logo
Welcome Guest! To enable all features please Login or Register.

Notification

Icon
Error

Options
View
Go to last post Go to first unread
Offline Matthew  
#1 Posted : Friday, June 11, 2010 2:10:34 AM(UTC)
Matthew
Joined: 10/3/2007(UTC)
Posts: 1,191
Man
Location: São Paulo, Brazil

Was thanked: 3 time(s) in 2 post(s)
I don't recall any recording of Yahshua doing anything special on the tenth day of the seventh month during His walk on earth. In this case Kippurym (Reconciliations, Day of Atonement) hasn't yet been fulfilled.
Offline Walt  
#2 Posted : Friday, June 11, 2010 2:55:40 AM(UTC)
Walt
Joined: 10/26/2008(UTC)
Posts: 374
Man

rv wrote:
Is there sufficient Scriptural evidence to conclude that Kippurim was not fulfilled by Yahushua's sacrifice?


I think the opposite question is what should be asked:
Is there Scriptural evidence that Kippurim was fulfilled

To me at least, the prophesies and events in Scripture that point forward towards Yahushua should be searched out to see if and how they were fulfilled - the "default" status is "unfulfilled" till proven otherwise

Much of christianity proclaims all the Miqra’ey, the types/shadows and Torah were totally fulfilled (and thus cast aside as meaningless)
I say "show me where & how: specifics please"

When one claims the "OT" is fulfilled and thus not to be followed - yet lack the ability to prove the "hows & whens" - they make God out to be some wako that changes His mind midstream and casts aside "stuff" that He proclaimed to us as "irrelevant"
Offline kp  
#3 Posted : Friday, June 11, 2010 6:33:02 AM(UTC)
kp
Joined: 6/28/2007(UTC)
Posts: 1,030
Location: Palmyra, VA

On a more logistical tack, the first four miqra'ey were fulfilled historically in chronological order in 33 CE. We have no historical record of Yahshua returning after the ascension (which happened ten days prior to the Feast of Weeks---Pentecost) and doing something that constituted a similarly literal fulfillment of any of the last three convocations. That means (to me, anyway) that neither Yom Teruah (Trumpets), Yom Kippurim (Atonement), or Sukkot (Tabernacles) has been fulfilled yet. And in turn, this means that Yahweh has unfinished business with planet earth. These three "fall feasts" will be fulfilled in the future, and they'll come in the order God specified in Leviticus.

So unless I'm hallucinating, Yom Teruah will be fulfilled with the ekklesia's rapture. Yom Kippurim will be fulfilled with the recognition and acceptance of the Messiah by Israel (in which the requirement of anah---both "affliction of soul" and "answering or responding" will be met). And Sukkot will mark the commencement of Yahshua's thousand-year sojourn among us as King. None of these things (all of which are predicted numerous times in scripture) have transpired yet; but unless God is a liar, they will.

kp
Offline Walt  
#4 Posted : Friday, June 11, 2010 11:31:04 AM(UTC)
Walt
Joined: 10/26/2008(UTC)
Posts: 374
Man

kp wrote:
On a more logistical tack, the first four miqra'ey were fulfilled historically in chronological order in 33 CE. We have no historical record of Yahshua returning after the ascension (which happened ten days prior to the Feast of Weeks---Pentecost) and doing something that constituted a similarly literal fulfillment of any of the last three convocations. That means (to me, anyway) that neither Yom Teruah (Trumpets), Yom Kippurim (Atonement), or Sukkot (Tabernacles) has been fulfilled yet. And in turn, this means that Yahweh has unfinished business with planet earth. These three "fall feasts" will be fulfilled in the future, and they'll come in the order God specified in Leviticus.

So unless I'm hallucinating, Yom Teruah will be fulfilled with the ekklesia's rapture. Yom Kippurim will be fulfilled with the recognition and acceptance of the Messiah by Israel (in which the requirement of anah---both "affliction of soul" and "answering or responding" will be met). And Sukkot will mark the commencement of Yahshua's thousand-year sojourn among us as King. None of these things (all of which are predicted numerous times in scripture) have transpired yet; but unless God is a liar, they will.

kp


While I wholly agree with what you said KP, this is a conclusion that is based on a study of Scripture and not Scriptural evidence itself - but to the"Torah's been fulfilled / nailed to the cross" christians - this is just merely our opinion.

We can show Scriptural evidence of the place and purpose of the Miqra'ey
We can show Scriptural evidence that the 1st 4 Miqra'ey have been fulfilled by Yahuweh
But to prove Yahuweh hasn't done something yet to one that holds to that He did do it is problematic

That's why the greater burden of proof is on those who claim all the Miqra'ey has already been fulfilled rather than on those that hold to a future yet fulfillment of the last 3

I take this stand with the Paul debate, and with what is God's Word
Those that claim something IS of God have the greater burden of proof than those who hold to something ISN'T

By default - ALL writings are of men, and if one claims a writing is of God - they must prove it so
Just because a bunch of men decided cannon centuries ago doesn't make it so: SHOW ME

If one takes this approach to what is accepted as "the bible is God's Word" - it isn't till proven so - this whole "is Paul a true or a false Apostle" debate is turned around - the greater burden of proof is on those who claim Paul IS who he claims to be: the greatest of the Apostles
The debate has been allowed to be taken from the wrong perspective
Offline Matthew  
#5 Posted : Friday, June 11, 2010 11:54:29 AM(UTC)
Matthew
Joined: 10/3/2007(UTC)
Posts: 1,191
Man
Location: São Paulo, Brazil

Was thanked: 3 time(s) in 2 post(s)
By the way, which Christians believe that Yahshua has literally fulfilled all the Feasts already? I would like to see their reasoning for it and which passages they use to justify such a belief.
Offline kp  
#6 Posted : Friday, June 11, 2010 12:32:43 PM(UTC)
kp
Joined: 6/28/2007(UTC)
Posts: 1,030
Location: Palmyra, VA

A couple of other factors to consider...

1. In a way, all of the Torah has been fulfilled in Yahshua. That is (in terms germane to the present discussion) all of the blood sacrifices---including those of the Day of Atonement---were brought to fruition by the Messiah's self-sacrifice on our behalf. But His blood won't be shed again on the definitive Yom Kippurim. His part has been accomplished, but Israel's part---the affliction of soul and the response to Yahweh's gift (anah) has never taken place in an historical setting.

2. "Christians" (and I use the word in the broadest possible sense) are largely clueless as to what the Torah requires, even if it's a subject so weighty and central to Yahweh's core revelation as the seven miqra'ey. If I were a betting man, I'd wager that 98% of the world's "Christians" couldn't figure out what the "Feasts" are or what they represent if they were locked in a room with a coffee-table King James for a year. So to suggest that most Christians hold any opinion on the subject is the height of unsubstantiated optimism. If only it were true---even if they were wrong :-)

kp
Offline danshelper  
#7 Posted : Sunday, June 13, 2010 2:46:05 AM(UTC)
danshelper
Joined: 11/30/2009(UTC)
Posts: 196
Location: Gettysburg, PA

I believe too, that all YHWH's feasts were fulfilled at that time where He said "It is finished."

The spring feasts were physically "lived out" by the people of Israel at the exodus from Egypt. The fall feasts are different, but parallel - in that we (wild olive branches) live them out spiritually - when we come out of spiritual Egypt - SIN. When we respond to the Spirit's call to repentance (Trumpets), rely on the Savior's atoning sacrifice (Atonement), are indwelled with YHWH's Spirit and abide in Him through His Word abiding in us - we Tabernacle with Him.

We observe these feasts at the time of our being renewed/born again (Pentecost), but we also continue to observe these feasts as we grow spiritually - being convicted of sin, repenting and re-abiding with Him. For me, this can be daily and several times daily!

Is the end of the age, the great tribulation, the "physical" fulfillment of the fall feasts for physical Israel -- in order for them to finally receive/recognize the "spiritual" fulfillment of YHWH's feasts of salvation?

I want to understand the lampstand. Please write plain and clear!
Offline RidesWithYah  
#8 Posted : Sunday, June 13, 2010 3:25:57 AM(UTC)
RidesWithYah
Joined: 6/10/2008(UTC)
Posts: 331

Quote:
“It is finished”


Please know that there were two times when the High Priest would traditionally say those words.
1) At Passover, after the killing of the last lamb;
2) At Atonement, after pouring the blood on the mercy seat of the ark of the covenant.
Offline RidesWithYah  
#9 Posted : Wednesday, June 16, 2010 2:35:50 PM(UTC)
RidesWithYah
Joined: 6/10/2008(UTC)
Posts: 331

Quote:
Would definitely appreciate if you could provide any reference to source materials I could look into this further.

You're probably looking for a Hebrew source, a Priests How-To. Can't offer that. I found this in "Breaking the Code of the Feasts", by Perry Stone, p125-126.

Quote:
Just a quick note: When recently studying the Ekklesia of Rev 2-3, I observed something interesting: Noticed three sets of matched pairs among the seven assemblies in terms of equidistance from Sardis. Thought it was at least worth a mention in the current context, particularly since He describes these as the Seven Lampstands.

WOW.
I've even got them sketched out as part of a study I'm compiling on Revelation, and didn't see that.
You take after your Father -- you've got His eyes.

In His Love,
RidesWithYah
Offline kp  
#10 Posted : Thursday, June 17, 2010 4:19:11 AM(UTC)
kp
Joined: 6/28/2007(UTC)
Posts: 1,030
Location: Palmyra, VA

On the subject of the menorah, I recently got some interesting information from a friend, who quoted from the Babylonian Talmud:

Quote:
Soncino Version, Yoma 39b - “Our rabbis taught: During the last forty years before the destruction of the Temple, the lot (‘For the Lord’) did not come up in the right hand; nor did the crimson colored strap become white; nor did the western most light shine (the three lamp shaft with seven lamps each on the right side of the Menorah nearest the Holy of Holiest); and the doors of the Hekel (the large doors into the Holy Place) would open by themselves.”


To which I replied:

Quote:
...The bit with the three lights on the western side of the menorah not lighting? That brought to mind something I wrote about in The Owner's Manual: three of the lights represent the ekklesia, and the other three Israel. I guess now we know which side was which.

(722) Construct the golden lampstand. “You shall also make a lampstand of pure gold; the lampstand shall be of hammered work. Its shaft, its branches, its bowls, its ornamental knobs, and flowers shall be of one piece.” (Exodus 25:31) The function of the golden lampstand (Hebrew: menorah) was discussed in Mitzvah #431. We see here God’s instructions concerning its construction. No dimensions are given (tradition says it was about five feet tall and three feet wide) but otherwise its design is quite specific. The first thing Yahweh emphasizes is its unity: it is to be made of a single piece of beaten gold—the decorative parts as well as those that were functional.

“And six branches shall come out of its sides: three branches of the lampstand out of one side, and three branches of the lampstand out of the other side….” The menorah had a center stalk or trunk, from which “grew” six branches, three on either side—the familiar six-plus-one theme again, which we’ve seen prominently in the creation account, the six-day work week plus Sabbath, and the seven annual “feasts” or convocations (miqra’ey) of Yahweh. Besides the prophetic chronological ramifications—fallen man’s tenure of six thousand years to be capped by a final Millennium of perfect Messianic government—the arrangement of the lampstand leads us to another, now familiar, observation: three branches on one side represent Israel, and the other three represent the ekklesia or Church—all of which grow from, and are dependent upon, the center trunk: Yahshua the Messiah. Indeed, these three entities together in balanced unity—Christ plus Israel and the ekklesia side by side, grafted and anchored into Him—form a perfect picture of His Millennial Kingdom.

“Three bowls shall be made like almond blossoms on one branch, with an ornamental knob and a flower, and three bowls made like almond blossoms on the other branch, with an ornamental knob and a flower—and so for the six branches that come out of the lampstand. On the lampstand itself four bowls shall be made like almond blossoms, each with its ornamental knob and flower. And there shall be a knob under the first two branches of the same, a knob under the second two branches of the same, and a knob under the third two branches of the same, according to the six branches that extend from the lampstand….” Almonds. Sound familiar? It should. Aaron’s rod budded with flowers and ripe almonds, confirming Yahweh’s power to bestow High Priestly authority—and life itself—on whomever He chose: ultimately, Yahshua, and through Him, us. The word for the almond tree (Hebrew: saqed) is derived from the verb saqad, meaning to watch, awaken, or be alert. The Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament explains: “The idea of watchfulness which is basic to the root affords the key to the explanation of the Hebrew name for the almond tree. This tree, which in Israel blooms as early as January and February and is affectionately looked upon as the harbinger of spring, is appropriately enough called saqed, ‘the waker.’” All of this makes the almond tree, its blossoms and fruit, a natural metaphor for resurrection.

On the living tree, five-petalled blossoms (five being the number of grace) develop into knob-like bowls where the fruit, the almond, grows and matures. Each of the six branches on the menorah were to have three knob-and-flower decorative devices. In addition, the center stalk was to display four such knob-and flower units, plus three more—one directly beneath the junction of each pair of branches—for a total of seven. The lesson seems to be that among the watchful, alert believers of both Israel and the ekklesia, grace will develop, mature, and bear fruit—a process that’s made perfect and complete in our Messiah, our Center and Support. Six is the number of man, but our understanding of this fact has been fine-tuned somewhat here: three branches represent the redeemed of Israel and the other three the ekklesia. In the end, as far as Yahweh is concerned, we’re all there is of mankind. Just as our Messiah was raised from the dead, both the church (in the rapture) and Israel (See Ezekiel 37:1-14) will follow suit: all seven branches of the menorah are defined by the almond tree: the “waker.”

“Their knobs and their branches shall be of one piece; all of it shall be one hammered piece of pure gold.” We are reminded again of our intended unity, having been forged in the image of the pure and immutable God. And lest we forget, there is a function to all of this: “You shall make seven lamps for it, and they shall arrange its lamps so that they give light in front of it.” (Exodus 25:32-37) The lampstand (indicative of Yahshua and we who are grafted into Him) is to give its light within the Tabernacle (i.e., the Plan of God). Those outside the Plan cannot see the light. Moreover, it is the only light source in the Holy Place (which as we have seen, chronologically represents the Church age). Each of the six branches and the center trunk were to be equipped with an oil lamp, and the light was never to be extinguished or allowed to go dark. The priests (read: believers) were to make sure that olive oil (symbolic of the Holy Spirit) was always available to feed the flame of enlightenment. What? It’s up to us to ensure the Spirit’s availability to the world? Yep. Remember, the Ruach Qodesh dwells within us. Yahshua told us what we are to be doing: “You [believers] are the light of the world. A city that is set on a hill cannot be hidden. Nor do they light a lamp and put it under a basket, but on a lampstand, and it gives light to all who are in the house. Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works and glorify your Father in heaven.” (Matthew 6:14-16) But how does Yahshua, the center of all this, fit in? John explains: “In Him [Yahshua] was life, and the life was the light of men.” (John 1:4) He was “the true light which gives light to every man who comes into the world.” (John 1:9) If men don’t see the light of God in our lives, they won’t see it at all. No pressure or anything.

As with the table of showbread, even the mundane utensils were to be made of pure gold. “And its wick-trimmers and their trays shall be of pure gold. It shall be made of a talent of pure gold, with all these utensils. And see to it that you make them according to the pattern which was shown you on the mountain.” (Exodus 25:38-40) Every detail recorded here was given for our edification. Every facet of this diamond reflects light on Yahweh’s Grand Plan for the salvation of mankind.


kp
Offline Robskiwarrior  
#11 Posted : Friday, June 25, 2010 7:26:47 PM(UTC)
Robskiwarrior
Joined: 7/4/2007(UTC)
Posts: 1,470
Man
Location: England

Was thanked: 1 time(s) in 1 post(s)
Blessed be the name of who? lol I always found that song deliciously ironic
Signature Updated! Woo that was old...
Offline Robskiwarrior  
#12 Posted : Saturday, June 26, 2010 4:46:57 AM(UTC)
Robskiwarrior
Joined: 7/4/2007(UTC)
Posts: 1,470
Man
Location: England

Was thanked: 1 time(s) in 1 post(s)
Basically the song sings about how blessed the name of the lord is - but never once says the name lol
Signature Updated! Woo that was old...
Offline Richard  
#13 Posted : Saturday, June 26, 2010 7:44:29 AM(UTC)
Richard
Joined: 1/19/2010(UTC)
Posts: 695
Man
United States

Thanks: 4 times
Was thanked: 8 time(s) in 7 post(s)
Robskiwarrior wrote:
Basically the song sings about how blessed the name of the lord is - but never once says the name lol


Well, since Satan is the name of the Lord, I'd imagine churchy folks would be gagging and having panic attacks if they were to actually sing the name they're professing to bless. What think you? :D

Blessed be the Name of Yahuweh!
Offline Robskiwarrior  
#14 Posted : Saturday, June 26, 2010 7:50:39 AM(UTC)
Robskiwarrior
Joined: 7/4/2007(UTC)
Posts: 1,470
Man
Location: England

Was thanked: 1 time(s) in 1 post(s)
I have to say though - it is easier to fit Yahweh over "The Lord" instead of "Halal Ben Shachar" lol
Signature Updated! Woo that was old...
Offline bitnet  
#15 Posted : Saturday, June 26, 2010 8:02:27 PM(UTC)
bitnet
Joined: 7/3/2007(UTC)
Posts: 1,120

Hello,

I am reminded of the blessings the RC clergy begin and end with during most prayers... "In the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit" and never once mention their names! Wazzupwiddat!?
The reverence of Yahweh is the beginning of Wisdom.
Offline Matthew  
#16 Posted : Sunday, June 27, 2010 3:50:11 AM(UTC)
Matthew
Joined: 10/3/2007(UTC)
Posts: 1,191
Man
Location: São Paulo, Brazil

Was thanked: 3 time(s) in 2 post(s)
bitnet wrote:
I am reminded of the blessings the RC clergy begin and end with during most prayers... "In the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit" and never once mention their names! Wazzupwiddat!?


Well, the idiom "in the name of" also means "by the authority of," so in a way it can be used. HOWEVER, yes the fact they never use, especially in praise and prayer (i.e. "in the Name of Yahweh"), and teach against using Yahweh's Name is hypocritical and treacherous behaviour.

Edited by user Sunday, June 27, 2010 4:09:02 PM(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

Offline Matthew  
#17 Posted : Sunday, June 27, 2010 4:26:12 PM(UTC)
Matthew
Joined: 10/3/2007(UTC)
Posts: 1,191
Man
Location: São Paulo, Brazil

Was thanked: 3 time(s) in 2 post(s)
Nice post rv! It's nice to see someone coming from the linguistics side of the coin.

I'm not against using the word Lord and know that my friends who still walk in mainstream Christianity are referring to Yahshua and not Baal. I even use it in reference to Yahshua knowing very well He did not abolish the Torah, therefore not feeling guilty for using that particular word, which is very similar in meaning to the word master (the word Swalchy used in his translation of Rev 1:10). What I am against is the teaching that using the Hebraic names is somehow "legalism" and that teaching Torah (even just looking at it) is wrong. And this is quite prevalent in Christian churches today.

Topic's going a bit off course here... But it is linked, in that teaching against knowing God's Hebrew Names is bascially the main way to shut the door to understanding the depths of the Torah, for example earlier posts in this thread detailing the symbolism of the Menorah lamp. Knowing that God has a Name, that of Yahweh, was the key for me to look deeper into Scripture and not be fearful of those who teach Torah, like KP and Yada.
Offline Robskiwarrior  
#18 Posted : Sunday, June 27, 2010 11:18:39 PM(UTC)
Robskiwarrior
Joined: 7/4/2007(UTC)
Posts: 1,470
Man
Location: England

Was thanked: 1 time(s) in 1 post(s)
I completely agree with Matt - and I agree with your points rv - it's completely logical.

But the issue I have isn't that people use the "Lord"ness but the fact that the song is a reference from Scripture. The guy who wrote it Matt Redman was going through a seriously bad patch of life (trouble with miscarriage amongst other things) and he empathised with Job 1:20-22 - and also Habakkuk 3:17,18. If these verses had been correctly rendered in the translations Job would have said "Blessed be the Name of Yahweh" not "the Lord" - so outright using His Name. If that had been read in the translations Matt would have written "Blessed be the Name of Yahweh" and not "The Lord".

Plus since when did your wife call you Lord? lol It's even less informal and personal than calling Yah, Father or any number of His self assigned descriptive titles...

Adding to this - You call your wife nick-names she likes to be called, same as I do mine. Yah has told us what He likes to be called - and never once does he mention "Lord" - not only that but He longs for the day we call Him Husband, for we have forgotten His Name for lord"

Hosea 2:16
NIV wrote:

16 "In that day," declares the LORD,
"you will call me 'my husband';
you will no longer call me 'my master. [a] '

a) Hebrew baal


ESV Interlinear
Quote:

16 “And • in • that • day, declares the Lord, you will call me ‘My Husband,’ and no longer will you call • me ‘My Baal.’
McDaniel, C., & Collins, C. J. (2006; 2006). The ESV English-Hebrew Reverse Interlinear Old Testament (Ho 2:16). Logos Research Systems, Inc.


the "Baal" in question there:

Quote:
†i. בַּעַל S1167 TWOT262a n.m. owner, lord
Brown, F., Driver, S. R., & Briggs, C. A. (2000). Enhanced Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon. Strong's, TWOT, and GK references Copyright 2000 by Logos Research Systems, Inc. (electronic ed.) (127). Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems.


Just a small sampling.

Lord is a horrible title with awful connections in English to a bloody and class warring past, and now underhanded money stealing position grabbing old men. So if we play the linguistics card, and use what it actually means to most people today - well just ask most people in the UK what they think of the House of Lords... look up Cash for Honours ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cash_for_Honours ) etc etc...

The last thing I am going to call Yah is Lord, and the reason that it is a title Halal gives to himself is one of the smaller ones...

Edited by user Monday, June 28, 2010 12:43:26 AM(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

Signature Updated! Woo that was old...
Offline Robskiwarrior  
#19 Posted : Wednesday, June 30, 2010 1:17:55 PM(UTC)
Robskiwarrior
Joined: 7/4/2007(UTC)
Posts: 1,470
Man
Location: England

Was thanked: 1 time(s) in 1 post(s)
rv wrote:

Thanks for that added insight about the song writer. My wife and I originally had some trouble with the “gives and takes away” phrase because we don’t believe YHWH operates that way, but it can appear so when the enemy comes in like a flood. Your info about the miscarriage adds a lot of clarity.


Sadly I think it was a good few, one after another.

rv wrote:


Political corruption: There is nothing new under the sun. I enthusiastically concur with your sentiments.

Use of the word LORD in English actually got its start back around 700 CE with the work of Bede (pronounced bead, old English for prayer) and his Historia Ecclesiastica. According to the Oxford Dictionary, the word can be traced back to the old English hlaford which originated from hlafweard meaning breadkeeper or loaf-ward reflecting the Germanic tribal custom of the chieftain providing food for his followers. (The word Lady was similarly derived and originally meant loaf-kneader.) Scholars generally believe that first use in a Scriptural context reflected the prevalent Hebrew practice of substituting Adonai for YHWH when read aloud.

The word definitely connotes the idea of One Greater than I, whether it be the "venerable" feudalistic owner of the estate (ie. Landlord), or the God Who has absolute authority over His humble servant. And it’s not difficult to connect the inner meaning of bread provider with the LORD’s Prayer: Give us this day our daily bread, the Bread of Life, and YHWH-Yireh the Lord will Provide Gen 22.14.

rv


I understand that completely - but to quote a very wise forum member a little further up the page:

rv wrote:


One of my undergraduate linguistics professors drove home the point that one always needs to keep in mind that language does not define man, but man defines language. There is an anthropogenic arrow of causation influencing how language develops over time and determines how the intensions (meanings) of words are established -- they emerge explicitly as a vehicle of individual human utility. “As soon as one attempts to rule man’s use of language, HE jumps over the constraints by developing idiomatic constructions and emotive slang to redirect the expression of inner meaning.” Everything largely revolves around the signifier, the signified, and the referent. The word LORD is a string of sound symbols that are recognized as a sign. It is signified as an idea or connotation that the sign evokes. The referent is the actual entity, object, or set of objects to which the sign refers.



The meaning of the past means nothing today - the cultural relevance of the word is defined by what man sees it now, and not when it was first forged as to say.

I do not force people to use Yahweh, Yahushua or whatever title is correct for them - that is for the person who is in the relationship to work out for themselves... if they looked into it - like you and I have - they would find that Yah never gives Himself the title "Lord", that is a humanism put on Him from our perspective - He wants to be Husband & Father primarily, and does not need to Lord it up.

And like I said the linguistic use of the word lord in the UK is not one that is in a good light, especially over the past few years, but even back further.

If Yah had ever said - call me Lord it's awesome, I would have no issue with it. My issue is the fact He never does - and that He tells us often that we are not to do what man says, especially within religion. Yah told us many many titles He likes to be described as, so why use one of them when as above He seems to long for the day we do not call Him Lord...

If people want to call Him that - that is their beef, but Yah asks us not to. end of. I am sticking with Him, and if people ask - I will tell them lol

Signature Updated! Woo that was old...
Offline bitnet  
#20 Posted : Friday, July 2, 2010 7:24:07 PM(UTC)
bitnet
Joined: 7/3/2007(UTC)
Posts: 1,120

Shabbat Shalom,

Those who profess Yahweh to be our Creator and Yahushua to be His Anointed One and strive to live according to His Word unashamedly proclaim Him as our Father. He is undoubtedly our Lord, but we prefer to call Him our Father because He loves us more than any lord will do. He is our sustainer, provider and protector.

In the past, nobility was supposed to be like that. The lords of the land were supposed to be great leaders who could take care of their people. We all know how that worked out in the past, and how it is faring in the present. And I think we have a pretty good idea how that will work out over the next score of years -- unfortunately. They will "take care of us" mafia style!

Be that as it may, we have set up a system that elevates certain people to a strata beyond that of the ordinary person. And worse, we indent ourselves to them via the system that we set up! Whether it is on the European side of the pond, the American side or way across the Pacific side right through Asia and Africa, people have fallen into this trap. We made lords to rule over us, politically AND spiritually, whether in the House of Lords, the Senate, Diet, upper and lower Houses of Parliament, Vatican, Mecca, Benares, Teotihuacan, etc.

Yes, words evolve, and their meaning thereof, but attitudes change little. And this is where the line is drawn in the sand... our willingness to change according to our ability to understand. If we are unteachable, then we stop being like little children and significantly reduce our chances of salvation.

So if we are to understand that Yahweh has a Plan and that He has already fulfilled the Spring Feasts from our point of view, that is looking at His Plan from a child's point of view and understanding it as it is -- four down and three to go. From a grown-up's point of view -- who "somewhat understands" the theory of relativity -- it's all done, both the Spring and Fall Feasts. It's like standing on Mars in the middle of the solar system and looking towards the sun and seeing three plus one planets (including the one you are on) and thinking that the system is "complete" and then you do the maths and realise that there should be more planets out there. But if you were on Pluto you get to see Jupiter, Saturn and Uranus and see that it is all there and understand it is all complete.

So Einstein was right in that everything is relative... it all depends on your perspective. Even the meaning of words. See what they did to the word "gay"...
The reverence of Yahweh is the beginning of Wisdom.
Offline kp  
#21 Posted : Saturday, July 3, 2010 3:53:32 AM(UTC)
kp
Joined: 6/28/2007(UTC)
Posts: 1,030
Location: Palmyra, VA

Call me an anarchist (or maybe just a Libertarian :-) but seems to me that appointing (or accepting) someone as "lord" over you in this world (or worse---endeavoring to become a "lord" yourself, one who rules over his fellow human beings) is a blatant violation of the second commandment. For what is "lordship," if not a manufactured replica of the authority of Yahweh, transferred to a mere image of Him---one of us? Yahweh is the One from whom all authority is derived, and thus is properly regarded as our Lord, the one whom we endeavor to obey. But He clearly doesn't wish to be thought of in those terms---His scriptures apply the word (Adonay) to Him very sparingly (if at all---the word might be edon: the Upright, the Foundation). But is there a "Lord?" Yes. He is unequivocally identified by this function in Matthew 28:18, when the risen Yahshua announced, "All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth." If that doesn't make Yahshua "the Lord," then words mean nothing at all.

kp
Offline Matthew  
#22 Posted : Sunday, July 11, 2010 5:20:06 PM(UTC)
Matthew
Joined: 10/3/2007(UTC)
Posts: 1,191
Man
Location: São Paulo, Brazil

Was thanked: 3 time(s) in 2 post(s)
rv wrote:
Matthew wrote:

Quote:
What I am against is the teaching that using the Hebraic names is somehow "legalism" and that teaching Torah (even just looking at it) is wrong. And this is quite prevalent in Christian churches today.


Any teaching of this ilk is indeed unfortunate. Although I don’t question the validity of your observations about the prevalence of this attitude, I have not seen or experienced much of this first hand. My exposure has mainly been with the Assemblies of God where I was converted and baptized in the Spirit in my late teens. The leaders in the various Assemblies I have attended over the years have exhibited a much more inclusive attitude about these “Old Testament” treasures and see them as providing the firm foundation on which the eternal promises we have in Yahushua are established.


Yeah, my pastor numerous years ago promptly told me that we don't perform the Torah (like Sabbath resting, keeping the Feasts, or eating Kosher) because "it's legalism because Christ set us free from the law". The churches I attended, those stemming from the Apostolic Reformation, Pentecostal and Charismatic movements, didn't fancy Messianics. Yes they teach the Old Testament is the foundation but they never really dig into it to try and understand it, in fact their attitude seems to discourage understanding the Torah.
Offline lassie1865  
#23 Posted : Saturday, June 25, 2011 7:32:53 AM(UTC)
lassie1865
Joined: 2/18/2008(UTC)
Posts: 309
Woman
Location: Colorado

I've been wondering about the Jewish Law (at the time of the Messiah) regarding death. Is there a stipulation which demands a person's being dead for at least 72 hours before they can be declared legally "dead"?
Users browsing this topic
Guest
Forum Jump  
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.