The Truth About Melchizedek

God's Truth

New member
If you read John 17:17, once Jesus said that the Truth is the Word of God. Probably, his statement comes from having read Psalm 147:19,20 where it says that the Word of God was given to the Jews only and to no other people on earth. Prophet Isaiah so much believed what I do that he said, "And many people shall go and say, 'come you and let us go up to the Mountain of the Lord, to the House of the God of Jacob; and He will teach us of His way, and we will walk in His paths; for out of Zion shall go forth the Law and the Word of the Lord from Jerusalem.'" (Isa. 2:3)

Now, tell me, checking the Biblical quotes I have shown above, what in your mind I am denying or is fictional? Please, don't give me your word for I can't take it for granted. Show me evidences that what I have learned is fictional. If you do, it will be proved that both the NT and the Tanach are fictional.

You deny the fact that God gave Moses commands that included animal sacrifices, among other such commands along with circumcision and the observance of special days.

You speak with ignorance about Jesus. You would have to obey Jesus to receive knowledge. However, you keep speaking about the New Testament as if your worthless opinions mean something.
 

Ben Masada

New member
The Truth about Melchizedek

The Truth about Melchizedek

1 - You deny the fact that God gave Moses commands that included animal sacrifices,
2 - among other such commands along with circumcision and the observance of special days.
3 - You speak with ignorance about Jesus.
4 - You would have to obey Jesus to receive knowledge. However, you keep speaking about the New Testament as if your worthless opinions mean something.

1 - I deny nothing. Read Jeremiah 7:22. That's a major prophet of the Lord saying that the Lord never commanded concerning burn offerings or sacrifices. The Lord simply agreed with Moses because he had to use of pichuach nephesh to make the Exodus of the Israelites from Egypt easier to happen.

2 - Circumcision yes, it had become the token of the Abrahamic Covenant. Since then Circumcision remained as an everlasting command throughout all Jewish generations to this day. (Gen. 17:13)

3 - You assume that I speak with ignorance of Jesus as if he had been a Christian and not a Jew. If Jesus had not been a Jew, we would not be here today engulfed in this debate.

4 - I obey the same Law that Jesus used to obey and said himself that's the only way to escape hell-fire: To listen to "Moses" aka the Law.(Luke 16:31)
 

Ben Masada

New member
The Truth about Melchizedek

The Truth about Melchizedek

Definitely TO.

How could Paul convert Jews to Judaism? He was converting Jews to Christianity. BTW, all his life since his first station in Damascus and until his last in Rome he never left the Jews in peace. (Acts 9:1,2; and 28:17)

Are you not aware of the chronology of the split of Judaism and Christianity?

No. The only split I am aware of is the split between the Tribes of Israel.(I kings 12:16)

"The Way" was a sect of Judaism. Efforts to segregate this sect and exclude it from Judaism did not begin in earnest until AFTER the destruction of Herod's temple. Rabbi Akiva began the efforts to "purify" Judaism of all its sects other than the Pharisees. "The Way" was not completely separated from Judaism until Akiva proclaimed Simon bar Kochba to be "the messiah" and all who would not swear allegiance to be enemies. That time frame is 90-135 CE.

"The Way" was also called the Sect of the Nazarenes. The most recent Jewish Sect in the First Century. (Acts 9:1,2)

Paul died around 67-68 CE. Whatever converts he made, were converts to Judaism, albeit of a sect other than Pharisee.

Prove it with a quote from your own NT.

The problem is that you do not see that early Christianity IS Judaism. It's just a different sect than what you are used to.

Judaism never had any thing to do with Christianity. The only other Jewish sect was of the Nazarenes which Paul persecuted before he founded Christianity. (Acts 9:1,2; 11:26)

The church wasn't anti-Jewish until the mid-2nd century. Anti-Semitism became widespread in the 2nd century, having been spread by Roman soldiers who had fought in the two insurgencies in 70 and 135 CE.

The Church was anti-Jewish from the onset when Paul founded it. (Acts 11:26) The insurgency of 70 ACE was in the First Century, not 2nd.

How could a church which WAS Jewish possibly be anti-Jewish?

Please, prove it with your own NT that Christianity was ever Jewish?

Generations of Muslim teaching, perhaps?

Where did they get the idea that the Jews had killed Jesus?

It's a paradigm issue. You view Judaism as synonymous with Moses. Paul views it as synonymous with Abraham.

If Paul had viewed Judaism as synonymous with Abraham he would not have preached against circumcision, the token of the Abrahamic Covenant. (Acts 21:21)

Paul endeavors to adopt his proselytes "ben Abraham" but without Moses, which in his view was "added afterwards because of transgressions." Galatians 3:19.

I have no idea what you are talking about.

From your perspective, Paul has departed from Judaism, because Judaism equates with Moses, and Paul's proselytes are without Moses.

Not me. Jesus who equated Judaism with Moses. Read Luke 16:31. He said that to escape hell-fire one must listen to "Moses" aka the Law.

From my perspective, Judaism equates with Abraham, and practice of the Abrahamic covenant constitutes practice of Judaism.

And from my perspective, Judaism equates to both, Abraham and Moses. (Luke 16:31)

Yes - that is not Pharisee Judaism. It's a different sect; a different "Way."

That's the Sect of the Nazarenes; the Sect Paul used to persecute. (9:1,2)

I didn't say there was RT in the Tanach. I said that there was corruption within Judaism by the kings. A separate thread perhaps? Give me a day or so to put together a post.

You have all the time in the world.
 

God's Truth

New member
1 - I deny nothing. Read Jeremiah 7:22. That's a major prophet of the Lord saying that the Lord never commanded concerning burn offerings or sacrifices. The Lord simply agreed with Moses because he had to use of pichuach nephesh to make the Exodus of the Israelites from Egypt easier to happen.

2 - Circumcision yes, it had become the token of the Abrahamic Covenant. Since then Circumcision remained as an everlasting command throughout all Jewish generations to this day. (Gen. 17:13)

3 - You assume that I speak with ignorance of Jesus as if he had been a Christian and not a Jew. If Jesus had not been a Jew, we would not be here today engulfed in this debate.

4 - I obey the same Law that Jesus used to obey and said himself that's the only way to escape hell-fire: To listen to "Moses" aka the Law.(Luke 16:31)

You deny the truth that God commanded Moses the sacrificing of animals.

You speak as if you know Jesus but you do not. Jesus tells us how to know him and you have not done that.
 

Wick Stick

Well-known member
How could Paul convert Jews to Judaism? He was converting Jews to Christianity. BTW, all his life since his first station in Damascus and until his last in Rome he never left the Jews in peace. (Acts 9:1,2; and 28:17)
He couldn't; he didn't. He made converts of the Gentiles - hence that whole "apostle to the Gentiles" thing.

He retained the habit of attending synagogue and debating with Jews as to the meanings of Scripture. Maybe that is what you are thinking? But debating Scripture... that's a Jewish thing to do.


Are you not aware of the chronology of the split of Judaism and Christianity?
No. The only split I am aware of is the split between the Tribes of Israel.(I kings 12:16)
Then perhaps you ought to educate yourself on the matter. Try search strings "Akiva" "bar Kochba rebellion" "council of Jamnia," and follow the links from there.

Paul died around 67-68 CE. Whatever converts he made, were converts to Judaism, albeit of a sect other than Pharisee.
Prove it with a quote from your own NT.
I just proved it using scripture, logic and chronology. Why do I need to prove it again?

Judaism never had any thing to do with Christianity. The only other Jewish sect was of the Nazarenes which Paul persecuted before he founded Christianity. (Acts 9:1,2; 11:26)
Seriously? :jawdrop: I think you're the first person I've ever seen try to make that argument. I mean, the whole of history says just exactly the opposite.

The Church was anti-Jewish from the onset when Paul founded it. (Acts 11:26)
I don't think it was first called "Christianity" because Paul founded it. That would take some bass-ackwards logics.

The insurgency of 70 ACE was in the First Century, not 2nd.
You seem to have missed this -
...and 135 CE.

Please, prove it with your own NT that Christianity was ever Jewish?
...

How does citing verses prove anything? You keep inviting me to a duel of proof-texting. Why? Can we evaluate it using ALL of the resources instead? Logic? History? Textual Criticism?

Beyond that, though... how can you fail to see this? "Salvation is of the Jews" and "all Israel shall be saved." And that's Paul, talking to Gentiles! Other books are either expressly written to Jews (Matthew, Jude, 1Peter). The apocalypse builds on Daniel in a way that makes it incomprehensible to anyone who isn't Jewish, and well-acquainted with Jewish history. Linguistically, all the books are written in a Koine dialect which presumes knowledge of Aramaic.

You have some ideas that take a staggering amount of willful ignorance to maintain.

Where did they get the idea that the Jews had killed Jesus?
I am not familiar enough with Islam to cite from the Quran or its traditions or other writings.

If Paul had viewed Judaism as synonymous with Abraham he would not have preached against circumcision, the token of the Abrahamic Covenant. (Acts 21:21)
He didn't. If you will read down 3 verses farther in the same chapter...

"All may know that those things, whereof they were informed concerning thee, are nothing; but that thou thyself also walkest orderly, and keepest the law."

It was a false accusation. Why then do you cite it, as though it had substance?

Not me. Jesus who equated Judaism with Moses. Read Luke 16:31. He said that to escape hell-fire one must listen to "Moses" aka the Law.
Re-read Luke 16:31. That isn't what it says at all. Not to mention that chapter isn't remotely related to the topic at hand.

And from my perspective, Judaism equates to both, Abraham and Moses. (Luke 16:31)
Good. What do you do with the promise to make Abraham a "father of Goyim?" Genesis 17:4-5

Jarrod
 

Ben Masada

New member
The Truth about Melchizedek

The Truth about Melchizedek

1 - You deny the truth that God commanded Moses the sacrificing of animals.

2 - You speak as if you know Jesus but you do not. Jesus tells us how to know him and you have not done that.

1 - And you are implying that Jeremiah, a major prophet of the Lord, was a liar. (Jer. 7:22) But I do not blame you because you seem not to understand what "Picuach Nephesh" is even after I have explained it to you. It means you don't want to understand. You prefer to walk by faith and leave the understanding with Paul. See II Cor. 5:7.

2 - I know Jesus much better than you think you do. He was Jewish just as I am and not of the religion of Christianity you belong to. I know Jesus for what he was. You know him as a Greek demigod according to the gospel of Paul. See Acts 9:20.
 

Ben Masada

New member
The Truth about Melchizedek

The Truth about Melchizedek

He couldn't; he didn't. He made converts of the Gentiles - hence that whole "apostle to the Gentiles" thing.

He retained the habit of attending synagogue and debating with Jews as to the meanings of Scripture. Maybe that is what you are thinking? But debating Scripture... that's a Jewish thing to do.


Then perhaps you ought to educate yourself on the matter. Try search strings "Akiva" "bar Kochba rebellion" "council of Jamnia," and follow the links from there.

I just proved it using scripture, logic and chronology. Why do I need to prove it again?

Seriously? :jawdrop: I think you're the first person I've ever seen try to make that argument. I mean, the whole of history says just exactly the opposite.


I don't think it was first called "Christianity" because Paul founded it. That would take some bass-ackwards logics.

You seem to have missed this -

...

How does citing verses prove anything? You keep inviting me to a duel of proof-texting. Why? Can we evaluate it using ALL of the resources instead? Logic? History? Textual Criticism?

Beyond that, though... how can you fail to see this? "Salvation is of the Jews" and "all Israel shall be saved." And that's Paul, talking to Gentiles! Other books are either expressly written to Jews (Matthew, Jude, 1Peter). The apocalypse builds on Daniel in a way that makes it incomprehensible to anyone who isn't Jewish, and well-acquainted with Jewish history. Linguistically, all the books are written in a Koine dialect which presumes knowledge of Aramaic.

You have some ideas that take a staggering amount of willful ignorance to maintain.

I am not familiar enough with Islam to cite from the Quran or its traditions or other writings.

He didn't. If you will read down 3 verses farther in the same chapter...

"All may know that those things, whereof they were informed concerning thee, are nothing; but that thou thyself also walkest orderly, and keepest the law."

It was a false accusation. Why then do you cite it, as though it had substance?

Re-read Luke 16:31. That isn't what it says at all. Not to mention that chapter isn't remotely related to the topic at hand.

Good. What do you do with the promise to make Abraham a "father of Goyim?" Genesis 17:4-5

Jarrod

Jarrod, I am sorry but I have arrived to the conclusion that we are wasting the time of each other. You seem to want me to take your word for it and not to accept Biblical quotes even of the NT which is your own Bible. I can't walk that way. Even the Jewish war of 70 ACE you mention of having been in the Second Century and refuse to accept any correction. It is impossible to discuss something in such an illogical manner.
 

patrick jane

BANNED
Banned
Jarrod, I am sorry but I have arrived to the conclusion that we are wasting the time of each other. You seem to want me to take your word for it and not to accept Biblical quotes even of the NT which is your own Bible. I can't walk that way. Even the Jewish war of 70 ACE you mention of having been in the Second Century and refuse to accept any correction. It is impossible to discuss something in such an illogical manner.

Gut Shabbes and have an easy feast -
 

Wick Stick

Well-known member
Even the Jewish war of 70 ACE you mention of having been in the Second Century and refuse to accept any correction. It is impossible to discuss something in such an illogical manner.
Before you go correcting, you ought to make sure you understand what is being said. What I actually said that anti-Semitism was prevalent in the 2nd century. I then referred to the two revolts (70 AD and 135 AD) as laying the groundwork for resentment against Jews. But :carryon:

Jarrod, I am sorry but I have arrived to the conclusion that we are wasting the time of each other.
The point isn't to convert each other, is it? I've enjoyed the debate, and opportunity to understand and evaluate someone else's viewpoint. If you haven't, then perhaps you're doing it wrong.

You seem to want me to take your word for it and not to accept Biblical quotes even of the NT which is your own Bible. I can't walk that way.
I think you're saying that you don't want to deal with my beliefs because they don't fit closely enough with your expectation of what cookie-cutter Christianity believes. It's cool.

Jarrod
 

Ben Masada

New member
The Truth about Melchizedek

The Truth about Melchizedek

The point isn't to convert each other, is it? I've enjoyed the debate, and opportunity to understand and evaluate someone else's viewpoint. If you haven't, then perhaps you're doing it wrong.

Jarrod

Jarrod, Jews are not allowed to proselytize even if it becomes open-season throughout the forums. Our prohibition comes from higher Jewish sources. True, that forum rules maintain a slight prohibition but we all know that it does not work as Christians are concerned. They are not only allowed but demanded that conversions be encouraged. All depends on a personal decision. Not so with the Jews though.
 
Last edited:

God's Truth

New member
1 - And you are implying that Jeremiah, a major prophet of the Lord, was a liar. (Jer. 7:22) But I do not blame you because you seem not to understand what "Picuach Nephesh" is even after I have explained it to you. It means you don't want to understand. You prefer to walk by faith and leave the understanding with Paul. See II Cor. 5:7.

2 - I know Jesus much better than you think you do. He was Jewish just as I am and not of the religion of Christianity you belong to. I know Jesus for what he was. You know him as a Greek demigod according to the gospel of Paul. See Acts 9:20.

You have to change the whole Old Testament to try and prove Jesus wrong.

Jews know that God commanded Moses to do animal sacrifices. That is a main reason why the Jews want the temple rebuilt.

However, you know the sacrifice of animals will be wrong, because Jesus is the last Sacrificial Lamb of God.
 

God's Truth

New member
Jarrod, Jews are not allowed to proselytize even if it becomes open-season throughout the forums. Our prohibition comes from higher Jewish sources. True, that forum rules maintain a slight prohibition but we all know that it does not work as Christians are concerned. They are not only allowed but demanded that conversions be encouraged. All depends on a personal decision. Not so with the Jews though.

God does not care who you are blood related to anymore, because his Son's blood is all that matters. Be cleaned and reconciled to God by the blood of the Lamb.
 

Ben Masada

New member
The Truth about Melchizedek

The Truth about Melchizedek

1 - You have to change the whole Old Testament to try and prove Jesus wrong.

2 - Jews know that God commanded Moses to do animal sacrifices. That is a main reason why the Jews want the temple rebuilt.

3 - However, you know the sacrifice of animals will be wrong, because Jesus is the last Sacrificial Lamb of God.

1 - I am changing nothing. Prophet Jeremiah revealed that truth before I was born for many years. About two thousand and a half years. Besides, I am not trying to prove Jesus wrong. He was as right as I am. You are the one whom I have already proved wrong.

2 - Jews know that Moses had to use of "Pichuach Nephesh" to add the sacrifices to be able to effect the Exodus. Otherwise, he would never be able to take the Israelites out of Mitzraim.

3 - Now, you are playing funny with me. No one was ever a sacrificial lamb of God. It would be an act of contradiction against Jeremiah and Ezekiel. (Jer. 31:30 and Ezek. 18:20)
 

Ben Masada

New member
The Truth about Melchizedek

The Truth about Melchizedek

God does not care who you are blood related to anymore, because his Son's blood is all that matters. Be cleaned and reconciled to God by the blood of the Lamb.

That's not what HaShem said to Isaiah to teach us. He said that whenever we want to set things right with God so that our sins from scarlet red become as white as snow, we must repent and return to the obedience of the Lord. (Isa. 1:18,19) Why didn't He say to accept the blood of the Lamb on the altar? Because HaShem would not go according to the gospel of Paul. That's all. See how easy is to prove the truth?
 

Omniskeptical

BANNED
Banned
Ben Masada, I noticed Jews to this day, Jews call their religion a name after Judah, not Israel, while not even reproducing the other 11 tribes. The NT assumes no new religion, and an Enochian ascension of the Christ's ecclesia, and the persistence of the other 11 tribes including Manasseh.

In your version of the OT, God has abandoned Israel. Why doesn't the NT agree with your version?
 

Ben Masada

New member
The Truth about Melchizedek

The Truth about Melchizedek

Ben Masada, I noticed Jews to this day, Jews call their religion a name after Judah, not Israel, while not even reproducing the other 11 tribes. The NT assumes no new religion, and an Enochian ascension of the Christ's ecclesia, and the persistence of the other 11 tribes including Manasseh.

In your version of the OT, God has abandoned Israel. Why doesn't the NT agree with your version?

I challenge you to produce the text in the Tanach that God has abandoned Israel. I have never claimed such a version in the Tanach that God has abandoned Israel. I have no idea where you have got this one from. The opposite is rather true that, "Of the other nations, the Lord will eventually get rid of them but of Israel He will only chastise us as we deserve. (Jer. 46:28) This sounds rather that the Lord will abandon the Gentiles and never Israel. He will rather make of Israel a Kingdom of priests and a Holy Nation. (Exod. 19:6)
 
Last edited:

Omniskeptical

BANNED
Banned
I challenge you to produce the text in the Tanach that God has abandoned Israel. I have never claimed such a version in the Tanach that God has abandoned Israel. I have no idea where you have got this one from. The opposite is rather true that, "Of the other nations, the Lord will eventually get rid of them but of Israel He will only chastise us as we deserve. (Jer. 46:28) This sounds rather that the Lord will abandon the Gentiles and never Israel. He will rather make of Israel a Kingdom of priest and a Holy Nation. (Exod. 19:6)
He must have, since the OT is used to prove only Judah survived and came out of exile. I find the notion ludicrous aswell.
 

jamie

New member
LIFETIME MEMBER
According to Israeli law Judah was a Gentile as were his father and mother.

The Law of Return
July 5, 1950

Amendment No. 2 5730-1970*
1. In the Law of Return, 5710-1950**, the following sections shall be inserted after section 4:

4B. For the purposes of this Law, "Jew" means a person who was born of a Jewish mother or has become converted to Judaism and who is not a member of another religion."
 

God's Truth

New member
That's not what HaShem said to Isaiah to teach us. He said that whenever we want to set things right with God so that our sins from scarlet red become as white as snow, we must repent and return to the obedience of the Lord. (Isa. 1:18,19) Why didn't He say to accept the blood of the Lamb on the altar? Because HaShem would not go according to the gospel of Paul. That's all. See how easy is to prove the truth?

Do you think that Isaiah did not have to obey God?

Tell me, what was God going to do to Moses when Moses was not going to circumcise his son?

I am waiting so please tell me.
 

God's Truth

New member
Ben Masada, God commanded Moses to teach the people about making animal sacrifices, burnt offerings,offerings, incense, New Moons, Sabbaths, and convocations.

HOWEVER, God did NOT like those things from the people, WHEN and BECAUSE they gave and did THOSE things but continued to do evil, and they were NOT sorry for their sins! Read Isaiah 1.
 
Top