Jan 9, 2009
Brother Lee Love Profile
My friend. Understand that the term was invented to describe all the books, letters, and epistles, that the Israelites and first-century Church already accepted as inspired. The Roman Catholic denomination takes credit for what's become canon, if you will, but this is their attempt at retaining their authority over all the denominations and self-exaltationJon ah's experience was a "sign." Signs are to lead us in the right direction. As Yahowshua said.. as Jonah spent that time in that aquatic beast, that became a sign to lead people to Mashiyach. Now, should we limit the definition of "sign" and Jonah's experience just because we read the term "sign" and not "prophecy "? Do not prophecies serve the same purposeYou realize that the majority of our more modern English translations are based on the earlier English versions and not on the Septuagint, Hebrew, or Greek New Testament texts, right? (Feb 13, 2015 | post #3069)
For clarity, one supposed discrepancy will cause the Bible to perceived as just another blahblahblahFor clarification... "judgments " is plural, because there was numerous methods to put sinners to death. "Enemy" is singular, because death is death. It's the same for "evil." In the meantime and never as if you wouldn't, meditate on these things before replying, please and if you will. Shalowm. (Feb 11, 2015 | post #3056)
Because, the ten commandments are the foundation that the rest of the law rests on. What's worthy of exaltation? The house? or the foundation the house sits onHouse-servants were exalted above field-servants. There is a distinction - made by the most High. Not me, nor manAgreed, but that's to their fault. However.. understand that the distinction was made, first, by the most High. Of a surety, He never intended that the law, without the ten commandments, be neglectedActually, it does. But, I accept that Moses would not have included divorce without permission. (Jan 31, 2015 | post #2842)
The vision, itself and as I admit, is perplexing. But, like I said, it's odd, to me, to witness anyone so sure that their understanding is irrefutable when scholars, whether religious or secular, have been debating the interpretation of Ezekiel's (and other prophets') vision(s) for yearsPaul called it a "tree" because that's the term used in the lawThe texts of the old covenant are the precursor of the texts of the new. And the texts of the new covenant are the revelation of the oldBut, there's great chance there is. We must take into consideration all else written, or we find ourselves accepting contradictions and falsehood. From what I've learned in the past 30-years, there are no contradictions in the Bible, but only misinterpretations based on gross misunderstandings of what's writtenAmong others. John 10:38 But, if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works: that ye may know, and believe, that the Father is in me, and I in him. (Jan 31, 2015 | post #2841)
The vision, itself and as I admit, is perplexing. But, like I said, it's odd, to me, to witness anyone so sure that their understanding is irrefutable when scholars, whether religious or secular, have been debating the interpretation of Ezekiel's (and other prophets') vision(s) for yearsPaul called it a "tree" because that's the term used in the lawThe texts of the old covenant are the precursor of the texts of the new. And the texts of the new covenant are the revelation of the oldBut, there's great chance there is. We must take into consideration all else written, or we find ourselves accepting contradictions and falsehood. From what I've learned in the past 30-years, there are no contradictions in the Bible, but only misinterpretations based on gross misunderstandings of what's writtenAmong others. John 10:38 But, if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works: that ye may know, and believe, that the Father is in me, and I in him. (Jan 31, 2015 | post #2840)
Or, simply put... Yahowshua, as Alpha and Omega, is the first and last of Yahoweh's creation. Yahowshua, by authority and power given him by Yahoweh, created all else. Yahowshua, as Alpha and Omega, is also the first and last to be raised to everlasting life by Yahoweh. All else, by authority and power given him by Yahoweh, will be raised to everlasting life by Yahowshua. (Jan 31, 2015 | post #2839)
I admit, I've not come to any irrefutable conclusion regarding the mentions, by certain prophets, of any supposed, "future" temple and sacrifices being performed therein. And yes. It's virtually impossible, for me, to accept that another method of forgiveness and reconciliation will be re-established, especially while taking into consideration the prophecies and records that declare that the sacrifice of the son of Yahoweh fulfills the result of sacrifice. If anything, you've provoked further investigation in this matter and I I thank you for that. Until I can come to a conclusion, I must refrain from further discussion, unless I'm defending Yahowshua, that is. (Jan 31, 2015 | post #2837)
Proberbs 21:27 The sacrifice of the wicked is abomination: how much more, when he bringeth it with a wicked mind? Why do you think the most High chose to have His son fulfill such laws in himself on the cross? 1Samuel 15:22 Hath Yahoweht delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices, as in obeying the voice of Yahoweh? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of rams. (Jan 31, 2015 | post #2834)
There's plenty of verses that distinguish between the two, but you'll reject even those verses that prove as much. Therefore, I'll not even bother quoting thembeside the ark." Not "within, " or even "in." "..besideYou missed my point, but that's alright. I wasn't referring to people that disregard the rest of the law, so you understandHonesty, what you think is of little importance. Whether you think that he didn't mean what he said is highly irrelevant. The fact is, he said that Moses included the law of divorce. I'm going to accept that statement "as is," just like you do Ezekiel's vision. If you don't mind, of course. (Jan 31, 2015 | post #2806)
Unless you understand what circumcision symbolized, other than a signature on a covenant, then you'll not understand why 'Eloyim decided to have the practice fulfilled on the cross. Then, consider that as it also served as a symbol that joined Yahoweh and Abraham by covenant, then what would the fulfillment of it mean for GentilesIt's not my "theology. " But, the whole "theology " of the Church is based on, first, the sacrifice of Mashiyach and what it accomplished. This is evident by both, religious and secular historians, from the first century and onwardMy assertions are supported by scripture. If not, I wouldn't make such statementsIdolatry , murder, adultery, fornication, and the such like, can't be fulfilled, but circumcision, sacrifice, Sabbath observance, and the death-penalty can. Think about it. (Jan 29, 2015 | post #2677)
It doesnt, which is why we're not completely exempt from the penalty of death. The fulfillment of the death-penalty merely prohibits one person from putting another to death. However, the death-penalty will be reinstated after judgment and fulfilled by 'Elohiym. But, sacrifice for forgiveness and reconciliation is different. Remember, that sinners and anything that causes death and sorrow will not be allowed entrance into the kingdom of glory. Therefore, they'll be no sinner, nor a need for any method to seek forgiveness and reconciliationIt was a vision, just like when John received a vision of Yahowshua as a slain lamb with seven eyes and seven horns. Visions don't always have literal interpretations regardless of how specific and detailedUnfortunat ely, your confusion derives from terminology and a lack of knowledge regarding the prophecies and their fulfillment. Again, to "be fulfilled" means simply that we're no longer required to fulfill the act ourselves, because Yahowshua fulfilled the act once and for all. The results of sacrifice remains as long as he lives. (Jan 29, 2015 | post #2665)
I, truly, don't see the profit in this discussion, especially considering that I've already said that I don't believe the law (outside of the ten commandment) should be ignored. But, for the general public's sake... One is called the "law of Yahoweh," while the other - the "law of Moses." The first is said to be written by Yahoweh Himself, while the latter is said to be penned by Moses. The first was placed in the ark of the covenant. The latter wasn't. Referring back to the three verses I quoted, it should be a simple task accepting that it was neither, I, nor any man for that matter, that exalted the ten commandments to such status, whether it be title, authorship, or residence. Remember, too, that according to the records of Yahowshua's testimony, Moses was accredited for including the law of divorce. (Jan 29, 2015 | post #2659)
With all due respect, but Torah does make a distinction, which is proven by the three verse I quoted. Regardless, I, personally, never even implied that the ten commandments should be observed while the others ignored. As I believe, the ten commandments serve as the foundation for all the others. All the law hang on the ten commandments. And the ten commandments hang on Love. (Jan 29, 2015 | post #2637)
When Old GT asks, "For what would there be any sacrifice?," he's asking what a newly established sacrifice would serve considering that the result of Yahowshua's sacrifice is perpetual? Would such a sacrifice grant us forgiveness of sins and reconciliation as it did in ancient times and as if it would be necessary? (Jan 29, 2015 | post #2631)
Understandably, many are confused with our English translations and the meaning of Paul's letters, especially when it comes to terminology. First, the only time "done away with," specifically, is used is in reference to circumcision, or that which separated Yisra'el from the other nations, although numerous, other terms make similar implications. Secondly, Ezekiel's record of his vision describing some future temple still remains a mystery, even to the most learned scholars and scribes. There's yet to be an irrefutable interpretation for it's actual meaning. Regardless, Yahowshua became the only sacrifice accepted by Father Yahoweh. And as long as Yahowshua lives (which is forever), the result of his sacrifice will remain. Therefore, sacrifice and it's result are not destroyed, but fulfilled. There's a difference. Lastly, Paul referred only to circumcision, sacrifices and oblations, the holy convocations, and the penalty of death. These were all fulfilled (not destroyed) as according to prophecy. Shalowm. (Jan 29, 2015 | post #2627)
Q & A with Brother Lee Love
Between my temples.
I Belong To:
When I'm Not on Topix:
...then I'm not on Topix.
Read My Forum Posts Because:
...iron sharpens iron.
I'm Listening To:
Read This Book:
The Holy Bible
Charity, faith and hope!
On My Mind:
The things of others!
Blog / Website / Homepage:
I Believe In:
...things hoped for, yet unseen!
Copyright © 2017 Topix LLC