BS is you bringing opinion without scripture. Absolutely yes I read the definition! What do YOU do about explaing the CONTEXT?
And if you are going to accuse me of ignoring scripture bring the chapter and verse please.
-
Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.
Meat When is a mountain not a mountain?
- Thread starter Joleneakamama
- Start date
And if you are going to accuse me of ignoring scripture bring the chapter and verse please.
- I'm posting this in two places.
- I've been lurking in both of those threads; my posts in this thread have not been meant to be anything but non-meat ranging from humor to slight food for thought.
- I'm not going to argue about this; I'm just going to throw some alternative meat onto the fire, and then let y'all wolves rip it apart amongst yourselves.
- I consulted a couple of my go-to scriptural gurus, and one person pointed me to something that resonated with me about this 'discussion' y'all are having.
- Despite the fact that, after thoroughly reading @PeteR's Ten Parts for the King, I am not in agreement with all of Pete's conclusions, he does make some compelling arguments, and some of them, I would assert, inform this particular discussion -- because, I would further assert, both the Old and the New Covenants are inseparable from the manner in which the two Houses were torn asunder from each other, as well as God's intention for the New Covenant to contain within it the prescription for healing.
- The New Covenant is announced most powerfully and succinctly in Jeremiah 31, specifically, Jer 31:33-34:
- For this is the covenant which I shall contract with the house of Israel after those days, averring is Yahweh:
- I will put My law within them,
- And I shall write it on their heart;
- I will become their Elohim,
- And they shall become My people.
- No longer shall they teach, each man his associate,
- And each man his brother, saying: Know Yahweh!
- For they all shall know Me,
- From the smallest of them to the greatest of them, averring is Yahweh;
- For I shall pradon their depravity,
- And I shall not remember their sin any longer. [CVOT]
- Clearly Jer 31:34 points to Christ, and not only to Christ but to the promise that, once Christ has become the Fulfillment, Yahweh will consider the sins of all believers to be vanquished (we may sin [verb], but He will not see us as sinners [noun; i.e., possessed of sin].
- Christ Himself addresses this prophecy from Jeremiah in Matthew 26:27-27:
- And taking the cup and giving thanks, He gives it to them , saying, "Drink of it all, for this is My blood of the new covenant, that is shed for many for the pardon of sins."
- Context is always important, and the most powerful, sweeping context of all in regard to these two passages, and to others that exist in the other prophets and Hebrews and elsewhere, is that not all human beings were being addressed in them: these scriptures, these words of God speaking through Jeremiah, these words of Christ, the words spoken in certain apostolic writings, and even the main thrust of the Unveiling (Revelation) were only being addressed to the Jews. They were not addressed to anyone else, and certainly not to the Gentiles. Both the Old and New Covenant were covenants between God and the Jews; pointing toward the New Covenant was predominantly something that occurred during the times of the Old Covenant, which includes almost every bit of the times of the Four (Jewish) Gospels (Christ only addressed Jewish gatherings and rarely even spoke with non-Jews). That's why, when Christ (who certainly could have returned to Earth to continue His Ministry, this time with the Gentles, but instead) commissioned Paul to bring a somewhat different message to the rest of the known world, Paul was divinely inspired to refer to it as his own, separate Gospel -- and why he had to confer with Peter and James to keep clear the distinctions between what they were preaching and what he was preaching.
- Therefore, I put the timing of the announcing of the New Covenant to be the night in the Upper Room and the actual timing of the implementation of the New Covenant to be somewhere or everywhere along the way of the Passion, most especially the Crucifixion to the Resurrection.
- Whatever one wants to label the covenant that Christ had Saul-who-became-Paul disseminate, that came later, and most substantively it came after the Acts period, because during Acts Paul was still himself preaching the exact same thing as James and Peter, as well as predominantly preaching only to Jews as well.
- What I personally assert shouldn't be missed in this, though, is something that is consistent between Christ's message to the Jews and Paul's message to the Gentiles, something that any argument about when or whether the Law was abolished fails to address: that in God's great Master Plan of His Son being a literal propitiation for our sin, He made us Brothers and Sisters of His Son and thus equal in His Sight before Him, thus, not abolishing, but significantly downgrading the import and/or necessity for most of the Law. The wisdom and guidance inherent in the Law is not at all diminished, but it was no longer the Covenant in Effect once "It Is Accomplished" was in Effect.
So I'm not going to argue. I have my own take, I've shared some of that, and it's clear I lean to one side, but I do not want to lose my brothers and sisters on either side. So, if anyone wants to rip me a new one over some particulars in what I've shared above instead of recognizing that I'm just attempting to establish the timing and particulars of the New Covenant, so be it, but instead of joining in the jugular-ripping, I'm probably just going to go back to the bleachers and keep my focus on Christ's Second Commandment while reminding myself of how blessed I am in general to have this group of believers at my side in The Body and in particular lately as I've reached out to seek guidance about how to lead my family through rough waters.
I'll bring the popcorn and sit with you. Shalom brother.
....They will strike the judge of Israel with a rod on the cheek.
The Coming Messiah
2“But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah,
Though you are little among the thousands of Judah,
Yet out of you shall come forth to Me
The One to be Ruler in Israel,
Whose goings forth are from of old,
From [a]everlasting.”
3Therefore He shall give them up,
Until the time that she who is in labor has given birth;
Then the remnant of His brethren
Shall return to the children of Israel.
4And He shall stand and feed His flock
In the strength of the Lord,
In the majesty of the name of the Lord His God;
And they shall abide,
For now He shall be great
To the ends of the earth;
5And this One shall be peace.
I have no desire to slander anyone. But given this passage I think it is far better to put effort into bringing forth the kingdom then supporting people that according to Micah will not turn before that happens.
Last edited:
If the mountains are peoples then isn't it the people 'which have been always waste'?
The North American continent wasn't always waste before we got here. That was more true of Europe than here. Even more true of Siberia to this day.
Yah said he would lead her (Israel) into the wilderness and speak comfortably to her. So Europe was a greater wilderness and/or more waste. Europe is many nations, not gathered out of the nations....and Siberia is certainly not the peopled land described either.
The first example "my holy mountain" seems to be a reference to the people/nation of God. Babylon is the "mountain" in the second verse. Babylon was a city but is also used figuratively like "Egypt" ....most recognize these as nations.
Goy is often translated nation, but YHWH told the children of Israel they would be a nation of priests and a holy goy (nation) which shows that what we think of as a nation can be the people, (the seed of Israel will be a nation before Him forever) but the lands associated are also called by the same names. The king of Babylon ruled the people....in the land.
Here is verse 8 again giving you the description.
8After many days thou shalt be visited: in the latter years thou shalt come into the land that is brought back from the sword, and is gathered out of many people, against the mountains of Israel, which have been always waste: but it is brought forth out of the nations, and they shall dwell safely all of them.
Land doesn't get gathered out of many people.....but people are not "always been waste".....land doesn't "dwell." The land is brought back from the sword (recovered from war) but these invaders are not coming against "mountains".....but the people in the nation (mountains=nations=people groups) that are described.
For what purpose would you inquire of heaven?
I might not be understanding what you mean, but if I said that I would expect some serious pushback.
For some things I prefer to check with the Author, rather than rely on man’s intelligence.
The most knowledgeable Scriptural experts in Yeshua’s day could “prove” that he wasn’t the Messiah, but they obviously misunderstood a few things.
If only Yah had written His Book in a way that could not have been misunderstood, but here we are.
I think Yah didn't write our software to prevent us from misunderstanding His Book. Compounding human-being misunderstanding is all the purposeful mistranslation in between when He wrote each part of His Book throughout the many translation iterations up to the present.
Nope, just pointing out that as it has been inhabited, as opposed to always waste, it doesn't fit the description of the land called the mountains of Israel in Eze. 38.
If I was arguing that the usa fits some of what this verse it talking about....but I believe it's going to morph or change so it fits the rest of the verse I would understand all the opposition.
My point is the passage is not describing that land.
I would expect that if I claimed I "inquired of heaven and got a different answer" or if I was trying to argue that this populated land fit the description because it was spiritually waste, since the time of Solomon. To be clear those are not my points.
Here is another thing to consider. Pete is looking for the restoration of all Israel, so is Joseph Dumond of Sighted Moon Ministries. They are both looking for the rest of the tribes to get gathered back to the land, and go join those they accept as Judah in the modern state of Israel. These people of those other tribes exist already and are probably very happy living in the land they were sown in. If they are believers they are ALREADY GATHERED to .....Shiloh, aka the good shepherd, aka Yeshua.
The land over there was promised to Abraham's seed.
Ishmael was acknowledged as Abraham's seed, and the Arabs have been blessed over there.
But Yeshua has inherited it ALL.
Why would his followers get dispossessed of the good places they have inherited in the nations, and who do you think will live in them after the tares are taken out and gone?
I’ve been clear about what I think. I think when God says it’s Israel and then lays out a description of the land of Israel that he’s talking about Israel.
You’re taking poetry and metaphor and using it to discredit the plain, easily understandable parts.
America is nowhere in end times prophecy, unless it’s the 1/3 of the earth that gets wiped out, which I tend to think it is.
How are you defining Zionist? Because I'm not sure if I fit that description.
I'm not necessarily prepared to defend that position. It was just something that popped in my mind when I was reading the passage.
When I read the word waste I don't automatically think uninhabited I guess that's where your mind goes but it's not where my mind goes. When I read the word waste what I initially think of is a land that is infertile trees crops things like that will not grow. Maybe like a desert? This certainly does not describe most of North America and it never has.
I agree that some are. This was /is a place of refuge during the exile. I explained earlier who most of those people currently are. And honestly if they don't repent they risk being cut off.
I want to give you an answer but I don't fully understand your point here. Have you describe this more in-depth elsewhere? Can you link to that description? Or possibly give a full description here?
It came up in the thread what is the new covenant. There was also the one a few years ago I started "could the usa be the real regethered biblical Israel" but I don't remember discussing Jer. 7 there.
If you read that chapter YHWH made it plain that IF they amended their ways He would cause them to dwell in that land forever, but that they would not, and He would make Jerusalam and the land he gave their fathers like Shiloh....desolate.
Yeshua quoted from that chapter when he cleansed the temple, and repeated the judgement lamenting over Jerusalem..."your house is left unto you desolate." One of the conditions was not shedding any more innocent blood there. I believe Yeshua's blood sealed the judgement.
Isaiah 49 is an interesting chapter that talks about Israel telling their prisoners to go forth. I know of only one nation in history that has exported its prisoners, sending them here, and then to Australia after the revolutionary war began. It also says they would outgrow the land they were living in... and inherit the desolate heritages.
The word translated waste in Eze. 38 can mean desolate, as in uninhabited, which fits the context as it is contrasted with "but is brought forth out of the nations."
I knew Australia was going to figure into this one way or another, but Afghanistan still seems to qualify as desolate.
I would use the term for people that support the ideology and nationalist movement called Zionism.
The web defines it like so.
Zionism is both an ideology and nationalist movement among the Jewish people that espouses the re-establishment of and support for a Jewish state centered in the area roughly corresponding to Canaan, the Holy Land, or the region of Palestine.
Wow there's a lot here. I will look at it and get back to you but it probably won't be very soon. Feel free to remind me if it takes me too long.