Your donations are appreciated and help keep this site running. Even the smallest amount helps.
Thankyou

 
PROMOTE YOUR SITE
HERE
Only $3 USD/month
TRUTHSPOON.COM
The man they can't recruit!
Welcome, Guest
Username: Password: Remember me
Paranormal is a general term that designates experiences that lie outside "the range of normal experience or scientific explanation" or that indicates phenomena understood to be outside of science's current ability to explain or measure. Read More: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paranormal

TOPIC: My Question for the Jews

My Question for the Jews 12 Mar 2019 21:45 #1

  • Rocco
  • Rocco's Avatar
  • Offline
  • User is blocked
  • Devil's Advocate
  • Posts: 7364
  • Likes received: 946
My Question for the Jews (help me understand. I sincerely don't want to keep mocking you) - Owen Benjamin
You can't fix stupid
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.

My Question for the Jews 13 Mar 2019 02:29 #2

  • Ugh
  • Ugh's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Silver Member
  • Name is Mick, Age 71, right winger, Christian, English
  • Posts: 3272
  • Likes received: 375
My main question for the Jews living in our countries is- why the hell don't you speak out against mass muslim immigration?
After all, muslims are the sworn enemies of Jews, so if Islam and Sharia Law ever takes hold, Jews will be the first to be rounded up for slaughter.
Below:- the midnight knock at the door in a future America, Britain, Australia etc-

"All Jews will come with us, NOW!"
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.
User(s) who Liked this post: Rocco

My Question for the Jews 25 Mar 2019 19:22 #3

  • Flare
  • Flare's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Moderator
  • Posts: 14326
  • Likes received: 5565
Ugh wrote:
My main question for the Jews living in our countries is- why the hell don't you speak out against mass muslim immigration?
After all, muslims are the sworn enemies of Jews, so if Islam and Sharia Law ever takes hold, Jews will be the first to be rounded up for slaughter.
Below:- the midnight knock at the door in a future America, Britain, Australia etc-

"All Jews will come with us, NOW!"

They're not speaking out against mass muslim immigration, because it's the jews who are bringing them in.

As they use the muslims as a sledgehammer against Western civilization.
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.

My Question for the Jews 21 May 2019 06:24 #4

  • annabelle
  • annabelle's Avatar
  • Online
  • Silver Member
  • Posts: 2264
  • Likes received: 1582
Why is Juden lineage being passed down through the female line when the Old Testament Bible has Hebrew lineage passed down through the male line?

quote:

Lineage was tracked through the males throughout the Bible. The only exception is in the case of Jesus because his father was God. You can see this in all the lineages where the fathers are listed. Mothers appear only rarely in such lists.

Modern Jews claim the use of maternal descent based on "Nor shall you make marriages with them. You shall not give your daughter to their son, nor take their daughter for your son. For they will turn your sons away from following Me, to serve other gods; so the anger of the LORD will be aroused against you and destroy you suddenly" (Deuteronomy 7:3-4). Since verse 4 mentions turning the sons (in plural) away, they claim that it is referring to the descendants of the marriage and thus the argument that the mother determines the lineage.

Sadly, it stretches the actual statement. God told the Israelites not to intermarry with a select set of nations (Deuteronomy 7:1-2), not all other nations. The warning was against either taking husbands or wives from these nations because they would turn people away from God. "Sons" is being used in a generic sense to refer to both the men and women.

Another verse used is "Now the son of an Israelite woman, whose father was an Egyptian, went out among the children of Israel; and this Israelite woman's son and a man of Israel fought each other in the camp" (Leviticus 24:10). They then point out that her son was counted as an Israelite.

What they ignore, however, are the cases where a descendant of Israel married non-Hebrew women and their children were counted as well. For example, Jacob, ancestor of the kings of Israel, had children by two non-Hebrew women. "And Judah saw there a daughter of a certain Canaanite whose name was Shua, and he married her and went in to her" (Genesis 38:2).

His second wife, Tamar, also appears to be not of Hebrew descent. Joseph's wife was an Egyptian and his two sons Manasseh and Ephraim were the founders of two of the tribes of Israel. The usual way of avoiding the obvious is to claim that these men's wives all converted to Judaism. Yet, could that not be claimed for the woman whose husband was an Egyptian?

Yet another argument is that in "And Shechaniah the son of Jehiel, one of the sons of Elam, spoke up and said to Ezra, "We have trespassed against our God, and have taken pagan wives from the peoples of the land; yet now there is hope in Israel in spite of this. Now therefore, let us make a covenant with our God to put away all these wives and those who have been born to them, according to the advice of my master and of those who tremble at the commandment of our God; and let it be done according to the law" (Ezra 10:2-3).

Much is made of only the men are mentioned as putting away their foreign wives and their children. The argument is that if the children were Israelites, they could not be put away. What is glossed over is that no child of certain nationalities could be counted as Israelites. "An Ammonite or Moabite shall not enter the assembly of the LORD; even to the tenth generation none of his descendants shall enter the assembly of the LORD forever" (Deuteronomy 23:3). Notice the "his," and understand that it is generic for male or female. If an Israelite woman married a Moabite man, their children would not be counted as Israelites either.

The maternal lineage is traced to the Mishnah (the Talmud), the codification of Jewish oral traditions.

"The Mishnah (Kiddushin 3:12) Talmud states that, to be a Jew, one must be either the child of a Jewish mother or a convert to Judaism".

www.lavistachurchofchrist.org/LVanswers/2010/04-05.html

Women, slaves and children are exempt from the obligation to study Torah,” Rambam writes. (Rambam, Hilkhot Talmud Torah 1:1)

It has been said and oft repeated that the reason why Juden lineage was changed from the Biblical Old Testament male lineage line to the Talmud Mishnah female line is because you never really know who the father of a child is but you always know who the mother of a child is.

It has been said that a lot of Juden babies were being born in circumstances where the father was not known so they were afraid of losing their 'nation' and so had lineage come through the female rather than the male.

It may well be but I think there could be deeper reasons for this change as well. It most certainly was and is not for reasons that have anything to do with respect for women's lineage or matriarchy as the Talmud is misogynistic.

Is there something within the Biblical male lineage framework that the Juden want to hide?

Luke12: 2-4

For there is nothing covered, that shall not be revealed; neither hid, that shall not be known.

Therefore whatsoever ye have spoken in darkness shall be heard in the light; and that which ye have spoken in the ear in closets shall be proclaimed upon the housetops.

And I say unto you my friends, Be not afraid of them that kill the body, and after that have no more that they can do.
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.
User(s) who Liked this post: Flare

My Question for the Jews 21 May 2019 17:32 #5

  • Flare
  • Flare's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Moderator
  • Posts: 14326
  • Likes received: 5565
^ I like the way you say 'Juden'. :yup:

In regards to passing down Juden lineage through the male or female line.... doesn't it take 2 to tango or what?

Imo it's genetically being passed down through both parents.
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.

My Question for the Jews 21 May 2019 18:45 #6

  • annabelle
  • annabelle's Avatar
  • Online
  • Silver Member
  • Posts: 2264
  • Likes received: 1582
In none of the manuscripts of the original Old or New Testament was Jesus described or referred to as a "Jew". The term originated in the late eighteenth century as an abbreviation of the term Judean and refers to a resident of Judea without regard to race or religion, just as the term "Texan" signifies a person living in Texas.

In spite of the powerful propaganda effort of the so-called "Jews", they have been unable to prove in recorded history that there is one record, prior to that period, of a race religion or nationality, referred to as "Jew". The religious sect in Judea, in the time of Jesus, to which self-styled "Jews" today refer to as "Jews", were known as "Pharisees". "Judaism" today and "Pharisaism" in the time of Jesus are the same.

Jesus abhorred and denounced "Pharisaism"; hence the words, "Woe unto you Scribes and Pharisees, Hypocrites, Ye Serpents, Ye Generation of Vipers".

www.biblebelievers.org.au/jesusjew.htm

I was reading yesterday that the Juden came up with the word 'Jew' as an inside joke, meaning 'half-Judean' ie..Ju/Jew. Or it could be as stated above an abbreviation of the word 'Judea'.

The thing is (as you know) the word 'Jew' didn't exist in language until the late 1700's so I have decided to not refer to them as 'Jews' as this just plays into the deception.
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.
User(s) who Liked this post: Flare

My Question for the Jews 21 May 2019 19:17 #7

  • Gaia
  • Gaia's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Gold Member
  • Posts: 7286
  • Likes received: 1570
annabelle wrote:
In none of the manuscripts of the original Old or New Testament was Jesus described or referred to as a "Jew". The term originated in the late eighteenth century as an abbreviation of the term Judean and refers to a resident of Judea without regard to race or religion, just as the term "Texan" signifies a person living in Texas.

In spite of the powerful propaganda effort of the so-called "Jews", they have been unable to prove in recorded history that there is one record, prior to that period, of a race religion or nationality, referred to as "Jew". The religious sect in Judea, in the time of Jesus, to which self-styled "Jews" today refer to as "Jews", were known as "Pharisees". "Judaism" today and "Pharisaism" in the time of Jesus are the same.

Jesus abhorred and denounced "Pharisaism"; hence the words, "Woe unto you Scribes and Pharisees, Hypocrites, Ye Serpents, Ye Generation of Vipers".

www.biblebelievers.org.au/jesusjew.htm

I was reading yesterday that the Juden came up with the word 'Jew' as an inside joke, meaning 'half-Judean' ie..Ju/Jew. Or it could be as stated above an abbreviation of the word 'Judea'.

The thing is (as you know) the word 'Jew' didn't exist in language until the late 1700's so I have decided to not refer to them as 'Jews' as this just plays into the deception.

That is true, but like is still the case in other languages than English, "jews" were referred to as "hebrews" (and variations thereof). The Hebrew language (autonym: Ivrit) was a near-dead language for centuries, only revived with the Zionist propaganda push (and historical fakery) of the mid-late 19th century.
Hebrews
By the time of the Roman Empire, Greek Hebraios could refer to the Jews in general, as Strong's Hebrew Dictionary puts it, "any of the Jewish Nation", and at other times more specifically to the Jews living in Judea. In early Christianity, the Greek term Ἑβραῖος refers to Jewish Christians as opposed to the gentile Christians and Judaizers (Acts 6:1 among others). Ἰουδαία is the province where the Temple was located.

See this map of Ukraine (1925). Jews are indicated as evrei:

The Only Limit is Your Own Imagination
A truth seeker is someone who dares to wade through thick series of toxic smoke screens and tries not to inhale - Gaia
"What do you call 'genius'?" "Well, seeing things others don't see. Or rather the invisible links between things."
- Vladimir Nabokov (1938)
"The silence of conspiracy. Slaughtered on the altar of apathy." - Lords of the New Church (1982)
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.

My Question for the Jews 21 May 2019 21:03 #8

  • Flare
  • Flare's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Moderator
  • Posts: 14326
  • Likes received: 5565
annabelle wrote:
In none of the manuscripts of the original Old or New Testament was Jesus described or referred to as a "Jew". The term originated in the late eighteenth century as an abbreviation of the term Judean and refers to a resident of Judea without regard to race or religion, just as the term "Texan" signifies a person living in Texas.

In spite of the powerful propaganda effort of the so-called "Jews", they have been unable to prove in recorded history that there is one record, prior to that period, of a race religion or nationality, referred to as "Jew". The religious sect in Judea, in the time of Jesus, to which self-styled "Jews" today refer to as "Jews", were known as "Pharisees". "Judaism" today and "Pharisaism" in the time of Jesus are the same.

Jesus abhorred and denounced "Pharisaism"; hence the words, "Woe unto you Scribes and Pharisees, Hypocrites, Ye Serpents, Ye Generation of Vipers".

www.biblebelievers.org.au/jesusjew.htm

I was reading yesterday that the Juden came up with the word 'Jew' as an inside joke, meaning 'half-Judean' ie..Ju/Jew. Or it could be as stated above an abbreviation of the word 'Judea'.

The thing is (as you know) the word 'Jew' didn't exist in language until the late 1700's so I have decided to not refer to them as 'Jews' as this just plays into the deception.


Last Edit: 21 May 2019 21:05 by Flare.
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.

My Question for the Jews 21 May 2019 21:54 #9

  • peacenik
  • peacenik's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Immortal
  • Posts: 3019
  • Likes received: 1551
annabelle wrote:
In none of the manuscripts of the original Old or New Testament was Jesus described or referred to as a "Jew". The term originated in the late eighteenth century as an abbreviation of the term Judean and refers to a resident of Judea without regard to race or religion, just as the term "Texan" signifies a person living in Texas.

In spite of the powerful propaganda effort of the so-called "Jews", they have been unable to prove in recorded history that there is one record, prior to that period, of a race religion or nationality, referred to as "Jew". The religious sect in Judea, in the time of Jesus, to which self-styled "Jews" today refer to as "Jews", were known as "Pharisees". "Judaism" today and "Pharisaism" in the time of Jesus are the same.

Jesus abhorred and denounced "Pharisaism"; hence the words, "Woe unto you Scribes and Pharisees, Hypocrites, Ye Serpents, Ye Generation of Vipers".

www.biblebelievers.org.au/jesusjew.htm

I was reading yesterday that the Juden came up with the word 'Jew' as an inside joke, meaning 'half-Judean' ie..Ju/Jew. Or it could be as stated above an abbreviation of the word 'Judea'.

The thing is (as you know) the word 'Jew' didn't exist in language until the late 1700's so I have decided to not refer to them as 'Jews' as this just plays into the deception.

...Then what shall we refer to those people who wrote the Torah (The first five books of the Old Testament) as?
Birth is not a beginning; death is not an end. There is existence without limitation; there is continuity without a starting point.” ~ Chuang Tzu
Last Edit: 21 May 2019 22:01 by peacenik.
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.

My Question for the Jews 22 May 2019 17:31 #10

  • annabelle
  • annabelle's Avatar
  • Online
  • Silver Member
  • Posts: 2264
  • Likes received: 1582
Gaia wrote:
That is true, but like is still the case in other languages than English, "jews" were referred to as "hebrews" (and variations thereof). The Hebrew language (autonym: Ivrit) was a near-dead language for centuries, only revived with the Zionist propaganda push (and historical fakery) of the mid-late 19th century.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hebrews]Hebrews
By the time of the Roman Empire, Greek Hebraios could refer to the Jews in general, as Strong's Hebrew Dictionary puts it, "any of the Jewish Nation", and at other times more specifically to the Jews living in Judea. In early Christianity, the Greek term Ἑβραῖος refers to Jewish Christians as opposed to the gentile Christians and Judaizers (Acts 6:1 among others). Ἰουδαία is the province where the Temple was located.

quote:

A Dire Warning About Dr. James Strong

(...)

Summary: James Strong of Strong’s Concordance

1. Strong was a member of the Westcott and Hort Revised Version Committee (RV) of 1881 and worked in masterminding this corrupt version.

2. Strong was also a member of the American Standard Version Committee, finally published in 1901. It said that Jesus Christ was a creature, not the Creator.

3. On these committees Strong joined Unitarians (e.g. Thayer), a child molester (Vaughan), followers of Luciferian H.P. Blavatsky (e.g. Ginsburg, Schaff), and a horde of Bible critics (e.g. S. R. Driver), who together changed nearly 10,000 words of the text.

4. Strong’s Concordance definitions are often the very words of these corrupt versions and also the Quran.

5. Strong also gathered his definitions from Gesenius’ corrupt Hebrew Lexicon. His work also accesses the corrupt lexicons of Liddell-Scott, Thayer, Brown, Driver, and Briggs. All merit chapters in this book.

6. Strong’s Greek text is not always that which underlies the King James Bible.

7. Strong’s various definitions may not give anywhere near a literal translation of the Greek.

8. Some of the latest editions of Strong’s Concordance are not even Strong’s original. In the Greek and Hebrew lexicons in the back section, they contain even more corrupt definitions from new version editors. In the main body of the concordance, which originally was correct, new editions omit important KJB usages of the word ‘Jesus’ in order to match corrupt new versions.

James Strong’s Concordance Greek and Hebrew Lexicon

James Strong (1822-1894), author of Strong’s Concordance, has been elevated to the position of fourth member of the Trinity by many. His corrupt Greek and Hebrew definitions pepper today’s preaching, as if his lexicon was the final and 67th book of the Bible. His liberal definitions are used as quick and weak patches to fill a void in sermons. The space would be better filled by a laborious looking up of all the Bible’s usages of a word.

James Strong of the Corrupt RSV and ASV Committees

Strong’s liberal views got him a Committee seat on the corrupt Revised Version (RV) of 1881 with Westcott, Hort, and Vaughan, as well as a seat on the American Standard Version (ASV) committee with Schaff and Unitarian J. Henry Thayer (finally published in 1901).

Westcott and Hort sought American Bible critics to join them in their work on the Revised Version. In 1870 the British Committee voted “to invite the cooperation of some American divines” (Matthew Brown Riddle, The Story of the Revised New Testament American Standard Edition, Philadelphia: The Sunday School Times, 1908, p. 11). Strong became “a member of the Old Testament company of revisers” (New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, New York: Funk and Wagnall’s Company, vol. XI, p. 115).

Strong was hand-selected by American RV chairman Philip Schaff, who was also a participant in the new age Parliament of World Religions.

“The Rev. Philip Schaff, D.D., LL.D., Professor of Sacred Literature in The Union Theological Seminary, New York, by invitation of the English New Testament Company prepared a draft of rules for cooperation, and a list of names J STRONG DELUSION 163 of biblical scholars who should probably best represent the different denominations and literary institutions in this movement. The suggestions were submitted to the British Committee and substantially approved” (Introduction by Dr. Schaff to The Revision of the English Version of the New Testament, 1872).

Philip Schaff denied the inspiration of the Bible and only chose committeemen who agreed that the Bible had never been inspired; he called ‘inspiration,’ “the moonshine theory of the inerrant apostolic autographs” (See New Age Bible Versions for more details, p. 458; David Schaff, The Life of Phillip Schaff, NY: Scribner’s Sons, 1897, pp. 439, 351, 357, 434-435).

Strong's Concordance Definitions

The definitions in the Greek and Hebrew Lexicon in the back of Strong's Concordance are often not literal renderings of the Greek or Hebrew word. For example, the Greek word deisidaimonia, used in Acts 17:22, is made up of two words, 'fear' and 'devil' (daimon). The King James correctly interprets 'fearing devils' as being "too superstitious." Propelled by views that 'other' religions are to be respected, the Strong's Concordance and his ASV pretend the word is "very religious." Both the ASV and Strong's Concordance turn a stern warning into a high compliment.

When reading the so-called definitions in Strong's Concordance (in the Greek and Hebrew Lexicons in the back), one is really often just reading Strong's corrupt American Standard Version (and sometimes also his 1881 Revised Version), which is now seen often in versions such as the NIV, NASB, NKJV, ESV, HCSB, NAB, NJB, et cetera. Note the following examples:

COLOR CODE:

King James Bible —
Strong's Corrupt Lexicon Definition —
Strong's American Standard Version 1901 —

Godhead (King James Bible)
divinity (This is what it says in Strong's Corrupt Concordance)
divinity (This is what it says in Strong's American Standard Version)

one is your Master, even Christ
teacher
one is your teacher

charity

love
love

follow
imitate
imitate

temperance
self-control
self-control

too superstitious
very religious
very religious

heresy
party
party

curious
magical
magical

bottomless pit
abyss
abyss

hell
Hades 1.
Hades

devils
demonic being 1., deity
demons

Lucifer
morning-star
day-star

www.jesusisprecious.org/wolves/james_strong.htm

"A third contribution of the Parliament was to the Christian ecumenical movement. According to Diana L. Eck, the Parliament itself “might be seen as one of the first events of ecumenical movement” (1993, xv). Eck is not wrong given the fact that 152 of 194 speakers were Christians (Protestant, Orthodox, and Catholic) and that the “Christian flavor” was very obvious through the hymns, prayers and rhetoric during the Parliament. Barrows sometimes also discussed the necessity of Christian unity by employing the image of three concentric circle with “Christian assembly embodying its center; the American religious assembly, including Jews, comprising the next circle; and the religions of the worlds making up the outer circle” (Ziolkowski 1993, 57-8).

Among those who spoke on the subject of Christian unity, Philips Schaff was considered most authoritative (in Barrows 1893b, 1192-1201). While being critical of the organic or corporate model of ecumenism “under one government,” he argued for a federal or confederate union, in which the balance between unity and independence could be maintained. However, the relevance of the Parliament to the ecumenical movement has not been recognized fully until the 1910 Conference of World Mission in Edinburgh. Thereafter, the ecumenical movement has always been dealing with the issues of religious plurality in connection with Christian unity and mission."

people.bu.edu/wwildman/bce/

Strong Delusion:

James Strong’s Dangerous Definitions in the back of his Strong’s Concordance
www.jesusisprecious.org/books/gail_riplinger/H-pp_157-202_Chapter_7_Strong_Delusion-James_Strongs_Dang.pdf

Hazardous Materials
www.soulwinning.info/books/gail_riplinger/hazardous_materials.pdf
Last Edit: 22 May 2019 17:34 by annabelle.
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.

My Question for the Jews 23 May 2019 20:36 #11

  • Frothy
  • Frothy's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Platinum Member
  • True life is elsewhere
  • Posts: 16338
  • Likes received: 1709
peacenik wrote:
annabelle wrote:
In none of the manuscripts of the original Old or New Testament was Jesus described or referred to as a "Jew". The term originated in the late eighteenth century as an abbreviation of the term Judean and refers to a resident of Judea without regard to race or religion, just as the term "Texan" signifies a person living in Texas.

In spite of the powerful propaganda effort of the so-called "Jews", they have been unable to prove in recorded history that there is one record, prior to that period, of a race religion or nationality, referred to as "Jew". The religious sect in Judea, in the time of Jesus, to which self-styled "Jews" today refer to as "Jews", were known as "Pharisees". "Judaism" today and "Pharisaism" in the time of Jesus are the same.

Jesus abhorred and denounced "Pharisaism"; hence the words, "Woe unto you Scribes and Pharisees, Hypocrites, Ye Serpents, Ye Generation of Vipers".

www.biblebelievers.org.au/jesusjew.htm

I was reading yesterday that the Juden came up with the word 'Jew' as an inside joke, meaning 'half-Judean' ie..Ju/Jew. Or it could be as stated above an abbreviation of the word 'Judea'.

The thing is (as you know) the word 'Jew' didn't exist in language until the late 1700's so I have decided to not refer to them as 'Jews' as this just plays into the deception.

...Then what shall we refer to those people who wrote the Torah (The first five books of the Old Testament) as?

Israelites.

What annanelle wrote isn't correct, Judea is not like Texas, ie evreyone in it is a Judean, it's named after Judah one of the tribes of Israel, the Jews are Judeans and generally thought to be spawn from Judah.

Judeans are Jews, it's as simple as that, even Mary is related to King David, what a star....

There were two main types of Judeans (Jews) the ones like the pharisees who were sort of subordinate to the Roman rule of the area, and then the messianic Jews, who would later be known as Christians who opposed the Romans with more effort, and didn't see eye to eye with the pharisees, it's Jewish infighting. They wouldn't hail Caesar but constantly be yelling 'messiah is coming' so politically and spiritually they had a separation but they were two groups of Jews with different opinions regarding compliance with the Romans and the notion of an imminent messiah.

At the end of the day, they're all Judah's children in that tribe, the NT is a book about them. Judah =Judean = Jew.

Jesus was referred to time and again in the NT as 'Rabbi' it's a Jewish tale..

He appeared with Moses and Elijah in the NT during his transfiguration, it's a Jewish book,, they have him a nudge of approval, it's a way of selling the idea to other Jews.
Once a hyena always a hyena.
Last Edit: 23 May 2019 21:10 by Frothy.
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.

My Question for the Jews 23 May 2019 21:12 #12

  • Frothy
  • Frothy's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Platinum Member
  • True life is elsewhere
  • Posts: 16338
  • Likes received: 1709
Yeshua (Jesus) was a nice Jewish boy, who any mother would be proud of. He was born in Bethlehem, as the Christmas cards show us, in very humble surroundings. After birth he had been circumcised and consecrated at the Temple and, by all accounts, had the typical childhood of one from a poor family in a Galileean village. And how do we know they were poor? “No room at the inn” was certainly a clue but the clincher was the “pair of doves or two young pigeons” that they sacrificed to the Lord after the birth. This was the pidyon ha-Ben, the redemption of a boy. It’s an acknowledgement that every first-born boy belongs to God and all parents must “buy him back” by making a sacrifice. This rule dated right back to the time of Moses, when the first-born boys of the Israelites were spared from the Angel of Death on Passover night. Joseph and Mary were too poor to offer a lamb sacrifice and so were permitted to offer up the birds as a cheaper alternative.

www.premier.org.uk/Blogs/Yeshua-Explored/Jesus-the-Jew

Coo coo...
Once a hyena always a hyena.
Last Edit: 23 May 2019 21:13 by Frothy.
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.

My Question for the Jews 23 May 2019 21:40 #13

  • Frothy
  • Frothy's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Platinum Member
  • True life is elsewhere
  • Posts: 16338
  • Likes received: 1709
Kabbalists see the angelic Prince of the Face as intermediary between God and his people. Recalling R. Yitzhaq of Acre’s equating of the afflicted Forerunner with the Messiah who saves Israel, the following passage from the Zohar almost sounds like an epitome of the New Testament’s assertions about Yeshua’s mediating, vicarious atonement:

When the Messiah hears of the great suffering of Israel in their dispersion, and of the wicked amongst them who seek not to know their Master, he weeps aloud . . . as it is written: “But he was wounded because of our transgression, he was crushed because of our iniquities” (Isaiah 53:5). . . . The Messiah . . . calls for all the diseases and pains and sufferings of Israel, bidding them settle on himself, which they do. . . . As long as Israel were in the Holy Land, by means of the Temple service and sacrifices they averted all evil diseases and afflictions from the world. Now it is the Messiah who is the means of averting them from mankind.

jewsforjesus.org/publications/issues/issues-v18-n02/kabbalahs-best-kept-secret/
Once a hyena always a hyena.
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.
Moderators: novum, rodin, Flare
Powered by Kunena Forum

Annual Server Target

Whether its 50 cents or five dollars, your donations are appreciated and help keep this community site running so we can all continue to enjoy using it. Secure transactions via paypal.
This target is to meet our server cost for one year, June 2019 - May 2020, in USD.
$ 340 - Target
( £ 278 GBP )
donation thermometer
donation thermometer
$ 160 - Raised
( £ 130 GBP )
donation thermometer
47%
Updated
2nd October 2019

No one is obliged to donate, please only donate what you can afford. Even the smallest amount helps. Being an active member is a positive contribution. Thank You.