~*~*I Keep/Guard the 7th Day Sabbath...Ask Me A Question*~*~

My spunk is just a response to our religious friends... not my buddy mother goose.

This format (glp) is really not the best place to have serious discussions. There are to0 many people that just like to shit in and derail a conversation for their own amusement.

Question: Why would Jesus seem to go out of His way by drawing a distinction between the two? Why would He simply not say to keep HIS FATHER'S commandments as He had? What was the point if HIS commandments were the same as HIS FATHER'S commandments? This passage has always troubled me..





Don't forget John 13:34....

34"A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another.






.


Yes, again. Why is this a "new" commandment if it was always there?


Hinach yafa rayati, hinach yafa! This is an ancient Hebrew blessing chant that says, "You are so beautiful, my friend. You are so beautiful!"

As a man washed in the blood of Yahushua, it is my vow to you and every other member of the 2nd greatest gift Adonai Eloheinu graced the men of His creation with: I will always uplift you. I will always be your rock. I will always provide you with the light that shines from within so brightly you can see the face of the Creator through me, for when your own view is clouded by trial and tribulation.

Thank you for your kind and uplifting words.

Question: Why would Jesus seem to go out of His way by drawing a distinction between the two? Why would He simply not say to keep HIS FATHER'S commandments as He had? What was the point if HIS commandments were the same as HIS FATHER'S commandments? This passage has always troubled me..





Don't forget John 13:34....

34"A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another.



Yes, again. Why is this a "new" commandment if it was always there?


Yohanan 13:34
And a renewed command I give to you. Love one another...

This is why I use ISR translation. All those little misunderstandings are actually cleared up when you go back to Hebrew. YHSWH never said "new." Because this WAS A QUOTE FROM LEVITICUS. Just because your Bible does not have a little footnote under it, does not mean it's not a quote. It just means the translators intentionally left it out for some reason...

There is no "New Testament." It is a Renewed Testament and a Renewed Covenant.

Why would the entire Old Testament talk about the reunification of Yishra'el after Solomon, and then we get to YHSWH and all those promises and covenants are just sort of replaced?

This is what happens when you take Scriptures and make it conform to your own beliefs. The Scriptures were written by Israelites for Israelites - not Americans, not Chinese, not Australians. Yes, there are many many Israelites living in those lands now, but you can't conform Hebrew prophecy and beliefs to the beliefs of the land you are living in.

You never see people in South Africa or Cuba taking Japanese prophecies and trying interpret them as if they will happen to the people of South Africa or Cuba. That is because the Japanese prophecies were not written for people in South Africa and Cuba. Likewise, you can't take Hebrew prophecies and think they refer to Kings of America. It just doesn't work that way.

P.S. Unfortunately this is how I talk in real life - loud. I'm a soft listener and a loud talker. Don't take it personally.

Question: Why would Jesus seem to go out of His way by drawing a distinction between the two? Why would He simply not say to keep HIS FATHER'S commandments as He had? What was the point if HIS commandments were the same as HIS FATHER'S commandments? This passage has always troubled me..





Don't forget John 13:34....

34"A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another.



Yes, again. Why is this a "new" commandment if it was always there?


Yohanan 13:34
And a renewed command I give to you. Love one another...

This is why I use ISR translation. All those little misunderstandings are actually cleared up when you go back to Hebrew. YHSWH never said "new." Because this WAS A QUOTE FROM LEVITICUS. Just because your Bible does not have a little footnote under it, does not mean it's not a quote. It just means the translators intentionally left it out for some reason...

There is no "New Testament." It is a Renewed Testament and a Renewed Covenant.

Why would the entire Old Testament talk about the reunification of Yishra'el after Solomon, and then we get to YHSWH and all those promises and covenants are just sort of replaced?

This is what happens when you take Scriptures and make it conform to your own beliefs. The Scriptures were written by Israelites for Israelites - not Americans, not Chinese, not Australians. Yes, there are many many Israelites living in those lands now, but you can't conform Hebrew prophecy and beliefs to the beliefs of the land you are living in.

You never see people in South Africa or Cuba taking Japanese prophecies and trying interpret them as if they will happen to the people of South Africa or Cuba. That is because the Japanese prophecies were not written for people in South Africa and Cuba. Likewise, you can't take Hebrew prophecies and think they refer to Kings of America. It just doesn't work that way.

P.S. Unfortunately this is how I talk in real life - loud. I'm a soft listener and a loud talker. Don't take it personally.


No worries...life has given me a tough skin;)

With regard to the highlighted part of your post. Wasn't the "reunification of Yishra'el" Israel? the promise of salvation through Jesus?? How can this than NOT be a new covenant. The old one failed the people of Israel miserably. Why hold onto a covenant that was not affective in saving them? (why poor old wine into new wine skins??) Jesus WAS the promised new covenant, (Issac the child of the promise was His ancestor) Jesus WAS the promised reunification that the entire Old Testament pointed to. Everything in those books, all the laws, the prophets, the ordinances, the statutes were ALL a "shadow of things to come" but the reality was in Christ.

And again, "I have not come to abolish but to fullfill

The new covenant/Testament could not be done away with until Christ fulfilled it.

Look at definition #4

ful·fill also ful·fil (fl-fl)
tr.v. ful·filled, ful·fill·ing, ful·fills also ful·fils
1. To bring into actuality; effect: fulfilled their promises.
2. To carry out (an order, for example).
3. To measure up to; satisfy. See Synonyms at perform, satisfy.
4. To bring to an end; complete.

At least that is how I see it;)

You may want to do a study of Deuteronomy to help you on your quest for TRUTH. :)

You may want to do a study of Deuteronomy to help you on your quest for TRUTH. :)


The revelations I've had recently have placed me in a position where I now believe that "we're both right". Not all of the "Body of Christ" will hear the call of the Torah. They are doing their job, we are doing ours. This is the reason you don't see me "arguing" about this any longer.

The "grafted branch" is producing the fruit it's supposed to produce ... the body from which the Tribes are being pulled. Much like Eve was pulled from the body of Adam, the Tribes are being pulled from the "Body of Christ".

I don't expect anyone other than me to accept this "revelation" I've received. It might just have been a message strictly for me to put my heart at rest ... I don't know.

Where's my Deb at tonight? Been thinking about her all day, kinda concerned.

The revelations I've had recently have placed me in a position where I now believe that "we're both right". Not all of the "Body of Christ" will hear the call of the Torah. They are doing their job, we are doing ours. This is the reason you don't see me "arguing" about this any longer.

The revelations I've had recently have placed me in a position where I now believe that "we're both right". Not all of the "Body of Christ" will hear the call of the Torah. They are doing their job, we are doing ours. This is the reason you don't see me "arguing" about this any longer.



You are right, not all Christians are under the Torah. This is some of what Paul was writing about, and why Paul is so disliked.

Please, please, PLEASE don't lump me into the same group as "Paul".

Please, please, PLEASE don't lump me into the same group as "Paul".


Oh sorry. That is what Peter was talking about in Acts 10:47. Hopefully Peter is okay?

You may want to do a study of Deuteronomy to help you on your quest for TRUTH. :)


The revelations I've had recently have placed me in a position where I now believe that "we're both right". Not all of the "Body of Christ" will hear the call of the Torah. They are doing their job, we are doing ours. This is the reason you don't see me "arguing" about this any longer.

The "grafted branch" is producing the fruit it's supposed to produce ... the body from which the Tribes are being pulled. Much like Eve was pulled from the body of Adam, the Tribes are being pulled from the "Body of Christ".

I don't expect anyone other than me to accept this "revelation" I've received. It might just have been a message strictly for me to put my heart at rest ... I don't know.

Where's my Deb at tonight? Been thinking about her all day, kinda concerned.

Question: Why would Jesus seem to go out of His way by drawing a distinction between the two? Why would He simply not say to keep HIS FATHER'S commandments as He had? What was the point if HIS commandments were the same as HIS FATHER'S commandments? This passage has always troubled me..





Don't forget John 13:34....

34"A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another.



Yes, again. Why is this a "new" commandment if it was always there?


Yohanan 13:34
And a renewed command I give to you. Love one another...

This is why I use ISR translation. All those little misunderstandings are actually cleared up when you go back to Hebrew. YHSWH never said "new." Because this WAS A QUOTE FROM LEVITICUS. Just because your Bible does not have a little footnote under it, does not mean it's not a quote. It just means the translators intentionally left it out for some reason...

There is no "New Testament." It is a Renewed Testament and a Renewed Covenant.

Why would the entire Old Testament talk about the reunification of Yishra'el after Solomon, and then we get to YHSWH and all those promises and covenants are just sort of replaced?

This is what happens when you take Scriptures and make it conform to your own beliefs. The Scriptures were written by Israelites for Israelites - not Americans, not Chinese, not Australians. Yes, there are many many Israelites living in those lands now, but you can't conform Hebrew prophecy and beliefs to the beliefs of the land you are living in.

You never see people in South Africa or Cuba taking Japanese prophecies and trying interpret them as if they will happen to the people of South Africa or Cuba. That is because the Japanese prophecies were not written for people in South Africa and Cuba. Likewise, you can't take Hebrew prophecies and think they refer to Kings of America. It just doesn't work that way.

P.S. Unfortunately this is how I talk in real life - loud. I'm a soft listener and a loud talker. Don't take it personally.


No worries...life has given me a tough skin;)

With regard to the highlighted part of your post. Wasn't the "reunification of Yishra'el" Israel? the promise of salvation through Jesus?? How can this than NOT be a new covenant. The old one failed the people of Israel miserably. Why hold onto a covenant that was not affective in saving them? (why poor old wine into new wine skins??) Jesus WAS the promised new covenant, (Issac the child of the promise was His ancestor) Jesus WAS the promised reunification that the entire Old Testament pointed to. Everything in those books, all the laws, the prophets, the ordinances, the statutes were ALL a "shadow of things to come" but the reality was in Christ.

And again, "I have not come to abolish but to fullfill

The new covenant/Testament could not be done away with until Christ fulfilled it.

Look at definition #4

ful·fill also ful·fil (fl-fl)
tr.v. ful·filled, ful·fill·ing, ful·fills also ful·fils
1. To bring into actuality; effect: fulfilled their promises.
2. To carry out (an order, for example).
3. To measure up to; satisfy. See Synonyms at perform, satisfy.
4. To bring to an end; complete.

At least that is how I see it;)

Thank you for your kind and uplifting words.


You're very welcome ... just trying to let the light shine, don't ya know?

(Considering how verbally violent I could get in the past, I've a lot of catching up to do.)

You may want to do a study of Deuteronomy to help you on your quest for TRUTH. :)


The revelations I've had recently have placed me in a position where I now believe that "we're both right". Not all of the "Body of Christ" will hear the call of the Torah. They are doing their job, we are doing ours. This is the reason you don't see me "arguing" about this any longer.

The "grafted branch" is producing the fruit it's supposed to produce ... the body from which the Tribes are being pulled. Much like Eve was pulled from the body of Adam, the Tribes are being pulled from the "Body of Christ".

I don't expect anyone other than me to accept this "revelation" I've received. It might just have been a message strictly for me to put my heart at rest ... I don't know.

Where's my Deb at tonight? Been thinking about her all day, kinda concerned.

Phy ~ I have come to the same conclusions; yet I while I see myself separated out, I do not want to appear to myself or anyone else as elevated in anyway.

He's only kind when you agree with him. If not he will hit you with his usual 'your words are not representing your master. (or are they)

I think I misunderstood Phy. I don't view myself as 'elevated' by following the Torah and I wouldn't want others to either. I just want to share the truth.

He's only kind when you agree with him. If not he will hit you with his usual 'your words are not representing your master. (or are they)


Yeah, people NEVER change for the better, do they?

You've read a few posts from me on the intarwebz and now you know me SO well, don't you?

I forgive you for your negative judgment for it is based in my own arrogance and pride. You are my burden.

He's only kind when you agree with him. If not he will hit you with his usual 'your words are not representing your master. (or are they)


Yeah, people NEVER change for the better, do they?

You've read a few posts from me on the intarwebz and now you know me SO well, don't you?

I forgive you for your negative judgment for it is based in my own arrogance and pride. You are my burden.

Give it up.

What is a bad man but a good man's job? - Dr. Wayne Dyer

What is a bad man but a good man's job? - Dr. Wayne Dyer


Thank you, Sandi. This comment makes me feel as if my efforts to maintain my own external appearance is not in vain.

Love is never wasted.

Love is never wasted.


LOL ... tell that to my past. I've wasted it and had it wasted on me many times.

Perhaps what needs to change is your concept of "wasted."

Give it up.


Searched for "it" my whole life. Now that I've found it, I refuse to "give it up".

Please stop trying to take "it" from me. I know, it's maddening to see someone that actually found their creator and tabernacles with Him. Please don't be jealous. What's more, you know nothing about me, please stop speaking to others as if you are some kind of authority of what goes on in my heart and mind. YOU ARE NOT GOD. You speak with authority about things that you know nothing about.

In closing, if you think that a transformation is something that I don't have to work hard to maintain, then you're simply providing even more evidence that you know nothing about what it is that's happened to me.

Fighting back my own pride and arrogance is a near constant battle, especially on GLP. (Thank you so much for being a part of the group that only wants to tear people down. Again, I ask, just like I did earlier, what team are you working for?)

Does anybody have a list of which laws out of Torah we have to obey?

Which religion is it that you so despise?
It's easy to see why you and deb her along so well.


Yours.

You do appear to get quite aroused (definitely mentally, likely physically) at making threats of hell.

So very typical.

As far as me and Deb getting along, frankly I was quite surprised she asked me to the thread. Yet surprisingly enough, there are numerous christians (of multiple varieties-- amusing in and of itself in its own way) who have PMed me out of the bat with positive notes.

It always surprises me, but sometimes more than others.

Which religion is it that you so despise?
It's easy to see why you and deb her along so well.


Yours.

You do appear to get quite aroused (definitely mentally, likely physically) at making threats of hell.

So very typical.

As far as me and Deb getting along, frankly I was quite surprised she asked me to the thread. Yet surprisingly enough, there are numerous christians (of multiple varieties-- amusing in and of itself in its own way) who have PMed me out of the bat with positive notes.

It always surprises me, but sometimes more than others.


Sandi, for the record, I deeply appreciate the contributions you have made to this thread. You provide a voice that was sorely lacking. I also appreciate the restraint you have shown thusfar with your detractors and those who poke just to poke without any other goal of edification in mind.

The 'goal' is to get you and your pious friends to stop belittling people when they disagree with you. Do you really need for me to point out all the examples?