Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [Christian-Philosophy] Re: The Problem with Hebrews - by Scott Nelson

Expand Messages
  • Elizabeth Canova
    The who is who of the world....farmers...shepherds....false apostles... etc  LOL I have found certain people I encounter to be like shepherds.....then I
    Message 1 of 20 , Jun 1, 2009
    • 0 Attachment
      The "who is who" of the world....farmers...shepherds.....false apostles... etc  LOL
       
      I have found certain people I encounter to be like shepherds.....then I grew and learned more of them, learned more of myself and that changed.  It all changes, that is one thing I count on, not much is set in stone right now for me. 
       
      I talked to a friend this weekend, her and I are on the same level spiritually, we are both learning and just now started our intimate relationship with God.  She asked me if I believed there was a "hell" and I told her that I did not believe it was a place that I always had the impression it was, not like I was taught in sunday school or church....but I told her...that is the way I feel today...ask me again in a year and maybe I will have a different opinion....I can't say for sure.  I waiver back and forth with the more that is revealed to me.  Sometimes I feel wishy washy and uncertain and even dumb - why can't I have "eyes to see" or "ears to hear" everything....but before I start bashing myself, I realize that I am learning and it is a process, it doesn't just happen over night, so I am very hesitant to say I am completely certain of anything, sometimes I am hesitant to even share what I think is revealed to me because it sounds so different than anything I have been taught and something may need to be added in the future to make more sense...maybe more time needs to pass for me to encounter a situation that will reveal the real meaning.  There are a few things I am certain of and those are the only things that I will ever say to someone with complete confidence. 
       
      So how can someone like me, the way I am now, teach anyone anything? I feel like I always take the middle ground and I don't have much to offer other than neutrality.  I really don't know much, its a little frustrating to hear all of ya'll talk and use words that I don't understand (monoism, pantheism, etc.) and I am not even sure I need to learn these words, other than to label something that I can better understand through adjectives, but even reading the explanation of these things on the computer, I still just don't get it because two people can look at this same thing (noun) differently.  Maybe it is because I am just not educated enough or worldly enough to understand, but I am not sure I want to be, then again I don't always like taking the middle ground...I have been taught to know your position and know where you stand, to stand firm, but I can't be sure where I need to stand right now on a lot of stuff, it is sometimes overwhelming. 
       
      Yesterday I went to a family function and I spent the whole time with 2 year old girl twins, after the conversation in the adult group turned heated, I just listened and I could understand both sides, the conversation got more heated and I had to walk away, it was more comfortable there with the girls, they didn't need words or any validation, they just wanted to jump on the sofa, play peek-a-boo and be tickled, sometimes it feels good not to have to take a side, but people try and force you into that, into taking some stance and labeling who you are, why do we need to have a label?  Why do we always have to be on the right side?  Why can't everyone be right?  Why can't everyone be a farmer, then a shepherd or vice versa?  Would that be too boring if we never argued or had a debate or labeled who we were?  Would it be too peaceful?  I just don't get it...
       
      Elizabeth

      From: james m. clark jr. <Yaakov2819@praiseyahweh..com>
      To: Christian-Philosophy@yahoogroups.com
      Sent: Sunday, May 31, 2009 3:47:17 PM
      Subject: [Christian-Philosophy] Re: The Problem with Hebrews - by Scott Nelson

      Shalom,

      A very good point but even false apostles are considered to become farmers rather than shepherds in the resserection. Hypothetically, we don't even have the authority to condem spirit beings. But also, even after the new covent is established, when no Israelite will need to be tought Scripture.

      be well,
      jamey

      --- In Christian-Philosoph y@yahoogroups. com, Elizabeth Canova <elizabeth.canova@ ...> wrote:
      >
      > "Or Was Paul the Apostle Jesus Condemns in Revelation 2:2, "
      > where here does it say anyone is "condemned" ?  All that I read of what is said to the church of Ephesus is "I know" and "have found" no where does it say that He "condemns" 
      >  
      > Revelation 2:2I know your deeds, your hard work and your perseverance. I know that you cannot tolerate wicked men, that you have tested those who claim to be apostles but are not, and have found them false
      >  
      > God understands everything we do and why we do it. Why we feel the way we feel, and so should we understand everyone else and "overcome" - not overcome the nicolations, not overcome the apostles...but overcome that hatred for those who we do not understand.
      >  
      >
      >
      > --- On Sun, 5/31/09, james m. clark jr. <Yaakov2819@ ...> wrote:
      >
      >
      > From: james m. clark jr. <Yaakov2819@ ...>
      > Subject: [Christian-Philosop hy] The Problem with Hebrews - by Scott Nelson
      > To: Christian-Philosoph y@yahoogroups. com
      > Date: Sunday, May 31, 2009, 9:09 AM
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > chart and reader friendly article at
      >
      > http://www.judaismv schristianity. com/problem_ with_hebrews. htm
      >
      > The Problem with Hebrews
      >
      > By Scott Nelson
      >
      > Introduction
      >
      > The following article demonstrates there are two doctrines commonly held among Christians that cannot be reconciled with each other. Only one position can be true. It is written for the sake of those who believe Yahshua (Jesus) is going to physically return to earth to rule and reign from Jerusalem for a thousand years, as prophesied in Revelation 20:1-6, and will at that time fulfill the many glorious kingly prophecies concerning the Messiah as recorded in Moses and the Prophets. Those of us who hold to this picture are commonly referred to as "premillennialists" . This is the first of the two doctrines. This article is not for those who do not accept this picture… for whom these prophecies need no literal fulfillment.
      >
      > The problem at hand is that the second doctrine is also clearly taught in the Bible… in the book of Hebrews. The author of Hebrews uses several Messianic prophecies to paint a very different picture. Bear in mind the book of Hebrews was written at a time not long after Yahshua had ascended to heaven, and most believers at that time were left confused as to how Yahshua fulfilled the glorious prophecies of the Messianic Kingdom. They didn't understand that it would be many generations later before he would return to finish fulfilling these prophecies. The book of Hebrews was written largely for the purpose of answering the questions of that time, and it does so with a very eloquent, lofty, and authoritative- sounding discourse promoting the picture that Yahshua had indeed fulfilled these prophecies in a unique heavenly sense. Nowhere in the book can there be found the picture of Yahshua literally physically returning to fulfill these prophecies here on
      > earth. This, in stark contrast to the Messianic pictures painted by the Prophets, Yahshua himself, and the book of Revelation.
      >
      > So here is the dilemma. Has Yahshua already fulfilled these prophecies in heaven, or will he literally physically return and fulfill them here on earth in the future? The author of Hebrews himself borrows from some of these well known Messianic prophecies and gives them a new spin to promote his doctrine of a new-priesthood, new-law, and new-covenant, all of which have supposedly been inaugurated and fulfilled in heaven. Here is his logic..
      >
      > Like Melchizedek… how?
      >
      > In the 5th chapter of the book of Hebrews, the author uses a Messianic prophecy from Psalm 110 to begin comparing Yahshua to Melchizedek.
      >
      > So also Christ did not glorify himself to become High Priest, but it was he who said to him: "You are My son, today I have begotten you." As He also says in another place: "You are a priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek" ,… And having been perfected, he became the author of eternal salvation to all who obey him, called by God as High Priest "according to the order of Melchizedek, " of whom we have much to say, and hard to explain, since you have become dull of hearing. Hebrews 5:5-6,9-11
      >
      > Then in the 7th chapter, the author begins his new-priesthood argument by stating Yahshua is like Melchizedek in some rather strange and abstract ways.. For instance, Yahshua and Melchizedek supposedly had neither genealogical record, nor beginning or end of days!
      >
      > "For this Melchizedek, king of Salem ,… without father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but made like the Son of God, remains a priest continually. " Hebrews 7:1-3
      >
      > This certainly qualifies as "hard to explain"! The author is correct in determining from Psalm 110:1-4 that Messiah is like Melchizedek, but the connections he draws are bizarre and extremely weak arguments from silence. Does he seriously want us to believe that because we don't have Melchizedek' s genealogical records, parent's names, date of birth, or date of death written there in the book of Genesis for us… he had none?! This is the weakest form of argument there is. To illustrate: Maybe, because there is nothing said about Melchizedek being married or having any children, we must conclude he was celibate! (On the off-chance some might actually consider this a good argument, here is another example.) Maybe, because nothing is said about Melchizedek' s apparel, we must conclude he had none and was a nudist! Our author's style of logic is just this non-sensical. How absurd is the notion that Melchizedek had no father or mother? If Yahshua is like
      > Melchizedek, would it not be far better to compare him to Melchizedek on information we do have on him as opposed to information we don't have on him?
      >
      > Hebrews then continues with another similarly weak argument stating Yahshua was like Melchizedek in that Melchizedek was not of the tribe of Levi.
      >
      > "Therefore, if perfection were through the Levitical priesthood (for under it the people received the law), what further need was there that another priest should rise according to the order of Melchizedek, and not be called according to the order of Aaron?... …For He of whom these things are spoken belongs to another tribe, from which no man has officiated at the altar. For it is evident that our Lord arose from Judah, of which tribe Moses spoke nothing concerning priesthood. Hebrews 7:11, 13-14
      >
      > There is one question that begs to be asked here. If Yahshua is like Melchizedek in that he has no genealogical record, how does the author know he is from the tribe of Judah?!
      >
      > Of particular interest, is that within this text, he wants us to believe it logically flows, since there has been a change in the priesthood, there must therefore also be a change of the Law.
      >
      > "For the priesthood being changed, of necessity there is also a change of the Law." Hebrews 7:12
      >
      > Question: Where is this supposed fundamental truth written? Granting as hypothetical for a moment that the priesthood has indeed changed, we have to ask; why must the Law change if the priesthood changes? Is it the priests who determine the Law? Or is it God? If there were a new priesthood to serve the same God, reason would assume the new priests would continue to abide by the established Laws of that God. But if any priesthood old or new served a new god, then it would logically flow that a new god would dictate a new law. The author's logic simply does not flow... yet it should be evident that this presupposition is fundamental to his ongoing argument. And again, all this is assuming his assertion that Yahshua is not of the tribe of Levi is correct in the first place. I will address this question in a moment.
      >
      > Yahshua is indeed like Melchizedek as Psalm 110:1-4 prophesied, but he is like Melchizedek in ways based on information God has given us and we do have on him. Very little is said about him, but everything we need to know about Melchizedek can be found in one single verse.. Genesis 14:18
      >
      > Then Melchizedek, king of Salem, brought out bread and wine; he was the priest of God Most High.
      >
      > There it is. He was king of Salem and priest of The Most High God.
      >
      > King and Priest in One
      >
      > A King, who is also a Priest, has never existed in Israel's history. The kingdom and the priesthood were always separate. The kingdom was established forever in David's descendants, and the priesthood was established in the descendants of Levi and Aaron forever as well.
      >
      > Here are some of God's promises to David.
      >
      > "My covenant I will not break, nor alter the word that has gone out of My lips. Once I have sworn by My holiness; I will not lie to David; His seed shall endure forever, and his throne as the sun before Me; It shall be established forever like the moon, even like the faithful witness in the sky." Psalm 89:34-37
      >
      > "For thus says the Lord; David shall never lack a man to sit on the throne of the house of Israel;" Jeremiah 33:17
      >
      > "David My servant shall be king over them, and they shall all have one shepherd; they shall also walk in My judgments and observe My statutes, and do them. Then they shall dwell in the land that I have given to Jacob My servant, where your fathers dwelt: and they shall dwell there, they, their children, and their children's children, forever; and My servant David shall be their prince forever." Ezekiel 37:24-25
      >
      > "He (Yahshua) will be great, and will be called the son of the Highest; and the Lord God will give him the throne of his father David. And he will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of his kingdom there will be no end.." Luke 1:32-33
      >
      > And here are some of God's promises to the Levitical priesthood.
      >
      > "And you shall gird them with sashes, Aaron and his sons, and put the hats on them. The priesthood shall be theirs for a perpetual statute, So you shall consecrate Aaron and his sons." Exodus 29:9
      >
      > "You shall put the holy garments on Aaron, and anoint him and sanctify him, that he may minister to Me as priest. And you shall bring his sons and clothe them with tunics. You shall anoint them, as you anointed their father, that they may minister to Me as priests; for their anointing shall surely be and everlasting priesthood throughout their generations. " Exodus 40:13-15
      >
      > Then the Lord spoke to Moses, saying; "Phinehas the son of Eleazar, the son of Aaron the priest, has turned back My wrath from the children of Israel, because he was zealous with My zeal among them, so that I did not consume the children of Israel in My zeal. Therefore say, `Behold, I give to him My covenant of peace; and it shall be to him and his descendants after him a covenant of an everlasting priesthood, because he was zealous for his God, and made atonement for the children of Israel .'" Numbers 25;10-13
      >
      > This is just the beginning of the story. Remember, God promised the Messiah would be both king and priest like Melchizedek in Psalm 110:4. God also spoke through other prophets on numerous occasions that He would indeed bring both offices into one in the Messiah.
      >
      > "Behold, the days are coming", says the Lord, "that I will perform that good thing which I have promised to the house of Israel and to the house of Judah; In those days and at that time I will cause to grow up to David a Branch of righteousness; He shall execute judgment and righteousness in the earth. In those days Judah will be saved, and Jerusalem will dwell safely. And this is the name by which she will be called; `THE LORD OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS' . For thus says the Lord; David shall never lack a man to sit on the throne of the house of Israel; nor shall the priests, the Levites, lack a man to offer burnt offerings before Me, to kindle grain offerings, and to sacrifice continually. " Jeremiah 33:14-18
      >
      > "Behold, the man whose name is the BRANCH! From his place he shall branch out, and he shall build the temple of the Lord; Yes, he shall build the temple of the Lord. He shall bear the glory, and shall sit and rule on his throne; So he shall be a priest on his throne, and the counsel of peace shall be between them both." (both offices) Zechariah 6:12-13
      >
      > "For the children of Israel shall abide many days without king or prince, without sacred pillar, without ephod or teraphim. Afterward the children of Israel shall return, seek the Lord their God and David their king, and fear the Lord and His goodness in the latter days. Hosea 3:4-5
      >
      > "Then it shall be the prince's part to give burnt offerings, grain offerings, and drink offerings, at the feasts, the New Moons, the Sabbaths, and at all the appointed seasons of the house of Israel. He shall prepare the sin offering, the grain offering, the burnt offering, and the peace offerings to make atonement for the house of Israel ." Ezekiel 45:17
      >
      > The author of Hebrews argues that because Yahshua is supposedly not from the tribe of Levi, there is therefore a change of priesthoods and subsequent change of the law. But God had said the Levites had and "everlasting" priesthood. The only way God could fulfill these promises He made to David and the Levites is if the Messiah was from both tribes. What our author obviously did not know is that Yahshua is exactly as God had prophesied the Messiah would be. Yahshua is descendant of both David and Levi! He is simply wrong on a number of levels. Both in the logic that a change of the priesthood demands a change of the law, and that there had been any change of the priesthood in the first place!
      >
      > I have yet to find any place where all the pieces of this puzzle have been put together by others. One can't help but wonder if part of the reason doesn't stem from the understanding that if Yahshua is in fact a descendant of Levi, the book of Hebrews would loose all credibility. Keep in mind, Yahshua not being of Levi, is a fundamental cornerstone of Hebrew's doctrine.
      >
      > Yahshua, descendant of both David and Levi
      >
      > In the book of Luke it is recorded that Yahshua's mother Mary was a "cousin" (KJV) to Elizabeth who was "of the daughters of Aaron". (Luke 1:5,36) The Greek word translated "cousin" literally means close blood (genetic) relative. The genetic connection can easily be seen by English speaking people in the Greek word "sungenes". This literally means close kin (See Strongs 4773) This word could just as easily mean Elisabeth was Mary's aunt. Considering Elisabeth was much older than Mary, this would appear to be more likely the case, but it is a moot point in light of the fact that it doesn't make a difference either way as you will see.
      >
      > In Leviticus, God commanded that Levite men were to marry only Levite women.. (Leviticus 21:1,13-14, 22:12-13) Levite women on the other hand were permitted to marry outside the tribe. We know that Mary's father Heli was a descendant of David of the tribe of Judah (Luke 3:23. Many scholars agree that Joseph was Heli's son-in-law.) So if Mary was either a cousin ,or a niece to Elisabeth, it must mean that Mary's mother had to have been either a sister or aunt to Elisabeth, which means that Mary's mother had to have been a "daughter of Aaron" as well! Here is the breakdown. If Mary and Elisabeth were cousins, as it says in the KJV, then Mary's mother was a sister to one of Elisabeth's parents, both of whom had to have been full-blooded Levites for Elisabeth to be called a "daughter of Aaron" and be legitimately married to Zacharias the priest. If Elisabeth was Mary's aunt, as is more likely the case, then Mary's mother was a sister to Elisabeth. No matter
      > how one works it, it comes out the same. Mary's mother was a full-blooded Levite. She was then one of those who married outside the tribe when she married Heli of the tribe of Judah. Now it also logically flows perfectly well that if Yahshua had no earthly father, no new genetic material was introduced at his conception. Therefore his physical bloodlines must have been identical to his mother's bloodlines. Mary was a perfect blend of both tribes Judah and Levi!
      >
      > There is also another likelihood that makes this even better. Since God commanded the Levite men to marry only Levite women, it stands to reason that the genetic markers He recognizes as the Levitical priestly markers were passed down by the mothers, thus making the tribe matrilineal. These genetic matrilineal markers are located in what science today calls the mitochondrial DNA. The genetic markers of the other tribes were passed down by the fathers in the Y chromosome. It is also a well established fact of science that the father's genetic markers and the mother's genetic markers do not compete with each other during the process of recombination, so neither of them is diluted by the other. This would mean that Mary, and subsequently Yahshua, carried all the genetic markers of both tribes! It stands to reason that God intended for Levi's genetic markers to be matrilineal for the very purpose of being able to bring all of Judah, and all of Levi together
      > into one man. (See chart below)
      >
      > The fact that Yahshua is indeed a descendant of the tribe of Levi, as God had promised the Messiah would be, is enough in itself to completely discredit the book of Hebrews. Hebrew's assertion that Yahshua was not of Levi is a fundamental premise of the author's ongoing argument. There is no "new" priesthood. God had established the priesthood in Aaron's descendants forever. Furthermore, since there is no "change of the Law" even if there were a new priesthood, how much more established is the fact that there is there no "change of the Law" when there is no new priesthood? Nothing more really needs to be said concerning the credibility of the author of Hebrews! We should discard the book as a nice-try of purely human effort on this basis alone. But to further demonstrate the sad mistakenness of the author… consider his next argument.
      >
      > The New Covenant?
      >
      > Again, the author of Hebrews has completely missed the fact that Yahshua will physically return and fulfill the remaining Messianic prophecies. This becomes painfully obvious in his on-going argument. Now he reasons that his new priesthood and new law fulfill the prophecies of a "new covenant". Here, in chapter 8:8-12, he quotes the prophecy from Jeremiah. Please take special note of the fact that every time in the book of Jeremiah where God says, "Behold the days are coming", He is speaking of the Messianic age yet to come. The actual prophecy reads;
      >
      > "Behold, the days are coming, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah â€" not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out to the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, though I was a husband to them, says the Lord. But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will put My Law in their mind, and write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. No more shall every man teach his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, `Know the Lord,' for they all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them, says the Lord. For I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more." Jeremiah 31:31-34
      >
      > Then after quoting this prophecy, the author of Hebrews makes this statement, from which comes the concept of an Old (obsolete) Testament.
      >
      > In that He says, "A new covenant," He has made the first obsolete. Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away. Hebrews 8:13
      >
      > Our author has obviously come to another very mistaken conclusion. He believes that God's covenant with Israel at Mt. Sinai and His Law are one and the same. They are not. God's Law is a list of do's and don'ts. God's covenant with Israel is a contractual promise to bless them if they obey His Law. Of course, if they broke the Law, in so doing they also broke the covenant, but that does not mean the Law is the covenant! It should be evident in this passage that God continues to speak of His Law as though it will not change. Here it is again.
      >
      > But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will put My Law in their mind, and write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. Jeremiah 31:33
      >
      > It is only after the author has blurred the line between the Law and the covenant, making them one and the same, and then drawn our attention to a new covenant, can he then make the leap of logic inferring that when God said "My Law" in reference to a new covenant, He meant "My new law"! This is obviously what he wants us to see here. Remember, he has already said there has been a "change of the Law". But God did not say "My new law". He is speaking of the same Law. The only difference is, when the new covenant is finally inaugurated, this same Law of Moses will be written on the hearts of the children of Israel so they will want to keep it. And herein is another point that is extremely important. This prophecy concerns only Israel . It does not concern Gentiles in any way! The only Gentiles who might be included in this are those individuals who have joined themselves to Israel through circumcision and obedience to God's Law, in which case they would no
      > longer be seen as Gentiles. The Christian church cannot claim this prophecy for itself… unless of course one is of the persuasion that God has replaced Israel... and the Christian church is the new true Israel of God! This repulsive teaching is a lie, and among other things has been used as justification for the deplorable anti-Semitism much of Christianity has perpetrated on the Jewish people throughout history. But I digress. The point is, you can't have it both ways. Either Israel is Israel, or the Christian church is Israel. The prophecies concerning Israel and the new covenant have either been fulfilled, or they haven't.
      >
      > Some might argue that Yahshua said the "new covenant" was established in his blood, suggesting the new covenant took effect at the cross. Yahshua's sacrifices certainly paid the price for the promised new covenant, but to assert that it was inaugurated at that time is reading more into Yahshua's words than what he said. The prophecy from Jeremiah clearly indicates that the new covenant is with Israel only, and doesn't take effect until the Kingdom of God comes during the Messianic age which is still yet to come. Read again Jeremiah 31:31-40. This truth should also be clearly evident when taking Yahshua's words in the fuller context of Luke's account of the last supper.
      >
      > Then he said to them, "With fervent desire I have desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer; for I say to you, I will no longer eat of it until it is fulfilled in the Kingdom of God." …"Likewise he also took the cup after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood which is shed for you." Luke 22:15,16,20
      >
      > Yahshua certainly paid the price for the new covenant with his blood, but it will not be inaugurated or "fulfilled" until he returns… and even then it will only be with Israel!
      >
      > There are numerous other parallel prophecies concerning the new covenant that prove God is speaking of His Law as given through Moses. What I have highlighted in bold print below includes the same new covenant spoken of in Jeremiah 31:33. Please read this quote one more time and dare to compare it to the following yet-to-be-fulfilled prophecies! Also, please notice that these prophecies concern only Israel during the Messianic age yet to come, along with the fact that they could not possibly have been fulfilled yet! Here is the "new covenant" prophecy that Hebrews uses first.
      >
      > "Behold, the days are coming, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah… …this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will put My Law in their mind, and write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. Jeremiah 31:31,33
      >
      > Now compare.
      >
      > "Although I have cast them far off among the Gentiles, and although I have scattered them among the countries, yet I shall be a little sanctuary for them in the countries where they have gone. Therefore say, `Thus says the Lord God: "I will gather you from the peoples, assemble you from the countries where you have been scattered, and I will give you the land of Israel."' "And they will go there, and they will take away all its detestable things and all its abominations from there. Then I will give them one heart, and I will put a new spirit within them, and take the stony heart out of their flesh, and give them a heart of flesh, that they may walk in My statutes and keep My judgments and do them; and they shall be My people, and I will be their God." Ezekiel 11:16-20
      >
      > "For I will take you from among the nations, gather you out of all countries, and bring you into your own land. Then I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you shall be clean; I will cleanse you from all your filthiness and from all your idols. I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; I will take the heart of stone out of your flesh. I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes, and you will keep My judgments and do them. Then you shall dwell in the land that I gave to your fathers; you shall be My people, and I will be your God." Ezekiel 35:24-28
      >
      > "David My servant shall be king over them, and they shall all have one shepherd; they shall also walk in My judgments and observe My statutes, and do them. Then they shall dwell in the land that I have given to Jacob My servant, where your fathers dwelt; and they shall dwell there, they, their children, and their children's children, forever; and My servant David shall be their prince forever. Moreover I will make a covenant of peace with them, and it shall be an everlasting covenant with them; I will establish them and multiply them, and I will set My sanctuary in their midst forevermore. My tabernacle also shall be with them; indeed I will be their God, and they shall be My people. The nations also will know that I, the Lord, sanctify Israel, when My sanctuary is in their midst forevermore. " Ezekiel 37:24-28
      >
      > What more needs to be said? The new covenant is without question the same Law, only God will cause Israel to want to walk in His ways when His Kingdom comes during the Messianic age.
      >
      > The book of Hebrews simply cannot be reconciled with the picture that the prophets, the book of Revelation, and Yahshua himself have given us of the Messianic age and the coming Kingdom of God. One picture has to go. One must choose to follow the author of Hebrews, or follow Yahshua, Moses, and The Prophets. The "new covenant" is either already fulfilled in a heavenly mystical sense, or it is yet to be inaugurated with Israel and fulfilled when Yahshua returns, delivers Israel from all her enemies, ascends the throne of his father David... and as a son of Levi as well, begins his high priestly ministry before God Most High as King and Priest… after the order of Melchizedek.
      >
      > ***
      >
      > Note. The new priesthood, new law, new covenant picture does in fact dovetail with Paul's doctrine of a new Israel… one that has replaced the old... obsolete Israel! (Galatians 6:15-16) I do not say this to Paul's credit. It is an utterly repulsive lie, and largely responsible for much of the anti-Semitism and evil perpetrated toward God's people over the past 2000 years.
      >
      > For more on Paul's own credibility, and his many mistaken doctrines, please obtain a copy of the book, Jesus Words Only â€" Or Was Paul the Apostle Jesus Condemns in Revelation 2:2, by Douglas J. Del Tondo, Infinity Publishing. ISBN 0-7414-2965- 9 My review, and ordering information can be accessed by clicking here.
      >
      > If you would like to print this article for handouts and would like the Yahshua's Bloodlines diagram to display properly, please email your request to judavschr@hotmail. com and I will be happy to reply with an attached Microsoft Word file, free of charge. This file will have to be opened with Microsoft Word for Yahshua's bloodline diagram to display properly.
      >
      > If you have found this article compelling, please pass it on to family, friends, and clergy for further debate.
      >
      > Blessings in Yahshua,
      >
      > Scott Nelson
      >


    • james m. clark jr.
      Shalom, Exactly, there is no one here that has found the mysterious key to a perfect life. That s like saying as I ve heard over and over and over again as
      Message 2 of 20 , Jun 1, 2009
      • 0 Attachment
        Shalom,

        Exactly, there is no one here that has found the mysterious key to a
        perfect life. That's like saying as I've heard over and over and over again as anyone else, that Christianity will convert the world to Christianity before Jesus returns somehow without believing in various stipulations which is the yoke of worldly religions victiumizations that have been adopted by over religious jargonots. Now don't get me wrong, I think we all should have a Rabbi to understand Jewish literature. It wasn't until I learned to meditate on such things that I've always thought farmers should be some of the wealthest people on earth, they work hard to feed the family or world but all credit isn't given to them for what G-d provides. They may work from sun up to sun down but that's only half a day talking to plants which is less benifitual as forevernevermoreolgist or rather to much of a good thing if one desides to be less anti-social and utter religious sounding words that G-d could care less about when talking to him. So why should we be any differant talking to someone if we think we are a mere ferrow ahead to get out of the blazing sun? The day isn't done before we wake, so why should one think any differnt after the heat of the day has passed and thankful for the clouds before the late afternoon breeze or rain comes. This type of labor would make a proud man waller in the mud overwhelmed with joy perparing him for the devistation that may come before the harvests.

        Yeshua said something intersting that we should consider concerning the toil of farmers. He said something to a hungry crowd like: don't look back while your tilling the soil to see if your furrow is straight.

        be well,
        jamey

        --- In Christian-Philosophy@yahoogroups.com, Elizabeth Canova <elizabeth.canova@...> wrote:
        >
        > The "who is who" of the world....farmers...shepherds....false apostles... etc  LOL
        >
        > I have found certain people I encounter to be like shepherds.....then I grew and learned more of them, learned more of myself and that changed.  It all changes, that is one thing I count on, not much is set in stone right now for me. 
        >
        > I talked to a friend this weekend, her and I are on the same level spiritually, we are both learning and just now started our intimate relationship with God.  She asked me if I believed there was a "hell" and I told her that I did not believe it was a place that I always had the impression it was, not like I was taught in sunday school or church....but I told her...that is the way I feel today....ask me again in a year and maybe I will have a different opinion....I can't say for sure.  I waiver back and forth with the more that is revealed to me.  Sometimes I feel wishy washy and uncertain and even dumb - why can't I have "eyes to see" or "ears to hear" everything....but before I start bashing myself, I realize that I am learning and it is a process, it doesn't just happen over night, so I am very hesitant to say I am completely certain of anything, sometimes I am hesitant to even share what I think is revealed to me because it sounds so different
        > than anything I have been taught and something may need to be added in the future to make more sense...maybe more time needs to pass for me to encounter a situation that will reveal the real meaning.  There are a few things I am certain of and those are the only things that I will ever say to someone with complete confidence. 
        >
        > So how can someone like me, the way I am now, teach anyone anything? I feel like I always take the middle ground and I don't have much to offer other than neutrality.  I really don't know much, its a little frustrating to hear all of ya'll talk and use words that I don't understand (monoism, pantheism, etc.) and I am not even sure I need to learn these words, other than to label something that I can better understand through adjectives, but even reading the explanation of these things on the computer, I still just don't get it because two people can look at this same thing (noun) differently.  Maybe it is because I am just not educated enough or worldly enough to understand, but I am not sure I want to be, then again I don't always like taking the middle ground...I have been taught to know your position and know where you stand, to stand firm, but I can't be sure where I need to stand right now on a lot of stuff, it is sometimes overwhelming. 
        >
        > Yesterday I went to a family function and I spent the whole time with 2 year old girl twins, after the conversation in the adult group turned heated, I just listened and I could understand both sides, the conversation got more heated and I had to walk away, it was more comfortable there with the girls, they didn't need words or any validation, they just wanted to jump on the sofa, play peek-a-boo and be tickled, sometimes it feels good not to have to take a side, but people try and force you into that, into taking some stance and labeling who you are, why do we need to have a label?  Why do we always have to be on the right side?  Why can't everyone be right?  Why can't everyone be a farmer, then a shepherd or vice versa?  Would that be too boring if we never argued or had a debate or labeled who we were?  Would it be too peaceful?  I just don't get it...
        >
        > Elizabeth
        >
        >
        > ________________________________
        > From: james m. clark jr. <Yaakov2819@...>
        > To: Christian-Philosophy@yahoogroups.com
        > Sent: Sunday, May 31, 2009 3:47:17 PM
        > Subject: [Christian-Philosophy] Re: The Problem with Hebrews - by Scott Nelson
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > Shalom,
        >
        > A very good point but even false apostles are considered to become farmers rather than shepherds in the resserection. Hypothetically, we don't even have the authority to condem spirit beings. But also, even after the new covent is established, when no Israelite will need to be tought Scripture.
        >
        > be well,
        > jamey
        >
        > --- In Christian-Philosoph y@yahoogroups. com, Elizabeth Canova <elizabeth.canova@ ...> wrote:
        > >
        > > "Or Was Paul the Apostle Jesus Condemns in Revelation 2:2, "
        > > where here does it say anyone is "condemned" ?  All that I read of what is said to the church of Ephesus is "I know" and "have found" no where does it say that He "condemns" 
        > >  
        > > Revelation 2:2I know your deeds, your hard work and your perseverance. I know that you cannot tolerate wicked men, that you have tested those who claim to be apostles but are not, and have found them false
        > >  
        > > God understands everything we do and why we do it. Why we feel the way we feel, and so should we understand everyone else and "overcome" - not overcome the nicolations, not overcome the apostles...but overcome that hatred for those who we do not understand.
        > >  
        > >
        > >
        > > --- On Sun, 5/31/09, james m. clark jr. <Yaakov2819@ ...> wrote:
        > >
        > >
        > > From: james m. clark jr. <Yaakov2819@ ...>
        > > Subject: [Christian-Philosop hy] The Problem with Hebrews - by Scott Nelson
        > > To: Christian-Philosoph y@yahoogroups. com
        > > Date: Sunday, May 31, 2009, 9:09 AM
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > > chart and reader friendly article at
        > >
        > > http://www.judaismv schristianity. com/problem_ with_hebrews. htm
        > >
        > > The Problem with Hebrews
        > >
        > > By Scott Nelson
        > >
        > > Introduction
        > >
        > > The following article demonstrates there are two doctrines commonly held among Christians that cannot be reconciled with each other. Only one position can be true. It is written for the sake of those who believe Yahshua (Jesus) is going to physically return to earth to rule and reign from Jerusalem for a thousand years, as prophesied in Revelation 20:1-6, and will at that time fulfill the many glorious kingly prophecies concerning the Messiah as recorded in Moses and the Prophets. Those of us who hold to this picture are commonly referred to as "premillennialists" . This is the first of the two doctrines. This article is not for those who do not accept this picture… for whom these prophecies need no literal fulfillment.
        > >
        > > The problem at hand is that the second doctrine is also clearly taught in the Bible… in the book of Hebrews. The author of Hebrews uses several Messianic prophecies to paint a very different picture. Bear in mind the book of Hebrews was written at a time not long after Yahshua had ascended to heaven, and most believers at that time were left confused as to how Yahshua fulfilled the glorious prophecies of the Messianic Kingdom. They didn't understand that it would be many generations later before he would return to finish fulfilling these prophecies. The book of Hebrews was written largely for the purpose of answering the questions of that time, and it does so with a very eloquent, lofty, and authoritative- sounding discourse promoting the picture that Yahshua had indeed fulfilled these prophecies in a unique heavenly sense. Nowhere in the book can there be found the picture of Yahshua literally physically returning to fulfill these prophecies
        > here on
        > > earth. This, in stark contrast to the Messianic pictures painted by the Prophets, Yahshua himself, and the book of Revelation.
        > >
        > > So here is the dilemma. Has Yahshua already fulfilled these prophecies in heaven, or will he literally physically return and fulfill them here on earth in the future? The author of Hebrews himself borrows from some of these well known Messianic prophecies and gives them a new spin to promote his doctrine of a new-priesthood, new-law, and new-covenant, all of which have supposedly been inaugurated and fulfilled in heaven. Here is his logic.
        > >
        > > Like Melchizedek… how?
        > >
        > > In the 5th chapter of the book of Hebrews, the author uses a Messianic prophecy from Psalm 110 to begin comparing Yahshua to Melchizedek.
        > >
        > > So also Christ did not glorify himself to become High Priest, but it was he who said to him: "You are My son, today I have begotten you." As He also says in another place: "You are a priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek" ,… And having been perfected, he became the author of eternal salvation to all who obey him, called by God as High Priest "according to the order of Melchizedek, " of whom we have much to say, and hard to explain, since you have become dull of hearing. Hebrews 5:5-6,9-11
        > >
        > > Then in the 7th chapter, the author begins his new-priesthood argument by stating Yahshua is like Melchizedek in some rather strange and abstract ways.. For instance, Yahshua and Melchizedek supposedly had neither genealogical record, nor beginning or end of days!
        > >
        > > "For this Melchizedek, king of Salem ,… without father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but made like the Son of God, remains a priest continually. " Hebrews 7:1-3
        > >
        > > This certainly qualifies as "hard to explain"! The author is correct in determining from Psalm 110:1-4 that Messiah is like Melchizedek, but the connections he draws are bizarre and extremely weak arguments from silence. Does he seriously want us to believe that because we don't have Melchizedek' s genealogical records, parent's names, date of birth, or date of death written there in the book of Genesis for us… he had none?! This is the weakest form of argument there is. To illustrate: Maybe, because there is nothing said about Melchizedek being married or having any children, we must conclude he was celibate! (On the off-chance some might actually consider this a good argument, here is another example.) Maybe, because nothing is said about Melchizedek' s apparel, we must conclude he had none and was a nudist! Our author's style of logic is just this non-sensical. How absurd is the notion that Melchizedek had no father or mother? If Yahshua is
        > like
        > > Melchizedek, would it not be far better to compare him to Melchizedek on information we do have on him as opposed to information we don't have on him?
        > >
        > > Hebrews then continues with another similarly weak argument stating Yahshua was like Melchizedek in that Melchizedek was not of the tribe of Levi.
        > >
        > > "Therefore, if perfection were through the Levitical priesthood (for under it the people received the law), what further need was there that another priest should rise according to the order of Melchizedek, and not be called according to the order of Aaron?... …For He of whom these things are spoken belongs to another tribe, from which no man has officiated at the altar. For it is evident that our Lord arose from Judah, of which tribe Moses spoke nothing concerning priesthood. Hebrews 7:11, 13-14
        > >
        > > There is one question that begs to be asked here. If Yahshua is like Melchizedek in that he has no genealogical record, how does the author know he is from the tribe of Judah?!
        > >
        > > Of particular interest, is that within this text, he wants us to believe it logically flows, since there has been a change in the priesthood, there must therefore also be a change of the Law.
        > >
        > > "For the priesthood being changed, of necessity there is also a change of the Law." Hebrews 7:12
        > >
        > > Question: Where is this supposed fundamental truth written? Granting as hypothetical for a moment that the priesthood has indeed changed, we have to ask; why must the Law change if the priesthood changes? Is it the priests who determine the Law? Or is it God? If there were a new priesthood to serve the same God, reason would assume the new priests would continue to abide by the established Laws of that God. But if any priesthood old or new served a new god, then it would logically flow that a new god would dictate a new law. The author's logic simply does not flow... yet it should be evident that this presupposition is fundamental to his ongoing argument. And again, all this is assuming his assertion that Yahshua is not of the tribe of Levi is correct in the first place. I will address this question in a moment.
        > >
        > > Yahshua is indeed like Melchizedek as Psalm 110:1-4 prophesied, but he is like Melchizedek in ways based on information God has given us and we do have on him. Very little is said about him, but everything we need to know about Melchizedek can be found in one single verse. Genesis 14:18
        > >
        > > Then Melchizedek, king of Salem, brought out bread and wine; he was the priest of God Most High.
        > >
        > > There it is. He was king of Salem and priest of The Most High God.
        > >
        > > King and Priest in One
        > >
        > > A King, who is also a Priest, has never existed in Israel's history. The kingdom and the priesthood were always separate. The kingdom was established forever in David's descendants, and the priesthood was established in the descendants of Levi and Aaron forever as well.
        > >
        > > Here are some of God's promises to David.
        > >
        > > "My covenant I will not break, nor alter the word that has gone out of My lips. Once I have sworn by My holiness; I will not lie to David; His seed shall endure forever, and his throne as the sun before Me; It shall be established forever like the moon, even like the faithful witness in the sky." Psalm 89:34-37
        > >
        > > "For thus says the Lord; David shall never lack a man to sit on the throne of the house of Israel;" Jeremiah 33:17
        > >
        > > "David My servant shall be king over them, and they shall all have one shepherd; they shall also walk in My judgments and observe My statutes, and do them. Then they shall dwell in the land that I have given to Jacob My servant, where your fathers dwelt: and they shall dwell there, they, their children, and their children's children, forever; and My servant David shall be their prince forever." Ezekiel 37:24-25
        > >
        > > "He (Yahshua) will be great, and will be called the son of the Highest; and the Lord God will give him the throne of his father David. And he will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of his kingdom there will be no end.." Luke 1:32-33
        > >
        > > And here are some of God's promises to the Levitical priesthood.
        > >
        > > "And you shall gird them with sashes, Aaron and his sons, and put the hats on them. The priesthood shall be theirs for a perpetual statute, So you shall consecrate Aaron and his sons." Exodus 29:9
        > >
        > > "You shall put the holy garments on Aaron, and anoint him and sanctify him, that he may minister to Me as priest. And you shall bring his sons and clothe them with tunics. You shall anoint them, as you anointed their father, that they may minister to Me as priests; for their anointing shall surely be and everlasting priesthood throughout their generations. " Exodus 40:13-15
        > >
        > > Then the Lord spoke to Moses, saying; "Phinehas the son of Eleazar, the son of Aaron the priest, has turned back My wrath from the children of Israel, because he was zealous with My zeal among them, so that I did not consume the children of Israel in My zeal. Therefore say, `Behold, I give to him My covenant of peace; and it shall be to him and his descendants after him a covenant of an everlasting priesthood, because he was zealous for his God, and made atonement for the children of Israel .'" Numbers 25;10-13
        > >
        > > This is just the beginning of the story. Remember, God promised the Messiah would be both king and priest like Melchizedek in Psalm 110:4. God also spoke through other prophets on numerous occasions that He would indeed bring both offices into one in the Messiah.
        > >
        > > "Behold, the days are coming", says the Lord, "that I will perform that good thing which I have promised to the house of Israel and to the house of Judah; In those days and at that time I will cause to grow up to David a Branch of righteousness; He shall execute judgment and righteousness in the earth. In those days Judah will be saved, and Jerusalem will dwell safely. And this is the name by which she will be called; `THE LORD OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS' . For thus says the Lord; David shall never lack a man to sit on the throne of the house of Israel; nor shall the priests, the Levites, lack a man to offer burnt offerings before Me, to kindle grain offerings, and to sacrifice continually. " Jeremiah 33:14-18
        > >
        > > "Behold, the man whose name is the BRANCH! From his place he shall branch out, and he shall build the temple of the Lord; Yes, he shall build the temple of the Lord. He shall bear the glory, and shall sit and rule on his throne; So he shall be a priest on his throne, and the counsel of peace shall be between them both." (both offices) Zechariah 6:12-13
        > >
        > > "For the children of Israel shall abide many days without king or prince, without sacred pillar, without ephod or teraphim. Afterward the children of Israel shall return, seek the Lord their God and David their king, and fear the Lord and His goodness in the latter days. Hosea 3:4-5
        > >
        > > "Then it shall be the prince's part to give burnt offerings, grain offerings, and drink offerings, at the feasts, the New Moons, the Sabbaths, and at all the appointed seasons of the house of Israel. He shall prepare the sin offering, the grain offering, the burnt offering, and the peace offerings to make atonement for the house of Israel ." Ezekiel 45:17
        > >
        > > The author of Hebrews argues that because Yahshua is supposedly not from the tribe of Levi, there is therefore a change of priesthoods and subsequent change of the law. But God had said the Levites had and "everlasting" priesthood. The only way God could fulfill these promises He made to David and the Levites is if the Messiah was from both tribes. What our author obviously did not know is that Yahshua is exactly as God had prophesied the Messiah would be. Yahshua is descendant of both David and Levi! He is simply wrong on a number of levels. Both in the logic that a change of the priesthood demands a change of the law, and that there had been any change of the priesthood in the first place!
        > >
        > > I have yet to find any place where all the pieces of this puzzle have been put together by others. One can't help but wonder if part of the reason doesn't stem from the understanding that if Yahshua is in fact a descendant of Levi, the book of Hebrews would loose all credibility. Keep in mind, Yahshua not being of Levi, is a fundamental cornerstone of Hebrew's doctrine.
        > >
        > > Yahshua, descendant of both David and Levi
        > >
        > > In the book of Luke it is recorded that Yahshua's mother Mary was a "cousin" (KJV) to Elizabeth who was "of the daughters of Aaron". (Luke 1:5,36) The Greek word translated "cousin" literally means close blood (genetic) relative. The genetic connection can easily be seen by English speaking people in the Greek word "sungenes". This literally means close kin (See Strongs 4773) This word could just as easily mean Elisabeth was Mary's aunt. Considering Elisabeth was much older than Mary, this would appear to be more likely the case, but it is a moot point in light of the fact that it doesn't make a difference either way as you will see.
        > >
        > > In Leviticus, God commanded that Levite men were to marry only Levite women.. (Leviticus 21:1,13-14, 22:12-13) Levite women on the other hand were permitted to marry outside the tribe. We know that Mary's father Heli was a descendant of David of the tribe of Judah (Luke 3:23. Many scholars agree that Joseph was Heli's son-in-law.) So if Mary was either a cousin ,or a niece to Elisabeth, it must mean that Mary's mother had to have been either a sister or aunt to Elisabeth, which means that Mary's mother had to have been a "daughter of Aaron" as well! Here is the breakdown. If Mary and Elisabeth were cousins, as it says in the KJV, then Mary's mother was a sister to one of Elisabeth's parents, both of whom had to have been full-blooded Levites for Elisabeth to be called a "daughter of Aaron" and be legitimately married to Zacharias the priest. If Elisabeth was Mary's aunt, as is more likely the case, then Mary's mother was a sister to Elisabeth. No matter
        > > how one works it, it comes out the same. Mary's mother was a full-blooded Levite. She was then one of those who married outside the tribe when she married Heli of the tribe of Judah. Now it also logically flows perfectly well that if Yahshua had no earthly father, no new genetic material was introduced at his conception. Therefore his physical bloodlines must have been identical to his mother's bloodlines. Mary was a perfect blend of both tribes Judah and Levi!
        > >
        > > There is also another likelihood that makes this even better. Since God commanded the Levite men to marry only Levite women, it stands to reason that the genetic markers He recognizes as the Levitical priestly markers were passed down by the mothers, thus making the tribe matrilineal. These genetic matrilineal markers are located in what science today calls the mitochondrial DNA. The genetic markers of the other tribes were passed down by the fathers in the Y chromosome. It is also a well established fact of science that the father's genetic markers and the mother's genetic markers do not compete with each other during the process of recombination, so neither of them is diluted by the other. This would mean that Mary, and subsequently Yahshua, carried all the genetic markers of both tribes! It stands to reason that God intended for Levi's genetic markers to be matrilineal for the very purpose of being able to bring all of Judah, and all of Levi together
        > > into one man. (See chart below)
        > >
        > > The fact that Yahshua is indeed a descendant of the tribe of Levi, as God had promised the Messiah would be, is enough in itself to completely discredit the book of Hebrews. Hebrew's assertion that Yahshua was not of Levi is a fundamental premise of the author's ongoing argument. There is no "new" priesthood. God had established the priesthood in Aaron's descendants forever. Furthermore, since there is no "change of the Law" even if there were a new priesthood, how much more established is the fact that there is there no "change of the Law" when there is no new priesthood? Nothing more really needs to be said concerning the credibility of the author of Hebrews! We should discard the book as a nice-try of purely human effort on this basis alone. But to further demonstrate the sad mistakenness of the author… consider his next argument.
        > >
        > > The New Covenant?
        > >
        > > Again, the author of Hebrews has completely missed the fact that Yahshua will physically return and fulfill the remaining Messianic prophecies. This becomes painfully obvious in his on-going argument. Now he reasons that his new priesthood and new law fulfill the prophecies of a "new covenant". Here, in chapter 8:8-12, he quotes the prophecy from Jeremiah. Please take special note of the fact that every time in the book of Jeremiah where God says, "Behold the days are coming", He is speaking of the Messianic age yet to come. The actual prophecy reads;
        > >
        > > "Behold, the days are coming, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah â€" not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out to the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, though I was a husband to them, says the Lord. But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will put My Law in their mind, and write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. No more shall every man teach his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, `Know the Lord,' for they all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them, says the Lord. For I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more.." Jeremiah 31:31-34
        > >
        > > Then after quoting this prophecy, the author of Hebrews makes this statement, from which comes the concept of an Old (obsolete) Testament.
        > >
        > > In that He says, "A new covenant," He has made the first obsolete. Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away. Hebrews 8:13
        > >
        > > Our author has obviously come to another very mistaken conclusion. He believes that God's covenant with Israel at Mt. Sinai and His Law are one and the same. They are not. God's Law is a list of do's and don'ts. God's covenant with Israel is a contractual promise to bless them if they obey His Law. Of course, if they broke the Law, in so doing they also broke the covenant, but that does not mean the Law is the covenant! It should be evident in this passage that God continues to speak of His Law as though it will not change. Here it is again.
        > >
        > > But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will put My Law in their mind, and write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. Jeremiah 31:33
        > >
        > > It is only after the author has blurred the line between the Law and the covenant, making them one and the same, and then drawn our attention to a new covenant, can he then make the leap of logic inferring that when God said "My Law" in reference to a new covenant, He meant "My new law"! This is obviously what he wants us to see here. Remember, he has already said there has been a "change of the Law". But God did not say "My new law". He is speaking of the same Law. The only difference is, when the new covenant is finally inaugurated, this same Law of Moses will be written on the hearts of the children of Israel so they will want to keep it. And herein is another point that is extremely important. This prophecy concerns only Israel . It does not concern Gentiles in any way! The only Gentiles who might be included in this are those individuals who have joined themselves to Israel through circumcision and obedience to God's Law, in which case they would
        > no
        > > longer be seen as Gentiles. The Christian church cannot claim this prophecy for itself… unless of course one is of the persuasion that God has replaced Israel... and the Christian church is the new true Israel of God! This repulsive teaching is a lie, and among other things has been used as justification for the deplorable anti-Semitism much of Christianity has perpetrated on the Jewish people throughout history. But I digress. The point is, you can't have it both ways. Either Israel is Israel, or the Christian church is Israel. The prophecies concerning Israel and the new covenant have either been fulfilled, or they haven't.
        > >
        > > Some might argue that Yahshua said the "new covenant" was established in his blood, suggesting the new covenant took effect at the cross. Yahshua's sacrifices certainly paid the price for the promised new covenant, but to assert that it was inaugurated at that time is reading more into Yahshua's words than what he said. The prophecy from Jeremiah clearly indicates that the new covenant is with Israel only, and doesn't take effect until the Kingdom of God comes during the Messianic age which is still yet to come. Read again Jeremiah 31:31-40. This truth should also be clearly evident when taking Yahshua's words in the fuller context of Luke's account of the last supper.
        > >
        > > Then he said to them, "With fervent desire I have desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer; for I say to you, I will no longer eat of it until it is fulfilled in the Kingdom of God." …"Likewise he also took the cup after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood which is shed for you." Luke 22:15,16,20
        > >
        > > Yahshua certainly paid the price for the new covenant with his blood, but it will not be inaugurated or "fulfilled" until he returns… and even then it will only be with Israel!
        > >
        > > There are numerous other parallel prophecies concerning the new covenant that prove God is speaking of His Law as given through Moses. What I have highlighted in bold print below includes the same new covenant spoken of in Jeremiah 31:33. Please read this quote one more time and dare to compare it to the following yet-to-be-fulfilled prophecies! Also, please notice that these prophecies concern only Israel during the Messianic age yet to come, along with the fact that they could not possibly have been fulfilled yet! Here is the "new covenant" prophecy that Hebrews uses first.
        > >
        > > "Behold, the days are coming, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah… …this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will put My Law in their mind, and write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. Jeremiah 31:31,33
        > >
        > > Now compare.
        > >
        > > "Although I have cast them far off among the Gentiles, and although I have scattered them among the countries, yet I shall be a little sanctuary for them in the countries where they have gone. Therefore say, `Thus says the Lord God: "I will gather you from the peoples, assemble you from the countries where you have been scattered, and I will give you the land of Israel."' "And they will go there, and they will take away all its detestable things and all its abominations from there. Then I will give them one heart, and I will put a new spirit within them, and take the stony heart out of their flesh, and give them a heart of flesh, that they may walk in My statutes and keep My judgments and do them; and they shall be My people, and I will be their God." Ezekiel 11:16-20
        > >
        > > "For I will take you from among the nations, gather you out of all countries, and bring you into your own land. Then I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you shall be clean; I will cleanse you from all your filthiness and from all your idols. I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; I will take the heart of stone out of your flesh. I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes, and you will keep My judgments and do them. Then you shall dwell in the land that I gave to your fathers; you shall be My people, and I will be your God." Ezekiel 35:24-28
        > >
        > > "David My servant shall be king over them, and they shall all have one shepherd; they shall also walk in My judgments and observe My statutes, and do them. Then they shall dwell in the land that I have given to Jacob My servant, where your fathers dwelt; and they shall dwell there, they, their children, and their children's children, forever; and My servant David shall be their prince forever. Moreover I will make a covenant of peace with them, and it shall be an everlasting covenant with them; I will establish them and multiply them, and I will set My sanctuary in their midst forevermore. My tabernacle also shall be with them; indeed I will be their God, and they shall be My people. The nations also will know that I, the Lord, sanctify Israel, when My sanctuary is in their midst forevermore. " Ezekiel 37:24-28
        > >
        > > What more needs to be said? The new covenant is without question the same Law, only God will cause Israel to want to walk in His ways when His Kingdom comes during the Messianic age.
        > >
        > > The book of Hebrews simply cannot be reconciled with the picture that the prophets, the book of Revelation, and Yahshua himself have given us of the Messianic age and the coming Kingdom of God. One picture has to go. One must choose to follow the author of Hebrews, or follow Yahshua, Moses, and The Prophets. The "new covenant" is either already fulfilled in a heavenly mystical sense, or it is yet to be inaugurated with Israel and fulfilled when Yahshua returns, delivers Israel from all her enemies, ascends the throne of his father David... and as a son of Levi as well, begins his high priestly ministry before God Most High as King and Priest… after the order of Melchizedek.
        > >
        > > ***
        > >
        > > Note. The new priesthood, new law, new covenant picture does in fact dovetail with Paul's doctrine of a new Israel… one that has replaced the old... obsolete Israel! (Galatians 6:15-16) I do not say this to Paul's credit. It is an utterly repulsive lie, and largely responsible for much of the anti-Semitism and evil perpetrated toward God's people over the past 2000 years.
        > >
        > > For more on Paul's own credibility, and his many mistaken doctrines, please obtain a copy of the book, Jesus Words Only â€" Or Was Paul the Apostle Jesus Condemns in Revelation 2:2, by Douglas J. Del Tondo, Infinity Publishing. ISBN 0-7414-2965- 9 My review, and ordering information can be accessed by clicking here.
        > >
        > > If you would like to print this article for handouts and would like the Yahshua's Bloodlines diagram to display properly, please email your request to judavschr@hotmail. com and I will be happy to reply with an attached Microsoft Word file, free of charge. This file will have to be opened with Microsoft Word for Yahshua's bloodline diagram to display properly.
        > >
        > > If you have found this article compelling, please pass it on to family, friends, and clergy for further debate.
        > >
        > > Blessings in Yahshua,
        > >
        > > Scott Nelson
        > >
        >
      • Brother Dave
        Hi Sister Truth-seeker-finder Elizabeth and all, Sometime, if you are not yet familiar with this, Google Bell Curve Distribution and look at it s basic
        Message 3 of 20 , Jun 1, 2009
        • 0 Attachment
          Hi Sister Truth-seeker-finder Elizabeth and all,
           
          Sometime, if you are not yet familiar with this, Google "Bell Curve Distribution" and look at it's basic definition and graph.  This shows that more (humans, for example) are in the broad middle than the lesser numbers on the far left or far right.  So, seeing both sides, by being in the middle is common.  Being older (nearly age 70, or 490 in dog years) and thus very experienced in on-going personal God-consciousness, scientific-logical nature, and long street-wise experienced, I have mostly well-defined far-right and some far-left concepts which I use to try to keep some on the extremes more toward the broad middle ground. Having said that, it is not wise to think that all views are relative and up to the individual. All truth of importance is Absolute and comes one way only from our loving Father God-Infinite I AM via way of our Creator Father-Son of God Jesus and through the Holy Spirit.  His/Their invitation-command of: "Be you perfect; even as I AM perfect." to each and to all humans is not a confusing, relative "be you perfect or mediocre or imperfect as you desire - whatever feels good to you."  This is the evil, sinful way of the godless individuals in this world. Look at the terrible problems they have caused !
           
          How old are you?  Are you married? Have children ?  Many spiritual truths are not learned well until one has raised several children to adulthood.
           
          Hopefully, tomorrow, I will be able to go back and answer you last post to me on our Kabbalah or Kabalah discussions. Today, I took mainly a needed rest from a successful Christian and patriotic music concert out of town Sunday at a very large retirement and assisted-living complex.
           
          Peace and progress,
           
          Brother Dave
           
          http://www.PureChristians.org/ Gospel enlarging website,
          proclaiming worldwide the True Religion
          OF JESUS and ABOUT JESUS and IN JESUS
           
          Come learn and share !



          From: Elizabeth Canova <elizabeth.canova@...>
          To: Christian-Philosophy@yahoogroups.com
          Sent: Monday, June 1, 2009 1:36:47 PM
          Subject: Re: [Christian-Philosophy] Re: The Problem with Hebrews - by Scott Nelson

          The "who is who" of the world....farmers. ..shepherds. ....false apostles... etc  LOL
           
          I have found certain people I encounter to be like shepherds... ..then I grew and learned more of them, learned more of myself and that changed.  It all changes, that is one thing I count on, not much is set in stone right now for me. 
           
          I talked to a friend this weekend, her and I are on the same level spiritually, we are both learning and just now started our intimate relationship with God.  She asked me if I believed there was a "hell" and I told her that I did not believe it was a place that I always had the impression it was, not like I was taught in sunday school or church....but I told her...that is the way I feel today...ask me again in a year and maybe I will have a different opinion....I can't say for sure.  I waiver back and forth with the more that is revealed to me.  Sometimes I feel wishy washy and uncertain and even dumb - why can't I have "eyes to see" or "ears to hear" everything.. ..but before I start bashing myself, I realize that I am learning and it is a process, it doesn't just happen over night, so I am very hesitant to say I am completely certain of anything, sometimes I am hesitant to even share what I think is revealed to me because it sounds so different than anything I have been taught and something may need to be added in the future to make more sense...maybe more time needs to pass for me to encounter a situation that will reveal the real meaning.  There are a few things I am certain of and those are the only things that I will ever say to someone with complete confidence. 
           
          So how can someone like me, the way I am now, teach anyone anything? I feel like I always take the middle ground and I don't have much to offer other than neutrality.  I really don't know much, its a little frustrating to hear all of ya'll talk and use words that I don't understand (monoism, pantheism, etc.) and I am not even sure I need to learn these words, other than to label something that I can better understand through adjectives, but even reading the explanation of these things on the computer, I still just don't get it because two people can look at this same thing (noun) differently.  Maybe it is because I am just not educated enough or worldly enough to understand, but I am not sure I want to be, then again I don't always like taking the middle ground...I have been taught to know your position and know where you stand, to stand firm, but I can't be sure where I need to stand right now on a lot of stuff, it is sometimes overwhelming. 
           
          Yesterday I went to a family function and I spent the whole time with 2 year old girl twins, after the conversation in the adult group turned heated, I just listened and I could understand both sides, the conversation got more heated and I had to walk away, it was more comfortable there with the girls, they didn't need words or any validation, they just wanted to jump on the sofa, play peek-a-boo and be tickled, sometimes it feels good not to have to take a side, but people try and force you into that, into taking some stance and labeling who you are, why do we need to have a label?  Why do we always have to be on the right side?  Why can't everyone be right?  Why can't everyone be a farmer, then a shepherd or vice versa?  Would that be too boring if we never argued or had a debate or labeled who we were?  Would it be too peaceful?  I just don't get it...
           
          Elizabeth

          From: james m. clark jr. <Yaakov2819@praiseya hweh..com>
          To: Christian-Philosoph y@yahoogroups. com
          Sent: Sunday, May 31, 2009 3:47:17 PM
          Subject: [Christian-Philosop hy] Re: The Problem with Hebrews - by Scott Nelson

          Shalom,

          A very good point but even false apostles are considered to become farmers rather than shepherds in the resserection. Hypothetically, we don't even have the authority to condem spirit beings. But also, even after the new covent is established, when no Israelite will need to be tought Scripture.

          be well,
          jamey

          --- In Christian-Philosoph y@yahoogroups. com, Elizabeth Canova <elizabeth.canova@ ...> wrote:
          >
          > "Or Was Paul the Apostle Jesus Condemns in Revelation 2:2, "
          > where here does it say anyone is "condemned" ?  All that I read of what is said to the church of Ephesus is "I know" and "have found" no where does it say that He "condemns" 
          >  
          > Revelation 2:2I know your deeds, your hard work and your perseverance. I know that you cannot tolerate wicked men, that you have tested those who claim to be apostles but are not, and have found them false
          >  
          > God understands everything we do and why we do it. Why we feel the way we feel, and so should we understand everyone else and "overcome" - not overcome the nicolations, not overcome the apostles...but overcome that hatred for those who we do not understand.
          >  
          >
          >
          > --- On Sun, 5/31/09, james m. clark jr. <Yaakov2819@ ...> wrote:
          >
          >
          > From: james m. clark jr. <Yaakov2819@ ...>
          > Subject: [Christian-Philosop hy] The Problem with Hebrews - by Scott Nelson
          > To: Christian-Philosoph y@yahoogroups. com
          > Date: Sunday, May 31, 2009, 9:09 AM
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          > chart and reader friendly article at
          >
          > http://www.judaismv schristianity. com/problem_ with_hebrews. htm
          >
          > The Problem with Hebrews
          >
          > By Scott Nelson
          >
          > Introduction
          >
          > The following article demonstrates there are two doctrines commonly held among Christians that cannot be reconciled with each other. Only one position can be true. It is written for the sake of those who believe Yahshua (Jesus) is going to physically return to earth to rule and reign from Jerusalem for a thousand years, as prophesied in Revelation 20:1-6, and will at that time fulfill the many glorious kingly prophecies concerning the Messiah as recorded in Moses and the Prophets. Those of us who hold to this picture are commonly referred to as "premillennialists" . This is the first of the two doctrines. This article is not for those who do not accept this picture… for whom these prophecies need no literal fulfillment.
          >
          > The problem at hand is that the second doctrine is also clearly taught in the Bible… in the book of Hebrews. The author of Hebrews uses several Messianic prophecies to paint a very different picture. Bear in mind the book of Hebrews was written at a time not long after Yahshua had ascended to heaven, and most believers at that time were left confused as to how Yahshua fulfilled the glorious prophecies of the Messianic Kingdom. They didn't understand that it would be many generations later before he would return to finish fulfilling these prophecies. The book of Hebrews was written largely for the purpose of answering the questions of that time, and it does so with a very eloquent, lofty, and authoritative- sounding discourse promoting the picture that Yahshua had indeed fulfilled these prophecies in a unique heavenly sense. Nowhere in the book can there be found the picture of Yahshua literally physically returning to fulfill these prophecies here on
          > earth. This, in stark contrast to the Messianic pictures painted by the Prophets, Yahshua himself, and the book of Revelation.
          >
          > So here is the dilemma. Has Yahshua already fulfilled these prophecies in heaven, or will he literally physically return and fulfill them here on earth in the future? The author of Hebrews himself borrows from some of these well known Messianic prophecies and gives them a new spin to promote his doctrine of a new-priesthood, new-law, and new-covenant, all of which have supposedly been inaugurated and fulfilled in heaven. Here is his logic..
          >
          > Like Melchizedek… how?
          >
          > In the 5th chapter of the book of Hebrews, the author uses a Messianic prophecy from Psalm 110 to begin comparing Yahshua to Melchizedek.
          >
          > So also Christ did not glorify himself to become High Priest, but it was he who said to him: "You are My son, today I have begotten you." As He also says in another place: "You are a priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek" ,… And having been perfected, he became the author of eternal salvation to all who obey him, called by God as High Priest "according to the order of Melchizedek, " of whom we have much to say, and hard to explain, since you have become dull of hearing. Hebrews 5:5-6,9-11
          >
          > Then in the 7th chapter, the author begins his new-priesthood argument by stating Yahshua is like Melchizedek in some rather strange and abstract ways.. For instance, Yahshua and Melchizedek supposedly had neither genealogical record, nor beginning or end of days!
          >
          > "For this Melchizedek, king of Salem ,… without father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but made like the Son of God, remains a priest continually. " Hebrews 7:1-3
          >
          > This certainly qualifies as "hard to explain"! The author is correct in determining from Psalm 110:1-4 that Messiah is like Melchizedek, but the connections he draws are bizarre and extremely weak arguments from silence. Does he seriously want us to believe that because we don't have Melchizedek' s genealogical records, parent's names, date of birth, or date of death written there in the book of Genesis for us… he had none?! This is the weakest form of argument there is. To illustrate: Maybe, because there is nothing said about Melchizedek being married or having any children, we must conclude he was celibate! (On the off-chance some might actually consider this a good argument, here is another example.) Maybe, because nothing is said about Melchizedek' s apparel, we must conclude he had none and was a nudist! Our author's style of logic is just this non-sensical. How absurd is the notion that Melchizedek had no father or mother? If Yahshua is like
          > Melchizedek, would it not be far better to compare him to Melchizedek on information we do have on him as opposed to information we don't have on him?
          >
          > Hebrews then continues with another similarly weak argument stating Yahshua was like Melchizedek in that Melchizedek was not of the tribe of Levi.
          >
          > "Therefore, if perfection were through the Levitical priesthood (for under it the people received the law), what further need was there that another priest should rise according to the order of Melchizedek, and not be called according to the order of Aaron?... …For He of whom these things are spoken belongs to another tribe, from which no man has officiated at the altar. For it is evident that our Lord arose from Judah, of which tribe Moses spoke nothing concerning priesthood. Hebrews 7:11, 13-14
          >
          > There is one question that begs to be asked here. If Yahshua is like Melchizedek in that he has no genealogical record, how does the author know he is from the tribe of Judah?!
          >
          > Of particular interest, is that within this text, he wants us to believe it logically flows, since there has been a change in the priesthood, there must therefore also be a change of the Law.
          >
          > "For the priesthood being changed, of necessity there is also a change of the Law." Hebrews 7:12
          >
          > Question: Where is this supposed fundamental truth written? Granting as hypothetical for a moment that the priesthood has indeed changed, we have to ask; why must the Law change if the priesthood changes? Is it the priests who determine the Law? Or is it God? If there were a new priesthood to serve the same God, reason would assume the new priests would continue to abide by the established Laws of that God. But if any priesthood old or new served a new god, then it would logically flow that a new god would dictate a new law. The author's logic simply does not flow... yet it should be evident that this presupposition is fundamental to his ongoing argument. And again, all this is assuming his assertion that Yahshua is not of the tribe of Levi is correct in the first place. I will address this question in a moment.
          >
          > Yahshua is indeed like Melchizedek as Psalm 110:1-4 prophesied, but he is like Melchizedek in ways based on information God has given us and we do have on him. Very little is said about him, but everything we need to know about Melchizedek can be found in one single verse.. Genesis 14:18
          >
          > Then Melchizedek, king of Salem, brought out bread and wine; he was the priest of God Most High.
          >
          > There it is. He was king of Salem and priest of The Most High God.
          >
          > King and Priest in One
          >
          > A King, who is also a Priest, has never existed in Israel's history. The kingdom and the priesthood were always separate. The kingdom was established forever in David's descendants, and the priesthood was established in the descendants of Levi and Aaron forever as well.
          >
          > Here are some of God's promises to David.
          >
          > "My covenant I will not break, nor alter the word that has gone out of My lips. Once I have sworn by My holiness; I will not lie to David; His seed shall endure forever, and his throne as the sun before Me; It shall be established forever like the moon, even like the faithful witness in the sky." Psalm 89:34-37
          >
          > "For thus says the Lord; David shall never lack a man to sit on the throne of the house of Israel;" Jeremiah 33:17
          >
          > "David My servant shall be king over them, and they shall all have one shepherd; they shall also walk in My judgments and observe My statutes, and do them. Then they shall dwell in the land that I have given to Jacob My servant, where your fathers dwelt: and they shall dwell there, they, their children, and their children's children, forever; and My servant David shall be their prince forever." Ezekiel 37:24-25
          >
          > "He (Yahshua) will be great, and will be called the son of the Highest; and the Lord God will give him the throne of his father David. And he will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of his kingdom there will be no end.." Luke 1:32-33
          >
          > And here are some of God's promises to the Levitical priesthood.
          >
          > "And you shall gird them with sashes, Aaron and his sons, and put the hats on them. The priesthood shall be theirs for a perpetual statute, So you shall consecrate Aaron and his sons." Exodus 29:9
          >
          > "You shall put the holy garments on Aaron, and anoint him and sanctify him, that he may minister to Me as priest. And you shall bring his sons and clothe them with tunics. You shall anoint them, as you anointed their father, that they may minister to Me as priests; for their anointing shall surely be and everlasting priesthood throughout their generations. " Exodus 40:13-15
          >
          > Then the Lord spoke to Moses, saying; "Phinehas the son of Eleazar, the son of Aaron the priest, has turned back My wrath from the children of Israel, because he was zealous with My zeal among them, so that I did not consume the children of Israel in My zeal. Therefore say, `Behold, I give to him My covenant of peace; and it shall be to him and his descendants after him a covenant of an everlasting priesthood, because he was zealous for his God, and made atonement for the children of Israel .'" Numbers 25;10-13
          >
          > This is just the beginning of the story. Remember, God promised the Messiah would be both king and priest like Melchizedek in Psalm 110:4. God also spoke through other prophets on numerous occasions that He would indeed bring both offices into one in the Messiah.
          >
          > "Behold, the days are coming", says the Lord, "that I will perform that good thing which I have promised to the house of Israel and to the house of Judah; In those days and at that time I will cause to grow up to David a Branch of righteousness; He shall execute judgment and righteousness in the earth. In those days Judah will be saved, and Jerusalem will dwell safely. And this is the name by which she will be called; `THE LORD OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS' . For thus says the Lord; David shall never lack a man to sit on the throne of the house of Israel; nor shall the priests, the Levites, lack a man to offer burnt offerings before Me, to kindle grain offerings, and to sacrifice continually. " Jeremiah 33:14-18
          >
          > "Behold, the man whose name is the BRANCH! From his place he shall branch out, and he shall build the temple of the Lord; Yes, he shall build the temple of the Lord. He shall bear the glory, and shall sit and rule on his throne; So he shall be a priest on his throne, and the counsel of peace shall be between them both." (both offices) Zechariah 6:12-13
          >
          > "For the children of Israel shall abide many days without king or prince, without sacred pillar, without ephod or teraphim. Afterward the children of Israel shall return, seek the Lord their God and David their king, and fear the Lord and His goodness in the latter days. Hosea 3:4-5
          >
          > "Then it shall be the prince's part to give burnt offerings, grain offerings, and drink offerings, at the feasts, the New Moons, the Sabbaths, and at all the appointed seasons of the house of Israel. He shall prepare the sin offering, the grain offering, the burnt offering, and the peace offerings to make atonement for the house of Israel ." Ezekiel 45:17
          >
          > The author of Hebrews argues that because Yahshua is supposedly not from the tribe of Levi, there is therefore a change of priesthoods and subsequent change of the law. But God had said the Levites had and "everlasting" priesthood. The only way God could fulfill these promises He made to David and the Levites is if the Messiah was from both tribes. What our author obviously did not know is that Yahshua is exactly as God had prophesied the Messiah would be. Yahshua is descendant of both David and Levi! He is simply wrong on a number of levels. Both in the logic that a change of the priesthood demands a change of the law, and that there had been any change of the priesthood in the first place!
          >
          > I have yet to find any place where all the pieces of this puzzle have been put together by others. One can't help but wonder if part of the reason doesn't stem from the understanding that if Yahshua is in fact a descendant of Levi, the book of Hebrews would loose all credibility. Keep in mind, Yahshua not being of Levi, is a fundamental cornerstone of Hebrew's doctrine.
          >
          > Yahshua, descendant of both David and Levi
          >
          > In the book of Luke it is recorded that Yahshua's mother Mary was a "cousin" (KJV) to Elizabeth who was "of the daughters of Aaron". (Luke 1:5,36) The Greek word translated "cousin" literally means close blood (genetic) relative. The genetic connection can easily be seen by English speaking people in the Greek word "sungenes". This literally means close kin (See Strongs 4773) This word could just as easily mean Elisabeth was Mary's aunt. Considering Elisabeth was much older than Mary, this would appear to be more likely the case, but it is a moot point in light of the fact that it doesn't make a difference either way as you will see.
          >
          > In Leviticus, God commanded that Levite men were to marry only Levite women.. (Leviticus 21:1,13-14, 22:12-13) Levite women on the other hand were permitted to marry outside the tribe. We know that Mary's father Heli was a descendant of David of the tribe of Judah (Luke 3:23. Many scholars agree that Joseph was Heli's son-in-law.) So if Mary was either a cousin ,or a niece to Elisabeth, it must mean that Mary's mother had to have been either a sister or aunt to Elisabeth, which means that Mary's mother had to have been a "daughter of Aaron" as well! Here is the breakdown. If Mary and Elisabeth were cousins, as it says in the KJV, then Mary's mother was a sister to one of Elisabeth's parents, both of whom had to have been full-blooded Levites for Elisabeth to be called a "daughter of Aaron" and be legitimately married to Zacharias the priest. If Elisabeth was Mary's aunt, as is more likely the case, then Mary's mother was a sister to Elisabeth. No matter
          > how one works it, it comes out the same. Mary's mother was a full-blooded Levite. She was then one of those who married outside the tribe when she married Heli of the tribe of Judah. Now it also logically flows perfectly well that if Yahshua had no earthly father, no new genetic material was introduced at his conception. Therefore his physical bloodlines must have been identical to his mother's bloodlines. Mary was a perfect blend of both tribes Judah and Levi!
          >
          > There is also another likelihood that makes this even better. Since God commanded the Levite men to marry only Levite women, it stands to reason that the genetic markers He recognizes as the Levitical priestly markers were passed down by the mothers, thus making the tribe matrilineal. These genetic matrilineal markers are located in what science today calls the mitochondrial DNA. The genetic markers of the other tribes were passed down by the fathers in the Y chromosome. It is also a well established fact of science that the father's genetic markers and the mother's genetic markers do not compete with each other during the process of recombination, so neither of them is diluted by the other. This would mean that Mary, and subsequently Yahshua, carried all the genetic markers of both tribes! It stands to reason that God intended for Levi's genetic markers to be matrilineal for the very purpose of being able to bring all of Judah, and all of Levi together
          > into one man. (See chart below)
          >
          > The fact that Yahshua is indeed a descendant of the tribe of Levi, as God had promised the Messiah would be, is enough in itself to completely discredit the book of Hebrews. Hebrew's assertion that Yahshua was not of Levi is a fundamental premise of the author's ongoing argument. There is no "new" priesthood. God had established the priesthood in Aaron's descendants forever. Furthermore, since there is no "change of the Law" even if there were a new priesthood, how much more established is the fact that there is there no "change of the Law" when there is no new priesthood? Nothing more really needs to be said concerning the credibility of the author of Hebrews! We should discard the book as a nice-try of purely human effort on this basis alone. But to further demonstrate the sad mistakenness of the author… consider his next argument.
          >
          > The New Covenant?
          >
          > Again, the author of Hebrews has completely missed the fact that Yahshua will physically return and fulfill the remaining Messianic prophecies. This becomes painfully obvious in his on-going argument. Now he reasons that his new priesthood and new law fulfill the prophecies of a "new covenant". Here, in chapter 8:8-12, he quotes the prophecy from Jeremiah. Please take special note of the fact that every time in the book of Jeremiah where God says, "Behold the days are coming", He is speaking of the Messianic age yet to come. The actual prophecy reads;
          >
          > "Behold, the days are coming, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah â€" not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out to the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, though I was a husband to them, says the Lord. But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will put My Law in their mind, and write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. No more shall every man teach his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, `Know the Lord,' for they all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them, says the Lord. For I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more." Jeremiah 31:31-34
          >
          > Then after quoting this prophecy, the author of Hebrews makes this statement, from which comes the concept of an Old (obsolete) Testament.
          >
          > In that He says, "A new covenant," He has made the first obsolete. Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away. Hebrews 8:13
          >
          > Our author has obviously come to another very mistaken conclusion. He believes that God's covenant with Israel at Mt. Sinai and His Law are one and the same. They are not. God's Law is a list of do's and don'ts. God's covenant with Israel is a contractual promise to bless them if they obey His Law. Of course, if they broke the Law, in so doing they also broke the covenant, but that does not mean the Law is the covenant! It should be evident in this passage that God continues to speak of His Law as though it will not change. Here it is again.
          >
          > But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will put My Law in their mind, and write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. Jeremiah 31:33
          >
          > It is only after the author has blurred the line between the Law and the covenant, making them one and the same, and then drawn our attention to a new covenant, can he then make the leap of logic inferring that when God said "My Law" in reference to a new covenant, He meant "My new law"! This is obviously what he wants us to see here. Remember, he has already said there has been a "change of the Law". But God did not say "My new law". He is speaking of the same Law. The only difference is, when the new covenant is finally inaugurated, this same Law of Moses will be written on the hearts of the children of Israel so they will want to keep it. And herein is another point that is extremely important. This prophecy concerns only Israel . It does not concern Gentiles in any way! The only Gentiles who might be included in this are those individuals who have joined themselves to Israel through circumcision and obedience to God's Law, in which case they would no
          > longer be seen as Gentiles. The Christian church cannot claim this prophecy for itself… unless of course one is of the persuasion that God has replaced Israel... and the Christian church is the new true Israel of God! This repulsive teaching is a lie, and among other things has been used as justification for the deplorable anti-Semitism much of Christianity has perpetrated on the Jewish people throughout history. But I digress. The point is, you can't have it both ways. Either Israel is Israel, or the Christian church is Israel. The prophecies concerning Israel and the new covenant have either been fulfilled, or they haven't.
          >
          > Some might argue that Yahshua said the "new covenant" was established in his blood, suggesting the new covenant took effect at the cross. Yahshua's sacrifices certainly paid the price for the promised new covenant, but to assert that it was inaugurated at that time is reading more into Yahshua's words than what he said. The prophecy from Jeremiah clearly indicates that the new covenant is with Israel only, and doesn't take effect until the Kingdom of God comes during the Messianic age which is still yet to come. Read again Jeremiah 31:31-40. This truth should also be clearly evident when taking Yahshua's words in the fuller context of Luke's account of the last supper.
          >
          > Then he said to them, "With fervent desire I have desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer; for I say to you, I will no longer eat of it until it is fulfilled in the Kingdom of God." …"Likewise he also took the cup after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood which is shed for you." Luke 22:15,16,20
          >
          > Yahshua certainly paid the price for the new covenant with his blood, but it will not be inaugurated or "fulfilled" until he returns… and even then it will only be with Israel!
          >
          > There are numerous other parallel prophecies concerning the new covenant that prove God is speaking of His Law as given through Moses. What I have highlighted in bold print below includes the same new covenant spoken of in Jeremiah 31:33. Please read this quote one more time and dare to compare it to the following yet-to-be-fulfilled prophecies! Also, please notice that these prophecies concern only Israel during the Messianic age yet to come, along with the fact that they could not possibly have been fulfilled yet! Here is the "new covenant" prophecy that Hebrews uses first.
          >
          > "Behold, the days are coming, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah… …this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will put My Law in their mind, and write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. Jeremiah 31:31,33
          >
          > Now compare.
          >
          > "Although I have cast them far off among the Gentiles, and although I have scattered them among the countries, yet I shall be a little sanctuary for them in the countries where they have gone. Therefore say, `Thus says the Lord God: "I will gather you from the peoples, assemble you from the countries where you have been scattered, and I will give you the land of Israel."' "And they will go there, and they will take away all its detestable things and all its abominations from there. Then I will give them one heart, and I will put a new spirit within them, and take the stony heart out of their flesh, and give them a heart of flesh, that they may walk in My statutes and keep My judgments and do them; and they shall be My people, and I will be their God." Ezekiel 11:16-20
          >
          > "For I will take you from among the nations, gather you out of all countries, and bring you into your own land. Then I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you shall be clean; I will cleanse you from all your filthiness and from all your idols. I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; I will take the heart of stone out of your flesh. I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes, and you will keep My judgments and do them. Then you shall dwell in the land that I gave to your fathers; you shall be My people, and I will be your God." Ezekiel 35:24-28
          >
          > "David My servant shall be king over them, and they shall all have one shepherd; they shall also walk in My judgments and observe My statutes, and do them. Then they shall dwell in the land that I have given to Jacob My servant, where your fathers dwelt; and they shall dwell there, they, their children, and their children's children, forever; and My servant David shall be their prince forever. Moreover I will make a covenant of peace with them, and it shall be an everlasting covenant with them; I will establish them and multiply them, and I will set My sanctuary in their midst forevermore. My tabernacle also shall be with them; indeed I will be their God, and they shall be My people. The nations also will know that I, the Lord, sanctify Israel, when My sanctuary is in their midst forevermore. " Ezekiel 37:24-28
          >
          > What more needs to be said? The new covenant is without question the same Law, only God will cause Israel to want to walk in His ways when His Kingdom comes during the Messianic age.
          >
          > The book of Hebrews simply cannot be reconciled with the picture that the prophets, the book of Revelation, and Yahshua himself have given us of the Messianic age and the coming Kingdom of God. One picture has to go. One must choose to follow the author of Hebrews, or follow Yahshua, Moses, and The Prophets. The "new covenant" is either already fulfilled in a heavenly mystical sense, or it is yet to be inaugurated with Israel and fulfilled when Yahshua returns, delivers Israel from all her enemies, ascends the throne of his father David... and as a son of Levi as well, begins his high priestly ministry before God Most High as King and Priest… after the order of Melchizedek.
          >
          > ***
          >
          > Note. The new priesthood, new law, new covenant picture does in fact dovetail with Paul's doctrine of a new Israel… one that has replaced the old... obsolete Israel! (Galatians 6:15-16) I do not say this to Paul's credit. It is an utterly repulsive lie, and largely responsible for much of the anti-Semitism and evil perpetrated toward God's people over the past 2000 years.
          >
          > For more on Paul's own credibility, and his many mistaken doctrines, please obtain a copy of the book, Jesus Words Only â€" Or Was Paul the Apostle Jesus Condemns in Revelation 2:2, by Douglas J. Del Tondo, Infinity Publishing. ISBN 0-7414-2965- 9 My review, and ordering information can be accessed by clicking here.
          >
          > If you would like to print this article for handouts and would like the Yahshua's Bloodlines diagram to display properly, please email your request to judavschr@hotmail. com and I will be happy to reply with an attached Microsoft Word file, free of charge. This file will have to be opened with Microsoft Word for Yahshua's bloodline diagram to display properly.
          >
          > If you have found this article compelling, please pass it on to family, friends, and clergy for further debate.
          >
          > Blessings in Yahshua,
          >
          > Scott Nelson
          >


        • Elizabeth Canova
          Brother Dave, take your time with any response to me, I am in no rush :o)   Sometime, if you are not yet familiar with this, Google Bell Curve Distribution
          Message 4 of 20 , Jun 2, 2009
          • 0 Attachment

            Brother Dave, take your time with any response to me, I am in no rush :o)

             

            Sometime, if you are not yet familiar with this, Google "Bell Curve Distribution" and look at it's basic definition and graph. This shows that more (humans, for example) are in the broad middle than the lesser numbers on the far left or far right. So, seeing both sides, by being in the middle is common. Being older (nearly age 70, or 490 in dog years) and thus very experienced in on-going personal God-consciousness, scientific-logical nature, and long street-wise experienced, I have mostly well-defined far-right and some far-left concepts which I use to try to keep some on the extremes more toward the broad middle ground. So the older we get, the more experience we have, then views may change to far-right and far-left...so I guess I will be headed left or right in the future, but being 38 years old, I guess I am in the middle for a while until some more crap flies into my fan....lol

             

            Having said that, it is not wise to think that all views are relative and up to the individual. All truth of importance is Absolute and comes one way only from our loving Father God-Infinite I AM via way of our Creator Father-Son of God Jesus and through the Holy Spirit. His/Their invitation-command of: "Be you perfect; even as I AM perfect." to each and to all humans is not a confusing, relative "be you perfect or mediocre or imperfect as you desire - whatever feels good to you." This is the evil, sinful way of the godless individuals in this world. Look at the terrible problems they have caused ! "Be you perfect; even as I am perfect" I think that is referring to love, to love all people regardless of if they are considered enemies, unrighteous, righteous or whatever, that is how Jesus was perfect, he was perfect in Love, he loved everyone. If I view anyone as evil, sinful or godless then I am not viewing them in a loving way or the way Jesus would have viewed them, and I think this is what he meant when he said to be "perfect" as he is. I try to apply the verse to me...so from my viewpoint and applying this verse to me and what I believe it means would imply that even viewing someone as a problem in the world or godless or evil would be violating the "perfect" that he was asking us to strive toward.  I am supposed to love my enemy....I won't love what he/she does but to not love him/her would be to judge him/her so I will strive for that unconditional love toward all others.

             

            How old are you? Are you married? Have children ? Many spiritual truths are not learned well until one has raised several children to adulthood. I am 38 years old, I have been married and divorced twice, I have two children from my first marriage who are now 12 and 16. I have a boyfriend of 5 years, but we do not plan on ever getting married (he has also been married twice, although his first wife died in their 8th month of marriage from a brain tumor) he has two boys (7 and 15) that he has custody of, we raise our children together as husband and wife even though we are not married.  And there is a bunch of other stuff in between all that stuff that would make everyone's head spin...I won't mention all that....haha

             

            Elizabeth :o)




            From: Brother Dave <truthist@...>
            To: Christian-Philosophy@yahoogroups.com
            Sent: Monday, June 1, 2009 9:41:32 PM
            Subject: Re: [Christian-Philosophy] Re: Truth, Bell Curve, Kabalah

            Hi Sister Truth-seeker- finder Elizabeth and all,
             
            Sometime, if you are not yet familiar with this, Google "Bell Curve Distribution" and look at it's basic definition and graph.  This shows that more (humans, for example) are in the broad middle than the lesser numbers on the far left or far right.  So, seeing both sides, by being in the middle is common.  Being older (nearly age 70, or 490 in dog years) and thus very experienced in on-going personal God-consciousness, scientific-logical nature, and long street-wise experienced, I have mostly well-defined far-right and some far-left concepts which I use to try to keep some on the extremes more toward the broad middle ground. Having said that, it is not wise to think that all views are relative and up to the individual. All truth of importance is Absolute and comes one way only from our loving Father God-Infinite I AM via way of our Creator Father-Son of God Jesus and through the Holy Spirit.  His/Their invitation-command of: "Be you perfect; even as I AM perfect." to each and to all humans is not a confusing, relative "be you perfect or mediocre or imperfect as you desire - whatever feels good to you."  This is the evil, sinful way of the godless individuals in this world. Look at the terrible problems they have caused !
             
            How old are you?  Are you married? Have children ?  Many spiritual truths are not learned well until one has raised several children to adulthood.
             
            Hopefully, tomorrow, I will be able to go back and answer you last post to me on our Kabbalah or Kabalah discussions. Today, I took mainly a needed rest from a successful Christian and patriotic music concert out of town Sunday at a very large retirement and assisted-living complex.
             
            Peace and progress,
             
            Brother Dave
             
            http://www.PureChri stians.org/ Gospel enlarging website,
            proclaiming worldwide the True Religion
            OF JESUS and ABOUT JESUS and IN JESUS
             
            Come learn and share !



            From: Elizabeth Canova <elizabeth.canova@ yahoo.com>
            To: Christian-Philosoph y@yahoogroups. com
            Sent: Monday, June 1, 2009 1:36:47 PM
            Subject: Re: [Christian-Philosop hy] Re: The Problem with Hebrews - by Scott Nelson

            The "who is who" of the world....farmers. ..shepherds. ....false apostles... etc  LOL
             
            I have found certain people I encounter to be like shepherds... ..then I grew and learned more of them, learned more of myself and that changed.  It all changes, that is one thing I count on, not much is set in stone right now for me. 
             
            I talked to a friend this weekend, her and I are on the same level spiritually, we are both learning and just now started our intimate relationship with God.  She asked me if I believed there was a "hell" and I told her that I did not believe it was a place that I always had the impression it was, not like I was taught in sunday school or church....but I told her...that is the way I feel today...ask me again in a year and maybe I will have a different opinion....I can't say for sure.  I waiver back and forth with the more that is revealed to me.  Sometimes I feel wishy washy and uncertain and even dumb - why can't I have "eyes to see" or "ears to hear" everything.. ..but before I start bashing myself, I realize that I am learning and it is a process, it doesn't just happen over night, so I am very hesitant to say I am completely certain of anything, sometimes I am hesitant to even share what I think is revealed to me because it sounds so different than anything I have been taught and something may need to be added in the future to make more sense...maybe more time needs to pass for me to encounter a situation that will reveal the real meaning.  There are a few things I am certain of and those are the only things that I will ever say to someone with complete confidence. 
             
            So how can someone like me, the way I am now, teach anyone anything? I feel like I always take the middle ground and I don't have much to offer other than neutrality.  I really don't know much, its a little frustrating to hear all of ya'll talk and use words that I don't understand (monoism, pantheism, etc.) and I am not even sure I need to learn these words, other than to label something that I can better understand through adjectives, but even reading the explanation of these things on the computer, I still just don't get it because two people can look at this same thing (noun) differently.  Maybe it is because I am just not educated enough or worldly enough to understand, but I am not sure I want to be, then again I don't always like taking the middle ground...I have been taught to know your position and know where you stand, to stand firm, but I can't be sure where I need to stand right now on a lot of stuff, it is sometimes overwhelming. 
             
            Yesterday I went to a family function and I spent the whole time with 2 year old girl twins, after the conversation in the adult group turned heated, I just listened and I could understand both sides, the conversation got more heated and I had to walk away, it was more comfortable there with the girls, they didn't need words or any validation, they just wanted to jump on the sofa, play peek-a-boo and be tickled, sometimes it feels good not to have to take a side, but people try and force you into that, into taking some stance and labeling who you are, why do we need to have a label?  Why do we always have to be on the right side?  Why can't everyone be right?  Why can't everyone be a farmer, then a shepherd or vice versa?  Would that be too boring if we never argued or had a debate or labeled who we were?  Would it be too peaceful?  I just don't get it...
             
            Elizabeth

            From: james m. clark jr. <Yaakov2819@praiseya hweh..com>
            To: Christian-Philosoph y@yahoogroups. com
            Sent: Sunday, May 31, 2009 3:47:17 PM
            Subject: [Christian-Philosop hy] Re: The Problem with Hebrews - by Scott Nelson

            Shalom,

            A very good point but even false apostles are considered to become farmers rather than shepherds in the resserection. Hypothetically, we don't even have the authority to condem spirit beings. But also, even after the new covent is established, when no Israelite will need to be tought Scripture.

            be well,
            jamey

            --- In Christian-Philosoph y@yahoogroups. com, Elizabeth Canova <elizabeth.canova@ ...> wrote:
            >
            > "Or Was Paul the Apostle Jesus Condemns in Revelation 2:2, "
            > where here does it say anyone is "condemned" ?  All that I read of what is said to the church of Ephesus is "I know" and "have found" no where does it say that He "condemns" 
            >  
            > Revelation 2:2I know your deeds, your hard work and your perseverance. I know that you cannot tolerate wicked men, that you have tested those who claim to be apostles but are not, and have found them false
            >  
            > God understands everything we do and why we do it. Why we feel the way we feel, and so should we understand everyone else and "overcome" - not overcome the nicolations, not overcome the apostles...but overcome that hatred for those who we do not understand.
            >  
            >
            >
            > --- On Sun, 5/31/09, james m. clark jr. <Yaakov2819@ ...> wrote:
            >
            >
            > From: james m. clark jr. <Yaakov2819@ ...>
            > Subject: [Christian-Philosop hy] The Problem with Hebrews - by Scott Nelson
            > To: Christian-Philosoph y@yahoogroups. com
            > Date: Sunday, May 31, 2009, 9:09 AM
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            > chart and reader friendly article at
            >
            > http://www.judaismv schristianity. com/problem_ with_hebrews. htm
            >
            > The Problem with Hebrews
            >
            > By Scott Nelson
            >
            > Introduction
            >
            > The following article demonstrates there are two doctrines commonly held among Christians that cannot be reconciled with each other. Only one position can be true. It is written for the sake of those who believe Yahshua (Jesus) is going to physically return to earth to rule and reign from Jerusalem for a thousand years, as prophesied in Revelation 20:1-6, and will at that time fulfill the many glorious kingly prophecies concerning the Messiah as recorded in Moses and the Prophets. Those of us who hold to this picture are commonly referred to as "premillennialists" . This is the first of the two doctrines. This article is not for those who do not accept this picture… for whom these prophecies need no literal fulfillment.
            >
            > The problem at hand is that the second doctrine is also clearly taught in the Bible… in the book of Hebrews. The author of Hebrews uses several Messianic prophecies to paint a very different picture. Bear in mind the book of Hebrews was written at a time not long after Yahshua had ascended to heaven, and most believers at that time were left confused as to how Yahshua fulfilled the glorious prophecies of the Messianic Kingdom. They didn't understand that it would be many generations later before he would return to finish fulfilling these prophecies. The book of Hebrews was written largely for the purpose of answering the questions of that time, and it does so with a very eloquent, lofty, and authoritative- sounding discourse promoting the picture that Yahshua had indeed fulfilled these prophecies in a unique heavenly sense. Nowhere in the book can there be found the picture of Yahshua literally physically returning to fulfill these prophecies here on
            > earth. This, in stark contrast to the Messianic pictures painted by the Prophets, Yahshua himself, and the book of Revelation.
            >
            > So here is the dilemma. Has Yahshua already fulfilled these prophecies in heaven, or will he literally physically return and fulfill them here on earth in the future? The author of Hebrews himself borrows from some of these well known Messianic prophecies and gives them a new spin to promote his doctrine of a new-priesthood, new-law, and new-covenant, all of which have supposedly been inaugurated and fulfilled in heaven. Here is his logic...
            >
            > Like Melchizedek… how?
            >
            > In the 5th chapter of the book of Hebrews, the author uses a Messianic prophecy from Psalm 110 to begin comparing Yahshua to Melchizedek.
            >
            > So also Christ did not glorify himself to become High Priest, but it was he who said to him: "You are My son, today I have begotten you." As He also says in another place: "You are a priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek" ,… And having been perfected, he became the author of eternal salvation to all who obey him, called by God as High Priest "according to the order of Melchizedek, " of whom we have much to say, and hard to explain, since you have become dull of hearing. Hebrews 5:5-6,9-11
            >
            > Then in the 7th chapter, the author begins his new-priesthood argument by stating Yahshua is like Melchizedek in some rather strange and abstract ways.. For instance, Yahshua and Melchizedek supposedly had neither genealogical record, nor beginning or end of days!
            >
            > "For this Melchizedek, king of Salem ,… without father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but made like the Son of God, remains a priest continually. " Hebrews 7:1-3
            >
            > This certainly qualifies as "hard to explain"! The author is correct in determining from Psalm 110:1-4 that Messiah is like Melchizedek, but the connections he draws are bizarre and extremely weak arguments from silence. Does he seriously want us to believe that because we don't have Melchizedek' s genealogical records, parent's names, date of birth, or date of death written there in the book of Genesis for us… he had none?! This is the weakest form of argument there is. To illustrate: Maybe, because there is nothing said about Melchizedek being married or having any children, we must conclude he was celibate! (On the off-chance some might actually consider this a good argument, here is another example.) Maybe, because nothing is said about Melchizedek' s apparel, we must conclude he had none and was a nudist! Our author's style of logic is just this non-sensical. How absurd is the notion that Melchizedek had no father or mother? If Yahshua is like
            > Melchizedek, would it not be far better to compare him to Melchizedek on information we do have on him as opposed to information we don't have on him?
            >
            > Hebrews then continues with another similarly weak argument stating Yahshua was like Melchizedek in that Melchizedek was not of the tribe of Levi.
            >
            > "Therefore, if perfection were through the Levitical priesthood (for under it the people received the law), what further need was there that another priest should rise according to the order of Melchizedek, and not be called according to the order of Aaron?... …For He of whom these things are spoken belongs to another tribe, from which no man has officiated at the altar. For it is evident that our Lord arose from Judah, of which tribe Moses spoke nothing concerning priesthood. Hebrews 7:11, 13-14
            >
            > There is one question that begs to be asked here. If Yahshua is like Melchizedek in that he has no genealogical record, how does the author know he is from the tribe of Judah?!
            >
            > Of particular interest, is that within this text, he wants us to believe it logically flows, since there has been a change in the priesthood, there must therefore also be a change of the Law.
            >
            > "For the priesthood being changed, of necessity there is also a change of the Law." Hebrews 7:12
            >
            > Question: Where is this supposed fundamental truth written? Granting as hypothetical for a moment that the priesthood has indeed changed, we have to ask; why must the Law change if the priesthood changes? Is it the priests who determine the Law? Or is it God? If there were a new priesthood to serve the same God, reason would assume the new priests would continue to abide by the established Laws of that God. But if any priesthood old or new served a new god, then it would logically flow that a new god would dictate a new law. The author's logic simply does not flow... yet it should be evident that this presupposition is fundamental to his ongoing argument. And again, all this is assuming his assertion that Yahshua is not of the tribe of Levi is correct in the first place. I will address this question in a moment.
            >
            > Yahshua is indeed like Melchizedek as Psalm 110:1-4 prophesied, but he is like Melchizedek in ways based on information God has given us and we do have on him. Very little is said about him, but everything we need to know about Melchizedek can be found in one single verse... Genesis 14:18
            >
            > Then Melchizedek, king of Salem, brought out bread and wine; he was the priest of God Most High.
            >
            > There it is. He was king of Salem and priest of The Most High God.
            >
            > King and Priest in One
            >
            > A King, who is also a Priest, has never existed in Israel's history. The kingdom and the priesthood were always separate. The kingdom was established forever in David's descendants, and the priesthood was established in the descendants of Levi and Aaron forever as well.
            >
            > Here are some of God's promises to David.
            >
            > "My covenant I will not break, nor alter the word that has gone out of My lips. Once I have sworn by My holiness; I will not lie to David; His seed shall endure forever, and his throne as the sun before Me; It shall be established forever like the moon, even like the faithful witness in the sky." Psalm 89:34-37
            >
            > "For thus says the Lord; David shall never lack a man to sit on the throne of the house of Israel;" Jeremiah 33:17
            >
            > "David My servant shall be king over them, and they shall all have one shepherd; they shall also walk in My judgments and observe My statutes, and do them. Then they shall dwell in the land that I have given to Jacob My servant, where your fathers dwelt: and they shall dwell there, they, their children, and their children's children, forever; and My servant David shall be their prince forever." Ezekiel 37:24-25
            >
            > "He (Yahshua) will be great, and will be called the son of the Highest; and the Lord God will give him the throne of his father David. And he will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of his kingdom there will be no end.." Luke 1:32-33
            >
            > And here are some of God's promises to the Levitical priesthood.
            >
            > "And you shall gird them with sashes, Aaron and his sons, and put the hats on them. The priesthood shall be theirs for a perpetual statute, So you shall consecrate Aaron and his sons." Exodus 29:9
            >
            > "You shall put the holy garments on Aaron, and anoint him and sanctify him, that he may minister to Me as priest. And you shall bring his sons and clothe them with tunics. You shall anoint them, as you anointed their father, that they may minister to Me as priests; for their anointing shall surely be and everlasting priesthood throughout their generations. " Exodus 40:13-15
            >
            > Then the Lord spoke to Moses, saying; "Phinehas the son of Eleazar, the son of Aaron the priest, has turned back My wrath from the children of Israel, because he was zealous with My zeal among them, so that I did not consume the children of Israel in My zeal. Therefore say, `Behold, I give to him My covenant of peace; and it shall be to him and his descendants after him a covenant of an everlasting priesthood, because he was zealous for his God, and made atonement for the children of Israel .'" Numbers 25;10-13
            >
            > This is just the beginning of the story. Remember, God promised the Messiah would be both king and priest like Melchizedek in Psalm 110:4. God also spoke through other prophets on numerous occasions that He would indeed bring both offices into one in the Messiah.
            >
            > "Behold, the days are coming", says the Lord, "that I will perform that good thing which I have promised to the house of Israel and to the house of Judah; In those days and at that time I will cause to grow up to David a Branch of righteousness; He shall execute judgment and righteousness in the earth. In those days Judah will be saved, and Jerusalem will dwell safely. And this is the name by which she will be called; `THE LORD OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS' . For thus says the Lord; David shall never lack a man to sit on the throne of the house of Israel; nor shall the priests, the Levites, lack a man to offer burnt offerings before Me, to kindle grain offerings, and to sacrifice continually. " Jeremiah 33:14-18
            >
            > "Behold, the man whose name is the BRANCH! From his place he shall branch out, and he shall build the temple of the Lord; Yes, he shall build the temple of the Lord. He shall bear the glory, and shall sit and rule on his throne; So he shall be a priest on his throne, and the counsel of peace shall be between them both." (both offices) Zechariah 6:12-13
            >
            > "For the children of Israel shall abide many days without king or prince, without sacred pillar, without ephod or teraphim. Afterward the children of Israel shall return, seek the Lord their God and David their king, and fear the Lord and His goodness in the latter days. Hosea 3:4-5
            >
            > "Then it shall be the prince's part to give burnt offerings, grain offerings, and drink offerings, at the feasts, the New Moons, the Sabbaths, and at all the appointed seasons of the house of Israel. He shall prepare the sin offering, the grain offering, the burnt offering, and the peace offerings to make atonement for the house of Israel ." Ezekiel 45:17
            >
            > The author of Hebrews argues that because Yahshua is supposedly not from the tribe of Levi, there is therefore a change of priesthoods and subsequent change of the law. But God had said the Levites had and "everlasting" priesthood. The only way God could fulfill these promises He made to David and the Levites is if the Messiah was from both tribes. What our author obviously did not know is that Yahshua is exactly as God had prophesied the Messiah would be. Yahshua is descendant of both David and Levi! He is simply wrong on a number of levels. Both in the logic that a change of the priesthood demands a change of the law, and that there had been any change of the priesthood in the first place!
            >
            > I have yet to find any place where all the pieces of this puzzle have been put together by others. One can't help but wonder if part of the reason doesn't stem from the understanding that if Yahshua is in fact a descendant of Levi, the book of Hebrews would loose all credibility. Keep in mind, Yahshua not being of Levi, is a fundamental cornerstone of Hebrew's doctrine.
            >
            > Yahshua, descendant of both David and Levi
            >
            > In the book of Luke it is recorded that Yahshua's mother Mary was a "cousin" (KJV) to Elizabeth who was "of the daughters of Aaron". (Luke 1:5,36) The Greek word translated "cousin" literally means close blood (genetic) relative. The genetic connection can easily be seen by English speaking people in the Greek word "sungenes". This literally means close kin (See Strongs 4773) This word could just as easily mean Elisabeth was Mary's aunt. Considering Elisabeth was much older than Mary, this would appear to be more likely the case, but it is a moot point in light of the fact that it doesn't make a difference either way as you will see.
            >
            > In Leviticus, God commanded that Levite men were to marry only Levite women.. (Leviticus 21:1,13-14, 22:12-13) Levite women on the other hand were permitted to marry outside the tribe. We know that Mary's father Heli was a descendant of David of the tribe of Judah (Luke 3:23. Many scholars agree that Joseph was Heli's son-in-law.) So if Mary was either a cousin ,or a niece to Elisabeth, it must mean that Mary's mother had to have been either a sister or aunt to Elisabeth, which means that Mary's mother had to have been a "daughter of Aaron" as well! Here is the breakdown. If Mary and Elisabeth were cousins, as it says in the KJV, then Mary's mother was a sister to one of Elisabeth's parents, both of whom had to have been full-blooded Levites for Elisabeth to be called a "daughter of Aaron" and be legitimately married to Zacharias the priest. If Elisabeth was Mary's aunt, as is more likely the case, then Mary's mother was a sister to Elisabeth. No matter
            > how one works it, it comes out the same. Mary's mother was a full-blooded Levite. She was then one of those who married outside the tribe when she married Heli of the tribe of Judah. Now it also logically flows perfectly well that if Yahshua had no earthly father, no new genetic material was introduced at his conception. Therefore his physical bloodlines must have been identical to his mother's bloodlines. Mary was a perfect blend of both tribes Judah and Levi!
            >
            > There is also another likelihood that makes this even better. Since God commanded the Levite men to marry only Levite women, it stands to reason that the genetic markers He recognizes as the Levitical priestly markers were passed down by the mothers, thus making the tribe matrilineal. These genetic matrilineal markers are located in what science today calls the mitochondrial DNA. The genetic markers of the other tribes were passed down by the fathers in the Y chromosome. It is also a well established fact of science that the father's genetic markers and the mother's genetic markers do not compete with each other during the process of recombination, so neither of them is diluted by the other. This would mean that Mary, and subsequently Yahshua, carried all the genetic markers of both tribes! It stands to reason that God intended for Levi's genetic markers to be matrilineal for the very purpose of being able to bring all of Judah, and all of Levi together
            > into one man. (See chart below)
            >
            > The fact that Yahshua is indeed a descendant of the tribe of Levi, as God had promised the Messiah would be, is enough in itself to completely discredit the book of Hebrews. Hebrew's assertion that Yahshua was not of Levi is a fundamental premise of the author's ongoing argument. There is no "new" priesthood. God had established the priesthood in Aaron's descendants forever. Furthermore, since there is no "change of the Law" even if there were a new priesthood, how much more established is the fact that there is there no "change of the Law" when there is no new priesthood? Nothing more really needs to be said concerning the credibility of the author of Hebrews! We should discard the book as a nice-try of purely human effort on this basis alone. But to further demonstrate the sad mistakenness of the author… consider his next argument.
            >
            > The New Covenant?
            >
            > Again, the author of Hebrews has completely missed the fact that Yahshua will physically return and fulfill the remaining Messianic prophecies. This becomes painfully obvious in his on-going argument. Now he reasons that his new priesthood and new law fulfill the prophecies of a "new covenant". Here, in chapter 8:8-12, he quotes the prophecy from Jeremiah. Please take special note of the fact that every time in the book of Jeremiah where God says, "Behold the days are coming", He is speaking of the Messianic age yet to come. The actual prophecy reads;
            >
            > "Behold, the days are coming, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah â€" not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out to the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, though I was a husband to them, says the Lord. But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will put My Law in their mind, and write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. No more shall every man teach his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, `Know the Lord,' for they all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them, says the Lord. For I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more." Jeremiah 31:31-34
            >
            > Then after quoting this prophecy, the author of Hebrews makes this statement, from which comes the concept of an Old (obsolete) Testament.
            >
            > In that He says, "A new covenant," He has made the first obsolete. Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away. Hebrews 8:13
            >
            > Our author has obviously come to another very mistaken conclusion. He believes that God's covenant with Israel at Mt. Sinai and His Law are one and the same. They are not. God's Law is a list of do's and don'ts. God's covenant with Israel is a contractual promise to bless them if they obey His Law. Of course, if they broke the Law, in so doing they also broke the covenant, but that does not mean the Law is the covenant! It should be evident in this passage that God continues to speak of His Law as though it will not change. Here it is again.
            >
            > But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will put My Law in their mind, and write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. Jeremiah 31:33
            >
            > It is only after the author has blurred the line between the Law and the covenant, making them one and the same, and then drawn our attention to a new covenant, can he then make the leap of logic inferring that when God said "My Law" in reference to a new covenant, He meant "My new law"! This is obviously what he wants us to see here. Remember, he has already said there has been a "change of the Law". But God did not say "My new law". He is speaking of the same Law. The only difference is, when the new covenant is finally inaugurated, this same Law of Moses will be written on the hearts of the children of Israel so they will want to keep it. And herein is another point that is extremely important. This prophecy concerns only Israel . It does not concern Gentiles in any way! The only Gentiles who might be included in this are those individuals who have joined themselves to Israel through circumcision and obedience to God's Law, in which case they would no
            > longer be seen as Gentiles. The Christian church cannot claim this prophecy for itself… unless of course one is of the persuasion that God has replaced Israel... and the Christian church is the new true Israel of God! This repulsive teaching is a lie, and among other things has been used as justification for the deplorable anti-Semitism much of Christianity has perpetrated on the Jewish people throughout history. But I digress. The point is, you can't have it both ways. Either Israel is Israel, or the Christian church is Israel. The prophecies concerning Israel and the new covenant have either been fulfilled, or they haven't.
            >
            > Some might argue that Yahshua said the "new covenant" was established in his blood, suggesting the new covenant took effect at the cross. Yahshua's sacrifices certainly paid the price for the promised new covenant, but to assert that it was inaugurated at that time is reading more into Yahshua's words than what he said. The prophecy from Jeremiah clearly indicates that the new covenant is with Israel only, and doesn't take effect until the Kingdom of God comes during the Messianic age which is still yet to come. Read again Jeremiah 31:31-40. This truth should also be clearly evident when taking Yahshua's words in the fuller context of Luke's account of the last supper.
            >
            > Then he said to them, "With fervent desire I have desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer; for I say to you, I will no longer eat of it until it is fulfilled in the Kingdom of God." …"Likewise he also took the cup after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood which is shed for you." Luke 22:15,16,20
            >
            > Yahshua certainly paid the price for the new covenant with his blood, but it will not be inaugurated or "fulfilled" until he returns… and even then it will only be with Israel!
            >
            > There are numerous other parallel prophecies concerning the new covenant that prove God is speaking of His Law as given through Moses. What I have highlighted in bold print below includes the same new covenant spoken of in Jeremiah 31:33. Please read this quote one more time and dare to compare it to the following yet-to-be-fulfilled prophecies! Also, please notice that these prophecies concern only Israel during the Messianic age yet to come, along with the fact that they could not possibly have been fulfilled yet! Here is the "new covenant" prophecy that Hebrews uses first.
            >
            > "Behold, the days are coming, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah… …this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will put My Law in their mind, and write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. Jeremiah 31:31,33
            >
            > Now compare.
            >
            > "Although I have cast them far off among the Gentiles, and although I have scattered them among the countries, yet I shall be a little sanctuary for them in the countries where they have gone. Therefore say, `Thus says the Lord God: "I will gather you from the peoples, assemble you from the countries where you have been scattered, and I will give you the land of Israel."' "And they will go there, and they will take away all its detestable things and all its abominations from there. Then I will give them one heart, and I will put a new spirit within them, and take the stony heart out of their flesh, and give them a heart of flesh, that they may walk in My statutes and keep My judgments and do them; and they shall be My people, and I will be their God." Ezekiel 11:16-20
            >
            > "For I will take you from among the nations, gather you out of all countries, and bring you into your own land. Then I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you shall be clean; I will cleanse you from all your filthiness and from all your idols. I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; I will take the heart of stone out of your flesh. I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes, and you will keep My judgments and do them. Then you shall dwell in the land that I gave to your fathers; you shall be My people, and I will be your God." Ezekiel 35:24-28
            >
            > "David My servant shall be king over them, and they shall all have one shepherd; they shall also walk in My judgments and observe My statutes, and do them. Then they shall dwell in the land that I have given to Jacob My servant, where your fathers dwelt; and they shall dwell there, they, their children, and their children's children, forever; and My servant David shall be their prince forever. Moreover I will make a covenant of peace with them, and it shall be an everlasting covenant with them; I will establish them and multiply them, and I will set My sanctuary in their midst forevermore. My tabernacle also shall be with them; indeed I will be their God, and they shall be My people. The nations also will know that I, the Lord, sanctify Israel, when My sanctuary is in their midst forevermore. " Ezekiel 37:24-28
            >
            > What more needs to be said? The new covenant is without question the same Law, only God will cause Israel to want to walk in His ways when His Kingdom comes during the Messianic age.
            >
            > The book of Hebrews simply cannot be reconciled with the picture that the prophets, the book of Revelation, and Yahshua himself have given us of the Messianic age and the coming Kingdom of God. One picture has to go. One must choose to follow the author of Hebrews, or follow Yahshua, Moses, and The Prophets. The "new covenant" is either already fulfilled in a heavenly mystical sense, or it is yet to be inaugurated with Israel and fulfilled when Yahshua returns, delivers Israel from all her enemies, ascends the throne of his father David... and as a son of Levi as well, begins his high priestly ministry before God Most High as King and Priest… after the order of Melchizedek.
            >
            > ***
            >
            > Note. The new priesthood, new law, new covenant picture does in fact dovetail with Paul's doctrine of a new Israel… one that has replaced the old... obsolete Israel! (Galatians 6:15-16) I do not say this to Paul's credit. It is an utterly repulsive lie, and largely responsible for much of the anti-Semitism and evil perpetrated toward God's people over the past 2000 years.
            >
            > For more on Paul's own credibility, and his many mistaken doctrines, please obtain a copy of the book, Jesus Words Only â€" Or Was Paul the Apostle Jesus Condemns in Revelation 2:2, by Douglas J. Del Tondo, Infinity Publishing. ISBN 0-7414-2965- 9 My review, and ordering information can be accessed by clicking here.
            >
            > If you would like to print this article for handouts and would like the Yahshua's Bloodlines diagram to display properly, please email your request to judavschr@hotmail. com and I will be happy to reply with an attached Microsoft Word file, free of charge. This file will have to be opened with Microsoft Word for Yahshua's bloodline diagram to display properly.
            >
            > If you have found this article compelling, please pass it on to family, friends, and clergy for further debate.
            >
            > Blessings in Yahshua,
            >
            > Scott Nelson
            >



          • Brother Dave
              ________________________________ From: Elizabeth Canova To: Christian-Philosophy@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, June 2, 2009
            Message 5 of 20 , Jun 2, 2009
            • 0 Attachment

               

              From: Elizabeth Canova <elizabeth.canova@...>
              To: Christian-Philosophy@yahoogroups.com
              Sent: Tuesday, June 2, 2009 5:03:40 PM
              Subject: Re: [Christian-Philosophy] Re: Truth, Bell Curve, Kabalah

              > Brother Dave, take your time with any response to me, I am in no rush :o)

               Dear Elizabeth,  Thank you. I was going to reply tonight to your last post to me on Kabbalah. This one is easier, tomorrow I do that and maybe have time to answer Paul-gg on his last Pantheism post to me.

              >> Sometime, if you are not yet familiar with this, Google "Bell Curve Distribution" and look at it's basic definition and graph. This shows that more (humans, for example) are in the broad middle than the lesser numbers on the far left or far right. So, seeing both sides, by being in the middle is common. Being older (nearly age 70, or 490 in dog years) and thus very experienced in on-going personal God-consciousness, scientific-logical nature, and long street-wise experienced, I have mostly well-defined far-right and some far-left concepts which I use to try to keep some on the extremes more toward the broad middle ground.

              > So the older we get, the more experience we have, then views may change to far-right and far-left...so I guess I will be headed left or right in the future, but being 38 years old, I guess I am in the middle for a while until some more crap flies into my fan....lol

              At age 30-40 usually, many become more conscious of consciousness, have more controlk over their thoughts, are more reflective. This is the beginning of soul consciousness and increased God-consciousness. Truth lovers then do more intense seeking and finding of spiritual realities and develop a more unified life philosophy.

               

              >> Having said that, it is not wise to think that all views are relative and up to the individual. All truth of importance is Absolute and comes one way only from our loving Father God-Infinite I AM via way of our Creator Father-Son of God Jesus and through the Holy Spirit. His/Their invitation-command of: "Be you perfect; even as I AM perfect." to each and to all humans is not a confusing, relative "be you perfect or mediocre or imperfect as you desire - whatever feels good to you." This is the evil, sinful way of the godless individuals in this world. Look at the terrible problems they have caused !

              > "Be you perfect; even as I am perfect" I think that is referring to love, to love all people regardless of if they are considered enemies, unrighteous, righteous or whatever, that is how Jesus was perfect, he was perfect in Love, he loved everyone. If I view anyone as evil, sinful or godless then I am not viewing them in a loving way or the way Jesus would have viewed them, and I think this is what he meant when he said to be "perfect" as he is. I try to apply the verse to me...so from my viewpoint and applying this verse to me and what I believe it means would imply that even viewing someone as a problem in the world or godless or evil would be violating the "perfect" that he was asking us to strive toward.  I am supposed to love my enemy....I won't love what he/she does but to not love him/her would be to judge him/her so I will strive for that unconditional love toward all others.

               Yes, love is the highest supreme spiritual value; and we are to strive to love all persons, even our enemies; albeit this is very difficult for most humans here in this brief first life. But real divine or divine-human fatherly & brotherly love MUST include upholding spiritual and moral truths, higher divine beauty appreciation, and true goodness.  Please take a look at this post of mine from the FER earlier.  Note Jesus' use of many "Woe upon you" in His Last Temple Discourse !

              http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Christian-Philosophy/message/15525 

              >> How old are you? Are you married? Have children ? Many spiritual truths are not learned well until one has raised several children to adulthood.

              > I am 38 years old, I have been married and divorced twice, I have two children from my first marriage who are now 12 and 16. I have a boyfriend of 5 years, but we do not plan on ever getting married (he has also been married twice, although his first wife died in their 8th month of marriage from a brain tumor) he has two boys (7 and 15) that he has custody of, we raise our children together as husband and wife even though we are not married.  And there is a bunch of other stuff in between all that stuff that would make everyone's head spin...I won't mention all that....haha

              Thanks for sharing that. Living together without a state marriage license is fine if the man and woman love each other, are faithful and both work to love and care for the welfare of their combined children from past relations. Human marriage is actually not a sacrement; this is clearly seen when a husband and wife, married in a church, later divorce. If God actually joined them; then divorce would be impossible ! Also, even though human mariage is not always divinely approved; it should be humanly sacred.

              > Elizabeth :o)

               

              Peace and progress,

              Brother Dave




              From: Brother Dave <truthist@att. net>
              To: Christian-Philosoph y@yahoogroups. com
              Sent: Monday, June 1, 2009 9:41:32 PM
              Subject: Re: [Christian-Philosop hy] Re: Truth, Bell Curve, Kabalah

              Hi Sister Truth-seeker- finder Elizabeth and all,
               
              Sometime, if you are not yet familiar with this, Google "Bell Curve Distribution" and look at it's basic definition and graph.  This shows that more (humans, for example) are in the broad middle than the lesser numbers on the far left or far right.  So, seeing both sides, by being in the middle is common.  Being older (nearly age 70, or 490 in dog years) and thus very experienced in on-going personal God-consciousness, scientific-logical nature, and long street-wise experienced, I have mostly well-defined far-right and some far-left concepts which I use to try to keep some on the extremes more toward the broad middle ground. Having said that, it is not wise to think that all views are relative and up to the individual. All truth of importance is Absolute and comes one way only from our loving Father God-Infinite I AM via way of our Creator Father-Son of God Jesus and through the Holy Spirit.  His/Their invitation-command of: "Be you perfect; even as I AM perfect." to each and to all humans is not a confusing, relative "be you perfect or mediocre or imperfect as you desire - whatever feels good to you."  This is the evil, sinful way of the godless individuals in this world. Look at the terrible problems they have caused !
               
              How old are you?  Are you married? Have children ?  Many spiritual truths are not learned well until one has raised several children to adulthood.
               
              Hopefully, tomorrow, I will be able to go back and answer you last post to me on our Kabbalah or Kabalah discussions. Today, I took mainly a needed rest from a successful Christian and patriotic music concert out of town Sunday at a very large retirement and assisted-living complex.
               
              Peace and progress,
               
              Brother Dave
               
              http://www.PureChri stians.org/ Gospel enlarging website,
              proclaiming worldwide the True Religion
              OF JESUS and ABOUT JESUS and IN JESUS
               
              Come learn and share !



              From: Elizabeth Canova <elizabeth.canova@ yahoo.com>
              To: Christian-Philosoph y@yahoogroups. com
              Sent: Monday, June 1, 2009 1:36:47 PM
              Subject: Re: [Christian-Philosop hy] Re: The Problem with Hebrews - by Scott Nelson

              The "who is who" of the world....farmers. ..shepherds. ....false apostles... etc  LOL
               
              I have found certain people I encounter to be like shepherds... ..then I grew and learned more of them, learned more of myself and that changed.  It all changes, that is one thing I count on, not much is set in stone right now for me. 
               
              I talked to a friend this weekend, her and I are on the same level spiritually, we are both learning and just now started our intimate relationship with God.  She asked me if I believed there was a "hell" and I told her that I did not believe it was a place that I always had the impression it was, not like I was taught in sunday school or church....but I told her...that is the way I feel today...ask me again in a year and maybe I will have a different opinion....I can't say for sure.  I waiver back and forth with the more that is revealed to me.  Sometimes I feel wishy washy and uncertain and even dumb - why can't I have "eyes to see" or "ears to hear" everything.. ..but before I start bashing myself, I realize that I am learning and it is a process, it doesn't just happen over night, so I am very hesitant to say I am completely certain of anything, sometimes I am hesitant to even share what I think is revealed to me because it sounds so different than anything I have been taught and something may need to be added in the future to make more sense...maybe more time needs to pass for me to encounter a situation that will reveal the real meaning.  There are a few things I am certain of and those are the only things that I will ever say to someone with complete confidence. 
               
              So how can someone like me, the way I am now, teach anyone anything? I feel like I always take the middle ground and I don't have much to offer other than neutrality.  I really don't know much, its a little frustrating to hear all of ya'll talk and use words that I don't understand (monoism, pantheism, etc.) and I am not even sure I need to learn these words, other than to label something that I can better understand through adjectives, but even reading the explanation of these things on the computer, I still just don't get it because two people can look at this same thing (noun) differently.  Maybe it is because I am just not educated enough or worldly enough to understand, but I am not sure I want to be, then again I don't always like taking the middle ground...I have been taught to know your position and know where you stand, to stand firm, but I can't be sure where I need to stand right now on a lot of stuff, it is sometimes overwhelming. 
               
              Yesterday I went to a family function and I spent the whole time with 2 year old girl twins, after the conversation in the adult group turned heated, I just listened and I could understand both sides, the conversation got more heated and I had to walk away, it was more comfortable there with the girls, they didn't need words or any validation, they just wanted to jump on the sofa, play peek-a-boo and be tickled, sometimes it feels good not to have to take a side, but people try and force you into that, into taking some stance and labeling who you are, why do we need to have a label?  Why do we always have to be on the right side?  Why can't everyone be right?  Why can't everyone be a farmer, then a shepherd or vice versa?  Would that be too boring if we never argued or had a debate or labeled who we were?  Would it be too peaceful?  I just don't get it...
               
              Elizabeth

              From: james m. clark jr. <Yaakov2819@praiseya hweh..com>
              To: Christian-Philosoph y@yahoogroups. com
              Sent: Sunday, May 31, 2009 3:47:17 PM
              Subject: [Christian-Philosop hy] Re: The Problem with Hebrews - by Scott Nelson

              Shalom,

              A very good point but even false apostles are considered to become farmers rather than shepherds in the resserection. Hypothetically, we don't even have the authority to condem spirit beings. But also, even after the new covent is established, when no Israelite will need to be tought Scripture.

              be well,
              jamey

              --- In Christian-Philosoph y@yahoogroups. com, Elizabeth Canova <elizabeth.canova@ ...> wrote:
              >
              > "Or Was Paul the Apostle Jesus Condemns in Revelation 2:2, "
              > where here does it say anyone is "condemned" ?  All that I read of what is said to the church of Ephesus is "I know" and "have found" no where does it say that He "condemns" 
              >  
              > Revelation 2:2I know your deeds, your hard work and your perseverance. I know that you cannot tolerate wicked men, that you have tested those who claim to be apostles but are not, and have found them false
              >  
              > God understands everything we do and why we do it. Why we feel the way we feel, and so should we understand everyone else and "overcome" - not overcome the nicolations, not overcome the apostles...but overcome that hatred for those who we do not understand.
              >  
              >
              >
              > --- On Sun, 5/31/09, james m. clark jr. <Yaakov2819@ ...> wrote:
              >
              >
              > From: james m. clark jr. <Yaakov2819@ ...>
              > Subject: [Christian-Philosop hy] The Problem with Hebrews - by Scott Nelson
              > To: Christian-Philosoph y@yahoogroups. com
              > Date: Sunday, May 31, 2009, 9:09 AM
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              > chart and reader friendly article at
              >
              > http://www.judaismv schristianity. com/problem_ with_hebrews. htm
              >
              > The Problem with Hebrews
              >
              > By Scott Nelson
              >
              > Introduction
              >
              > The following article demonstrates there are two doctrines commonly held among Christians that cannot be reconciled with each other. Only one position can be true. It is written for the sake of those who believe Yahshua (Jesus) is going to physically return to earth to rule and reign from Jerusalem for a thousand years, as prophesied in Revelation 20:1-6, and will at that time fulfill the many glorious kingly prophecies concerning the Messiah as recorded in Moses and the Prophets. Those of us who hold to this picture are commonly referred to as "premillennialists" . This is the first of the two doctrines. This article is not for those who do not accept this picture… for whom these prophecies need no literal fulfillment.
              >
              > The problem at hand is that the second doctrine is also clearly taught in the Bible… in the book of Hebrews. The author of Hebrews uses several Messianic prophecies to paint a very different picture. Bear in mind the book of Hebrews was written at a time not long after Yahshua had ascended to heaven, and most believers at that time were left confused as to how Yahshua fulfilled the glorious prophecies of the Messianic Kingdom. They didn't understand that it would be many generations later before he would return to finish fulfilling these prophecies. The book of Hebrews was written largely for the purpose of answering the questions of that time, and it does so with a very eloquent, lofty, and authoritative- sounding discourse promoting the picture that Yahshua had indeed fulfilled these prophecies in a unique heavenly sense. Nowhere in the book can there be found the picture of Yahshua literally physically returning to fulfill these prophecies here on
              > earth. This, in stark contrast to the Messianic pictures painted by the Prophets, Yahshua himself, and the book of Revelation.
              >
              > So here is the dilemma. Has Yahshua already fulfilled these prophecies in heaven, or will he literally physically return and fulfill them here on earth in the future? The author of Hebrews himself borrows from some of these well known Messianic prophecies and gives them a new spin to promote his doctrine of a new-priesthood, new-law, and new-covenant, all of which have supposedly been inaugurated and fulfilled in heaven. Here is his logic...
              >
              > Like Melchizedek… how?
              >
              > In the 5th chapter of the book of Hebrews, the author uses a Messianic prophecy from Psalm 110 to begin comparing Yahshua to Melchizedek.
              >
              > So also Christ did not glorify himself to become High Priest, but it was he who said to him: "You are My son, today I have begotten you." As He also says in another place: "You are a priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek" ,… And having been perfected, he became the author of eternal salvation to all who obey him, called by God as High Priest "according to the order of Melchizedek, " of whom we have much to say, and hard to explain, since you have become dull of hearing. Hebrews 5:5-6,9-11
              >
              > Then in the 7th chapter, the author begins his new-priesthood argument by stating Yahshua is like Melchizedek in some rather strange and abstract ways.. For instance, Yahshua and Melchizedek supposedly had neither genealogical record, nor beginning or end of days!
              >
              > "For this Melchizedek, king of Salem ,… without father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but made like the Son of God, remains a priest continually. " Hebrews 7:1-3
              >
              > This certainly qualifies as "hard to explain"! The author is correct in determining from Psalm 110:1-4 that Messiah is like Melchizedek, but the connections he draws are bizarre and extremely weak arguments from silence. Does he seriously want us to believe that because we don't have Melchizedek' s genealogical records, parent's names, date of birth, or date of death written there in the book of Genesis for us… he had none?! This is the weakest form of argument there is. To illustrate: Maybe, because there is nothing said about Melchizedek being married or having any children, we must conclude he was celibate! (On the off-chance some might actually consider this a good argument, here is another example.) Maybe, because nothing is said about Melchizedek' s apparel, we must conclude he had none and was a nudist! Our author's style of logic is just this non-sensical. How absurd is the notion that Melchizedek had no father or mother? If Yahshua is like
              > Melchizedek, would it not be far better to compare him to Melchizedek on information we do have on him as opposed to information we don't have on him?
              >
              > Hebrews then continues with another similarly weak argument stating Yahshua was like Melchizedek in that Melchizedek was not of the tribe of Levi.
              >
              > "Therefore, if perfection were through the Levitical priesthood (for under it the people received the law), what further need was there that another priest should rise according to the order of Melchizedek, and not be called according to the order of Aaron?... …For He of whom these things are spoken belongs to another tribe, from which no man has officiated at the altar. For it is evident that our Lord arose from Judah, of which tribe Moses spoke nothing concerning priesthood. Hebrews 7:11, 13-14
              >
              > There is one question that begs to be asked here. If Yahshua is like Melchizedek in that he has no genealogical record, how does the author know he is from the tribe of Judah?!
              >
              > Of particular interest, is that within this text, he wants us to believe it logically flows, since there has been a change in the priesthood, there must therefore also be a change of the Law.
              >
              > "For the priesthood being changed, of necessity there is also a change of the Law." Hebrews 7:12
              >
              > Question: Where is this supposed fundamental truth written? Granting as hypothetical for a moment that the priesthood has indeed changed, we have to ask; why must the Law change if the priesthood changes? Is it the priests who determine the Law? Or is it God? If there were a new priesthood to serve the same God, reason would assume the new priests would continue to abide by the established Laws of that God. But if any priesthood old or new served a new god, then it would logically flow that a new god would dictate a new law. The author's logic simply does not flow... yet it should be evident that this presupposition is fundamental to his ongoing argument. And again, all this is assuming his assertion that Yahshua is not of the tribe of Levi is correct in the first place. I will address this question in a moment.
              >
              > Yahshua is indeed like Melchizedek as Psalm 110:1-4 prophesied, but he is like Melchizedek in ways based on information God has given us and we do have on him. Very little is said about him, but everything we need to know about Melchizedek can be found in one single verse... Genesis 14:18
              >
              > Then Melchizedek, king of Salem, brought out bread and wine; he was the priest of God Most High.
              >
              > There it is. He was king of Salem and priest of The Most High God.
              >
              > King and Priest in One
              >
              > A King, who is also a Priest, has never existed in Israel's history. The kingdom and the priesthood were always separate. The kingdom was established forever in David's descendants, and the priesthood was established in the descendants of Levi and Aaron forever as well.
              >
              > Here are some of God's promises to David.
              >
              > "My covenant I will not break, nor alter the word that has gone out of My lips. Once I have sworn by My holiness; I will not lie to David; His seed shall endure forever, and his throne as the sun before Me; It shall be established forever like the moon, even like the faithful witness in the sky." Psalm 89:34-37
              >
              > "For thus says the Lord; David shall never lack a man to sit on the throne of the house of Israel;" Jeremiah 33:17
              >
              > "David My servant shall be king over them, and they shall all have one shepherd; they shall also walk in My judgments and observe My statutes, and do them. Then they shall dwell in the land that I have given to Jacob My servant, where your fathers dwelt: and they shall dwell there, they, their children, and their children's children, forever; and My servant David shall be their prince forever." Ezekiel 37:24-25
              >
              > "He (Yahshua) will be great, and will be called the son of the Highest; and the Lord God will give him the throne of his father David. And he will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of his kingdom there will be no end.." Luke 1:32-33
              >
              > And here are some of God's promises to the Levitical priesthood.
              >
              > "And you shall gird them with sashes, Aaron and his sons, and put the hats on them. The priesthood shall be theirs for a perpetual statute, So you shall consecrate Aaron and his sons." Exodus 29:9
              >
              > "You shall put the holy garments on Aaron, and anoint him and sanctify him, that he may minister to Me as priest. And you shall bring his sons and clothe them with tunics. You shall anoint them, as you anointed their father, that they may minister to Me as priests; for their anointing shall surely be and everlasting priesthood throughout their generations. " Exodus 40:13-15
              >
              > Then the Lord spoke to Moses, saying; "Phinehas the son of Eleazar, the son of Aaron the priest, has turned back My wrath from the children of Israel, because he was zealous with My zeal among them, so that I did not consume the children of Israel in My zeal. Therefore say, `Behold, I give to him My covenant of peace; and it shall be to him and his descendants after him a covenant of an everlasting priesthood, because he was zealous for his God, and made atonement for the children of Israel .'" Numbers 25;10-13
              >
              > This is just the beginning of the story. Remember, God promised the Messiah would be both king and priest like Melchizedek in Psalm 110:4. God also spoke through other prophets on numerous occasions that He would indeed bring both offices into one in the Messiah.
              >
              > "Behold, the days are coming", says the Lord, "that I will perform that good thing which I have promised to the house of Israel and to the house of Judah; In those days and at that time I will cause to grow up to David a Branch of righteousness; He shall execute judgment and righteousness in the earth. In those days Judah will be saved, and Jerusalem will dwell safely. And this is the name by which she will be called; `THE LORD OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS' . For thus says the Lord; David shall never lack a man to sit on the throne of the house of Israel; nor shall the priests, the Levites, lack a man to offer burnt offerings before Me, to kindle grain offerings, and to sacrifice continually. " Jeremiah 33:14-18
              >
              > "Behold, the man whose name is the BRANCH! From his place he shall branch out, and he shall build the temple of the Lord; Yes, he shall build the temple of the Lord. He shall bear the glory, and shall sit and rule on his throne; So he shall be a priest on his throne, and the counsel of peace shall be between them both." (both offices) Zechariah 6:12-13
              >
              > "For the children of Israel shall abide many days without king or prince, without sacred pillar, without ephod or teraphim. Afterward the children of Israel shall return, seek the Lord their God and David their king, and fear the Lord and His goodness in the latter days. Hosea 3:4-5
              >
              > "Then it shall be the prince's part to give burnt offerings, grain offerings, and drink offerings, at the feasts, the New Moons, the Sabbaths, and at all the appointed seasons of the house of Israel. He shall prepare the sin offering, the grain offering, the burnt offering, and the peace offerings to make atonement for the house of Israel ." Ezekiel 45:17
              >
              > The author of Hebrews argues that because Yahshua is supposedly not from the tribe of Levi, there is therefore a change of priesthoods and subsequent change of the law. But God had said the Levites had and "everlasting" priesthood. The only way God could fulfill these promises He made to David and the Levites is if the Messiah was from both tribes. What our author obviously did not know is that Yahshua is exactly as God had prophesied the Messiah would be. Yahshua is descendant of both David and Levi! He is simply wrong on a number of levels. Both in the logic that a change of the priesthood demands a change of the law, and that there had been any change of the priesthood in the first place!
              >
              > I have yet to find any place where all the pieces of this puzzle have been put together by others. One can't help but wonder if part of the reason doesn't stem from the understanding that if Yahshua is in fact a descendant of Levi, the book of Hebrews would loose all credibility. Keep in mind, Yahshua not being of Levi, is a fundamental cornerstone of Hebrew's doctrine.
              >
              > Yahshua, descendant of both David and Levi
              >
              > In the book of Luke it is recorded that Yahshua's mother Mary was a "cousin" (KJV) to Elizabeth who was "of the daughters of Aaron". (Luke 1:5,36) The Greek word translated "cousin" literally means close blood (genetic) relative. The genetic connection can easily be seen by English speaking people in the Greek word "sungenes". This literally means close kin (See Strongs 4773) This word could just as easily mean Elisabeth was Mary's aunt. Considering Elisabeth was much older than Mary, this would appear to be more likely the case, but it is a moot point in light of the fact that it doesn't make a difference either way as you will see.
              >
              > In Leviticus, God commanded that Levite men were to marry only Levite women.. (Leviticus 21:1,13-14, 22:12-13) Levite women on the other hand were permitted to marry outside the tribe. We know that Mary's father Heli was a descendant of David of the tribe of Judah (Luke 3:23. Many scholars agree that Joseph was Heli's son-in-law.) So if Mary was either a cousin ,or a niece to Elisabeth, it must mean that Mary's mother had to have been either a sister or aunt to Elisabeth, which means that Mary's mother had to have been a "daughter of Aaron" as well! Here is the breakdown. If Mary and Elisabeth were cousins, as it says in the KJV, then Mary's mother was a sister to one of Elisabeth's parents, both of whom had to have been full-blooded Levites for Elisabeth to be called a "daughter of Aaron" and be legitimately married to Zacharias the priest. If Elisabeth was Mary's aunt, as is more likely the case, then Mary's mother was a sister to Elisabeth. No matter
              > how one works it, it comes out the same. Mary's mother was a full-blooded Levite. She was then one of those who married outside the tribe when she married Heli of the tribe of Judah. Now it also logically flows perfectly well that if Yahshua had no earthly father, no new genetic material was introduced at his conception. Therefore his physical bloodlines must have been identical to his mother's bloodlines. Mary was a perfect blend of both tribes Judah and Levi!
              >
              > There is also another likelihood that makes this even better. Since God commanded the Levite men to marry only Levite women, it stands to reason that the genetic markers He recognizes as the Levitical priestly markers were passed down by the mothers, thus making the tribe matrilineal. These genetic matrilineal markers are located in what science today calls the mitochondrial DNA. The genetic markers of the other tribes were passed down by the fathers in the Y chromosome. It is also a well established fact of science that the father's genetic markers and the mother's genetic markers do not compete with each other during the process of recombination, so neither of them is diluted by the other. This would mean that Mary, and subsequently Yahshua, carried all the genetic markers of both tribes! It stands to reason that God intended for Levi's genetic markers to be matrilineal for the very purpose of being able to bring all of Judah, and all of Levi together
              > into one man. (See chart below)
              >
              > The fact that Yahshua is indeed a descendant of the tribe of Levi, as God had promised the Messiah would be, is enough in itself to completely discredit the book of Hebrews. Hebrew's assertion that Yahshua was not of Levi is a fundamental premise of the author's ongoing argument. There is no "new" priesthood. God had established the priesthood in Aaron's descendants forever. Furthermore, since there is no "change of the Law" even if there were a new priesthood, how much more established is the fact that there is there no "change of the Law" when there is no new priesthood? Nothing more really needs to be said concerning the credibility of the author of Hebrews! We should discard the book as a nice-try of purely human effort on this basis alone. But to further demonstrate the sad mistakenness of the author… consider his next argument.
              >
              > The New Covenant?
              >
              > Again, the author of Hebrews has completely missed the fact that Yahshua will physically return and fulfill the remaining Messianic prophecies. This becomes painfully obvious in his on-going argument. Now he reasons that his new priesthood and new law fulfill the prophecies of a "new covenant". Here, in chapter 8:8-12, he quotes the prophecy from Jeremiah. Please take special note of the fact that every time in the book of Jeremiah where God says, "Behold the days are coming", He is speaking of the Messianic age yet to come. The actual prophecy reads;
              >
              > "Behold, the days are coming, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah â€" not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out to the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, though I was a husband to them, says the Lord. But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will put My Law in their mind, and write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. No more shall every man teach his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, `Know the Lord,' for they all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them, says the Lord. For I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more." Jeremiah 31:31-34
              >
              > Then after quoting this prophecy, the author of Hebrews makes this statement, from which comes the concept of an Old (obsolete) Testament.
              >
              > In that He says, "A new covenant," He has made the first obsolete. Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away. Hebrews 8:13
              >
              > Our author has obviously come to another very mistaken conclusion. He believes that God's covenant with Israel at Mt. Sinai and His Law are one and the same. They are not. God's Law is a list of do's and don'ts. God's covenant with Israel is a contractual promise to bless them if they obey His Law. Of course, if they broke the Law, in so doing they also broke the covenant, but that does not mean the Law is the covenant! It should be evident in this passage that God continues to speak of His Law as though it will not change. Here it is again.
              >
              > But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will put My Law in their mind, and write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. Jeremiah 31:33
              >
              > It is only after the author has blurred the line between the Law and the covenant, making them one and the same, and then drawn our attention to a new covenant, can he then make the leap of logic inferring that when God said "My Law" in reference to a new covenant, He meant "My new law"! This is obviously what he wants us to see here. Remember, he has already said there has been a "change of the Law". But God did not say "My new law". He is speaking of the same Law. The only difference is, when the new covenant is finally inaugurated, this same Law of Moses will be written on the hearts of the children of Israel so they will want to keep it. And herein is another point that is extremely important. This prophecy concerns only Israel . It does not concern Gentiles in any way! The only Gentiles who might be included in this are those individuals who have joined themselves to Israel through circumcision and obedience to God's Law, in which case they would no
              > longer be seen as Gentiles. The Christian church cannot claim this prophecy for itself… unless of course one is of the persuasion that God has replaced Israel... and the Christian church is the new true Israel of God! This repulsive teaching is a lie, and among other things has been used as justification for the deplorable anti-Semitism much of Christianity has perpetrated on the Jewish people throughout history. But I digress. The point is, you can't have it both ways. Either Israel is Israel, or the Christian church is Israel. The prophecies concerning Israel and the new covenant have either been fulfilled, or they haven't.
              >
              > Some might argue that Yahshua said the "new covenant" was established in his blood, suggesting the new covenant took effect at the cross. Yahshua's sacrifices certainly paid the price for the promised new covenant, but to assert that it was inaugurated at that time is reading more into Yahshua's words than what he said. The prophecy from Jeremiah clearly indicates that the new covenant is with Israel only, and doesn't take effect until the Kingdom of God comes during the Messianic age which is still yet to come. Read again Jeremiah 31:31-40. This truth should also be clearly evident when taking Yahshua's words in the fuller context of Luke's account of the last supper.
              >
              > Then he said to them, "With fervent desire I have desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer; for I say to you, I will no longer eat of it until it is fulfilled in the Kingdom of God." …"Likewise he also took the cup after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood which is shed for you." Luke 22:15,16,20
              >
              > Yahshua certainly paid the price for the new covenant with his blood, but it will not be inaugurated or "fulfilled" until he returns… and even then it will only be with Israel!
              >
              > There are numerous other parallel prophecies concerning the new covenant that prove God is speaking of His Law as given through Moses. What I have highlighted in bold print below includes the same new covenant spoken of in Jeremiah 31:33. Please read this quote one more time and dare to compare it to the following yet-to-be-fulfilled prophecies! Also, please notice that these prophecies concern only Israel during the Messianic age yet to come, along with the fact that they could not possibly have been fulfilled yet! Here is the "new covenant" prophecy that Hebrews uses first.
              >
              > "Behold, the days are coming, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah… …this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will put My Law in their mind, and write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. Jeremiah 31:31,33
              >
              > Now compare.
              >
              > "Although I have cast them far off among the Gentiles, and although I have scattered them among the countries, yet I shall be a little sanctuary for them in the countries where they have gone. Therefore say, `Thus says the Lord God: "I will gather you from the peoples, assemble you from the countries where you have been scattered, and I will give you the land of Israel."' "And they will go there, and they will take away all its detestable things and all its abominations from there. Then I will give them one heart, and I will put a new spirit within them, and take the stony heart out of their flesh, and give them a heart of flesh, that they may walk in My statutes and keep My judgments and do them; and they shall be My people, and I will be their God." Ezekiel 11:16-20
              >
              > "For I will take you from among the nations, gather you out of all countries, and bring you into your own land. Then I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you shall be clean; I will cleanse you from all your filthiness and from all your idols. I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; I will take the heart of stone out of your flesh. I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes, and you will keep My judgments and do them. Then you shall dwell in the land that I gave to your fathers; you shall be My people, and I will be your God." Ezekiel 35:24-28
              >
              > "David My servant shall be king over them, and they shall all have one shepherd; they shall also walk in My judgments and observe My statutes, and do them. Then they shall dwell in the land that I have given to Jacob My servant, where your fathers dwelt; and they shall dwell there, they, their children, and their children's children, forever; and My servant David shall be their prince forever. Moreover I will make a covenant of peace with them, and it shall be an everlasting covenant with them; I will establish them and multiply them, and I will set My sanctuary in their midst forevermore. My tabernacle also shall be with them; indeed I will be their God, and they shall be My people. The nations also will know that I, the Lord, sanctify Israel, when My sanctuary is in their midst forevermore. " Ezekiel 37:24-28
              >
              > What more needs to be said? The new covenant is without question the same Law, only God will cause Israel to want to walk in His ways when His Kingdom comes during the Messianic age.
              >
              > The book of Hebrews simply cannot be reconciled with the picture that the prophets, the book of Revelation, and Yahshua himself have given us of the Messianic age and the coming Kingdom of God. One picture has to go. One must choose to follow the author of Hebrews, or follow Yahshua, Moses, and The Prophets. The "new covenant" is either already fulfilled in a heavenly mystical sense, or it is yet to be inaugurated with Israel and fulfilled when Yahshua returns, delivers Israel from all her enemies, ascends the throne of his father David... and as a son of Levi as well, begins his high priestly ministry before God Most High as King and Priest… after the order of Melchizedek.
              >
              > ***
              >
              > Note. The new priesthood, new law, new covenant picture does in fact dovetail with Paul's doctrine of a new Israel… one that has replaced the old... obsolete Israel! (Galatians 6:15-16) I do not say this to Paul's credit. It is an utterly repulsive lie, and largely responsible for much of the anti-Semitism and evil perpetrated toward God's people over the past 2000 years.
              >
              > For more on Paul's own credibility, and his many mistaken doctrines, please obtain a copy of the book, Jesus Words Only â€" Or Was Paul the Apostle Jesus Condemns in Revelation 2:2, by Douglas J. Del Tondo, Infinity Publishing. ISBN 0-7414-2965- 9 My review, and ordering information can be accessed by clicking here.
              >
              > If you would like to print this article for handouts and would like the Yahshua's Bloodlines diagram to display properly, please email your request to judavschr@hotmail. com and I will be happy to reply with an attached Microsoft Word file, free of charge. This file will have to be opened with Microsoft Word for Yahshua's bloodline diagram to display properly.
              >
              > If you have found this article compelling, please pass it on to family, friends, and clergy for further debate.
              >
              > Blessings in Yahshua,
              >
              > Scott Nelson
              >



            • james m. clark jr.
              Shalom, Yeshua s pedigree according to Matthew the Levite is the geneology of Yeshua s legal adoption rights through Joseph to point out that according to this
              Message 6 of 20 , Jun 3, 2009
              • 0 Attachment
                Shalom,

                Yeshua's pedigree according to Matthew the Levite is the geneology of Yeshua's legal adoption rights through Joseph to point out that according to this list of ancestors through Joseph that there would NOT be an heir from him (Joseph and his decendants) eligable to sit on the throne of David although he was from the tribe of Judah.

                be well,
                jamey

                --- In Christian-Philosophy@yahoogroups.com, George <geojosh1@...> wrote:
                >
                > The Book of Hebrews.
                >  
                > I am not sure I understand what you do not understand regarding the Book of Hebrews. I read this posting half way and quit for lack of continuity on my part.
                >  
                > However, from what I think I saw from the part that I did read was that God gave Aaron and his sons the an eternal priesthood in their generation. Could not that also have a meaning that forever (or eternal priesthood) is just in their generation that the Jewish nation was under the law and ended when Jesus (or Yahshua) fulfilled the law?
                >  
                > And concerning the law - was it not changed by Jesus when He condensed the Ten Commandments into Two Commandments and that was to 1st love God with all our heart, soul, mind and strength and 2nd to love our neighbor as ourself.
                >  
                > Another thing to consider if I read you correctly - If you follow the genealogies of Jesus in Mathew ch.1 and Luke ch.3, you will see they follow different lineages down to David. Also Mary's cousin Elizabeth was from the linage of Aaron (Luke 1:5). That could mean that Mary was also from the line of Aaron, we don't really know.
                >  
                > To dismiss the whole Book of Hebrews on a whim that it does not fit what you have studied about Melchizedek is unwise. That is a heavy study in itself and one can easily draw the wrong conclusion from only a couple of the toughest verses of Scriptures in the Bible. Maybe you should first take a look at the rest of the Book of Hebrews before you make such a rash decision.
                >  
                > ...George
                >
                > --- On Sun, 5/31/09, james m. clark jr. <Yaakov2819@...> wrote:
                >
                >
                > From: james m. clark jr. <Yaakov2819@...>
                > Subject: [Christian-Philosophy] The Problem with Hebrews - by Scott Nelson
                > To: Christian-Philosophy@yahoogroups.com
                > Date: Sunday, May 31, 2009, 5:09 AM
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                > chart and reader friendly article at
                >
                > http://www.judaismv schristianity. com/problem_ with_hebrews. htm
                >
                > The Problem with Hebrews
                >
                > By Scott Nelson
                >
                > Introduction
                >
                > The following article demonstrates there are two doctrines commonly held among Christians that cannot be reconciled with each other. Only one position can be true. It is written for the sake of those who believe Yahshua (Jesus) is going to physically return to earth to rule and reign from Jerusalem for a thousand years, as prophesied in Revelation 20:1-6, and will at that time fulfill the many glorious kingly prophecies concerning the Messiah as recorded in Moses and the Prophets. Those of us who hold to this picture are commonly referred to as "premillennialists" . This is the first of the two doctrines. This article is not for those who do not accept this picture… for whom these prophecies need no literal fulfillment.
                >
                > The problem at hand is that the second doctrine is also clearly taught in the Bible… in the book of Hebrews. The author of Hebrews uses several Messianic prophecies to paint a very different picture. Bear in mind the book of Hebrews was written at a time not long after Yahshua had ascended to heaven, and most believers at that time were left confused as to how Yahshua fulfilled the glorious prophecies of the Messianic Kingdom. They didn't understand that it would be many generations later before he would return to finish fulfilling these prophecies. The book of Hebrews was written largely for the purpose of answering the questions of that time, and it does so with a very eloquent, lofty, and authoritative- sounding discourse promoting the picture that Yahshua had indeed fulfilled these prophecies in a unique heavenly sense. Nowhere in the book can there be found the picture of Yahshua literally physically returning to fulfill these prophecies here on
                > earth. This, in stark contrast to the Messianic pictures painted by the Prophets, Yahshua himself, and the book of Revelation.
                >
                > So here is the dilemma. Has Yahshua already fulfilled these prophecies in heaven, or will he literally physically return and fulfill them here on earth in the future? The author of Hebrews himself borrows from some of these well known Messianic prophecies and gives them a new spin to promote his doctrine of a new-priesthood, new-law, and new-covenant, all of which have supposedly been inaugurated and fulfilled in heaven. Here is his logic.
                >
                > Like Melchizedek… how?
                >
                > In the 5th chapter of the book of Hebrews, the author uses a Messianic prophecy from Psalm 110 to begin comparing Yahshua to Melchizedek.
                >
                > So also Christ did not glorify himself to become High Priest, but it was he who said to him: "You are My son, today I have begotten you." As He also says in another place: "You are a priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek" ,… And having been perfected, he became the author of eternal salvation to all who obey him, called by God as High Priest "according to the order of Melchizedek, " of whom we have much to say, and hard to explain, since you have become dull of hearing. Hebrews 5:5-6,9-11
                >
                > Then in the 7th chapter, the author begins his new-priesthood argument by stating Yahshua is like Melchizedek in some rather strange and abstract ways. For instance, Yahshua and Melchizedek supposedly had neither genealogical record, nor beginning or end of days!
                >
                > "For this Melchizedek, king of Salem ,… without father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but made like the Son of God, remains a priest continually. " Hebrews 7:1-3
                >
                > This certainly qualifies as "hard to explain"! The author is correct in determining from Psalm 110:1-4 that Messiah is like Melchizedek, but the connections he draws are bizarre and extremely weak arguments from silence. Does he seriously want us to believe that because we don't have Melchizedek' s genealogical records, parent's names, date of birth, or date of death written there in the book of Genesis for us… he had none?! This is the weakest form of argument there is. To illustrate: Maybe, because there is nothing said about Melchizedek being married or having any children, we must conclude he was celibate! (On the off-chance some might actually consider this a good argument, here is another example.) Maybe, because nothing is said about Melchizedek' s apparel, we must conclude he had none and was a nudist! Our author's style of logic is just this non-sensical. How absurd is the notion that Melchizedek had no father or mother? If Yahshua is like
                > Melchizedek, would it not be far better to compare him to Melchizedek on information we do have on him as opposed to information we don't have on him?
                >
                > Hebrews then continues with another similarly weak argument stating Yahshua was like Melchizedek in that Melchizedek was not of the tribe of Levi.
                >
                > "Therefore, if perfection were through the Levitical priesthood (for under it the people received the law), what further need was there that another priest should rise according to the order of Melchizedek, and not be called according to the order of Aaron?... …For He of whom these things are spoken belongs to another tribe, from which no man has officiated at the altar. For it is evident that our Lord arose from Judah, of which tribe Moses spoke nothing concerning priesthood. Hebrews 7:11, 13-14
                >
                > There is one question that begs to be asked here. If Yahshua is like Melchizedek in that he has no genealogical record, how does the author know he is from the tribe of Judah?!
                >
                > Of particular interest, is that within this text, he wants us to believe it logically flows, since there has been a change in the priesthood, there must therefore also be a change of the Law.
                >
                > "For the priesthood being changed, of necessity there is also a change of the Law." Hebrews 7:12
                >
                > Question: Where is this supposed fundamental truth written? Granting as hypothetical for a moment that the priesthood has indeed changed, we have to ask; why must the Law change if the priesthood changes? Is it the priests who determine the Law? Or is it God? If there were a new priesthood to serve the same God, reason would assume the new priests would continue to abide by the established Laws of that God. But if any priesthood old or new served a new god, then it would logically flow that a new god would dictate a new law. The author's logic simply does not flow... yet it should be evident that this presupposition is fundamental to his ongoing argument. And again, all this is assuming his assertion that Yahshua is not of the tribe of Levi is correct in the first place. I will address this question in a moment.
                >
                > Yahshua is indeed like Melchizedek as Psalm 110:1-4 prophesied, but he is like Melchizedek in ways based on information God has given us and we do have on him. Very little is said about him, but everything we need to know about Melchizedek can be found in one single verse. Genesis 14:18
                >
                > Then Melchizedek, king of Salem, brought out bread and wine; he was the priest of God Most High.
                >
                > There it is. He was king of Salem and priest of The Most High God.
                >
                > King and Priest in One
                >
                > A King, who is also a Priest, has never existed in Israel's history. The kingdom and the priesthood were always separate. The kingdom was established forever in David's descendants, and the priesthood was established in the descendants of Levi and Aaron forever as well.
                >
                > Here are some of God's promises to David.
                >
                > "My covenant I will not break, nor alter the word that has gone out of My lips. Once I have sworn by My holiness; I will not lie to David; His seed shall endure forever, and his throne as the sun before Me; It shall be established forever like the moon, even like the faithful witness in the sky." Psalm 89:34-37
                >
                > "For thus says the Lord; David shall never lack a man to sit on the throne of the house of Israel;" Jeremiah 33:17
                >
                > "David My servant shall be king over them, and they shall all have one shepherd; they shall also walk in My judgments and observe My statutes, and do them. Then they shall dwell in the land that I have given to Jacob My servant, where your fathers dwelt: and they shall dwell there, they, their children, and their children's children, forever; and My servant David shall be their prince forever." Ezekiel 37:24-25
                >
                > "He (Yahshua) will be great, and will be called the son of the Highest; and the Lord God will give him the throne of his father David. And he will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of his kingdom there will be no end." Luke 1:32-33
                >
                > And here are some of God's promises to the Levitical priesthood.
                >
                > "And you shall gird them with sashes, Aaron and his sons, and put the hats on them. The priesthood shall be theirs for a perpetual statute, So you shall consecrate Aaron and his sons." Exodus 29:9
                >
                > "You shall put the holy garments on Aaron, and anoint him and sanctify him, that he may minister to Me as priest. And you shall bring his sons and clothe them with tunics. You shall anoint them, as you anointed their father, that they may minister to Me as priests; for their anointing shall surely be and everlasting priesthood throughout their generations. " Exodus 40:13-15
                >
                > Then the Lord spoke to Moses, saying; "Phinehas the son of Eleazar, the son of Aaron the priest, has turned back My wrath from the children of Israel, because he was zealous with My zeal among them, so that I did not consume the children of Israel in My zeal. Therefore say, `Behold, I give to him My covenant of peace; and it shall be to him and his descendants after him a covenant of an everlasting priesthood, because he was zealous for his God, and made atonement for the children of Israel .'" Numbers 25;10-13
                >
                > This is just the beginning of the story. Remember, God promised the Messiah would be both king and priest like Melchizedek in Psalm 110:4. God also spoke through other prophets on numerous occasions that He would indeed bring both offices into one in the Messiah.
                >
                > "Behold, the days are coming", says the Lord, "that I will perform that good thing which I have promised to the house of Israel and to the house of Judah; In those days and at that time I will cause to grow up to David a Branch of righteousness; He shall execute judgment and righteousness in the earth. In those days Judah will be saved, and Jerusalem will dwell safely. And this is the name by which she will be called; `THE LORD OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS' . For thus says the Lord; David shall never lack a man to sit on the throne of the house of Israel; nor shall the priests, the Levites, lack a man to offer burnt offerings before Me, to kindle grain offerings, and to sacrifice continually. " Jeremiah 33:14-18
                >
                > "Behold, the man whose name is the BRANCH! From his place he shall branch out, and he shall build the temple of the Lord; Yes, he shall build the temple of the Lord. He shall bear the glory, and shall sit and rule on his throne; So he shall be a priest on his throne, and the counsel of peace shall be between them both." (both offices) Zechariah 6:12-13
                >
                > "For the children of Israel shall abide many days without king or prince, without sacred pillar, without ephod or teraphim. Afterward the children of Israel shall return, seek the Lord their God and David their king, and fear the Lord and His goodness in the latter days. Hosea 3:4-5
                >
                > "Then it shall be the prince's part to give burnt offerings, grain offerings, and drink offerings, at the feasts, the New Moons, the Sabbaths, and at all the appointed seasons of the house of Israel. He shall prepare the sin offering, the grain offering, the burnt offering, and the peace offerings to make atonement for the house of Israel ." Ezekiel 45:17
                >
                > The author of Hebrews argues that because Yahshua is supposedly not from the tribe of Levi, there is therefore a change of priesthoods and subsequent change of the law. But God had said the Levites had and "everlasting" priesthood. The only way God could fulfill these promises He made to David and the Levites is if the Messiah was from both tribes. What our author obviously did not know is that Yahshua is exactly as God had prophesied the Messiah would be. Yahshua is descendant of both David and Levi! He is simply wrong on a number of levels. Both in the logic that a change of the priesthood demands a change of the law, and that there had been any change of the priesthood in the first place!
                >
                > I have yet to find any place where all the pieces of this puzzle have been put together by others. One can't help but wonder if part of the reason doesn't stem from the understanding that if Yahshua is in fact a descendant of Levi, the book of Hebrews would loose all credibility. Keep in mind, Yahshua not being of Levi, is a fundamental cornerstone of Hebrew's doctrine.
                >
                > Yahshua, descendant of both David and Levi
                >
                > In the book of Luke it is recorded that Yahshua's mother Mary was a "cousin" (KJV) to Elizabeth who was "of the daughters of Aaron". (Luke 1:5,36) The Greek word translated "cousin" literally means close blood (genetic) relative. The genetic connection can easily be seen by English speaking people in the Greek word "sungenes". This literally means close kin (See Strongs 4773) This word could just as easily mean Elisabeth was Mary's aunt. Considering Elisabeth was much older than Mary, this would appear to be more likely the case, but it is a moot point in light of the fact that it doesn't make a difference either way as you will see.
                >
                > In Leviticus, God commanded that Levite men were to marry only Levite women. (Leviticus 21:1,13-14, 22:12-13) Levite women on the other hand were permitted to marry outside the tribe. We know that Mary's father Heli was a descendant of David of the tribe of Judah (Luke 3:23. Many scholars agree that Joseph was Heli's son-in-law.) So if Mary was either a cousin ,or a niece to Elisabeth, it must mean that Mary's mother had to have been either a sister or aunt to Elisabeth, which means that Mary's mother had to have been a "daughter of Aaron" as well! Here is the breakdown. If Mary and Elisabeth were cousins, as it says in the KJV, then Mary's mother was a sister to one of Elisabeth's parents, both of whom had to have been full-blooded Levites for Elisabeth to be called a "daughter of Aaron" and be legitimately married to Zacharias the priest. If Elisabeth was Mary's aunt, as is more likely the case, then Mary's mother was a sister to Elisabeth. No matter
                > how one works it, it comes out the same. Mary's mother was a full-blooded Levite. She was then one of those who married outside the tribe when she married Heli of the tribe of Judah. Now it also logically flows perfectly well that if Yahshua had no earthly father, no new genetic material was introduced at his conception. Therefore his physical bloodlines must have been identical to his mother's bloodlines. Mary was a perfect blend of both tribes Judah and Levi!
                >
                > There is also another likelihood that makes this even better. Since God commanded the Levite men to marry only Levite women, it stands to reason that the genetic markers He recognizes as the Levitical priestly markers were passed down by the mothers, thus making the tribe matrilineal. These genetic matrilineal markers are located in what science today calls the mitochondrial DNA. The genetic markers of the other tribes were passed down by the fathers in the Y chromosome. It is also a well established fact of science that the father's genetic markers and the mother's genetic markers do not compete with each other during the process of recombination, so neither of them is diluted by the other. This would mean that Mary, and subsequently Yahshua, carried all the genetic markers of both tribes! It stands to reason that God intended for Levi's genetic markers to be matrilineal for the very purpose of being able to bring all of Judah, and all of Levi together
                > into one man. (See chart below)
                >
                > The fact that Yahshua is indeed a descendant of the tribe of Levi, as God had promised the Messiah would be, is enough in itself to completely discredit the book of Hebrews. Hebrew's assertion that Yahshua was not of Levi is a fundamental premise of the author's ongoing argument. There is no "new" priesthood. God had established the priesthood in Aaron's descendants forever. Furthermore, since there is no "change of the Law" even if there were a new priesthood, how much more established is the fact that there is there no "change of the Law" when there is no new priesthood? Nothing more really needs to be said concerning the credibility of the author of Hebrews! We should discard the book as a nice-try of purely human effort on this basis alone. But to further demonstrate the sad mistakenness of the author… consider his next argument.
                >
                > The New Covenant?
                >
                > Again, the author of Hebrews has completely missed the fact that Yahshua will physically return and fulfill the remaining Messianic prophecies. This becomes painfully obvious in his on-going argument. Now he reasons that his new priesthood and new law fulfill the prophecies of a "new covenant". Here, in chapter 8:8-12, he quotes the prophecy from Jeremiah. Please take special note of the fact that every time in the book of Jeremiah where God says, "Behold the days are coming", He is speaking of the Messianic age yet to come. The actual prophecy reads;
                >
                > "Behold, the days are coming, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah â€" not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out to the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, though I was a husband to them, says the Lord. But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will put My Law in their mind, and write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. No more shall every man teach his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, `Know the Lord,' for they all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them, says the Lord. For I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more." Jeremiah 31:31-34
                >
                > Then after quoting this prophecy, the author of Hebrews makes this statement, from which comes the concept of an Old (obsolete) Testament.
                >
                > In that He says, "A new covenant," He has made the first obsolete. Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away. Hebrews 8:13
                >
                > Our author has obviously come to another very mistaken conclusion. He believes that God's covenant with Israel at Mt. Sinai and His Law are one and the same. They are not. God's Law is a list of do's and don'ts. God's covenant with Israel is a contractual promise to bless them if they obey His Law. Of course, if they broke the Law, in so doing they also broke the covenant, but that does not mean the Law is the covenant! It should be evident in this passage that God continues to speak of His Law as though it will not change. Here it is again.
                >
                > But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will put My Law in their mind, and write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. Jeremiah 31:33
                >
                > It is only after the author has blurred the line between the Law and the covenant, making them one and the same, and then drawn our attention to a new covenant, can he then make the leap of logic inferring that when God said "My Law" in reference to a new covenant, He meant "My new law"! This is obviously what he wants us to see here. Remember, he has already said there has been a "change of the Law". But God did not say "My new law". He is speaking of the same Law. The only difference is, when the new covenant is finally inaugurated, this same Law of Moses will be written on the hearts of the children of Israel so they will want to keep it. And herein is another point that is extremely important. This prophecy concerns only Israel . It does not concern Gentiles in any way! The only Gentiles who might be included in this are those individuals who have joined themselves to Israel through circumcision and obedience to God's Law, in which case they would no
                > longer be seen as Gentiles. The Christian church cannot claim this prophecy for itself… unless of course one is of the persuasion that God has replaced Israel... and the Christian church is the new true Israel of God! This repulsive teaching is a lie, and among other things has been used as justification for the deplorable anti-Semitism much of Christianity has perpetrated on the Jewish people throughout history. But I digress. The point is, you can't have it both ways. Either Israel is Israel, or the Christian church is Israel. The prophecies concerning Israel and the new covenant have either been fulfilled, or they haven't.
                >
                > Some might argue that Yahshua said the "new covenant" was established in his blood, suggesting the new covenant took effect at the cross. Yahshua's sacrifices certainly paid the price for the promised new covenant, but to assert that it was inaugurated at that time is reading more into Yahshua's words than what he said. The prophecy from Jeremiah clearly indicates that the new covenant is with Israel only, and doesn't take effect until the Kingdom of God comes during the Messianic age which is still yet to come. Read again Jeremiah 31:31-40. This truth should also be clearly evident when taking Yahshua's words in the fuller context of Luke's account of the last supper.
                >
                > Then he said to them, "With fervent desire I have desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer; for I say to you, I will no longer eat of it until it is fulfilled in the Kingdom of God." …"Likewise he also took the cup after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood which is shed for you." Luke 22:15,16,20
                >
                > Yahshua certainly paid the price for the new covenant with his blood, but it will not be inaugurated or "fulfilled" until he returns… and even then it will only be with Israel!
                >
                > There are numerous other parallel prophecies concerning the new covenant that prove God is speaking of His Law as given through Moses. What I have highlighted in bold print below includes the same new covenant spoken of in Jeremiah 31:33. Please read this quote one more time and dare to compare it to the following yet-to-be-fulfilled prophecies! Also, please notice that these prophecies concern only Israel during the Messianic age yet to come, along with the fact that they could not possibly have been fulfilled yet! Here is the "new covenant" prophecy that Hebrews uses first.
                >
                > "Behold, the days are coming, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah… …this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will put My Law in their mind, and write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. Jeremiah 31:31,33
                >
                > Now compare.
                >
                > "Although I have cast them far off among the Gentiles, and although I have scattered them among the countries, yet I shall be a little sanctuary for them in the countries where they have gone. Therefore say, `Thus says the Lord God: "I will gather you from the peoples, assemble you from the countries where you have been scattered, and I will give you the land of Israel."' "And they will go there, and they will take away all its detestable things and all its abominations from there. Then I will give them one heart, and I will put a new spirit within them, and take the stony heart out of their flesh, and give them a heart of flesh, that they may walk in My statutes and keep My judgments and do them; and they shall be My people, and I will be their God." Ezekiel 11:16-20
                >
                > "For I will take you from among the nations, gather you out of all countries, and bring you into your own land. Then I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you shall be clean; I will cleanse you from all your filthiness and from all your idols. I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; I will take the heart of stone out of your flesh. I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes, and you will keep My judgments and do them. Then you shall dwell in the land that I gave to your fathers; you shall be My people, and I will be your God." Ezekiel 35:24-28
                >
                > "David My servant shall be king over them, and they shall all have one shepherd; they shall also walk in My judgments and observe My statutes, and do them. Then they shall dwell in the land that I have given to Jacob My servant, where your fathers dwelt; and they shall dwell there, they, their children, and their children's children, forever; and My servant David shall be their prince forever. Moreover I will make a covenant of peace with them, and it shall be an everlasting covenant with them; I will establish them and multiply them, and I will set My sanctuary in their midst forevermore. My tabernacle also shall be with them; indeed I will be their God, and they shall be My people. The nations also will know that I, the Lord, sanctify Israel, when My sanctuary is in their midst forevermore. " Ezekiel 37:24-28
                >
                > What more needs to be said? The new covenant is without question the same Law, only God will cause Israel to want to walk in His ways when His Kingdom comes during the Messianic age.
                >
                > The book of Hebrews simply cannot be reconciled with the picture that the prophets, the book of Revelation, and Yahshua himself have given us of the Messianic age and the coming Kingdom of God. One picture has to go. One must choose to follow the author of Hebrews, or follow Yahshua, Moses, and The Prophets. The "new covenant" is either already fulfilled in a heavenly mystical sense, or it is yet to be inaugurated with Israel and fulfilled when Yahshua returns, delivers Israel from all her enemies, ascends the throne of his father David... and as a son of Levi as well, begins his high priestly ministry before God Most High as King and Priest… after the order of Melchizedek.
                >
                > ***
                >
                > Note. The new priesthood, new law, new covenant picture does in fact dovetail with Paul's doctrine of a new Israel… one that has replaced the old... obsolete Israel! (Galatians 6:15-16) I do not say this to Paul's credit. It is an utterly repulsive lie, and largely responsible for much of the anti-Semitism and evil perpetrated toward God's people over the past 2000 years.
                >
                > For more on Paul's own credibility, and his many mistaken doctrines, please obtain a copy of the book, Jesus Words Only â€" Or Was Paul the Apostle Jesus Condemns in Revelation 2:2, by Douglas J. Del Tondo, Infinity Publishing. ISBN 0-7414-2965- 9 My review, and ordering information can be accessed by clicking here.
                >
                > If you would like to print this article for handouts and would like the Yahshua's Bloodlines diagram to display properly, please email your request to judavschr@hotmail. com and I will be happy to reply with an attached Microsoft Word file, free of charge. This file will have to be opened with Microsoft Word for Yahshua's bloodline diagram to display properly.
                >
                > If you have found this article compelling, please pass it on to family, friends, and clergy for further debate.
                >
                > Blessings in Yahshua,
                >
                > Scott Nelson
                >
              • Elizabeth Canova
                Brother Dave ......sorry...just one more question...you said albeit this is very difficult for most humans here in this brief first life.   Do you believe
                Message 7 of 20 , Jun 3, 2009
                • 0 Attachment
                  Brother Dave ......sorry...just one more question....you said "albeit this is very difficult for most humans here in this brief first life."  Do you believe that everyone here on this level with you are on their "brief first life" or is there anything in your FER that says that we can come back here again if we want to?  I have read in other texts from psychic mediums where it was channeled from a spirit on "the other side" that we can choose to repeat life HERE on earth if we ask, either to further perfect ourselves or help others.  Just wondering if the FER says anything about that.
                   
                  Elizabeth


                  From: Brother Dave <truthist@...>
                  To: Christian-Philosophy@yahoogroups.com
                  Sent: Tuesday, June 2, 2009 7:50:46 PM
                  Subject: Re: [Christian-Philosophy] Re: Truth, Bell Curve, Kabalah


                   

                  From: Elizabeth Canova <elizabeth.canova@ yahoo.com>
                  To: Christian-Philosoph y@yahoogroups. com
                  Sent: Tuesday, June 2, 2009 5:03:40 PM
                  Subject: Re: [Christian-Philosop hy] Re: Truth, Bell Curve, Kabalah

                  > Brother Dave, take your time with any response to me, I am in no rush :o)

                   Dear Elizabeth,  Thank you. I was going to reply tonight to your last post to me on Kabbalah. This one is easier, tomorrow I do that and maybe have time to answer Paul-gg on his last Pantheism post to me.

                  >> Sometime, if you are not yet familiar with this, Google "Bell Curve Distribution" and look at it's basic definition and graph. This shows that more (humans, for example) are in the broad middle than the lesser numbers on the far left or far right. So, seeing both sides, by being in the middle is common. Being older (nearly age 70, or 490 in dog years) and thus very experienced in on-going personal God-consciousness, scientific-logical nature, and long street-wise experienced, I have mostly well-defined far-right and some far-left concepts which I use to try to keep some on the extremes more toward the broad middle ground.

                  > So the older we get, the more experience we have, then views may change to far-right and far-left...so I guess I will be headed left or right in the future, but being 38 years old, I guess I am in the middle for a while until some more crap flies into my fan....lol

                  At age 30-40 usually, many become more conscious of consciousness, have more controlk over their thoughts, are more reflective. This is the beginning of soul consciousness and increased God-consciousness. Truth lovers then do more intense seeking and finding of spiritual realities and develop a more unified life philosophy.

                   

                  >> Having said that, it is not wise to think that all views are relative and up to the individual. All truth of importance is Absolute and comes one way only from our loving Father God-Infinite I AM via way of our Creator Father-Son of God Jesus and through the Holy Spirit.. His/Their invitation-command of: "Be you perfect; even as I AM perfect." to each and to all humans is not a confusing, relative "be you perfect or mediocre or imperfect as you desire - whatever feels good to you." This is the evil, sinful way of the godless individuals in this world. Look at the terrible problems they have caused !

                  > "Be you perfect; even as I am perfect" I think that is referring to love, to love all people regardless of if they are considered enemies, unrighteous, righteous or whatever, that is how Jesus was perfect, he was perfect in Love, he loved everyone. If I view anyone as evil, sinful or godless then I am not viewing them in a loving way or the way Jesus would have viewed them, and I think this is what he meant when he said to be "perfect" as he is. I try to apply the verse to me....so from my viewpoint and applying this verse to me and what I believe it means would imply that even viewing someone as a problem in the world or godless or evil would be violating the "perfect" that he was asking us to strive toward.  I am supposed to love my enemy....I won't love what he/she does but to not love him/her would be to judge him/her so I will strive for that unconditional love toward all others.

                   Yes, love is the highest supreme spiritual value; and we are to strive to love all persons, even our enemies; albeit this is very difficult for most humans here in this brief first life. But real divine or divine-human fatherly & brotherly love MUST include upholding spiritual and moral truths, higher divine beauty appreciation, and true goodness.  Please take a look at this post of mine from the FER earlier.  Note Jesus' use of many "Woe upon you" in His Last Temple Discourse !

                  http://groups. yahoo.com/ group/Christian- Philosophy/ message/15525 

                  >> How old are you? Are you married? Have children ? Many spiritual truths are not learned well until one has raised several children to adulthood.

                  > I am 38 years old, I have been married and divorced twice, I have two children from my first marriage who are now 12 and 16. I have a boyfriend of 5 years, but we do not plan on ever getting married (he has also been married twice, although his first wife died in their 8th month of marriage from a brain tumor) he has two boys (7 and 15) that he has custody of, we raise our children together as husband and wife even though we are not married.  And there is a bunch of other stuff in between all that stuff that would make everyone's head spin...I won't mention all that....haha

                  Thanks for sharing that. Living together without a state marriage license is fine if the man and woman love each other, are faithful and both work to love and care for the welfare of their combined children from past relations. Human marriage is actually not a sacrement; this is clearly seen when a husband and wife, married in a church, later divorce. If God actually joined them; then divorce would be impossible ! Also, even though human mariage is not always divinely approved; it should be humanly sacred.

                  > Elizabeth :o)

                   

                  Peace and progress,

                  Brother Dave




                  From: Brother Dave <truthist@att. net>
                  To: Christian-Philosoph y@yahoogroups. com
                  Sent: Monday, June 1, 2009 9:41:32 PM
                  Subject: Re: [Christian-Philosop hy] Re: Truth, Bell Curve, Kabalah

                  Hi Sister Truth-seeker- finder Elizabeth and all,
                   
                  Sometime, if you are not yet familiar with this, Google "Bell Curve Distribution" and look at it's basic definition and graph.  This shows that more (humans, for example) are in the broad middle than the lesser numbers on the far left or far right.  So, seeing both sides, by being in the middle is common.  Being older (nearly age 70, or 490 in dog years) and thus very experienced in on-going personal God-consciousness, scientific-logical nature, and long street-wise experienced, I have mostly well-defined far-right and some far-left concepts which I use to try to keep some on the extremes more toward the broad middle ground. Having said that, it is not wise to think that all views are relative and up to the individual. All truth of importance is Absolute and comes one way only from our loving Father God-Infinite I AM via way of our Creator Father-Son of God Jesus and through the Holy Spirit.  His/Their invitation-command of: "Be you perfect; even as I AM perfect." to each and to all humans is not a confusing, relative "be you perfect or mediocre or imperfect as you desire - whatever feels good to you."  This is the evil, sinful way of the godless individuals in this world. Look at the terrible problems they have caused !
                   
                  How old are you?  Are you married? Have children ?  Many spiritual truths are not learned well until one has raised several children to adulthood.
                   
                  Hopefully, tomorrow, I will be able to go back and answer you last post to me on our Kabbalah or Kabalah discussions. Today, I took mainly a needed rest from a successful Christian and patriotic music concert out of town Sunday at a very large retirement and assisted-living complex.
                   
                  Peace and progress,
                   
                  Brother Dave
                   
                  http://www.PureChri stians.org/ Gospel enlarging website,
                  proclaiming worldwide the True Religion
                  OF JESUS and ABOUT JESUS and IN JESUS
                   
                  Come learn and share !



                  From: Elizabeth Canova <elizabeth.canova@ yahoo.com>
                  To: Christian-Philosoph y@yahoogroups. com
                  Sent: Monday, June 1, 2009 1:36:47 PM
                  Subject: Re: [Christian-Philosop hy] Re: The Problem with Hebrews - by Scott Nelson

                  The "who is who" of the world....farmers. ..shepherds. ....false apostles... etc  LOL
                   
                  I have found certain people I encounter to be like shepherds... ..then I grew and learned more of them, learned more of myself and that changed.  It all changes, that is one thing I count on, not much is set in stone right now for me. 
                   
                  I talked to a friend this weekend, her and I are on the same level spiritually, we are both learning and just now started our intimate relationship with God.  She asked me if I believed there was a "hell" and I told her that I did not believe it was a place that I always had the impression it was, not like I was taught in sunday school or church....but I told her...that is the way I feel today...ask me again in a year and maybe I will have a different opinion....I can't say for sure.  I waiver back and forth with the more that is revealed to me.  Sometimes I feel wishy washy and uncertain and even dumb - why can't I have "eyes to see" or "ears to hear" everything.. ..but before I start bashing myself, I realize that I am learning and it is a process, it doesn't just happen over night, so I am very hesitant to say I am completely certain of anything, sometimes I am hesitant to even share what I think is revealed to me because it sounds so different than anything I have been taught and something may need to be added in the future to make more sense...maybe more time needs to pass for me to encounter a situation that will reveal the real meaning.  There are a few things I am certain of and those are the only things that I will ever say to someone with complete confidence. 
                   
                  So how can someone like me, the way I am now, teach anyone anything? I feel like I always take the middle ground and I don't have much to offer other than neutrality.  I really don't know much, its a little frustrating to hear all of ya'll talk and use words that I don't understand (monoism, pantheism, etc.) and I am not even sure I need to learn these words, other than to label something that I can better understand through adjectives, but even reading the explanation of these things on the computer, I still just don't get it because two people can look at this same thing (noun) differently.  Maybe it is because I am just not educated enough or worldly enough to understand, but I am not sure I want to be, then again I don't always like taking the middle ground...I have been taught to know your position and know where you stand, to stand firm, but I can't be sure where I need to stand right now on a lot of stuff, it is sometimes overwhelming. 
                   
                  Yesterday I went to a family function and I spent the whole time with 2 year old girl twins, after the conversation in the adult group turned heated, I just listened and I could understand both sides, the conversation got more heated and I had to walk away, it was more comfortable there with the girls, they didn't need words or any validation, they just wanted to jump on the sofa, play peek-a-boo and be tickled, sometimes it feels good not to have to take a side, but people try and force you into that, into taking some stance and labeling who you are, why do we need to have a label?  Why do we always have to be on the right side?  Why can't everyone be right?  Why can't everyone be a farmer, then a shepherd or vice versa?  Would that be too boring if we never argued or had a debate or labeled who we were?  Would it be too peaceful?  I just don't get it...
                   
                  Elizabeth

                  From: james m. clark jr. <Yaakov2819@praiseya hweh..com>
                  To: Christian-Philosoph y@yahoogroups. com
                  Sent: Sunday, May 31, 2009 3:47:17 PM
                  Subject: [Christian-Philosop hy] Re: The Problem with Hebrews - by Scott Nelson

                  Shalom,

                  A very good point but even false apostles are considered to become farmers rather than shepherds in the resserection. Hypothetically, we don't even have the authority to condem spirit beings. But also, even after the new covent is established, when no Israelite will need to be tought Scripture.

                  be well,
                  jamey

                  --- In Christian-Philosoph y@yahoogroups. com, Elizabeth Canova <elizabeth.canova@ ...> wrote:
                  >
                  > "Or Was Paul the Apostle Jesus Condemns in Revelation 2:2, "
                  > where here does it say anyone is "condemned" ?  All that I read of what is said to the church of Ephesus is "I know" and "have found" no where does it say that He "condemns" 
                  >  
                  > Revelation 2:2I know your deeds, your hard work and your perseverance. I know that you cannot tolerate wicked men, that you have tested those who claim to be apostles but are not, and have found them false
                  >  
                  > God understands everything we do and why we do it. Why we feel the way we feel, and so should we understand everyone else and "overcome" - not overcome the nicolations, not overcome the apostles...but overcome that hatred for those who we do not understand.
                  >  
                  >
                  >
                  > --- On Sun, 5/31/09, james m. clark jr. <Yaakov2819@ ...> wrote:
                  >
                  >
                  > From: james m. clark jr. <Yaakov2819@ ...>
                  > Subject: [Christian-Philosop hy] The Problem with Hebrews - by Scott Nelson
                  > To: Christian-Philosoph y@yahoogroups. com
                  > Date: Sunday, May 31, 2009, 9:09 AM
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > chart and reader friendly article at
                  >
                  > http://www.judaismv schristianity. com/problem_ with_hebrews. htm
                  >
                  > The Problem with Hebrews
                  >
                  > By Scott Nelson
                  >
                  > Introduction
                  >
                  > The following article demonstrates there are two doctrines commonly held among Christians that cannot be reconciled with each other. Only one position can be true. It is written for the sake of those who believe Yahshua (Jesus) is going to physically return to earth to rule and reign from Jerusalem for a thousand years, as prophesied in Revelation 20:1-6, and will at that time fulfill the many glorious kingly prophecies concerning the Messiah as recorded in Moses and the Prophets. Those of us who hold to this picture are commonly referred to as "premillennialists" . This is the first of the two doctrines. This article is not for those who do not accept this picture… for whom these prophecies need no literal fulfillment.
                  >
                  > The problem at hand is that the second doctrine is also clearly taught in the Bible… in the book of Hebrews. The author of Hebrews uses several Messianic prophecies to paint a very different picture. Bear in mind the book of Hebrews was written at a time not long after Yahshua had ascended to heaven, and most believers at that time were left confused as to how Yahshua fulfilled the glorious prophecies of the Messianic Kingdom. They didn't understand that it would be many generations later before he would return to finish fulfilling these prophecies. The book of Hebrews was written largely for the purpose of answering the questions of that time, and it does so with a very eloquent, lofty, and authoritative- sounding discourse promoting the picture that Yahshua had indeed fulfilled these prophecies in a unique heavenly sense. Nowhere in the book can there be found the picture of Yahshua literally physically returning to fulfill these prophecies here on
                  > earth. This, in stark contrast to the Messianic pictures painted by the Prophets, Yahshua himself, and the book of Revelation.
                  >
                  > So here is the dilemma. Has Yahshua already fulfilled these prophecies in heaven, or will he literally physically return and fulfill them here on earth in the future? The author of Hebrews himself borrows from some of these well known Messianic prophecies and gives them a new spin to promote his doctrine of a new-priesthood, new-law, and new-covenant, all of which have supposedly been inaugurated and fulfilled in heaven. Here is his logic....
                  >
                  > Like Melchizedek… how?
                  >
                  > In the 5th chapter of the book of Hebrews, the author uses a Messianic prophecy from Psalm 110 to begin comparing Yahshua to Melchizedek.
                  >
                  > So also Christ did not glorify himself to become High Priest, but it was he who said to him: "You are My son, today I have begotten you." As He also says in another place: "You are a priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek" ,… And having been perfected, he became the author of eternal salvation to all who obey him, called by God as High Priest "according to the order of Melchizedek, " of whom we have much to say, and hard to explain, since you have become dull of hearing. Hebrews 5:5-6,9-11
                  >
                  > Then in the 7th chapter, the author begins his new-priesthood argument by stating Yahshua is like Melchizedek in some rather strange and abstract ways.. For instance, Yahshua and Melchizedek supposedly had neither genealogical record, nor beginning or end of days!
                  >
                  > "For this Melchizedek, king of Salem ,… without father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but made like the Son of God, remains a priest continually. " Hebrews 7:1-3
                  >
                  > This certainly qualifies as "hard to explain"! The author is correct in determining from Psalm 110:1-4 that Messiah is like Melchizedek, but the connections he draws are bizarre and extremely weak arguments from silence. Does he seriously want us to believe that because we don't have Melchizedek' s genealogical records, parent's names, date of birth, or date of death written there in the book of Genesis for us… he had none?! This is the weakest form of argument there is. To illustrate: Maybe, because there is nothing said about Melchizedek being married or having any children, we must conclude he was celibate! (On the off-chance some might actually consider this a good argument, here is another example.) Maybe, because nothing is said about Melchizedek' s apparel, we must conclude he had none and was a nudist! Our author's style of logic is just this non-sensical. How absurd is the notion that Melchizedek had no father or mother? If Yahshua is like
                  > Melchizedek, would it not be far better to compare him to Melchizedek on information we do have on him as opposed to information we don't have on him?
                  >
                  > Hebrews then continues with another similarly weak argument stating Yahshua was like Melchizedek in that Melchizedek was not of the tribe of Levi.
                  >
                  > "Therefore, if perfection were through the Levitical priesthood (for under it the people received the law), what further need was there that another priest should rise according to the order of Melchizedek, and not be called according to the order of Aaron?... …For He of whom these things are spoken belongs to another tribe, from which no man has officiated at the altar. For it is evident that our Lord arose from Judah, of which tribe Moses spoke nothing concerning priesthood. Hebrews 7:11, 13-14
                  >
                  > There is one question that begs to be asked here. If Yahshua is like Melchizedek in that he has no genealogical record, how does the author know he is from the tribe of Judah?!
                  >
                  > Of particular interest, is that within this text, he wants us to believe it logically flows, since there has been a change in the priesthood, there must therefore also be a change of the Law.
                  >
                  > "For the priesthood being changed, of necessity there is also a change of the Law." Hebrews 7:12
                  >
                  > Question: Where is this supposed fundamental truth written? Granting as hypothetical for a moment that the priesthood has indeed changed, we have to ask; why must the Law change if the priesthood changes? Is it the priests who determine the Law? Or is it God? If there were a new priesthood to serve the same God, reason would assume the new priests would continue to abide by the established Laws of that God. But if any priesthood old or new served a new god, then it would logically flow that a new god would dictate a new law. The author's logic simply does not flow... yet it should be evident that this presupposition is fundamental to his ongoing argument. And again, all this is assuming his assertion that Yahshua is not of the tribe of Levi is correct in the first place. I will address this question in a moment.
                  >
                  > Yahshua is indeed like Melchizedek as Psalm 110:1-4 prophesied, but he is like Melchizedek in ways based on information God has given us and we do have on him. Very little is said about him, but everything we need to know about Melchizedek can be found in one single verse.... Genesis 14:18
                  >
                  > Then Melchizedek, king of Salem, brought out bread and wine; he was the priest of God Most High.
                  >
                  > There it is. He was king of Salem and priest of The Most High God.
                  >
                  > King and Priest in One
                  >
                  > A King, who is also a Priest, has never existed in Israel's history. The kingdom and the priesthood were always separate. The kingdom was established forever in David's descendants, and the priesthood was established in the descendants of Levi and Aaron forever as well.
                  >
                  > Here are some of God's promises to David.
                  >
                  > "My covenant I will not break, nor alter the word that has gone out of My lips. Once I have sworn by My holiness; I will not lie to David; His seed shall endure forever, and his throne as the sun before Me; It shall be established forever like the moon, even like the faithful witness in the sky." Psalm 89:34-37
                  >
                  > "For thus says the Lord; David shall never lack a man to sit on the throne of the house of Israel;" Jeremiah 33:17
                  >
                  > "David My servant shall be king over them, and they shall all have one shepherd; they shall also walk in My judgments and observe My statutes, and do them. Then they shall dwell in the land that I have given to Jacob My servant, where your fathers dwelt: and they shall dwell there, they, their children, and their children's children, forever; and My servant David shall be their prince forever." Ezekiel 37:24-25
                  >
                  > "He (Yahshua) will be great, and will be called the son of the Highest; and the Lord God will give him the throne of his father David. And he will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of his kingdom there will be no end.." Luke 1:32-33
                  >
                  > And here are some of God's promises to the Levitical priesthood.
                  >
                  > "And you shall gird them with sashes, Aaron and his sons, and put the hats on them. The priesthood shall be theirs for a perpetual statute, So you shall consecrate Aaron and his sons." Exodus 29:9
                  >
                  > "You shall put the holy garments on Aaron, and anoint him and sanctify him, that he may minister to Me as priest. And you shall bring his sons and clothe them with tunics. You shall anoint them, as you anointed their father, that they may minister to Me as priests; for their anointing shall surely be and everlasting priesthood throughout their generations. " Exodus 40:13-15
                  >
                  > Then the Lord spoke to Moses, saying; "Phinehas the son of Eleazar, the son of Aaron the priest, has turned back My wrath from the children of Israel, because he was zealous with My zeal among them, so that I did not consume the children of Israel in My zeal. Therefore say, `Behold, I give to him My covenant of peace; and it shall be to him and his descendants after him a covenant of an everlasting priesthood, because he was zealous for his God, and made atonement for the children of Israel .'" Numbers 25;10-13
                  >
                  > This is just the beginning of the story. Remember, God promised the Messiah would be both king and priest like Melchizedek in Psalm 110:4. God also spoke through other prophets on numerous occasions that He would indeed bring both offices into one in the Messiah.
                  >
                  > "Behold, the days are coming", says the Lord, "that I will perform that good thing which I have promised to the house of Israel and to the house of Judah; In those days and at that time I will cause to grow up to David a Branch of righteousness; He shall execute judgment and righteousness in the earth. In those days Judah will be saved, and Jerusalem will dwell safely. And this is the name by which she will be called; `THE LORD OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS' . For thus says the Lord; David shall never lack a man to sit on the throne of the house of Israel; nor shall the priests, the Levites, lack a man to offer burnt offerings before Me, to kindle grain offerings, and to sacrifice continually. " Jeremiah 33:14-18
                  >
                  > "Behold, the man whose name is the BRANCH! From his place he shall branch out, and he shall build the temple of the Lord; Yes, he shall build the temple of the Lord. He shall bear the glory, and shall sit and rule on his throne; So he shall be a priest on his throne, and the counsel of peace shall be between them both." (both offices) Zechariah 6:12-13
                  >
                  > "For the children of Israel shall abide many days without king or prince, without sacred pillar, without ephod or teraphim. Afterward the children of Israel shall return, seek the Lord their God and David their king, and fear the Lord and His goodness in the latter days. Hosea 3:4-5
                  >
                  > "Then it shall be the prince's part to give burnt offerings, grain offerings, and drink offerings, at the feasts, the New Moons, the Sabbaths, and at all the appointed seasons of the house of Israel. He shall prepare the sin offering, the grain offering, the burnt offering, and the peace offerings to make atonement for the house of Israel ." Ezekiel 45:17
                  >
                  > The author of Hebrews argues that because Yahshua is supposedly not from the tribe of Levi, there is therefore a change of priesthoods and subsequent change of the law. But God had said the Levites had and "everlasting" priesthood. The only way God could fulfill these promises He made to David and the Levites is if the Messiah was from both tribes. What our author obviously did not know is that Yahshua is exactly as God had prophesied the Messiah would be. Yahshua is descendant of both David and Levi! He is simply wrong on a number of levels. Both in the logic that a change of the priesthood demands a change of the law, and that there had been any change of the priesthood in the first place!
                  >
                  > I have yet to find any place where all the pieces of this puzzle have been put together by others. One can't help but wonder if part of the reason doesn't stem from the understanding that if Yahshua is in fact a descendant of Levi, the book of Hebrews would loose all credibility. Keep in mind, Yahshua not being of Levi, is a fundamental cornerstone of Hebrew's doctrine.
                  >
                  > Yahshua, descendant of both David and Levi
                  >
                  > In the book of Luke it is recorded that Yahshua's mother Mary was a "cousin" (KJV) to Elizabeth who was "of the daughters of Aaron". (Luke 1:5,36) The Greek word translated "cousin" literally means close blood (genetic) relative. The genetic connection can easily be seen by English speaking people in the Greek word "sungenes". This literally means close kin (See Strongs 4773) This word could just as easily mean Elisabeth was Mary's aunt. Considering Elisabeth was much older than Mary, this would appear to be more likely the case, but it is a moot point in light of the fact that it doesn't make a difference either way as you will see.
                  >
                  > In Leviticus, God commanded that Levite men were to marry only Levite women.. (Leviticus 21:1,13-14, 22:12-13) Levite women on the other hand were permitted to marry outside the tribe. We know that Mary's father Heli was a descendant of David of the tribe of Judah (Luke 3:23. Many scholars agree that Joseph was Heli's son-in-law.) So if Mary was either a cousin ,or a niece to Elisabeth, it must mean that Mary's mother had to have been either a sister or aunt to Elisabeth, which means that Mary's mother had to have been a "daughter of Aaron" as well! Here is the breakdown. If Mary and Elisabeth were cousins, as it says in the KJV, then Mary's mother was a sister to one of Elisabeth's parents, both of whom had to have been full-blooded Levites for Elisabeth to be called a "daughter of Aaron" and be legitimately married to Zacharias the priest. If Elisabeth was Mary's aunt, as is more likely the case, then Mary's mother was a sister to Elisabeth. No matter
                  > how one works it, it comes out the same. Mary's mother was a full-blooded Levite. She was then one of those who married outside the tribe when she married Heli of the tribe of Judah. Now it also logically flows perfectly well that if Yahshua had no earthly father, no new genetic material was introduced at his conception. Therefore his physical bloodlines must have been identical to his mother's bloodlines. Mary was a perfect blend of both tribes Judah and Levi!
                  >
                  > There is also another likelihood that makes this even better. Since God commanded the Levite men to marry only Levite women, it stands to reason that the genetic markers He recognizes as the Levitical priestly markers were passed down by the mothers, thus making the tribe matrilineal. These genetic matrilineal markers are located in what science today calls the mitochondrial DNA. The genetic markers of the other tribes were passed down by the fathers in the Y chromosome. It is also a well established fact of science that the father's genetic markers and the mother's genetic markers do not compete with each other during the process of recombination, so neither of them is diluted by the other. This would mean that Mary, and subsequently Yahshua, carried all the genetic markers of both tribes! It stands to reason that God intended for Levi's genetic markers to be matrilineal for the very purpose of being able to bring all of Judah, and all of Levi together
                  > into one man. (See chart below)
                  >
                  > The fact that Yahshua is indeed a descendant of the tribe of Levi, as God had promised the Messiah would be, is enough in itself to completely discredit the book of Hebrews. Hebrew's assertion that Yahshua was not of Levi is a fundamental premise of the author's ongoing argument. There is no "new" priesthood. God had established the priesthood in Aaron's descendants forever. Furthermore, since there is no "change of the Law" even if there were a new priesthood, how much more established is the fact that there is there no "change of the Law" when there is no new priesthood? Nothing more really needs to be said concerning the credibility of the author of Hebrews! We should discard the book as a nice-try of purely human effort on this basis alone. But to further demonstrate the sad mistakenness of the author… consider his next argument.
                  >
                  > The New Covenant?
                  >
                  > Again, the author of Hebrews has completely missed the fact that Yahshua will physically return and fulfill the remaining Messianic prophecies. This becomes painfully obvious in his on-going argument. Now he reasons that his new priesthood and new law fulfill the prophecies of a "new covenant". Here, in chapter 8:8-12, he quotes the prophecy from Jeremiah. Please take special note of the fact that every time in the book of Jeremiah where God says, "Behold the days are coming", He is speaking of the Messianic age yet to come. The actual prophecy reads;
                  >
                  > "Behold, the days are coming, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah â€" not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out to the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, though I was a husband to them, says the Lord. But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will put My Law in their mind, and write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. No more shall every man teach his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, `Know the Lord,' for they all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them, says the Lord. For I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more." Jeremiah 31:31-34
                  >
                  > Then after quoting this prophecy, the author of Hebrews makes this statement, from which comes the concept of an Old (obsolete) Testament.
                  >
                  > In that He says, "A new covenant," He has made the first obsolete. Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away. Hebrews 8:13
                  >
                  > Our author has obviously come to another very mistaken conclusion. He believes that God's covenant with Israel at Mt. Sinai and His Law are one and the same. They are not. God's Law is a list of do's and don'ts. God's covenant with Israel is a contractual promise to bless them if they obey His Law. Of course, if they broke the Law, in so doing they also broke the covenant, but that does not mean the Law is the covenant! It should be evident in this passage that God continues to speak of His Law as though it will not change. Here it is again.
                  >
                  > But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will put My Law in their mind, and write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. Jeremiah 31:33
                  >
                  > It is only after the author has blurred the line between the Law and the covenant, making them one and the same, and then drawn our attention to a new covenant, can he then make the leap of logic inferring that when God said "My Law" in reference to a new covenant, He meant "My new law"! This is obviously what he wants us to see here. Remember, he has already said there has been a "change of the Law". But God did not say "My new law". He is speaking of the same Law. The only difference is, when the new covenant is finally inaugurated, this same Law of Moses will be written on the hearts of the children of Israel so they will want to keep it. And herein is another point that is extremely important. This prophecy concerns only Israel . It does not concern Gentiles in any way! The only Gentiles who might be included in this are those individuals who have joined themselves to Israel through circumcision and obedience to God's Law, in which case they would no
                  > longer be seen as Gentiles. The Christian church cannot claim this prophecy for itself… unless of course one is of the persuasion that God has replaced Israel... and the Christian church is the new true Israel of God! This repulsive teaching is a lie, and among other things has been used as justification for the deplorable anti-Semitism much of Christianity has perpetrated on the Jewish people throughout history. But I digress. The point is, you can't have it both ways. Either Israel is Israel, or the Christian church is Israel. The prophecies concerning Israel and the new covenant have either been fulfilled, or they haven't.
                  >
                  > Some might argue that Yahshua said the "new covenant" was established in his blood, suggesting the new covenant took effect at the cross. Yahshua's sacrifices certainly paid the price for the promised new covenant, but to assert that it was inaugurated at that time is reading more into Yahshua's words than what he said. The prophecy from Jeremiah clearly indicates that the new covenant is with Israel only, and doesn't take effect until the Kingdom of God comes during the Messianic age which is still yet to come. Read again Jeremiah 31:31-40. This truth should also be clearly evident when taking Yahshua's words in the fuller context of Luke's account of the last supper.
                  >
                  > Then he said to them, "With fervent desire I have desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer; for I say to you, I will no longer eat of it until it is fulfilled in the Kingdom of God." …"Likewise he also took the cup after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood which is shed for you." Luke 22:15,16,20
                  >
                  > Yahshua certainly paid the price for the new covenant with his blood, but it will not be inaugurated or "fulfilled" until he returns… and even then it will only be with Israel!
                  >
                  > There are numerous other parallel prophecies concerning the new covenant that prove God is speaking of His Law as given through Moses. What I have highlighted in bold print below includes the same new covenant spoken of in Jeremiah 31:33. Please read this quote one more time and dare to compare it to the following yet-to-be-fulfilled prophecies! Also, please notice that these prophecies concern only Israel during the Messianic age yet to come, along with the fact that they could not possibly have been fulfilled yet! Here is the "new covenant" prophecy that Hebrews uses first.
                  >
                  > "Behold, the days are coming, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah… …this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will put My Law in their mind, and write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. Jeremiah 31:31,33
                  >
                  > Now compare.
                  >
                  > "Although I have cast them far off among the Gentiles, and although I have scattered them among the countries, yet I shall be a little sanctuary for them in the countries where they have gone. Therefore say, `Thus says the Lord God: "I will gather you from the peoples, assemble you from the countries where you have been scattered, and I will give you the land of Israel."' "And they will go there, and they will take away all its detestable things and all its abominations from there. Then I will give them one heart, and I will put a new spirit within them, and take the stony heart out of their flesh, and give them a heart of flesh, that they may walk in My statutes and keep My judgments and do them; and they shall be My people, and I will be their God." Ezekiel 11:16-20
                  >
                  > "For I will take you from among the nations, gather you out of all countries, and bring you into your own land. Then I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you shall be clean; I will cleanse you from all your filthiness and from all your idols. I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; I will take the heart of stone out of your flesh. I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes, and you will keep My judgments and do them. Then you shall dwell in the land that I gave to your fathers; you shall be My people, and I will be your God." Ezekiel 35:24-28
                  >
                  > "David My servant shall be king over them, and they shall all have one shepherd; they shall also walk in My judgments and observe My statutes, and do them. Then they shall dwell in the land that I have given to Jacob My servant, where your fathers dwelt; and they shall dwell there, they, their children, and their children's children, forever; and My servant David shall be their prince forever. Moreover I will make a covenant of peace with them, and it shall be an everlasting covenant with them; I will establish them and multiply them, and I will set My sanctuary in their midst forevermore. My tabernacle also shall be with them; indeed I will be their God, and they shall be My people. The nations also will know that I, the Lord, sanctify Israel, when My sanctuary is in their midst forevermore. " Ezekiel 37:24-28
                  >
                  > What more needs to be said? The new covenant is without question the same Law, only God will cause Israel to want to walk in His ways when His Kingdom comes during the Messianic age.
                  >
                  > The book of Hebrews simply cannot be reconciled with the picture that the prophets, the book of Revelation, and Yahshua himself have given us of the Messianic age and the coming Kingdom of God. One picture has to go. One must choose to follow the author of Hebrews, or follow Yahshua, Moses, and The Prophets. The "new covenant" is either already fulfilled in a heavenly mystical sense, or it is yet to be inaugurated with Israel and fulfilled when Yahshua returns, delivers Israel from all her enemies, ascends the throne of his father David... and as a son of Levi as well, begins his high priestly ministry before God Most High as King and Priest… after the order of Melchizedek.
                  >
                  > ***
                  >
                  > Note. The new priesthood, new law, new covenant picture does in fact dovetail with Paul's doctrine of a new Israel… one that has replaced the old... obsolete Israel! (Galatians 6:15-16) I do not say this to Paul's credit. It is an utterly repulsive lie, and largely responsible for much of the anti-Semitism and evil perpetrated toward God's people over the past 2000 years.
                  >
                  > For more on Paul's own credibility, and his many mistaken doctrines, please obtain a copy of the book, Jesus Words Only â€" Or Was Paul the Apostle Jesus Condemns in Revelation 2:2, by Douglas J. Del Tondo, Infinity Publishing. ISBN 0-7414-2965- 9 My review, and ordering information can be accessed by clicking here.
                  >
                  > If you would like to print this article for handouts and would like the Yahshua's Bloodlines diagram to display properly, please email your request to judavschr@hotmail. com and I will be happy to reply with an attached Microsoft Word file, free of charge. This file will have to be opened with Microsoft Word for Yahshua's bloodline diagram to display properly.
                  >
                  > If you have found this article compelling, please pass it on to family, friends, and clergy for further debate.
                  >
                  > Blessings in Yahshua,
                  >
                  > Scott Nelson
                  >




                • Elizabeth Canova
                  Okay regarding the comment about how we must uphold spiritual and moral truths...I agree with that, and I read the Temple Discourse just now, Jesus talking
                  Message 8 of 20 , Jun 3, 2009
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Okay regarding the comment about how we must uphold spiritual and moral truths...I agree with that, and I read the Temple Discourse just now, Jesus talking about the hypocritical leaders is one thing because He knew their heart.  I think all of those "woe" statements were along the lines of him feeling so sorry for them and how they were going against what they had been taught and would suffer because of that.  We do need to uphold those truths but never uphold them by judging someone else.
                     
                    The comment that jumped out at me was this: "You would shut the doors of the kingdom of heaven against sincere men because they happen to be unlearned in the ways of your teaching.  You refuse to enter the kingdom and at the same time do everything within your power to prevent all others from entering.  You stand with your backs to the doors of salvation and fight with all who would enter therein."   This is a statement indicating that they actually knew the way...but didn't share it...that they knew the truth but instead of teaching (loving) they judged and threw out condemnation.  I am understanding this as they knew the truth and knew exactly what they were doing....Jesus knew this....but how can you or I know this about someone else?  We can't possibly know another persons heart, to point the finger at someone and call them godless because we are privy to information that they are not, we sit there and judge them for not undersanding what we understand....and for those of us who have a relationship with God and know his word... to point the finger at others in condemnation and judgment when we know the word....we are no better than the hypocritical leaders that Jesus spoke of. So this part of the discourse is for ME...not for the so-called, bad godless people making the world a bad place.  Judgment of others (homosexuals, etc.) will not make them our-standard of better, and it only makes US worse, only love will change the world, and change us.   I don't think we should judge someone for not understanding and doing something we consider stupid in the process of their not-understanding.  They do not know what they are doing because if they did know and really understood then they wouldn't do it, so it is unintentional and even if it wasn't unintentional - we have no authority to judge.  If these so-called godless people of the world do cause problems, then we cause EVEN MORE problems when we sit in judgment on them because we know better. 

                    From: Brother Dave <truthist@...>
                    To: Christian-Philosophy@yahoogroups.com
                    Sent: Tuesday, June 2, 2009 7:50:46 PM
                    Subject: Re: [Christian-Philosophy] Re: Truth, Bell Curve, Kabalah


                     

                    From: Elizabeth Canova <elizabeth.canova@ yahoo.com>
                    To: Christian-Philosoph y@yahoogroups. com
                    Sent: Tuesday, June 2, 2009 5:03:40 PM
                    Subject: Re: [Christian-Philosop hy] Re: Truth, Bell Curve, Kabalah

                    > Brother Dave, take your time with any response to me, I am in no rush :o)

                     Dear Elizabeth,  Thank you. I was going to reply tonight to your last post to me on Kabbalah. This one is easier, tomorrow I do that and maybe have time to answer Paul-gg on his last Pantheism post to me.

                    >> Sometime, if you are not yet familiar with this, Google "Bell Curve Distribution" and look at it's basic definition and graph. This shows that more (humans, for example) are in the broad middle than the lesser numbers on the far left or far right. So, seeing both sides, by being in the middle is common. Being older (nearly age 70, or 490 in dog years) and thus very experienced in on-going personal God-consciousness, scientific-logical nature, and long street-wise experienced, I have mostly well-defined far-right and some far-left concepts which I use to try to keep some on the extremes more toward the broad middle ground.

                    > So the older we get, the more experience we have, then views may change to far-right and far-left...so I guess I will be headed left or right in the future, but being 38 years old, I guess I am in the middle for a while until some more crap flies into my fan....lol

                    At age 30-40 usually, many become more conscious of consciousness, have more controlk over their thoughts, are more reflective. This is the beginning of soul consciousness and increased God-consciousness. Truth lovers then do more intense seeking and finding of spiritual realities and develop a more unified life philosophy.

                     

                    >> Having said that, it is not wise to think that all views are relative and up to the individual. All truth of importance is Absolute and comes one way only from our loving Father God-Infinite I AM via way of our Creator Father-Son of God Jesus and through the Holy Spirit. His/Their invitation-command of: "Be you perfect; even as I AM perfect." to each and to all humans is not a confusing, relative "be you perfect or mediocre or imperfect as you desire - whatever feels good to you." This is the evil, sinful way of the godless individuals in this world. Look at the terrible problems they have caused !

                    > "Be you perfect; even as I am perfect" I think that is referring to love, to love all people regardless of if they are considered enemies, unrighteous, righteous or whatever, that is how Jesus was perfect, he was perfect in Love, he loved everyone. If I view anyone as evil, sinful or godless then I am not viewing them in a loving way or the way Jesus would have viewed them, and I think this is what he meant when he said to be "perfect" as he is. I try to apply the verse to me...so from my viewpoint and applying this verse to me and what I believe it means would imply that even viewing someone as a problem in the world or godless or evil would be violating the "perfect" that he was asking us to strive toward.  I am supposed to love my enemy....I won't love what he/she does but to not love him/her would be to judge him/her so I will strive for that unconditional love toward all others.

                     Yes, love is the highest supreme spiritual value; and we are to strive to love all persons, even our enemies; albeit this is very difficult for most humans here in this brief first life. But real divine or divine-human fatherly & brotherly love MUST include upholding spiritual and moral truths, higher divine beauty appreciation, and true goodness.  Please take a look at this post of mine from the FER earlier.  Note Jesus' use of many "Woe upon you" in His Last Temple Discourse !

                    http://groups. yahoo.com/ group/Christian- Philosophy/ message/15525 

                    >> How old are you? Are you married? Have children ? Many spiritual truths are not learned well until one has raised several children to adulthood..

                    > I am 38 years old, I have been married and divorced twice, I have two children from my first marriage who are now 12 and 16. I have a boyfriend of 5 years, but we do not plan on ever getting married (he has also been married twice, although his first wife died in their 8th month of marriage from a brain tumor) he has two boys (7 and 15) that he has custody of, we raise our children together as husband and wife even though we are not married.  And there is a bunch of other stuff in between all that stuff that would make everyone's head spin....I won't mention all that....haha

                    Thanks for sharing that. Living together without a state marriage license is fine if the man and woman love each other, are faithful and both work to love and care for the welfare of their combined children from past relations.. Human marriage is actually not a sacrement; this is clearly seen when a husband and wife, married in a church, later divorce. If God actually joined them; then divorce would be impossible ! Also, even though human mariage is not always divinely approved; it should be humanly sacred.

                    > Elizabeth :o)

                     

                    Peace and progress,

                    Brother Dave




                    From: Brother Dave <truthist@att. net>
                    To: Christian-Philosoph y@yahoogroups. com
                    Sent: Monday, June 1, 2009 9:41:32 PM
                    Subject: Re: [Christian-Philosop hy] Re: Truth, Bell Curve, Kabalah

                    Hi Sister Truth-seeker- finder Elizabeth and all,
                     
                    Sometime, if you are not yet familiar with this, Google "Bell Curve Distribution" and look at it's basic definition and graph.  This shows that more (humans, for example) are in the broad middle than the lesser numbers on the far left or far right.  So, seeing both sides, by being in the middle is common.  Being older (nearly age 70, or 490 in dog years) and thus very experienced in on-going personal God-consciousness, scientific-logical nature, and long street-wise experienced, I have mostly well-defined far-right and some far-left concepts which I use to try to keep some on the extremes more toward the broad middle ground. Having said that, it is not wise to think that all views are relative and up to the individual. All truth of importance is Absolute and comes one way only from our loving Father God-Infinite I AM via way of our Creator Father-Son of God Jesus and through the Holy Spirit.  His/Their invitation-command of: "Be you perfect; even as I AM perfect." to each and to all humans is not a confusing, relative "be you perfect or mediocre or imperfect as you desire - whatever feels good to you."  This is the evil, sinful way of the godless individuals in this world. Look at the terrible problems they have caused !
                     
                    How old are you?  Are you married? Have children ?  Many spiritual truths are not learned well until one has raised several children to adulthood.
                     
                    Hopefully, tomorrow, I will be able to go back and answer you last post to me on our Kabbalah or Kabalah discussions. Today, I took mainly a needed rest from a successful Christian and patriotic music concert out of town Sunday at a very large retirement and assisted-living complex.
                     
                    Peace and progress,
                     
                    Brother Dave
                     
                    http://www.PureChri stians.org/ Gospel enlarging website,
                    proclaiming worldwide the True Religion
                    OF JESUS and ABOUT JESUS and IN JESUS
                     
                    Come learn and share !



                    From: Elizabeth Canova <elizabeth.canova@ yahoo.com>
                    To: Christian-Philosoph y@yahoogroups. com
                    Sent: Monday, June 1, 2009 1:36:47 PM
                    Subject: Re: [Christian-Philosop hy] Re: The Problem with Hebrews - by Scott Nelson

                    The "who is who" of the world....farmers. ..shepherds. ....false apostles... etc  LOL
                     
                    I have found certain people I encounter to be like shepherds... ..then I grew and learned more of them, learned more of myself and that changed.  It all changes, that is one thing I count on, not much is set in stone right now for me. 
                     
                    I talked to a friend this weekend, her and I are on the same level spiritually, we are both learning and just now started our intimate relationship with God.  She asked me if I believed there was a "hell" and I told her that I did not believe it was a place that I always had the impression it was, not like I was taught in sunday school or church....but I told her...that is the way I feel today...ask me again in a year and maybe I will have a different opinion....I can't say for sure.  I waiver back and forth with the more that is revealed to me.  Sometimes I feel wishy washy and uncertain and even dumb - why can't I have "eyes to see" or "ears to hear" everything.. ..but before I start bashing myself, I realize that I am learning and it is a process, it doesn't just happen over night, so I am very hesitant to say I am completely certain of anything, sometimes I am hesitant to even share what I think is revealed to me because it sounds so different than anything I have been taught and something may need to be added in the future to make more sense...maybe more time needs to pass for me to encounter a situation that will reveal the real meaning.  There are a few things I am certain of and those are the only things that I will ever say to someone with complete confidence. 
                     
                    So how can someone like me, the way I am now, teach anyone anything? I feel like I always take the middle ground and I don't have much to offer other than neutrality.  I really don't know much, its a little frustrating to hear all of ya'll talk and use words that I don't understand (monoism, pantheism, etc.) and I am not even sure I need to learn these words, other than to label something that I can better understand through adjectives, but even reading the explanation of these things on the computer, I still just don't get it because two people can look at this same thing (noun) differently.  Maybe it is because I am just not educated enough or worldly enough to understand, but I am not sure I want to be, then again I don't always like taking the middle ground...I have been taught to know your position and know where you stand, to stand firm, but I can't be sure where I need to stand right now on a lot of stuff, it is sometimes overwhelming. 
                     
                    Yesterday I went to a family function and I spent the whole time with 2 year old girl twins, after the conversation in the adult group turned heated, I just listened and I could understand both sides, the conversation got more heated and I had to walk away, it was more comfortable there with the girls, they didn't need words or any validation, they just wanted to jump on the sofa, play peek-a-boo and be tickled, sometimes it feels good not to have to take a side, but people try and force you into that, into taking some stance and labeling who you are, why do we need to have a label?  Why do we always have to be on the right side?  Why can't everyone be right?  Why can't everyone be a farmer, then a shepherd or vice versa?  Would that be too boring if we never argued or had a debate or labeled who we were?  Would it be too peaceful?  I just don't get it...
                     
                    Elizabeth

                    From: james m. clark jr. <Yaakov2819@praiseya hweh..com>
                    To: Christian-Philosoph y@yahoogroups. com
                    Sent: Sunday, May 31, 2009 3:47:17 PM
                    Subject: [Christian-Philosop hy] Re: The Problem with Hebrews - by Scott Nelson

                    Shalom,

                    A very good point but even false apostles are considered to become farmers rather than shepherds in the resserection. Hypothetically, we don't even have the authority to condem spirit beings. But also, even after the new covent is established, when no Israelite will need to be tought Scripture.

                    be well,
                    jamey

                    --- In Christian-Philosoph y@yahoogroups. com, Elizabeth Canova <elizabeth.canova@ ...> wrote:
                    >
                    > "Or Was Paul the Apostle Jesus Condemns in Revelation 2:2, "
                    > where here does it say anyone is "condemned" ?  All that I read of what is said to the church of Ephesus is "I know" and "have found" no where does it say that He "condemns" 
                    >  
                    > Revelation 2:2I know your deeds, your hard work and your perseverance. I know that you cannot tolerate wicked men, that you have tested those who claim to be apostles but are not, and have found them false
                    >  
                    > God understands everything we do and why we do it. Why we feel the way we feel, and so should we understand everyone else and "overcome" - not overcome the nicolations, not overcome the apostles...but overcome that hatred for those who we do not understand.
                    >  
                    >
                    >
                    > --- On Sun, 5/31/09, james m. clark jr. <Yaakov2819@ ...> wrote:
                    >
                    >
                    > From: james m. clark jr. <Yaakov2819@ ...>
                    > Subject: [Christian-Philosop hy] The Problem with Hebrews - by Scott Nelson
                    > To: Christian-Philosoph y@yahoogroups. com
                    > Date: Sunday, May 31, 2009, 9:09 AM
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    > chart and reader friendly article at
                    >
                    > http://www.judaismv schristianity. com/problem_ with_hebrews. htm
                    >
                    > The Problem with Hebrews
                    >
                    > By Scott Nelson
                    >
                    > Introduction
                    >
                    > The following article demonstrates there are two doctrines commonly held among Christians that cannot be reconciled with each other. Only one position can be true. It is written for the sake of those who believe Yahshua (Jesus) is going to physically return to earth to rule and reign from Jerusalem for a thousand years, as prophesied in Revelation 20:1-6, and will at that time fulfill the many glorious kingly prophecies concerning the Messiah as recorded in Moses and the Prophets. Those of us who hold to this picture are commonly referred to as "premillennialists" . This is the first of the two doctrines. This article is not for those who do not accept this picture… for whom these prophecies need no literal fulfillment.
                    >
                    > The problem at hand is that the second doctrine is also clearly taught in the Bible… in the book of Hebrews. The author of Hebrews uses several Messianic prophecies to paint a very different picture. Bear in mind the book of Hebrews was written at a time not long after Yahshua had ascended to heaven, and most believers at that time were left confused as to how Yahshua fulfilled the glorious prophecies of the Messianic Kingdom. They didn't understand that it would be many generations later before he would return to finish fulfilling these prophecies. The book of Hebrews was written largely for the purpose of answering the questions of that time, and it does so with a very eloquent, lofty, and authoritative- sounding discourse promoting the picture that Yahshua had indeed fulfilled these prophecies in a unique heavenly sense. Nowhere in the book can there be found the picture of Yahshua literally physically returning to fulfill these prophecies here on
                    > earth. This, in stark contrast to the Messianic pictures painted by the Prophets, Yahshua himself, and the book of Revelation.
                    >
                    > So here is the dilemma. Has Yahshua already fulfilled these prophecies in heaven, or will he literally physically return and fulfill them here on earth in the future? The author of Hebrews himself borrows from some of these well known Messianic prophecies and gives them a new spin to promote his doctrine of a new-priesthood, new-law, and new-covenant, all of which have supposedly been inaugurated and fulfilled in heaven. Here is his logic....
                    >
                    > Like Melchizedek… how?
                    >
                    > In the 5th chapter of the book of Hebrews, the author uses a Messianic prophecy from Psalm 110 to begin comparing Yahshua to Melchizedek.
                    >
                    > So also Christ did not glorify himself to become High Priest, but it was he who said to him: "You are My son, today I have begotten you." As He also says in another place: "You are a priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek" ,… And having been perfected, he became the author of eternal salvation to all who obey him, called by God as High Priest "according to the order of Melchizedek, " of whom we have much to say, and hard to explain, since you have become dull of hearing. Hebrews 5:5-6,9-11
                    >
                    > Then in the 7th chapter, the author begins his new-priesthood argument by stating Yahshua is like Melchizedek in some rather strange and abstract ways.. For instance, Yahshua and Melchizedek supposedly had neither genealogical record, nor beginning or end of days!
                    >
                    > "For this Melchizedek, king of Salem ,… without father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but made like the Son of God, remains a priest continually. " Hebrews 7:1-3
                    >
                    > This certainly qualifies as "hard to explain"! The author is correct in determining from Psalm 110:1-4 that Messiah is like Melchizedek, but the connections he draws are bizarre and extremely weak arguments from silence. Does he seriously want us to believe that because we don't have Melchizedek' s genealogical records, parent's names, date of birth, or date of death written there in the book of Genesis for us… he had none?! This is the weakest form of argument there is. To illustrate: Maybe, because there is nothing said about Melchizedek being married or having any children, we must conclude he was celibate! (On the off-chance some might actually consider this a good argument, here is another example.) Maybe, because nothing is said about Melchizedek' s apparel, we must conclude he had none and was a nudist! Our author's style of logic is just this non-sensical. How absurd is the notion that Melchizedek had no father or mother? If Yahshua is like
                    > Melchizedek, would it not be far better to compare him to Melchizedek on information we do have on him as opposed to information we don't have on him?
                    >
                    > Hebrews then continues with another similarly weak argument stating Yahshua was like Melchizedek in that Melchizedek was not of the tribe of Levi.
                    >
                    > "Therefore, if perfection were through the Levitical priesthood (for under it the people received the law), what further need was there that another priest should rise according to the order of Melchizedek, and not be called according to the order of Aaron?... …For He of whom these things are spoken belongs to another tribe, from which no man has officiated at the altar. For it is evident that our Lord arose from Judah, of which tribe Moses spoke nothing concerning priesthood. Hebrews 7:11, 13-14
                    >
                    > There is one question that begs to be asked here. If Yahshua is like Melchizedek in that he has no genealogical record, how does the author know he is from the tribe of Judah?!
                    >
                    > Of particular interest, is that within this text, he wants us to believe it logically flows, since there has been a change in the priesthood, there must therefore also be a change of the Law.
                    >
                    > "For the priesthood being changed, of necessity there is also a change of the Law." Hebrews 7:12
                    >
                    > Question: Where is this supposed fundamental truth written? Granting as hypothetical for a moment that the priesthood has indeed changed, we have to ask; why must the Law change if the priesthood changes? Is it the priests who determine the Law? Or is it God? If there were a new priesthood to serve the same God, reason would assume the new priests would continue to abide by the established Laws of that God. But if any priesthood old or new served a new god, then it would logically flow that a new god would dictate a new law. The author's logic simply does not flow... yet it should be evident that this presupposition is fundamental to his ongoing argument. And again, all this is assuming his assertion that Yahshua is not of the tribe of Levi is correct in the first place. I will address this question in a moment.
                    >
                    > Yahshua is indeed like Melchizedek as Psalm 110:1-4 prophesied, but he is like Melchizedek in ways based on information God has given us and we do have on him. Very little is said about him, but everything we need to know about Melchizedek can be found in one single verse.... Genesis 14:18
                    >
                    > Then Melchizedek, king of Salem, brought out bread and wine; he was the priest of God Most High.
                    >
                    > There it is. He was king of Salem and priest of The Most High God.
                    >
                    > King and Priest in One
                    >
                    > A King, who is also a Priest, has never existed in Israel's history. The kingdom and the priesthood were always separate. The kingdom was established forever in David's descendants, and the priesthood was established in the descendants of Levi and Aaron forever as well.
                    >
                    > Here are some of God's promises to David.
                    >
                    > "My covenant I will not break, nor alter the word that has gone out of My lips. Once I have sworn by My holiness; I will not lie to David; His seed shall endure forever, and his throne as the sun before Me; It shall be established forever like the moon, even like the faithful witness in the sky." Psalm 89:34-37
                    >
                    > "For thus says the Lord; David shall never lack a man to sit on the throne of the house of Israel;" Jeremiah 33:17
                    >
                    > "David My servant shall be king over them, and they shall all have one shepherd; they shall also walk in My judgments and observe My statutes, and do them. Then they shall dwell in the land that I have given to Jacob My servant, where your fathers dwelt: and they shall dwell there, they, their children, and their children's children, forever; and My servant David shall be their prince forever." Ezekiel 37:24-25
                    >
                    > "He (Yahshua) will be great, and will be called the son of the Highest; and the Lord God will give him the throne of his father David. And he will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of his kingdom there will be no end.." Luke 1:32-33
                    >
                    > And here are some of God's promises to the Levitical priesthood.
                    >
                    > "And you shall gird them with sashes, Aaron and his sons, and put the hats on them. The priesthood shall be theirs for a perpetual statute, So you shall consecrate Aaron and his sons." Exodus 29:9
                    >
                    > "You shall put the holy garments on Aaron, and anoint him and sanctify him, that he may minister to Me as priest. And you shall bring his sons and clothe them with tunics. You shall anoint them, as you anointed their father, that they may minister to Me as priests; for their anointing shall surely be and everlasting priesthood throughout their generations. " Exodus 40:13-15
                    >
                    > Then the Lord spoke to Moses, saying; "Phinehas the son of Eleazar, the son of Aaron the priest, has turned back My wrath from the children of Israel, because he was zealous with My zeal among them, so that I did not consume the children of Israel in My zeal. Therefore say, `Behold, I give to him My covenant of peace; and it shall be to him and his descendants after him a covenant of an everlasting priesthood, because he was zealous for his God, and made atonement for the children of Israel .'" Numbers 25;10-13
                    >
                    > This is just the beginning of the story. Remember, God promised the Messiah would be both king and priest like Melchizedek in Psalm 110:4. God also spoke through other prophets on numerous occasions that He would indeed bring both offices into one in the Messiah.
                    >
                    > "Behold, the days are coming", says the Lord, "that I will perform that good thing which I have promised to the house of Israel and to the house of Judah; In those days and at that time I will cause to grow up to David a Branch of righteousness; He shall execute judgment and righteousness in the earth. In those days Judah will be saved, and Jerusalem will dwell safely. And this is the name by which she will be called; `THE LORD OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS' . For thus says the Lord; David shall never lack a man to sit on the throne of the house of Israel; nor shall the priests, the Levites, lack a man to offer burnt offerings before Me, to kindle grain offerings, and to sacrifice continually. " Jeremiah 33:14-18
                    >
                    > "Behold, the man whose name is the BRANCH! From his place he shall branch out, and he shall build the temple of the Lord; Yes, he shall build the temple of the Lord. He shall bear the glory, and shall sit and rule on his throne; So he shall be a priest on his throne, and the counsel of peace shall be between them both." (both offices) Zechariah 6:12-13
                    >
                    > "For the children of Israel shall abide many days without king or prince, without sacred pillar, without ephod or teraphim. Afterward the children of Israel shall return, seek the Lord their God and David their king, and fear the Lord and His goodness in the latter days. Hosea 3:4-5
                    >
                    > "Then it shall be the prince's part to give burnt offerings, grain offerings, and drink offerings, at the feasts, the New Moons, the Sabbaths, and at all the appointed seasons of the house of Israel. He shall prepare the sin offering, the grain offering, the burnt offering, and the peace offerings to make atonement for the house of Israel ." Ezekiel 45:17
                    >
                    > The author of Hebrews argues that because Yahshua is supposedly not from the tribe of Levi, there is therefore a change of priesthoods and subsequent change of the law. But God had said the Levites had and "everlasting" priesthood. The only way God could fulfill these promises He made to David and the Levites is if the Messiah was from both tribes. What our author obviously did not know is that Yahshua is exactly as God had prophesied the Messiah would be. Yahshua is descendant of both David and Levi! He is simply wrong on a number of levels. Both in the logic that a change of the priesthood demands a change of the law, and that there had been any change of the priesthood in the first place!
                    >
                    > I have yet to find any place where all the pieces of this puzzle have been put together by others. One can't help but wonder if part of the reason doesn't stem from the understanding that if Yahshua is in fact a descendant of Levi, the book of Hebrews would loose all credibility. Keep in mind, Yahshua not being of Levi, is a fundamental cornerstone of Hebrew's doctrine.
                    >
                    > Yahshua, descendant of both David and Levi
                    >
                    > In the book of Luke it is recorded that Yahshua's mother Mary was a "cousin" (KJV) to Elizabeth who was "of the daughters of Aaron". (Luke 1:5,36) The Greek word translated "cousin" literally means close blood (genetic) relative. The genetic connection can easily be seen by English speaking people in the Greek word "sungenes". This literally means close kin (See Strongs 4773) This word could just as easily mean Elisabeth was Mary's aunt. Considering Elisabeth was much older than Mary, this would appear to be more likely the case, but it is a moot point in light of the fact that it doesn't make a difference either way as you will see.
                    >
                    > In Leviticus, God commanded that Levite men were to marry only Levite women.. (Leviticus 21:1,13-14, 22:12-13) Levite women on the other hand were permitted to marry outside the tribe. We know that Mary's father Heli was a descendant of David of the tribe of Judah (Luke 3:23. Many scholars agree that Joseph was Heli's son-in-law.) So if Mary was either a cousin ,or a niece to Elisabeth, it must mean that Mary's mother had to have been either a sister or aunt to Elisabeth, which means that Mary's mother had to have been a "daughter of Aaron" as well! Here is the breakdown. If Mary and Elisabeth were cousins, as it says in the KJV, then Mary's mother was a sister to one of Elisabeth's parents, both of whom had to have been full-blooded Levites for Elisabeth to be called a "daughter of Aaron" and be legitimately married to Zacharias the priest. If Elisabeth was Mary's aunt, as is more likely the case, then Mary's mother was a sister to Elisabeth. No matter
                    > how one works it, it comes out the same. Mary's mother was a full-blooded Levite. She was then one of those who married outside the tribe when she married Heli of the tribe of Judah. Now it also logically flows perfectly well that if Yahshua had no earthly father, no new genetic material was introduced at his conception. Therefore his physical bloodlines must have been identical to his mother's bloodlines. Mary was a perfect blend of both tribes Judah and Levi!
                    >
                    > There is also another likelihood that makes this even better. Since God commanded the Levite men to marry only Levite women, it stands to reason that the genetic markers He recognizes as the Levitical priestly markers were passed down by the mothers, thus making the tribe matrilineal. These genetic matrilineal markers are located in what science today calls the mitochondrial DNA. The genetic markers of the other tribes were passed down by the fathers in the Y chromosome. It is also a well established fact of science that the father's genetic markers and the mother's genetic markers do not compete with each other during the process of recombination, so neither of them is diluted by the other. This would mean that Mary, and subsequently Yahshua, carried all the genetic markers of both tribes! It stands to reason that God intended for Levi's genetic markers to be matrilineal for the very purpose of being able to bring all of Judah, and all of Levi together
                    > into one man. (See chart below)
                    >
                    > The fact that Yahshua is indeed a descendant of the tribe of Levi, as God had promised the Messiah would be, is enough in itself to completely discredit the book of Hebrews. Hebrew's assertion that Yahshua was not of Levi is a fundamental premise of the author's ongoing argument. There is no "new" priesthood. God had established the priesthood in Aaron's descendants forever. Furthermore, since there is no "change of the Law" even if there were a new priesthood, how much more established is the fact that there is there no "change of the Law" when there is no new priesthood? Nothing more really needs to be said concerning the credibility of the author of Hebrews! We should discard the book as a nice-try of purely human effort on this basis alone. But to further demonstrate the sad mistakenness of the author… consider his next argument.
                    >
                    > The New Covenant?
                    >
                    > Again, the author of Hebrews has completely missed the fact that Yahshua will physically return and fulfill the remaining Messianic prophecies. This becomes painfully obvious in his on-going argument. Now he reasons that his new priesthood and new law fulfill the prophecies of a "new covenant". Here, in chapter 8:8-12, he quotes the prophecy from Jeremiah. Please take special note of the fact that every time in the book of Jeremiah where God says, "Behold the days are coming", He is speaking of the Messianic age yet to come. The actual prophecy reads;
                    >
                    > "Behold, the days are coming, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah â€" not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out to the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, though I was a husband to them, says the Lord. But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will put My Law in their mind, and write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. No more shall every man teach his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, `Know the Lord,' for they all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them, says the Lord. For I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more." Jeremiah 31:31-34
                    >
                    > Then after quoting this prophecy, the author of Hebrews makes this statement, from which comes the concept of an Old (obsolete) Testament.
                    >
                    > In that He says, "A new covenant," He has made the first obsolete. Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away. Hebrews 8:13
                    >
                    > Our author has obviously come to another very mistaken conclusion. He believes that God's covenant with Israel at Mt. Sinai and His Law are one and the same. They are not. God's Law is a list of do's and don'ts. God's covenant with Israel is a contractual promise to bless them if they obey His Law. Of course, if they broke the Law, in so doing they also broke the covenant, but that does not mean the Law is the covenant! It should be evident in this passage that God continues to speak of His Law as though it will not change. Here it is again.
                    >
                    > But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will put My Law in their mind, and write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. Jeremiah 31:33
                    >
                    > It is only after the author has blurred the line between the Law and the covenant, making them one and the same, and then drawn our attention to a new covenant, can he then make the leap of logic inferring that when God said "My Law" in reference to a new covenant, He meant "My new law"! This is obviously what he wants us to see here. Remember, he has already said there has been a "change of the Law". But God did not say "My new law". He is speaking of the same Law. The only difference is, when the new covenant is finally inaugurated, this same Law of Moses will be written on the hearts of the children of Israel so they will want to keep it. And herein is another point that is extremely important. This prophecy concerns only Israel . It does not concern Gentiles in any way! The only Gentiles who might be included in this are those individuals who have joined themselves to Israel through circumcision and obedience to God's Law, in which case they would no
                    > longer be seen as Gentiles. The Christian church cannot claim this prophecy for itself… unless of course one is of the persuasion that God has replaced Israel... and the Christian church is the new true Israel of God! This repulsive teaching is a lie, and among other things has been used as justification for the deplorable anti-Semitism much of Christianity has perpetrated on the Jewish people throughout history. But I digress. The point is, you can't have it both ways. Either Israel is Israel, or the Christian church is Israel. The prophecies concerning Israel and the new covenant have either been fulfilled, or they haven't.
                    >
                    > Some might argue that Yahshua said the "new covenant" was established in his blood, suggesting the new covenant took effect at the cross. Yahshua's sacrifices certainly paid the price for the promised new covenant, but to assert that it was inaugurated at that time is reading more into Yahshua's words than what he said. The prophecy from Jeremiah clearly indicates that the new covenant is with Israel only, and doesn't take effect until the Kingdom of God comes during the Messianic age which is still yet to come. Read again Jeremiah 31:31-40. This truth should also be clearly evident when taking Yahshua's words in the fuller context of Luke's account of the last supper.
                    >
                    > Then he said to them, "With fervent desire I have desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer; for I say to you, I will no longer eat of it until it is fulfilled in the Kingdom of God." …"Likewise he also took the cup after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood which is shed for you." Luke 22:15,16,20
                    >
                    > Yahshua certainly paid the price for the new covenant with his blood, but it will not be inaugurated or "fulfilled" until he returns… and even then it will only be with Israel!
                    >
                    > There are numerous other parallel prophecies concerning the new covenant that prove God is speaking of His Law as given through Moses. What I have highlighted in bold print below includes the same new covenant spoken of in Jeremiah 31:33. Please read this quote one more time and dare to compare it to the following yet-to-be-fulfilled prophecies! Also, please notice that these prophecies concern only Israel during the Messianic age yet to come, along with the fact that they could not possibly have been fulfilled yet! Here is the "new covenant" prophecy that Hebrews uses first.
                    >
                    > "Behold, the days are coming, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah… …this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will put My Law in their mind, and write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. Jeremiah 31:31,33
                    >
                    > Now compare.
                    >
                    > "Although I have cast them far off among the Gentiles, and although I have scattered them among the countries, yet I shall be a little sanctuary for them in the countries where they have gone. Therefore say, `Thus says the Lord God: "I will gather you from the peoples, assemble you from the countries where you have been scattered, and I will give you the land of Israel."' "And they will go there, and they will take away all its detestable things and all its abominations from there. Then I will give them one heart, and I will put a new spirit within them, and take the stony heart out of their flesh, and give them a heart of flesh, that they may walk in My statutes and keep My judgments and do them; and they shall be My people, and I will be their God." Ezekiel 11:16-20
                    >
                    > "For I will take you from among the nations, gather you out of all countries, and bring you into your own land. Then I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you shall be clean; I will cleanse you from all your filthiness and from all your idols. I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; I will take the heart of stone out of your flesh. I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes, and you will keep My judgments and do them. Then you shall dwell in the land that I gave to your fathers; you shall be My people, and I will be your God." Ezekiel 35:24-28
                    >
                    > "David My servant shall be king over them, and they shall all have one shepherd; they shall also walk in My judgments and observe My statutes, and do them. Then they shall dwell in the land that I have given to Jacob My servant, where your fathers dwelt; and they shall dwell there, they, their children, and their children's children, forever; and My servant David shall be their prince forever. Moreover I will make a covenant of peace with them, and it shall be an everlasting covenant with them; I will establish them and multiply them, and I will set My sanctuary in their midst forevermore. My tabernacle also shall be with them; indeed I will be their God, and they shall be My people. The nations also will know that I, the Lord, sanctify Israel, when My sanctuary is in their midst forevermore. " Ezekiel 37:24-28
                    >
                    > What more needs to be said? The new covenant is without question the same Law, only God will cause Israel to want to walk in His ways when His Kingdom comes during the Messianic age.
                    >
                    > The book of Hebrews simply cannot be reconciled with the picture that the prophets, the book of Revelation, and Yahshua himself have given us of the Messianic age and the coming Kingdom of God. One picture has to go. One must choose to follow the author of Hebrews, or follow Yahshua, Moses, and The Prophets. The "new covenant" is either already fulfilled in a heavenly mystical sense, or it is yet to be inaugurated with Israel and fulfilled when Yahshua returns, delivers Israel from all her enemies, ascends the throne of his father David... and as a son of Levi as well, begins his high priestly ministry before God Most High as King and Priest… after the order of Melchizedek.
                    >
                    > ***
                    >
                    > Note. The new priesthood, new law, new covenant picture does in fact dovetail with Paul's doctrine of a new Israel… one that has replaced the old... obsolete Israel! (Galatians 6:15-16) I do not say this to Paul's credit. It is an utterly repulsive lie, and largely responsible for much of the anti-Semitism and evil perpetrated toward God's people over the past 2000 years.
                    >
                    > For more on Paul's own credibility, and his many mistaken doctrines, please obtain a copy of the book, Jesus Words Only â€" Or Was Paul the Apostle Jesus Condemns in Revelation 2:2, by Douglas J. Del Tondo, Infinity Publishing. ISBN 0-7414-2965- 9 My review, and ordering information can be accessed by clicking here.
                    >
                    > If you would like to print this article for handouts and would like the Yahshua's Bloodlines diagram to display properly, please email your request to judavschr@hotmail. com and I will be happy to reply with an attached Microsoft Word file, free of charge. This file will have to be opened with Microsoft Word for Yahshua's bloodline diagram to display properly.
                    >
                    > If you have found this article compelling, please pass it on to family, friends, and clergy for further debate.
                    >
                    > Blessings in Yahshua,
                    >
                    > Scott Nelson
                    >




                  • james m. clark jr.
                    Shalom, False apostles in regards to becoming convered farmers in a prophetic sense is limited to the 2nd reserrection and the somewhat unprotected dangers of
                    Message 9 of 20 , Jun 4, 2009
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Shalom,

                      False apostles in regards to becoming convered farmers in a prophetic sense is limited to the 2nd reserrection and the somewhat unprotected dangers of others facing the second death with them. It's kind of a just thing to see who will be just or condemned according to constructed Scripture... hopefully with a much better outcome than in the days of Noah or Christ. Most of us would bank on that hoping for a better investment.

                      But is kind of odd though that G-d would define the physical figure of Rachel the Shepherdess for whom the passion of a single man for a single women of a single nation to be worked twice as hard for; knowing all to well that he had an older twin had seemed irrelavent to me, but according to other Hebrew sources Rachael the shepardess had an older twin also and it may be that he didn't just happen to bear childen from them both and both of their sevrents... all carring the name Israel yet only one of them could be called the first and that was those of Leah from whom the Messiah desended not of one son but of two sons of Leah.

                      Of our Messiah we are told that he isn't an atractive man, his speech was considered odd he was adopted, and often run off, and that he worked with wood, metal and dreams of a huge foster home for everybody, but at least he's called a good shepard among other things either not to convincing or either to convinceing. It's hard to imaging but he has had a fairly hard life in this world or that. He sits by his father all the time, has no idea when he will return home like the homeless, yet so much is on his shoulders when he is out and about. There must be something about this life that is worth all of this and much more.

                      be well,
                      jamey

                      --- In Christian-Philosophy@yahoogroups.com, Elizabeth Canova <elizabeth.canova@...> wrote:
                      >
                      > The "who is who" of the world....farmers...shepherds....false apostles... etc  LOL
                      >
                      > I have found certain people I encounter to be like shepherds.....then I grew and learned more of them, learned more of myself and that changed.  It all changes, that is one thing I count on, not much is set in stone right now for me. 
                      >
                      > I talked to a friend this weekend, her and I are on the same level spiritually, we are both learning and just now started our intimate relationship with God.  She asked me if I believed there was a "hell" and I told her that I did not believe it was a place that I always had the impression it was, not like I was taught in sunday school or church....but I told her...that is the way I feel today....ask me again in a year and maybe I will have a different opinion....I can't say for sure.  I waiver back and forth with the more that is revealed to me.  Sometimes I feel wishy washy and uncertain and even dumb - why can't I have "eyes to see" or "ears to hear" everything....but before I start bashing myself, I realize that I am learning and it is a process, it doesn't just happen over night, so I am very hesitant to say I am completely certain of anything, sometimes I am hesitant to even share what I think is revealed to me because it sounds so different
                      > than anything I have been taught and something may need to be added in the future to make more sense...maybe more time needs to pass for me to encounter a situation that will reveal the real meaning.  There are a few things I am certain of and those are the only things that I will ever say to someone with complete confidence. 
                      >
                      > So how can someone like me, the way I am now, teach anyone anything? I feel like I always take the middle ground and I don't have much to offer other than neutrality.  I really don't know much, its a little frustrating to hear all of ya'll talk and use words that I don't understand (monoism, pantheism, etc.) and I am not even sure I need to learn these words, other than to label something that I can better understand through adjectives, but even reading the explanation of these things on the computer, I still just don't get it because two people can look at this same thing (noun) differently.  Maybe it is because I am just not educated enough or worldly enough to understand, but I am not sure I want to be, then again I don't always like taking the middle ground...I have been taught to know your position and know where you stand, to stand firm, but I can't be sure where I need to stand right now on a lot of stuff, it is sometimes overwhelming. 
                      >
                      > Yesterday I went to a family function and I spent the whole time with 2 year old girl twins, after the conversation in the adult group turned heated, I just listened and I could understand both sides, the conversation got more heated and I had to walk away, it was more comfortable there with the girls, they didn't need words or any validation, they just wanted to jump on the sofa, play peek-a-boo and be tickled, sometimes it feels good not to have to take a side, but people try and force you into that, into taking some stance and labeling who you are, why do we need to have a label?  Why do we always have to be on the right side?  Why can't everyone be right?  Why can't everyone be a farmer, then a shepherd or vice versa?  Would that be too boring if we never argued or had a debate or labeled who we were?  Would it be too peaceful?  I just don't get it...
                      >
                      > Elizabeth
                      >
                      >
                      > ________________________________
                      > From: james m. clark jr. <Yaakov2819@...>
                      > To: Christian-Philosophy@yahoogroups.com
                      > Sent: Sunday, May 31, 2009 3:47:17 PM
                      > Subject: [Christian-Philosophy] Re: The Problem with Hebrews - by Scott Nelson
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > Shalom,
                      >
                      > A very good point but even false apostles are considered to become farmers rather than shepherds in the resserection. Hypothetically, we don't even have the authority to condem spirit beings. But also, even after the new covent is established, when no Israelite will need to be tought Scripture.
                      >
                      > be well,
                      > jamey
                      >
                      > --- In Christian-Philosoph y@yahoogroups. com, Elizabeth Canova <elizabeth.canova@ ...> wrote:
                      > >
                      > > "Or Was Paul the Apostle Jesus Condemns in Revelation 2:2, "
                      > > where here does it say anyone is "condemned" ?  All that I read of what is said to the church of Ephesus is "I know" and "have found" no where does it say that He "condemns" 
                      > >  
                      > > Revelation 2:2I know your deeds, your hard work and your perseverance. I know that you cannot tolerate wicked men, that you have tested those who claim to be apostles but are not, and have found them false
                      > >  
                      > > God understands everything we do and why we do it. Why we feel the way we feel, and so should we understand everyone else and "overcome" - not overcome the nicolations, not overcome the apostles...but overcome that hatred for those who we do not understand.
                      > >  
                      > >
                      > >
                      > > --- On Sun, 5/31/09, james m. clark jr. <Yaakov2819@ ...> wrote:
                      > >
                      > >
                      > > From: james m. clark jr. <Yaakov2819@ ...>
                      > > Subject: [Christian-Philosop hy] The Problem with Hebrews - by Scott Nelson
                      > > To: Christian-Philosoph y@yahoogroups. com
                      > > Date: Sunday, May 31, 2009, 9:09 AM
                      > >
                      > >
                      > >
                      > >
                      > >
                      > >
                      > >
                      > >
                      > > chart and reader friendly article at
                      > >
                      > > http://www.judaismv schristianity. com/problem_ with_hebrews. htm
                      > >
                      > > The Problem with Hebrews
                      > >
                      > > By Scott Nelson
                      > >
                      > > Introduction
                      > >
                      > > The following article demonstrates there are two doctrines commonly held among Christians that cannot be reconciled with each other. Only one position can be true. It is written for the sake of those who believe Yahshua (Jesus) is going to physically return to earth to rule and reign from Jerusalem for a thousand years, as prophesied in Revelation 20:1-6, and will at that time fulfill the many glorious kingly prophecies concerning the Messiah as recorded in Moses and the Prophets. Those of us who hold to this picture are commonly referred to as "premillennialists" . This is the first of the two doctrines. This article is not for those who do not accept this picture… for whom these prophecies need no literal fulfillment.
                      > >
                      > > The problem at hand is that the second doctrine is also clearly taught in the Bible… in the book of Hebrews. The author of Hebrews uses several Messianic prophecies to paint a very different picture. Bear in mind the book of Hebrews was written at a time not long after Yahshua had ascended to heaven, and most believers at that time were left confused as to how Yahshua fulfilled the glorious prophecies of the Messianic Kingdom. They didn't understand that it would be many generations later before he would return to finish fulfilling these prophecies. The book of Hebrews was written largely for the purpose of answering the questions of that time, and it does so with a very eloquent, lofty, and authoritative- sounding discourse promoting the picture that Yahshua had indeed fulfilled these prophecies in a unique heavenly sense. Nowhere in the book can there be found the picture of Yahshua literally physically returning to fulfill these prophecies
                      > here on
                      > > earth. This, in stark contrast to the Messianic pictures painted by the Prophets, Yahshua himself, and the book of Revelation.
                      > >
                      > > So here is the dilemma. Has Yahshua already fulfilled these prophecies in heaven, or will he literally physically return and fulfill them here on earth in the future? The author of Hebrews himself borrows from some of these well known Messianic prophecies and gives them a new spin to promote his doctrine of a new-priesthood, new-law, and new-covenant, all of which have supposedly been inaugurated and fulfilled in heaven. Here is his logic.
                      > >
                      > > Like Melchizedek… how?
                      > >
                      > > In the 5th chapter of the book of Hebrews, the author uses a Messianic prophecy from Psalm 110 to begin comparing Yahshua to Melchizedek.
                      > >
                      > > So also Christ did not glorify himself to become High Priest, but it was he who said to him: "You are My son, today I have begotten you." As He also says in another place: "You are a priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek" ,… And having been perfected, he became the author of eternal salvation to all who obey him, called by God as High Priest "according to the order of Melchizedek, " of whom we have much to say, and hard to explain, since you have become dull of hearing. Hebrews 5:5-6,9-11
                      > >
                      > > Then in the 7th chapter, the author begins his new-priesthood argument by stating Yahshua is like Melchizedek in some rather strange and abstract ways.. For instance, Yahshua and Melchizedek supposedly had neither genealogical record, nor beginning or end of days!
                      > >
                      > > "For this Melchizedek, king of Salem ,… without father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but made like the Son of God, remains a priest continually. " Hebrews 7:1-3
                      > >
                      > > This certainly qualifies as "hard to explain"! The author is correct in determining from Psalm 110:1-4 that Messiah is like Melchizedek, but the connections he draws are bizarre and extremely weak arguments from silence. Does he seriously want us to believe that because we don't have Melchizedek' s genealogical records, parent's names, date of birth, or date of death written there in the book of Genesis for us… he had none?! This is the weakest form of argument there is. To illustrate: Maybe, because there is nothing said about Melchizedek being married or having any children, we must conclude he was celibate! (On the off-chance some might actually consider this a good argument, here is another example.) Maybe, because nothing is said about Melchizedek' s apparel, we must conclude he had none and was a nudist! Our author's style of logic is just this non-sensical. How absurd is the notion that Melchizedek had no father or mother? If Yahshua is
                      > like
                      > > Melchizedek, would it not be far better to compare him to Melchizedek on information we do have on him as opposed to information we don't have on him?
                      > >
                      > > Hebrews then continues with another similarly weak argument stating Yahshua was like Melchizedek in that Melchizedek was not of the tribe of Levi.
                      > >
                      > > "Therefore, if perfection were through the Levitical priesthood (for under it the people received the law), what further need was there that another priest should rise according to the order of Melchizedek, and not be called according to the order of Aaron?... …For He of whom these things are spoken belongs to another tribe, from which no man has officiated at the altar. For it is evident that our Lord arose from Judah, of which tribe Moses spoke nothing concerning priesthood. Hebrews 7:11, 13-14
                      > >
                      > > There is one question that begs to be asked here. If Yahshua is like Melchizedek in that he has no genealogical record, how does the author know he is from the tribe of Judah?!
                      > >
                      > > Of particular interest, is that within this text, he wants us to believe it logically flows, since there has been a change in the priesthood, there must therefore also be a change of the Law.
                      > >
                      > > "For the priesthood being changed, of necessity there is also a change of the Law." Hebrews 7:12
                      > >
                      > > Question: Where is this supposed fundamental truth written? Granting as hypothetical for a moment that the priesthood has indeed changed, we have to ask; why must the Law change if the priesthood changes? Is it the priests who determine the Law? Or is it God? If there were a new priesthood to serve the same God, reason would assume the new priests would continue to abide by the established Laws of that God. But if any priesthood old or new served a new god, then it would logically flow that a new god would dictate a new law. The author's logic simply does not flow... yet it should be evident that this presupposition is fundamental to his ongoing argument. And again, all this is assuming his assertion that Yahshua is not of the tribe of Levi is correct in the first place. I will address this question in a moment.
                      > >
                      > > Yahshua is indeed like Melchizedek as Psalm 110:1-4 prophesied, but he is like Melchizedek in ways based on information God has given us and we do have on him. Very little is said about him, but everything we need to know about Melchizedek can be found in one single verse. Genesis 14:18
                      > >
                      > > Then Melchizedek, king of Salem, brought out bread and wine; he was the priest of God Most High.
                      > >
                      > > There it is. He was king of Salem and priest of The Most High God.
                      > >
                      > > King and Priest in One
                      > >
                      > > A King, who is also a Priest, has never existed in Israel's history. The kingdom and the priesthood were always separate. The kingdom was established forever in David's descendants, and the priesthood was established in the descendants of Levi and Aaron forever as well.
                      > >
                      > > Here are some of God's promises to David.
                      > >
                      > > "My covenant I will not break, nor alter the word that has gone out of My lips. Once I have sworn by My holiness; I will not lie to David; His seed shall endure forever, and his throne as the sun before Me; It shall be established forever like the moon, even like the faithful witness in the sky." Psalm 89:34-37
                      > >
                      > > "For thus says the Lord; David shall never lack a man to sit on the throne of the house of Israel;" Jeremiah 33:17
                      > >
                      > > "David My servant shall be king over them, and they shall all have one shepherd; they shall also walk in My judgments and observe My statutes, and do them. Then they shall dwell in the land that I have given to Jacob My servant, where your fathers dwelt: and they shall dwell there, they, their children, and their children's children, forever; and My servant David shall be their prince forever." Ezekiel 37:24-25
                      > >
                      > > "He (Yahshua) will be great, and will be called the son of the Highest; and the Lord God will give him the throne of his father David. And he will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of his kingdom there will be no end.." Luke 1:32-33
                      > >
                      > > And here are some of God's promises to the Levitical priesthood.
                      > >
                      > > "And you shall gird them with sashes, Aaron and his sons, and put the hats on them. The priesthood shall be theirs for a perpetual statute, So you shall consecrate Aaron and his sons." Exodus 29:9
                      > >
                      > > "You shall put the holy garments on Aaron, and anoint him and sanctify him, that he may minister to Me as priest. And you shall bring his sons and clothe them with tunics. You shall anoint them, as you anointed their father, that they may minister to Me as priests; for their anointing shall surely be and everlasting priesthood throughout their generations. " Exodus 40:13-15
                      > >
                      > > Then the Lord spoke to Moses, saying; "Phinehas the son of Eleazar, the son of Aaron the priest, has turned back My wrath from the children of Israel, because he was zealous with My zeal among them, so that I did not consume the children of Israel in My zeal. Therefore say, `Behold, I give to him My covenant of peace; and it shall be to him and his descendants after him a covenant of an everlasting priesthood, because he was zealous for his God, and made atonement for the children of Israel .'" Numbers 25;10-13
                      > >
                      > > This is just the beginning of the story. Remember, God promised the Messiah would be both king and priest like Melchizedek in Psalm 110:4. God also spoke through other prophets on numerous occasions that He would indeed bring both offices into one in the Messiah.
                      > >
                      > > "Behold, the days are coming", says the Lord, "that I will perform that good thing which I have promised to the house of Israel and to the house of Judah; In those days and at that time I will cause to grow up to David a Branch of righteousness; He shall execute judgment and righteousness in the earth. In those days Judah will be saved, and Jerusalem will dwell safely. And this is the name by which she will be called; `THE LORD OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS' . For thus says the Lord; David shall never lack a man to sit on the throne of the house of Israel; nor shall the priests, the Levites, lack a man to offer burnt offerings before Me, to kindle grain offerings, and to sacrifice continually. " Jeremiah 33:14-18
                      > >
                      > > "Behold, the man whose name is the BRANCH! From his place he shall branch out, and he shall build the temple of the Lord; Yes, he shall build the temple of the Lord. He shall bear the glory, and shall sit and rule on his throne; So he shall be a priest on his throne, and the counsel of peace shall be between them both." (both offices) Zechariah 6:12-13
                      > >
                      > > "For the children of Israel shall abide many days without king or prince, without sacred pillar, without ephod or teraphim. Afterward the children of Israel shall return, seek the Lord their God and David their king, and fear the Lord and His goodness in the latter days. Hosea 3:4-5
                      > >
                      > > "Then it shall be the prince's part to give burnt offerings, grain offerings, and drink offerings, at the feasts, the New Moons, the Sabbaths, and at all the appointed seasons of the house of Israel. He shall prepare the sin offering, the grain offering, the burnt offering, and the peace offerings to make atonement for the house of Israel ." Ezekiel 45:17
                      > >
                      > > The author of Hebrews argues that because Yahshua is supposedly not from the tribe of Levi, there is therefore a change of priesthoods and subsequent change of the law. But God had said the Levites had and "everlasting" priesthood. The only way God could fulfill these promises He made to David and the Levites is if the Messiah was from both tribes. What our author obviously did not know is that Yahshua is exactly as God had prophesied the Messiah would be. Yahshua is descendant of both David and Levi! He is simply wrong on a number of levels. Both in the logic that a change of the priesthood demands a change of the law, and that there had been any change of the priesthood in the first place!
                      > >
                      > > I have yet to find any place where all the pieces of this puzzle have been put together by others. One can't help but wonder if part of the reason doesn't stem from the understanding that if Yahshua is in fact a descendant of Levi, the book of Hebrews would loose all credibility. Keep in mind, Yahshua not being of Levi, is a fundamental cornerstone of Hebrew's doctrine.
                      > >
                      > > Yahshua, descendant of both David and Levi
                      > >
                      > > In the book of Luke it is recorded that Yahshua's mother Mary was a "cousin" (KJV) to Elizabeth who was "of the daughters of Aaron". (Luke 1:5,36) The Greek word translated "cousin" literally means close blood (genetic) relative. The genetic connection can easily be seen by English speaking people in the Greek word "sungenes". This literally means close kin (See Strongs 4773) This word could just as easily mean Elisabeth was Mary's aunt. Considering Elisabeth was much older than Mary, this would appear to be more likely the case, but it is a moot point in light of the fact that it doesn't make a difference either way as you will see.
                      > >
                      > > In Leviticus, God commanded that Levite men were to marry only Levite women.. (Leviticus 21:1,13-14, 22:12-13) Levite women on the other hand were permitted to marry outside the tribe. We know that Mary's father Heli was a descendant of David of the tribe of Judah (Luke 3:23. Many scholars agree that Joseph was Heli's son-in-law.) So if Mary was either a cousin ,or a niece to Elisabeth, it must mean that Mary's mother had to have been either a sister or aunt to Elisabeth, which means that Mary's mother had to have been a "daughter of Aaron" as well! Here is the breakdown. If Mary and Elisabeth were cousins, as it says in the KJV, then Mary's mother was a sister to one of Elisabeth's parents, both of whom had to have been full-blooded Levites for Elisabeth to be called a "daughter of Aaron" and be legitimately married to Zacharias the priest. If Elisabeth was Mary's aunt, as is more likely the case, then Mary's mother was a sister to Elisabeth. No matter
                      > > how one works it, it comes out the same. Mary's mother was a full-blooded Levite. She was then one of those who married outside the tribe when she married Heli of the tribe of Judah. Now it also logically flows perfectly well that if Yahshua had no earthly father, no new genetic material was introduced at his conception. Therefore his physical bloodlines must have been identical to his mother's bloodlines. Mary was a perfect blend of both tribes Judah and Levi!
                      > >
                      > > There is also another likelihood that makes this even better. Since God commanded the Levite men to marry only Levite women, it stands to reason that the genetic markers He recognizes as the Levitical priestly markers were passed down by the mothers, thus making the tribe matrilineal. These genetic matrilineal markers are located in what science today calls the mitochondrial DNA. The genetic markers of the other tribes were passed down by the fathers in the Y chromosome. It is also a well established fact of science that the father's genetic markers and the mother's genetic markers do not compete with each other during the process of recombination, so neither of them is diluted by the other. This would mean that Mary, and subsequently Yahshua, carried all the genetic markers of both tribes! It stands to reason that God intended for Levi's genetic markers to be matrilineal for the very purpose of being able to bring all of Judah, and all of Levi together
                      > > into one man. (See chart below)
                      > >
                      > > The fact that Yahshua is indeed a descendant of the tribe of Levi, as God had promised the Messiah would be, is enough in itself to completely discredit the book of Hebrews. Hebrew's assertion that Yahshua was not of Levi is a fundamental premise of the author's ongoing argument. There is no "new" priesthood. God had established the priesthood in Aaron's descendants forever. Furthermore, since there is no "change of the Law" even if there were a new priesthood, how much more established is the fact that there is there no "change of the Law" when there is no new priesthood? Nothing more really needs to be said concerning the credibility of the author of Hebrews! We should discard the book as a nice-try of purely human effort on this basis alone. But to further demonstrate the sad mistakenness of the author… consider his next argument.
                      > >
                      > > The New Covenant?
                      > >
                      > > Again, the author of Hebrews has completely missed the fact that Yahshua will physically return and fulfill the remaining Messianic prophecies. This becomes painfully obvious in his on-going argument. Now he reasons that his new priesthood and new law fulfill the prophecies of a "new covenant". Here, in chapter 8:8-12, he quotes the prophecy from Jeremiah. Please take special note of the fact that every time in the book of Jeremiah where God says, "Behold the days are coming", He is speaking of the Messianic age yet to come. The actual prophecy reads;
                      > >
                      > > "Behold, the days are coming, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah â€" not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out to the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, though I was a husband to them, says the Lord. But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will put My Law in their mind, and write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. No more shall every man teach his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, `Know the Lord,' for they all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them, says the Lord. For I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more.." Jeremiah 31:31-34
                      > >
                      > > Then after quoting this prophecy, the author of Hebrews makes this statement, from which comes the concept of an Old (obsolete) Testament.
                      > >
                      > > In that He says, "A new covenant," He has made the first obsolete. Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away. Hebrews 8:13
                      > >
                      > > Our author has obviously come to another very mistaken conclusion. He believes that God's covenant with Israel at Mt. Sinai and His Law are one and the same. They are not. God's Law is a list of do's and don'ts. God's covenant with Israel is a contractual promise to bless them if they obey His Law. Of course, if they broke the Law, in so doing they also broke the covenant, but that does not mean the Law is the covenant! It should be evident in this passage that God continues to speak of His Law as though it will not change. Here it is again.
                      > >
                      > > But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will put My Law in their mind, and write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. Jeremiah 31:33
                      > >
                      > > It is only after the author has blurred the line between the Law and the covenant, making them one and the same, and then drawn our attention to a new covenant, can he then make the leap of logic inferring that when God said "My Law" in reference to a new covenant, He meant "My new law"! This is obviously what he wants us to see here. Remember, he has already said there has been a "change of the Law". But God did not say "My new law". He is speaking of the same Law. The only difference is, when the new covenant is finally inaugurated, this same Law of Moses will be written on the hearts of the children of Israel so they will want to keep it. And herein is another point that is extremely important. This prophecy concerns only Israel . It does not concern Gentiles in any way! The only Gentiles who might be included in this are those individuals who have joined themselves to Israel through circumcision and obedience to God's Law, in which case they would
                      > no
                      > > longer be seen as Gentiles. The Christian church cannot claim this prophecy for itself… unless of course one is of the persuasion that God has replaced Israel... and the Christian church is the new true Israel of God! This repulsive teaching is a lie, and among other things has been used as justification for the deplorable anti-Semitism much of Christianity has perpetrated on the Jewish people throughout history. But I digress. The point is, you can't have it both ways. Either Israel is Israel, or the Christian church is Israel. The prophecies concerning Israel and the new covenant have either been fulfilled, or they haven't.
                      > >
                      > > Some might argue that Yahshua said the "new covenant" was established in his blood, suggesting the new covenant took effect at the cross. Yahshua's sacrifices certainly paid the price for the promised new covenant, but to assert that it was inaugurated at that time is reading more into Yahshua's words than what he said. The prophecy from Jeremiah clearly indicates that the new covenant is with Israel only, and doesn't take effect until the Kingdom of God comes during the Messianic age which is still yet to come. Read again Jeremiah 31:31-40. This truth should also be clearly evident when taking Yahshua's words in the fuller context of Luke's account of the last supper.
                      > >
                      > > Then he said to them, "With fervent desire I have desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer; for I say to you, I will no longer eat of it until it is fulfilled in the Kingdom of God." …"Likewise he also took the cup after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood which is shed for you." Luke 22:15,16,20
                      > >
                      > > Yahshua certainly paid the price for the new covenant with his blood, but it will not be inaugurated or "fulfilled" until he returns… and even then it will only be with Israel!
                      > >
                      > > There are numerous other parallel prophecies concerning the new covenant that prove God is speaking of His Law as given through Moses. What I have highlighted in bold print below includes the same new covenant spoken of in Jeremiah 31:33. Please read this quote one more time and dare to compare it to the following yet-to-be-fulfilled prophecies! Also, please notice that these prophecies concern only Israel during the Messianic age yet to come, along with the fact that they could not possibly have been fulfilled yet! Here is the "new covenant" prophecy that Hebrews uses first.
                      > >
                      > > "Behold, the days are coming, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah… …this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will put My Law in their mind, and write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. Jeremiah 31:31,33
                      > >
                      > > Now compare.
                      > >
                      > > "Although I have cast them far off among the Gentiles, and although I have scattered them among the countries, yet I shall be a little sanctuary for them in the countries where they have gone. Therefore say, `Thus says the Lord God: "I will gather you from the peoples, assemble you from the countries where you have been scattered, and I will give you the land of Israel."' "And they will go there, and they will take away all its detestable things and all its abominations from there. Then I will give them one heart, and I will put a new spirit within them, and take the stony heart out of their flesh, and give them a heart of flesh, that they may walk in My statutes and keep My judgments and do them; and they shall be My people, and I will be their God." Ezekiel 11:16-20
                      > >
                      > > "For I will take you from among the nations, gather you out of all countries, and bring you into your own land. Then I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you shall be clean; I will cleanse you from all your filthiness and from all your idols. I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; I will take the heart of stone out of your flesh. I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes, and you will keep My judgments and do them. Then you shall dwell in the land that I gave to your fathers; you shall be My people, and I will be your God." Ezekiel 35:24-28
                      > >
                      > > "David My servant shall be king over them, and they shall all have one shepherd; they shall also walk in My judgments and observe My statutes, and do them. Then they shall dwell in the land that I have given to Jacob My servant, where your fathers dwelt; and they shall dwell there, they, their children, and their children's children, forever; and My servant David shall be their prince forever. Moreover I will make a covenant of peace with them, and it shall be an everlasting covenant with them; I will establish them and multiply them, and I will set My sanctuary in their midst forevermore. My tabernacle also shall be with them; indeed I will be their God, and they shall be My people. The nations also will know that I, the Lord, sanctify Israel, when My sanctuary is in their midst forevermore. " Ezekiel 37:24-28
                      > >
                      > > What more needs to be said? The new covenant is without question the same Law, only God will cause Israel to want to walk in His ways when His Kingdom comes during the Messianic age.
                      > >
                      > > The book of Hebrews simply cannot be reconciled with the picture that the prophets, the book of Revelation, and Yahshua himself have given us of the Messianic age and the coming Kingdom of God. One picture has to go. One must choose to follow the author of Hebrews, or follow Yahshua, Moses, and The Prophets. The "new covenant" is either already fulfilled in a heavenly mystical sense, or it is yet to be inaugurated with Israel and fulfilled when Yahshua returns, delivers Israel from all her enemies, ascends the throne of his father David... and as a son of Levi as well, begins his high priestly ministry before God Most High as King and Priest… after the order of Melchizedek.
                      > >
                      > > ***
                      > >
                      > > Note. The new priesthood, new law, new covenant picture does in fact dovetail with Paul's doctrine of a new Israel… one that has replaced the old... obsolete Israel! (Galatians 6:15-16) I do not say this to Paul's credit. It is an utterly repulsive lie, and largely responsible for much of the anti-Semitism and evil perpetrated toward God's people over the past 2000 years.
                      > >
                      > > For more on Paul's own credibility, and his many mistaken doctrines, please obtain a copy of the book, Jesus Words Only â€" Or Was Paul the Apostle Jesus Condemns in Revelation 2:2, by Douglas J. Del Tondo, Infinity Publishing. ISBN 0-7414-2965- 9 My review, and ordering information can be accessed by clicking here.
                      > >
                      > > If you would like to print this article for handouts and would like the Yahshua's Bloodlines diagram to display properly, please email your request to judavschr@hotmail. com and I will be happy to reply with an attached Microsoft Word file, free of charge. This file will have to be opened with Microsoft Word for Yahshua's bloodline diagram to display properly.
                      > >
                      > > If you have found this article compelling, please pass it on to family, friends, and clergy for further debate.
                      > >
                      > > Blessings in Yahshua,
                      > >
                      > > Scott Nelson
                      > >
                      >
                    • Brother Dave
                      Hi Jamey, I wonder if any here could explain what you are talking about. I have no idea at all.  Sorry.  What is the difference between a duck ? A monkey,
                      Message 10 of 20 , Jun 4, 2009
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Hi Jamey,
                         
                        I wonder if any here could explain what you are talking about. I have no idea at all.  Sorry.  "What is the difference between a duck ? A monkey, with its sleeves cut short." (an alleged joke from maybe 30 years ago)
                         
                        Seriously, if any here would like to comment on the most significant and Theologically true portions of the Book of Hebrews, that would be appreciated.
                         
                        Peace and progress,
                         
                        Brother Dave
                         
                        http://www.PureChristians.org/ Gospel enlarging website,
                        proclaiming worldwide the True Religion
                        OF JESUS and ABOUT JESUS and IN JESUS
                         
                        Come learn and share !



                        From: james m. clark jr. <Yaakov2819@...>
                        To: Christian-Philosophy@yahoogroups.com
                        Sent: Thursday, June 4, 2009 5:54:14 AM
                        Subject: [Christian-Philosophy] Re: The Problem with Hebrews and Gentiles

                        Shalom,

                        False apostles in regards to becoming convered farmers in a prophetic sense is limited to the 2nd reserrection and the somewhat unprotected dangers of others facing the second death with them. It's kind of a just thing to see who will be just or condemned according to constructed Scripture... hopefully with a much better outcome than in the days of Noah or Christ. Most of us would bank on that hoping for a better investment.

                        But is kind of odd though that G-d would define the physical figure of Rachel the Shepherdess for whom the passion of a single man for a single women of a single nation to be worked twice as hard for; knowing all to well that he had an older twin had seemed irrelavent to me, but according to other Hebrew sources Rachael the shepardess had an older twin also and it may be that he didn't just happen to bear childen from them both and both of their sevrents... all carring the name Israel yet only one of them could be called the first and that was those of Leah from whom the Messiah desended not of one son but of two sons of Leah.

                        Of our Messiah we are told that he isn't an atractive man, his speech was considered odd he was adopted, and often run off, and that he worked with wood, metal and dreams of a huge foster home for everybody, but at least he's called a good shepard among other things either not to convincing or either to convinceing. It's hard to imaging but he has had a fairly hard life in this world or that. He sits by his father all the time, has no idea when he will return home like the homeless, yet so much is on his shoulders when he is out and about. There must be something about this life that is worth all of this and much more.

                        be well,
                        jamey

                        --- In Christian-Philosoph y@yahoogroups. com, Elizabeth Canova <elizabeth.canova@ ...> wrote:

                        >
                        > The "who is who" of the world....farmers. ..shepherds. ...false apostles... etc  LOL
                        >
                        > I have found certain people I encounter to be like shepherds... ..then I grew and learned more of them, learned more of myself and that changed.  It all changes, that is one thing I count on, not much is set in stone right now for me. 
                        >
                        > I talked to a friend this weekend, her and I are on the same level spiritually, we are both learning and just now started our intimate relationship with God.  She asked me if I believed there was a "hell" and I told her that I did not believe it was a place that I always had the impression it was, not like I was taught in sunday school or church....but I told her...that is the way I feel today....ask me again in a year and maybe I will have a different opinion....I can't say for
                        sure.  I waiver back and forth with the more that is revealed to me.  Sometimes I feel wishy washy and uncertain and even dumb - why can't I have "eyes to see" or "ears to hear" everything.. ..but before I start bashing myself, I realize that I am learning and it is a process, it doesn't just happen over night, so I am very hesitant to say I am completely certain of anything, sometimes I am hesitant to even share what I think is revealed to me because it sounds so different
                        > than anything I have been taught and something may need to be added in the future to make more sense...maybe more time needs to pass for me to encounter a situation that will reveal the real meaning.  There are a few things I am certain of and those are the only things that I will ever say to someone with complete confidence. 
                        >
                        > So how can someone like me, the way I am now, teach anyone anything? I feel
                        like I always take the middle ground and I don't have much to offer other than neutrality.  I really don't know much, its a little frustrating to hear all of ya'll talk and use words that I don't understand (monoism, pantheism, etc.) and I am not even sure I need to learn these words, other than to label something that I can better understand through adjectives, but even reading the explanation of these things on the computer, I still just don't get it because two people can look at this same thing (noun) differently.  Maybe it is because I am just not educated enough or worldly enough to understand, but I am not sure I want to be, then again I don't always like taking the middle ground...I have been taught to know your position and know where you stand, to stand firm, but I can't be sure where I need to stand right now on a lot of stuff, it is sometimes overwhelming. 
                        >
                        > Yesterday I went to a family function
                        and I spent the whole time with 2 year old girl twins, after the conversation in the adult group turned heated, I just listened and I could understand both sides, the conversation got more heated and I had to walk away, it was more comfortable there with the girls, they didn't need words or any validation, they just wanted to jump on the sofa, play peek-a-boo  and be tickled, sometimes it feels good not to have to take a side, but people try and force you into that, into taking some stance and labeling who you are, why do we need to have a label?  Why do we always have to be on the right side?  Why can't everyone be right?  Why can't everyone be a farmer, then a shepherd or vice versa?  Would that be too boring if we never argued or had a debate or labeled who we were?  Would it be too peaceful?  I just don't get it...
                        >
                        > Elizabeth
                        >
                        >
                        > ____________
                        _________ _________ __
                        > From: james m. clark jr. <Yaakov2819@ ...>
                        > To: Christian-Philosoph y@yahoogroups. com
                        > Sent: Sunday, May 31, 2009 3:47:17 PM
                        > Subject: [Christian-Philosop hy] Re: The Problem with Hebrews - by Scott Nelson
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        > Shalom,
                        >
                        > A very good point but even false apostles are considered to become farmers rather than shepherds in the resserection. Hypothetically, we don't even have the authority to condem spirit beings. But also, even after the new covent is established, when no Israelite will need to be tought Scripture.
                        >
                        > be well,
                        > jamey
                        >
                        > --- In Christian-Philosoph y@yahoogroups. com, Elizabeth Canova <elizabeth.canova@ ...> wrote:
                        > >
                        > >
                        "Or Was Paul the Apostle Jesus Condemns in Revelation 2:2, "
                        > > where here does it say anyone is "condemned" ?  All that I read of what is said to the church of Ephesus is "I know" and "have found" no where does it say that He "condemns" 
                        > >  
                        > > Revelation 2:2I know your deeds, your hard work and your perseverance. I know that you cannot tolerate wicked men, that you have tested those who claim to be apostles but are not, and have found them false
                        > >  
                        > > God understands everything we do and why we do it. Why we feel the way we feel, and so should we understand everyone else and "overcome" - not overcome the nicolations, not overcome the apostles...but overcome that hatred for those who we do not understand.
                        > >  
                        > >
                        > >
                        > > --- On Sun, 5/31/09, james m. clark jr. <Yaakov2819@
                        ...> wrote:
                        > >
                        > >
                        > > From: james m. clark jr. <Yaakov2819@ ...>
                        > > Subject: [Christian-Philosop hy] The Problem with Hebrews - by Scott Nelson
                        > > To: Christian-Philosoph y@yahoogroups. com
                        > > Date: Sunday, May 31, 2009, 9:09 AM
                        > >
                        > >
                        > >
                        > >
                        > >
                        > >
                        > >
                        > >
                        > > chart and reader friendly article at
                        > >
                        > > http://www.judaismv schristianity. com/problem_ with_hebrews. htm
                        > >
                        > > The Problem with Hebrews
                        > >
                        > > By Scott Nelson
                        > >
                        > > Introduction
                        > >
                        > > The following article demonstrates there are two doctrines commonly held among Christians that cannot be reconciled with each other. Only one position can be true. It is written for the
                        sake of those who believe Yahshua (Jesus) is going to physically return to earth to rule and reign from Jerusalem for a thousand years, as prophesied in Revelation 20:1-6, and will at that time fulfill the many glorious kingly prophecies concerning the Messiah as recorded in Moses and the Prophets. Those of us who hold to this picture are commonly referred to as "premillennialists" . This is the first of the two doctrines. This article is not for those who do not accept this picture… for whom these prophecies need no literal fulfillment.
                        > >
                        > > The problem at hand is that the second doctrine is also clearly taught in the Bible… in the book of Hebrews. The author of Hebrews uses several Messianic prophecies to paint a very different picture. Bear in mind the book of Hebrews was written at a time not long after Yahshua had ascended to heaven, and most believers at that time were left confused as to how
                        Yahshua fulfilled the glorious prophecies of the Messianic Kingdom. They didn't understand that it would be many generations later before he would return to finish fulfilling these prophecies. The book of Hebrews was written largely for the purpose of answering the questions of that time, and it does so with a very eloquent, lofty, and authoritative- sounding discourse promoting the picture that Yahshua had indeed fulfilled these prophecies in a unique heavenly sense. Nowhere in the book can there be found the picture of Yahshua literally physically returning to fulfill these prophecies
                        > here on
                        > > earth. This, in stark contrast to the Messianic pictures painted by the Prophets, Yahshua himself, and the book of Revelation.
                        > >
                        > > So here is the dilemma. Has Yahshua already fulfilled these prophecies in heaven, or will he literally physically return and fulfill them here on earth in the future? The author of Hebrews
                        himself borrows from some of these well known Messianic prophecies and gives them a new spin to promote his doctrine of a new-priesthood, new-law, and new-covenant, all of which have supposedly been inaugurated and fulfilled in heaven. Here is his logic.
                        > >
                        > > Like Melchizedek… how?
                        > >
                        > > In the 5th chapter of the book of Hebrews, the author uses a Messianic prophecy from Psalm 110 to begin comparing Yahshua to Melchizedek.
                        > >
                        > > So also Christ did not glorify himself to become High Priest, but it was he who said to him: "You are My son, today I have begotten you." As He also says in another place: "You are a priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek" ,… And having been perfected, he became the author of eternal salvation to all who obey him, called by God as High Priest "according to the order of Melchizedek, " of whom we have much to say, and hard
                        to explain, since you have become dull of hearing. Hebrews 5:5-6,9-11
                        > >
                        > > Then in the 7th chapter, the author begins his new-priesthood argument by stating Yahshua is like Melchizedek in some rather strange and abstract ways.. For instance, Yahshua and Melchizedek supposedly had neither genealogical record, nor beginning or end of days!
                        > >
                        > > "For this Melchizedek, king of Salem ,… without father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but made like the Son of God, remains a priest continually. " Hebrews 7:1-3
                        > >
                        > > This certainly qualifies as "hard to explain"! The author is correct in determining from Psalm 110:1-4 that Messiah is like Melchizedek, but the connections he draws are bizarre and extremely weak arguments from silence. Does he seriously want us to believe that because we don't have Melchizedek' s genealogical
                        records, parent's names, date of birth, or date of death written there in the book of Genesis for us… he had none?! This is the weakest form of argument there is. To illustrate: Maybe, because there is nothing said about Melchizedek being married or having any children, we must conclude he was celibate! (On the off-chance some might actually consider this a good argument, here is another example.) Maybe, because nothing is said about Melchizedek' s apparel, we must conclude he had none and was a nudist! Our author's style of logic is just this non-sensical. How absurd is the notion that Melchizedek had no father or mother? If Yahshua is
                        > like
                        > > Melchizedek, would it not be far better to compare him to Melchizedek on information we do have on him as opposed to information we don't have on him?
                        > >
                        > > Hebrews then continues with another similarly weak argument stating Yahshua was like Melchizedek in
                        that Melchizedek was not of the tribe of Levi.
                        > >
                        > > "Therefore, if perfection were through the Levitical priesthood (for under it the people received the law), what further need was there that another priest should rise according to the order of Melchizedek, and not be called according to the order of Aaron?... …For He of whom these things are spoken belongs to another tribe, from which no man has officiated at the altar. For it is evident that our Lord arose from Judah, of which tribe Moses spoke nothing concerning priesthood. Hebrews 7:11, 13-14
                        > >
                        > > There is one question that begs to be asked here. If Yahshua is like Melchizedek in that he has no genealogical record, how does the author know he is from the tribe of Judah?!
                        > >
                        > > Of particular interest, is that within this text, he wants us to believe it logically flows, since there has been a change in the priesthood,
                        there must therefore also be a change of the Law.
                        > >
                        > > "For the priesthood being changed, of necessity there is also a change of the Law." Hebrews 7:12
                        > >
                        > > Question: Where is this supposed fundamental truth written? Granting as hypothetical for a moment that the priesthood has indeed changed, we have to ask; why must the Law change if the priesthood changes? Is it the priests who determine the Law? Or is it God? If there were a new priesthood to serve the same God, reason would assume the new priests would continue to abide by the established Laws of that God. But if any priesthood old or new served a new god, then it would logically flow that a new god would dictate a new law. The author's logic simply does not flow... yet it should be evident that this presupposition is fundamental to his ongoing argument. And again, all this is assuming his assertion that Yahshua is not of the tribe of Levi is correct in
                        the first place. I will address this question in a moment.
                        > >
                        > > Yahshua is indeed like Melchizedek as Psalm 110:1-4 prophesied, but he is like Melchizedek in ways based on information God has given us and we do have on him. Very little is said about him, but everything we need to know about Melchizedek can be found in one single verse. Genesis 14:18
                        > >
                        > > Then Melchizedek, king of Salem, brought out bread and wine; he was the priest of God Most High.
                        > >
                        > > There it is. He was king of Salem and priest of The Most High God.
                        > >
                        > > King and Priest in One
                        > >
                        > > A King, who is also a Priest, has never existed in Israel's history. The kingdom and the priesthood were always separate. The kingdom was established forever in David's descendants, and the priesthood was established in the descendants of Levi and Aaron forever as well.
                        > >
                        > > Here are some of God's promises to David.
                        > >
                        > > "My covenant I will not break, nor alter the word that has gone out of My lips. Once I have sworn by My holiness; I will not lie to David; His seed shall endure forever, and his throne as the sun before Me; It shall be established forever like the moon, even like the faithful witness in the sky." Psalm 89:34-37
                        > >
                        > > "For thus says the Lord; David shall never lack a man to sit on the throne of the house of Israel;" Jeremiah 33:17
                        > >
                        > > "David My servant shall be king over them, and they shall all have one shepherd; they shall also walk in My judgments and observe My statutes, and do them. Then they shall dwell in the land that I have given to Jacob My servant, where your fathers dwelt: and they shall dwell there, they, their children, and their children's children, forever; and My servant David shall be their prince forever." Ezekiel
                        37:24-25
                        > >
                        > > "He (Yahshua) will be great, and will be called the son of the Highest; and the Lord God will give him the throne of his father David. And he will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of his kingdom there will be no end.." Luke 1:32-33
                        > >
                        > > And here are some of God's promises to the Levitical priesthood.
                        > >
                        > > "And you shall gird them with sashes, Aaron and his sons, and put the hats on them. The priesthood shall be theirs for a perpetual statute, So you shall consecrate Aaron and his sons." Exodus 29:9
                        > >
                        > > "You shall put the holy garments on Aaron, and anoint him and sanctify him, that he may minister to Me as priest. And you shall bring his sons and clothe them with tunics. You shall anoint them, as you anointed their father, that they may minister to Me as priests; for their anointing shall surely be and everlasting priesthood throughout
                        their generations. " Exodus 40:13-15
                        > >
                        > > Then the Lord spoke to Moses, saying; "Phinehas the son of Eleazar, the son of Aaron the priest, has turned back My wrath from the children of Israel, because he was zealous with My zeal among them, so that I did not consume the children of Israel in My zeal. Therefore say, `Behold, I give to him My covenant of peace; and it shall be to him and his descendants after him a covenant of an everlasting priesthood, because he was zealous for his God, and made atonement for the children of Israel .'" Numbers 25;10-13
                        > >
                        > > This is just the beginning of the story. Remember, God promised the Messiah would be both king and priest like Melchizedek in Psalm 110:4. God also spoke through other prophets on numerous occasions that He would indeed bring both offices into one in the Messiah.
                        > >
                        > > "Behold, the days are coming", says the Lord, "that I will perform
                        that good thing which I have promised to the house of Israel and to the house of Judah; In those days and at that time I will cause to grow up to David a Branch of righteousness; He shall execute judgment and righteousness in the earth. In those days Judah will be saved, and Jerusalem will dwell safely. And this is the name by which she will be called; `THE LORD OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS' . For thus says the Lord; David shall never lack a man to sit on the throne of the house of Israel; nor shall the priests, the Levites, lack a man to offer burnt offerings before Me, to kindle grain offerings, and to sacrifice continually. " Jeremiah 33:14-18
                        > >
                        > > "Behold, the man whose name is the BRANCH! From his place he shall branch out, and he shall build the temple of the Lord; Yes, he shall build the temple of the Lord. He shall bear the glory, and shall sit and rule on his throne; So he shall be a priest on his throne, and the counsel of peace
                        shall be between them both." (both offices) Zechariah 6:12-13
                        > >
                        > > "For the children of Israel shall abide many days without king or prince, without sacred pillar, without ephod or teraphim. Afterward the children of Israel shall return, seek the Lord their God and David their king, and fear the Lord and His goodness in the latter days. Hosea 3:4-5
                        > >
                        > > "Then it shall be the prince's part to give burnt offerings, grain offerings, and drink offerings, at the feasts, the New Moons, the Sabbaths, and at all the appointed seasons of the house of Israel. He shall prepare the sin offering, the grain offering, the burnt offering, and the peace offerings to make atonement for the house of Israel ." Ezekiel 45:17
                        > >
                        > > The author of Hebrews argues that because Yahshua is supposedly not from the tribe of Levi, there is therefore a change of priesthoods and subsequent change of the law. But God had
                        said the Levites had and "everlasting" priesthood. The only way God could fulfill these promises He made to David and the Levites is if the Messiah was from both tribes. What our author obviously did not know is that Yahshua is exactly as God had prophesied the Messiah would be. Yahshua is descendant of both David and Levi! He is simply wrong on a number of levels. Both in the logic that a change of the priesthood demands a change of the law, and that there had been any change of the priesthood in the first place!
                        > >
                        > > I have yet to find any place where all the pieces of this puzzle have been put together by others. One can't help but wonder if part of the reason doesn't stem from the understanding that if Yahshua is in fact a descendant of Levi, the book of Hebrews would loose all credibility. Keep in mind, Yahshua not being of Levi, is a fundamental cornerstone of Hebrew's doctrine.
                        > >
                        > > Yahshua,
                        descendant of both David and Levi
                        > >
                        > > In the book of Luke it is recorded that Yahshua's mother Mary was a "cousin" (KJV) to Elizabeth who was "of the daughters of Aaron". (Luke 1:5,36) The Greek word translated "cousin" literally means close blood (genetic) relative. The genetic connection can easily be seen by English speaking people in the Greek word "sungenes". This literally means close kin (See Strongs 4773) This word could just as easily mean Elisabeth was Mary's aunt. Considering Elisabeth was much older than Mary, this would appear to be more likely the case, but it is a moot point in light of the fact that it doesn't make a difference either way as you will see.
                        > >
                        > > In Leviticus, God commanded that Levite men were to marry only Levite women.. (Leviticus 21:1,13-14, 22:12-13) Levite women on the other hand were permitted to marry outside the tribe. We know that Mary's father Heli was a descendant
                        of David of the tribe of Judah (Luke 3:23. Many scholars agree that Joseph was Heli's son-in-law.) So if Mary was either a cousin ,or a niece to Elisabeth, it must mean that Mary's mother had to have been either a sister or aunt to Elisabeth, which means that Mary's mother had to have been a "daughter of Aaron" as well! Here is the breakdown. If Mary and Elisabeth were cousins, as it says in the KJV, then Mary's mother was a sister to one of Elisabeth's parents, both of whom had to have been full-blooded Levites for Elisabeth to be called a "daughter of Aaron" and be legitimately married to Zacharias the priest. If Elisabeth was Mary's aunt, as is more likely the case, then Mary's mother was a sister to Elisabeth. No matter
                        > > how one works it, it comes out the same. Mary's mother was a full-blooded Levite. She was then one of those who married outside the tribe when she married Heli of the tribe of Judah. Now it also logically flows perfectly
                        well that if Yahshua had no earthly father, no new genetic material was introduced at his conception. Therefore his physical bloodlines must have been identical to his mother's bloodlines. Mary was a perfect blend of both tribes Judah and Levi!
                        > >
                        > > There is also another likelihood that makes this even better. Since God commanded the Levite men to marry only Levite women, it stands to reason that the genetic markers He recognizes as the Levitical priestly markers were passed down by the mothers, thus making the tribe matrilineal. These genetic matrilineal markers are located in what science today calls the mitochondrial DNA. The genetic markers of the other tribes were passed down by the fathers in the Y chromosome. It is also a well established fact of science that the father's genetic markers and the mother's genetic markers do not compete with each other during the process of recombination, so neither of them is diluted by the
                        other. This would mean that Mary, and subsequently Yahshua, carried all the genetic markers of both tribes! It stands to reason that God intended for Levi's genetic markers to be matrilineal for the very purpose of being able to bring all of Judah, and all of Levi together
                        > > into one man. (See chart below)
                        > >
                        > > The fact that Yahshua is indeed a descendant of the tribe of Levi, as God had promised the Messiah would be, is enough in itself to completely discredit the book of Hebrews. Hebrew's assertion that Yahshua was not of Levi is a fundamental premise of the author's ongoing argument. There is no "new" priesthood. God had established the priesthood in Aaron's descendants forever. Furthermore, since there is no "change of the Law" even if there were a new priesthood, how much more established is the fact that there is there no "change of the Law" when there is no new priesthood? Nothing more really needs to be said
                        concerning the credibility of the author of Hebrews! We should discard the book as a nice-try of purely human effort on this basis alone. But to further demonstrate the sad mistakenness of the author… consider his next argument.
                        > >
                        > > The New Covenant?
                        > >
                        > > Again, the author of Hebrews has completely missed the fact that Yahshua will physically return and fulfill the remaining Messianic prophecies. This becomes painfully obvious in his on-going argument. Now he reasons that his new priesthood and new law fulfill the prophecies of a "new covenant". Here, in chapter 8:8-12, he quotes the prophecy from Jeremiah. Please take special note of the fact that every time in the book of Jeremiah where God says, "Behold the days are coming", He is speaking of the Messianic age yet to come. The actual prophecy reads;
                        > >
                        > > "Behold, the days are coming, says the Lord, when I will make a
                        new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah â€" not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out to the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, though I was a husband to them, says the Lord. But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will put My Law in their mind, and write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. No more shall every man teach his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, `Know the Lord,' for they all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them, says the Lord. For I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more.." Jeremiah 31:31-34
                        > >
                        > > Then after quoting this prophecy, the author of Hebrews makes this statement, from which comes the concept of an Old (obsolete) Testament.
                        > >
                        > > In that He says, "A new covenant," He has made the first obsolete. Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away. Hebrews 8:13
                        > >
                        > > Our author has obviously come to another very mistaken conclusion. He believes that God's covenant with Israel at Mt. Sinai and His Law are one and the same. They are not. God's Law is a list of do's and don'ts. God's covenant with Israel is a contractual promise to bless them if they obey His Law. Of course, if they broke the Law, in so doing they also broke the covenant, but that does not mean the Law is the covenant! It should be evident in this passage that God continues to speak of His Law as though it will not change. Here it is again.
                        > >
                        > > But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will put My Law in their mind, and write it on their hearts; and I will be their
                        God, and they shall be My people. Jeremiah 31:33
                        > >
                        > > It is only after the author has blurred the line between the Law and the covenant, making them one and the same, and then drawn our attention to a new covenant, can he then make the leap of logic inferring that when God said "My Law" in reference to a new covenant, He meant "My new law"! This is obviously what he wants us to see here. Remember, he has already said there has been a "change of the Law". But God did not say "My new law". He is speaking of the same Law. The only difference is, when the new covenant is finally inaugurated, this same Law of Moses will be written on the hearts of the children of Israel so they will want to keep it. And herein is another point that is extremely important. This prophecy concerns only Israel . It does not concern Gentiles in any way! The only Gentiles who might be included in this are those individuals who have joined themselves to
                        Israel through circumcision and obedience to God's Law, in which case they would
                        > no
                        > > longer be seen as Gentiles. The Christian church cannot claim this prophecy for itself… unless of course one is of the persuasion that God has replaced Israel... and the Christian church is the new true Israel of God! This repulsive teaching is a lie, and among other things has been used as justification for the deplorable anti-Semitism much of Christianity has perpetrated on the Jewish people throughout history. But I digress. The point is, you can't have it both ways. Either Israel is Israel, or the Christian church is Israel. The prophecies concerning Israel and the new covenant have either been fulfilled, or they haven't.
                        > >
                        > > Some might argue that Yahshua said the "new covenant" was established in his blood, suggesting the new covenant took effect at the cross. Yahshua's sacrifices certainly paid the price
                        for the promised new covenant, but to assert that it was inaugurated at that time is reading more into Yahshua's words than what he said. The prophecy from Jeremiah clearly indicates that the new covenant is with Israel only, and doesn't take effect until the Kingdom of God comes during the Messianic age which is still yet to come. Read again Jeremiah 31:31-40. This truth should also be clearly evident when taking Yahshua's words in the fuller context of Luke's account of the last supper.
                        > >
                        > > Then he said to them, "With fervent desire I have desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer; for I say to you, I will no longer eat of it until it is fulfilled in the Kingdom of God." …"Likewise he also took the cup after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood which is shed for you." Luke 22:15,16,20
                        > >
                        > > Yahshua certainly paid the price for the new covenant with his blood,
                        but it will not be inaugurated or "fulfilled" until he returns… and even then it will only be with Israel!
                        > >
                        > > There are numerous other parallel prophecies concerning the new covenant that prove God is speaking of His Law as given through Moses. What I have highlighted in bold print below includes the same new covenant spoken of in Jeremiah 31:33. Please read this quote one more time and dare to compare it to the following yet-to-be-fulfilled prophecies! Also, please notice that these prophecies concern only Israel during the Messianic age yet to come, along with the fact that they could not possibly have been fulfilled yet! Here is the "new covenant" prophecy that Hebrews uses first.
                        > >
                        > > "Behold, the days are coming, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah… …this is the covenant that I will make with the
                        house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will put My Law in their mind, and write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. Jeremiah 31:31,33
                        > >
                        > > Now compare.
                        > >
                        > > "Although I have cast them far off among the Gentiles, and although I have scattered them among the countries, yet I shall be a little sanctuary for them in the countries where they have gone. Therefore say, `Thus says the Lord God: "I will gather you from the peoples, assemble you from the countries where you have been scattered, and I will give you the land of Israel."' "And they will go there, and they will take away all its detestable things and all its abominations from there. Then I will give them one heart, and I will put a new spirit within them, and take the stony heart out of their flesh, and give them a heart of flesh, that they may walk in My statutes and keep My judgments and do them; and
                        they shall be My people, and I will be their God." Ezekiel 11:16-20
                        > >
                        > > "For I will take you from among the nations, gather you out of all countries, and bring you into your own land. Then I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you shall be clean; I will cleanse you from all your filthiness and from all your idols. I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; I will take the heart of stone out of your flesh. I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes, and you will keep My judgments and do them. Then you shall dwell in the land that I gave to your fathers; you shall be My people, and I will be your God." Ezekiel 35:24-28
                        > >
                        > > "David My servant shall be king over them, and they shall all have one shepherd; they shall also walk in My judgments and observe My statutes, and do them. Then they shall dwell in the land that I have given to Jacob My servant, where your
                        fathers dwelt; and they shall dwell there, they, their children, and their children's children, forever; and My servant David shall be their prince forever. Moreover I will make a covenant of peace with them, and it shall be an everlasting covenant with them; I will establish them and multiply them, and I will set My sanctuary in their midst forevermore. My tabernacle also shall be with them; indeed I will be their God, and they shall be My people. The nations also will know that I, the Lord, sanctify Israel, when My sanctuary is in their midst forevermore. " Ezekiel 37:24-28
                        > >
                        > > What more needs to be said? The new covenant is without question the same Law, only God will cause Israel to want to walk in His ways when His Kingdom comes during the Messianic age.
                        > >
                        > > The book of Hebrews simply cannot be reconciled with the picture that the prophets, the book of Revelation, and Yahshua himself have given us of
                        the Messianic age and the coming Kingdom of God. One picture has to go. One must choose to follow the author of Hebrews, or follow Yahshua, Moses, and The Prophets. The "new covenant" is either already fulfilled in a heavenly mystical sense, or it is yet to be inaugurated with Israel and fulfilled when Yahshua returns, delivers Israel from all her enemies, ascends the throne of his father David... and as a son of Levi as well, begins his high priestly ministry before God Most High as King and Priest… after the order of Melchizedek.
                        > >
                        > > ***
                        > >
                        > > Note. The new priesthood, new law, new covenant picture does in fact dovetail with Paul's doctrine of a new Israel… one that has replaced the old... obsolete Israel! (Galatians 6:15-16) I do not say this to Paul's credit. It is an utterly repulsive lie, and largely responsible for much of the anti-Semitism and evil perpetrated toward God's
                        people over the past 2000 years.
                        > >
                        > > For more on Paul's own credibility, and his many mistaken doctrines, please obtain a copy of the book, Jesus Words Only â€" Or Was Paul the Apostle Jesus Condemns in Revelation 2:2, by Douglas J. Del Tondo, Infinity Publishing. ISBN 0-7414-2965- 9 My review, and ordering information can be accessed by clicking here.
                        > >
                        > > If you would like to print this article for handouts and would like the Yahshua's Bloodlines diagram to display properly, please email your request to judavschr@hotmail. com and I will be happy to reply with an attached Microsoft Word file, free of charge. This file will have to be opened with Microsoft Word for Yahshua's bloodline diagram to display properly.
                        > >
                        > > If you have found this article compelling, please pass it on to family, friends, and clergy for further debate.
                        > >
                        > > Blessings in
                        Yahshua,
                        > >
                        > > Scott Nelson
                        > >
                        >

                      • Sbkidde@aol.com
                        The epistle to the Hebrews associates Christ with the high priest of the temple who offered sacrifice once a year. Christ, of course, offered himself as a
                        Message 11 of 20 , Jun 4, 2009
                        • 0 Attachment
                          The epistle to the Hebrews associates Christ with the high priest of the temple who offered sacrifice once a year. Christ, of course, offered himself as a sacrifice once for all time according to the letter. The association encourages a theological interpretation of worship and Church community. Thus, an ecclesiastical significance is given to belief in God as well.
                           
                          Like the letter to the Romans, Hebrews differs from Galatians and Corinthians in the style of composition. Galatians and Corinthians are the letters that are believed to be the authentic works of Paul (both letters to the Corinthians display evidence of editing though). Respect for the ancestry of belief is expressed in the letter insofar as faith in Christ as the high priest is presented as a development of Judaism.
                           
                          While Roman and Egyptian societies had priests that officiated over the sacrifices offered in religious celebrations, the emperor and the pharaoh were referred to as priests as well. (They made the decisions as to whether human lives would be sacrificed in war.)
                           
                          "Pharaoh was the supreme ruler and simultaneously the supreme priest."
                           
                          "On the front, the coin said “Tiberius Caesar, son of the divine Augustus.” The reverse side of the coin read “Greatest Priest.” But that is how it was inscribed in Latin."
                           
                          The sacrifice of Jesus on the cross was defined as a one time offering wherein the high priest Christ as Son of God offered himself to eliminate unnecessary human sacrifice. 
                           
                          Steve K.
                           
                          In a message dated 6/4/2009 8:43:30 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, truthist@... writes:
                          I wonder if any here could explain what you are talking about. I have no idea at all.  Sorry.  "What is the difference between a duck ? A monkey, with its sleeves cut short." (an alleged joke from maybe 30 years ago)
                           
                          Seriously, if any here would like to comment on the most significant and Theologically true portions of the Book of Hebrews, that would be appreciated.
                           
                          Peace and progress,
                           
                          Brother Dave
                           
                          http://www.PureChri stians.org/ Gospel enlarging website,
                          proclaiming worldwide the True Religion
                          OF JESUS and ABOUT JESUS and IN JESUS
                           
                          Come learn and share !



                          From: james m. clark jr. <Yaakov2819@praiseya hweh.com>
                          To: Christian-Philosoph y@yahoogroups. com
                          Sent: Thursday, June 4, 2009 5:54:14 AM
                          Subject: [Christian-Philosop hy] Re: The Problem with Hebrews and Gentiles

                          Shalom,

                          False apostles in regards to becoming convered farmers in a prophetic sense is limited to the 2nd reserrection and the somewhat unprotected dangers of others facing the second death with them. It's kind of a just thing to see who will be just or condemned according to constructed Scripture... hopefully with a much better outcome than in the days of Noah or Christ. Most of us would bank on that hoping for a better investment.

                          But is kind of odd though that G-d would define the physical figure of Rachel the Shepherdess for whom the passion of a single man for a single women of a single nation to be worked twice as hard for; knowing all to well that he had an older twin had seemed irrelavent to me, but according to other Hebrew sources Rachael the shepardess had an older twin also and it may be that he didn't just happen to bear childen from them both and both of their sevrents... all carring the name Israel yet only one of them could be called the first and that was those of Leah from whom the Messiah desended not of one son but of two sons of Leah.

                          Of our Messiah we are told that he isn't an atractive man, his speech was considered odd he was adopted, and often run off, and that he worked with wood, metal and dreams of a huge foster home for everybody, but at least he's called a good shepard among other things either not to convincing or either to convinceing. It's hard to imaging but he has had a fairly hard life in this world or that. He sits by his father all the time, has no idea when he will return home like the homeless, yet so much is on his shoulders when he is out and about. There must be something about this life that is worth all of this and much more.

                          be well,
                          jamey

                           
                        • james m. clark jr.
                          Shalom Yes, this is generally excepted, but it may not be of the straight and narrow either when we know Kings ruled over Pharoahs at times as even in the case
                          Message 12 of 20 , Jun 4, 2009
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Shalom

                            Yes, this is generally excepted, but it may not be of the straight and narrow either when we know Kings ruled over Pharoahs at times as even in the case of Zipprah's father the Midanite (father in law of Moshe). We know him as Jethro but under the King of Egypt he had another name for he was a councler with Job and Bella. This alone should clariy any scholorly assumptiions as to who Zipporah's father was because it is the same man.

                            At any rate, an educated guess without all Scripture support for such an assumption has nothing to do with faith. I would go as far as an assumtion based on Scripture and the probability that Yeshua forged his own nails and perhaps brought to him durring his trial. How are we then to spiritually carry his cross, when all he could manage to carry himself was the product of his own hands in prepreation for this day he knew would come? Yet I seriously doubt the Scriptures I am refering to are listed as intimate details in relation to centuries before his life was manifested and then ritualicly taken according to the law. There is not a day that goes by that we should
                            consider ourselves less than Shaul he to is awaiting a resserection.
                            There are many lose ends nevertheless that suggest that Paul wasn't the author of the book of Hebrews but rather a zelous follower of him but tt isn't fair to judge a book by it's cover either.

                            be well,
                            jamey





                            --- In Christian-Philosophy@yahoogroups.com, Sbkidde@... wrote:
                            >
                            >
                            > The epistle to the Hebrews associates Christ with the high priest of the
                            > temple who offered sacrifice once a year. Christ, of course, offered himself
                            > as a sacrifice once for all time according to the letter. The association
                            > encourages a theological interpretation of worship and Church community.
                            > Thus, an ecclesiastical significance is given to belief in God as well.
                            >
                            > Like the letter to the Romans, Hebrews differs from Galatians and
                            > Corinthians in the style of composition. Galatians and Corinthians are the letters
                            > that are believed to be the authentic works of Paul (both letters to the
                            > Corinthians display evidence of editing though). Respect for the ancestry of
                            > belief is expressed in the letter insofar as faith in Christ as the high
                            > priest is presented as a development of Judaism.
                            >
                            > While Roman and Egyptian societies had priests that officiated over the
                            > sacrifices offered in religious celebrations, the emperor and the pharaoh
                            > were referred to as priests as well. (They made the decisions as to whether
                            > human lives would be sacrificed in war.)
                            >
                            > _http://library.thinkquest.org/28529/rus_engl/text/pharaon_e.htm_
                            > (http://library.thinkquest.org/28529/rus_engl/text/pharaon_e.htm)
                            > "Pharaoh was the supreme ruler and simultaneously the supreme priest."
                            >
                            > _http://www.christianmonthlystandard.com/index.php/son-of-god-in-roman-world
                            > /_
                            > (http://www.christianmonthlystandard.com/index.php/son-of-god-in-roman-world/)
                            > "On the front, the coin said “Tiberius Caesar, son of the divine Augustus.”
                            > The reverse side of the coin read “Greatest Priest.” But that is how it
                            > was inscribed in Latin."
                            >
                            > The sacrifice of Jesus on the cross was defined as a one time offering
                            > wherein the high priest Christ as Son of God offered himself to eliminate
                            > unnecessary human sacrifice.
                            >
                            > Steve K.
                            >
                            > In a message dated 6/4/2009 8:43:30 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
                            > truthist@... writes:
                            >
                            > I wonder if any here could explain what you are talking about. I have no
                            > idea at all. Sorry. "What is the difference between a duck ? A monkey,
                            > with its sleeves cut short." (an alleged joke from maybe 30 years ago)
                            >
                            > Seriously, if any here would like to comment on the most significant and
                            > Theologically true portions of the Book of Hebrews, that would be
                            > appreciated.
                            >
                            > Peace and progress,
                            >
                            > Brother Dave
                            >
                            > _http://www.PureChrihttp://www._ (http://www.purechristians.org/) Gospel
                            > enlarging website,
                            > proclaiming worldwide the True Religion
                            > OF JESUS and ABOUT JESUS and IN JESUS
                            >
                            > Come learn and share !
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            > ____________________________________
                            > From: james m. clark jr. <Yaakov2819@praiseyaYaakov28>
                            > To: Christian-Philosoph Christian
                            > Sent: Thursday, June 4, 2009 5:54:14 AM
                            > Subject: [Christian-Philosop [Christian-Philosop<WBR>hy] Re: The Problem
                            >
                            >
                            > Shalom,
                            >
                            > False apostles in regards to becoming convered farmers in a prophetic
                            > sense is limited to the 2nd reserrection and the somewhat unprotected dangers
                            > of others facing the second death with them. It's kind of a just thing to
                            > see who will be just or condemned according to constructed Scripture...
                            > hopefully with a much better outcome than in the days of Noah or Christ. Most of
                            > us would bank on that hoping for a better investment.
                            >
                            > But is kind of odd though that G-d would define the physical figure of
                            > Rachel the Shepherdess for whom the passion of a single man for a single women
                            > of a single nation to be worked twice as hard for; knowing all to well that
                            > he had an older twin had seemed irrelavent to me, but according to other
                            > Hebrew sources Rachael the shepardess had an older twin also and it may be
                            > that he didn't just happen to bear childen from them both and both of their
                            > sevrents... all carring the name Israel yet only one of them could be
                            > called the first and that was those of Leah from whom the Messiah desended not
                            > of one son but of two sons of Leah.
                            >
                            > Of our Messiah we are told that he isn't an atractive man, his speech was
                            > considered odd he was adopted, and often run off, and that he worked with
                            > wood, metal and dreams of a huge foster home for everybody, but at least
                            > he's called a good shepard among other things either not to convincing or
                            > either to convinceing. It's hard to imaging but he has had a fairly hard life
                            > in this world or that. He sits by his father all the time, has no idea when
                            > he will return home like the homeless, yet so much is on his shoulders when
                            > he is out and about. There must be something about this life that is worth
                            > all of this and much more.
                            >
                            > be well,
                            > jamey
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            > **************We found the real ‘Hotel California’ and the ‘Seinfeld’
                            > diner. What will you find? Explore WhereItsAt.com.
                            > (http://www.whereitsat.com/#/music/all-s
                            > pots/355/47.796964/-66.374711/2/Youve-Found-Where-Its-At?ncid=emlcntnew00000007)
                            >
                          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.