Originally Posted by nateswift (Post 46093903)

Like ANY magic (which is an attempt to coerce whatever power is involved) or idols that sit on the floor or around your neck or on your bookshelf or in your wallet.

The point being that any such is an insult to God and a VERY poor attempt to control what we have no business trying to control. "Black Magic" is the kind that attepts to gain power through things that bring horror to the human consciousness, like murder, or necromancy or boiling a lamb in its own mother's milk.

Originally Posted by daqq (Post 46094111)

It has nothing to do with black magic. It is an idiom as Hanni already suggested. Paul clearly speaks often about the "milk of the Word" which are the elementary and beginning things. Not boiling a kid-goat while it is still in its mother's milk can be read as "not while it is still milking" or nursing. So it is "in its mother's milk" just as one is "in Messiah" or "in the milk of the Word", and so on and so on. Thus it implies, do not overburden a child with things that the child is just not ready for; because you might scramble or fry his brains like an egg, (another similar idiom meaning the same). Now if one goes back to look at the context in which it is given; it speaks of the timing of something critically important, (especially in Exodus 34:26 where it is connected to the first-fruits of the harvest). :)

Originally Posted by Hannibal Flavius (Post 46094319)

That is what I would say even if you came to the simple understanding Jews have, Jews will get two refrigerators because some will not even keep the milk and cheese in the same box with meat. Paul said there were things he wanted to teach them that they could not bear because they were babies still on milk and they were not studying the Torah as Paul wanted them to, he wanted to give them meat they could never eat.

Originally Posted by daqq (Post 46094629)

That simple Pharisaic and Talmudic understanding is superfluous in my case because I do not even eat any carcass of flesh that was formerly a living soul, ("You shall not kill", period, without stipulation). I could be wrong but I think Paul understood the same. It all starts with the Ten Words which are first and foremost physical and straightforward in meaning; then the supernal unfolds out of those Ten.

Originally Posted by Hannibal Flavius (Post 46094872)

It's hard to make a call when you are raised a gentile and you still haven't read all the traditions and ancient concepts to make a call on some things, that is how it is with me, If I don't understand something, maybe it is because maybe I haven't run across esoteric symbolism of ancient Jewish tradition and so I am talking about something that I do not know about unless I was raised as a Jew becoming a Rabbi knowing everything a Jew would know. I am just a gentile trying to play catch up, O these years from Dec 1998. 35 40 years of filling my mind with pre conceived ideas looking at a religion I refused to lean until 98.

Originally Posted by Hannibal Flavius (Post 46095648)

I have heard this used before as a way to rationalize a law.

Originally Posted by bbyrd009 (Post 46095821)

Do you suspect the passage about Christ eating fish, then? And the others; the one "Peter, rise, kill, and eat;" which is acknowledged to be about bringing Word to gentiles--on the one hand, at least. Ty

Originally Posted by bbyrd009 (Post 46095871)

yes, it is difficult to interpret the many references to eating meat that would seem to endorse it as ok. But there is that one, disturbing ref to "never eat meat again," too. Been wondering about that one.

Originally Posted by daqq (Post 46095949)

Exactly, as freely admitted by Nateswift, and it occurs most often when a mitzvah or command is not understood and appears to come out of nowhere without explanation. The only reason it appears to come out of nowhere to the natural mind is because the natural mind does not understand that he himself is likened to Esau, who is hairy, like a sa`iyr, (that is indeed what Yaakob says of him in Genesis 27:11 where sa`iyr is used instead of se`ar, [hairy]), and thus Esau is likened to an hairy sa`iyr-goat. Boiling is tribulation, great tribulation, and related to the harvest; let the wheat and the tares grow up together until the harvest, it is all about timing, and do not boil a gediy-kid-goat while he is yet in his mother's milk, that is, while he is still nursing on the milk of the Word, (let the twins grow up together and the angels will sever the wicked from the righteous in the consummation of his age). ;)

Originally Posted by Hannibal Flavius (Post 46096083)

O daughters of Jerusalem, ''seek not love until it is time.''

Originally Posted by nateswift (Post 46096457)

I am not trying to rationalize it, I was suggesting a purpose or a rationale for the prohibition. I see no other that exists in the real world, the base for any spiritual speculation. Someone else may. What is the intent behind seething a kid in its mother's milk?

Originally Posted by bbyrd009 (Post 46098164)

Nice, ty, that resonates with me, a meat eater, for some uncomfortable reason. So, i was hoping you might reflect upon the rather strange "never eat meat again" thing, since it is common for those with eyes to associate "meat" with Word. That is, if you have anything there, ty.

I had this one specifically in mind;
1Cor8:13
Therefore, if food causes my brother to stumble, I will never eat meat again, so that I will not cause my brother to stumble.

but, what the heck; if the OP is amen~able, may as well drag out what i got, from a search of "never eat meat again."

Lev22:13--wherein i am having to change translations, to shoehorn "meat" in here, as it is also variously translated as "food" or "bread;"
But if the priest's daughter be a widow, or divorced, and have no child, and is returned to her father's house, as in her youth, she shall eat of her father's meat: but there shall be no stranger eat thereof.


And finally
Isa62:8
The LORD has sworn by his right hand, and by the arm of his strength, Surely I will no more give your corn to be meat for your enemies; and the sons of the stranger shall not drink your wine, for the which you have labored:


Which only uses meat as a metaphor, but i got nudged that maybe i should toss this one in, as we are exploring meta~phorically and all. I guess if i searched differently, maybe dropped the "never," we would get some interesting reflections~some more stuff to knosh, if you will~but i am about to get CD or something anyway, so i won't overload you.

Or, for that matter, anyone with some Word here, please feel...um, Free! :)

Originally Posted by daqq (Post 46098853)

1 Cor 8:13 -- broma (food) and kreas (flesh)

1 Corinthians 8:13
13 διοπερ ει βρωμα σκανδαλιζει τον αδελφον μου ου μη φαγω κρεα εις τον αιωνα ινα μη τον αδελφον μου σκανδαλισω

G1033 βρῶμα broma (ɓrō'-ma) n.
1. food, i.e. that which is chewed.
2. (ceremonially) especially articles allowed or forbidden by the Jewish law.
{literally or figuratively}
[from the base of G977]
KJV: meat, victuals

Broma and brosis speak of those things which Elohim has ordained as "food" for eating, (which is first spelled out in Genesis 1:29). Paul is usually using forms of these two words when he speaks in such contexts as this and others, (i.e. foods sacrificed to idols and so on). However it is kreas which indeed means the flesh of animals but it is much less frequently used and simply means the meat of a butcher, (it is used only two times and the other is Romans 14:21 where Pauls says, "καλον το μη φαγειν κρεα", "It is good/virtuous not to eat flesh" [krea]). When the KJV Bible was first printed "meat" did not always specifically mean flesh as it typically means today, rather, "meat" was simply another way of saying "food" and could mean bread or other types of food besides the literal meat or flesh of animals. This is why you see many places where lechem, (bread), is rendered as meat, (as in Lev 22:13 which you referenced). It simply means bread or food, that is, sustenance, staple food essentially. We therefore do need to be careful about lechem and how it is rendered in whatever translation one prefers to read. One of the more interesting places would be Numbers 28 where the Father tells us what is His Bread, the bread of His ascending and fire offerings. Does the Father eat bread? You bet, but it is obviously not physical bread, and yet He will indeed sup with you if you offer up your offerings by the commandment in the name of His Son, (do you have a perfect Lamb?). Do you have lechem-bread to offer up by fire? He has made His angels spirits and His ministers a fiery flame. Your ascending offerings can only come from the adamah altar of your heart. Three times daily with the window of your chamber open toward Yerushalem, (of above), is the prescription in Daniel. :)

Originally Posted by Richard1965 (Post 46102686)

It says, "Do not murder."....There's a didference...

Originally Posted by Richard1965 (Post 46102691)

What's it like over there where you are at in Olam HaBa?...

Originally Posted by daqq (Post 46102818)

ratsach-murder-kill -- no there isn't.



We were set apart lepers: now we are only set apart.

Originally Posted by nateswift (Post 46097753)

I guess so, the concept of Hell as we know it is not scriptural.

Originally Posted by bbyrd009 (Post 46098238)

Boy, sure not OT Scriptural, that i can see. And i'm calling my friends, at Shemen Sasson, and they are ever so nicely wondering where the, um, hell, i ever got such an idea, and suggesting that it might be better if my kids did not play with their kids for awhile...

Originally Posted by Hannibal Flavius (Post 46100444)

Hebrews
Jesus the Great High Priest
14Therefore, since we have such a great high priest who has passed through the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold firmly to what we profess. 15For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who was tempted in every way that we are, yet was without sin. 16Let us then approach the throne of grace with confidence, so that we may receive mercy and find grace to help us in our time of need.…


Hebrews
Christ's Eternal Priesthood
1Now of the things which we have spoken this is the sum: We have such an high priest, who is set on the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens; 2A minister of the sanctuary, and of the true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched, and not man. 3For every high priest is ordained to offer gifts and sacrifices: wherefore it is of necessity that this man have somewhat also to offer. 4For if he were on earth, he should not be a priest, seeing that there are priests that offer gifts according to the law: 5Who serve unto the example and shadow of heavenly things, as Moses was admonished of God when he was about to make the tabernacle: for, See, saith he, that thou make all things according to the pattern shewed to thee in the mount. 6But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.


Jesus went to officiate the priesthood in heaven so that on Rosh Hashanah when your name is spoken every year because you converted, you are sealed in your forehead every year for keeping the ways of God, and Jesus went to heaven so that we could boldly come up to the throne each year on Yom Kippur BECAUSE we have such a high priest officiating these days of the kingdom in righteousness, and where you think a religion has ended, one has just begun in heaven and the days have not changed at all.


There is no New Priesthood, there are two sons of God, and Judah was sitting in the priesthood, this priesthood did not pass down to Gentiles, it passed to the other brother of the covenant named,'' Ephraim.''


Through Ephraim people convert to Judaism and become one with Jews under a covenant that makes the two one.


If you have not returned repenting as Ephraim MUST return to respect of Torah, then neither are you Ephraim or Judah and you are talking about a covenant that you are not in, and this covenant is through the betrothal of a Jew that redeems a gentile into Israel, and now we have a high priests who is officiating the covenant on Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur EACH YEAR, He became a priest of heaven and he is officiating the duties of a priest in heaven for OUR CAUSE, WE who have obtained the seal of God in our foreheads against Yom Kippur.


The converts say,'' Amen.''

Originally Posted by bbyrd009 (Post 46103682)

Hann, i dislike this because fear is being re-installed, and i note that you have found what reads to be just some alternate definitions for "we," which suggest an "us" and a "them," with all due respect. It seems Christ's Word here, "Love Your Neighbor; this fulfills the Law and Prophets" is negated?

Originally Posted by bbyrd009 (Post 46104267)

Amen!
Hope you understand, bro, but you have to take a census, to find a "we," ok?

Originally Posted by Hannibal Flavius (Post 46104820)

There is nothing to fear for those who are saved, you are saved, I am saved, nothing wrong with that, but that doesn't mean there is nothing else, there is salvation and there is salvation with reward, you decide, but both are without fear, and one comes with regret but not fear.

Originally Posted by bbyrd009 (Post 46105638)

nice, i like this better, "regret" is prolly a much better reflection. But yet, i note that all of the tribes walked out of Egypt, free men; so my question then is, or at least i think is, when is the census taken? Who is "those who are saved," iow. I note that the popular view has a census of an "us" and a "them," so a divided census, a house divided, whereas my suggestion is that the Wanderers, all 12 tribes, got the first census, anyway, whereas you might be referring to the second one, which, now that i think on it, wasn't that the one that caused some trouble? A lot of trouble? I'll go refresh, while you reply here, ty.

More than 2 censuses, perhaps; let's go there, i guess.
Lots of refs, several refs, but i'm pretty sure many of these
are discussing the same census. Someone smarter than me will have to jump in.

How many censuses are in the OT?

http://biblehub.net/search.php?q=census+OT

Originally Posted by Hannibal Flavius (Post 46106208)

I believe Christians are saved because I believe in a very broad sense of salvation in that if God saves the good Muslim, the good Hindu, that he will also save the Christian, and these are not a part of the religion of God or the religion of Jesus, Christianity today has nothing to do with the first Christianity and even though Gentile Christians reject the religion of God and his son, I still believe God judges the heart and not the religion but if the religion is judged, Neither Muslim, Christian, or Hindu have a chance. None of these are of the religion of the God of the bible and yet my whole family are Christian and I have no doubt of their salvation but it is so far away from the religion of Jesus, they wont be standing in the same place with those who have followed Jesus and lost houses and job and family because if a person really chooses God, he is going to choose God's worship system and nobody is going to praise him for that.


There are two sons.


Ephraim
Judah


If you are not amongst theses{Christianity is not} then you don't have a covenant with Christ, but then God is a merciful God and I believe he saves even if I can prove otherwise, my hopes are that people are saved no matter what. Before Jesus came, the gentile who took on the Sabbaths and feasts of God were absolutely no different than Israel and they were to be treated the same as Israel even to being gathered to the very mountains of Israel for no other reason than they took on the Sabbaths and feasts of God and did what pleases him.


Now the so called Gentile converts to the religion of God wont even do this, and they prove they can't be Judah or Ephraim.


The ten tribes received a promise 700 years before Jesus came, that God would come and betroth them under a marriage that redeemed them into Israel by marrying a Jew.


Those first converts did just that, they received a betrothal to a Jew that actually redeemed them into Israel that they might say,'' I am Israel under the covenant and promise to the ten lost tribes.''


Jesus took the two and made one stick and that stick was then broken, the covenant broken, and no longer was it gentiles converting to the Sabbaths and feasts of God, it became self professed Gentile Christians who went out and tried to kill any convert to the religion of God.


Not only did the gentile Christian walk away to then reject the covenant of Jesus, but they set in to killing anyone who would follow Jesus and his appointed feasts, even the Passover itself.


For 2000 years Christianity has persecuted and killed anyone who accepted Jesus as their Passover lamb and decided to keep the Passover or anything that pleased God.




And yet, I believe in a very broad salvation and although Gentile Christianity has nothing to do with Jesus, I believe God is merciful, that he will save the Muslim, the Hindu and even the Christian, but which is worse?


Which religion has persecuted and killed more followers of God than Christianity?


For 2000 years Christianity has been against the first Christianity, for 2000 years the followers of Christ have been persecuted and killed by supposed self proclaimed followers of Christ who never followed Christ in anything.


I am looking at Christianity no different than I view Islam.


The two are as one, and both claim to be the real deal but talk is extremely cheap. What is done with the hands speaks over what the mouth says. Christianity has a very long history of persecuting anyone who would follow Jesus in his Passover, in his Pentecost, in his Rosh Hashanah, his Yom Kippur and even the feast of Tabernacles itself.


Just because people say,'' Jesus, Jesus,'' doesn't mean anything.


You can say ,'' Jesus , Jesus,'' all day long while your hands proclaim,'' Tammuz, Tammuz.''




But yeah, I believe in a very broad salvation and this is why I believe Christians are saved, it has nothing to do with saying,'' Jesus,''


You are either a convert or you are not. You are either a gentile grasping to the promise of the ten lost tribes or you are Judah, and Christianity is neither of these. They for sure aren't Judah, and they for sure aren't Ephraim because Ephraim is a gentile who MUST come repenting for involving himself in Paganism, and he is sorrowful for ever being against Judah, Ephraim has to become one stick with Judah and Christianity has made this an impossible thing, you either have to leave Christianity and convert to the religion of Christ, or you hope in a very broad salvation because Christianity is not the religion of Jesus or we would have seen the whole Christian world celebrating the feast of tabernacles last month, we would have seen Christianity bring in the new year last month.