The importance of Spiritual Discernment when reading the Bible.

reply to post by ctophil


ctophil,

Remember for the time ahead because you won't believe me now. Brother, God, the Blessed Trinity want you to become Catholic.

About the two words religious and doctrine. You must mean a faith related teaching. Jesus established only one way, one faith, Roman Catholicism. We can know Our Lord's teachings from the faith.

And only God says I AM. I will have to look it up in the written Word. Jesus said I AM.


GBY,

colbe

Mark 14:62
And Jesus said to him: I am. And you shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of the power of God, and coming with the clouds of heaven.

www.drbo.org...

reply to post by colbe


God wants you to be Catholic?

What reasons do you translate one faith=Catholicism?

You do realize the pope came out and said you don't have to believe in Jesus to go to heaven right?

Also where does it say one way?
In my opinion, if we read the rest of Scripture it should be interpreted more like this.
Ephesians 4:5
One Lord=One God
One Faith=Faith In Jesus
One Baptism=Baptism of Holy Spirit by Jesus

ServantOfTheLamb
reply to post by colbe

 

God wants you to be Catholic?

What reasons do you translate one faith=Catholicism?

You do realize the pope came out and said you don't have to believe in Jesus to go to heaven right?

Also where does it say one way?
In my opinion, if we read the rest of Scripture it should be interpreted more like this.
Ephesians 4:5
One Lord=One God
One Faith=Faith In Jesus
One Baptism=Baptism of Holy Spirit by Jesus

I am always amazed at how an Orthodox Jew could create Catholicism. Even the most Orthodox of Orthodox Jews today they believe Jesus did exist, according to their Sanhedrin writings, might say Jesus was the son of Pantera, still say He did not create a new religion, but was merely a reformer in Judaism.

The Orthodox Jewish community is now coming out to say yes, Jesus existed and was an Orthodox Jew. I have heard rabbis say this. And now they are giving Mary sympathy, because they still believe His father was a Roman soldier, at least they are conceding that maybe she was raped. They are passing no moral judgment against her any more. The issues they seem to have are with Paul, and not Peter or James.

Things are changing within the Orthodox Jewish community and we need to take notice. Some rabbis won't concede, but others are coming to grips with how Judaism has been defined.

This is a rebuttal of The DaVinci Code from a rabbi


And here is a rabbi who says Judaism is not a religion


I have discovered that Judaism at its most core and fundamental level is determined solely by the individual's perception of what being a Jew is. We don't have to think of Jews as a whole are involved in some massive conspiracy, but as Jesus taught, relationship with God is based first at the individual level before the national level.

reply to post by WarminIndy

This is a rebuttal of The DaVinci Code from a rabbi

Rabbi Skobac in the video admits that the Book of Acts was written after the Gospels but goes on to take it as accurate history after going to great lengths to describe how the story of Jesus was corrupted, from one gospel to the next over the time-span in which they were written.

Then he goes on to say that most people think that Paul wrote all 13 books of the New Testament traditionally ascribed to him.
Thereby making claims of what Paul taught concerning the relationship between Jesus and the church, things that the rel Paul didn't say, if you take into consideration the views of actual NT biblical scholars, that 6 of those 13 books were pseudonymous writings made after Paul was dead.

Then he claims that Paul never wrote about any teaching of Jesus.
This is patently false since he mentions that he is saying exactly what he was given from Jesus, on the subject of divorce.
Then in 1 Corinthians, he pretty much repeats word for word what Jesus said at the last supper concerning the new covenant and the sharing of the bread and wine as a communion.

After describing Paul as not teaching anything that came from Jesus or the disciples, the rabbi goes into his rewriting of the Gospel, inserting how Jesus was saying "Torah" this and "Torah" that, when the word is not found in the New Testament.
I think that there was an understanding among the audience of the gospels that there is a fundamental law of God that transcends whether it happens to be in a thing called a Torah or not, and there is never the implication that the Jews held a monopoly over those fundamental laws.
So whatever this rabbi is saying it is directed by a partisanship to his own ethnic background, and not by a true seeking after the truth.

reply to post by jmdewey60


Whatever he is doing, one thing is certain, even in his disputation about Paul and James, he is validating Christianity at the expense of Jewish identity.

Things are afoot, and Jewish identity is no longer just being Jewish. We need to keep an eye on what is happening here, because it does appear that perhaps Biblical prophecy is happening and as Paul said "God hath closed their eyes for a season". Perhaps the awakening is coming?

The times of the Gentiles must be coming to an end. As Paul asked "who is a Jew?" He answered, "one who is inwardly", addressing the very fundamental discussion of these two rabbis. Faith is individual and no longer is it bound in identity, but a real relationship with God. That has been the argument all along and now it seems to be changing.

reply to post by WarminIndy

. . . he is validating Christianity at the expense of Jewish identity.

No, he isn't.
He's completely discrediting Christianity, and validating his own party.
He makes Jesus out to be just an orthodox Jew who wanted reform in Judaism, and would have been completely unknown if not for his brother James starting a "group" in his name, then Paul sort of co-opting the name to start his own group.
According to this rabbi, if there was a real Jesus, he was illegitimate with no father, and we are all still subject to keeping the Torah.
So all he is doing is giving reassurance to his own constituents that their leaders were right all along.

. . . it does appear that perhaps Biblical prophecy is happening . . .

Paul's prophecy was fulfilled shortly after he made it and Judaism practically disappeared thanks to their conversion to Christianity, with the exception of the professional Jews in Babylon who spread Judaism into central Asia, when the Khazars decided to convert for whatever political reason.
Notice that the rabbis in your videos are Caucasian.

The times of the Gentiles must be coming to an end.

That is not in the Bible but is a theory made up by John Nelson Darby.

reply to post by jmdewey60


JmDewey

As long as the word Christian is around, in the big picture people are going to have to recognize Christ. He is simply repeating the Sanhedrin council, but he has to go back to the Sanhedrin documents to support his statements about Jesus. And if the Sanhedrin council mentions this, then it would cause Jews to know that Jesus was indeed an historical figure. No more can they dismiss the man, based on their own admission.

As he is repeating the Sanhedrin documents, even though Yeshua ben Pantera may have been some other person, there was a man named Yeshua judged by the Sanhedrin, recorded in their documents. Then it raises doubt in the minds that Jesus was not historical, as the basis of claim against Him has been, but this current rabbi is saying Jesus was real. So if Jesus were real, as the Sanhedrin documents say, then what was His purpose and work?

While the accusation that Jesus was born illegitimate, that is an old accusation. What he has done, maybe in a less accurate way, still has validated Christianity's claim as to the historicity of the real Jesus. While you and I might differ on whether or not Jesus was an Orthodox Jew, which I believe He was, in light of this concession of rabbis, not only from the Sanhedrin but in the Middle Ages by the rabbinical councils, it validates Jesus as a real person.

But as any person, it now comes down to the individual level of whether or not this man believes or not believes in Jesus as the Christians say. Right now, the concession admits Jesus was real. In a round about way, he confesses Jesus was real. And if Jesus was real, then now he has to explain why Jesus came before he can say how Jesus came.

reply to post by WarminIndy

As he is repeating the Sanhedrin documents, even though Yeshua ben Pantera may have been some other person, there was a man named Yeshua judged by the Sanhedrin, recorded in their documents.

The rabbi that I knew, who was actually an expert on the subject, did not think this was the same person as the Christian Jesus.

reply to post by WarminIndy


I agree with you on the subject. It does appear that Skobac and his crowd are "reassessing the issue" of Jesus, for the sake of "damage control".

Not only do I believe that the end of the "times of the gentiles" is near...rather, I know it is. The 3rd temple will be standing and will be dedicated to the Anti-Christ by 3/20/2019. We haven't seen any of Israel's prophecies come true since the diaspora, but what we are witnessing today (and since 1948) is the Zionist attempt to nip the "Jesus issue" in the butt before the REAL prophecies resume.

Hopfully, many of Skobac's followers and other jews alike will recognise his politician-like "flip-flopping" and realize that Rabbinical Judaism is trying to burry the truth about Jesus as the Messiah.

Who knows, on the other side of the rapture, Skobac may wake up and become the next "Apostle Paul". God works in mysterious ways.

I pray that the Children of Israel will wake up to the Zionist agenda to raise a False Christ with the use of counterfiet Prophecy.

jmdewey60
reply to post by WarminIndy

 

As he is repeating the Sanhedrin documents, even though Yeshua ben Pantera may have been some other person, there was a man named Yeshua judged by the Sanhedrin, recorded in their documents.

The rabbi that I knew, who was actually an expert on the subject, did not think this was the same person as the Christian Jesus.

Anyone who has been to a yeshiva is an expert. And yes, the rabbi you knew probably did not believe it was, and that's what I said also. However, the real personage of Jesus is accepted, even though claimed as illegitimate as the original accusation was. So you see, even if it might not be the real person, but someone with an accusation against Him, it has long been accepted that this was the same person. We know the truth of His parentage, so why hash out that argument again? The point is, they believe it was the real Jesus.

We shouldn't remain offended by the accusation of illegitimacy in regard to the actual personage. If we say "That's not Him because the man accused, you said He was illegitimate", then we are dismissive of the personage. So what if the Sanhedrin says that? It still points to a man who was real and they believe it was Jesus. Since when now are the Jews believing in a real man, but Christians don't?

reply to post by WarminIndy

Anyone who has been to a yeshiva is an expert.

I don't mean that.
He is actually a college professor at a university and is the head of Jewish studies, and has his doctor's degree in the historical divergence between the religions of Christianity and Judaism.
He was living in my town 28 years ago trying to set up an institute of religious cooperation, meanwhile working at the local college here and serving at the local temple.

. . . it has long been accepted that this was the same person.

Not by any actual experts.

. . . a man who was real and they believe it was Jesus.

The same rabbi as in your video also has a video on how Jesus is not the real Messiah.

reply to post by BELIEVERpriest

. . . on the other side of the rapture . . .

There is no "rapture" or "time of the gentiles" or "antichrist" or "third temple".

All that stuff is Dispensationalist theory invented by John Nelson Darby.
It is not biblical teaching.

What we do have is the church, with our Lord, Jesus, until the end of time, at which then something else happens, which we are not exactly told about in a clear way, but it is not something that is going to happen anytime soon, and is more hypothetical than a likely reality.

jmdewey60
reply to post by WarminIndy

 

Anyone who has been to a yeshiva is an expert.

I don't mean that.
He is actually a college professor at a university and is the head of Jewish studies, and has his doctor's degree in the historical divergence between the religions of Christianity and Judaism.
He was living in my town 28 years ago trying to set up an institute of religious cooperation, meanwhile working at the local college here and serving at the local temple.

. . . it has long been accepted that this was the same person.

Not by any actual experts.

. . . a man who was real and they believe it was Jesus.

The same rabbi as in your video also has a video on how Jesus is not the real Messiah.

edit on 15-3-2014 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)

Most rabbis taught in yeshivas do go on to teach in universities and do have PhDs. So the guy has credentials, that is not unusual as most rabbis must have higher level education.

Why does that surprise you that Skobic would flip-flop like he does? Do you not see that this is a seed now implanted in the minds of the audience?

jmdewey60
reply to post by BELIEVERpriest

 

. . . on the other side of the rapture . . .

There is no rapture and no time of the gentiles or antichrist or third temple.
All that stuff is Dispensationalist theory invented by John Nelson Darby.
It is not biblical teaching.

Speak for yourself. Those are your claims, not mine.

And, I was addressing WarminIndy, not you.

reply to post by WarminIndy

Most rabbis taught in yeshivas do go on to teach in universities and do have PhDs.

This sounds like something that you just made up.
There aren't that many professorships in the world in Jewish studies.
I think you are grasping at straws to sustain your belief in this theoretical system of predicting the future.

. . . Skobic would flip-flop . . .

He doesn't, and you don't get that.

reply to post by BELIEVERpriest

Those are your claims, not mine.

How about doing a thread on biblical support for your theoretical method of predicting the future?
I think personally that it should be pointed out whenever people bring up this theory that it is in fact only a theory, and not a biblical teaching.
I just wouldn't want anyone to mistakenly connect it with actual Christianity.
It is the work of a fringe cult.

reply to post by jmdewey60


I have addressed the topic of dispensationalism from time to time, perhaps I will make a thread on it. Either way, it wont sway you as you seem to pull your interpretations out of thin air. Labeling truth as theory does not make it so.

And by the way, true Christianity is the acceptance of Jesus payment for our sins by faith alone. That is the knowledge of salvation. Based on your past denial of Jesus' sacrifice, you have rejected the knowledge of salvation. For those who reject the knowledge of salvation and percieve the Blood of Christ as unclean, there is no other sacrifice.

The issue, for you is not dispensationalism, but accepting the knowledge of salvation.

reply to post by BELIEVERpriest

The "no other sacrifice" is for those who accept Jesus but then go on to commit sins.
I have yet to have anyone show me a verse that describes "Jesus' payment for our sins".
I don't deny Jesus' sacrifice, I just question how some people classify the nature of it.
My "issue" is about reading the Bible for what it actually says, rather than just data mining it for "proof" texts to support a theoretical system, be it for feeling "saved", or for predicting the future.
True salvation is only through righteousness, which we have because of Jesus who draws us to God in the knowledge that He is offering us a spirit that can change our lives from the inside.

reply to post by jmdewey60


Many of us have shown you the true nature of Jesus sacrifice as payment for our sins, yet you consistently reject the text and substitute it with your own personal fabrication.

The entire chapter of John 3 makes it clear that salvation comes by believing ONLY. Belief leads to rebirth into righteousness.

A sinner cannot do righteousness without FIRST BELIEVING. Good works come as a result of faith, not faith as a result of good works.

Just try taking the text at face value first and see what the obvious message is. Dont pollute it with pre-concieved human philosophy.

reply to post by BELIEVERpriest

Just try taking the text at face value first and see what the obvious message is. Dont pollute it with pre-concieved human philosophy.

And what philosophy would that be, exactly?
I don't think there is one that I am drawing on.
You, on the other-hand seem to be drawing on the philosophy of pop-culture religion that says that you only need to believe that you are saved, in order to be "saved" whatever that is supposed to mean.
Can you give me a biblical definition of "saved"?
That is where philosophy really jumps in to take charge, where the Bible never describes such a thing other than how joining the church is now "just as good" as converting to the religion of the Jews was before.