty stood in for the Duke of Edinburgh herself, and so it was right for her to let President Trump proceed before her, and the President would have been briefed beforehand that this was the correct procedure. However, not surprisingly, Mr Trump did wonder for a minute by his momentary pause if this was indeed the case, as it may not have felt right, but the Queen reassuringly led him in the right direction as he was doing the correct thing.
These few seconds of hesitance were broadcast around the world as the President being ignorant and rude, when in fact he was just showing his second nature of being sensitive.
If the Queen was meant to proceed, she would have done so no problem, but acting as the Duke's stand-in the protocol was correct, but the world's media were ignorant of these facts, or refused to acknowledge so as to get a bigger headline. It shows how a lie is half-way around the world before the truth can get its boots on! I rarely trust the media at its word nowadays.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
ย @lorrygeewhizzbang9521ย I know Northern Ireland isn't the same as Israel as I lived in both of them, and there is antagonism about them both too. The flag of Israel is not actually a flag either, but an ensign, and is the symbol of the Jewish prayer shawl or tallit, by the two blue bands and white background, and the so-called "Star of David" (by non-Jews) is called the Magen David, which means "Shield of David" in Hebrew, just like the Ulster coat of arms is shield shape.
Both Ireland and Israel had kingdoms in their ancient past as most nations had kings in times long ago, which would have geographically included the north of Ireland without the borders.
The Northern Irish flag that you mentioned is the only flag in the world apart from Israel to have the six-pointed star in their middle, which is another difference from the Ulster Coat of Arms.
In my experience, flags always caused tensions. Northern Ireland is a kingdom today under King Charles III, although if you're from Ireland you will have your own opinions about what that means I guess. All I know is I can't help into what I was born into, despite all the bitternesses.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@NicolaRoberts-x3vย So why did He keep the Jewish Feast of Passover from the age of 12 making the pilgrim journey with His parents and even dying on that Jewish Feast Day after having a Jewish Passover Meal with His Jewish disciples, and keeping the Feast of Tabernacles (the Great Feast) and the Jewish Festival of Hanukkah, the Feast of Dedication in the winter as described in the Gospel of John (Yochanan)? Hardly ignoring the Jewish faith by doing all that.
Go by the facts that is actually written in the Scriptures rather than your own assumptions which can be biased by anti-Jewish sentiment, discrimination and Christian resentment. ๐
The Jews practised love and forgiveness too if you read the Commandments of the LORD. ๐
Who said I have a claim over "Jesus", as you re-name Him? ๐ค Yeshua, as His Father named Him through the Angel of the LORD, meaning "salvation", died for all of sinful humanity and Gentiles are no better than Jews, for the Gentiles clearly hammered the nails into His hands and feet. ๐
At least they can claim that, just as they blame every Jew alive today for what happened 2,000 years ago. What is wrong with being Jewish by faith? Yeshua is a Jew & God is the God of Israel. โก
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
ย @ac1646ย I was not using it for a great source of study, but to compare how later so much gets omitted. I was studying the history of an Anglican Mission in the Holy Land which was mentioned in the 1911 edition, but is no longer mentioned. Also in researching the pre-Roman Sabbath-keeping Celtic Church of my home town in northern Ireland I had to go to the earliest sources as the later Catholic and Protestant historians did much embellishment and even modified in order to prop up their own doctrine, such as St Columba dying on Iona on the Sabbath (7th day) which was considered auspicious in a Sabbath-keeping community (before the Synod of Whitby in 664), but Catholic historians write "Lord's Day" which the average author would not discern, in an attempt to imply that Columba was a "Sun"-day keeper, which he wasn't, but eschewed the edicts of the Councils of Laodicea and Nicea in 321 & 325 respectively that changed the Sabbath to "Sun"-day and the Passover of the LORD with the new Roman "Easter".
So, yes, I am wary of differing editions and sources, and that includes YouTube commenters.
I am very aware of the scourge of Islamist history revisionism having lived in Israel for 10 years.
I am very careful before I make a comment that it can be borne out by fact and not fantasy.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
ย @hanselchua7969ย Why don't YOU distinguish between moral and ceremonial law, mosaic law under Christ?! The word you read rendered into English as "law" has 5 Hebrew different words.
They are not the same, plus the choice of the word "law" gives a very legalistic tone to it, whereas in the original language of the text it has the intrinsic meaning of "TEACHING," which means that Gentile denominational Christians claim not to be under God's TEACHING ("LAW"), as even the New Testament describes it as a SCHOOLMASTER, and schoolmasters are generally thought to be good in a moral society, not something that society would agree to do away with (plus Yeshua declared that He did not come to cancel out the "law" ("TEACHING") but to "fulfil," which means to keep the obligations of it to the nth degree, so fulfilling does not mean cancelling out.
The word TORAH which is the most common word rendered as "law" in English, is related to the word MOREH/MORAH (M/F) which means TEACHER, and TORAH simply means TEACHING.
This is seen in the naming of Mount Moriah as HAR MORI-YAH, or the Mountain of the LORD's Teaching, which was where the Temple was built, and where God TAUGHT Abraham a lesson concerning sacrificing his son Yitzhak ("Isaac") and where ultimately Yeshua taught in the Temple precincts, as the TEACHING of Yeshua is the SAME WORD as the word used for the OT "LAW" which is "TORAH," and which often gets translated as "doctrine" in some Bible versions.
So if we reject the TORAH ("LAW"/"TEACHING") of God in the Old Testament just because it is termed "law" in English, then we must reject Yeshua's TEACHING/TORAH as it is the same word!
There are NO SUCH TERMS in the Bible as MORAL LAW & CEREMONIAL LAW, as these are extra-Biblical man-made terms and get brought into conversations in an attempt to remove God's Law, but they are not in the Bible, and where they do occur, with some versions putting "ceremonial" concerning laws and clean and unclean animals etc, which is ADDED by men onto the Bible text in order to support their own doctrine, a thing that God warns people not to do.
The Bible says that sin is a transgression of the Law. How do we define sin without God's Law?
No wonder people come up with wrong conclusions on these things. One other word for "law" is "HOK" or "HUKKIM" in plural, which are rules and ordinances pertaining to the Temple and to BLOOD SACRIFICES, which the New Testament says have been nailed to the Tree, but that does not mean the Ten Commamdments of the Law of God or TORAH/TEACHING, only "HUKKIM."
Yeshua said, "If you love Me, keep My Commamdments," and Yeshua rested on the Sabbath.
The distinction between clean & unclean animals permitted to eat were cited by the Gentile Noah, long before there were any Jews or Israelites, and long before the "law" at Mount Sinai.
The Bible says that Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD. Surely as a Gentile He should have refused to listen to God about those distinctions and tell Him that they are only for Israelites!
Rather he boarded the UNCLEAN animals in TWOS purely for breeding purposes and the CLEAN animals in PAIRS OF SEVEN (14 animals) as they were needed in larger numbers for FOOD.
If Noah had have been a denominational "Christian" he would have eaten the UNCLEAN animals and they would have been extinct now, but He was OBEDIENT, unlike LAW-LESS Christians today.
If the unclean animals were "ceremonially" unclean, then this was God's great opportunity to wipe these "unclean" animals out, but they were called GOOD by God at creation, so they were not detestable in and of themselves, but because they were created with the express purpose of cleaning the planet as scavengers of any detritus, rotting carcases and even waste faeces (as pigs are known to do). Instead God kept them but instructed not to eat their flesh or even to touch their carcasses in some cases, due to high level of toxins in their flesh.
Why you think this is not a law for mankind from the Noachide laws that pertain to Gentiles, and which Christians can ignore putting their own health and the health of others at risk, when even my college tutors when I was training to be a Hilton Chef taught me that PORK & SHELLFISH were "HIGH RISK" foods, whereas the Bible does not even describe them as "food."
Also the doctors after my kidney transplant told me not to eat PORK or SHELLFISH due to the dangers it could pose for me, but denominational Christians say you can eat anything at all!
The Law is called "Mosaic" because Moshe ("Moses") was the channel through which God delivered the written law ("TORAH"/"TEACHING"), but he was not the author of it. God was the Author, so more correctly it is GOD'S LAW or TORAH/TEACHING, and the "law under Christ" that you describe is simply the TEACHING /TORAH ("LAW") of the Messiah, and both are in vogue.
It is only Gentile denominational Christians who disobey the New Testament by JUDGING OTHERS, when the Bible clearly warns NOT to judge anyone in food or drink (such as with eating clean animals according to the Scriptures), or in regard to a religious festival or "MOED," which is an "Appointed Time" set in place by God, such as Passover etc upon which day Yeshua was crucified, or concerning a NEW MOON, or Biblical 30-day lunar months in God's calendar, which are mentioned in the new heavens and new earth in Isaiah 66, and of course the SABBATH, which in the original text is singular, not "sabbaths," as there is only one Sabbath, apart from ANNUAL SABBATHS, such as the MOADIM or "Appointed Times," yet Gentile Christians still take me and others to task concerning these very things that the Bible tells us not to judge about!
Yeshua had to be taken off the cross before the Passover ANNUAL SABBATH, which can fall on any day of the week, but most ASSUME that the text means the regular weekly Sabbath on what the Gentiles now call "Saturday" in honour of the god Saturn, but it was an ANNUAL SABBATH, as there were TWO SABBATHS or "rest days" the week of the crucifixion. This oversight has caused many Gentile readers including theologians to conclude a Friday-to-'Sun'-day equation, when the Scriptures tell us that this Sabbath was a "HIGH DAY," not an ordinary weekly Sabbath at all, as the Bible NOWHERE mentions "Friday," or the Sixth Day, but only the PREPARATION DAY, which was the day preceding the annual Sabbath of the First Day of Unleavened Bread, and that Sabbath on Nisan 15th can fall on any given day each year.
It is this ASSUMPTION that has created the error that is "Sun"-day observance, when in fact Yeshua rose BEFORE the first visitors arrived at the EMPTY tomb very early on "Sun"-day. He was put in the tomb just before sunset, as all Biblical days begin and end at sunset, so according to His own prophetic words He would rise 3 days & 3 nights later (72 hours) JUST BEFORE SUNSET.
The only point before the first visitors came (as no one saw Him rise on "Sun"-day morning) to fit that time frame would be JUST BEFORE SUNSET at the end of the weekly Sabbath JUST BEFORE the onset of the first day of the (working) week. This in no way contradicts anything and our salvation remains gloriously the same, but the Biblical timings are more fully brought out.
Thus Yeshua is truly Lord of the SABBATH, but not of "Sun"-day at all, but few want to know.
Count back 72 hours from this point and we arrive at WEDNESDAY for the Crucifixion Day instead of Friday, as is assumed, and the Resurrection Day on the SABBATH, not on "Sun"-day.
This is a very serious error if the Church is teaching "Sun"-day as a verifiable fact, and the 36 hours from Fri to Sun instead of 72 with one full NIGHT MISSING makes Yeshua out to be a liar and a fraud.
Do we trust the prophetic words of Yeshua, or ecclesiastical tradition and hearsay of others?
Once the penny drops you will never view "Sun"-day in the same light again. SHABBAT SHALOM.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@szakiย Yes, the Philistines are supposed to have come from the region of Cyprus.
The Romans did not use the name Syria Palestina until they ethnically cleansed the land of the Bible and the Holy City of Jews in 135 CE, calling it Palestina after the Jews' ancient enemies the Philistines in order to insult them. 100 years earlier during the lifetime of Jesus Christ or as He was called then, Yeshua the Messiah, the Romans still referred to the land as the Province of JUDEA ("Jew-dea"). Geographically and Biblically before that time the territory where the Philistines lived was called PHILISTIA, which was the narrow coastal strip where Gaza is today.
Prior to that the main body of land was called CANAAN which later became ISRAEL-JUDEA.
The Philistines were from abroad as you rightly point out, so they were not Semites descending from Shem the son of Noah as the Jews and Arabs do via Abraham. Just as today's Egyptians are simply named after the ancient land of Egypt but are Arabs who have come to live there after the ancient Egyptian civilisation died out, so the Arabs who call themselves Palestinians after the later colonial handle given by non-Arabs to the land, they are not related to the Philistines.
Also under the Gentile colonial rulers Jews and Druze living in the land were also Palestinian, the term not solely applying to Arabs. It is a myth they are a people, but are nominally a product of colonialisation by foreign or adjacent powers, but there was never an Arab sovereign state.
If anyone had rights to Gaza, it would be Egypt as it was their territory before, but they didn't want it back and so Israel ended up administering it until they left completely in 2005.
Many familes in Gaza are still called Al Masri, meaning Egyptian in Arabic, similar to the name for Egyptian in the sister language of Hebrew, which is Mitzri. A lot of history is omitted! ๐
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
ย @thesamuraihobbitย I agree, religion is not important across most of Western Europe, as it is in Great Britain (which is not the same as the UK). However, on the island of Ireland, in the Republic, which is mostly in the south, although some of it is geographically in the north, as in Ulster etc., the Irish population largely distance themselves from organised religion since the scandals of clerical abuse broke most people's trust in the religious authorities, especially among the young.
However, in Northern Ireland, which is part of the UK, but not part of mainland Britain, there is still a very strong religious controlling opinion over politics in the media that is very much alive.
So, yes, Western Europeans mostly do not care, but that is not the case in Northern Ireland, but I think it should be as I have found most religious Christians to be awful examples of humanity.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Ilyaz3207 If it's based on doing good then what what about Muslims blowing up human beings into smithereens, raping young women and burning children? That far outweighs any sins concerning ancient Israel for which they were exiled (temporarily).
The reason they went to Babylon for 70 years was to make up the time lost in not keeping the land Sabbaths or SHMITAH, where God commanded to leave the land fallow or uncultivated every 7th year in order to let the ground regain its nutrients, and thus ensure bumper crops.
Once the 70 years lost had been made up they returned to the land of Israel, as Psalm 137 records: "By the rivers of Babylon, where we sat down, yea, we wept when we remembered ZION. How shall we sing the LORD's songs in a foreign land?" They were "Zionists" even back then! ๐
Do you keep land Sabbaths? Would you and your people have obeyed God any better than the fallible Israelites? Are you that perfect and irreproachable in righteousness? If so, you can judge.
Otherwise you are a hypocrite, for God says, "There is NONE righteous, no, not one!" ๐คฏ๐คฏ๐คฏ
The Bible says: "For ALL have sinned and come short of the glory of God." Human beings sin!
But One Jew born in the land of Israel (in Jewish Bethlehem, now overrun by foreign Arabs) said to those who condemned others for wrongdoing: "Let him without sin cast the first stone!" ๐ชจ
You are good at judging, but God says, "For what judgement you measure out to others, the same measure will be measured out to you!" You are only stacking up judgement for yourself!!!
Israel was enslaved in Egypt, but that wasn't the end of the story. God brought them out of Egypt, a mighty exodus, into the Promised Land, promised by God to the Israelites, no one else!
Their Semitic cousins the Arabs from the 12 Tribes of Ishmael were given the whole of Arabia.
Was God being unfair? Any claim by the Arabs to Judea ("Jew-dea"), which they defiantly rename as the nameless "West Bank", is not sanctioned by God, but based only on their own selfish greed.
God promised that the Jews would again return to Zion, and that is happening in our time, and it should be welcomed for the miracle of God that it is, albeit living peaceably alongside their cousins the Arabs, but the Arabs don't want it and have spent the past 100 years opposing it.
So instead we have war, resentment and hatred, but this will be the Arabs' and other Islamic nations' undoing, for touching the Apple ๐ of God's Eye. You may not believe it, judging by your contemtuous comments, but God will have the last word. What you think means nothing. ๐
The Jews are prophesied to regather in order for the Messiah to appear to bring world peace, but first He will deal with Israel's enemies, as He did in past times, when all nations that come against Israel at the Battle of Armageddon will be destroyed, and only then can true peace reign.
Shalom al Israel. ๐ Peace ("wholeness") be upon Israel. ๐ฎ๐ฑโฃ ๐ซ๐ซ๐ซ
Salaam upon the Arabs too (if they will listen), but they are on a full onslaught against Israel. ๐คฌ
1
-
@Ilyaz3207 I do learn and don't blindly follow, which is why I write what I say to one-sided bigots on this platform who focus all their energy into hating Israel & swallowing Arab propaganda, which of course I do not blindly follow! I actually lived there so know the reality.
Going to war to protect against embittered genocidal enemies is not evil. Living in land that God Himself gave specifically to you (only) is not evil or a sin. It is the will of Almighty God for Israel.
Corruption you will find in most societies and governments worldwide, if you are so hung up on corruption please at least be consistent and not biased and call out ALL the nations across the globe most vociferously and here online of every government or nation that has corruption! ๐ง
Has your nation/people/government never ever had any corruption, or is it run by angels? ๐
You have a skewed vision, for you only have Israel in your sight, when there are many nations that can be equally condemned for the things that you so self-righteously cite in total hypocrisy.
As One Jew named Yeshua, the Jewish Messiah, who lived in the land of Israel, once said: "First take the plank out of your own eye, then you will be able to see clearly enough to remove the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye!" In other words, check your own (larger) faults first! ๐ต
Being chosen ("BECHOR") does not mean being good or being better than anyone else. Israel wasn't chosen because they were good or even special, but because they were an ordinary people, just like any other with faults and sins such as is common to humanity, but chosen for a purpose, namely to write down and preserve the Holy Bible with meticulousness and to be the earthly people through which the Promised Messiah Yeshua would come through David's line.
Would you have preferred to have been chosen to do this instead, or your ancestors, and if so, why? Out of jealousy of the Jews? Out of resentment for God's choice? Was God wrong? ๐ค
Would you and your people have done much better? Would you have kept every commandment of God that was given to you? You need to take that up with God, (if you believe in Him), and ask Him why. Ask Him why not you? And if you and your people failed, would you expect exile? ๐ค
It's a different thing when the shoe is on the other foot. What the Jews were chosen for they shared with the world, it was not just for them. Through them the world received the Bible and the Saviour Jesus Christ as the non-Jews have come to call Him to cover up His Jewishness.
You can criticise the Jews, but they are just as human as any other people, hence they did fail in some areas. Even Christians have sinned openly, even murdering the Jews in the Holocaust.
If you and your people could have done it all more perfectly, why did God not choose you?? ๐คฏ
Your hypocrisy is glaring! ๐
1
-
ย @shainazion4073ย That is a hard choice, as I grow quite a lot of different ones, including coconut, pineapple, pine, rose, apricot, mint, eau de cologne, cola scented and many more!
They are an amazing genus to grow and collect, for their diversity alone.
I have one called "peaches & cream" and it must be one of my favourites, and it has nice variegated foliage too! Thank you for asking ๐ฅฐ ๐ฟ
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ChrisShortyAllenย Obviously not by the term "bacon" but pork meat is one of the unclean animals listed not to eat and which Noah took on the Ark only in twos, as the clean animals were boarded in seven pairs or 14's as they were permitted to be eaten so were needed in larger numbers. For his obedience in this matter, the Bible says that Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD, a quality that most Christians would say only pertains to the New Testament.
Noah was not a Jew, but he knew the distinctions between clean and unclean animals before any laws were written down at Mount Sinai as commamdments that were kept by God's people.
I am a Hilton chef and was told in catering college that pork and shellfish are high risk foods. ๐ฆ ๐ท
That's why swine's flesh has to be preserved in salt to stop it rotting, unlike other meats, and why shellfish have to be consumed while very fresh or cooked still alive to avoid poisonous enzymes.
The unclean animals are not bad, as God said everything He had created was good, but not all were designed for man to eat, as many were scavengers that had the vital ecological purpose of cleaning the planet of rotting detritus, carcases and even faeces, thus high risk for us to eat.
Pork meat would not need to be "cured" if it were not "sick" already for consumption purposes.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
ย @arturferrao7353ย The Canaanites preceded the Israelites in the land, and it was named Canaan followed by Israel, and later Judea. Philistia was a separate territory from Canaan, the narrow coastal strip of land where Gaza is today, and not the whole territory of Canaan, which is why I asked why it is named by non-Jews after the non-Semitic Philistines if the Semitic Israelites conquered the land and largely vanquished its inhabitants such as the accounts in the Hebrew Bible inform us. ?
The Jews were prohibited from intermarrying with the pagan peoples around them, so they had a taboo about this, even if the Philistines didn't as your magazine states. Whether the Semitic Arabs married Philistines or Canaanites is a matter for conjecture, but we know in the Biblical era that the Arabs, Edomites and Ammonites were largely concentrated in the deserts of Arabia, whilst the Twelve Tribes of Israel were given the land of the Bible by God as their Promised Land.
At least that is what it says in the Holy Bible which is used by Courts of Law across the globe to swear upon as a symbol of truth. So do you think the Semitic Arabs are mixed blood with the Philistines, Cannanites or even both? I think there is less chance of the Israelites doing so, even though it is the Jews whom conspiratists claim are not a pure bloodline, yet they never question the purity of the Arabs' blood. Reality: Canaan & Israel was never called "Palestine" in the Bible.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@@shanelong5602 Well, the Irish do share the thirst for violence and terrorism with the Muslims that's for sure. They bring up the Famine more than the Jews bring up the Holocaust.
The British also left infrastructure, railways, modernisation, and left Georgian buildings and castles for the Irish population to enjoy today, otherwise the peasant people might still be living in thatched cottages and digging up peat from the bogs without that British civilisation and advancement.
The countries of the world were asked to take Jews during the Holocaust years, but most refused, not only the British, when it comes to refusing aid for the suffering and dying.
The Ottomans and the British have one thing in common, they both governed Palestine, and neither made it into an Arab state, although the world seems to imagine that the Palestinian Arabs had one prior to the State of Israel, although that is not the case as the country contained communities of Palestinian Jews too, the name never pertaining only to the Arabs.
The Irish on the other hand when civilisation was at the brink of being taken over by a violent dictator in WWII decided to remain "neutral" not standing up for anything, so not so brave after all.
It's easy to pick from history, and there will always be conflicting narratives, but we are in the here and now. Jews are still being murdered in their beds and the Irish support the terrorists! ๐คฏ
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@@shanelong5602 There WAS. Look up "Celtic Church". Tell me your findings.
The Celtic Church across Britain and Ireland differed greatly in doctrine and practice to the Church of Rome on the continent. Saints such as Patrick, Columba, Columbanus, Fursey, Gall and many others kept the Sabbath-keeping practices of the Quartodeciman ("14th") churches founded by John the Apostle across Asia Minor and kept Passover instead of the Roman invention of "Easter," as did Polycarp, Bishop of Smyna and Polycrates, Bishop of Ephesus in the 190's when they both wrote to the Bishop of Rome refusing to accept the new Roman "Easter."
The Irish Christians followed suit, refusing also to eat unclean animals, such as pork and shellfish, and like the Jews did not have celibate clergy. Columbanus, from my home town of Bangor, County Down, wrote to the Pope calling him a heretic because of the papal "Easter," and was eventually imprisoned in Europe as the Roman bishops were against His teaching.
This all changed at the Synod of Whitby, when the Roman prelates convinced King Oswy of Northumbria to accept "Easter" over over Passover (as it was deemed to be too "Jewish") and made the Irish missionaries headed up by Colman to be simple uneducated peasants.
Thus the British Church turned Roman from that point, with even so-called "Protestants" keeping the Roman "holy days", such as the Mass of Christ ("Christ-Mass"), "Easter," and fasting on "Lent" etc without question even to this day. The Irish Christians retreated to the remote isles of Iona and Lindisfarne till they eventually ebbed into obscurity, so much so that people not educated in these matters will say that there was no such thing as a Celtic Church at all. โ
The Celtic traditions kept going in small pockets, but with Roman Catholic emmissaries sent from Rome to galvinise the papal holidays and dogma the island of Ireland evetually too became "Roman" in Christian practice. Ireland was never colonised by Rome, but it did not escape the clutches of the Roman ecclesiastical system which wiped out Celtic Christianity island-wide.
The last vestige of the Celtic Church was believed to be at the Hill of Tara in the 11th century, the word Tara coming from the Hebrew word "Torah" meaning "God's Law", by which time monasticism began to hold sway with the various orders of monks in many monasteries.
Now some Catholic churches name their buildings after these Celtic "saints" but if they were alive today they would not have their names attached to the Sunday-keeping Roman churches, which now includes Protestants, that they fought so hard and taught against for centuries.
I am interested where you got your information that there was no pre-Roman Celtic church in Ireland, as I am always happy to be proven wrong if the history books I have been reading over the past 40 years on this subject are all wrong. Of course, one must always try to find the earliest manuscripts as later hagiographies written by Roman-leaning historians will often write with a favour to the position they hold, and will often omit facts as a result or add some embellishments which must be analysed with the knowledge of the possibility of bias.
For instance, Columba, from Movilla, six miles from where I live, became the Apostle of Scotland converting the Picts and settling on the island of Iona across from Mull & Oban.
He was a Saturday Sabbath-keeper as all Celts were, and his death was recorded as being on the Sabbath, and as with Jews, this is believed to be a sign of an auspicious death from God.
However, later Roman Catholic books write that Columba died on the "Lord's Day," which is cobbled up to be purpisely ambiguous, as most Catholics call Sunday the "Lord's Day," thus the history becomes changed and also helps to promote Roman Catholic practice and doctrine.
Of course if using the term "Sabbath of the LORD" as found in Scripture, ostensibly it could also be described as the "Lord's Day," however, it is clear that the refusal to include the word "Sabbath" which at all times in the Bible refers to Saturday and never Sunday, is a delibetate attempt by Roman historians to effect the perception that Columba died on Sunday and not Saturday.
These things may not seem important, but these were the very issues the Celts stood for.
This erasure of history is very successful, hence your own admission of no Celtic Church. ๐
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
ย @tonilynch7872ย I worked in Israel for 10 years from 1991 to 2002 as a chef, the first 4 years in Jaffa for Beit Immanuel which is a Church of England Guest House run by Christ Church Jerusalem that we saw in the video who also established the first Jewish Bishop in Jerusalem since the time of the Jewish Apostles in 1841 in the person of Michael Solomon Alexander.
My final 6 years was working with Israelis as Chef de Partie in the fine dining King Solomon Restaurant of Hilton Tel-Aviv, after which I returned to my native Northern Ireland more informed.
You are correct about Jews using the word Gentile to describe a non-Jew, which they will call in Hebrew a "GOY", which is not an insult (as you say you don't use that term yourself), but simply means "nation" in Hebrew, or one from the (other) nations. I was also described as an "oved zar" meaning "foreign worker", but the "zar" bit is from the word "muzar" or "strange" which is also translated in the Bible as "stranger" for Gentiles living among Israelites, plus the word "ger" which comes from the word "gar" which means to "live" i.e. in Israel. None of these words are offensive or negative and are based on the positive outlook of the Israelites on strangers as they were to remember how they too were once strangers in Egypt which is recalled every Passover, the very Feast or "MOED" ("Appointed Time") that Yeshua as Messiah took matza (unleavened bread) and wine as the 3rd cup of Passover for His Jewish disciples to remember Him "as often as you do this" i.e. celebrate Passover, not necessarily "do this as often as you like" which happens in most Gentile churches. The pre-Roman Celtic Church in Ireland & Britain kept the date of Passover to remember the Lord's death (Nisan 14) until the Synod of Whitby in 664, when the Roman Easter as ratified at the Council of Nicea in 325 became the practice as the British Church turned Roman from that point, with later Protestants keeping the Roman 'holy days' without question.
God said about Abraham that He would make him into a mighty nation, which is the same word "GOY" that you don't like to call yourself! Yes, Abraham was called a GOY by God, in the context of using it as a word to describe a nation. However, it mostly describes other nations.
1
-
ย @JonathanAkiraFreudmanย You make a valid point, however the word "Christian" is a loaded term for most Jews due to the history of Church sponsored Christian anti-Semitism against them over the centuries, for instance they view Adolf Hitler as a "Christian" as he was neither Jewish nor Muslim, so naming can be a problem, plus "Christian" from Greek" is a very Gentile term with no Hebraic connection, whereas Messiah/Mashiach/Messianic alludes to the Hebraic nature of the the term i.e. "anointed" as you rightly point out whether it be Yeshua/Jesus or not.
Israel's kings, such as David, Solomon & Saul were all "anointed" so were "MASHIACH" just as Yeshua was, so could technically be called "messiahs" in English as well, as it's the same word.
The term "Israeli Christian" would confine them to the land of Israel in the modern understanding of the word, as a Jewish Christian in London would not be nationally "Israeli" although he would be an Israelite to use the Biblical term, even though the actual Hebrew for "Israelite" is actually "Israeli" as the "ites" are an archaic part of English Bible translation.
So naming is fraught with peril. Again the term "Jewish Christian" is disliked by Jewish believers in Yeshua because of the heavy Gentile implications and connections with the word "Christian", although from the 1800's onwards the term "Hebrew Christian" did gain some traction, but mostly to describe them by Gentile Christians in their circles as opposed to among themselves, but then Hebrew can refer to their language spoken as much as any modern nationality or people group.
The word in Acts that gets translated as "Christians" that you mention is actually the Hebrew plural word "MISHICHIM" in the Hebrew New Testament, which means "Messianic" or of the Messiah or could ostensibly mean linguistically "anointed ones" for themselves as "mashiach."
But you are so right in pointing out that all Jews are 'Messianic' ("MISHICHI") by definition by their common belief in the concept of a coming Messiah, and many orthodox Jews will use this term too to describe their beliefs.
So it is a difficult one indeed. The best term I ever heard was when I was working as a chef for the Hilton Tel-Aviv in the 1990's and a colleague described Israeli believers in Yeshua as "YESHUIM" (the "ayin"/a" getting absorbed by the "im" plural attached to it), which may sound a little disrespectful to an English speaker to describes them as "Jesuses", but with the intrinsic Hebrew root of "Yeshua" being the male format of "yeshuah", meaning "salvation", the term actually means "SAVED ONES"! Who knows, maybe it will catch on, but at least it is clear!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
ย @YouTuberculosis1337ย Yes, I wonder why that hasn't happened yet? Doesn't Allah answer your prayers? He did for the Jews restoring them to their land that He gave them, only they call Him ELOHIM, who calls Himself the LORD God of Israel. He promised in the Holy Bible that the Jews would return to the Promised Land that He gave them, and it happened, and still is happening.
What the Muslims do outside of that reality is their own affair, but they have plenty of land in Arabia named after them to live in without having to occupy and control Judea ("Jew-dea") named after the Jews, which the Arabs deviously re-name as the nameless "West Bank" in order to cover up any historical or Biblical Jewish links. With cousins like that who needs enemies?
The Jews were ready to live in peace alongside their Semitic cousins but the Arabs said "No!"
Will their Allah bless their resentment, greed and intransigence in taking over land that even their father Abraham said was to be an everlasting possession for the sons of Isaac & Jacob (Israel).
Abraham bought the cave of Machpelah in Hebron to bury his wives and children there, so Israel's Patriarchs & Matriarchs are buried in Hebron of Judea, not Ishmael or Esau or anything pertaining to the modern anti-Jewish Arabs, yet the Arabs now insist that Jews are illegal there!
Maybe your Ummah will come to pass when you improve relations with the Sons of Israel. ๐
Until then there doesn't seem to be much blessing. "By their fruits ye shall know them." ๐
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
ย @darrene.vonbraun4421ย Yeshua, as He was named by the Angel Gavriel (Gabriel) was a Galiean, as His hometown of Nazareth ("Natzeret") is in the province of Ha-Galil, or the Galilee.
He was born in Judea in Beit Lechem, or Bethlehem, and was a Jew who lived in the land of Israel, not "Palestine." Palestine in Biblical times was the narrow coastal strip of land called PHILISTIA, where dwelt Israel's ancient and implacable enemies, the Philistines, where Gaza is today. It was never the whole territory of Canaan which became Israel and Judea, and only after the land was ethnically cleansed of Jews by the Europeans from Rome did it all become named Syria Palestina, which later led to the more common term "Palestine." Therefore Yeshua could not have been a "Palestinian" Jew any more than He could have been an Islamic Arab!
As a Jew, Yeshua would not be allowed to be born in Bethlehem today as the Royal City of King David in the Hills of Judea ("Jew-dea") is now occupied by Arabs who rename it the "West Bank"!
The Gospel of Matthew when Miriam & Yosef flee to Egypt to avoid the infant massacre in Judea are told by the Angel of the LORD to return to the LAND OF ISRAEL with the Young Child (Yeshua), not to the country of "Palestine." All that nomenclature came much later, post-Bible.
Thus Yeshua was a Galilean Israeli Jew, King of the Jews, and Lion of the Tribe of Judah. ๐
"Palestinian Jew" is just wishful thinking by anti-Jewish history revisionists, except of course pre-1948 when all Jews living there were Palestinian as well as the Arabs and Druze, the term never applying solely to the Arabs, as they try to do today in order to make any ancestral Jews from the land appear to be foreign interlopers whilst the Arabs living in their Hebrew-named towns and cities are expected to be heralded as the only people inextricably linked to the land.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
ย @risewalkchurchaustralia8341ย Well I think the word wine signifies alcohol in any commonly understood sense unless you try to to contrive an argument around that to suit your own personal theology or bias. Jesus drank wine at the Passover meal before He died where all Jewish people are commanded by God to take wine ("yayin") and unleavened bread ("matza") as part of the remembrance of God's deliverence and redemption from slavery in Egypt where the red wine signifies the blood daubed on the doorposts and lintels of the Israelites' homes in obedience to God and when the angel of death passed over where there was blood the house was saved. Jesus applied this very principle in order for us to remember His own upcoming death and shedding of His blood as the Passover Lamb ("therefore let us keep the Feast/ 'moed'/ 'Appointed Time')." However few do this but celebrate the Roman invention of "Easter" instead.
Noah got drunk on wine ("yayin") so He could hardly get drunk if the "wine" in the Bible was unfermented as many anti-alcohol persons and groups try to claim against the plainness of Scripture. If wine was wrong or sinful then Jesus (Yeshua) should have used orange juice or water instead. If He didn't drink it then He didn't partake in the symbol of His own suffering and didn't properly inaugurate the New Covenant in His blood. The New Covenant was not built on fruit juice, even as God demanded drink offerings made up of wine in the Old Testament, it was not grapefruit or pomegranate or some other beverage, but always the Hebrew word "yayin" or wine. Where wine is unfermented, a different Hebrew word is used, "tirosh," but "tirosh" is never used for Passover or for Biblical celebrations, but only "yayin" or wine, which would be fermented as the example about new and old wineskins attests. The fermentation affected the skin of the bottle over time and would break if new wine ("tirosh") would be put into them. If it was only unfermented fruit juice the bottles would not become "old" and would have to be drunk right away. The fermentation process also preserved the juice, albeit with a percentage of alcohol.
It is the word "wine" or "yayin" used to describe "wine"-skins, not "tirosh" or fruit-juice-skins, as the word "wine" ("yayin") applies every time it is used in Scripture. To try to manipulate the Word of God to push the belief that wine was unfermented that Jesus drank is high deception and dishonest use of Scripture, especially when the holy language of Hebree so clearly points it out.
To say Jesus didn't drink wine would not only make Him to be criticised as a "fruit-bibber" instead of a "wine-bibber" but also make the New Testament remembrance of His death null and void by not even obeying God in how to commemorate the Appointed Day of Passover, the very symbol which He was to appoint in His remembrance and which caused Him to be known as the Passover Lamb and Lamb of God. Maybe He didn't partake of the food either but just gave it to His disciples ! Any normative understanding of a Passover meal includes the drinking of wine.
The weak arguments of men do not stand up against the light of Scripture concerning wine.
Also it is often said that wine was added to water to purify it or to make it more palatable where it may have been of poor quality or of doubtful impurities contained in it. Wine would have helped, as Paul suggests to add a little to the water for your stomach's sake. If it was unfermented fruit juice that was added instead (for those who claim that Biblical wine was unfermented) people would not be helped in any way by the addition of fresh fruit juice.
Indeed this would more likely only add to the water being dangerous to drink, not purify it.
The lies and claims will go on regarding Yeshua amd wine/alcohol, but He knows what He drank and even He uses the term YAYIN (fermented wine), not TIROSH (unfermented grape juice).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
ย @CallThemAllOutย Well, unlike other countries in the less dangerous West, nearly all Israelis have to serve in the Army due to being under threat continually from the Arabs & other Islamic states, which countries and civilians in the West do not live under (yet!). They would prefer to live in peace with their Arab cousins, but up until now every suggestion has been rejected outrightly.
Although some Israeli Arabs serve in the IDF, as do the minority people the Druze. Not all want to live in a racist Arab-only Jew-free Islamic state or caliphate of Palestine named after the non-Semitic Philistines, Israel's ancient and implacable enemies, who dwelt in Philistia, which is the narrow coastal strip of land where Gaza is today, never the entire land of Canaan, later Israel.
If they get their Apartheid state with Jerusalem on top of Mount Zion re-named Al Kuds as their capital, then the Palestinan Arabs will be as Zionist as any accusation levelled at the Jews! ๐คฏ
You say occupiers, yet any Jews living in the land prior to 1948 were Palestinian too, the term never applying solely to the Arabs, which they try to imply today in order to delegitimise Jewish claims to the land and giving the impression that the Jews are all foreign interlopers (as your accusation of "occupiers" so clearly demonstrates). If the towns and cities where the Arabs now claim have ancient Hebrew names, like Jerusalem, Bethlehem and Hebron etc., are not the Arabs "occupiers" too, as they clearly did not name the placenames or else they cover them up! ๐
That's why you have a 'nameless' "West Bank" rather than the Biblical Judea or "Jew-dea"! ๐
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
ย @ralphbernhard1757ย Well if you're so concerned about obeying God's Commandments, you must not forget the Sabbath day to be kept holy on the 7th day of the week and not to eat unclean animals which God calls an abomination. Or are you just cherrypicking? ๐ ๐ค
Who do you mean "your people"? The only "people" I belong to is that of Northern Ireland.
If you are referring to the People of Israel, they are GOD'S CHOSEN PEOPLE, not mine! ๐คฏ
I think you will find idolatry and obsession with money in every nation of the globe, as God says of ALL PEOPLE, "There is NONE RIGHTEOUS, NO, NOT ONE"! Why do you only single out Jews? ๐ค
The Bible also says that with what judgement you mete out to others, the same will be meted out to you. So I wonder how well things will turn out for all the anti-Israel folk & Jew-haters? ๐ค
It also says that every word that a man shall speak he shall give account of it in the Day of Judgement, and the King of the Jews, Yeshua, said, "Him without sin cast the first stone."
Good luck to you too, only I don't believe in "luc" as it is short for Lucifer, who is the devil! ๐น
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
โย @finished6267ย The Bible does call Israel a nation, but also a people, as well as a land. The name is the only nation on earth with "God" in it, as "EL" is a contracted form of the Hebrew word "ELOHIM," which means "God," strangely in male plural, not singular.
The Hebrew word for "nation" in the Bible is "GOY," which also gets rendered into English as "GENTILE," mostly used to describe a "non-Jew," and Abraham, the first Hebrew, but neither an Israelite or a Jew, was described as the Father of Nations, or "GOYIM," with God saying He would make him into a great "GOY" or "nation," (which could also be interpreted as a "Gentile").
England did not "create" 'Israel' as a "nation" as Israel already existed as a scattered nation, after European Gentiles from Rome ethically cleansed the Promised Land of all Jews in 135 CE.
So it wouldn't be an incongruous gesture for some European Gentiles living in England to sympathise for some restitution in the form of supporting some return of them to that Land.
Of course with the levels of anti-Jewish prejudice everywhere, that would not happen today.
But with or without their land, Israel remains a nation, a people, a race and a Biblical "goy."
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
ย @pigjubby1ย Well, judgement begins at the House of God, so you'd better be ready.
That's all the proud, arrogant, rude, thoughtless, selfish, pushy, ignorant, judgemental, self-righteous, slanderous, hypocritical, mean-spirited, unkind, boastful, nosey, and un-Christlike Christians out there who fill the churches and lie, steal, dishonour parents, divorce and break the Sabbath on a regular basis whom Yeshua will be willing to stop off and meet to ask why they keep calling Him by that stupid name of "Jesus" that He would never have heard in His lifetime.
Bring it on!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@dsa0224 Wrongdoers? If they will not enter the kingdom of heaven as you so clearly quote, then what about Christian "wrongdoers," such as those who are PROUD, ARROGANT, BOASTFUL, SLANDEROUS, SPREADERS OF GOSSIP, LIARS, DISHONEST, COVETOUS, ENVIOUS, RESENTFUL, UNKIND, HYPOCRITICAL, CLERICAL ABUSERS OF INNOCENT CHILDREN, SECRET ADULTERERS, SECRET FORNICATORS, POMPOUS, CONDESCENDING, GLUTTONOUS, AND DOWNRIGHT RUDE!
I have come across many of such over the years in the church pews and the Bible says that JUDGEMENT BEGINS AT THE HOUSE OF GOD!! You may glibly quote one sin among many, but the Bible lists a great deal of sins that are committed by professing Christians every day, including the LIES told by parents who tell their children about Santa Claus and his flying reindeer. Don't you know that ALL LIARS will be cast into the lake of fire? ๐ฅ๐ฅ๐ฅ๐ฅ๐ฅ๐
There are other ABOMINATIONS too clearly condemned by God in the very same book of Leviticus that proscribes homosexuality in the same terms, such as the eating of UNCLEAN sewage-imbibing seafood and the keeping holy of the Sabbath of the LORD on "Saturday."
Once all your ducks are in a row you can fire away, but there are many with planks in their eyes trying to pick at the specks of sawdust in others, when they are surrounded by pure hypocrisy.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
โย @swaglikeohio83ย Lawlessness does not describe warfare, but breaking God's Holy Laws, which even Christians are guilty of when they desecrate the Fourth Commandment every week by ignoring the holiness of the Sabbath of the LORD every "Saturday" (not named after Saturn by God or Yeshua in the Bible) or by eating animals God has clearly described as unclean to eat which He says is an ABOMINATION (Leviticus 11:10-12) and so forth.
The ones Yeshua will condemn as being LAW-LESS are those He will say He never knew when they say how much they did in His transmogrified name of "Jesus", which He never used in His lifetime, such as casting out demons etc as professing religious Christians.
As for protecting Israel throughout the Bible the LORD God of Israel describes Himself as YEHOVAH TZEVAOT, or the LORD of Hosts, which means "armies" & the same name as the IDF - "ZAHAL" in abbreviation for TZEVAOT HAGANOT LE-ISRAEL, or the Hosts/Armies to Defend Israel. ๐ That is not lawlessness, but is true to the nature of the LORD of Battle.
Armageddon is prophesied to be the next one, again with Divine Intervention against the nations who come against Israel as her enemies to wipe her out, but Yeshua returns! ๐ฅ
1
-
He had a rare disease, so it's not a competition. The medical condition is acromegaly, commonly known as giantism, and I know two people where I live in Northern Ireland who control it by medication. Ireland has a history of folklore stories of giants, which must be this same genetic condition described by previous generations.
As for the dimensions of Goliath from the Bible, it nowhere says he was the "tallest man that ever lived", but the Hebrew word for "giant" is "ANAK" which means huge, large, enormous, and the Anakim were a group of people whom the Israelites had difficulty in battling against due to their Hebrew description of them being a huge people, in stature, not numerically speaking.
The Bible also records the mating between the "sons of God" (usually assumed to be angels) and the "daughters of men" (ordinary human women) which may have resulted in these "giant" genes being so prevalent in the early Biblical era. Whether Goliath was the tallest of them is a matter of conjecture, but his Hebrew name "GOLIAT" is related to the Hebrew word for "skull" (GOLGOLET), from where also the name "Gologotha" comes from where Jesus died.
Goliath died from a wound to the skull by David's sling, and as a giant he would have had a big skull/head compared to normal-sized humans. But it is not always a blessing to be so big, and many people with giantism had severe health problems or died prematurely until the onset of modern medicine. As Goliath found out to his detriment, sometimes the taller you are, the harder you fall. I do think Bible readers do sometimes embellish the written accounts to present the more perfect or outstanding person/story for effect, as if to promote their faith more, so rather than just accept that Goliath was a giant, they have to try to claim that he was the tallest one.
A more honest approach would not to make unproven sweeping statements or try to present "facts" which have no basis in reality, or in the actual text in the Bible, particularly I find in the original Hebrew, which gives more direct descriptions than that of poorer English translations.
Basically Christians will never let anything out-do the Bible, so peddling untruths is preferred to them losing face in any way, and so the likes of Goliath have to be the biggest ever, rather than just go by the Biblical text. This common approach troubles me a lot, more than giantism.
1
-
ย @fesswahย I am very sorry for conflating the two. I am not a medical expert, but only commented on the two cases that I knew personally. My nephew has had gigantism since an infant which is what my aunt always described it as, but my other good friend told me she had acromegaly which affected her pituitary gland for which she takes medication and has had operations on her brain, but she described herself as one of the last giants of Ireland (now that it is more commonly controlled by medical treatments nowadays).
I should not have described the two cases together but should have been more specific in pointing out the differences in my reply. My apologies for my grave error. You are indeed 100% right and I am fully wrong. It did make me wonder though which it was that Goliath might have had?
I perhaps should not have commented at all, as I have my own chronic terminal condition to deal with, and it would be better for me to get some rest rather than reply to these columns, as I know people can get upset easily, and I did not wish to pick any argument or cause offence by my response. I am better at being a patient than having knowledge of medical conditions.
Strangely I end up explaining my disease to doctors who haven't heard of it, and which also means no societies for support or help, the cancer charities not recognising it as their lot, even though I have had double the chemo of most cancer patients and kidney dialysis for 5 years, so some people do exist who are ignorant of certain diseases, just as I have shown myself to be concerning the two separate conditions that you pointed out in your reply. I do feel stupid. ๐
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
ย @ayeshajacobs4374ย I paraphrased it for you. Do you need the actual verse quoted verbatim like a schoolchild?
MATTHEW 2:1-6:
1. "Now after Jesus (Yeshua) was born in Bethlehem (BEIT LECHEM) of Judea (YEHUDAH) in the days of Herod (HERODUS) the king, behold, wise men from the East came to Jerusalem,
2. saying, 'Where is He who has been born KING OF THE JEWS? For we have seen His star in the East and have come to worship Him.'
3. When Herod the king heard this, he was troubled, and all Jerusalem with him.
4. And when he had gathered the chief priests (COHANIM) and scribes (SOFRIM) of the people together, he inquired of them WHERE THE CHRIST (MESSIAH) WAS TO BE BORN.
5. So they said to him, 'In Bethlehem of Judea (YEHUDAH, "Jew-dea"), for thus it is written by the prophet (Micah):
6."But you, Bethlehem, in the land of Judah (YEHUDAH, "Jew-dah"),
Are not the least among the rulers of Judah;
FOR OUT OF YOU SHALL COME A RULER
WHO WILL SHEPHERD MY PEOPLE ISRAEL." ' "
*He only went briefly to Egypt to escape the ethic cleansing of all male Jewish infants in Bethlehem at Herod's meglomaniacal orders.
Where on earth do you think He was born? ๐ค๐๐ ๐
๐ ๐ โก
1
-
1
-
ย @jhegreย Are you grasping at straws? Basically any people except the Jews, eh? ๐ค
Your bias is SO obvious. Yes, if Canaanites were still around they would have an ancient claim, just as much if the ancient Egyptians would have a claim over the Arabs living in their land.
However, peoples and civilisations rise and wane, and not every "claim" is viable or tangible.
Well, the Israelites were there before the Arabs, so they at least have a secondary claim!
The Arabs already had Arabia, whereas the Jews only had Judea ("Jew-dea"). Is that unfair?
So you want to give the Jews' historical Biblical land to the Arabs on top of all the many Arab states and not give the Jews an inch, as the Arabs are the Semites that claim all as theirs?
With cousins like that who needs enemies?! Also the Philistines came from Gaza, not Israel. ๐
1
-
ย @LeeP-lr5ymย Where does it say that? That is history revisionism! He was king of the Jews, not sheik of the Arabs. You're manipulating history to match your own modern political opinion. ๐
Bethlehem was a Jewish town, which was why Yeshua, as His given Name is, was born there, as it was the birthplace of King David, Israel's most illustrious king, of whom Yeshua was a descendant. If He were to be born there today His parents would be put out of the city for being Jewish as it is now occupied by Arabs most of whom now serve Allah & not the God of Israel.
Christmas or the Mass of Christ is a Roman Catholic invention, and it's absurdity is accentuated by the fact that it is held on both December 25th and January 6th by different denominations. Yeshua as a Jew would not join in this semi-pagan ritual & commercial crass.
"When the LORD shall build up Zion, He shall appear in His glory." ๐ฅ
"For the time to favour Zion had come." ๐
"Palestine",as you call it, was called PHILISTIA in Biblical times, and was only the narrow coastal strip of land where Gaza is today, not the whole land of Canaan which God gave to Israel as an EVERLASTING POSSESSION. The Arabs were allotted the vast now oil-rich expanse of Arabia, so was God being unfair? You want to give the Arabs Judea ("Jew-dea") and the Jews nothing? โ
What would their father Abraham say of such self-centred and unfair division of territory? โ
Ishmael had 12 Tribes & Israel had 12 Tribes. Just like the story of Joseph, the Jews were pushed into foreign lands, but each time exile took place in the Bible there was always return.
This is the Divine miracle and Biblical prophecy that we see unfolding before our eyes after 2,000 years, sadly after persecution, pillage and almost anihilation at the hands of Christians, yet their own Arab cousins would not welcome them but despise the very ground they walk on.
In this the Arabs have only reaped mizery for themselves and the region, rather than seeing it as a blessing and enjoying the mutual prosperity that cordiality instead of hate could bring to all.
You say Zionist, but Zion is the holy Biblical name for Jerusalem built on top of Mount Zion, not a pejorative as you use it. At any rate if the Palestinian Arabs found their first sovereign Arab-only Jew-free racist Apartheid Islamic state or caliphate of Palestine, named after the non-Semitic Philistines, Israel's ancient and implacable foes, with Jerusalem on Mount Zion re-named as Al Quds in Arabic as their capital, they will be just as "Zionist" as anything levelled at the Jews! And you can kiss Christmas goodbye for good in a suppressed Islamic state. ๐คฏ
1
-
1
-
ย @richards5504ย Who told you that? Do you have a proof source? ๐ค
Matthew's Gospel says something different to your (obviously anti-Israel) claim:
1. After Jesus (Yeshua) was born in Bethlehem in JUDEA, during the time of King Herod, wise men arrived from the east in Jerusalem.
13. Now when they had gone, behold an Angel of the LORD appeared to Joseph in a dream and said, "Get up! Take the Child and His mother and flee to Egypt, and remain there until I tell you; for Herod is going to search for the Child to destroy Him."
19. But when Herod died, behold an Angel of the LORD appeared in a dream to Joseph in Egypt, and said,
20. "Get up, take the Child and His mother, and go into the land of ISRAEL; for those who sought the Child's life are dead."
21. So Joseph got up, took the Child and His mother, and came into the land of ISRAEL.
I DON'T SEE ANY "PALESTINE" MENTIONED HERE, ONLY "JUDEA" AND "ISRAEL."
And that is is the Holy Bible spoken by the Angel of the LORD.
Have you more authority than Him?
Show me proof from during Yeshua's lifetime.
Speaking Aramaic does not mean that He was a Palestinian Arab.
He was a Jew and spoke Hebrew when reading from the Scriptures in the synagogue.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
ย @garethmccartan3636ย Unfortunately I DO understand what Christianity actually is after over 40 years being tangled up in it, where I was constantly pressured to change my sexuality to match the doctrine, with my aunt even advocating deliverance from demon possession, which many Christians actively believe. The result when one cannot meet these lofty ideals that are being presented to you is that you end up being marginalised, shunned amd rejected within most family-focussed congregations. It's not so much believing the doctrine of grace and salvation, which I have no problem with, but that in reality that paradigm may not totally fit some people.
The indocrination feeling comes from trying to change your own inner convictions and feelings in order to fit into the belief around you, even though some churches present things more sympathetically, but when the rubber meets the road you gotta knuckle down to their ways.
Gambling must be a terrible thing, so I sympathise with your story and glad that Christianity has worked for you. That is good. But I find the area of attraction and emotion harder to erase.
No amount of prayers or counselling helps, although some claim that it does. In the end you are left to draw your own conclusions that some people will never fit into that tidy concept called church. When you get kicked out of a congregation & lose a church job you know it's not for you.
The free will you describe from God the Father still has some parameters which is control.
Understanding what Christianity is, and realising it as a viable option for all areas of one's life are two different things. At the end of the day it only offers a lonely existence of celibacy. ๐
1
-
ย @nuncaolvidare4895ย ๐ฎ๐ช is not just across the water from me, but just across the border, a few miles away. I knew something of Islam and Muslims after living in Israel for 10 years in the 1990's when suicide bombing was at its height in Israeli towns and cities, on buses and in markets and pizza restaurants, so their theology was pretty clear to me, even back then.
I cannot speak politically for ๐ฎ๐ช as I don't live there, but I have witnessed atrocities in the six counties on the same island where I live on both sides of the community, as I did too in Israel.
My next door neighbour, father of six children was shot dead when I was still a boy, and I witnessed at close range 22 teenagers being blown to smithereens in the queue to a venue on Tel-Aviv seafront by an Islamic suicide bomber, after which the rabbis picked up the body parts and organs and placed them respectfully in black bin bags, whilst the BBC interviewed the bomber's family in their grief! People do get brutalised, as you say, and even young people.
I did notice that with Jews & Arabs and with Protestants & Catholics in both countries that in one small community, the LGBT one, that there seemed to be a common and friendly unity.
1
-
1
-
1
-
ย @youtubesucks8995ย Have you tried to change your sexual attraction yourself, seeing as you recommend it and it's not the end of the world? Yeshua never had a girlfriend or wife, as the perfect Example for human beings (as there will be no marriage in heaven), yet He was tempted in ALL ways, such as we are, yet without sin. So technically He could empathise more with those with same-sex attraction more than all the heterosexual-only Christians ever could, as I guess the devil would have thrown EVERYTHING at Him in order to tempt Him, but He was too holy.
I don't think many gay people force heterosexuals to change, as you mention, but I do know in churches that there is pressure for homosexuals to change, as you point out, "to suit God".
The only problem, if you reseach it in any detail, the success rate for any 'change' is minimal.
I didn't have "the sexual bit" pushed on to me, or even explained to me at all in the all-boys school I went to, so I guess I didn't have a clue about sexuality, which didn't help my orientation either! ๐คฏ
Kids are impressionable at those young ages, which is why so many churches advocate "Sunday Schools" to teach doctrine at the earliest age in order to influence them, while it seems that explaining about sexuality is not on.
I do not understand trans issues either, and I feel too many kids are getting caught up in that far too early, but the over-bearing heterosexuality preaching is also a very unpleasant thing. ๐
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
ย @youtubesucks8995ย Yes, it is odd, but these independent Pentecostal Word of Faith type of churches do exist and influence people. I came across leaders from such a church who were working as drop-in volunteers in the local YMCA in my home town whose aim it was to seek out young teenage converts there to join their church, one of which I was at the tender age of 15.
Needless to say, I eventually bought some of the records back, as they weren't "heavy metal" or anything, but more tame pop stuff, like ABBA, Boney M, etc., and last year I went to London to the new ABBA concerts in London and met Benny from the group on the gala Opening Night. (!)
I later worked as a missionary for the Church of England in Israel but lost that job for moral reasons. Thus I'm a kind of island now, not really belonging anywhere, especially after being kicked out of another independent congregation who asked me to come and speak about Israel, and some gossipping and labelling there resulted in me being expelled, even though it wasn't even true their suspicions of me. So it's not only YouTube that bans people, though I hate that too. There is no more free speech on such a platform, and I would share some of your views.
I am a terminally ill kidney patient with Amyloidosis post-transplant, and therefore immunosuppressed, and the pressure on me to get vaccinated was huge, but I resisted.
Now, my healthy friends who did get vaccinated are all sick with blood clots & regular colds.
Of course there's nowhere one can share these things, and this may not even get published.
They "shadow-ban" which mean you see your own posts, but the public don't. Pretty sneaky.
You are right about the mainstream media channels and even I have been misrepresented by them when I was interviewed over homosexuality and the church and I lost friends as a result.
So, yes, some people may become more fragile as life batters them about and often comments on such platforms as YouTube can have a really negative effect, even from professing Christians, who will fight to the bitter end over some point of doctrine while trampling someone's spirit into the ground. They may even be "right," but they often lack the compassion that Yeshua had.
"A bruised reed He will not break, and a smoking flax He will not quench." God has mercy.
I first came onto YouTube to pass the time during nine years of chemotherapy and kidney dialysis, as I could no longer work as a Hilton chef and I needed some hobby or recreation.
However, I had to change my user name from my actual name to a life-long hobby of mine (growing plants) as I felt very unsafe after some of the comments from some Christian folk.
Perhaps I shouldn't be on the internet, but I am not that fragile that I didn't overcome five years of gruelling double-strength chemotherapy and blood-draining dialysis that I wouldn't wish on anyone, and I have endured many eye-watering painful medical procedures along the way.
In that sense one finds an inner strength, even if the outer body is frail, but mental fragility is worse still. I have not garnered hope through Christians, but I maintain an inner faith in God.
Shalom ๐ฟ๐
Anyhow, I need to be careful as I have been chided before for writing too long a reply.
1
-
1
-
1
-
ย @observersntย Calm down. I am well aware of the Christian antipathy of Islam and vice versa, a position that is irreconcilable, as they both claim the same supercedence, dominance, unique path to God, ambition to convert the world, truth of their religion and both display the clear human hypocrisy by many of their adherents. I may be ignorant, but I have lived among Moslems & Jews alike for a decade of my life in the Middle East in the 1990's during some heady times.
They are generally less argumentative and more palatable to converse with than the majority of Gentile denominational Christians no matter how "right" their doctrinal position claims to be.
You find no comparison with Muslims, in the same way as Semitic Arabs vehemently find no comparison with their cousins the Jews, yet I could spot many similarities they would deny.
Islam is totally different as a religion to Christianity, although the Koran has adopted some tenets from both Judaism and Christianity, but as with Roman Catholicism has added much on top. They may differ in how they wish to convert, but they both aim to convert as the "true faith".
That both reject the claims of the other is just more proof than in some ways they are alike.
Some Islamic authorities may discriminate in the way they treat non-Muslims, as with Jizyah and being a Dhimmi, but even authorities and individuals within the churches discriminate against non-Christians, such as Muslims & Jews, by showing disdain for their religion and by expressing in the strongest of terms that there is no comparison between Christians & them, none at all. Such an attitude will still diminish a person's religion and culture more than any tax.
I am no fan of Islam, but humanly speaking I am no fan of nit-picking arrogant Christians either.
They can both argue it out who is right without any further displays of ignorance from myself.
1
-
ย @observersntย I have a lot of postings on here and not sure exactly which one you are orginally referring to for me to re-read it and examine the exact points you are reacting to. I notice that some texts, including some of yours do not show up on the public platform that I can see, so there may be some shadow-banning going on, which makes it difficult to trace every comment, and my immediate memory can fail me considering the amount of immunosuppressants I am on daily that can cause fatigue and it can be challenging to chase up every nuance I have written.
However, I can reply from my overall belief in the subject you are defending so that you don't misunderstand my direction of thought. Firstly, I DO agree with you on the atrocities meted out by Islamists and Muslim governments and leaders over the years and down through the centuries, including the scourge of suicide bombs and attacks that affected daily life when I lived in Jaffa-Tel-Aviv, where it became dangerous to go into crowded places like markets, on buses, and even at religious gatherings on particular Jewish holidays that the Muslims are well aware of, not to forget choosing to attack Israel on the holiest day of the year in the Hebrew calendar, namely Yom Kipppur, or the Day of Atonement, when many soldiers would be off on leave in order to attend synagogue, and thus Israel was at a disadvantage for Arab armies to surprise attack, and indeed Israel nearly lost that war in 1973 if it were not for the biggest tank battle in history eventually regaining control, even pushing the Syrians back as far as Damascus, with Israel taking the Golan Heights in the process, and wresting control of the eastern shore of the Sea of Galilee where previously the Syrian president used to dip his feet in the Galilee water.
This secured safety for the Israeli kibbutzim in the Galilee that had previously sustained regular shelling from Syria along with Arab snipers raiding Israeli kibbutzim (collective communities) and moshavim (community farms) killing children and anyone else they could.
So I understand the aims and threats of Islam and Muslim extremism, as I lived among it for many years, and as a result had my own gas mask and sealed room in my Tel-Aviv apartment just like any Israeli Jew would have in order to protect from surprise attacks from the likes of Scud missiles and poison gas from Saddam Hussein in Iraq back then, and much of Tel-Aviv was shelled, and I often hunkered down in public underground bunkers, including under the Hilton Hotel where I worked as a chef in north Tel-Aviv, even after the British Embassy ordered all British nationals out of the country except for essential skeleton staff in embassies and consulates and high-end business management, yet I chose to stay and live among the Jews during this spectre of Islamic terror, so I am not in support in any way of what Islam stands for religiously or politically, which is often interlinked anyhow. Nonetheless, I befriended individual Arabs, both Muslim and Christian, as well as with Israeli Jews, and I was often surprised at how well they could get on with each other, despite the horrors and atrocities, and the differences that divided them, and so I do not judge Muslim people who live under the yoke of Islam who are as human as you or I, but are really enslaved in a brainwashing religious system with barbaric beliefs.
However, my love affair with Christianity is by no means perfect either, and I guess at age 57 after nine years of chronic illness and much mistreatment by self-righteous Christians over the years, I do find myself very disinclined towards them, even if the kernel of their message is true in spiritual terms, and they are by no means as barbaric as Islamic torturers or extremists, but nonetheless Christian history is not devoid of cruel persecution, pogroms, murder, rape and even clerical paedophilia all under the dark cloak of Christianity, not of Islam or even Judaism.
The Jews view the Holocaust in enlightened Europe as a Christian thing, as it was not carried out by Muslims, and Adolf Hitler was quoted as saying he was doing the Lord a favour by exterminating the Jews. That theology originated in the Church stemming way back to the first vitriolic anti-Jewish sermons and teachings by the early Church Fathers, such as St John Chrysostom, who was called the "golden mouthed," yet he spewed out anti-Semitic vitriol more than any Arab (although Arabs are Semitic too!), which seeped into Church theology and Christian perception of Jews as evil etc for having killed Christ, and so they were persecuted wherever they lived in the Christian lands, and fared less well among the Christians than they did living among the Muslims in Arabia, with Spain expelling all Jews in 1496 (not sure of date?), and England expelling them under Edward I in 1290, the first European country to do so, as he did not want to pay them back the money he had borrowed to build so many royal palaces.
Nit-picking Christians may be more tolerable in your view because you are a Gentile Christian (I presume by your defence), but if you were a Jew I can assure you that you would be ultimately safer living among the Muslims than living among the Christ-loving Christians who meted out much hatred and murderous plots against the earthly kinfolk of the Saviour with impunity.
I know there are some "nice" Christians too, but by and large they are a venomous lot.
One can only write that from experience. Jews with Holocaust tattoos do think the same.
1
-
1
-
ย @gtaambassador744ย I think you will find if you join your religion that people will be told what is acceptable in that religion and be expected to imbibe many new concepts "by faith", including many stories from written texts taught and explained every week by a trained teacher aimed at both adults and children in order to change their previous views of the world, humans & God.
If that is not "brainwashing", what is?! How many original thoughts and views are you now allowed to express or uphold since you agreed to embrace the theology of your chosen religion?
So your brain is not even rinsed a little? Or do you have enough of your own personality left to be able to ignore or reject what is being systematically taught to you week by week? Hardly.
Christians may not like to admit it, or find more acceptable terms to describe it, but they are systematically indocrinated, even if it is by choice. And they contend that that religion is good!
They just do not like the fact that other people with free and open minds and lifestyles different to theirs may not accept their potted views and judgements on humanity and the whole of society that they believe they can impose on others, no matter how others may feel about it.
That is why some may view their religion as "bad", as you put it, due to their own "telling people" how to live and whom they can form a life partner with. If gay people have to accept that a man and a woman can marry in order to publicly declare their relationship, then the same acceptance should be available to non-heterosexuals who as human beings wish to similarly express that.
The fact that religious heterosexuals cannot accept that only proves how brainwashed they actually are. Gays can marry. Get over it. Keep your own religious views to yourself.
That way no one will bother you at all or even care what condition your brain is in or how good or bad your religion is. Just keep your nose out of other people's business. Thank you.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
ย @DaeFranklinย They ARE victims because they are being SINGLED OUT by heterosexual bigots and blinkered Christians whose world view is about as small as a grape. If you think heterosexuals are "victims," as you suggest, don't forget that they have the whole world with them and don't need to fight for anything, not rights, not recognition, not tying of the knot of their relationsnips, and not even to seek affirmation for desiring to hold their partner's hand or some other simple expression of emotion which they can flaunt in public with impunity all the time.
Maybe if the shoe was on the other foot you might find a shred of empathy or compassion.
You have your rights already, and they aren't being impugned any time soon.
You say you don't see Christians forcing God in schools or in education systems. That is simply because they already have built an indocrinating educational system within the churches called "Sunday School," which the poor kids have little choice in attending, which is pretty systematic to me.
From what I can see from all the street preachers on egotistical YouTube videos shouting through megphones in public places and even disturbing and interrupting civil gatherings and events of non-Christians on this platform, not to mention all the church camps and children's activities, I do think they are in the streets parading God and forcing other people's children to join in. That is a clear Christian practice, and it is practised widely against LGBT people.
"Force" being the same clever entrapment "invitations" that many groups use to invite others.
Homophobic means they are "afraid of gays." They're not. I just use the real term: ANTI-GAY.
Let him without sin cast the first anti-gay stone. Remember how they all walked away?
Why? ๐ค
1
-
ย @DaeFranklinย The doctrine you espouse that comes strsight from the Bible, does tell people of other religions they are going to hell for not serving the God of the Bible. If they are not, then they are not part of the Great Commission to preach the Gospel to every creature, which includes hell.
If you think that is EXACTLY what LGBT people are doing and taking away women's rights, when did any LGBT person come up to you and tell you you are going to hell? They don't espouse that.
It's more a case of sour grapes, and "I'm alright Jack, I'm up the ladder," as they don't want to see gay people have the same rights and equal opportunities as they are so accustomed to.
For your information they do NOT have way more rights than the average person, as they are denied many things, are maligned and insulted by arrogant religious Christian bigots, who think they must have a religious monopoly on everything, including on morality and relationships.
No wonder we do disagree however ๐
Your thoughts are pretty alien ๐ฝ
Even though you wouldn't know alienation if it hit you in the face.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
ย @gtaambassador744ย No, I am male. I fell asleep due to exhaustion. It can take it out of me to type all these answers, and my carers tell me off. The points are still the same no matter the gender. There is neither male not female in Christ, neither Jew nor Greek. So it doesn't matter necessarily if a Christian is male or female or Jewish or Gentile. It goes deeper than that.
Obviously male and female, and Jews and Gentiles, are still valid distinctions, but not something that should be an issue. Yeshua is a male Jew so we can identify with half of Him.
A Jew can identify with the whole of Him, as they can understand better His language, meaning of His Name and titles, His Semitic familial lineage from Judah, the calendrical timings and "MOADIM" or "Appointed Times" that He observed right until the day He died on the Day of Passover on Nisan 14th, which He asked us to remember ("as often as ye do this," not "as often as you like") which the English translators clumsily render as "seasons" in the book of Genesis.
Gentiles may fully recognise males and females in Messiah, but learn very little about Jews.
This I encountered during my 10 years in Israel when the Sabbath-keeping practices of Messianic Jews were identical to the practices of the pre-Roman Celtic Church of Britain and Ireland who remembered the Lord's death on Passover, not the Roman invention of "Easter," until the Synod of Whitby in 664 when King Oswy of Northumbria, England, was swayed by the wily Roman prelates out of the fear that St Peter would be at the gates of heaven, and the Roman Church venerated Peter as their pope, whereas the Irish Christians took their practices from the Apostle John who wrote the book of Revelation, who founded all the Sabbath-keeping churches across Asia Minor, now parts of Turkey and Greece, before he died at age 110, the last Jewish apostle to die still upholding the Jewish Sabbath-keeping practices of the early Jewish Church, which still met in the Temple (according to the book of Acts) for 40 golden years of the Church until European Gentiles from Rome razed the Temple of the LORD to the ground, after which the Jewish Church retained its primacy in Jerusalem with some 12 successive Jewish bishops after Ya'akov/Jacob the first one, whom the Gentiles renamed "James", over the first 100 years until the European Gentiles from Rome completely razed the Holy City forcing the Jews, including the Church to flee, as Yeshua prophesied, when He told them to pray that their flight would not be on the Sabbath, as that would impede their escape, after which Gentiles became bishops there.
John's churches became known as the "Quartodecimans" as they kept the 14th Nisan instead of the Roman "Easter," which was not ratified until the councils held in the 4th century at Nicea and Laodicea at which no Jews were present to object to these changes, and Passover was viewed negatively from then on as an undesirable and unneccesary "Jewish" observance, even though Yeshua was a Jew and all the apostles, and He instructed to remember His death on it, not on a "day of the week" as the Gentiles do, but on the actual Biblical DATE, ordained by God.
All these changes brought about "Sun"-day, named after the SUN, but not the SON, as a replacement for the Sabbath of the LORD, with the reasoning that it is the resurrection day, but this reckoning comes from a Gentile misunderstanding of Biblical "Appointed Times," by tying their calculations from "Friday," the day preceding the Sabbath day on "Saturday," where it says Yeshua had to be taken down from the cross before the onset of the Sabbath, which began at sunset, as with all Biblical days. However, they fail to appreciate that the Bible calls this Sabbath "an HIGH DAY," (KJV), in other words, not an 'ordinary' Sabbath, but it was in fact an ANNUAL SABBATH, namely the First Day of Unleavened Bread on Nisan 15th, as there were TWO Sabbaths or "rest days" that week, and the latter could fall on ANY day of the week, so not be tied to "Friday," and so the "Friday-to-Sunday" reckoning is from this misunderstanding.
"Friday" or the Sixth Day (YOM SHISHI) is not specified anywhere in the Gospel accounts, only the term "PREPARATION DAY," which precedes either a WEEKLY or an ANNUAL Sabbath, which in this case was an ANNUAL Sabbath, so the calculations do not start from Friday.
Yeshua was put in the tomb JUST BEFORE SUNSET before the onset of the ANNUAL SABBATH. The first visitors came to the tomb very early on the first day of the (working) week after observing the Sabbath ("according to the Commandment") while it was still dark before dawn to find Yeshua was NOT THERE, but had ALREADY RISEN, but no one saw Him rise, so that occurred some time BEFORE that. Yeshua gave the 'sign' of Jonah of 3 days and 3 nights (72 hours) to an unbelieving generation as a prophecy of the exact timing when He would rise from the grave.
The only point that would be 72 hours later JUST BEFORE SUNSET would be not long BEFORE the first visitors appeared at the EMPTY tomb, which would be JUST BEFORE SUNSET on the weekly Sabbath just BEFORE the onset, but NOT ON, the first day of the (working) week, now re-named by Gentiles as "Sun"-day. Thus Yeshua rose from the dead on the SABBATH, not on "Sun"-day as Gentile ecclesiastical tradition and assumption concludes and commemorates, making Him truly Lord of the Sabbath, but not of "Sun"-day, so this Christians do in vain.
Count back 72 hours from this point and you arrive at WEDNESDAY for the crucifixion day, and not Friday at all, not that it matters on which day these things happened, but it is the Gentiles which make a thing of trying to tie these events to a "day of the week" and venerating them on special days which the Scriptures do not inform us to do, rather than heed the actual DATES that we have in the Bible, which do not change or move like the "moveable feast" of "Easter."
So Jews in Christ are essential alongside Gentiles to help keep things in balance, just as having males and females helps keep balance too. But no indocrinated Gentile will listen to this. ๐
Thus Christians wilfully break the Commandments of God just as much as homosexuals do.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
ย @gooble69ย I am quite familiar with the "two camps" analogy as it's quite common for people with differences not to agree, such as with the peoples with differing outlooks and flags in the countries I lived in the most, Northern Ireland and Israel respectively, and the "two camps" reality is still alive and well in those countries. That is why I applied it to the opposing parties here, as they look very unlikely to agree. I know you are looking to one side to blame, which happens in any conflict situation, but often you have to look at the grievances of BOTH sides in order to make any progress with either peace, reconciliation or a de-escalation of rhetoric or violence.
Yes, most nation states have a single flag and all citizens are under their laws, but there are exceptions, such as the two places where I have lived where certain laws and flags may not be recognised at all. You say equality is desired by most people, yet say that civilisation is moving away from unity due to certain groups that you do not name, except for the term "woke" which I do not have any clear knowledge of, except that I "woke" up from my sleep to answer this text.
I did think your description equally applies to the Christian Church when you mentioned the promotion of special interest groups with special membership based on immutable traits with dedicated flags of their own that they force on you and demand you recognise (the Vatican) ๐ป๐ฆ
Thankfully I am not a member of any "group" religious or otherwise, but I do know that any "groups" will always cause division as they often exclude those who do not agree with them.
Bigotry has been eating away at our society, but not just from this new word "woke," but for centuries already the most bigotted minds have come from the ranks of organized religion.
The name of that bigotry goes by the name of Christianity (their word not mine). ๐
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
ย @TribalCashAAย How do you define DNA by geography, i.e. "Middle East"? I thought it went by bloodline descent, not geography. Jews before 1948 were "Palestinian" too under both Turkish and British control of the land if that is what you mean by that term, as it is not exclusively an Arab term, but was descriptive of anyone living in the territory, whether Arab or Jewish.
The only reason some Jews may have European descent is because they were ethnically cleansed from Judea and Jerusalem by Euopeans from Rome and so they had to seek sylum in other regions including Arabia, China, India, so Jews claim all these regions as "descent" too, but are still bloodline Jews and Semitic cousins of the Afabs through their common forefather, Abraham. Islam overtook Andalucis in Spain, and any Arabs there did not lose their DNA just because they ended up in a different geographical region from whence their people originated.
From where did you get the 5% and 100% statistics, and who paid for all that 'even' research?
I would like to examine it if you can furnish me the source from which you confifdently quote.
Zion is a Mountain in Jerusalem, and if the Palestinian Arabs aspire to live there exclusiive of any Jews then they are really the ones who are "Zionist" by the true definition of the term.
I lived in the Middle East for 10 years but it did not change my DNA.
1
-
1
-
@dpoole72dp : SIN = TRANSGRESSION OF THE LAW (OF GOD). Have you transgressed? ๐ค
Pride is not all of sin on this planet, but only one. Others include lying, gossip, slander, theft, eating unclean animals ("ABOMINATION!"), not keeping the Sabbath of the LORD holy, etc.
I have met many prideful, haughty, condescending, self-righteous, judgemental, condemnatory, and generally icy cold distant unfriendly unthoughtful and unkind Christians who all clearly sin.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
TANYA LAKE: You say: "That's because so-called christianity/religion is fake. All living things got created by the universe. An African female was the first human and also the mother of humanity. Even some, actual, sane, knowledgeable, honest, realistic/real, mature adults know that/this."
I could not find what you wrote posted up on the actual YouTube platform for some reason, so in case people reading don't understand what my reply is connection with, I have re-typed it above for clarity.
I'm sure others may have opinions on what is fake or not in your statement, but I guess it takes some kind of "belief" in order to "believe" either side of your argument.
I had not heard about the first African female before. I was taught it school, where I think the teachers were actual, sane, knowledgeable, honest, realistc/real, mature adults, although admittedly things have changed a lot since I was at school.
Do you think the "universe" that you ascribe creation to is inanimate or with some kind of living intelligence to do all that perfect working living complex creation that we experience today?
It's a pretty clever non-intelligence if it is inanimate, and a strange universe if it is "living." ๐
At least the product of it in the form of your intelligence is able to post erudition on here.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
ย @tobester0753ย I don't hope for an LGBT PM. I was merely responding to someone "hoping" that the replacement would be BAME, which caused me to think of other such like possibilities. As far as it stands (correct me if I am wrong), but I think the British Prime Minister had to be a member of the Church of England or of the Protestant Christian faith, due to the previous history trying to prevent a Roman Catholic from taking office in a Protestant country? This was why Tony Blair had to wait until his tenure as PM finished before he could openly convert to Roman Catholicism.
It wouldn't make any diffefence to me, and I am sure too for most, but that stipulation may raise "issue" with people from non-Protestant community groups being the leader of the British nation.
Perhaps if a candidate from one of those minority communities were successful it would put these archaic laws under the spotlight of public and Parliamentary scrutiny to be amended, if it has not been already. I wouldn't "favour" because of minority status, but nor should we exclude.
Anyhow, it is more likely to be the usual "majority" group/status candidates that will succeed as I am sure there are a lot out there who would NOT want to "favour" or choose a minority status PM. And that goes for those from a minority group who may be, as you say, competent or not.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Henky Sumarja : Sodom & Gomorrah was not a "same sex" scenario.
The Hebrew word for "men" in male plural includes women, just as elsewhere in the Bible, as with "men of Galilee," "men of Jerusalem" and with "sons of God," which were not all-male situations.
The Hebrew word here, ANASHIM, means "people," but gets rendered as "men" in English as Hebrew always uses male plurals to describe mixed-sex groupings. ANASHIM is related to the root word ANUSH, which means "human," not "male." Also in the same verse (Genesis 19:4), the English word "PEOPLE" is used in "people from every quarter" (of the city) which confirms this.
This is the SINGULAR word for "people" whereas ANASHIM is the PLURAL word for "people."
One describes a crowd of individuals of BOTH SEXES, whilst the SINGULAR "people" is the small Hebrew word "AM," as in "AM ISRAEL," the singular "people of Israel." In this case it is the "people of Sodom." So even if you insist on using "men" in English translations, this second mention of "PEOPLE" in the same verse affirms the true intention of the Hebrew text before translators.
Just read the passage putting "people" instead of "men" and the passage will not have the exclusive homosexual complexion it is often given by the emphasis of the translated word ANASHIM into "men." Why would Lot offer his daughters to a crowd of homosexuals???! ๐
1
-
1
-
1
-
ย @thesehandlessucksomuchย I did not say you were hating, I was saying that those who support Israel do not show hate (towards Muslims or those who oppose Israel) as you said in your comment that you could not wait to see who will hate on you, as if you were inviting someone to hate you.
And after I reply in a very moderate and generous way in order to assure you that you won't be hated (and the lack of comments against you seem to prove this) and my well wishes for you to have peace from God, you reply negatively and say to me, "you are hating"!!! ๐คฏ I am not hating!
I did point out truthfully that you will only find hate on the side that opposes Israel, as they do openly hate Israel and encourage others to do so by their pervasive propaganda and marches.
If you do not wish me to say that they support the Islamists, then I will change it for you into they support those who are Islam, however, that then implicates ordinary non-terrorists as well.
If Islamists are not a thing, and there is only Islam, then Islam, not Islamists, is responsible for the murder, rape, kidnapping, and burning of children in piles with the hands tied behind their backs on Islam. I'm glad you have clarified that for me, but that does not mean that I hate them.
"Vengeange is Mine, saith the LORD." It is not up to me to mete out judgement to others. ๐
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
ย @karlawenger5033ย I see your point, but not sure if I believe in "elevating" church leaders too much. That's why people get so disappointed when they fall. They may have high expectations put upon them, but they are ax human and as sinful as anyone else. There should not only be "one man" allocated into a ministry position according to the New Testament it is an "all body" ministry involving pastors, deacons, bishops, evangelists, teachers, apostles, prophets and so forth.
Today churches expect one man, the "pastor," to do it all, or most of it. That is not Biblical structurecand often why pastors are put on pedestals and so "highly esteemed," when they should be just serving alongside their brothers and sisters. A teacher is a gift but it is not the same office as a pastor, but often today the two are conflated, with the "pastor" combining Bible teaching with visitation of the sick etc., when these are in fact two distinct offices for two men.
That way there is more support and collective responsibility and less chance of "falling."
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
ย @checo8187ย You are very quick to cherrypick verses that match your anti-Jewish bias, but Yeshua the Jewish Messiah, as He was called back then before the Gentiles or non-Jews changed His given Name to "Jesus", a name He would never have heard in His lifetime, was speaking not to the whole nation of Jewry, but to religious hypocritical Pharisees who condemned the population for not keeping the minutiae of their own man-made rules, yet lacking mercy, compassion but prefered self-righteous judgement. That self-righteousness and judgement is still around, which is why sinful human beings try to pick on the Jews & Israel.
Yeshua does not limit the fatherhood of the devil to religious hypocrites among the Jews back then (for multitudes of Jews thronged to hear Him, be healed by Him and who formed the first Jewish Church before any Gentiles even got involved), but he opens it out to the whole world, as we read in Matthew 13:38:
38. "The field is the world, and the good seed represents the sons of the kingdom. The weeds are the sons of the evil one."
This is not talking about any sects of the Jews, but the world in general, so if you are so concerned about who are children of their father the devil, you must also shout that out from the rooftops too or else you only provide a skewed representation of who Yeshua cites as belonging to the evil one. The Jews who loved & followed Him were not in the same camp but were His.
If you lump everyone nationally by one statement or act, then you must equally denounce the Italians in Rome for hammering in the nails into Yeshua's hands and feet and for thrusting a Roman spear into His side, who is the Son of God and Judge of the whole world. โ๏ธ
So are all Gentiles condemned as Christ-killers commiting the act of Deicide in murdering the Messiah? For even Yeshua Himself said to the Jews that He would be handed over to the GENTILES and killed! The influence of the devil is in every sphere of life, and was even among the 12 disciples, if we go by Yeshua's words in John 6:70:
70. "Yeshua answered them, 'Have I not chosen you, the Twelve? Yet, one of you is a devil!"
Paul in Romans 9, 10 & 11 warns for the grafted in branches (Gentiles) not to boast over the root (Israel), as the root supports the branches and not the branches the root. Therefore do not be haughty but remember the goodness and severity of God, for the same can happen to you!
You can find many more verses in the Bible citing Israel & the Jews in very glowing spiritual terms, and many even concerning the future, but you probably are not interested in those. ๐
1
-
ย @checo8187ย II PETER 2:
1. "But there were also false prophets among the people, even as there will be false prophets among you, who will bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Lord who bought them, and bring on themselves swift destruction.
2. And many will follow their destructive ways, because of whom the way of truth will be blasphemed.
3. By covetousness they will exploit you with deceptive words; for a long time their judgement has not been idle, and their destruction does not slumber.
4. For if God did not spare the angels who sinned, but cast them down to hell and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved for judgement;
5. And did not spare the ancient world, but saved Noah, one of eight people, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood on the world of the ungodly;
6. And turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah into ashes, condemning them to destruction, making them an example to those who afterward would live ungodly;
7. And delivered righteous Lot, who was oppressed by the filthy conduct of the wicked
8. (for that righteous man , dwelling among them, tormented his righteous soul from day to day by seeing and hearing their lawless deeds)-
9. then the LORD knows how to deliver the godly out of temptations and to reserve the unjust under punishment for the day of judgement,
10. And especially those who walk according to the flesh in the lusts of uncleanness and despise authority. They are presumptious, self-willed. They are not afraid to speak evil of dignitaries,
11. Whereas angels, who are greater in power and might, do not bring a reviling accusation against them before the LORD.
12. But these, like natural brute beasts made to be caught and destroyed, speak evil of the things they do not understand, and will utterly perish in their own corruption,
13. and will receive the wages of their unrighteousness, as those who count it pleasure to carouse in the daytime. They are spots and blemishes, carousing in their own deceptions while they feast with you,
14. having eyes full of adultery and that cannot cease from sin, enticing unstable souls. They have a heart trained in covetous practices, and are accursed children.
15. They have forsaken the right way and gone astray, following the way of Balaam the son of Beor, who loved the wages of unrighteousness;
16. But he was rebuked for his iniquity: a dumb donkey speaking with a man's voice restrained the madness of the prophet.
17. These are wells without water, clouds carried by a tempest, for whom is reserved the blackness of darkness forever.
18. For when they speak great swelling words of emptiness, they allure through the lusts of the flesh, through lewdness, the ones who have actually escaped from those who live in error.
19. While they promise them liberty, they themselves are slaves of corruption; for by whom a person is overcome, by him also he is brought into bondage.
20. For if, after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, they are again entangled in them and overcome, the latter end is worse for them than the beginning.
21. For it would have been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than having known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered to them.
22. But it has happened to them according to the true proverb: 'A dog returns to his own vomit,' and, 'a sow, having washed, to her wallowing in the mire.' "
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
ย @l-uk3xmย Britain abstained from the UN vote in 1948 when the nations of the world were deciding to recognise the State of Israel (after the Arabs had refused their's in the UN Partition Plan of 1947, and every offer of peace ever since). The only time Britain showed favour to the Jews having a homeland in Palestine, with the proviso that it would not affect the existing peoples already living there, was in the Balfour Declaration of 1917.
Since then they have been ambiguous about Israel, and even the British State Broadcaster refers to Tel-Aviv as Israel's capital, not Jerusalem, and thus the British Embassy in there, not in the country's capital, which would be like France having their Embassy in Birmingham and not London. Britain has consistently sat on the fence when it comes to Israel, ever since they started appeasing the Arabs in the 1930's onwards due to their stakes in oil etc., whilst stopping Jewish immigration to the Holy Land, despite their historical Biblical links, in the British White Paper for Palestine in 1939. They have been biased towards the Arabs ever since, despite the Jews. ๐
With Her Majesty the Queen being some 70 years on the throne, yet the Foreign Office never permitted her a visit to the Land of the Bible, even as a pilgrimage as Head of the Church of England. Thus the power of politics and bias can even outstrip even the will of monarchy. ๐
Britain is at best a fairweather friend to Israel and every Israeli knows it all too well. ๐๐คฏ
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
ย @stephfoxwell4620ย Well, what would you have done if you were responsible for the health of the nation during an outbreak of an unknown killer virus? What would you have done more perfectly, tell me? If he had have let everyone wander the hospital wards freely and the virus spread more he would still face criticism! He's damned if he does and he's damned if he doesn't.
It was the virus that killed people, not Boris Johnson. Some logistics are easy to criticise with "perfect" hindsight, but the nation forgets that the PM nearly died himself in intensive care.
Boris has become a scapegoat for everyone's grievances, anger and personal grief.
I am a terminally ill kidney patient with Amyloidosis, and I was hospitalised three times with covid due to my poor immunity on chemo etc., and the medical staff would not allow me any visitors. I had to wave from my hospital window. However, if visitors were allowed I may not have survived at all, as I had to be surrounded by plastic in an isolation ward. I didn't blame Boris.
The insistence of my family and friends to see me would have killed me and worn me out.
What happened to your father is indeed a tragedy, and both Boris and I could have died too.
But to call a man just because he was in responsible office a "vile little man" and a "sworn enemy" is a very embittered stance to take. If you were PM would you have saved all lives?
Some are being very unfair towards Boris, and hatred and bitterness will not help anything.
No matter who was PM the people would still be looking for someone to blame.
I think the people should be left to figure it out for themselves and sort out their own problems with their own decisions and then there will be no one to blame but their own ungrateful selves.
It is a thankless task being a British Prime Minister. It is a poisoned chalice whatever they do.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@user-kx4sw7xl2y : Pharoah didn't repent, yet God used him for His divine plan. ๐
You're focusing too much on the humanity and frailty of leaders who may have faults and flaws in their character, rather than focusing on God's ulimate purposes. He is in charge, and it is He that raises up world leaders the Bible says, and it is HIM who is powerful, not the leader whom he sets in place. Look at the bigger picture instead of in a human way.
It is God who is perfect, not world leaders, in case you forgot, we are all fallible sinners.
If God wants Trump in charge, for whatever reason, there aint much you can do about it.
Equally if Biden gets in all the Trumpers have to accept that God is still on the Throne! ๐
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
ย @UnashamedCaliforniagirlย Yes, I already knew that the Arabs were Shem-ites with both peoples descending from Shem the son of Noah through their common forefather Abraham, the first Hebrew, (if you read the Old Testament). If God alone owns the land then the Arabs too have no right to be there, if that is your point of God owning the land and not human beings. Correct? ๐ค
So was it called the Promised Land by God in that same Old Testament because He promised the land to Himself? Was it just Himself that crossed the Red Sea in order to dwell there alone?
What do the words "everlasting possession" mean when God says this of the land and to whom? ๐ค So do you suggest Jesus Christ as a Jew was a foreigner not belonging to the land?
Why is it only the Jews whom people object to residing in the Land of the Bible, and not Arabs?
For your information God owns the entire earth, including Arabia, Europe and America.
Do you suggest because He owns territory that He resents humans living anywhere upon it?
I cannot fathom any other reason or logic for your pertinent objection, which you base on Scripture. The 12 Tribes of Ishmael were allotted land in Arabia. Is that also wrong of them?
How will people be able to enter heaven if God alone owns that too? Of course the gates of pearl will be inscribed with the names of the Twelve Tribes of Israel on them, not of Ishmael or any other peoples, nations or tribes, as is written in the book of Revelation (if you read it). ๐
So how will the Jews recognise Yeshua upon His return to Jerusalem as is prophesied if there will not be any Jews in the Holy Land or Holy City, but it is only an Islamic caliphate for Arabs? ๐คฏ
Is your observation borne out of love or of resentment? You forget that God loves the Jews, hence He calls Himself the LORD God of Israel, and His Son King of the Jews and of Israel. ๐
1
-
ย @UnashamedCaliforniagirlย How could the Jews sell the land if God owns it (as you cite as some kind of defence)? Israel was to treat the stranger in the land well, but God also told them to expel certain peoples who were immoral or godless as He did not want His people to be corrupted.
God also helped Israel in battle, and even called Himself the LORD of Battle and the LORD of Hosts, which in Hebrew is YEHOVAH TZEVAOT, or the LORD of Armies, who wiped out people.
The Jews have been 'strangers' in the nations wandering the earth from persecution, pogroms, hate and discrimination, until as prophesied in Scripture that they would be regathered again in their land before the Lord Yeshua returns in order for His own people to recognise Him. ๐ ๐ฎ๐ฑ
The devil is unhappy with this prospect as it threatens his reign of evil power over the earth, and so the hatred against the Jews and opposition to them returning to the Land is widespread.
Nations, territories, and countries change all the time, but people only object to the Jews. ๐
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
ย @worshipthecreator9081ย In the Bible, where the origin of the Jews is recorded, and the territories in which they lived, the line of descent is patrinlineal, or through the father.
However, there were proselytes from the nations who were Gentile converts who joined the people of Israel and worshipped the God of Israel, and these people got circumcised and were considered part of Israel, before the advent of Christianity when a much wider Gentile majority began to worship the LORD God of Israel through their belief in the Israeli Jew Yeshua, whose Name they later changed to "Jesus," thus the need to convert as before to Israel was lessened.
A person who converts to Judaism today also must go through full circumcision (if male) and keep the Jewish laws, and are regarded as Jewish as far as religious observance is concerned, although some purists will still discriminate against them as not being "racially" Jewish.
However, there are many strands of Judaism today, some more conservative than others, whilst others are more liberal and accepting, such as having women rabbis and accepting gay Jews.
Where did you get your information for your claim that a person who converts to Judaism is not classed as a Jew? When I lived in Israel as a non-Jew from Northern Ireland for 10 years, I applied for citizenship but was turned down, however, the rabbis who check for Kosher observance from the hotel where I worked as a chef told me that I could stay in the country if I converted to Judaism or married a Jewish woman, as a non-Jewish spouse can reside there.
This shows that Gentiles do get accepted in Israel and within Judaism under certain criteria, and even non-Jewish partners of gay people intending to marry can gain full Israeli citizenship.
I wonder if people who convert to Islam are classed as Arabs, or do they discriminate too? ๐ค
As like the Jews, the Arabs are a race or a people as opposed to just being a religion.
1
-
ย @almas806ย What the UN says is only an opinion. The Hamas Charter is the one Israelis know about as it declares the full destruction of the State of Israel, so just because people or a people create a Charter does not mean that it is righteous. A charter is just a piece of paper.
Israel only gained extra territory after the Arabs launched attacks on them, and when the Arabs lost, they lost territory as a result. Thus hatred and violence of the "other" by the Arabs has created much of the misery and so-called "occupation" that the Palestinian and former Jordanian Arabs (in Jerusalem & the "West Bank"/Judea) later found themselves in. Before 1967, Jerusalem and Judea, re-named "West Bank" to cover up the territory's Jewish links, was under illegal occupation by the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan.
Prior to 1948 the whole country, including Transjordan, was governed or "occupied" by the British from 1917. Prior to 1917, the territory was occupied by the Turks, ruled from Constantinople, now Istanbul, so there have been many "occupiers", but no complains until the Jews came into the predominance, after being a vilified minority there for centuries.
What there hasn't ever been in history is an "Arab sovereign state" of Palestine. Even prior to 1948, both Jews and Arabs were "Palestinian," the term never applying solely to the Arabs.
Thus the UN Charter concering the "Palestinians" teachically includes those Jewish citizens too. The use of the name by the Arabs today helps to delegitimise the Jews rights to citizenry.
The only reason any Jews began to seek refuge in Palestine from the 1890's onwards was because of the persecutions, pogroms and discrimination meted out to them in the Christian and Muslim nations to where they had been scatttered since being ethically cleansed from their land by Europeans from Rome in 135 CE, culminating in the Germans killing six million of them.
The UN were not calling for THAT persecuted people to offer resistance, but ignored it! ๐คฏ
No nations accepted them, and even in their ancient Biblical homeland they were unwanted by their own Semitic cousins, the Arabs. Technically it is the ancient land of Israel and Judea that is "occupied" by Arabs from Arabia who crossed the porous borders taking advantage of the Jewish land and empty cities after the Jews had been expelled, and now they claim it as their own.
That is why so many "Arab" towns and cities like Bethlehem & Nazareth all have ancient Hebrew place names. They cannot even pronounce "Palestine" as there is no "P" in the Arabic alphabet.
So the Jews are an occupied people too, and it goes back further than just a few generations.
The oldest Charter that outlines the rights of the Jews to the land of Israel is the Holy Bible.
In its pages there is a complete history of how it came into their possession replete with pronouncements by God to make it official, while the Arabs dwelt in oil-rich Arabia.
But now the Arabs want Judea too, believing that the Jews have no rights anywhere.
This is not how their forefather Abraham treated his two sons from whom the Jews and Arabs descend as he was fair to both, allotting land to both peoples, who had Twelve Tribes each, of Ishmaelites and Israelites. The Arabs got a vast area, while the Jews only got a tiny parcel of land.
Still, it is that tiny parcel of land, that was negleected for centuries, that the Arabs suddenly want to rule with the world denigrating the Jews (what's new) and favouring the Arabs to found a Jew-free Apartheid Arab-only Islamic Caliphate called Palestine with Jerusalem as its capital.
You can kiss those Holy Land Tours goodbye if that happens, along with religious freedoms for Jews and Christians. Just check any Islamic country in the region to check out that reality.
The UN was basically formed because of situation in the Holy Land, and now it has become the Judge. Also the one-sidedness of that organisation against Israel is radically hostile to the Jews.
1
-
ย @mimoiahย No, are you justifying terrorists who end up in Israeli jails?
I have seen those rocks that teenagers hurl, and they are small boulders. Believe me if one of those hit your narrowminded head it would kill you. It is a lethal weapon. The best way to keep out of jail is not to commit actions of violence and terrorism (and then blame the authorities for detaining them!)
Why would people be arrested without commiting any crime? I lived in Israel and commited no crime, hence I was not arrested or detained. However, I know people in my home country of Northern Ireland who have commited terrorism with bombs and bullets, killing and maiming indiscriminately out of hatred, and as a result many of them get arrested and sent to prison.
I witnessed many such incidents perpetrated by Arabs out of pure hatred for the Jews.
There are two jurisdictions in Israel and the Palestinian territories, so Israel may detain people who commit violence against them, but that does not give them rights to hold trials for people from another jurisdiction, however the Islamic courts will not try a criminal for attacking Israel!
The Arab hate for the Jews long precedes the State of Israel, and they even descend from two twin brothers, Jacob and Esau, who even struggled with each other in the womb! That's hate!
1
-
1
-
ย @markwoodstock1112ย Confusion and mistakes can happen in a fraught atmosphere of continual conflict (I know from living in Northern Ireland), so what you are saying can obviously occur, so I wouldn't be blind enough to ignore fault, but the bigger picture is an entire society bent on the destruction of another, by whatever means, including online delegitimisation and history revisionism, which does as much damage as any physical war or attacks or bombs.
There were many IRA terrorists jailed in Belfast without trial, and innocents caught up in the meleรจ, so the phenomenon is not unique to Israel. Have you ever srutinised the prisons of China or Russia with as much humanitarian care, or is it critiquing Israel that is your only interest?
If the tables were turned, how do you think the Israelis would fare being locked up in an Islamic Arab Palestinian jail no matter their offence? Would they have justice, and equality and concern for their humanitarian rights? If they hate Jews as it is, how would they treat them in jails? ๐ค
You seem to think that Israelis are the only ones who ever do anything wrong. Is that true?
1
-
1
-
1
-
ย @intalmdr4627ย Most of those "children" are late teens, 16 & 17 years old, not all infants. The people in Gaza are not against Hamas commiting atrocities against innocent Israeli civilians (unprovoked) so by proxy they bring much sorrow upon their own heads, even though it is not the Israeli objective to kill or harm civilians, athough the biased media always portrays it as such.
The rejoicing and dancing among Palestinians after such atrocities shows that they support such terror. It is Hamas who govern Gaza and are responsible for syphoning off money for their military apparatus and the building of tunnels and thousands of lethal rockets instead of improving infrastructure, education, healthcare and not having enough food or fuel reseves to last more than a few days, yet the world blames Israel for the Gazan's daily deprivation. ๐
The Palestinians did nothing to deserve this (apart from supporting Hamas and hating Israel), however the world blames Israel for all their woes and lets Hamas off Scot-free. ๐คฏ
Also Gaza is bordered by TWO countries, and Egypt blockades Gaza more than Israel, as at least Israel lets everything through in normal "peace time", except for stuff that could be used to destroy Israel, which I think any nation next to a hostile enemy would be vigilent about.
Any of these crimes committed by Russia by any chance or are you only focussed on Israel? ๐ค
1
-
ย @annadentis9743ย I'm sure you will find the same in Israel. It is a democracy like America. If the US detained a terrorist from Iraq in their prison system and the prisoner was released still harbouring anti-American sentiment even though he was treated humanely, and went back to his culture in Iraq where anti-American sentiment was very high, would that prisoner tell the Iraqis and those who hate America there that the Americans treated him with the utmost care and manners and that everything about his detention was positive and without fault, or would he say that they treated him not fairly because he is Iraqi and because he is a Muslim in satanic America?
Obviously released Palestinian prisoners are not going to praise their captors, especially if their reason for being detained in the first place was to do harm to Israelis out of hate.
Another side to this conflict is the war of words and propaganda, and if one little lie, untruth, exaggeration or embellishment has success travelling the globe on social media it helps the cause probably more successfully than any terror attacks or physical warfare on the ground.
Sometimes you have to take some accounts of terrorists and criminals with a pinch of Dead Sea salt rather than impugning the legal system of a recognised democracy on that account.
It is obviously in the interests of the Arab convicts to say anything to condemn Israel.
Motives must always be borne in mind. An Arab terrorist is more likely to say negative things about Israel as the hatred is already embedded and it fits their agenda to lie about the Jews.
On the other hand, what is there to gain from the Israeli legal system if they arbitrarily mistreat, torture and persecute political prisoners, as they know that any reports of such will damage the image of Israel's society at large? The truth will always come out in the end, but sometimes the lies that are believed can cause irreparable damage. We must not take everything at face value.
That's what God gave us discernment for. Not just to blindly believe one side that you favour.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
ย @milascave2ย The Passover egg is not related to the Easter egg. It symbolises the destruction of the Temple and is therefore quite a late addition to the Jewish Seder.
The whole Seder Meal is full of different symbols representing freedom from Israelite slavery, not Jewish, as Judah is only one of the Twelve Tribes, but the main symbol in plain sight for all Jews as they partake of the unleavened bread and sweet red wine is Yeshua as the Passover Lamb.
This many Christians obscure by the invention of Easter, which tries to de-Judaize the event.
So much so that they have lost contact with the actual dates that are in the Bible by contriving to celebrate these things on days of the week instead. Tonight at sunset is the beginning of the 14th of Nisan, which is the Day of Passover when the Passover lambs were being killed, and which the Bible calls the Day of Preparation, but is nowhere called Friday or the Sixth Day.
So Yeshua would have met with His disciples TONIGHT, but the institutionalized Church will commemorate this on Maundy Thursday and skip over the Biblical 14th of Nisan altogether.
Due to Biblical days starting and ending at sunset, the two events of the "Last Supper" and tbe crucifixion occur on the one Biblical day, with the crucifixion taking place tomorrow on the daylight part of 14th Nisan Wednesday, but the Christians will do this later on "Good Friday."
It is the deletion of Passover from the Church's consciousness that causes Gentile Bible scholars to conflate the ANNUAL PASSOVER SABBATH with the regular weekly Sabbath, which is why they opt for a Friday-to-Sunday time frame, when the ANNUAL SABBATH can fall on ANY day of the week, and so the Preparation Day for it is not tied to Friday, which is an ASSUMPTION.
Yeshua was taken from the cross before the onset of the ANNUAL SABBATH which began at SUNSET, so He was placed in the tomb JUST BEFORE SUNSET, then He prophesied that He would rise 3 days & 3 nights (72 hours) later, so He would need to rise JUST BEFORE SUNSET also, not at SUN-RISE as many surmise just because the first visitors appeared at the EMPTY tomb very early on "Sun"-day morning, but NO ONE ACTUALLY SAW HIM RISE THEN AT ALL.
He rose BEFORE they came, as they fiund He had ALREADY risen some time BEFORE. That time before was JUST BEFORE SUNSET on the weekly Sabbath, just BEFORE the onset of "Sun"-day, which began at sunset. Therefore Yeshua rose on the Sabbath day, but not on "Sun"-day at all, so "they worship Me in vain" as the Bible says, for "Sun"-day is built on the ASSUMPTION and oversight that the ANNUAL SABBATH was the weekly Sabbath and that the Preparation Day was on a Friday, but the Gospels tell us that this Sabbath was a "HIGH DAY," so it was NOT the regular weekly Sabbath, but the ANNUAL PASSOVER SABBATH, but few Christians can grasp this.
Count back from this point 72 hours and we find the crucifixion day to be WEDNESDAY and not Friday at all. Tomorrow, Wednesday, follows the true time frame of the Bible and is the true crucifixion day of the Bible on Nisan 14th, but not tied to a particular day of the week.
The Church has passed over Passover but has lost much truth and veracity on the way.
1
-
1
-
ย @83croissantย I don't know what you are trying to argue with this. I am trying to present to you Biblical reasons, not Jewish or pagan, but you refuse to absorb it. The date DOES matter as the 14th Nisan begins THIS EVENING at sunset when Yeshua had the Last Supper, but the Church ties ot to a day of the week instead on Maundy Thursday, when both the crucifixion and the Ladt Supper happened on the SAME 24 HOUR DAY, but starting and ending at sunset, so the daylight part of 14th Nisan will continue tomorrow, being Wednesday, when Yeshua was crucified.
The Church will finally get this on "Good Friday," but it will take two days instead of one.
I am sorry for supplying an informational essay. How uninformational do you want me to be? The Bible itself is an informational essay, and that is also where I get my information from. If it is so tedious how do you manage reading such a lengthy document as the Holy Scriptures?
I will keep this short so as not to exert your reading ability, as I do not wish to spend the Day of Passover arguing with someone who rejects the tenets and timings as given to us in the Bible.
Enjoy your Easter feast at the end of the week. I shall enter into Nisan 14th today with joy.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
ย @83croissantย You're rather an unpleasant character to communicate with. What use is all of your religion, if that is the kind of attitude it produces towards other human beings?
The Quartodecimans did not create a controversy, as they kept to holy Scripture and Biblical dates and observances in same manner as the early Church did and its Founder Yeshua.
The controversy came about by men changing God's Appointed Times into man-made feasts.
So it is a Roman authority controversy, as the controversy was caused by their meddling.
You don't care about the tiresome details, that is fine. Every idle word that a man shall say he shall give account of himself in the day of judgement, so not only I will remember them.
I live in a Sabbath-keeping town of the Celtic Church so it is a part of my local history and not something I got from Wikipedia, and I am sorry that I shared any detail about it, as my energy gets very low to type out such intricate replies when I am a terminally ill kidney patient with Amyloidosis and I should not really be wasting my valuable strength on people I don't know.
If you want to know about the character of your Easter holiday I suggest you take it up with someone else or look it up on Wikipedia as you mentioned, as you will only berate me.
Today is the 14th of Nisan (after sunset) that the Quartodecimans kept to remember the Lord's death as He instructed in Scripture, which is the Day of Passover and eve of the "Last Supper," so I don't really want my mood affected by the tones in your reply, which hardly emulate Yeshua.
Tomorrow will be the daylight part of Nisan 14th upon which the crucifixion happened, but very few of His followers will be even aware, as they will remember it days later on Good Friday.
Bede's citatation may have been dubious, but the veracity of Good Friday is more dubious still!
I don't care for the name of Easter at all and don't need it in my life, for I already have the dates. And the name that God called it. That's good enough for me. You do your own thing.
1
-
ย @83croissantย You DO observe Passover as a Christian.
"As often as ye do THIS," i.e. remember the Lord's death (not His birth or resurrection) on Passover, i.e. 14th Nisan, which is TODAY, but the Gentile denominational Christians ignore it.
He did not say, "Do this as often as you like," which is basicially what happens in most churches today, with mini-suppers at breakfast time. The New Testament points out for ALL believers, imcluding Gentiles, that: "Christ our PASSOVER is slain for us. Therefore let us KEEP THE FEAST" (of Passover). He is our Passover Lamb, not our Easter Bunny. ๐ฐ
1
-
ย @shmeebs387ย I have found that not everyone knows His Name is Yeshua, over the 40 + years I have been communicating with Gentile denominational Christians from all over the world.
I guess by your "everyone" you include non-believers too, but I have found that even many non-Christians have not heard of the name Yeshua either, but maybe the ones you know are more well-informed. It may not be esotetic knowledge, but neither is it universally acknowledged.
Yes, some names may adapt, as you say, if the have sounds of letters not in their alphabet or that are difficult for them to pronounce, which is why Yeshua changed format when it was used in Greek as all male names, and especially gods, such as Zeus, Hermes, Socrates etc all ended with an "s" to differentiate them from female names, and especially too of goddesses, whose names ended with an open vowel sound, such as "a" or "e" with the likes of Diana, Aphrodite etc.
Thus Yeshua would have sounded like a female goddess to the Greeks, and so an "s" was addded to save that confusion, and the "Y" changed into an "I" and the "sh" sound into a hard "s" according to what letters were available in the Greek alphabet at that time. That was for the Greeks. However, there was no such difficulty in other Gentile languages with pronouncing Yeshua, if it was an important enough Name, yet the Greek Iesous was retained to eventually become "Jesus" in the mid-17th century once the letter "J" was added into the English alphabet just less than 400 years ago. So, yes, many people may call Yeshua many names, but He would never have heard any of them in His lifetime. Besides why is it SO ESSENTIAL to "translate" the Name Yeshua? It is hardly a difficult Name to pronounce with only three syllables. Other Hebrew words have survived un-translated in the Bible, such as AMEN, HALLELUYAH, HOSANNA, and ARMAGEDDON, and they are not all small words with few syllables, so why is that???!!!
"Jesus" is not "English" as you say, but is a borrowed word, as "Jesus" is not a name that you will hear anyone called in England. It is Greek origin, yet they can't use Hebrew origin! ๐
Also SATAN has survived intact without being "translated" from the original Hebrew all the way into modern English, so the god of this world does not change like the Son of God does. ๐
Even a soft drink like Coca-cola can make its way into every language on the globe without being changed, "translated," or modified in order to fit the languages of all its consumers.
You say, "He isn't going to split hairs over linguistics and calendars on judgement day."
Well, we will see about that. God's sacred calendar, set in place by HIM and observed by His Son Yeshua throughout His life, right up until the day that He died, which was on the Day of Passover on 14th Nisan, which is TODAY (but hardly any of His followers are aware of it), is now replaced by another calendar in the name of His Holiness Pope Gregory XIII, but not of the Creator of time.
YESHUA, meaning "salvation," is the Name above ALL OTHER names, and the Name before which EVERY KNEE shall bow, but how many of His followers will actually KNOW His Name?!
He told us that, in that day, many will come to Him (Christians) and say, I did this in your name and did many great things. But Yeshua will say unto them, "Depart from Me, I never KNEW you."
You may think linguistics, as you put it, don't matter, but God gave His Son only ONE Name.
The devil is VERY happy that so few know it, and that ANOTHER name is in all English Bibles.
And the Christians assist in the process. It is not only non-Christians who are duped by the wiles of the devil. He has a particular interest in suppressing the powerful Name of YESHUA.
And it is now almost lost to humanity. But everyone knows SATAN & of course COCA-COLA!
The Saviour of the World must rely on us to choose what name WE want to call Him !!! ๐คฏ
1
-
ย @83croissantย You are very insolent. I am not busy, at least not any more than you would be with your "Easter" and "Christ-Mass" preparations. I am merely sincerely recalling the Last Supper which happened this evening, and the crucifixion which date of its happening falls tomorrow, but both events withing the one sunset-to-sunset 24 hour Biblical day, just as Yeshua observed.
If that is sinful, then please state the reason why, and why your mocking tone and disparaging comments. Yes, the term spring clean does come from cleaning the house of leaven at Passover.
That is something that God required, nothing that I dreamed up. You need to take your mocking tone to Him about that, not to me. I am a Hilton chef, so my fridge is always clean at all times.
The New Testament clearly warns Christians in Colossians 2:16 not to judge others for observing what God has set in place, yet this seems to be what a lot of Christians do.
"SO LET NO ONE JUDGE YOU IN FOOD OR DRINK (such as with eating clean animals, or drinking wine, when some Christians enforce un-Biblical abstinence), OR REGARDING A FESTIVAL, such as the "Appointed Time" ("MOED") of Passover etc., which was ordained by God and observed by Yeshua, OR A NEW MOON, which are the Biblical lunar months or "moonths" in the Biblical calendar, which are 30 days long, not the variable length of 28,29,30 or 31 days in the papal calendar, OR not to judge anyone for keeping the SABBATH" (which is SINGULAR in the original text, not plural, but some translators add an "s" which is a very subtle change, so that it can be doctrinally used to promulgate "Sun"-day keeping), and even if it is plural SABBATHS, the Bible does refer to the ANNUAL SABBATHS of the LORD as His Sabbaths, which are all REST DAYS.
It is the Passover of the LORD after all, and He asked us to REMEMBER HIS DEATH on it.
If you want to mock the Passover, you are mocking Him, as He is our Passover, slain for us.
He designed the symbolism of the Passover, not me, as it perfectly represented His sinless body and shed blood, so if you want to make light of it, please take that to Him too, not to me.
St Patrick and the Celtic Church of Ireland kept this date, but refused the Roman "Easter."
You can say what you like about my observance unto the Lord, but just make sure you're not backing the wrong horse, as Passover was ordained by God and kept by Yeshua. "Easter" is a break-away from that, and distances the believer from its intrinsic symbolism and purpose.
Wednesday sundown is the eve of the First Day of Unleavened Bread, but the day of Passover itself precedes that on the 14th, so sundown Tuesday was the start, and was for Yeshua too.
There is nothing in the Bible about using tinfoil on a stove, so not sure why you add that in.
1
-
ย @83croissantย Are you still bothering me? I thought you weren't interested in my comments?
Yeshua fulfilled the requirements of the Passover and rose 3 days later on the Sabbath. He kept both, but did not do away with them. Fulfilling the role as Messiah does not mean cancelling out the very "Appointed Times" that God set in place to highlight His Messiahship! They are a shadow of THINGS TO COME, for Messiah is their substance, as prophesied in Isaiah 66:22-23 concerning the news heavens and the new earth in the future with SABBATHS & NEW MOONS!
Refutation and rejection of these things are a refutation of God's Holy Word and a rejection of Him as Creator of these things, as the "seasons", which are the BIBLICAL "MOADIM" or "Appointed Times" in Genesis 1:14:
"Let there be lights in the firmament of the heavens to DIVIDE the day from the night; and let them be for signs and seasons ("MOADIM"), and for days and years."
The poorly rendered word for MOADIM as "seasons" in English, sounds more like spring, summer and winter etc., when in fact these are the Holy Festivals of God or Feast Days, such as Passover etc., as these too are divided by the sun and moon, and not by the papal mid-night.
All these things precede the Jews, and are not Jewish traditions, but are Commandments of God. The Jews later were added in, just as the Gentiles were later added in as well, but GOD is the Author of all the ordinances, festivals and timings in the Bible, not man, but they are FOR MAN, as Yeshua pointed out about the Sabbath, not that it was made only for Jews! ๐
Why give the Jews a day off work, yet make the Gentiles work 7 days a week? God is fair and extends His goodness to all creation, not just to those born into the single Tribe of Judah.
Instead God blends the two, by breaking down the wall of partition between Jew & Gentile in the One New Man Church, where all is equal in Messiah, but the Gentiles have raised a wall again by creating impedients for the Jews by teaching against the Sabbath, Passover & dietary laws, all of which God commanded and taught to mankind through the TORAH, which means TEACHING.
You are right. I am not Jewish, and never will be. Remembering the Lord's death at Passover like He instructed in the New Covenant Church does not make me Jewish, any more than believing in a Jewish Messiah makes me Jewish, or believing in the LORD God of Israel makes me Israeli!
He wanted both Jews AND Gentiles to remember His sacrifice at Passover for their salvation, and Romans warns the Gentiles not to be haughty and boast as grafted-in branches over the root, which is Israel. Passover is a celebration of the Messiah and how its symbolism matches Him, so it is Christian, as the Messiah is at the very centre of it. However, I am not sure if your chocolate eggs that you wish to promote are so authentically "Christian," as I see nothing in the Bible about those, or even any sort of egg symbol, which some say speaks of pagan fertility.
You can keep your chocolate eggs and I will stick to my unleavened bread and sweet wine.
1
-
1
-
ย @emilypaigeballou4869ย Yes, but it's presented in some churches as something that we really should be doing. If its only personal and voluntary then leave it out of the church services, a bit like the obilgatory Mother's Day that has crept into Christian observance from nowhere. ๐ค
Yeshua's disciples didn't fast, but they did observe Passover during the week of unleavened bread when no yeast products are consumed, as would have Peter and Paul as strict Jews.
Why does nobody emulate that, seeing that the leaven represents sin during the Biblical "holy week" of Passover? That is something that is found in Scripture if Christians feel they must be identifying with Yeshua, later re-named "Jesus," in all that He did and said. Just don't eat yeast!
That's only for a week, not 40 days, but I bet it would be "too hard" for any Christian to do.
"For Christ (Messiah) OUR PASSOVER (not "Easter") is slain for us, therefore LET US KEEP THE FEAST." "As often as you do THIS," i.e. celebrare Passover, "you do show forth the Lord's DEATH (not His birth or resurrection) till He come." He did not say, "Do this as often as YOU like." ๐
Sometimes doing what the Bible actually says is better than just making up stuff to do.
The LORD wants OBEDIENCE, not sacrifice, especially if the "sacrifice" is uncalled for. ๐ฟ
1
-
ย Mย I am going down to the greenhouse to chill before I reply to your erudite comment. It takes a lot of energy to reply to in-depth topics when one has a draining terminal condition, so I will have to pace myself rather than replying immediately. As the Sabbath is drawing to a start later today I may not get to spend energy on this pursuit until the first day of the working week begins at sundown "Saturday" night, but we'll see how the energy levels go. I get where you are coming from, but don't find Passover any more of an ordeal than the strictures of Lent. Yeshua fasted for 40 days in preparation for the onslaught ahead before His journey to the cross, but He did all that for us! He didn't expect us to do it too, not that I can find in any of the pages of Scripture.
He did, however, expand the celebration of Passover beyond only the people of Israel by dying on that very day with all its rich symbolism, saying, "As often as ye do this," i.e. commemorate Passover, "ye do remember the Lord's DEATH until He come." It does not say, "Do this as often as you like," which is basically what happens today in most churches, with breakfasttime "suppers."
"Christ (Messiah) our PASSOVER is slain for us, therefore LET US KEEP THE FEAST." ๐ฟ
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
ย @corvusglaive4804ย Well Christians may shelter any kind of person with the co-aim of converting them to their indocrinated view, so I don't envy the gay person who has ended up under your roof.
I became a Christian 40 years ago and was a Christian missionary in Israel for 10 years.
You didn't know that DID YOU!? ๐ง Life can be multi-faceted and can cover many scenarios.
So I know how Christians operate. I am not bigotted, but I believe in levelling the platform.
I live in a very bigotted country of Northern Ireland so I am no admirer of bigotry as it surrounds me every day, as does homophobia and Christian hypocrisy. Yes, Christians are all sinners, but they don't need to concentrate on only one sin all the time while keeping conveniently quiet about others. Even the Bible doesn't concentrate all its focus on just one particular sin.
I have engaged with many professing Christians and I often find them to be rude and contemptuous. I have engaged with gay people too and found them to be civil individuals.
Now that I am terminally ill with End-Stage Kidney Disease & Amyloidosis I no longer am involved in any church activity, although a local minister phoned me yesterday to ask me to do a Passover demonstration for his congregation based on my 10 years in Israel which included being a Hilton chef and having to learn to read, write and speak Hebrew fluently, but I think this year I will give it a miss. It's kinda more fun with the Jewish community anyhow.
The only contact I have with Christians is on here, where I only seem to see them judging and picking on others in a very condescending, arrogant and condemnatory way, which is why my annoyance can rise too, and sometimes I feel sorry for the underdog rather than with them.
Of course backing underdogs became a regular defence mechanism while living in Israel.
You are right. I should refrain from disingenuous engagement with others in the future, as it is a pretty futile pastime communicating with strangers blindly who often insult and nit-pick.
I similarly do not wish you any ill will, and I am happy to disengage with you. Shalom. ๐ฟ๐
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
ย @philc1773ย Only Christians read this book for the most part. So that's pretty limiting. They push that book onto others, not God. Israel reads part of that book. They don't agree to differ.
Thousands of differing Christian denominations disagree on how to interpret this book.
Some ignore huge swathes of it concerning the commanded Sabbath, the eating of unclean animals, keeping feasts like Passover now replaced by feasts not found in that book, yet they instruct others what to do, saying, "It"s in the book." Even hypocrites read the same book.
Sexual orientation is as old as the book. Heterosexual sin is as old as the book.
Heterosexual choice to indulge in bigamy, polygamy, incest, voyeurism, paedophilia, bestiality, fornication, divorce, infidelity, group sex, sex toys, anal sex, fellatio, sad-masochism, does not result in stabilty for children. Some gay people end up looking after these damaged children.
Some bisexuals do have biological children, so LGBT preference can be to do with family, marriage and bringing up children. Any human being can bring up a child. That is adoption.
Even Christians are accepted into the faith by the spirit of adoption, crying, "Abba, Father."
Christians do not become children of God via the channel of biological sex, but by adoption.
What do copulating heterosexuals have to do with this?
The answer is nothing.
Marriage desecrates itself by infidelity and selfishness without any influence by gay people.
Thus it fails to be a stable environment for children to grow up and turn into well rounded, intelligent, strong minded, truthful and caring adults. Some even turn out gay.
Despite the book.
The book exists.
Men exist.
Often the twain never meet.
Many professing Christians have never even read this "library of books" in its entirety.
They cherry-pick from this book in order to make pronouncements from it.
They are often judgemental, quick to condemn and discriminatory, as it's in the book.
People have murdered and carried out atrocities in the name of this book.
War and bloodshed have been carried out in the name of this book.
The book is called a sword. The book alters by translation.
Even holy Names are translated so that they become unrecognisable.
The central Figure of this book is thus rendered nameless.
The god of this world has retained "satan" untranslated from Hebrew to English.
This book was translated in 1611 without the letter "J" being in English.
This became named after an English king who was bisexual.
The book was later revised and subsequently included the new letter "J."
The central Figure of this book for the past 400 years has thus been named with a "J."
The brother of the central Figure in this book had an epistle in this book.
He was the first bishop of Jerusalem.
The English translators changed his name to "James" in order to flatter the king. ๐
The king seeing his own name in this book would be more inclined to sponsor it.
Bishop James is properly called Ya'akov or Jacob, but its taken out of the book.
So people add to the book. People subtract from the book. People don't even read the book.
The book condones slavery, polygamy, death by stoning, all carried out by heterosexuals.
What a fabulous idea! It's in the book!
People also read other books.
They espouse less hypocrisy. ๐
1
-
ย @philc1773ย You make a lot of points to reply to in one text, and due to the fact that I can tire easily as a terminally ill kidney patient post transplant immunosuppressed with Amyloidosis, I don't always relish replying to a complete stranger who will undoubedly reject anything I say in response anyhow, so it is often a meaningless exercise to engage with indocrinated people.
You make many assumptions about my character, calling me a hypocrite and a bigot, that I throw my toys out of the cot and make too much up, while you only can supply 'proper facts'.
I face such judgements a lot from self-righteous Christians who despite their disparaging tone claim to show the love of God, mercy, forgiveness and compassion, which I don't feel very often.
You say about my point about the Bible "Your right people don't read it." Is that MY right, as in YOUR right (to read), or is that " You're right," as in "you are right"? I know that you must be right. ๐ค
You say that belief in a higher power is "up to you," but even the devil 'believes' in God, for the Bible says "even the demons BELIEVE and tremble," so is that an example of such core 'belief'?
You state from nowhere, "You haven't read the book either have you!" (Question mark [?] omitted by you, not me.) Actually I have read the Bible many times through over some 40 years in both English and Hebrew, after learning that language fluently living in Israel for over 10 years.
Thus the points of marriage that you claim come solely from the Bible and God also include polygamy (it's in the book!), and levirate marriage, duty to marry your brother's wife if he dies, (it's also in the book! - so copy it). You say if "you live and fail to act in the way of God you forfeit the right to marriage," but many athesists completely reject the idea of God yet they retain that right.
Also adherents to other religions and gods that are not included in your "Christian-only" ethos that you claim comes from "the book" also marry without ever referencing the God of the Bible.
You pronounce that "gay people can have civil partnerships," like you dole out human rights.
People marry because they want to publicly declare a lifelong commitment, whether they are Christian or not, so if the religious component is removed, as it often is, why prohibit gays?
I agree with your points about women being in the home and not at work. Let tthem stay at home. Suits me. You say in regard to putting children first, "Don't like that? Don't have kids."
Well, that's just as population depleting as many claim homosexuality to be. Kidless couples.
The demise of family values is not due to LGBT people, who make up such a small minority of the population, but the demise has been increasing apace for decades already despite LGBT.
There may be successful heterosexual couples in all of this, as you state, but many gay couples are successfully matched and happy, and child abuse can occur even in stable straight families.
You say you're not a bigot, but you are clearly prejudiced against homosexuals and them being allowed to marry in the same way as other citizens, and all because it says it in "the book."
You are now engaging with someone who has read "the book," as you state that, "I simply want them to read the book before they mouth off about things they know so little about!"
You declare, "I didn't make up the rules! They are in the book."
Seeing as you promote obeying "rules" from "the book," you may be able to explain why so many professing Gentile denominational Christians ignore the "rules" about eating unclean animals, which God calls an ABOMINATION 4 TIMES IN 2 VERSES in Leviticus 11:10-12 concerning sewage-imbibing shellfish etc., in the VERY SAME BOOK (LEVITICUS) that Gentile Christians use to quote about homosexuality being an "abomination," yet they ignore God's Word on shellfish?
"I didn't make up the rules! They are in the book."
The same applies in ignoring the Sabbath on the 7th day, on what Gentiles now call "Saturday" in honour of the god Saturn, which directives are VERY CLEAR in the Fourth Commandment.
Also the Passover of the LORD upon which day the crucifixion took place is now replaced by the man-made Roman "Easter," named after the goddess Eostre/Eastre, according to the venerable Bede, despite the words in "the book" stating to REMEMBER the Lord's death "AS OFTEN AS YE DO THIS" (i.e. celebrate Passover on the actual date that He died, on Nisan 14th) and not "do this as often as you like," which is what Gentile denominational Christians do, calling it a "supper" at breakfast time when no one in society would normally be seen drinking wine before pubs open.
Those things are not in the book! He never mentioned His birth or resurrection as "holy days."
Sometimes even denominational Christians mouth off about things they know little about too, to use a term borrowed from yourself, as I so admire your erudition and Christlikeness in speech.
A plank in one's eye can often oscure one's vision. That one's in the book too.
But of course you have read it all and can cite all the "proper facts" and sins from it.
And, as you say so rightly, "everyone can sin," and that "the Bible teaches people to repent (of) their sins in the name of God. Or face the consequences." - Also for eating pork & shellfish!
Most of His followers don't even know His given Name, YESHUA, which means "salvation," as the Gentiles have changed His holy Name into the transmogrified "Jesus" which He would never have heard in His lifetime, and before which EVERY KNEE shall bow, at which time He will say to professing Christians (not those in the 'world') that did many great things "in His name," but He will say, " Depart from Me, I never knew you, you who practise LAW-LESS-NESS" (law-breaking).
Many won't know His Name, or proudly refuse to acknowledge it (Christians on earth now) and cherry-pick from God's laws which ones THEY like to keep, while conveniently ignoring others.
You are right, human beings are fallible, and I don't blame the book. I never have.
But JUDGEMENT BEGINS AT THE HOUSE OF GOD, not in the world, so the Church would be better getting its own house in order before trying to spout off to those in society on morals.
You call me a hypocrite, but I met more hypocrites in the churches than in gay nightclubs. ๐
That leaves a very distasteful and unconvincing message in any gay person's ear.
Shalom ๐ฟ๐
1
-
ย @philc1773ย Okay you made "some" points then. Sorry to offend and upset. My aplogies. Some Christians get very jittery and defensive in their responses. I did say that they would undoubtedly reject anything I say in response, and so it is a waste of valuable time and energy to engage.
Interestingly you accuse me of bypassing "MANY" of your points, although you objected to me using the words "a lot" of points, but you yourself seem to admit you made "MANY" points which you say I bypassed! ๐ Rather I did not have total space and time to answer each and every point at length. Am I obligated to answer you one-by-one in a systematic way to meet your demands?
This is why at first I hesitated to reply as I have encountered this negative kind of rebuke from so-called Christians before, who seem to plough the internet looking for doctrinal arguments.
If I bypassed "some" of your points, you equally, if not more, bypassed nearly all of mine with no good Biblical reason, such as ignoring the 7th day Sabbath ("IN THE BOOK"), polygamous and levirate "marriages" ("IN THE BOOK"), observance of the Roman Catholic "Christ-Mass" & "Easter" (NOT "IN THE BOOK"!), YESHUA's Name being covered up (replaced by "Jesus" in the English book), so you also are guilty of ignoring, bypassing and refusing to look to "the book."
I don't know what made my "word salad" UNDIGESTABLE, (or would that be "INDIGESTIBLE"?), unless you have some learning disability like dyslexia, as I didn't write any more a difficult style than the Bible is written in. How do you manage the "word salad" in the length of a book like the Bible? Do you respond to the Author of that very lengthy document in the same derogatory way?
Yeshua spoke of those who had eyes, but did not want to see, and ears but do not want to hear.
Maybe you just don't WANT to read what I have written, but expect me to accept what you write.
I can accept your point that human rights didn't always exist, and that "the book" that promotes Christianity (and Judaism) teaches that all men are equal, notwithstanding the roles that Christian slaves and wives have to play quite subserviently, but all in relation to the Christian doctrine and life. We don't share the same attributes, as you say, which must include sexual attraction.
"Back to the original topic..."
You ask if it's not prejudice to uphold YOUR beliefs, and that it's REASONABLE to DENY marriage to gay people. You say that it is hypocritical (of anyone) to DENY you that RIGHT.
What about the "BELIEFS" of other people? They may wish to extend marriage to gay people.
Or gay people may feel that it is HYPOCRITICAL of some with other "beliefs" than them to DENY them that RIGHT (to marriage). It is all really down to differing belief systems down the ages.
You say, "Why gay people have an interest in marriage is beyond me." I would ask why heterosexual people have an interest in it, if it is only a Biblical thing? ๐ค
I know a lot of brides in picking their dress and wedding venue also stink of "me,me.me!"
So that is not an exclusively gay trait (the same with "birth-days") that you seem to attach to them in your assertion.
You say, In the end it is hypocritical to ignore others(') [apostrophe mine] beliefs for one's own gain," which is a two-edged sword, for many Christians will IGNORE the "beliefs" of those who support gay marriage due to "THEIR BELIEF", which would be for THEIR OWN GAIN, in that it promotes their own RELIGIOUS AGENDA. In this they are not allowing any other "belief."
You say, "It's simple. Want to get married choose to avoid sin. That's it."
Maybe you should be writing that to some married people out there, not to me.
I am concerned this will be too long a reply and will not get published by YouTube as a result, as I have attempted to address as "many" of your points as I can, to use your own desription so as to to avoid further ire from you for using the words "a lot." At least "many points" is from you!
I will break my text here and continue my word salad in a following text, not that any of what I write will satisfy your lofty expectations, as so far has been proved by your rejectful tone.
1
-
ย @philc1773ย Part 2 reply to "some", "many", but not "a lot" of your points:
๐ฆ You say that using examples of SHELLFISH to try to discredit that text (I am asuming about homosexulity in Leviticus) is a WEAK ARGUMENT. I would say it is the BEST argument!
As it's "IN THE BOOK"!! !! ๐ฆ๐ฆ๐ฆ๐ฆ๐ฆ๐ฆ๐ฆ๐ฆ๐ฆ๐ฆ๐ฆ๐ฆ๐๐๐ "ABOMINATION!! " (X 4!!)
You can't quote one abomination yet totally ignore another, not if the Author of it is GOD and it's "IN THE BOOK" !
The SHELLFISH example is emphasized (by God) FOUR TIMES as much as in the verse on homosexuality. Surely it should be the other way around, by the emphasis you give to gays?
If the Gentile Noah, who found GRACE in the eyes of the LORD, OBEYED GOD concerning the distinctions between CLEAN & UNCLEAN ANIMALS boarding the Ark in TWOS (unclean) and SEVEN PAIRS [14 animals] (clean, permitted for FOOD), before the Law was given at Sinai, then it makes up the "NOACHIDE LAWS" that Christian pastors teach apply to ALL GENTILES to keep!
Still a lot of selective "cherry-picking" going on in that "book" that you says condemns others.
No, not all relationships are monogamous, and you say that compared to "gay couples(') [apostrophe mine] sexual behaviour though, the vast majority (of heterosexual couples) are saints!" You say, "If I think OTHERWISE I am lying!" (Add that to the other accusations.)
That is a heavy judgement as the book of Revelation states quite categorically that ALL LIARS will end up in the lake of fire, which would include, of course, ALL the parents, teachers and even Christian ministers who LIE to innocent children wilfully, repetitively, year in, year out, with no remorse, unrepentedly, about Santa Claus and his flying reindeer on December 25th. ๐
๐ฅ๐ฅ๐ฅ
One aspect you failed to mention is the many UNFAITHFUL "HETEROSEXUAL" MARRIED MEN who HAVE SEX WITH MEN BEHIND THEIR WIVES' BACKS, which would straddle their behaviour between what you cite as not "exactly monogamous" and the "saints" that you have juxtaposed against each other as a "comparison," but in such cases the two distinctions actually merge.
So I do think OTHERWISE, yes, but only because of life experience that hetties would miss.
Many of them are the "B" in LGBT, although most almost exclusively hide their activity up.
That is largely due to the guilt from Christian teaching and fear of being condemned as "gay."
Yet, they will still be considered "saints" by people such as yourself, and of course, by their darling unsuspecting wives, and not to mention children, friends, colleages & church folk.
If you give me a BIBLICAL reason why I should IGNORE something that God described as an ABOMINATION in His Holy Word then I will DISOBEY HIM AT YOUR BEHEST! ๐ฆ๐ฆ๐ฆ๐ฆ๐ฆ๐ฆ
Just state the reason from "the book." ๐ฆ One prohibition seems as clear as the other. ๐ฌ
If my argument is WEAK, please provide a STRONG ONE to replace it with one that is foolproof!
I avoided the "childhood trauma" point (as I never got to it), but also because I cannot personally testify about that as I did not experience that. I do know a lot of heterosexual people, however, who were SEXUALLY ABUSED BY HETEROSEXUAL PAEDOPHILE CLERGY here in Ireland, but most Christian apologists are not quite as interested in that topic as they are in the "gay" statistics. Maybe it's a bit too close to home. Also I know some awful incest stories non-gay.
I am sorry that I do not fit your statistic to match the studies that you cite.
I do not doubt that the world has "a lot" (I am afraid to use those two words now!) to thank Christianity for, but it also depends on what historical narrative you choose to get your information from. When I lived among the Jews in Israel, they taught me more about Church history than I ever learned in any church or school where I grew up, as they did not seem to recall any of the murders, bludgeonings, pogroms, malicious slander, (and they weren't even gay) and discrimination viciously meted out against the earthly kinfolk of the Messiah, the Jews, in the name of "Christ." Of course, most Jews do not recognise that Yeshua is a Jew just like them, as the Gentiles have successfully CHANGED His given Name (originally meaning "salvation") into the transmogrified Gentilized "Jesus," which would mean NOTHING to any Jew, except that He must be an imposter Messiah as He has no Hebrew Name and even the title Messiah is invisible.
To them He is just a swear word on television who must have written lots of anti-Semitic things in the New Testament that causes His followers to hound and condemn the Jews so fully.
I never said I wasn't interested in it, but anyone with same-sex attraction can never be a part of the church, and even if they try, the only options are to force oneself to try to marry a woman they are not attracted to, or to live a lonely marginalised life within a typical family-focussed church, and viewed with suspicion and mistrust. Believe me, I have tried. It's a nightmare! ๐คฏ
I don't really need to discredit Christianity, as many of its adherents already do that quite successfully, if not remarkably, plus many observances and traditions found within Christendom are NOT found "IN THE BOOK," yet they are taught as "truth" with the help of man-made doctrine, such as with "Sun"-day observance, named after the SUN, and not the SON, when the resurrection actually took place at the end of the weekly SABBATH, just BEFORE the onset of "Sun"-day, and the crucifixion 3 days and 3 nights earlier on WEDNESDAY, not Friday, as the Gospels NOWHERE say Friday, but the mixing up of the ANNUAL PASSOVER SABBATH (which was a "high day" and can fall on ANY day of the week) with the regular weekly Sabbath has resulted in the "Friday-to-Sunday" equation, but a closer look at Biblical timings reveals the SABBATH as the True Resurrection Day ๐ฅ - not that Yeshua asked anyone to venerate it anyhow.
I may not have answered ALL your points, as you require - not that you made "a lot" of points, (God forbid I should say that!), but again, space (and my energy levels) simply did not allow.
I guess I can anticpate from you further rejection and repudiation of my comments.
Shalom ๐ฟ๐
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
ย @ChrisAlbertH47ย Being chosen is not a choice. The word "chosen" in Hebrew is BECHOR, and also applies to the special status given to the FIRSTBORN in the Bible & is the same word.
Also in modern Israel the word is used as BECHOROT for "elections" when "choosing" their leadership. God "chose" Israel not because they were bigger or better than anyone else, but He chose or picked them to do a certain job, and that was to be a light unto the Gentiles or nations, and this they did by bringing the witness of God to the world through preserving the Bible.
That Bible is used by courts of law across the globe to swear upon as a symbol of TRUTH.
The glory and the truth and the light are attributes of God, not Israel, who have all the human faults of any other people on the planet, but it was from them that God CHOSE to send His only begotten Son Jesus Christ, or as the first Jewish Church called Him, Yeshua the Messiah. ๐
People are jealous of the Jews being chosen or picked, yet the Church is also named in the New Testament as being the ELECT, which is the very same BECHOR, so why not attack Christians?
There's many hypocrites commiting heinous acts among them, after all Hitler was a Christian!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
ย @kmo6708ย So, there were more than three parties. I don't think anyone has suffered more punishment than Boris Johnson and it sounds like you still want more. When will you're thirst for vengence be expiated? Yes, people did get fined, but not publicly vilified and crucified like this.
Those people who got fines got caught red-handed, whereas Boris still protests his innocence!
But that doesn't matter as long as the bloodthirsty ungrateful British public get their scapegoat.
I can say that much more offenders did NOT get fines and purposely flaunted their partying without care, at least in the neighbourhood where I live, so your perfect justice seems to lack.
Sweden didn't have any of these rules and seem to have passed through everything fine, and they certainly don't have self-righteous point scorers vilifying both public and government at every turn. "Let him who had sin cast the first stone." And every complaining Brit is a liar.
You only need to tell ONE lie to be a liar, and the Bible that Parliament forced Boris Johnson to swear upon as a symbol of truth says in the book of Revelation that ALL LIARS, from the highest to the lowest, will be cast into the lake of fire! ๐๐คฏ๐ฅ๐ฅ๐ฅ๐ฅ๐ฅ Have you ever told a lie? ๐ค
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
ย @loxism72ย Well they all appear in the Bible in Hebrew. Aramaic is very similar to Hebrew and parts of the Bible are written in it, such as in the book of Daniel etc. If you can read Hebrew you can read Aramaic. That does not mean it has no Jewish links, which seems to be the direction you are going in bringing up the subject of DNA. Yeshua would have spoken Aramaic, which is why He was never called "Jesus," which is not Semitic (not 'semetic'). After October 7th many of the charred burnt remains were identified by DNA, so where do you get the information that DNA tests are banned in Israel? There are a lot of anti-Jewish conspiracy tropes out there. Your Askenazi claim borders on such obsession. Have you researched the Palestinian Arabs' DNA?
You will find that a lot of them are bloodline Jews that converted to Islam when it conquered the Holy Land by the sword. Will you loudly shout that they are not real Arabs? Expose them?
Ashkenazi are simply Jews who descend from Caucasian and European centuries of living and culture, the same as the Sephardi or Arabic speaking Jews who formerly lived for centuries in what became the Islamic nations of the Middle East, including the non-Arab Islamic states of Iran and Turkey, all were dark swarthy skinned like the Arabs. In both cases they remained Jews 100% as both the Christians and the Muslims despised them, so their Jewishness was never overlooked, absorbed, or assimilated, but rather they were subject to discrimination & pogroms.
And what is your own DNA and that of your country? Is it a pure unbroken bloodline like the Aryan obession of the Nazis? If you can't answer about yourself, I would leave the Jews alone! ๐
1
-
ย @coffee6783ย I never disputed the Arabs weren't Biblical. The Bible tells their story in great detail. There were Twelve Tribes of Ishmael, who became the Arabs, and equally Twelve Tribes of Israel, who became the Jews. Both descend from one common forefather Abraham, who was the first Hebrew, from the word "eber" meaning "to cross over", and go back as farvas Shem, the son of Noah, making them Shemites or Semites. The Arabs were allotted Arabia and the Jews dwelt in Judea. Now with all the land mass and countries you cite from Damascus to Yemen (for the Arabs only), the Arabs claim Judea ("Jew-dea") too, re-naming it the nameless "West Bank" in order to cover up any historical or Biblical Jewish links.
The Bible also cites the expanse of the Kingdom of Israel under David and Solomon, which also extended far beyond any borders seen on the map today, and other peoples paid tribute to them.
The Khazar theory has long been debunked and is old hat, and is only continued on by anti-Semites and anti-Israelists (Jew-haters) just as the Arabs still read Hitler's Mein Kampf.
The Jews spoke Yiddish in Europe, which is really German with Hebrew words interspersed in it, but they still read and spoke full Hebrew for Bible readings and prayers in their synagogues, so they had by no means lost it, but living in Gentile or non-Jewish countries they needed something less unweildly for everyday usage. The same happened with Ladino, which was used in Spanish speaking countries, and in the Arab countries they had Judeo-Arabic to get by.
Yes, to use unadulterated Hebrew for everyday life was a challenge for Jews coming back to Israel (mostly to avoid persecution), but it was the only solution as the common denominator for people speaking so many different foreign languages, and it was a success, much more than I see where I live where they tried to resurrect ancient Irish Gaelic, yet most Irish still speak English in everyday life, so if I was to be describing learning a language as a 'farce,' it certainly would not be Hebrew! You obviously have a deep intrinsic dislike of the Jewish people. ๐
And as for "Palestine," the name comes from the Biblical Philistines, who dwelt on the narrow coastal strip of land called Philistia, where Gaza is today, but never the whole land of Canaan, which became Israel-Judea. Check your Biblical map that shows Biblical Arabia and you should find it nestled just next to the River of Egypt, with its cities Ekron, Ashkelon and Ashdod.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
ย @meuknowwho7041ย If modern Hebrew is made up, what about modern Arabic? All languages evolve, if you look at how English has changed in historic literature. If Arabic has dialects for each region then it must be evolving and changing too, yet you unrealistically and hypocritically expect Hebrew to stay 100% unchanged over three millennia, and the Arabs weren't even ethnically cleansed and dispersed across the world by Europeans from Rome like the Jews were.
If that happened the Arabs would you be campaigning for them to get their ancient land back?
The Mizrachim were learnรจd in the Hebrew Scriptures, even if they spoke Arabic in secular life.
If the "Egyptians" are not Arab, they should be writing hieroglyphics with as much accuracy and immutabilty as you expect from the ancient Hebrew of the Jews. Yet, they speak Arabic. ๐ค
Before the British Mandate of Palestine the official language of Palestine was Turkish for the 400 years it was under Ottoman rule. Once the Yemenite Jews arrived in Israel they took to Hebrew like a duck to water. I never challenged they were Jews, that is the obsession of many anti-Semites on sites like this who doubt the veracity of Jewish blood descent & language.
Their accusations are not based on love. All your convoluted arguments have only one aim, to delegitimise the Jews and their historic claim to the land of Israel as recorded in the Bible.
You speak a pretty mongrel language using English, so maybe that delegitimises you too! ๐
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
โย @Mr.Mister96ย Revelation judges churches if you read it, and predicts 144,000 Jewish evangelists from the 12 Tribes of Israel, the names of which are engraved on the pearly gates! Gentiles mis-use the word "church" which in both Greek & Hebrew means "congregation", i.e. the people, not a building, just as the same word ("kehilah") describes the congregation of Israel before the New Testament. The place where Jews are recorded as meeting in the Gospel accounts is just a generic term for any meeting place for any purpose or people, not restricted to the ethnicity of the Jews alone. That word in Greek is "sinagoga" and in Hebrew "Beit Knesset", literally "house of entering" which Gentiles do too!
It is only the anti-Jewish interpretation of this word applied to it in this case because it is described negatively that makes non-Jewish Christians think this only applies to Jews because the Gentiles wrongly describe their meeting houses as "churches" and the word "sinagoga" to only Jews, which is preposterous and grammatically not true to reality. ๐
Christians meet in "houses of entering" too i.e. "syagogues" and so a synagogue of Satan can be any meeting house where Satan had deceived or has influence, and judging from the harsh words meted out to the seven churches ("congregations") mentioned in the book of Revelation it is more likely that Satan has directly deceived them by false teaching and error just as much as your pronouncement against the Jews. Not every Jew is of Israel in the true spiritual sense, but then neither is every professing Christian a true Christian! ๐คฏ
As the old adage says, "Just because the mouse is in the cookie jar doesn't mean he is a cookie!" You gloat that Israel may be at fault, but judgement begins at the House of God!
1
-
1
-
1
-
ย @thePhatCowsย And if you read the Bible it does contain prophecies that the Jews will return to their land after their long and bitter exile before the Second Coming of Jesus Christ, which even billions of Christians believe in and await, but also that all surrounding nations will attack them resulting in Divine intervention destroying Israel's enemies at the Battle of Armageddon.
You don't have to believe it or read it, but it is unfolding right before our very eyes and there is nothing that you can do about it. Even the Jews can't stop it. This is their ultimate destiny. ๐
And when will God punish the Church for their sins committed over 2,000 years so glaringly seing that you cite punishment from God for sins on more that one occasion as the reason to delegitmise and spiritually demote those guilty of all such? They are the Elect of God after all, if your read the New Testament and listen to Church doctrine, and that word "Elect" is the very same word ("BECHOR" in Hebrew) that gets rendered by translators into English in Bibles as "chosen." If the Church too is spiritually "chosen" then they too must forfeit all for their sins.
"There is no group of people who are immune to moral judgement by God", and that includes the Gentile (non-Jewish) Church. Furthermore, for your own admonishment from the Scriptures, and the Messiah born in the Land of Israel: "For with what measure ye do judge others, the same measure will be measured unto you" and "take the plank of wood out of your own eye before you try to take out the speck of sawdust in another's" "for there is none righteous, no not one" "for all have sinned and come short of the glory of God" and "let him without sin cast the first stone."
If you are more righteous that ancient Israel then I will listen to your gloating of God's judgement of them (but not without promise and eventual restoration physically and spiritually).
And if the Christian nations that murdered 6 million Jews and persecuted many more down through the centuries because of anti-Jewish interpretation of the Scriptures, such as you promulgate, did not commit such atroctities, often in the name and cause of Christ, then you can condemn the Jews in the land of Israel today for the perceived crime of defending themselves (again) from bitter Jew-hating enemies. "He who keepeth Israel will neither slumber nor sleep."
It will be the Jew Jesus Christ who ultimately will usher in world peace, not an Apartheid racist Arab-only Jew-free caliphate of Palestine, named after the non-Semitic Philistines, who dwelt only in the narrow coastal strip where Gaza is today, never the whole land of Israel that later became Israel and Judea ("Jew-dea" now re-named "West Bank"), with their capital in Jerusalem on top of Mount Zion re-named in Arabic as Al Quds (which would make them as Zionist as anything levelled at the Jews). Yeshua is coming back for His own people as prophesied in Scripture, not to the Muslim Arabs, even though this event will bring peace to all nations.
Except the nations who have opposed Israel of course, and all anti-Jewish hateful individuals.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
ย @FirstLast-rb5zjย I have left Christianity because as a gay man I will never be accepted unless I force myself to become heterosexual to fit in with their ideology and expectation. I am not atheist but I do stay away from these aggressively indocrinating people for my own good.
I have noticed that many heterosexuals engage in sodomy as well as only homosexuals, which if outside of the purpose of procreation must by your own words be either imprpoer or ambiguous. It is good you believe in a life with some enjoyment. The Church takes this away.
Christians will always quote "God said" to suit their own nuanced or discriminatory beliefs, such as with sexuality and morality (even though there are many cases of paedophile clergy), yet they are not consistent in that they ignore what God says on eating sewage-imbibing shellfish etc.
I am a 57 year old terminally ill kidney patient with Amyloidosis, now immunosuppressed after a kidney transplant, and I attended Church and even took my own meetings for over 40 years.
I led many years in a celibate lifestyle in order to meet the Church's expectations for gay men who are unlikely to marry, but two years ago I met a wonderful man, who himself has been through the whole trajectory of Christianity as a former minister, but was clearly disillusioned.
We struggled in the same way for most of our lives and had so very many interests in common.
Thus I have ended up at this juncture of my life, when health-wise I felt I was on the scrap-heap of life, (for who wants to take interest in a sick person?) now experiencing great happiness and an inner peace I did not have with all the turmoil, condemnation and negativity of Christianity.
All men may have sin, which is why Yeshua (before His given Name was changed to "Jesus" by the Gentiles) said, "Let him without sin cast the first stone," and with whatever judgement you measure out to others it will be measured out to you. People don't like this judgementalism.
People will walk over you if you let them, and Christians are also very good at this, only with hobnail boots! It has takem me 40 years to arrive at this conclusion, but it's the only choice.
Shalom-peace ๐ฟ๐ ๐
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
ย @kodiak64ย Who told you that? ๐ค The Bible never once uses the term "ceremonial" in connection with eating unclean animals, and where it does appear in some English translations of the Bible it is added by the translator as it does not exist in the original text or "Word of God."
Would you consider Peter as head of the Church as a grace-filled Christian or a Jewish heretic?
Some 15 years after the resurrection the book of Acts records him refusing three times TO GOD to eat unclean animals and the sheet containing them went three times back up to heaven. He did not sit and dine on monkeys, horses, crocodiles, dogs, rabbits, pigs, camels or shellfish. ๐คฏ
Rather it was just a vision, not reality, in which God was using this stark image that was against all Scriptural instruction to jolt Peter into accepting non-Jews into the Jewish Church.
God's law ("Torah") has the instrinsic meaning of "TEACHING" in Hebrew as opposed to the negative legalistic tone of "law" rendered by Gentiles from Hebrew into many English Bibles.
The animal sacrifices pertain to a different Hebrew word, which is "ordinances" or "Hukkim," and those were fulfilled by Yeshua's Passover sacrifice as the Lamb of God (not an "Easter" Bunny) and were nailed to the cross as the New Testament clearly points out, but Yeshua clearly stated that He came not to abolish the law of God, which includes ALL the law, but not "ordinances" pertaining to the Temple and blood sacrifices, along with the altars, incense and priestly vestments, which some Gentile denominations try to re-employ under grace in their churches.
If eating unclean animals, which are mostly scavengers (as a chef I can testify) does not apply in the New Testament age, then why did it apply before Israel with the grace filled Gentile Noah?
If you can quote your source to prove your claim I would be most appreciative.
In Catering College I was told by my SECULAR tutors that pork and shellfish are "HIGH RISK" foods that must be stored, cooked and handled with utmost care so as not to poison anyone.
Now that I am a terminally ill kidney patient post-transplant my doctors warn me not to eat pork or shellfish, yet all the Gentile Christians I know in the churches tell I am to doctrinally eat them!
Some of them also chided me for having a transplant instead of relying on God for a miracle.
Just because a Christian says or believes something, I have learned, does not mean that what they say or teach is always right. I will go by the Word of God until you can show me different.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
ย @kodiak64ย No, I do not argue that (Gentile) believers be circumcised, although Jewish believers may well be, as this is categorically made clear in the New Testament. What makes you think I would believe that? It makes no sense whatever! ๐
Yes, I am currently looking after two chickens and am well aware of their omnivorous diet, but I would not dismiss the whole "unclean" matter completely. Let's take religion and the Bible out of the equation, seeing as you consider that permise to be "nonsense." I am a qualified Hilton Chef and when I was training at Catering College where religion plays no part, my secular tutors made it quite clear in quite categorical terms that animals such as pork and shellfish ("unclean" in the Bible) are "HIGH RISK" foods to be stored, prepared and cooked with utmost care in order not to risk human food poisoning. Lobsters have to be cooked alive for the same reason as their flesh will rot with enzymes almost immediately as they filter impurities from the water as do most shellfish, such as prawns/shrimps, crabs, mussels, crustaceans etc., and that's why pork meat has to be "cured" by pickling in a briny salt solution to prevent the flesh from rotting, as it is full of toxins from its diet and needs to be fully cooked due to its likelihood of having trichinosis worms or eggs in its flesh. Beef however can be hung for 28 days or more with no risk at all.
You don't need to "cure" something unless it is sick! ๐ ๐ฆ
John Gill may have his view, but I do not have to be indocrinated by his conclusions. Thankfully God gave us free thought to be able to work out our own salvation with fear and trembling, and what we read in the Bible for ourselves was not made beyond our reach by a loving God who had His Word written in codices that are clear and consise and not in the least ambiguous, and in the original Hebrew it is even more clear without the prejudices of Gentile Bible translators at work.
There was no written law in Abraham's time either, yet the Bible says that Abraham obeyed God's commandments. Just because it wasn't written down did not mean that pre-Sinai people were ignorant of His will. Otherwise they would all be atheists or else lawless restless people.
How, for instance, did they know about sacrifices if there was not some instruction (or law/commandment) from God pertaining to it, or did man just make it up for himself? ๐ค
Yes, meat eating began after the flood and the clean animals on board the Ark would have been part of that. People before the flood also lived till nearly 1,000 years old, so it was different.
Peter refused God three times with the suggestion to eat unclean food in Joppa (Jaffa), where I lived for several years, but He did not do it! That was some 15 years after the resurrection.
Why are you so concerned anyhow?! Why are Christians so concerned about a little obedience in this matter, which is ultimately for our health and benefit? At least according to my kidney transplant doctors, and they are not Christian. People will make a big religious thing of "fasting" for "Lent" and other man-made inventions, giving up chocolate or other luxuries, yet they cannot bring themselves to admit that God was sharing wisdom of the Creator by revealing the danger of eating unclean animals. As Yeshua said, they would strain at a gnat, yet swallow a camel! ๐
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
ย @alhussain1108ย Before "israel state" exist the Arabs butchered and murdered the ancient Jewish community in Hebron in 1929 just because they were Jews, and the British authorities in charge at the time just turned a blind eye. No there wasn't peace before the rebirth of the State of Israel. Even in the womb, the two twin sons of Yitzhak & Rivkah (Isaac & Rebeccah), namely Esau & Jacob (Esav & Ya'akov) - [Jacob later got re-named by God as "Israel"] - struggled in the womb, where the Bible stated that from Rebeccah TWO NATIONS would be SEPARATED.
They were separated then and are still separate today, but their forefather Arbraham/Ibrahim (Avraham) allotted land to both peoples, who both had Twelve Tribes, and the Arabs got Arabia and the Jews got Judea, also called Israel after Jacob, but now the Arabs want Judea too and you wonder why there's conflict? They were given separate lands to keep them apart so as to avoid wars. However, after the Europeans from Rome ethnically cleansed the Promised Land and the Holy City of Jerusalem of Jews in 135 CE, the Arabs crossed the border and settled in the land of the Jews, and that is why so many of their towns and cities have HEBREW place names.
What they didn't count on, however, was that the Jews would end up being treated so badly by both Muslims and Christians in the countries to where they were scattered, that they would seek to return to their ancient homeland to live in the only piece of land where they had a history.
Together with co-operation the whole area could have been a prosperous region for both peoples, but the Arabs chose war over peace, and lost more land each time as a result.
So your comment about peace may seem plausible to the simple-minded, but to anyone who seeks truth over lies and researches the history on both sides, you will find what is not true. ๐
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
ย @richclay7928ย We only have a "good idea" about how Miriam Yeshua's mother looked because of so many depictions of her, especially from those branches of Christianity that venerate her the most, and I have seen many where she looks like a blonde, blue-eyed European Gentile rather than a Middle Eastern housewife from Nazareth. Yosef her husband is not described physically as such in the Bible, so how can we have an idea of those attributes apart from making them up and portraying him anyway in the same as has been done for Miriam and Yeshua, later re-named "Mary" and "Jesus" by the Gentiles. What we do know is that he was a carpenter, which would have required some physical stamina, so it is possible he was a reasonably strong man and he was a Galilean Jew, so likely wore a beard and not cut his hair above his ears as is written in the Torah. We also know that he came from the family line of the illustrious King David so he had a royal bloodline, and as such may have been accorded some respect, apart from having a pregnant fiancee. That would have brought scandal, especially as she was from the priestly line of Aaron, the brother of Moses, but the Gentile Christians never allude to any of that about her. They just focus on her pregnancy, not on the importance of her family tree the way the Jews would be, hence the two genealogies of Yeshua clearly listed for any Jew to identify the credentials of the Messiah just from those two lists of Yosef and Miriam's family trees, but most Christians just fall asleep whenever these are ever read out, as they are not interested in them.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
ย @nate.infinityย I know the history of St Nicholas, but he still had no flying reindeer, so that is still a LIE and hell-bound all who repeat it ("ALL LIARS" = LAKE OF FIRE ๐ฅ๐ฅ๐ฅ๐ฅ๐ฅ), whether it is a Catholic tradition or not, as I know "Christmas" is from the Roman Catholic "Christ-Mass."
However, if parents tell their children about Jesus, as well as the embellished Santa myth, how will they discern the difference bewteen truth and lies? They might view Jesus as a miraculous fairy tale too. This term "reason for the season" is not based on the Bible, and there is no "season" in Scripture called "Christ-Mass" nor is anyone instructed to observe such. The only thing Yeshua, later re-named "Jesus" by the Gentiles (non-Jews), instructed was to remember His sacrifical atoning DEATH which wrought for us salvation ("salvation" = "Yeshua" in Hebrew) which occurred on the Biblical date of Passover on Nisan 14th, as opposed to the Roman "Easter."
Yeshua did not ask anyone to make special days to venerate His birth or His resurrection, although both miraculous in their own right, as the ascension was too, but it was only His BLOOD that was shed for us at His DEATH that He asked us to REMEMBER, "as often as ye do this" i.e. commemorate the date of Passover, not "do this as often as you like," which is basically what happens in most churches nowadays, losing the rich symbolism of the Passover Lamb.
"Christ (Messiah) our Passover was slain for us, therefore let us KEEP THE FEAST!" (of Passover). Yeshua is the Passover Lamb, not our "Easter Bunny," as "Easter" is of pagan origin.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
ย @bubullibooooo9928ย Jesus, or YESHUA as He was named by His Father the LORD God of Israel, which means "salvation" ("Jesus" means nothing in any language), taught to love and forgive, not to boycott, but love your enemies, not hate them. โคโคโค
He was not a non-Semitic Philistine, which is where the name "Palestine" comes from, as the Philistines were the ancient and implacable enemies of the Israelites as the Holy Bible records, and they dwelt in PHILISTIA, the narrow coastal strip of land where Gaza is today, which is not the territory that Yeshua lived in. He was and still is a circumcised Jew born in the land of Israel.
Anything else is Arab propaganda and impugns the Word of God as revealed in the Scriptures.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
ย @bucksfan77ย Ephesians 5 says that the Church is a wife to the Messiah, and He is the Head of that wife, in the same way as a man should be the head of his wife after he leaves his mother and cleaves unto her. It does not say that the Church is a "MOTHER" to either the Messiah or to us humans in that passage, only that it will be a glorious Church without spot or wrinkle, and that Messiah gave His life for the Church (as His wife, not as His mother), from what I read.
Maybe I have missed the place where it mentions the Church being a "mother"... I would be happy for you to quote it for me in case we are using different Bible versions.
Today is "Mothering Sunday" here in the UK, which is different to "Mother's Day" in the USA, as the origins of it date back to a drive to try to get people back to attend their "Mother Church," even though many now use the day to give out platitudes concerning earthly mothers, but that still doesn't mean that the concept of "Mother Church" comes from the Bible, any more than selecting one day a year to honour mothers, when our honour should apply every day of the year.
We honour our parents, not just a mother, and we honour Yeshua the Messiah, not the "Mother Church" or any other mother figures, as collectively being a bride is to be a wife to the Messiah for the Marriage Supper of the Lamb, but not to be His mother. His own mother was Miriam the Jewish housewife, of whom it is written He called her "woman." He was divine, she wasn't. ๐
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
ย @abcxyz2927ย you post to me, although it does not appear publicly on here, that I am still covering up my "seething atheism" with the vernacular, and how "this story is about an entire London street used as a display to tell others how to live their lives... keep your sectarianism to yourself."
Firstly, I am not an atheist by any means, although I do not like how religious people judge gay people as if they were the only valid voice on the planet. Being disgruntled with the rude and unkind nature of so many who claim to be Christians and follow God does not make me an atheist. It would be much easier to be an atheist as then one would not have a care at all.
You say that a display of flags in a street is telling others how to live their lives, and yet this is exactly what Christians do whether they use flags or not. Christians just get annoyed when they feel are not getting the upper hand any more or are losing control of people's free wills which they normally vanquish through constant indocrination. How can you blame gays for copying some of the same tactics? You will find more Christian churches in your community than you will a gay bar in most normal settings, so who is the most successful at seeking dominance?
I am not sectarian, in fact I left Nothern Ireland and broadened my mind by living and working abroad, mostly in the Middle East, and also in England where the racists there called me Paddy.
I cannot help the place where I was born, but I do not subscribe to N.I. politics or religion.
1
-
ย @abcxyz2927ย Please stop posting FALSE INFORMATION online about me being an atheist. I am making no such public judgement against your character. Neither am I sad or lonely, as I am VERY HAPPY WITH A GORGEOUS LOVING AND CARING BOYFRIEND, unlike the icebergs in the churches ๐ฅถ๐ฅถ๐ฅถ๐ฅถ๐ฅถ and certain segments of society where falling in love with a life partner is still viewed as a mortal sin. Some of my fiercest critics, however, are very sad and lonely, and often caught up in a web of deceit and indocrination that keeps them hating and judging others.
I do not care about Brexit as you claim nor do I care if the city of Belfast is relevant on the world's stage which you assume in some kind of fantasy notion, which is so far from reality. I grew up in a war torn country but that was only a quirk of fate, as it just as easily could have been someone like yourself without the peaceful suburbs of mainland Britain thereby making your life experience somewhat different to the one you seem happy enough to enjoy today.
Some of us did not have that luxury. Yes, I know how the rest of the UK don't want us, as I felt when applying for a seasonal chef's job there after my mother remarried and moved there, when the lady in the social security office said, "Why don't you go back to Ireland where you belong!"
Funny she made no differentiation about the political administration in Northern Ireland but just lumped everyone together into one foreign unwanted "Irish" category that was unwelcome.
Yes, if a referendum was given to the rest of the UK they would be happy to detach from us, and perhaps they would do the same if given the opportunity to get rid of Scotland too, then England could eventually sit alone as a sovereign nation with no formal allies or friendly neighbours.
You may have cut us loose decades ago if given the chance, but don't forget that the reason we are in this bloody mess at all is because we were colonised by the British Empire and were not given a choice who our overlords were. Had you considered that we also might want to be free of you too if we had the chance decades ago? It would have saved a lot of bloodshed and death.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
ย @josee.1308ย Yes, I understood that you put the word "Catholic/catholic" in parenthesis to share its meaning, which I did know, although the Anglican Church calls itself "catholic" with a small "c" to denote it as a description, rather than as a title, as the Roman Catholics capitalise the word, when, if, as you say, the Orthodox and Roman churches are the same, then they could both spell it without a capital "C" to simply mean "universal," rather than appearing like the title of a denomination. There are differences after the Great Schism, including not least calendar differences with Christmas and Easter being held at differing times, although both claim to be the True Church. I'm not sure if Jesus wanted Peter's role at the time to extend to other men.
Peter was married, as Jesus healed his mother-in-law, whereas the popes teach celibacy. They both also view Yeshua's mother Miriam in an extra-Biblical way, saying she is sinless, even though she said she rejoiced in God her "Saviour" (a sinless person would not need saved), and they seem to teach that she remained a virgin for the rest of her life, as opposed to living a normal life of a Jewish housewife with godly relations with her husband. The Scriptures mention his siblings in a verse that says, "Are not His brothers and sisters with us?" The books of James (Ya'akov/Jacob) and Jude (Yehudah/Judah) are written by two of Yeshua's earthly brothers.
The early Jewish Church in Jerusalem would have known these things before the Gentiles gained predominance, and at that time Jerusalem was known as the Holy City and City of Peace ("IR-SHALEM"), notwithstanding that the Catholics ("universals") now give that honour to Rome.
So what city do the Eastern Orthodox "universal" Church hold in focus, now that Constantinople is now under Islamic rule and re-named Istanbul? Obviously an earhly city doesn't matter, but it was part of the argument that split them into east and west, as well as having two Peters (popes). Yes, you are correct that the Church is the people, although many call their buildings 'churches,' with even the grandeur of 'cathedrals' being built after Yeshua took the focus off the Temple. Rome is strategic, but Yeshua never mentioned it much concerning His 2nd coming.
It would be nice if all Christians were just called "universal" as one "church" (people/congregation), but so many claim to have the real truth exclusively, although different.
Yeshua is Head of the Church, but very few even know His given Name, meaning 'salvation.'
Funny how "SATAN" survived translation, but the Saviour's Name is now virtually unknown.
Any Jews I met who were Christian were neither Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox.
It seems the terminology gets in the way, as does the adherence to denominationalism.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
ย @lastjellyontheplate8828ย I love the way that Christians always judge others so harshly, even those attempting to understand their religion. It is very disillusioning and makes one feel small and pointless to be constantly belittled by so many perfect Christians who let you know how better they are than you by their praiseworthy erudition and expertise in comparision to you.
There's really little point in even trying to attach onesself to this genre of people as it is very demeaning and discouraging and I find secular people to be much kinder, empathetic and less icy ๐ฅถ๐ฅถ๐ฅถ๐ฅถ๐ฅถ to engage with. I only mentioned that point about the "last days" as I heard it once from a Christian pastor (who must only have had a smattering of God's Word, and not read it properly) and I thought it was a good point that we often overlook that the first Christians believed they were in the last days and were expecting the imminent return of the Messiah back then.
I am sorry for mentioning it and that pastor must have been wrong and sceptical as you say for not also mentioning the many, many verses pertaining to the last days, telling us to be vigilant as these things have to happen but the end is NOT YET as he should have when he pointed this out. I really should not have listened to him or even attended that heretical church it would seem.
Believe it or not this infidel has read the Bible and my itchy ears managed to pick up Biblical Hebrew fluently during my 10 years as a missionary in Israel which allowed me to also read it in its entirety in that holy tongue in which it was originally written and I spoke, read and wrote with great ease in that tongue with the locals in regard to the smattering of God's Word that I had not read properly, and they were appreciative despite me not knowing it all to receive Hebrew cards and letters in their language with Hebrew quotations from their own holy history Book which seemed to touch their hearts even if mine remained skeptical only hearing what I wanted to hear.
I thank you for your admonition, the result of which has shown me that I have wasted many years of my life thinking I knew it all when in fact I still need to be shown truth and to read the Bible properly with a prayerful heart. It is strange that even if one were to do that one would still get shot into the ground for whatever one quotes or for the way in which it was delivered.
The reason why I may lack the perfection that you seek for my life is largely due to lack of energy and drive as a result of being a terminally ill Amyloidosis patient with End-Stage Kidney Disease after 5 years of chemotherapy and gruelling dialysis which is literally very draining and after a solid-organ renal transplant I remain constantly immunosupprssed which leaves me tired and listless, so I may fail in my delivery at times compared to the energy and vigour of others who may not be as disillusioned as I am with the whole gambit of religion accompanied by cold ๐ฅถ๐ฅถ๐ฅถ๐ฅถ๐ฅถ judgemental Christians who cast judgement on others who may struggle to grasp a few straws, but I stand upbraided and admonished by you for my insolence and lack of Biblical knowledge which only proves that even a little knowledge is no use in the kingdom of God.
However, before I got sick I conducted many open-air Gospel meetings on the seafront of our town and orchestrated conventions and special Christian events at various churches where I had a good relationship with many missionary organisations, but all that is dross when one's life is draining away due to chronic illness that the Almighty in His wisdom sought to bestow on me.
I feel I must have got it all wrong and therefore am not really a part of these people at all as I can never reach their high and lofty standards that they expect and it is with a prayerful heart indeed that I bow out much defeated. ๐
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
ย @stephenle-surf9893ย Prime Ministers, although in an honoured position in being voted in by the majority of the public to serve the nation, do have feet of clay. They are not invincible, and they need the support of the people in order to do their job, especially after making a mistake.
Boris still protests innocence, so YOU are judging him, and the Bible which Parliament forced him to swear upon as a symbol of truth says in it that with what measure you mete judgement on others it will be meted out to you. One only has to tell ONE lie to be a liar. Have you lied ? ๐ค
That same Bible says that ALL LIARS, from the highest to the lowest, will be cast into the lake of fire. ๐ฅ๐ฅ๐ฅ๐ฅ๐ฅ It also commands to pray for our leaders and to honour the king. ๐
It does not matter what position one holds, a lie is still a lie, and if you have never lied then you are justified to condemn him, but the ungrateful unforgiving LYING British public are using him as a scapegoat for all their woes. The nation of Israel also condemned their Leader due to bias. โ๏ธ
It turned out Jesus Christ was innocent and not guilty of their accusations, and so it is with Boris. This is a one-sided witch hunt fulled by inflamatory media reports, all beying for blood.
Boris nearly died from covid and now the fickle public turn on him, but without true evidence.
1
-
1
-
ย @PaddyDoesasia-bj3bbย Why would I make something up? I wouldn't mention it if I hadn't heard it.
Who said that I was British? Daniel O'Donnell's sister Margo from Donegal (in "the North") sings a song called Green White And Gold, with the chorus line: "And when I die, take me where the shamrocks grow, and bury me beneath the GREEN, WHITE AND GOLD." (You insist they say only orange.)
Even the old Irish Republican songs, such as Take It Down From The Mast, has the refrain:
" 'Tis we and no other can claim it,
For today joined as one we stand, bold;
To fight England combined with Free Staters,
In defence of the GREEN, WHITE AND GOLD."
Another similar folk ditty entitled Give Me The Irish Republican Army similarly entails:
"Give me the Irish Republican Army,
Give me GREEN, WHITE AND GOLD every time;
Give me the three-leafed shamrock of Ireland,
A land I love that is so divine."
Also in the Irish song The Dying Rebel is found the refrain:
"My only son was shot in Dublin,
Fighting for his country bold;
He fought for Ireland and Ireland's glory,
The harp and shamrock, GREEN, WHITE AND GOLD."
Even in football songs you will hear sung the words:
"And it's Celtic, Celtic in the GREEN, WHITE AND GOLD;
Oh, Celtic, oh Celtic, you'll no walk alone..."
Am I making it up? I wouldn't even attempt to claim to know more about Ireland and the Irish people than the Irish people do, but maybe where I live the Irish songs are sung more patriotically and markedly than elsewhere which is why I would be familiar with many of them.
If making a point over something I heard with my own ears is pathetic, then the songwriters need to change their lyrics to orange so that I won't be attacked and insulted by a jittery Irish.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
ย @LadyMariaย I am not Greek. The "Greek" format of YESHUA into Iesous was because a male deity had to end with "s" like Zeus, Perseus, and all male names in Greek as Yeshua with an "ah" sound would have sounded feminine in Greek, like Aphrodite, Diana etc. This is true for Hebrew too, as YESHUA is already masculinized from "yeshuah" which is the word for "salvation" in Hebrew, but it is a 'female' word as most 'female' words grammatically have an "ah" sound, which in this case involves the two letter 'ayin' ('a') and 'heh' (h), technically a 'double 'ah' sound, but they merge into one. In the 'male' format, such as for a man's name, the 'heh' (h) which gives the "ah" sound and makes it sound and look 'female' is removed, resulting in Yeshua with only 'ayin' remaining, which is a silent consonant used to give any vowel sound, in this case "a" (the same letter is used in "Immanuel," but with an "i" sound). Thus Yeshua may still sound like female but it looks different without the "heh" (h) at the end, ensuring it is recognised as a male word/name.
The male and female are pronounced very differently with emphasis in different places, thus "yeshuah" (salvation) is pronounced "yeshu-AH," with emphasis on the LAST syllable, whereas "Yeshua" is pronouned "Ye- SHU- a" with the emphasis on the middle syllable to differentiate.
The same happened in Greek understandably so that "Yeshua" would not be construed as a female deity, and thus "Iesous" ending with a male "s" ensured this. That is okay for GREEKS!
However, there is no need to put an "s" on the end of names to masculinize them in other cultures, so why could they not have used the original given "Yeshua" considering that other Hebrew words seemed to survive the Greek translation process, such as HALLELUJAH, AMEN, MARANATHA, HOSANNA, ARMAGEDDON, SATAN, and many other examples.
Funny how the devil gets to keep his name, yet the Name above all names is so easily lost.
1
-
1
-
1
-
ย @ClaymateDesignerย So you would never employ me although I would probably employ someone like you if I were in a position to as I would need a job done not a belief quantified. I agree God/god should have nothing to do with it. It is just human fairness and a non-discriminatory act.
I had to interview chefs for kitchen postions and I was looking for people who could cook well and cope under pressure which a catering job demands. I was not looking into whether they were Christian, Buddhist, atheist or a Flat Earther as that was not relevant to need at hand, which was a someone qualified to cook well and with initiative, not on what they personally thought or believed. I could of course only employ people that match my personal beliefs, thoughts or prejudices 100% yet none of them may be good cooks or cope under pressure at all and as a result my business would fail. If I was forming a church or faith/political group I would be more interested in one's beliefs because the reason for forming such a group required such an interest or commonality, not that people outside of that belief system should not be made welcome.
Consequently I have had the pleasure to work with very hardworking, talented and industrious Arabs, Jews, Asians, Catholic Irish, atheistic English, deeply narrow Nothern Irish Protestants alongside homosexuals and born-again Christians, all doing one common thing - working and earning an honest living. If I was like you I would never have met any of these wonderful people or learned from their expertise and even friendship. I would only have my own very narrow group.
People who are employed DO have rights against discrimination etc contrary to your own thoughts on the matter and a discriminatory employer/interviewer can be hauled to court.
I think that is exactly what you need from someone you refuse to employ for such narrow primitive reasons just because someone doesn't fit into your tribe. You show no human dignity.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
When I lived and worked in Israel (as a non-Jew) in the 1990's I was told that the Christians got their idea for 25th December from the winter holiday that roughly falls on that month (varied by the invention of the later Gregorian calendar) on 25th of the Biblical month of Kislev, known as Hanukkah which means "DEDICATION" which recalls the re-dedication of the Temple on that date after its desecration by the Greeks under Antiochus Epiphanes (as found in I & II Macabbees in the Apocrypha), and which Yeshua, before His Name was changed by the Gentiles to "Jesus", celebrated in John 10, which connects the holiday to something that Yeshua celebrated and provides the date of "25th" that the Gentile Christians may have viewed as a possible festival for them too as it was a "Feast of Light" which would have had striking symbolism in the dark month (as the Jews light oil lamps or candles in the windows of their homes to recall the re-lighting of the Temple Menorah or 7-branched candelabrum that had been snuffed out by the Gentiles).
Of course there are many hypotheses on the origins of the Mass of Christ "Christ-Mass," but we do know that its current name comes from the Roman Catholic Church and there is no mention of the early Jewish Church celebrating either the birth or the resurrection annually at that stage from what we can glean from the Bible, but they were instructed to remember His atoning death, which occurred on the "Appointed Time" (or "MOED") of Passover on the Biblical date Nisan 14th.
The birth may not be commanded to be venerated and its exact date open to much debate, but His death has a clear Biblical date and from that we calculate 3 days later the resurrection.
However, the Bible nowhere says "Friday" or "Sixth Day" ("YOM SHISHI") for the crucifixion day, but only the term "Preparation Day," which is the day before a Sabbath or a day off servile work.
This has caused many to ASSUME that the day before the Sabbath before which Yeshua had to be taken down from the cross was a "Friday" as the weekly Sabbath falls on the 7th day of the week, now called "Saturday" in honour of the god Saturn by the Gentiles. However, as I learned while living in Israel among Christian or "Messianic" Jews, that there were actually TWO Sabbaths the week that Yeshua died, one the regular WEEKLY SABBATH, from "Friday" sunset to "Saturday" sunset (as all Biblical days begin and end at sunset according to the lights in the sky provided by God for "days" and "seasons" ["MOADIM"] and "years" with "New Moons" being "new months" or "moonths" according to the moon). Genesis 1:5 states that: "The evening and morning were the first DAY," not the other way around, and not in the MIDDLE of the dark portion or 'night' at "mid-night," which ignores God's dividing lights in the sky. The second Sabbath that took place that week was the ANNUAL PASSOVER SABBATH, known as the First Day of Unleavened Bread or "CHAG HA-MATZOT," and which can fall on ANY DAY, not tied to a "Saturday," just as December 25th is observed today by the denominational Gentile churches, as all of God's MOADIM or Feasts fall on FIXED DATES and do not MOVE, unlike the man-made "MOVEABLE FEAST" of "Easter" as the papal calendar does not match time-wise with the calendar God set in place, hence it has to "move" whereas God's Feast of Passover stays put.
So the day Yeshua died was NOT on a "Friday," despite the ecclesiastical tradition of "Good Friday" promoted by the Gentile prelates and Church Fathers in defiance against the Jews as they wished to distance the Church from "their" calendar and any dates that were found in it, even if they were ordained by GOD and observed by YESHUA. So they opted at the Council of Nicea in 325 to ratify "Easter" in place of the Passover of the LORD once all the Jewish leadership had lost prominence, basing "Easter" and "Good Friday" on days of the week, rather than actual Biblical dates, and ignoring the fact of the ANNUAL PASSOVER SABBATH, and so we have the erroneous "Friday to 'Sun'-day" equation which now no one will ever question. ๐คฏ
However Yeshua gave the prophetical "sign" of 3 days & 3 nights (72 hours) as His time in the tomb, which Friday to 'Sun'-day does not fulfil, only some 36 hours and ONE NIGHT MISSING!! ๐คฏ
So who is right, the words of Yeshua or the ecclesiastical traditions of denominational prelates? If when the first visitors to the tomb very early before dawn while it was still dark found the tomb EMPTY then NO ONE actually SAW Yeshua RISE from the dead, but rather they were told that He had ALREADY RISEN! If Yeshua had to be put in the tomb just BEFORE SUNSET on the day of the crucifixion (Nisan 14th) before the onset of the ANNUAL PASSOVER SABBATH (not the WEEKLY Sabbath), then He would have risen just BEFORE SUNSET 72 hours later, which if it were just before the first visitors arrived, then the only prophesied time would be just BEFORE SUNSET at the end of the weekly Sabbath, just before the onset of the first day of the working week, after they had rested on the Sabbath, which means that Yeshua rose on the Sabbath and NOT on "Sun"-day as so many Gentile scholars have calculated from the "wrong" Sabbath day.
This means that not only is Yeshua truly "Lord of the Sabbath," but that the True Resurrection Day is the weekly SABBATH and not the first day of the week or "Sun"-day at all! ๐ If we count back from this point 72 hours we arrive at "WEDNESDAY" as the day of the crucifixion, and NOT "Friday." It makes not one iota difference to what Yeshua achieved in providing for us salvation, as it does not entirely matter on what days it occurred, but if God gives us the actual date of the crucifixion in the Scriptures and the date of the annual Sabbath it is easy to work out the BIBLICAL time-frame from that assumed and concocted by men who viewed the "Jewish" calendar with disdain. This means that the whole premise of "Sun"-day observance is false and unnecessary, and most importantly NOT BASED ON TRUTH. The Scriptures solve every riddle.
People may be getting into a furore over the origins of uncommanded festivals like "Christ-Mass" when the whole myth of "Sun"-day, named after the "sun" but never the "Son," is the most glaring travesty being observed by millions of sincere Christians every week. ๐ฆ๐๐ณ๐ฒ๐ฃ
Some people avoid the word "Easter" by saying "Resurrection Day" for "Sun"-day, but if it happened on the SABBATH (which many Christians totally avoid and even teach against), then the RESURRECTION DAY must be held on the SABBATH, but thankfully Yeshua never commanded us to keep "holy days" for His birth or resurrection, although the Sabbath of itself is a holy day.
However He did instruct to remember His sacrifial atoning DEATH "as often as ye do this," i.e. celebrate Passover on Nisan 14th, not "as often as you like" which is basically what happens in most Gentile deominational churches today, even having the "supper" at breakfast-time when it is illegal to drink or sell wine in most civilised nations! ๐
Yeshua did warn that the TRADITIONS OF MEN make the Word of God of none-effect.
"Christ-Mass" is one of those, and so is "Easter," and we now know that "Sun"-day observance is a fallacy. However we also know the date of the Lord's DEATH at Passover on Nisan 14th and that His resurrection took place on the WEEKLY SABBATH, not "Sun"-day. That is worth celebrating! ๐ฅณ
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
ย @anonym4us13ย I think that's a very devisive outlook. Flags represent a good face of the country or people they represent, they should not be viewed as something hostile, unless people are afraid of difference and open representation. You insinuate that gay people are not part of society, but that is what the spectrum of colours represent, that gay people can be found in any strata of society, in any country, nation, people, race or religion, and so it should be a unifying symbol and one of integration, not one of separation or discrimination. Surely that is an aspiration.
I live in a divided society where both British and Irish flags vie for predominance, but while one side refuses to accept the legitimacy of the other the flags only add to the tension & mistrust.
I don't think countries should necessarily not accept another nation's flag favourably, unless, as you suggest, they pose a serious threat. Rainbow flags aren't there to stamp out all others, but to form a bridge between many. Most that are offended take umbrage out of deep personal dislike.
That is prejudice, and you cannot blame the rainbow flag for that. If you want a totally white heterosexual community to identify with as your country you're gonna have to follow Hitler.
That kind of thinking only leads to alienation and hatred, and we should be beyond that.
1
-
ย @ColonelStrakerย Well, from what I understand the Bible says that "SIN is trangression of the Law" (of God), which I am guessing you are using for your measuring stick to size other people up and what you must be referring to in not compromising against it. So not to accept sin.
However, I see Christians breaking God's Law all the time, so how are they so different in their behaviour than the people you seem to be denouncing as sinners? Most of them refuse to obey God in remembering the Sabbath Day to keep it holy on the seventh day of the week, now called "Saturday" by most Christians in honour of the god Saturn, and a great many seem to ignore the warning by God in Leviticus 11: 7, 10-12 about the ABOMINATION (emphasized by God FOUR TIMES) of eating sewage-imbibing shellfish and scavenger animals, which even as a Hilton chef I was taught by my secular tutors that these were "HIGH RISK" foods to be cooked, prepared and stored with great care in order not to poison anyone, which differentiation even the Gentile Noah knew about when he obeyed God in boarding the unclean animals in TWOS upon the Ark, whilst boarding the clean animals in SEVEN PAIRS, or 14 animals, as they were needed for food. ๐ท
You mention the lake of fire, which the book of revelation informs us is where ALL LIARS will end up, which must include all Christian parents, teachers and even church ministers who LIE to innocent children year in, year out, wilfully and unrepentedly about Santa Claus and his flying reindeer. ๐
๐ฆ๐ฆ๐ฅ๐ฅ๐ฅ๐ฅ๐ฅ๐ฅ๐ฅ๐ฅ๐ฅ๐ฅ๐ฅ๐ฅ๐ฅ๐ฅ๐ฅ๐ฅ๐ฅ๐ฅ๐ฅ๐ฅ๐ฅ๐ฅ๐ฅ๐ฅ๐ฅ๐ฅ๐ฅ๐ฅ
You are certainly right about confusing love vs tolerance, so how long should we tolerate the sinful behaviour of these law-breaking Christian liars posing as representatives of the Messiah in the churches? It seems to have moved from a mindset of reject, then resist, then tolerate, then accept, and now embrace Sabbath-breaking, eating unclean animals and blatantly LYING!!!! ๐คฏ
Thank you for reminding of the tidal wave of these mainstream values that have everlasting consequences, which I know you are fully aware of or you wouldn't preach so much about sin.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"Maybe it's you guys should leave the West Bank" says the anti-Israel Michael Walker.
Since when was this territory called the nameless "West Bank" (of the Jordan River)? ๐ค
If you read a Christmas card you will see that the Jew they are celebrating was born in Bethlehem of JUDEA ("Jew-dea"), NOT the so-called "West Bank"! This false name is just made up and used by the Jews' Semitic cousins the Arabs and other anti-Israelists in prder to cover up the historic and Biblical links to the territory which contains Hebrew cities. ๐
It is convenient for such haters of Israel to deny the historical, spiritual and Biblical rights to Judea, which is named for them, just as the vast oil-rich territory of Arabia is named for the Arabs. Is it unfair for Jews to live in tiny Judea where their forefathers the Patriarchs, Abraham, Isaac & Jacob (Israel) and their wives Sarah, Rebekah and Leah are buried or the huge expanse of Arabia to be allotted to the Arabs, as there were 12 Tribes of each people?
The ancient community of Palestinian Jews was butchered and decimated in Hebron in 1929 in a brutal style reminiscent of the Arab attack on October 7th along with many other communities of Jews around the Holy Land and that was long before any State of Israel.
The fact that the Gentiles (non-Jews) and Arabs declare by man-made preconceptions that Jews are illegal to live in Judea is one of the biggest travesties and dishonest attempts at ethnic cleansing in history, notwithstanding that some Jews have moved back there, just as many Arabs live in Israel proper. If Jews can't live in Judea, why allow Arabs to live in Israel?
Under the Ottoman Turks for 400 years until 1917 and under British Mandate from 1917 to 1947 the Biblical land of Israel and Judea re-named as "Palestine" after the non-Semitic Philistines who were Israel's ancient and implacable foes, even though they only dwelt in the narrow coastal strip of Philistia where Gaza is today, not the whole land of the Bible, both Jews and Arabs were termed "Palestinian", the term never applying only to the Arabs, and both Jews and Arabs lived throughouf the Holy Land, not excluding Judea & Samaria.
The myth that only Arabs can live in an Arab-only Jew-free Islamic racist Apartheid territory is just as unfair and discriminatory as any accusations of Apartheid levelled at Israel! ๐
These claims are based on fallacy and a mis-handling, twisting and covering up of truth which of course suits the Arab narrative, and now peddled by activists such as Walker.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
ย @opinionsvaryย I'm interested in your comment that a person isn't defined by their sexuality, but I found myself labelled by the "true Christians" you describe purely on how they view me sexually. It would be nice to think that it were not so.
The mention of cities destroyed because of bisexuality must be a reference to Sodom and Gormorrah as I am thinking hard to find other examples, especially if bi-sexuality was so prevalent even in ancient times.
I have read the account of Sodom when I was learning Hebrew in Israel and came across a few things that struck me that the English rendering of the story seems to glaze over. In Genesis 19:4 the story is told of the visit of two angels to Lot's house in the city. The English version uses the word "men" surrounding the house, which nearly every Gentile Bible scholar and subsequently pastors and ministers take to be a homosexual incident due to the sex of the word "men."
However, when I studied Hebrew I learned that mixed crowds of both sexes always uses the male plural and only the female plural if 100% exclusively female, such as with expressions like "men of Galilee," or "men of Jerusalem," which by context would have also contained women, unless all public gatherings were suspiciously homosexual by nature being so devoid of females.
The Bible is full of male plurals that include women, such as "sons of God" etc., which must include females in God's plan for heaven, even if described in male plural. It is just the grammatical format of the language. Sometimes the translators adjust this as they feel fit, as in the Exodus where the Hebrew describes the people as "B'nei Israel" or "sons of Israel," yet in this case the translators decide to add females in by using the word "children of Israel," even though that is not what the original text says, but by implication it would more than likely to have been true, even if it does make them sound a bit infantile as "children" whereas a "son" can be adult.
The word used in Genesis 19: 4 for "men" is the word "anashim" which is in male plural, but comes from the root word "anush" meaning "human," so "anashim" are human beings or "people," not strictly 100% "men" as is claimed by anyone with a slanted mind reading this and years of a zealous pastor breathing down your neck with HIS interpretation of it - "men only"! It is of course possible for there to be 100% men there, assumed to be male homosexuals of course, but the verse itself also uses the singular word for "people" as one unit, which is the word "am," such as with "Am Israel," the People of Israel, where it also mentions "people from every quarter" of the city, not "men from every quarter," so what is the writer and the Hebrew grammar telling us?
That a group of "PEOPLE" surrounded Lot's house intending to molest Lot's angelic guests sexually ("that we may 'know' them") in some form of perverted orgy. God had ALREADY told Abraham of Sodom's impending doom when Abraham pleaded with the LORD to spare the city for the sake of the righteous in it, but there were not even enough to save it. This was a predetermined judgement and the angels simply came to rescue Abraham's family from it.
Sodom's sins were many, and not only confined to male homosexuality, although I am sure it would have been included, as well as voyeurism, incest, bestiality, and every kind of perversion under the sun, hence the city was slated for destruction, not just for bi-sexuality. Besides, if it were a male-only gathering of exclusively male homosexuals, why would Lot offer his two female daughters to the beying crowd? I believe this group were up for a perverted and degraded time with the two visitors to the city, but that the whole PEOPLE were overtaken by evil, not just an issue with homosexuality which is claimed by so many from reading this passage (in English!).
This has resulted in pejorative terms such as "Sodomite" which do not appear in the Bible with that meaning, but only as a citizen of Sodom. Even in the book of Jude (Yehudah) Sodom is only mentioned as a warning against general "ungodliness," not saying anything specific about homosexuality as the only reason for the cities' destruction. Just some food for thought.
You made some very valid points. Thank you and "shalom" ๐๐ฟ
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
ย @wiliamsusanto647ย I lived in Israel for 10 years and I can categorically tell you that is NOT true! Most Israelis are lovely people and would live in peace tomorrow if the Arabs stopped hating them. They have been launching attacks on Jews long before the State of Israel. ๐ฎ๐ฑ
ZION is a very beautiful Biblical word and you distort it into something evil and bad, which it is not, so you are guilty of lying and mispresentation, if not slander & defamation and character assassination. ZION is ZTIYYON in Hebrew and comes from the related root word METZUYAN, meaning WONDERFUL or AMAZING, and it is God who coined it, not the Jews. Zionism simply refers to the aspiration to return to Zion, which is the mountain upon which Jerusalem is built some 3,000 feet above sea level, and is used in the Bible to describe the Holy City of Jerusalem with a wider application meaning the whole land of Israel as we read in the Psalms & Prophets.
The Palestinian Arabs also aspire to return to Jerusalem and the land 'between the River and the Sea' where Israel is today, so in technicality they are just as "Zionist" in aspiration as any Jew! ๐คฏ
If they get their first racist Arab-only Jew-free Apartheid Islamist state or caliphate named after the non-Semitic Philistines with their capital in Jerusalem on Mount Zion re-named in Arabic as Al Quds, then, as I have already pointed out, the Arabs will then be as "Zionist" as is levelled at the Jews! Isn't it just when the truth turns back on you?! The Jews have called on Zion for the past 2,000 years, with the prayer at their Passover Table each year being, no matter where they ended up living, "Next Year In Jerusalem!" ๐ They have called on it long before any Arabs did.
As we read in the Psalms of David:
"When the LORD shall build up Zion, He shall appear in His glory." ๐
Also when they were previously exiled in Babylon (some will know the Boney M pop song):
"By the rivers of Babylon, where we sat down, yea, we wept when we remembered ZION.
How shall we sing the LORD's song in a strange land?" ๐ฟ
Zionism is not something evil and has been around for millennia! ๐ค
It is just the aspiration to live in Zion, and the Palestinian Arabs have the same aspiration. ๐
1
-
1
-
ย @H-nx8wrย I do agree that Jews often contributed and helped in Christian societies despite being often maligned too, even within the theology of the churches where they were deemed as "Christ killers" etc., (with the non-Jewish Romans from Europe who hammered the nails into His hands and feet not even implicated at all of course), yet Jews did forge many positive relations.
Of course they could never count on that 100% as explusions & political changes could affect their standing at any time, as we know from them being expelled from England in 1290, the first country to do so, followed in 1492 by Spain unless they converted to Christianity from Judaism.
The Islamic countries did not fuss about Jesus Christ so much, plus were also linked racially and semi-linguistically to the Jews as being fellow Semites through their common forefather Abraham, thus they had more in common together as Jews & Arabs than European Christians who viewed them moreso as something "other", although both treated them "lesser" to some degree.
Some Jews were very wealthy in some siutations in the Arab countries even taking limited official positions, but as "dhimmis", or a kind of secondary status to Muslims, the Jews could never really hope for anything near equality, yet they were tolerated if they kept a low profile.
This status quo worked for many centuries, even despite persecutions and discriminations, but they were never murdered as systematically in the huge numbers that the Christians did to them.
(That is why most Jews despise the sign of the cross, due to ravishes of Christian pogroms.)
So they fared better in Islamic countries, but only ever very quietly rose to any prominence.
They were more used than abused, for the skills, expertise and advice to sultans and emirs.
Only when the Jews were allotted any land of their own like the Arabs were so used to did that amiable tolerance turn to a raging torrent of hate and outrage. They will never be Islamically equal.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
ย @delawarrย I hardly think so. You are so skeptical and judgemental of his character. Boris took the position, as he did previously as Mayor of London, to serve the British people. ๐ฌ๐ง
It's just a pity that people are so ungrateful and bent on incessant scrutiny that no one would survive if they were a political leader, and most of it fuelled by a one-sided inflamatory media who are happy to fan the flames of discontent rather than looking at some of Boris's achievements.
It's nothing to do with being adult. Children can spot lies too, and then often lie too afterwards.
The quotation is a leveller in that all people have told a lie at some time, otherwise they are a liar!
The job position is irrelevant. The British public have lied as much as Boris ever has (and he still protests innocence, but the LYING scathing, unforgiving British public don't believe him). ๐
The Bible upon which Parliament forced Boris to swear by contains a judgement for EVERYONE, without exception, in the book of Revelation, where it says that ALL LIARS, from the highest to the lowest, will be cast into the lake of fire as a punishment! ๐ฅ๐ฅ๐ฅ๐ฅ๐ฅ That includes all parents, teachers and Christian clergy who LIE repeatedly, wilfully and unrepentedly year in, year out, to innocent children about Santa Claus and his flying reindeer. ๐
๐ฆ๐ฆ๐ฆ๐ฆ๐ฆ ๐คฏ ๐ฅ๐ฅ๐ฅ
You only have to lie once to be a liar, and the vilification of Boris Johnson is off the scale.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
ย @HZET-dn8nxย God isn't racist, like the anti-Jewish Arabs, but He does discriminate based on how people treat His People Israel. In the story of the Exodus Moses went to the Egyptian Pharoah with a message from God, which was, "Let MY PEOPLE go!" They are His People.
That does not mean that they are any better than other peoples, but they were simply chosen for spiritual reasons by God, namely to write and preserve the Bible for the world, and to become the Royal Line that would be the conduit for God's Son Yeshua the Messiah to be born in Israel. ๐
Would you prefer your people to have done that instead, and would you have done it any better?
The democratically elected Government of Gaza has shown how they kill children and innocent people, just because they are Jews. That is discriminatory and racist, and therefore the opposite to God. That is not benevolence, no matter how much they chant "Allah hu akbar!"
God does bless, but Arab hate and intransigence has not brought them any God-given blessing.
You quote the Ten Commandments. Do you keep all ten? At sunset this evening the Sabbath starts, so I am guessing you are 100% obedient to God and getting ready for your day of rest.
You'd be surprised how many people quote things and don't even do them themselves! ๐
Shabbat shalom ๐ซ๐ซ๐ซ๐ซ ๐ ๐๐๐๐ "Sabbath peace" ๐๐ฟ๐ธ
1
-
ย @James-lg1ixย Well before 'their' government and state Palestine belonged to various colonialists, namely Judea annexed illegally by Jordan, and pre-1948 the whole land was governed by both Turkish and British governments for a total of 430 years. So what about their Governments? Did they belong?
What do mean "it belongs to Palestine"? What or who is Palestine? Is it Arab only, as it certainly has never been before in a sovereign state sense for all of that 430 year period.
Palestinian Jews, Arabs & Druze lived there, but it was not an Arab state. So how can it return to being one? I know Jews and Christians who love all people too, whether they be Muslim or any other religion or race, but how do you think an Islamic Arab Government in Palestine will treat them? As equals, or as second-class dhimmis who are less than the ruling Muslims?
Any history book will testify that Israel had a sovereign kingdom in that land with famous kings like David & Solomon. Jacob was re-named Israel and the Jews dwelt in Judea ("Jew-dea").
The 12 Tribes of Ishmael settled in the vast now oil-rich expanse of what is now Arabia.
How can the Arabs who orginially hail from Arabia lay sovereign claim to that Judaic land?
That's why they re-named Judea as the nameless "West Bank" in order to erase any historical Jewish links to the territory or their Hebrew-named cities, as they can't very well found a new state called the Arab State of Judea! If a Jewish government and state does not belong, why should an Arab one? Why not re-name Jordan as the "East Bank" to erase its name?
I love all peoples too as a Christian, but I am uncomfortable with some of the Arabs' claims.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
ย @dennisolesen6188ย You are very cheeky in your tone, if you believe in love and truth ๐, I certainly don't feel it in your self-justifying self-righteous commentary. So was Yeshua wrong in being a Jew? Should the Scriptures not have mentioned it? What is wrong with nationality or ethnicity? People will accept many races, except for the Jews, whom most look down upon.
He also said, "If you love Me, keep My Commandments", so being obedient is showing love?
He took to task the religious elite of His day because of their man-made TRADITIONS which He said made the Word of God of none-effect, which is what we see in Gentile Christendom with the man-made inventions of the Mass of Christ ("Christ-Mass"), "Lent", "Easter" named after a pagan fertility godess Eostre/Eastre and not Yeshua, in place of the Passover of the LORD, the actual date upon which He was crucified and asked us to remember, and the promulgation of "Sun-day, named after the SUN ๐ and not the Son, as a rest day in place of the holy Sabbath of the LORD.
Yes, the synagogue of Satan is ANY meeting place that is under deception of the evil one. ๐น
Synagogue is a generic word from the Greek SINAGOGA and before that from the Hebrew BEIT KNESSET, meaning "meeting house" or more literally " house of going in" for ANY people group.
It does not only apply to Jews, and in fact where it is quoted in the New Testament is applying to apostate churches. A church or KEHILAH in Hebrew means CONGREGATION, and does not apply to a building, but anti-Jewish Christians have called their buildings "churches" in order not to be associated with Jews, by refusing to use the word "meeting house" or "synagogue"!
The New Testament does mention ethnicity in stating that there is neither Jew nor Greek (Gentile, or non-Jew) in Christ (Messiah), but that does not mean that He cancelled them out.
It also states the same about male and female, and they certainly still exist in the Church, unless the Gospel is anti-gender, which would certainly suit today's society. The differences still remain, only they are one in the One New Man Church with the walls of hostility torn down, but some Gentile Christians raise those differences up again by impugning Jews, but not Gentiles.
Jews are a component of the Church, and not to be steamrolled into becoming Gentiles, any more than a Jew should try to make a Gentile Jewish, and often Gentiles forget the Jewish roots of the Church, where for 100 years the Church in Jerusalem was Jewish with some 12 Jewish bishops after James, whose actual name is Ya'akov, until the Europeans from Rome razed the Holy City in 135 CE ethnically cleansing the Promised Land of its Jewry so Arabs could flood in.
No, we don't have different Bibles, but one's understanding ofvwhat is actually written in it can differ from person to person. It is not about having a bad memory, but absorbing it correctly. ๐
The Church is so foreign to Jews now with all the Bible characters transmogrified into Gentile-sounding names, that not only is the Gospel unrecognisable, but the anti-Jewishness of many professing Christians repels them, with man-made traditions the Jewish Church never knew. ๐
1
-
@moragmckay3779ย Your beration and vilification of the Jews and Israel in favour of their Semitic cousins the Arabs overlooks one thing, that without the Jewish race there would not have been a Jewish savior or Messiah ("mashiach" = "anointed") called by God YESHUA, meaning "salvation." It is the Gentiles who pick and choose and change the original Scriptures, not the Jews, who hold them up in entirety, even if they are recorded in Scripture for failing God's laws, which every human being on the planet has done, right from Adam and Eve (Hava), for God says (if you can believe the Bible version you read) that "All have sinned and come short of the glory of God" and "there is none righteous, no not one", which was why God needed to send a Saviour, whom the Europeans hammered nails into his hands and feet and thrust a Roman spear into His side, and why Yeshua said to those bent on condemnation, "Let him without sin cast the first stone" and "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do." It is the Gentiles who twist the given Name YESHUA, the Name above all other names, and before which every knee shall bow, into the transmogrified "Jesus" which Yeshua would never have heard in His lifetime.
It is they who change the name Hava into "Eve" and many more such linguistic travesties.
God states in His Word that as long as there is a sun, moon and stars in the sky, so will Israel remain a nation before Him, and it was He who coined the word Zion as the mountain upon which Jerusalem would be built, which the Gentiles, even Christians, twist into negativity.
The Gentiles ignore and break more of God's Commandments than the Jews have ever done, and killed a million Jewish children in Christian Europe within living memory without excuse.
They change the names of the days of the week as numbered in the Bible by God in honour of pagan gods and idol worship, namely the sun. Moon, Tiw, Woden, Thor, Freya or Frigg, and Saturn, which the Jews would not even dare to have on their lips, as it is forbidden to even have the names of other gods on their lips. It is the Gentiles who have replaced the Passover of the LORD, the day upon which Yeshua was crucified (Nisan 14th) at God's ordained "Appointed Time" or "MOED/MOADIM" ("Holy Festival") and which Yeshua asked us to remember His suffering and death, with the man-made Roman "Easter" named after the fertility goddess "Eostre/Eastre" and it is the Gentiles, who replace the commanded Sabbath of the LORD with the non-commanded "Sun"-day, named in honour of the SUN, but not the Son, so who is it that is being inconsistent?
Being chosen to do a task, namely to write and preserve the Scripures for all mankind, does not mean that they are a "Master Race" as you term it in Gentile European Germanic terminology.
If Abraham's two sons had Twelve Tribes each equally, the Israelites and the Ishmaelites, today the Jews and Arabs, why should the Arabs have nearly all of the Middle East, and their cousins the Jews nothing? Is that fair? Would Abraham want that? Does God? Yeshua lived in Israel!!! ๐
The real usurpers are the Arabs taking advantage of the ethnic cleansing of the Jews by the European occupiers from Rome in 135 CE on pain of death, who crossed the porous borders and took the Hebrew named ancient Biblical Jewish cities of Nazareth, Bethlehem, Hebron, Joppa etc and now have the audacity to call the Jews "illegal", many of whom were Palestinian pre 1948!
Yes, many Israelis do stand up and care for the Palestinians, as most of them are moderate fair-minded people who believe in peace ("shalom" = "wholeness") and democracy, which cannot be said about the Arabs concerning their Jewish cousins which they discriminated against long before there was any State of Israel, as the massacre of the ancient community of Palestinian Jews of Hebron in 1929 shows only too clearly in the most barabaric fashion as in October 7th.
The colonialists of Palestine were successive rulers from the Romans, Greeks, Egyptians to the Turks and the British in the 430 years leading up to the UN Partition Plan in 1947 which the Arabs refused. The Jews were not colonial rulers, but simply accepted the 1947 UN offer.
God has punished Israel in His dealings with them, but He still loves them, and it is to them that Yeshua will one day return to usher in True Peace ("shalom" wholeness) in Jerusalem. ๐
Meanwhile the world clamours for the Holy City to become an Islamic Caliphate for Arabs. ๐ธ๐ฆ
If you claim to be a Christian you need to check your heart before God concerning the Jews, as Paul asks in the book of Romans, "Has God then cast away His people (Israel)?" His response is emphatic and unambiguous, when he expostulates: "CERTAINLY NOT!" (Some put "GOD FORBID!")
The first Zionists were not religious, you are correct, as this was a prophetic move of God, not of man, after some 2,000 years, when the Bible states that the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled, i.e. the Church Age coming to a close as God starts to call Jews back to the land for Yeshua.
They come back in unbelief so they can be rescued from their enemies who will attack them at the Battle of Armageddon, near what was once Jewish Nazareth, the hometown of Yeshua.
The climate is ready for such a move from the hatred shown against them among the nations, with even professing Christians joining in the call to wipe the land & people of Israel off the map.
Yes, men will pick and choose what they want from the Bible, that's why I read the original Hebrew where there are no Gentile tampering and translation that leads to all common errors.
You cannot claim Yeshua yet ignore His Jewish heritage and upbringing in the Jewish land.
As Corrie ten Boom said of Christians in Holland who betrayed Jews in WWII, "Just because a mouse is in the cookie jar, does not mean that he is a cookie!" So it is with the churches who resent the Jews. Many who are called Christian are not true in doctrine and Biblical belief.
Even the Jews call Adolf Hitler a "Christian" because he was not a Jew or a Muslim.
God will judge each human being for his works, and even for their words (as on this platform concerning Israel), as it says that, "Every idle word that a man shall speak, he shall give account of it in the Day of Judgement." Your words above are recorded as are all of your own black sins.
As for Israel, "He that keepeth Israel shall neither slumber nor sleep." Psalms of David. ๐ โค
1
-
@moragmckay3779ย In your second negative and berating text about there being no archaelogical proof for many occurances in Scripture, the Bible says that we walk by faith, not sight. Doubting Thomas would not believe until he saw the wounds in Yeshua's hands and side, and Yeshua asked him to put his finger there to prove his wounds were real. Do you need to put your finger into every crevice of rock before you will believe every Biblical account? Where is the indisputable archaelogical evidence of Yeshua's life and ministry, death or resurrection? ๐ค
There is none, which by the same litmus test makes your faith and your salvation a sham if archaeology is the only way to prove any Biblical text! The angel said rightly to those who sought His earthly remains, "He is not here, for He is risen!" Where is your proof for that great story?! ๐ค
You are happy to list the impossibilities of the events that happened to the Israelites, even though they believe them with veracity and have the proof of the graves of their Patriarchs, thus you must apply the same severity and doubt to everything you read in the New Testament!
The Bible is more literal than you believe it to be, and its messages of love and fairness that you cite I have rarely seen being employed when it comes to loving and honouring the Jewish people.
God Himself is a Zionist as He created the word "TZIYYON" from the related Hebrew root word "METZUYAN" meaning wonderful or amazing, just as the word "Jew" YEHUDI means "praise."
As you will note on cards you get this Christmas, Yeshua was born in JUDEA ("JEW-DEA")!!!
Sadly, His hometown and birthplace are now overrun by anti-Jewish Arabs from Arabia. ๐
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
ย @dannyhughes4889ย That is the theory of British Israelism which uses very faulty Hebrew to make many claims but any true Hebrew speaker can see the grammatical errors that most English speakers would not be aware of and hence people are taken in by its erroneous fancies.
Even the word "British" they claim comes from the two Hebrew words BRIT & ISH meaning "covenant" and "man" respectively, thus they claim that the term "Covenant man" applies to the English-speaking peoples, including America whom they claim in relationship with Britain to be Ephraim & Menasseh the sons of Joseph. This may fool the average English speaker, but anyone who knows Hebrew can see the folly in such as claim, as to say "covenant man" or "man of the covenant" in Hebrew is ISH BRITI with the words the other way around in the running order of Hebrew grammar, unlike in English, plus the Hebrew alphabet has two letter "T"'s, TAV & TET, and Brit meaning covenant ends with a Tav, but to write Briti for British one uses a Tet.
However, I would agree that there was likely some early Israelite/Jewish connection with Ireland, as even the pre-Roman version of Christianity in Ireland and Britain of the Celtic Church with brave missionaries such as Patrick, Columba, Gall, Columbanus, Fursey, Colman etc was more Judaic in character like the early Jewish Church in Jerusalem and the Quartodeciman churches ("14th men") of Asia Minor founded by John the Apostle who kept the Sabbath on the seventh day (Saturday) and remembered the crucifixion on the actual Biblical date of Nisan 14th, or the Day of Passover, as opposed to the Roman "Easter" named after the goddess Eostre/Eastre, and other Roman observances, such as Christ-Mass, Lent, Ash Wednesday etc., which even the later so-called Protestants also kept without question after the Synod of Whitby in 664.
We just have to be careful picking through history and separating truth from myth and legend and unsubstantiated claims often based on political alliances or on religious doctrinal bias.
For instance, Columba died on the Sabbath day on the Isle of Iona off the coast of Scotland after Christianising the Picts, but later Roman historians deviously describe it as the "Lord's Day", which to most Roman Christians, whether Catholic or Protestant, would take to mean "Sun"-day, (named in honour of the sun, but not the Son), which is a subtle change but it dilutes the reverence of the day which Columba kept and prophesied that he would die on by adding in the Roman "Sun"-day as a plausibility and many such historical works are tainted in this way.
Thus we must be careful not to be duped and always go for the earliest sources possible.
Patrick & Columbanus would turn in their graves if they knew what goes on in their names today with even "Sun"-day-keeping churches naming their buildings after them & inventing Saints' days.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
ย @A.D.540ย Well, seeing as you rely on the Biblical story of Adam & Eve as a written code for examples of perfect human unions, the Bible records that that the Edenic couple had two sons, Cain & Abel, without any evidence of any females being born. So is one to conclude by reading that same story that the whole human race descended from a pairing of these two brothers? ๐ค
At least the Gospels record that Yeshua, later re-named "Jesus" by the Gentiles, had brothers AND sisters, even though not all sects of Gentile Christianity recognise even that much.
King Solomon, the wisest man that ever lived, had hundreds of wives and concubines, who later would cause Him to stray from the God of Israel to go to worship the foreign gods of his wives. ๐คฏ
Funny how a man could have lots of women at once, but women did not have multiple men, at least not all at one time. Yeshua never married at all, so that wasn't that 'natural' to do either.
So Yeshua could be considered 'unnatural', which is the accusation many lob at homosexuals.
My own parents were "one man & one woman", the way it is "supposed to be," as you say, but the woman left when I was 12, leaving the man for another man, and the three siblings separated. So for all that people laud heterosexual unions for, a lot of them don't even last.
And if you're gay, the multi-partnered imperfect heterosexuals tell the homosexuals quite categorically that they can't have anyone. At least these unequal partners truly teach inequality!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
ย @dareemmanuel6079ย Fulfil does not mean to cancel or abolish. To fulfil is to carry something out to the last detail. That does not certify that God's Law is now defunct and useless. Yeshua, before His Name was changed by the Gentiles to "Jesus," did not advocate stoning on the occasion of the woman caught in adultery as He said, "Those without sin cast the first stone", so there was no one left to stone her, and the reason being that Yeshua obviously reminded them all of their own sin. He then told the woman not to sin again, not to be law-less and commit more adultery if there is no more Law to break as Yeshua has "fulfilled" it in the sense that you understand it.
The Bible describes SIN as a TRANGRESSION OF THE LAW, so how could the woman know what sin was if the Law no longer was applicable to anyone who had met Yeshua in Person?
So basically we can lie, steal and murder and there's now nothing that God can do about it, as you have removed the very mechanism by which He can judge, according to your law-less-ness.
You think you know too, but even Yeshua on that day will say to those who did great works in his name, (most likely "Jesus," not Yeshua), "I never KNEW you. Depart from Me, you who practice LAW-LESS-NESS." Even Paul when asked do we reject the Law, says, "God forbid! Rather we UPHOLD the Law." Yeshua Himself said that He came not ABOLISH the Law. You think it's "O.T." ๐
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
ย @davedmusic3598ย Name calling is not the sign of a good argument. Just like Andrew Neil couldn't answer sufficiently or righteously over Israel it seems neither can you. Neither had he decent questions to ask but was full of trickery and entrapment. "By their fruits ye shall know them." Israel was a nation when London was a marsh so Andrew Neil needs to go back to his tribal huddle in Scotland and do a Highland Fling. Israel will remain a nation forever, for the God of the Bible, the Book which courtrooms across the globe use to swear upon as a symbol of TRUTH, says that while there remains a sun and moon in the sky, so shall Israel remain a nation before the LORD God of Israel. It is the only land and people with "God" in it, and God names Himself after them, not the Arabs or anyone else, for "EL" is a contracted form of "ELOHIM" which is the Hebrew word for "God", thus the name "ISRA-EL" means quite uniquely "Prince of God."
Not even Andrew Neil can attach that to his family clan. The world clamours to say that Jews living in the Land of the Bible, their ancient Promised Land, given to them by God no less, (if anyone has watched the film The Ten Commandments about Israel's Exodus from Egypt), are "illegal" for in their opinion Judea should be given to the Arabs of Arabia as their State! ๐๐คฏ
Now that's the biggest 'strawman' argument I have ever heard, yet amazingly people fight for its cause, missing the bigger picture that the Arabs have nearly the whole of the Middle East, and the Jews hardly anything, even though they are both Semitic cousins descended from their common Forefather Abraham, after which the Arabs were allotted land in the huge expanse of oil-rich Arabia, and the Jews were given the tiny parcel of land called Judea, only about the size of Wales in the UK. Yet, the nations of the world insist, the Arabs must have that too, and the Jews expelled for being "colonial"! What an upside down world we live in which hates the Jews.
Strawmen? There are plenty of strawmen out there making false accusations about Israel. ๐คฏ
Seeing as you are not a strawman, your response will be very welcome to match the response of Andrew Neil in like manner, seeing you think he was so bold and valiant. I await your reply.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
ย angiebaby9981ย Where does it say that? The Bible is full of references to the LAND of Israel, also called the Promised Land and the Holy Land, so how is it not a place? So is Arabia of the Arabs not a place? Are they just a nation with no physical place to dwell? Is that Biblical? ๐ค
God will shake all the nations, especially those who come against Israel. Judgement begins with the House of God. So is heaven a place? If you get there you will see on the gates of pearl the names of the Twelve Tribes of Israel as mentioned in the book of Revelation. โก๐๐๐๐ฏ
The heavenly city will be called Jerusalem. Is that a place? You seem a bit confused over what geography actually exists or not. Yosef & Miriam when in Egypt with the young Yeshua (as He was named by God, meaning "salvation"), was told by an Angel of the LORD to return to the LAND OF ISRAEL (Matthew 2:20-21). So how is Israel not a place, if the Angel mentions it? ๐ค
I guess Great Britain is a nation, but not a place either? God gave the Jews a LAND (as an "everlasting possession"), not just the status of nationhood, although they are a people too.
You may not like it if you are prejudiced against the Jews, as so many are, but God said it.
In the end of days, as you mention, all the nations of the world will gather at Armageddon to come against Israel, and those nations who come against her will be utterly destroyed. ๐ฅ
Armageddon is a physical place in the Land of Israel, not an attachment just to a people.
Of course the nations' target will be the people of Israel, but in the physical land of Israel.
God says that those who bless Israel will be blessed, and those who curse Israel will be cursed. Your denial of Israel being a physical place is not a blessing but a curse against it. ๐๐คฏ
SHALOM AL ISRAEL ๐ฎ๐ฑ PEACE BE UPON ISRAEL โค
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
ย @gracemakindeย Some primitive tribes dress semi-naked exposing their men's backsides or women's breasts, which I would consider 'indecent' exposure of body parts that I would not want before my eyes, so maybe 'decency' is something that man has added to the social order as it progresses and not something that occurs naturally. Often religious beliefs are involved in these conclusions as well as class divides and expectation as education and wealth bring their own conceptions of what is considered 'normal' or 'proper'. There is no universal 'decency' inherent in the human race, but more dependent on the whims of different cultures and their experiences.
The fact that this huge debate only comes from one overweight gay man does demonstrate a degree of prejudice and discrimination as to what people conclude is vulgar, rude or unacceptable. I still hold out that a sexy blonde woman doing the same things men would love.
Yet , to me, that would be disgusting. So either stop all kinds of such expression or stop all.
No prohibiting or slagging off one person just because they neither appear handsome or slim.
Sexualised acts of entertainment have existed far into pre-history, with even "belly-dancing" semi-exposed in the strictest of Islamic regimes, where of course the harem is acceptable.
I think there is a lot of hypocrisy at work and double standards, and most of the critics don't give a damn about Sam Smith himself, his mental or physical wellbeing (exacerbated by all this adverse negative publicity and cruel caustic outbursts against him by a 'moralistic' public).
All they care about is themselves and how they think their heteronormative world should be.
We obviously haven't moved on at all and are not ready for expressive artists like Sam Smith.
In a world where people of all sizes and shapes, with both beautiful and ugly people, the unique strength of love and attraction includes many people that our western society would brand as "unacceptable" to be on view or to model clothes etc., yet many people do find people attractive who may not have an ultra beautiful face or many have some weight instead of being slim or muscular, but we are limited to what the likes of the majority on this platform only view as "nice" or "acceptable."
This castigates a huge swathe of God-given humanity based on prejudiced expectations.
That is the issue I have of slamming Sam, yet tolerating of even praising female beauties doing much more raunchy or provocative stuff than Sam does, but he is viewed as fat, ugly and gay.
My old landlord used to say, "One man's meat is another man's poison," meaning that what some people may like others will not, and there have certainly been some poisoned views on here! ๐
1
-
ย @gracemakindeย Because morality and chastity are values forced on others who are expected to conform to the moralists' expectations. That does not mean that someone who sings or acts like Sam Smith cannot show care, honour, kindness and other good human traits towards children, elderly, sick or disabled people just because they dress or act in a way that appears lewd to some who are bound by more primitive values. You equate being lewd as being evil, because of its open expressionism, yet I have found more true evil lurking in the churches and other moralistic societies and organisations where actual CRIMES of child abuse, paedophilia, incest, lust, pride, gossip, slander, false witness, coveting, greed, gluttony all thrive in secret, not to mention pornography, infidelity, drunkenness, envy, conceit, theft, dishonesty and lying. ๐คฏ
You may slight Sam for being immoral or indecent, but at least he is not guilty of committing CRIMES in secret like so many moral and supposedly 'decent' people do in utter hypocrisy.
Sam is being himself openly and honestly, whereas others do much worse hidden by secrecy.
That's how real evil thrives, not in the act of a supposedly 'indecent' singer and performer, but in the ruined lives of countless abandoned, abused and victimised children in the "Christian" or otherwise "moral" clutches of socially respected adults and community leaders with impunity.
You may be amazed why morality and good doesn't sell, and those are some very good reasons.
At least with Sam you know what you get, but the great and the "good" are often totally corrupt.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
ย @charlesbull6188ย He claims innocence. You and other people judge him to be such. And you lie yourself. Hypocrite. That is the point of the Biblical text. Prime Minister does not matter if you lie once, you are a liar. That's why all the condemners left the adulteress alone with Jesus.
He knew they were no more righteous than she in their words and deeds, motives and inner thoughts. The onslaught against Boris is more evil in intent that any perceived lies told.
And it DOES matter, as the same Bible that Parliament made Boris Johnson swear on says in the book of Revelation about EVERYONE, from the greatest to the least, that ALL LIARS will end up in the lake of fire! ๐ฅ๐ฅ๐ฅ๐ฅ๐ฅ And it also says that with what words you judge another you will be judged. So you definitely will not be let off the hook, as you only have to tell ONE lie.
That includes all the parents, teachers and Christian clergy who LIE repeatedly, wilfully and unrepentedly year in, year out, to innocent children about Santa Claus & his flying reindeer. ๐
A lie is a lie, no matter how you dress it up, so the same vitriol you wish to mete out to Boris Johnson just because he was voted in by so many to serve the British people as Prime Minister should be meted out to you and the rest of the hypocritical LYING British public out there. ๐
Joseph with his coloured coat also became Prime Minister of Egypt and was imprisoned and condemned as a prisoner due to false witness and similarly LYING condemning people around him. Boris still protests innocence, but the LYING British public do not believe him, but are filled with hate, resentment and malice. However, Joseph was exonerated in the end as the good that he did in service to the country was eventually recognised, and this will happen Boris Johnson.
At the moment he is unpopular as people are like sheep and are easily influenced by vitriolic inflamatory media reports bent on character assassination, but the truth will come out.
Then we will see who are the liars, the deceitful and corrupt in this whole sorry affair.
No Prime Minister will ever satisfy the lofty standards of the hypocritical LYING British public.
But they all lie, every last one of them. But they all haven't the popular vote to become PM.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
ย @rivkakiย You are cherrypicking as Christians themselves break God's Law, including in the Ten Commandments where it clearly says to keep the 7th day holy and to "remember" it, when instead Gentile denominational "Christians" IGNORE it, and keep the uncommanded "Sun"-day, named after the "sun" and not the "Son", instead. ๐คฏ They break this law 52 weeks a year. ๐
Most Christians also IGNORE the FOUR TIMES emphasized ABOMINATION in Leviticus 11: 10-12 where God warns not to eat sewage-imbibing shellfish, which He calls UNCLEAN, which the Gentile (non-Jew) Noah knew about when he boarded the animals on the Ark in TWOS & SEVENS, the larger numbers being for CLEAN animals permitted by God for FOOD. ๐๐๐ฆ๐
This is the VERY SAME book (Leviticus) they use to condemn homosexuality in this manner.
So Christians are both LAW-LESS and REST-LESS by ignoring these laws of God written clearly in the Bible, adhered to by the Gentile Noah, who found GRACE in the eyes of the LORD, and the Sabbath reiterated in the New Testament by Yeshua, before the Gentiles changed his given Name to "Jesus," who said it was LAWFUL to do good on the SABBATH, so He wasn't cancelling it out, as He further stated that the Sabbath was MADE FOR MAN, which includes all Christians.
Yeshua speaks of that day when people (those who 'profess' to be "Christians) will come to Him and cry, "Lord, Lord, we cast out demons in Your Name" (in the name of "Jesus," not YESHUA), and He will say to tnem, "Depart from Me, you workers of LAW-LESS-NESS. I never KNEW you!"
Most Christians break God's Law and do not even know the Name of the One whom they claim to worship, yet they will call others law breakers and sinners, when they are that themselves!!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
ย @swiftlydoesit8480ย Yes, that's true, evolution and all kinds of theories are pushed on kids to accept without much 'choice,' and I guess all parents in all religions pass on their religion to their children, unless they decide to disengage with it themselves, which a greater majority do now.
I guess kids have little choice in the ideologies that adults put onto them until they grow up, but by that time sometimes it's too late for too much independent thought, unless one is a bit of a maverick. Most people are like sheep and tend to follow along, just like the Bible says. ๐
I guess the woman has a parental right to object to a secular and sexualised agenda being presented to her child, as much as an atheist or Buddhist mother might object to their child being subjected to unwanted Christian doctrine, like when churches organise seemingly innocuous events for kids, such as summer camps and activities, or like a local church here, putting sweets ("candy") through the door of homes in the hope to entice some of them.
However, "LGBT lifestyle" as you put it cannot be erased from humanity any more than we can erase the "heterosexual lifestyle," and to grow up feeling "wrong" must be a very terrible thing.
Life as part of a minority group is not easy, and Christians themselves are beginning to realise this increasingly as their grip on society and morals lessens over the decades, making them too a marginalised minority group that many people love to hate, mock and condemn.
It's just a pity the two discriminated groups of human beings could not find common ground.
1
-
ย @templekanu6740ย I would not say that Christians have always had "tolerant" views, considering they believe that they have the ONLY WAY to God, heaven and salvation, impugning all other religions as false, and therefore 'evil' and "of the devil" etc. ๐บ
Certainly for gay people I do not think there is much "tolerance," considering so many Christians intrinsically believe that homosexuality is wrong and a sin, and they spend much time condemning LGBT people in a very self-righteous way, yet ignoring many of the sins and imperfections a bit closer to home, and even secretly lurking among their own church pews!
Muslims for their part also object to schools for such teaching, as they uphold, in the same way as Christians do, that homosexuality is wrong, except they believe the Bible in a more literal way than Christians do by believing that homosexuals are worthy of death! Such is the love of God!
No doubt children taught these things by their religious parents will grow up being intolerant too, and as you advocate, will teach their children in turn "whatever they may wish."
It's only those that grow up realising what other people call an "absurdity" is actually a reality in their own lives that will end up being as equally intolerant of narrow-minded indocrinated Christians as they are of them. "Tolerance" means they won't actually stone them, that's all. ๐
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
ย @BladeRunnerCย I haven't waxed lyrical. Those are the words of Jesus Christ and are found in the Bible that Parliament forced Boris Johnson to swear on as a symbol of holiness and truth.
The other options you have are also in that same book: "With whatever judgement you mete out to others it will be meted out to you." You only have to tell one lie to become a liar. ๐คฏ
So many are accusing Boris of lying, although he protests innocence, yet all those same people are liars too if they have ever told a lie. That's why Jesus said to the condemners of the woman caught in adultery for the first person without any sin to cast the first stone. They slunk away.
It is not about eloquence or standing tall, but finding a common level upon which we all stand.
As it stands, for all humanity, that same Bible states that ALL LIARS will be cast into the lake of fire. ๐ฅ๐ฅ๐ฅ๐ฅ๐ฅ That might sound 'eloquent' to you too, but it shows we will all be held accountable for our words and deeds, and not only Boris Johnson who is being judged by a vitriolic and ungrateful British public, or as he puts it a "kangaroo court," when in fact they all lie, and many of them were holding lockdown parties without masks while Boris nearly lost his life.
This is definitely a witch hunt fuelled by inflamatory comments in the one-sided media. ๐
1
-
1
-
ย @alphacentauri1908ย Yes, I know that. The British Mandated area of Palestine was divided in two, with Transjordan on the east bank of the Jordan River becoming in reality an Arab State in what was ruled as Palestine, so a 'Palestinian state' already exists, but it was somehow chosen to be given the Hebrew name of Jordan, the only Arab state to have a Hebrew name, even though most place names on the west bank of the River have historical Biblical names, not Arabic ones.
That is why the Arabs deviously use the nameless term "West Bank" in order to purposely cover up the clear historical and Biblical Jewish links to the land of Judea ("Jew-dea") even by name.
Funny they never were so non-descriptive in naming the Kingdom of Jordan the "East Bank"!
Both Arabs and Jews were called Palestinian under the colonial governance of Britain and Turkey for some 430 years, it not being solely an Arab term, and it never being a sovereign Arab state. Yes, ignorance is bliss, and there is a lot of it about, but most just don't want to know.
You wrote "ignorance is bless". I have never known anyone blessed by ignorance. Shalom. ๐
Who exactly were the "some" that you were referring to, as you seem to be unspecific. ๐ค
I wouldn't want to remain in ignorance by the lack of information which you provide. ๐
1
-
ย @jhegreย Why do you intersperse with Hebrew? Do you think it sounds more fancy or is it meant to be a tactic of diminishment or trying to make something simple more "sinister"?
If you like Hebrew words interspersed in order to make your comment more effective, I can certainly supply them to a NUDNIK like you. Quoting one word over and over is not a sign of erudition. ATA TIPESH! "HASBARAH" is simply the regular generic word from Hebrew vocabulary for "EXPLANATION" in English, nothing more, nothing less, so no mystical conspiracy around it.
It comes from the infinitive verb "LEHASBIR", meaning "TO EXPLAIN." It is not an evil word. ๐
If you want numbers of Jews killed by Arab attacks over the past century and a half & before you need to Google. Why should I do your work for you if you are not even one bit interested?
Atrocities could go on all around the world, like the children's hospital bombed by Russia most recently, but your preoccupation is on the Arabs, their numbers, their suffering etc only.
I can say from growing up in war-torn Northern Ireland that there is suffering on both sides and no peace will come from promulgating further hate as your loaded comments surely do.
Removing expressions from charters does not in any way affect Hamas's aims & actions, for it still seeks the destruction of Israel & every Jew, as the world could see from October 7th.
Removing "from the river to the sea" from their charter has not stop Islamists and their gullible supporters from chanting its genocidal words in parades & marches in cities across the globe.
That is not a reversal of intention, nor is it a call for peace between both peoples in 2 states.
Your fairytale charter of the Likud is typical of the vitriolic nonsense espoused on this platform by biased one-sided individuals and groups who back the Arabs in their hatred.
"Only Jews from the River to the Sea" is simply fiction, for the State of Israel has Arab and Druze citizens, both Muslim & Christian who have some of the best conditions than in Islamic states.
I would wind your neck in a little bit, and go and boil your head for it seems to be a bit confused.
SHALOM VE LEHITRAOT, AVAL LO IM ANI YAKOL LO ZEH. ๐ ๐ซ๐ซ๐ซ ๐ฎ๐ฑ๐โค ๐๐๐ ๐๐ฟ
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
ย @andrewstaples7544ย I thought the original Palestine was the territory of Philistia where the Philistines lived which is the narrow coastal strip of land where Gaza is today bordering Egypt.
Later conquerers and colonialists may have included some parts of the Holy Land as part of Greater Syria, and used colonial terms such as Syria Palestina, but the territory they were applying that to (to insult and eradicate the Jews) was mostly the land of Canaan, not Philistia, or a combination of the two depending on the time period and the historian writing, which of course was later the Kingdoms of Israel & Judah which cannot be erased from history books.
As it stands, Jews, even as a minority at times, have always dwelt in the Land of the Bible for some 3,500 years, and even if Arabs did live there too or even dominated after the conquest of Islam of the country, the idea of it belonging solely to the Arabs is only a colonial claim. ๐
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
ย @mamamariusย Jewish is an ethnicity, as they are the Arabs' Semitic cousins, and thevArabs are an ethnicity or a people, not a religion. Judaism is a religion practised by most Jews, but not all. Some are atheist, secular, or converted to other belief systems, such as Buddhism or Christianity, just as most Arabs practice Islam, which is a religion and not an ethnicity, as many Asians and Africans are Muslim, and some Arabs are Christian and, if in the West, even secular.
Adam was the first man.
Abraham was the first Hebrew.
Judah was the first Jew.
Jacob (Israel) was the first Israelite, or as the original Hebrew puts it, Israeli.
And Ishmael was the first Arab.
I'll let you argue who the first Muslim was!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
ย @maidenoftruth4410ย Yeshua, whom you re-name as "Jesus," does not "make" what is being consumed today, if you mean alcohol, because He is not physically on the earth at this point of time, but is seated at the right hand of the Father in heaven, otherwise He might be imbibing Galilee Wines. I did not say I want "to go on drinking" as you so scathingly retort in self-righteous pride, as I am a terminally ill kidney patient so am hardly out visiting pubs to "go drinking" on a regular basis if that is your implication by your words. Not all people, Yeshua included, need to "go drinking" huge amounts of alcohol at every turn, but rather know what its true intention, purpose and balanced use is for, and certainly not to act like a drunkard, although the RELIGIOUS HYPOCRITES of His day ACCUSED Him of being a WINEBIBBER AND A DRUNKARD, just as many of His followers try to suggest about me in the very same misjudged manner. I trust you will remember to call Him that too when you meet Him in heaven for imbibing wine at Passover, which was given as a sign to remember His BLOOD. Maybe you can think of a better sign to signify His BLOOD with other than a cup of glistening red wine that He chose to use. Maybe tomato ketchup or raspberry jam watered down like so many say His wine was. Why follow the example of a drunkard/winebibber every time you meet for "Holy Communion" in your church?
I already am a terminally ill kidney patient with Amyloidosis so your prophecy about me getting cancer or kidney problems is not going to be fulfilled in the way you imagine. I have had 5 years of chemotherapy for the Amyloidosis which attacks my organs in the same way as cancer does, although NONE of it was caused by alcohol, despite your premonition of doom. The Bible does, by the way, condone drinking alcohol for those who are on their way out, or dying, as I am, obviously to bring some relief in misery which chronic illness and old age can inflict at random.
Yeshua DID, however, make wine at the Wedding Feast in Cana, not too far away from where I used to live in the Holy Land where one of the seven species of the land mentioned in the Bible was the grape vine (ha-gafen) and wine is ceremonially drunk as a thanksgiving to God every Shabbat (Sabbath, "Friday" sunset to "Saturday" sunset), Passover, and other "Appointed Times" (moadim") or holy festivals and also at weddings (like Yeshua) who is our Example.
Please attack Him about this whole issue and His behaviour concerning it rather than judging someone you don't even know. Yeshua ignored the accusations of the Pharisees in His day who falsely accused and condemned Him for things He hadn't done, and I will do similar. ๐๐๐
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
ย @joeoreilly1479ย I was born in County Down, Northern Ireland, so I can only speak of my own life experience from there. You can speak of Dublin from the persective that you have. There are Protestants in Dublin but they are Irish citizens so are you saying that the first terrorist bomb in Ireland was by an Irish movement in Dublin which was technically an Irish terrorist organisation run by Irishmen? ๐ค
Did this have anything to do with the British Government or of Irish national unrest? ๐ค
I am always keen to know the facts rather than blindly judge. My next door neighbours were Roman Catholics and I grew up playing with them as innocent children with no animosity. It was not until later that the older siblings forbade the youngest boy from playing with my twin brother and myself because we were Protestants, even though I had no real sense of what it meant to be a Protestant. Therefore I grew up treating both Catholics and Protestants as equal human beings, and I still do today. The father of that Catholic family worked in the legal system of the courts and was shot dead by the IRA for his role in putting away convicted IRA terrorists.
Others call them freedom fighters. It is all about perspective, influence and life experience.
My Catholic neighbour was killed by his own people, not by any Protestant gunman or terrorist.
My own uncle was knee-capped by Protestant terrorists for dating a Roman Catholic girl. He now lives in England in a wheelchair. He was crippled by his own people, not by Catholics.
I have seen 22 teenagers blown to smithereens in Tel-Aviv queuing up for a discotheque by the beach for much the same reasons. The BBC later interviewed the suicide bomber's family in their grief whilst teams of medics carefully picked up all those body parts and respectfully placed them in black plastic bags. It was too horrific to be shown on public television. The next morning at work in the Hilton Tel- Aviv where I was Chef de Partie for the prestigious King Solomon Fine Dining Restaurant a Jewish female colleague from Ukraine kept weeping. I asked her in our common language of Hebrew what was the matter and she told me that her next door neighbour lost two teenage daughters in the Arab attack and was inconsolable. She had to identify her kids from gold earrings and teeth. I witnessed grief and misery on both sides, as 40% of the Hotel staff were Arab and just like in Northern Ireland, no matter how bad the situation was on the ground people still have to go to work and work together with individuals from across both divides.
I befriend Jews and Arabs and Protestants and Catholics. I see no human difference in them.
I do witness the one-sidedness you accuse me of, but you really have never met me. I have written to the Queen and also the Pope (and got replies from both) and sent poems to the President of Ireland and also to the British Prime Minister (whom I fed at the Tel- Aviv Hilton) so I believe in communication with differing 'sides' for it was not me that formed those 'sides.'
I wrote to former IRA sympathiser Martin McGuinness before he died after just stepping down from his role of Deputy First Minister for Northern Ireland as I was diagnosed with the same terminal illness as he, Amyloidosis, as I could empathise with his physical suffering and treatment and he flew to London to attend the same hospital that I still attend that specialises in this rare illness and I have just returned from that same hospital two days ago for tests & checks which I have to do annually. Last year I was in the waiting room on 8th September in London when the Queen died. The Queen and Martin McGuinness were stoic in meeting each other.
I was born into one side, just as others are born into another side. Very few are born in the middle. Not all Catholics are equal-minded when it comes to their view of Protestants. I also know some very anti-Catholic Protestants. I met Ian Paisley Senior before he died who had befriended the late Martin McGuinness as we both sat on the front row before giving talks, and he had mellowed a lot with age, and my attitude towards Martin McGuinness was open like his.
I wrote articles about Amyloidosis for the Catholic Irish News newspaper and the Protestant News Letter in Belfast because so few had heard of this illness until Martin McGuinness died.
You may bet that I'm not a native of Northern Ireland, for it really doesn't matter. My 'research' is living my life which is only viewed as 'propaganda' if the reader disagrees with something I write.
If I wrote a praiseworthy article about the virtues of the Irish state and its Republical Army would that be 'propaganda' or unbiased truth? Still the perspective comes from life and experience. I may never match your erudition concerning terrorism in Dublin but I am not making things up. You may doubt where I was born, but I am a citizen of the world that values peace. ๐
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
ย @dankamp2872ย well murder, rape and theft are criminal acts so they would hardly be "paraded" as such, but there certainly is no shame in adultery or divorce anymore, and although not exactly "paraded" on the streets, the general moral decline of the nation is "paraded" or on constant display on every area of the media, including films, television, online computers, literature, it is all pervasive, so I don't think it is only one segment of society showing lewdness or a decline in morals. The original concept behind the parades was to be accepted and to have the same right as anyone else to love and to be loved. I do not think gaudy or rude displays help anyone. ๐
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
โย @user-FUCKYOU18ย The word "chosen" in the Hebrew Bible is the word "bechor" which simply means appointed or elected for a certain purpose, not that they are "special" or above anyone else as most stupid white people understand it when they translate it into English as "chosen" and even more stupid people react to it in their ignorance & bitterness.
The same word is used for Christians in the New Testament, when it calls the Church of God the "elect" which is the equivilent word to "bechor" or chosen for a certain purpose.
Even in modern Israel the word is used as "BECHOROT" for "ELECTIONS" when they are "choosing" or "electing" political leaders, but it is a generic word with a general meaning.
Israel was picked to be a light to the nations by bringing the written Scriptures of God to the world, so they were more of a channel than any object of veneration or personal fame.
Obviously for a such a task some group were needed, as the whole world could not be given a divine revelation to every single nation on earth at the same time, so one nation was picked to do it, and because of that they are hated, killed, maligned by everyone. ๐
This was God's doing, no choice or desire of the Israelites. If your people were "chosen" to do the task would they have done any better, and bear in mind that all will hate you for it!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Queen Mary and Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother were Queen Consort, as was Queen Alexandra, wife of Edward VII during the 20th century, but they were all addressed as "Queen," and called "Her Majesty," not in normal usage as "Queen Consort," although that was what they were, and it is no different with Camilla. She is Queen Consort, but still gets called "Queen" & "Majesty."
The only difference being written into the narrative here by objectors is based on views concerning Diana and the fact that Camilla (and Charles) are divorced and remarried.
It is personal rejectionism against the person of Camilla that breaks that royal tradition by trying to present to the world Queen Consort as something twisted into being something "un-royal," and of lesser status than it normally has been held so that it appears as something distant & cold.
The historic record record, however, shows no contradiction in being a consort and being called "Queen." One can show hosility if one wants, but one cannot change convention in this one case.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The Hebrew word for vinegar is HOMETZ. When Yeshua was offered HOMETZ on a stick, He turned His head away and did not drink it. If it was just poor quality wine, as you say, if He was in great thirst (He cried out "I thirst"), He would have drank of it, but He didn't. Why not?
Yeshua kept the Biblical food laws, not eating unclean animals or leaven during Passover, which is a symbol of sin in the Bible, which is why the unleavened bread perfectly symbolized His sinless broken body. The name for anything not permitted to be eaten or imbibed during Passover is HAMETZ, which is related to the word HOMETZ for vinegar. Yeshua was crucified on the actual Day of Passover, and this HOMETZ would have been like HAMETZ during the Feast.
Also, it was soaked in a sponge. Sponges were a new introduction by the Romans who used them on a stick to clean their latrines, and one Jewish believer in Yeshua told me that that was what they were holding to the Messiah's face as a final insult, and He turned His head away.
Also, with vinegar being made from grapes, Yeshua said to His disciples after taking the 3rd Cup of Redemption after the meal, that He would not taste again of the fruit of the vine until He drank it again with them in heaven at the Marriage Supper of the Lamb, so He also could not go back on His own word by drinking from the fruit of the vine on the cross. The 4th Cup of Praise ("yehudah") He did not drink, but will take it up again when He meets His chosen ones, including the disciples who were from the Tribe of Judah or "Yehudah" meaning "praise." Shalom ๐๐ฟ
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Rejector I was saying about the Ugandan President being interviewed and saying unapologetically that homosexuals are "disgusting," that I equally found his bigotted narrow-minded attitude "disgusting" as well. That was the title of the video clip.
Hence I texted, he's pretty disgusting himself (the interviewed President, not Putin).
You then texted "he's a legend" and I looked up the word in the dictionary and it gave me that definition, but I thought you meant that President was a legend. How did we get on to Putin?
It doesn't matter who you feel is a legend, I was quoting what that means in a dictionary.
Maybe you can find a different definition to fit your point of view. Sorry for any confusion.
I was interested in the case of this one man who said homosexuals are disgusting in an interview, not in the poltical viewpoints concerning Putin, although some have reported on difficulties for gay people living in Russia and in other non-democratic countries where gays are often harrassed, undermined, marginalised or even murdered. Here in the west it's Church indocrination that seeks to justify the rejection of homosexuality, which I believe was the factor with the President of Uganda. At any rate, I don't think anyone is a legend, authenticated or not, who encourages the mistreatment and persecution of gay people by their beliefs, actions or pejorative words.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
ย @j.thomas7128ย well they were using the Biblical Hebrew calendar when I lived in Israel. I get your point about not bothering if other people celebrate other religions, beliefs, calendars, and cultures, but at the same time you seem to be saying that it depends on percentages, such as 2% of the population having no right, but a majority are able to plaster the city and hold parades.
I don't want to endlessly argue over shadows, as I haven't the energy today as an end-stage kidney patient I haven't the stamina for it. I simply put up some comments, but maybe I should have kept my own counsel. I'm just glad to be alive and to see and smell flowers in the garden.
Everything else is peripheral, including all the opinionated comments that can be found on here.
I wish you well. I was being a bit protective as this year I found a very beautiful person who loves and cares for me despite my being terminally ill with Amyloidosis after 40 years of trying to keep up the standards of institutionalized Christianity since age 15. Now at age 56 I enter into a relationship which has made me very happy that has made me happy and secure, but I know so many church and other people will condemn because it is a hated and much maligned gay relationship and already people in my town cross the street when they see me. It is a bittersweet experience because of other people's judgements, but I am the happiest in my life and prepared to defend that. That does not mean that I support ostentation or lewd displays of sexuality.
But I am too tired to fight, but I am thankful I was able to feel this way once before I die. ๐ฟ
1
-
ย @Leokat334ย I would say the majority of the world doesn't believe in Him. What about the broad and narrow way? Have you changed that around? Christians now rule the world and the minority of non-Christians are on the narrow path??? The Bible refers to a "little flock."
You may hate the gay flag, even though hatred often only engenders more hatred, but when I lived in Israel the Jews did not like the symbol of the cross, with even adding up their sums in school as 2 T 2 = 4 instead of 2 + 2 = 4 in orthodox circles in order to avoid writing it. This is not because of anything Yeshua the Messiah did, later re-named "Jesus Christ" by non-Jews or Gentiles, but because of the murder and pillage of Jews in the name of Christianity, such as communities of Jews being burnt alive in their synagogues in Jerusalem by the Crusaders with flags and banners emblazoned with the Christian cross. You may be proud of this symbol and not want "Jesus Christ" to be compared to "gays and their flag," but I can assure you that flags with your beloved cross symbol is responsible for more hatred and murder than any 'gay' flag.
For that reason a whole race of people, the Jews, and others offended by it, also pay that symbol no attention for what it represents for the actions meted out by those in "Jesus' " name.
At least the Jews knew the Messiah's real given Name (Yeshua, meaning "salvation"), even if they didn't follow Him. The main reason they don't is because of the example of Christians.
As the Bible clearly says of such, "their blood I will require from your hands." You may hate very well symbols and flags of your choice, but your Christian symbols should have more respect if more adherents of Christianity showed the true love, empathy and compassion of YESHUA. โฃ
1
-
1
-
ย @j.thomas7128ย putting the 'trivialities' of Xmas & Pride behind us by comparison, your story is indeed heartbreaking and I was taken back by your openness and genuine sentiments which did not harbour the negativity that I am so used to in some circles. I could empathise with much of what you shared. My partner was previously married heterosexually for many years but went through a very bitter divorce, which I had never encountered before in terms of considering a relationship, and he has custody of his two teenage kids, who both get on well with me.
He suffered the same calumny that you did in regard to custody etc only his wife decided she did not want the children, and he is such a good and loving father to them, but he often tells me of how his heart was broken during the months of separation from his children while custody decisions were being initally decided by the authorities, which naturally favoured the mother, so what you say is true concerning the discrimination against single (or divorced) fathers.
I know he loves his daughter and son very much, so I can only try to imagine how you felt losing your daughter after losing your beloved wife. We are all appreciative of both life and love from the diversity of our experiences, yet we are a happy fun-loving little 'family' without acrimony.
I have taken some videos of me pottering in the greenhouse and in my wheelchair at the gala opening night of the new ABBA concert in London when I met Benny from the group, so I am making 'memories' and keepsakes as I go along. I am sentimental so there will be no shortage of 'mementos.' I just want to thank you again for being so personal and so human, a rare commodity these days. May life still fill you with peace, serenity and fulfilment and joy.
Shalom from Colin ๐ฟ๐น๐ฆ
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
ย @bethyngalwย You can say what you like, but the Bible nowhere commands the observance of "Christmas" or " Easter." They are both man-made festivals with man-made names and as such no one is obligated to keep them, despite the pressure from man-made holiday people like yourself. Yeshua, later re-named "Jesus" by the Gentiles, never instructed anyone to venerate His birth or His resurrection with weekly, yearly special days or otherwise. This is ecclesiology.
The only thing Yeshua (meaning "salvation") commanded to remember was His atoning sacrificial death as the Lamb of God which took place exactly on the Day of Passover, the Biblical date of Nisan 14th still in Jewish calendars today, which was set in place by God as an "Appointed Time" or "moed" and observed by Yeshua since age 12 at the Temple and which was His last day on earth. It was on this day that the Passover lambs were being led out for slaughter for the Passover sacrifices in the Temple as a remembrance of God's redemption of His people.
This holy day has been superceded by the man-made "Easter," which even if you claim it is not pagan, neither is it from God for God already had His "Appointed Times" ("moadim") in place.
Yeshua asked His followers to remember His DEATH, not His birth or resurrection, as although they were both miraculous, as was the ascension, they do not provide salvation, only Yeshua's shed BLOOD does that, which is why He asked to think of that blood when drinking wine at Passover and the unleavened Passover bread ("matza") as His sinless broken body, "as often as ye do this," i.e. at Passover, not "do this as often as you like," which is basically what most churches do nowadays. The pre-Roman Celtic Church in Ireland & Britain kept the Passover of the LORD on Nisan 14th until the new Roman "Easter" took over after the Synod of Whitby in 664 when some Roman prelates won King Oswy of Northumbria over by clever arguments and got Passover cancelled across the British Isles from that point on, which you now 'celebrate.' ๐
1
-
ย @annep.1905ย I am not learned by any means, so you may call me an ignoramus if you like. I accept your Christian admonition with all the zeal that it portends. I believe in order to be reachable one has to be teachable, and I have listened to Christians' teachings on this matter, which may not be considered as research, but it is how many people attending churches get their information.
Actually, very few explain the meaning of the word "Easter" when they celebrate it year in year out, so it can be pretty elusive getting accurate information, such as yours, on the subject.
At least I know the origin of the word "Christmas" from the Roman Catholic "Mass of Christ," or "Christ-Mass," although I have never attended a Roman Catholic Mass myself in person, but I know this is what most people call the festival. Differing denominations have taught me differently of course, all based on varying interpretations of the Bible, and some based on tradition. The same with Christian individuals and their 'views.' Either I avoid listening to any of them, or I listen to some of them in the hope that some of them are right, and try to decide which ones are telling the real truth. This anomaly extends to many who may wish to learn about the tenets of Christianity and its traditions, celebrations and theology, and some 'positions' are defended very fiercely.
The reason I alluded to "Easter" being pagan was to do with a reference to it in the writings of the Venerable Bede, who apparently connected the Anglo-Saxon month of Eosturmonath with the goddess Eostre, who I can only presume was pagan and not Christian. It is not for me to know or prove, but I can cite a source on the topic.
I will not type all in one go as sometimes a long text does not send. I am in bed terminally ill with Amyloidosis & End-Stage Kidney Disease which prevented me from replying earlier, and another good reason why I lack so much research and show so much ignorance as my energies are limited to the amount I can study and absorb, as my body is weak from 5 years of chemotherapy and kidney dialysis, not that I want to make excuses, but you are very right.
I will try to quote a little bit about what I had learned about "Easter," not to prove you wrong, but to let you know where I may have got some of my misconceptions. I trust you will forgive me.
1
-
1
-
1
-
ย @bethyngalwย forget any "pagan" claims then, but just as you say, "Christ-Mass" and "Easter" were designed by Christians for Christians, but NOT by God or Jesus (Yeshua). They are MAN-MADE ecclesiastical feasts nowadays imposed on most of the Church, but they didn't exist before the Fourth Century if you study the history of the Sabbath-keeping Quartodeciman churches founded by John the Apostle across Asia Minor and the pre-Roman Celtic Church in Ireland and Britain who remembered the Lord's death on the Day of Passover, Nisan 14th, as opposed to the new Roman "Easter" before the Synod of Whitby in 664 when King Oswy of Northumbria, England, was swayed by the Roman prelates to reject the Biblical date of Passover with the man-made "Easter" and the British Church has observed these Roman festivals ever since without question. Even if not pagan, they do replace God's holy "Appointed Times" or "moadim." "Christ-Mass" takes its name from the Roman Catholic Mass which actually commemorates Yeshua's death more than it does His birth at least ceremony-wise.
Some Christian deominations do not recognise the Roman Catholic "Mass" yet still invoke its memory each times they say the word "Christ-Mass" or "Christmas," so is this "of God" or men?
I am sorry if I projected ideas that you never articulated, and you can celebrate how you like.
Maybe I should keep my counsel to myself. There are none so deaf as those who will not hear.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
ย @chrishilton3626ย Yes, but we are not commanded to keep it so you can't apply some sentimental 'pressure' to be part of this man-made invention if one does not see an essential need to do so.
It is doubtful that Dec 25th is a true date anyway, so is it good to uphold a LIE? Yes, Yeshua was changed to Iesous via Greek because all Greek male names, especially of gods, end in an "s" sound, like Perseus, Zeus etc, whilst female names were open ended with an "a" or "e" vowel sound, such as Diana, Aphrodite etc., so a Hebrew name like YESHUA could have been miscontrued in THAT language as female, hence the ending "s." HOWEVER, there is no such grammatical or cultural need in OTHER languages, so YESHUA would be perfectly fine and His original given Name meaning "salvation" which has now been shrouded from most Christians.
Call Him what you like, if you prefer Greek, but the Name that EVERY KNEE shall bow to will be YESHUA. God named Him that via the Angel Gabriel, so it must have some significance, but even Christians can outrule God by insisting on re-naming His Son with a name He never knew. ๐
The gift of Yeshua is SALVATION (His Name) and not celebrating His supposed "birth-day." ๐
1
-
1
-
1
-
ย @chrishilton3626ย Yes, most people do not know His given Name (above ALL 'other' names).
He will say when people claim to have done miraculous works "in His name," - "Depart from Me, I never KNEW you!" At least "SATAN" survived the "translation" from Hebrew to Greek to English without any alterations, yet the All-powerful Name of YESHUA is basically unknown or respected.
And the saddest thing is, no one really CARES! ๐ Even Coca-cola gets more more internationality than the Name of of YESHUA, and they didn't need to change that four-syllabled word into other languages for it to be understood or 'acceptable' or even 'easier to pronounce'.
Other Hebrew words were not changed, such as AMEN, HALLELUJAH, HOSANNA, ARMAGEDDON etc., but the Name that He asked us to pray for things in is lost forever.
I thought Christians would have "cared" more once they realise this demonically inspired deception and injustice, but they DON'T CARE and insist that YESHUA (or "Jeezus") does not care either! That is a PRESUMPTION, as He just MIGHT! He cares that people love Him, as you say, but one way of loving someone, showing respect for them, and a proof that you know them INTIMATELY is if you get their name right and least use it, especially as all Hebrew names have intrinsic special meanings, such as YESHUA meaning "salvation," whereas "Jeezus" means NOTHING. There is no specific date for Xmas, which is why it is futile to set one on Dec 25th.
If you know it's UNTRUE, why keep up the LIE? There is no logical reason to celebrate the Messiah's birth date "all year round" as you suggest, simply because it's a man-made fallacy.
๐ฅณ๐
๐๐ฆโ๏ธโ ๐๐ฆ๐ฅ
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
ย @thet1375ย I hear this from many apologists for "Easter" but still not supplied with any PROOF, save the writings of the Venerable Bede who mentioned Eosturmonath as the month in April in "Old English" that you mention which he says is named after the pagan godess EOSTRE.
Maybe you can refute this historical Christian writing as "heretical" by supplying your PROOF of the "EAST" being the true meaning of this word that has replaced the Passover of the LORD.
Passover takes place in the "EAST" too, so why was that not good enough, if God ordained it as an "Appointed Time" or "moed" and Yeshua, later changed to "Jesus" by the Gentiles, observed it since He was 12 years old until His death on the actual Day of Passover on Nisan 14th, which He asked us to remember "as often as ye do this," i.e. celebrate Passover, not "do this as often as you like," which is basically what goes on today in most Gentile churches. The New Testament clearly says that "Christ (Messiah) our PASSOVER (not our "Easter") was slain for us, therefore LET US KEEP THE FEAST" (of Passover). Yeshua is the Passover Lamb, not an "Easter Bunny"! ๐ฐ ๐
1
-
1
-
1
-
ย @bethyngalwย I would say God would not be "offended" if some people want to celebrate His birth, even though there is no Biblical need or requirement to, but it is the way that people do that that I often wonder about, even if I chose not to personally object or say a single word about it.
If some want to celebrate His birth why is so much pressure put on to others who may not wish to? (Just try not buying presents or giving a card to your family or firiends!!) If some people want to celebrate Yeshua's birth, even though many have changed His Name and attribute the holiday to the Roman Catholic Mass ("Christ-Mass") which technically would preclude non-Catholics, why do you choose a random date like December 25th to do so, while the Orthodox churches do so on January 6th? Surely your God who never changes would have a handle on this confusion, especially if these Christians are led by the Holy Spirit? Surely your God who forbids having any other gods before Him would scratch His head at the pagan holly, ivy, mistletoe, evergreen trees that decorate homes including Christians sanctuaries used to worship Him that pre-date the Christian "Chist-Mass" with those things being used to worship false deities and other gods?
If some people want or need to celebrate the birth of their God, why do so many of their children focus much of their attention on another miraculous person for whom they have to be very good so that he will visit them and miraculously fly through the sky on a sleigh with reindeer? Some might view this not to based wholly on truth, just as with the dates chosen for these 'holidays', and the Biblical expression for something that is UNTRUE is a LIE. If this 'holy season' turns people into repetitive wilful LIARS how does that honour the Saviour that they claim to follow?
If one wishes to celebrate the birth of the Son of God, why do so many eat unclean scavenger sewage-imbibing "seafood" such as prawn cocktails which God proscribed in His Holy Word as an ABOMINATION (FOUR TIMES in 3 verses to emphasize it to be noticed) or to serve up ham and bacon which are all UNCLEAN foods that Yeshua never would have eaten as a Jew. If you were honouring a Hindu god in India would you deliberately choose to eat some "holy cow"?!
Noah the Gentile knew about these differences between "clean & unclean" when God boarded the animals on the Ark, long before there were any Jews or laws given at Mount Sinai, so it goes back a long time in the history of the Gentiles, yet so many Gentiles today ignore God's laws.
As I said, people are free to do all these things, but why close banks, schools and force others to take time off work because you choose to celebrate this uncommanded thing on a date that not even God has revealed in Scripture, when there might be some who do not wish to do that?
It is the forceful nature of the 'holiday' imposed on so many by such birth-celebrating Christians that even forces non-believers to celebrate this same 'holiday' with drunkenness and crass commercialization all supposedly in honour of Jesus Christ, or as He would have called Himself before the Gentiles changed it, Yeshua the Messiah, which means "the Anointed who Saves."
What other people might think or feel (often sincerely) of all of this may have no bearing on how you glorify your God on "that day" (while others do it contradictingly on ANOTHER day, Jan 6th) may cause you to think that some who may not wish to attach themselves to this (out of the same respect that you have in order to also glorify God) are guilty of being in a trap of legalism.
However, I find that it is the pressure to attend Xmas dinners, staff parties, church services, and the compulsive buying of presents and cards to all and sundry to be far more LEGALISTIC in the expected nature of many of these man-made traditions, which Yeshua warned make the Word of God of none effect. You do not hurt or hinder me, but I do wonder how God is truly glorified in the above mixture of sacred and profane, when birthdays were never a part of the practice of God's people, and any Xmas celebrations were not part of the Church for at least the first three centuries. So how did these early Christians glorify their God without the spectacle of Xmas? ๐
๐๐
๐๐๐
๐๐๐
๐โ๏ธโ๏ธโ๏ธ๐ฆ๐ฆ๐ฆ๐ฆ๐ฆ๐๐
๐๐๐ฒ๐๐๐
๐๐๐
๐๐๐
๐โ๏ธโ๏ธ๐ฆ๐ฆ
1
-
1
-
ย @bethyngalwย I just checked my messages and I did not realise that your response to me was so heavily edited for public consumption. I would not like you to think that I did not read your retort in its entirely or have ignored some of the points you have raised that you obviously feel so strongly about, so I will try to properly address your objections in a better more fulsome reply, hopefully without repeating what I have already said in my initial reply. I can tire easily as a terminally ill kidney patient with Amyloidosis so sometimes I need energy to fully reply on here.
So for the 'jabs' that didn't show on the public forum, I will try my best to answer in some way for you (if you are indeed interested, and I am not just wasting my valuable time and energy on a point-proving exercise). As the Bible says, "There is none so deaf as those who will not hear," so I would hate to ignore that erudite advice by casting pearls before swine, after which the Bible tells us, they will only turn on you and attack you.
I will try to satisfy the "curiosity" of yours that you mention, especially on whether I believe in the Trinity. I do believe in the concept/doctrine/Biblical belief in the Father (YHVH), the Son (YESHUA) and the Holy Spirit (RUACH HA-KODESH) as they appear in the original texts. I do agree with you, that just because the word "Trinity" is a later man-made invention, that it does not take away from the fact that the Bible supports the existence of the Eternal Triune Godhead, (both non-Biblical words to describe a Biblical thing/concept). No, it does not nullify the Bible!
I would have thought that that would be clear to most Christians without any argument.
However, you then try to use the valid point above to try to justify Xmas, in that because the veneration of a date and name for the Mass of Christ did not exist in the early Church as a 'holy day' or festival, that it could somehow nullify the the contents of the Gospels describing Yeshua's birth. But I have never said or indicated that, rather, just as with the "Trinity" the concept and Biblical account of the Messiah's miraculous virgin birth is never under question here, only what GOD might think of some of the things going on that people say they want.
Do you think Yeshua will thank you on Judgement Day for helping Him to "celebrate" His "birth-day" every year by buying presents for your family and friends and receiving just as many from them in return, all in 'honour' of His incarnation? Why is it that "Nativity Scenes" show Yosef & Miriam (before the Gentiles transmogrified their names) and the baby Yeshua showing "three wise men" at the manger, when they were not even present at His birth, nor does the Bible say there were only three of them. As Yeshua said to the religious of His day, that their "tradition" made the Word of God of none effect. "Christ-Mass" is a MAN-MADE ecclesiastical "tradition" and to try to promote it as anything else is being downright dishonest. Xmassers try to put guilt on people that they are not acknowledging Yeshua's incernation just because they don't observe the Roman invention of the "Christ-Mass" when the opposite it true. They are not "nullifying" or ignoring what the Bible says on these things, but looking to the Bible HOW to celebrate them.
If we are NOT commanded to do it, we DON'T HAVE TO,no matter what X-Massers say about it.
No, I don't celebrate my own "birth"-day, and my family respect that, as I do feel it only brings attention to ME by all the cake, cards, festivity, decorations, presents, and unecessary decadence and over-spending along with the obligatory singing of "Happy "Birth"-day dear COLIN," which makes me feel uncomfortable, and I would prefer to direct praise, glory and honour to GOD alone.
And I don't personally use the pagan names of the days and months when the calendar that Yeshua used is in the Bible for us all to see, with names of the week and the lunar months. It is possible for a nation that respects God to do that, just as the State of Israel does, no matter what the 'Christian' nations do. But most Christians don't care that the Bible says not to even have the name of other gods on your lips, yet Christians celebrate the resurrection (again not commanded in the Bible to do so) on "Ishtar" "SUN"-Day ๐ instead of honouring the SON. No Jew would mention any false god or try to change the terminology that God gave in Genesis.
The Bible has only the following designations:
YOM RISHON = FIRST DAY ("SUN"-DAY, GENTILES NAME AFTER SUN WORSHIP)
YOM SHENI = SECOND DAY ( "MON-DAY" GENTILES NAME AFTER MOON WORSHIP)
YOM SHLISHI = THIRD DAY ("TUES-DAY" NAMED IN HONOUR OF THE GOD TIW)
YOM REVI'I = FOURTH DAY ("WEDNES-DAY" NAMED IN HONOUR OF THE GOD WODEN)
YOM HAMISHI = FIFTH DAY ("THURS-DAY" NAMED IN HONOUR OF THE GOD THOR)
YOM SHISHI = SIXTH DAY ("FRI-DAY" NAMED IN HONOUR OF THE GODDESS FREYA)
SHABBAT = (SABBATH "REST") ("SATUR-DAY NAMED IN HONOUR OF THE GOD SATURN)
I hope that shows a little of the "consistency" of my thoughts, based on the BIBLE, and not the imaginations and machinations of MEN, whether they be clerics, theologians or Church leaders.
"Let the words of my mouth and the meditations of my heart be acceptable in Thy sight." ๐
1
-
1