|
TidBits
Jul 23, 2006 9:49:10 GMT -5
Post by studylearning on Jul 23, 2006 9:49:10 GMT -5
I have been studying the prophesies of Zechariah and Malachi.
In these two books it becomes very clear that "The Lord of Hosts" is Jesus and God. It is clear that HE "The Lord of Hosts" will be the the one who comes in the flesh and the one who Judges in the second coming. It is also very clear that Jesus will first come to the "Jews" as His first Chosen and not the fellowship of the 2x2 or any other house.. You see the "Jews" will be cleansed because of the everlasting covenant made with them by God. You also see from this covenant the first chosen are the Jews and all others are grafted in.
Just a little.
I will remove the iniquity of that land in one day. In that day, saith the LORD of hosts, shall ye call every man his neighbour under the vine and under the fig tree.
Another tidbit
Even from the days of your fathers ye are gone away from mine ordinances, and have not kept them. Return unto me, and I will return onto you, saith the Lord of Hosts. But ye said, Wherein shall we return?
Will a man rob God? Yet ye have robbed me.----
The "Lord of Hosts" in these prophets is Jesus. Jesus says he will clean the House of Israel first and in one day. Jesus also says He Is God.
|
|
|
TidBits
Jul 23, 2006 9:55:57 GMT -5
Post by Bert on Jul 23, 2006 9:55:57 GMT -5
Hi to TidBits (how about TidBytes?) I agree with your statements, (but what's this about "2xs's"? The nice folk in the New Testament were heavily into 2x2 ism.) Jesus himself said the same, and for jxr's benefit that is "I am not come but to the lost sheep of the house of Israel" chapter? verse? can't remember. But Jesus was speaking to a Lebanese woman, and he healed her child. Same too for the Roman's servant. And, Jesus spoke of the Gospel going out into "all the world" (sorry, cant remember where it says that, either!) Bert
|
|
|
TidBits
Jul 23, 2006 10:16:03 GMT -5
Post by ilylo on Jul 23, 2006 10:16:03 GMT -5
The nice folk in the New Testament were heavily into 2x2 ism. This comment is ridiculous.
|
|
|
TidBits
Jul 23, 2006 10:29:46 GMT -5
Post by Bert on Jul 23, 2006 10:29:46 GMT -5
Ilylo - 2x2'ism means preachers going out two by two. You can call Mormons and some JW's 2x2 I suppose. Do you have such in your own church? Bert
|
|
|
TidBits
Jul 23, 2006 15:07:11 GMT -5
Post by Greg Lee unplugged on Jul 23, 2006 15:07:11 GMT -5
The nice folk in the New Testament were heavily into 2x2 ism.) Jesus himself said the same, and for jxr's benefit that is "I am not come but to the lost sheep of the house of Israel" chapter? verse? can't remember. The people of Israel or the Jews were heavily into 2&2. Once the commission came to go into all the world all variation of messenger number was allowed and none was set forth as the desired or preferred number.
|
|
|
TidBits
Jul 23, 2006 15:42:30 GMT -5
Post by where on Jul 23, 2006 15:42:30 GMT -5
The nice folk in the New Testament were heavily into 2x2 ism.) Jesus himself said the same, and for jxr's benefit that is "I am not come but to the lost sheep of the house of Israel" chapter? verse? can't remember. The people of Israel or the Jews were heavily into 2&2. Once the commission came to go into all the world all variation of messenger number was allowed and none was set forth as the desired or preferred number. where in the scripture does it say it was allowed?
|
|
|
TidBits
Jul 23, 2006 15:48:31 GMT -5
Post by Greg Lee unplugged on Jul 23, 2006 15:48:31 GMT -5
where in the scripture does it say it was allowed? In the Acts of the Apostles there is a variety of accounts of preaching the gospel with multiple different number of people.
|
|
|
TidBits
Jul 23, 2006 16:06:40 GMT -5
Post by Sylvestra on Jul 23, 2006 16:06:40 GMT -5
I have been studying the prophesies of Zechariah and Malachi. In these two books it becomes very clear that "The Lord of Hosts" is Jesus and God. It is clear that HE "The Lord of Hosts" will be the the one who comes in the flesh and the one who Judges in the second coming. It is also very clear that Jesus will first come to the "Jews" as His first Chosen and not the fellowship of the 2x2 or any other house.. You see the "Jews" will be cleansed because of the everlasting covenant made with them by God. You also see from this covenant the first chosen are the Jews and all others are grafted in. Just a little.
I will remove the iniquity of that land in one day. In that day, saith the LORD of hosts, shall ye call every man his neighbour under the vine and under the fig tree.
Another tidbit
Even from the days of your fathers ye are gone away from mine ordinances, and have not kept them. Return unto me, and I will return onto you, saith the Lord of Hosts. But ye said, Wherein shall we return?
Will a man rob God? Yet ye have robbed me.----
The "Lord of Hosts" in these prophets is Jesus. Jesus says he will clean the House of Israel first and in one day. Jesus also says He Is God. The house of Israel were never and have never been the "Jews". The Jews were only from the house of Judah (Ju is short for Ju-dah). The house of Israel were divided from the rest of the children of Israel (who ALSO were never called Jews) (I Kings 11). You see there that the house of Judah included only the tribes of Judah, Benjamin, and some Levites. The rest followed the birthright name of Israel that only the sons of Joseph had a right to carry (Ephraim and Manessah). Since the tribes of Judah and Benjamin did not have the right to the birthright name "Israel", they called themselves the house of Judah. The two houses of Judah and Israel were taken into different captivities (house of Israel to Assyria and house of Judah to Babylon). The house of Israel never returned to the "holy land" but went into dispersion throughout the earth. I might add here that the largest majority of them (hoI) do not follow Judaism, but rather are Christians. A portion of the house of Judah (ONLY) returned to rebuild the temple and the wall (see Ezra and Nehemiah to see that it was only the house of Judah. The Jews today do not have the right to the name "Israel" but rather stole it from the rightful Israelites -- as it was stolen from Esau by Jacob. The Zionists today are largely not from the children of Israel, but are rather Edomites. If anyone is interested to know how I came up with that, I will be glad to expand. If the Zionists were completely truthful about their existence, they would have called their country "Judah" instead of "Israel". Best regards, Edy
|
|
|
TidBits
Jul 23, 2006 18:31:07 GMT -5
Post by Bert on Jul 23, 2006 18:31:07 GMT -5
Greg - yes, I agree. There were variations on the theme. Phillip was sent to Gaza to meet the Eunuch on his own. Paul was with two other labourers at one stage, and had a falling out with John Mark if I recall. But, two labourers work best, two were often found in the NT (Paul and Silas, Paul and Timothy) and two is the number Jesus sent out. So this is why we also send out labourers/preachers/servants/workers (whatever,) two by two. Greg - what is mandated in the NT is specified by example - not by letter/rule/commandment
Bert
|
|
|
TidBits
Jul 23, 2006 22:37:52 GMT -5
Post by selah on Jul 23, 2006 22:37:52 GMT -5
Edy, are the Edomites descendants of Esau?
Blessings, Linda
|
|
|
TidBits
Jul 23, 2006 22:42:25 GMT -5
Post by Rob O on Jul 23, 2006 22:42:25 GMT -5
Bert,
This would be more believable if in fact 2x2ism adhered to what is laid out specifically, and then secondarily followed what they believe is shown in examples. But it doesn't follow what is specified, so the assertion that 2x2ism follows what is exemplified rings very hollow.
|
|
studylearning notlogged
Guest
|
TidBits
Jul 24, 2006 0:26:21 GMT -5
Post by studylearning notlogged on Jul 24, 2006 0:26:21 GMT -5
The house of Israel were never and have never been the "Jews". The Jews were only from the house of Judah (Ju is short for Ju-dah). The house of Israel were divided from the rest of the children of Israel (who ALSO were never called Jews) (I Kings 11). You see there that the house of Judah included only the tribes of Judah, Benjamin, and some Levites. The rest followed the birthright name of Israel that only the sons of Joseph had a right to carry (Ephraim and Manessah). Since the tribes of Judah and Benjamin did not have the right to the birthright name "Israel", they called themselves the house of Judah. The two houses of Judah and Israel were taken into different captivities (house of Israel to Assyria and house of Judah to Babylon). The house of Israel never returned to the "holy land" but went into dispersion throughout the earth. I might add here that the largest majority of them (hoI) do not follow Judaism, but rather are Christians. A portion of the house of Judah (ONLY) returned to rebuild the temple and the wall (see Ezra and Nehemiah to see that it was only the house of Judah. The Jews today do not have the right to the name "Israel" but rather stole it from the rightful Israelites -- as it was stolen from Esau by Jacob. The Zionists today are largely not from the children of Israel, but are rather Edomites. If anyone is interested to know how I came up with that, I will be glad to expand. If the Zionists were completely truthful about their existence, they would have called their country "Judah" instead of "Israel". Best regards, Edy Yes, I have noted similar articles explaining this. It was sloppy of me to use the acronym "Jews". Thank you for the input. I was only trying to bring reference to what these two books spoke about. Thanks again I am going on travel to the UK so will not be able to post for a bit. Perhaps I will get a chance to visit and read a newspaper ;D
|
|
|
TidBits
Jul 24, 2006 5:14:58 GMT -5
Post by jxr on Jul 24, 2006 5:14:58 GMT -5
Trust Bert to corrupt the generally accepted definition of the term 2x2ism.
|
|
|
TidBits
Jul 24, 2006 16:35:45 GMT -5
Post by Sylvestra on Jul 24, 2006 16:35:45 GMT -5
Edy, are the Edomites descendants of Esau? Blessings, Linda Yes, Linda the Edomites are "Esau". Gen. 36:43 .....he is Esau the father of the Edomites. The entire book of Obadiah is about the end of Edom. The house of Judah (Jews) went to war with the Edomites, and in 126 BC the Edomites were defeated and those wanting to remain in the land were forced into Judaism by the house of Judah. (Josephus has a good account of this.) In the Law of God, when one nation took over another they also took over any cursings or blessings from God, of the defeated nation. This is how the Jews took on God's curses made on the Edomites (many recorded in Obadiah). We might read this book of Obadiah replacing "Edom" and "Esau" with Jews in 2006 and get some amazing meaning here! The 18th verse says there will be none remaining of the house of Esau. The book of Amos also tells some very sobering things about Esau/Edom. Best regards, Edy
|
|
|
TidBits
Jul 25, 2006 17:38:51 GMT -5
Post by Yehudi on Jul 25, 2006 17:38:51 GMT -5
The word "Jew" (in Hebrew, "Yehudi") is derived from the name Judah, which was the name of one of Jacob's twelve sons. Judah was the ancestor of one of the tribes of Israel, which was named after him. Likewise, the word Judaism literally means "Judah-ism," that is, the religion of the Yehudim. Other sources, however, say that the word "Yehudim" means "People of G-d," because the first three letters of "Yehudah" are the same as the first three letters of G-d's four-letter name. Originally, the term Yehudi referred specifically to members of the tribe of Judah, as distinguished from the other tribes of Israel. However, after the death of King Solomon, the nation of Israel was split into two kingdoms: the kingdom of Judah and the kingdom of Israel (I Kings 12; II Chronicles 10). After that time, the word Yehudi could properly be used to describe anyone from the kingdom of Judah, which included the tribes of Judah, Benjamin and Levi, as well as scattered settlements from other tribes. The most obvious biblical example of this usage is in Esther 2:5, where Mordecai is referred to as both a Yehudi and a member of the tribe of Benjamin. In the 6th century B.C.E., the kingdom of Israel was conquered by Assyria and the ten tribes were exiled from the land (II Kings 17), leaving only the tribes in the kingdom of Judah remaining to carry on Abraham's heritage. These people of the kingdom of Judah were generally known to themselves and to other nations as Yehudim (Jews), and that name continues to be used today. www.jewfaq.org/whoisjew.htm
|
|
|
TidBits
Jul 25, 2006 18:54:58 GMT -5
Post by Lurker on Jul 25, 2006 18:54:58 GMT -5
"If anyone is interested to know how I came up with that, I will be glad to expand." I am very interested. I appreciate this kind of information. It does really open up your eyes! Thanks, A lurker, but intrigued
|
|
|
TidBits
Jul 26, 2006 16:35:50 GMT -5
Post by Sylvestra on Jul 26, 2006 16:35:50 GMT -5
Dear Lurker: To quote Josephus, Jewish Antiquities, Book 13, Chapter 9, 1.(257) and (258): "Hyrcanus took also Dora and Marissa, cities of Idumea (Edom - my note, see below), and subdued all the Idumeans; and permitted them to stay in that country, if they would circumcise their genitals, and make use of the laws of the Jews; (258) and they were so desirous of living in the country of their forefathers, that they submitted to the use of circumcision, and of the rest of the Jewish ways of living; at which time therefore this befell them, that they were hereafter no other than Jews." I also found the information below at an interesting web site www.bible-history.com/geography/ancient-israel/idumea.htmlIdumea B15 on the Map Region. Idumea was a Greek word meaning "pertaining to Edom". This term was given by the Greeks and Romans for the country of Edom on the S borders of Judea inhabited by Idumeans (Edomites) (Mark 3:8; Is 34:5-6; Ezek 35:15; 36:5). After the fall of Jerusalem (587 B.C.) the Edomites began to advance northward (Ezek 36:5). By 312 B.C. the Nabataeans, who established themselves in Edom, drove them from Petra. The Edomites were gradually forced into the S half of Judea, including the region around Hebron, an area that the Greeks later called Idumea. Judas Maccabaeus warred against them and a half century later John Hyrcanus completely subdued them, imposed the rite of circumcision, and invoked the old Jewish law of assembly (Deut 23:7-8). Julius Caesar in 47 B.C. appointed an Idumean, Antipater, procurator of Judea, Samaria, and Galilee. Herod, son of Antipater, was crowned king of the Jews in 37 B.C. When Titus besieged Jerusalem in A.D. 70, the Idumeans joined the Jews in rebellion against Rome. Josephus says that 20,000 Idumeans "defended" the Holy City. Once they actually entered the city, they proceeded to rob and kill, but these traitors received the same fate as the few surviving Jews when Rome took over Jerusalem. Idumea, or Edom, ceased to exist. Non-Biblical - 1 Macc. 4:61; 5:3; (My note - Apocrypha) Biblical - Mark 3:8. (In Isa. 34:5, Ezek. 35:15; 36:5, KJV, 'Idumea' stands for Edom). I also find this information quite intriguing! Best regards! Edy
|
|
|
TidBits
Jul 26, 2006 16:56:11 GMT -5
Post by Sylvestra on Jul 26, 2006 16:56:11 GMT -5
Dear Lurker:
I just want to add that I find this list of "Jews" very interesting. I have found that few of these are actually from the house of Judah, but rather are from many other races and places - many of which were the enemies of the children of Israel!!
house of Judah (Jews after the split in the Kingdom and through Jesus death making those (Christians) who followed him "the Kingdom" and "spiritual Jews", and making the natural Jews no longer anything special in God's eyes [per Paul the apostle]).
Canaanite Jews (I don't have immediate info. on when these were added) Edomite Jews (Idumeans - added in 126 BC) Khazarian Jews (added in around the 8th Century AD) Ashkenazim Jews (same as #1) Zionist Jews (includes all of the above except spiritual Jews) and Zionist Christians (who believe the Zionists is the State of Israel are the "chosen people of God from the house of Judah" and therefore can be added to the "Jews" for all intents and purposes).
So I guess the million $$ question is, "When you talk about "Jews" who on earth do you mean"! LOL!
Best, Edy
|
|
|
TidBits
Jul 28, 2006 18:09:27 GMT -5
Post by Lurker on Jul 28, 2006 18:09:27 GMT -5
Hello Edy,
Thank you for the postings. Everything you are sharing here is very interesting. I wish I were more knowledgeable about this topic to be able to ask educated questions, but most of what you've shared is new to me. Even then, when I come across similar topics, I appreciate everything about them.
Have you ever read the book "A History of the Jews: from Earliest Times through the Six Day War" by Cecil Roth? I met someone who was reading it and he was so fascinated by it that I went and bought it, but haven't had a chance to read it. I should start it today since I have ran out of books to read.
Sincerely, Lurker
|
|
|
TidBits
Jul 28, 2006 18:26:13 GMT -5
Post by Yes it is on Jul 28, 2006 18:26:13 GMT -5
The nice folk in the New Testament were heavily into 2x2 ism. This comment is ridiculous. It has nothing to back it up. Just someone's opinion. Just a factless post. Say - how does that differ from your post?
|
|
|
TidBits
Jul 29, 2006 16:03:07 GMT -5
Post by Sylvestra on Jul 29, 2006 16:03:07 GMT -5
Hello Edy, Thank you for the postings. Everything you are sharing here is very interesting. I wish I were more knowledgeable about this topic to be able to ask educated questions, but most of what you've shared is new to me. Even then, when I come across similar topics, I appreciate everything about them. Have you ever read the book "A History of the Jews: from Earliest Times through the Six Day War" by Cecil Roth? I met someone who was reading it and he was so fascinated by it that I went and bought it, but haven't had a chance to read it. I should start it today since I have ran out of books to read. Sincerely, Lurker Dear Lurker, I have not read the book you have mentioned, but it does look interesting. When I read a book like this, I also try to understand what "ax the author has to grind", if any. It is like many history books, you have to know if it was the "winner or the loser of the war" who wrote it. I have antique copies of both American History and Scottish History and I found many of the "facts" to be very different than I had understood in both (yes, even back then!) LOL! Two other books you might enjoy are "The Thirteenth Tribe", by Arthur Koestler, and "The Jews of Khazaria" by Kevin Alan Brook. If you'd like to e-mail me directly, I am at Novation3@aol.com Best! Edy
|
|
|
TidBits
Jul 29, 2006 16:39:24 GMT -5
Post by Jews on Jul 29, 2006 16:39:24 GMT -5
So I guess the million $$ question is, "When you talk about "Jews" who on earth do you mean"! LOL! While the esoteric explanation is interesting and enlightening, I think that when most people talk about Jews that are referring to the group of people that includes both those people who are actively practicing Judaism, as well as those who, while not practicing Judaism, still identify with other Jews by virtue of their Jewish heritage as well as their own cultural and ethnic identification.
|
|
|
TidBits
Jul 29, 2006 17:21:00 GMT -5
Post by Sylvestra on Jul 29, 2006 17:21:00 GMT -5
So I guess the million $$ question is, "When you talk about "Jews" who on earth do you mean"! LOL! While the esoteric explanation is interesting and enlightening, I think that when most people talk about Jews that are referring to the group of people that includes both those people who are actively practicing Judaism, as well as those who, while not practicing Judaism, still identify with other Jews by virtue of their Jewish heritage as well as their own cultural and ethnic identification. One might ask, however, with the current strife in Israel/Lebonan, are they Zionist Jews or Orthodox Anti-Zionist Jews E
|
|
|
TidBits
Aug 27, 2006 20:05:30 GMT -5
Post by tshilo12 on Aug 27, 2006 20:05:30 GMT -5
First off, the assertion that "Jews" refers only to Judah-ites is ludicrous and eggregiously incorrect. It does not, anywhere, say that only some Judah-ites returned to rebuild Jerusalem, furthermore, if it were so, how could Anna the prophetess, an Asher-ite be prophesying in the Temple centuries later? How could there be any Temple services at all, in light of the fact that only Levi-ites can serve as priests? Those two "examples" come out of the "New Testament"...but thousands of other examples of people who knew which tribe they were from are extant, not only from the period of the Temple, but even still today...including from the "lost" tribes.
Second, what exactly is the "Zionist Jews or Orthodox Anti-Zionist Jews" thing supposed to mean, Sylvestra? What possible relevance does whether a Jew, or group of Jews, are zionists or not, have with respect to the question of what a person means when they talk about Jews?
-t
|
|