- This topic has 25,868 replies, 115 voices, and was last updated 11 hours, 33 minutes ago by
.
- Posts
Nothing in what you wrote supported why Jechoniah should be in the lineage of Jesus, especially when God pulled the kingship authority from him and said he was to be remembered as childless (no matter how many kids he has while imprisoned). This would mean anyone born after him would not have rights to the throne of Judah; AND if his children don’t have rights to the throne, neither would the grandchildren. If you would have put on your reading and comprehension glasses, you would have caught the term “like” a signet ring when referring to Zerubbabel; not that it “was” a signet ring and scripture tells us he a governor.
You bringing up Joseph as a “parallel” shows you are grasping onto anything that would have the potential to support your “thinking.” Joseph was a prisoner raised second to Pharaoh; Zerubbabel on the other hand was suppose to be in the kingship line of David and was a governor; seems like a demotion. Instead of having complete authority, Zerubbabel’s authority came from a king.
The writer of Matthew messed up…BAD!! Did you find all three “prominent” scenarios justifying Jechoniah being listed in the lineage of Jesus? The fact different scenarios where thought up shows an issue was known and Jechoniah shouldn’t be there; so at least three DIFFERENT possibilities where born to explain away why he is there. You can dance your way around this, but facts are facts…christianity falls apart when you study and test it’s words and this is coming from one who had walked in it for 40 years.
@Gene,
No where did you articulate where in the Tanakh God said man is justified by following HIS commands. Answer the question!
You: You don’t call a statue a “LAW”
Me: You are correct you don’t call a “statue” a law; but “statutes” are; what are state statutes, if not state law?
Cornell Law School: statute: A statute is a law enacted by a legislature.
Harvard Law School: statute: Statutes are laws enacted by a legislative body.
Are we done beating a dead horse yet?
I feel like a broken record, read Ex 20:18-21 in its entirety, it’s only four verses and should be easily read in less than a minute. Comprehending those words may take longer for some. What the people feared was seeing the thundering and the lightning, hearing the sound of the horn, and seeing the mountain smoking. It literally says this is what the people feared. Moses then tells them the fear they are experiencing they should never forget and to obey God, which will keep one from sin. Does comprehension evade you? The 10 Commands given by God to the people wasn’t what generated fear, it was for obedience and from obedience, life. Do the 10 Commands generate fear in you? Do you shutter every time you read or think about them? Do you cower when they are spoken? NO?!? Then why would you say the Israelite’s did?
A more important question, do you fear God the same way the Israelite’s did in the wilderness?
Response to post 946113
You: Corinth, you’re so wealthy, your so cool, I wouldn’t dare ask anything from you, but get this, ha ha, I am here preaching the gospel to you, by the backs of those poor churches, yah those idiots I make them pay.
Me: Cute! To bad you missed what I was saying. I wasn’t speaking of when “collections” were taken to help others; I was speaking of his taking “payment” from others he was “teaching” but making a point that he wasn’t going to burden those in Corinth with “payment”, even though it was his “right” to do so. And boy did he let them know that, such humility. Did he ever say this to any other church? I don’t recall ever reading such statements to other churches. The point was why did Paul unashamedly use the term “robbing” other churches (isn’t there a commandment about stealing); and by saying this, he’s admitting he’s a thief. He wouldn’t take it from Corinth, but had no problem taking it from others. And you have no problem with it!??! To each their own.
You: DT you do realize that the false apostles are getting PAID right
Me: Are you claiming Paul wasn’t being paid? How was Paul able to travel all over the eastern Roman Empire, unless he received financial support. How was he sending his letters everywhere, he didn’t access to a “postal system” in the first century. These letters were hand delivered and the cost to travel wasn’t free.
Let’s jump into Paul’s “apostleship” claim; according to Acts 1:21-26 an apostle was to be one who walked with Jesus from the time he was baptized and witnessed his resurrection. If there could be any number of apostles, why did they cast lots to determine who would replace Judas? Paul is a self proclaimed “apostle”, he wasn’t around Jesus from the beginning, and didn’t witness the resurrection; this would make him a false apostle. But I’m sure you have a “work around” for this too. As you “work” around this please incorporate why Paul laments in II Tim 1:15 how all those in Asia turned away from him and why does Rev 2:2 commend the church in Ephesus for testing those who call themselves apostles? Have you tested the words of Paul? I have and found them to be lacking. Why does he settle in Rome for two years (end of acts) in his own “rented house” (not free)? Rev 21:14 says the twelve foundations of the wall of the New Jerusalem will have in them the names of the twelve apostles (not thirteen). Yet Paul claims to be an apostle AND so arrogantly states in II Cor 11:5 “I consider that I am not in the least inferior to these super-apostles.” Who are these “super-apostles” he is referring to?
Concerning where I’m coming up with this information, most of what I’m pointing out is called verification in combination with reading and comprehension and multiple study bibles. Have I been pointed in a direction by others, of course; the difference is the level of scrutiny and the process of verification of the words I’ve been told verse blindly believing what I’m told and accepting it as truth without verifying it. One of the most obvious examples of believing without verifying in the NT is the claim the writer of Matthew makes about Jesus being the fulfillment of Isa 7:14. If anyone bothered to read Isa chapter 7, they would be asking why this lie was allowed to be written into the NT; but they don’t ask about it because they haven’t read Isaiah. Then you condemn me for taking verses out of “context” and “slandering” Paul?!?! Can I say you’re slandering God by believing words that have been twisted to support modern religion (Hebrews)? Speaking of Hebrews, maybe you missed it, maybe you ignored it; but you never responded to my comments outlining the corruption in the first chapter of the book of Hebrews.
Let’s keep going and talk about your justification of I Cor 9:20-23; why begin at verse 18, let’s back up to verse 14 where Paul tells the Corinthians he’s not going to take payment from them even though “the Lord directed those who proclaim the gospel to get their living from the gospel.” This is suppose to come from Matt 10:10; the problem with that is the letter to the Corinthians was written around AD 50 while the book of Matthew was written around AD 70. There is a parallel verse in Luke 10:7, but that is estimated to be written between AD 80-110. Did Paul time travel to come up with this statement? Wait, was this passed down from person to person in the first century so they would be paid for “preaching the gospel.” Sounds a little greedy to me, let’s save those souls for the Jesus and get paid in the process!!
Paul then says: “I have become all things to all people, in order that by all means I may save some. I do all this for the sake of the gospel.” Whether I agree or not with the person I am teaching I will pretend to be like them in order to bring them to the Jesus. You don’t call that manipulation? Do you call that “service to Jesus” by being someone who you are not? To you it’s being “polite.” Did comprehension suddenly leave you when Paul said he would be under the law even though he didn’t believe he was under the law? That’s called pretending; being a fake. What depth of justification will you stoop for a pretender? Rhetorical, because the answer is obvious! You will stoop!
Me: Gal 5:14 Paul says the “whole law” was fulfilled in one word, meaning the entire law, For the whole law can be summed up in a single commandment, namely, “You must love your neighbor as yourself.” I think he missed the other part of the “law” “love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment.”
You: I am really curious to know the direction you are under, what you put forth is it all from your own accord or are you posting from what you gained from someone else?
Me: What “direction” I’m under?? Am I under the influence of another? Are you kidding me!?!? Can you not read and comprehend what Paul said? He said the “whole law”, everything God told Moses, was to love your neighbor as yourself. Am I taking things to literally? Paul is the one who said the “whole law” meaning the entire law was based on loving you neighbor. There is the part of loving God he left off. I don’ t care what he said to other churches, it’s what he said to Galatia. There is nothing you can say nor any dance you can do to get around what he said; he said ALL the law was summed up in one command and Jesus gave two and the greatest was to love God and Paul didn’t think God was worthy enough to include.
You then site I John as proof to Paul’s understanding, except Paul was gallivanting all over eastern Rome would he have received this letter John wrote? Upon further investigation we find the letter to Galatians was written around AD 48 and it’s believed John wrote his letter around AD 95 -110. Unless we have another time traveling Paul; Paul wouldn’t have been “referencing” John. Guess again!
@Gene,
You: DT, has lost his ability to “comprehend “, those thing it appears, by his arrogant, and hatred of brother PAUL.
Me: Seriously!! Are you really this judgmental? Comprehension doesn’t evade me. Arrogance, sometimes, but I don’t believe I’ve ever exhibited it here. Hatred of Paul, I didn’t know Paul personally so how could I hate him? Am I exposing his lies, absolutely! Does that equate to hate or truth?How about this, man up and start answering questions or are you relying on Jodi to take care of you?
Hi DT,
You: Nothing in what you wrote supported why Jechoniah should be in the lineage of Jesus,
Me: I agree!
Thus as I am not that KEEN and as familiar as YOU ARE with the Hebrew scriptures I opted to do some research, THROUGH A JEW AND RABBINIC SOURCES.
They also agree that God reversed the curse on Jeconiah, which they attribute to repentance on Jeconiah’s part. We even find the idea that the Messiah will descend from Jeconiah–
exactly the opposite of what some say is impossible!
Some of these sources are as follows:
1. Sources stating that Jeconiah repented and so God reversed the curse.
Sanhedrin 37b-38a
R. Johanan said: Exile atones for everything, for it is written, Thus saith the Lord, write ye this man childless, a man that shall not prosper in his days, for no man of his seed shall prosper sitting upon the throne of David and ruling any more in Judah. Whereas after he [the king] was exiled, it is written, And the sons of Jechoniah, — the same is Assir — Shealtiel his son etc.(1) [He was called] Assir, because his mother conceived him in prison. Shealtiel, because God did not plant him in the way that others are planted. We know by tradition that a woman cannot conceive in a standing position. [yet she] did conceive standing. Another interpretation: Shealtiel, because God obtained [of the Heavenly court] absolution from His oath.(2)
(1) I Ch. III, 17. Notwithstanding the curse that he should be childless and not prosper, after being exiled he was forgiven.
(2) Which He had made, to punish Jechoniah with childlessness.
–Soncino Talmud edition, with selected footnotes
Pesikta de-Rab Kahana (5th c.)I accepted the repentance of Jeconiah: shall I not accept your repentance? A cruel decree had been imposed upon Jeconiah: Scripture says, This man Coniah is a despised, shattered image (‘sb) (Jer. 22:28), for Jeconiah, according to R. Abba bar Kahana, was like a man’s skull (‘sm) which once shattered is utterly useless, or according to R. Helbo, like a wrapper of reed matting that dates are packed in, which, once emptied, is utterly useless. And Scripture goes on to say of Jeconiah: He is a vessel that none reaches for with delight (ibid.), a vessel, said R. Hama bar R. Hanina, such as a urinal; or a vessel, said R. Samuel bar Nahman, such as is used for drawing off blood. [These comments on Jeconiah derive from] R. Meir’s statement: The Holy One swore that He would raise up no king out of Jeconiah king of Judah. Thus Scripture: As I live, saith the Lord, though Coniah the son of Jehoiakim . . . were the signet on a hand, yet by My right, I would pluck thee hence (Jer. 22:24), words by which God was saying, explained R. Hanina bar R. Isaac, “Beginning with thee, Jeconiah, I pluck out the kingship of the house of David.” It is to be noted, however, that the Hebrew for “pluck thee” is not as one would expect ‘tkk, but the fuller and less usual ‘tknk, which may also be rendered “mend thee”–that is, mend thee by thy repentance. Thus in the very place, [the kingship], whence Jeconiah was plucked, amends would be made to him: [his line would be renewed].
R. Ze’era said: I heard the voice of R. Samuel bar Isaac expounding from the teacher’s chair a specific point concerning Jeconiah, but I just cannot remember what it was. R. Aha Arika asked: Did it perhaps have some connection with this particular verse — Thus saith the Lord: Write ye this man childless, a man [who] will not prosper in his days (Jer. 22:30)? “Yes, that’s it!” said R. Ze’era. Thereupon R. Aha Arika went on to give R. Samuel bar Isaac’s interpretation of the verse: In his days Jeconiah, so long as he is childless, will not prosper, but when he has a son, then he will prosper by his son’s prosperity.
R Aha bar Abun bar Benjamin, citing R. Abba bar R. Papi, said: Great is the power of repentance, which led God to set aside an oath even as it led Him to set aside a decree. Whence the proof that a man’s repentance led Him to set aside the oath He made in the verse As I live, saith the Lord, though Coniah the son of Jehoiakim were the signet on a hand, yet by My right, I would pluck thee hence (Jer. 22:24)? The proof is in the verse where Scripture says [of one of Jeconiah’s descendants] In that day, saith the Lord of hosts, will I take thee, O Zerubbabel . . . the son of Shealtiel . . . and will make thee as a signet (Haggai 2:23). And the proof that a man’s repentance led God to set aside a decree He issued in the verse Thus saith the Lord: Write ye this man childless, etc. (Jer. 22:30)? The proof is in the verse where Scripture says, The sons of Jeconiah — the same is Asir — Shealtiel his son, etc. (1 Chron. 3:17). R. Tanhum bar Jeremiah said: Jeconiah was called Asir, “one imprisoned,” because he had been in prison (‘asurim); and his sons called “Shealtiel” because he was like a sapling, newly set out (hustelah), through whom David’s line would be continued.
R. Tanhuma said: Jeconiah was called Asir, “imprisoned,” because God imprisoned Himself by His oath in regard to him; and Jeconiah’s son was called Shealtiel, “God consulted,” because God consulted the heavenly court, and they released Him from His oath.
–Yale Judaica edition translated by William G. Braude and Israel J. Kapstein (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society of America, 1975), pp. 376-77. Bracketed portions are Braude and Kapstein’s explanations.
Leviticus Rabbah XIX:6 (5th-6th c.)The Holy One, blessed be He, then said: ‘In Jerusalem you did not observe the precept relating to issues, but now you are fulfilling it,’ as it is said, As for thee also, because of the blood of thy covenant I send forth thy prisoners out of the pit (Zech. IX, 11) [which means], You have remembered the blood at Sinai, and for this do ‘I send forth thy prisoners’. R. Shabbethai said: He [Jeconiah] did not move thence before the Holy One, blessed be He, pardoned him all his sins. Referring to this occasion Scripture has said: Thou art all fair, my love, and there is no blemish in thee (S.S. IV, 7). A Heavenly Voice went forth and said to them: ‘Return, ye backsliding children, I will heal your backslidings’ (Jer. III, 22).
–Soncino Midrash Rabbah vol. 4, p. 249
Pesikta Rabbati, Piska 47 (6th-7th c.)R. Joshua ben Levi, however, argued as follows: Repentance sets aside the entire decree, and prayer half the decree. You find that it was so with Jeconiah, king of Judah. For the Holy One, blessed be He, swore in His anger, As I live, saith the Lord, though Coniah the son of Jehoiakim kind of Judah were the signet on a hand, yet by My right — note, as R. Meir said, that it was by His right hand that God swore — I would pluck thee hence (Jer. 22:24). And what was decreed against Jeconiah? That he die childless. As is said Write ye this man childless (Jer. 22:30). But as soon as he avowed penitence, the Holy One, blessed be He, set aside the decree, as is shown by Scripture’s reference to The sons of Jeconiah — the same is Assir — Shealtiel his son, etc. (1 Chron. 3:17). And Scripture says further: In that day . . . will I take thee, O Zerubbabel . . . the son of Shealtiel . . . and will make thee as a signet (Haggai 2:23). Behold, then how penitence can set aside the entire decree!
–Yale Judaica edition translated by William G. Braude (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1968), vol. 2, p. 797.
Numbers Rabbah XX:20 (date uncertain; 9th c.?)…no sooner had they repented, than the danger was averted, And the Lord repented of the evil (ib. XXXII, 14). And so in many places. For example, He said about Jekoniah: For no man of his seed shall prosper (Jer. XXII, 30) and it says, I will overthrow the throne of kingdoms, and I will destroy the strength of the kingdoms of the nations . . . In that day, saith the Lord of hosts, will I take thee,
O Zerubbabel, My SERVANT, the son of Shealtiel,
saith the Lord, and will make thee as a signet (Hag. II, 22 f.). Thus was annulled that which He had said to his forefather, viz. As I live, saith the Lord, though Coniah the son of Jehoiakim King of Judah were the signet upon My right hand, yet I would pluck thee thence (Jer. XXII, 24).
–Soncino Midrash Rabbah vol 6, pp. 812-13
Rabbi A. J. Rosenberg, on Jeremiah 22:30 (20th c.)In this, too, no man of his seed shall prosper, namely that no one will occupy the throne of David nor rule in Judah. Although we find that Zerubbabel, his great grandson, did rule over Judah upon the return of the exiles, the Rabbis (Pesikta d’Rav Kahana p. 163a) state that this was because Jehoiachin repented while in prison. They state further: Repentance is great, for it nullifies a person’s sentence, as it is stated: ‘Inscribe this man childless.’ But since he repented, his sentence was revoked and turned to the good, and he said to him, “I will take you, Zerubbabel, and I will make you a signet” (Haggai 2:23). They state further: Said Rabbi Johanan: Exile expiates all sins, as it is said: “Inscribe this man childless,” and after he was exiled, it is written: ‘(1 Chron. 3:17) And the sons of Jeconiah, Assir, Shealtiel his son’–[Redak].
–A. J. Rosenberg, Jeremiah: A New English Translation (New York: Judaica Press, 1985), vol. 1 p. 185. “Redak” is an acronym for Rabbi David Kimchi (13th c.), whose opinion Rosenberg cites.
Encyclopedia JudaicaEven the decree that none of his descendants would ascend the throne (Jer. 22:30) was repealed when Zerubbabel was appointed leader of the returned exiles (cf. Sanh. 37b-38a).
–“Jehoiachin” (9:1319).2. Sources stating that the Messiah will descend from Jeconiah.
Tanhuma Genesis, Toledot (8th-9th c.)
Scripture alludes here to the verse Who art thou, O great mountain before Zerubbabel? Thou shalt become a plain (Zech. 4:7). This verse refers to the Messiah, the descendant of David. . . .From whom will the Messiah descend? From Zerubbabel.
–Midrash Tanhuma-Yelammedenu, translated by Samuel A. Berman (Hoboken, NJ: Ktav, 1996), p. 182.
Rabbi A. J. Rosenberg on Jeremiah 22:24 (20th c.)Malbim calls to our attention that in the prophecy of Haggai (2:23), God says, “On that day I will take you, Zerubbabel, and I will make you like a signet,” for the King Messiah will be like a signet ring on God’s right hand, so to speak. Just as the name of the owner of the ring is engraved on his signet ring, through which he makes himself known, so will God’s name be known in the world through the King Messiah, through whom His miracles will be known. He says here that, though, in the future, Coniah will be the signet on My right hand, for the Messiah will spring from his seed, now I will remove him from there.
–Ibid., p. 183. Malbim is an acronym for Meir Loeb ben Jehiel Michale, a 19th c. rabbi and commentator. 22:24.Jewish Encyclopedia
Jehoiachin’s sad experiences changed his nature entirely, and as he repented of the sins which he had committed as king he was pardoned by God, who revoked the decree to the effect that none of his descendants should ever become king (Jer. xxii.30; Pesik., ed. Buber, xxv. 163a, b): he even became the ancestor of the Messiah (Tan., Toledot, 20 [ed. Buber, i. 140]).
–Louis Ginzberg, “Jehoiachin,” vol. 7 p. 84.Recalling:
YOU: If the OT is obsolete, why do you continually reference it;
it makes no sense.
Me: the only reason, I continually reference it.
For the sake of truth!
Peace and love in Jesus Christ
DT, YOU said……..>No where did you articulate where in the Tanakh God said man is justified by following HIS commands. Answer the question!
You: You don’t call a statue a “LAW”
Me: You are correct you don’t call a “statue” a law; but “statutes” are; what are state statutes, if not state law?
Cornell Law School: statute: A statute is a law enacted by a legislature.
me…..Cornell is absolutely right, no statue is a “LAW” , “UNTILL” it has been “Enacted” by a “LEGISLATOR”, ( the one or ones who have power to make it a law) . God turned his loving statues into “LAWS” , BY “ENACTING” them as such at Mount Sinai as shown in Ex 20.
Brother Paul was exactly right, in what he was saying,…> “the law came 490 years “AFTER” the promise to Abraham”. That is when and where he (God), turned his LOVING commandments, and statues into “LAWS”.
Scriptures clearly shows, that Abraham’s “Faith” brought him the promises, not the obedience to “any”, “Law” , because ” the LAW”, was not yet “ENACTED”. It wasn’t even written yet. You can’t produce any where in the “TANAKH” , where it was written until Ex.20.
Simple as that for those who have eyes to see and ears to hear.
Peace and love to you and yours DT……….gene
Consulting the Talmud!?!? That’s not a path I would dare venture down at this point in my studies; I’m wanting to make sure I understand what God said first before trying understand the meanings behind what a bunch of sages debated.
You quoted from Sanhedrin 37b – 38a “Rabbi Yoḥanan says: Exile atones for all transgressions and renders a sinner like a new person” If we are going to go with this statement, what is the purpose of Jesus when being in exile atones and make a sinner new? My guess there’s a deeper meaning behind those words.
Where in the Tanakh does it say Jechoniah asked for forgiveness and was restored to the throne of David? He died in captivity just a Jeremiah prophesied.
Copy and pasting an entire page from a website doesn’t really constitute as research; it just means you looked something up and re-posted it. Curious why you didn’t post the beginning portion when they were speaking about “three parts to the curse on Jechoniah” and how they claimed each of these “parts” never happened. Did you catch the twisting they did to God’s words? Probably not a site I would reference and use as a source; if they are twisting words here, were and how else are they twisting them?
@Gene,
I will allow you to continue beating that dead “law” horse; if you can’t comprehend the words written in front of you, that’s a personal problem and you will remain lost in your own ignorance. I will not allow you to drag me into your pit.
I’ve asked you what commands, statutes, and laws God said Abraham kept and you keep running in this Pauline circle. Paul has nothing to do with what I’m asking. You keep citing Ex 20 and seem to be looking for “written law” Abraham followed; IT ISN’T WRITTEN LAW ABRAHAM WAS FOLLOWING!!! The question is, because there wasn’t a “written law” in Abraham’s time, WHAT COMMANDS, WHAT STATUTES, AND WHAT LAWS WAS ABRAHAM FOLLOWING! This isn’t that hard!!
Either answer the question or stop wasting my time! Then you get an amen for the drivel your wrote; it’s like the blind leading the blind!
The Bible is real, true, and the word of God.
Hi DT,
YOU: Are you claiming Paul wasn’t being paid? How was Paul able to travel all over the eastern Roman Empire, unless he received financial support.
ME: Uh NO, I have absolutely no clue how in me saying false apostles are getting paid somehow equates to me declaring that Paul wasn’t receiving donations so that he could travel around to spread the gospel. Beyond me how you could come to such a conclusion. Fascinating that this absurdity is where your mind went instead of the point being made about the false apostles getting paid.
YOU: To bad you missed what I was saying. I wasn’t speaking of when “collections” were taken to help others; I was speaking of his taking “payment” from others he was “teaching” but making a point that he wasn’t going to burden those in Corinth with “payment”, even though it was his “right” to do so. And boy did he let them know that, such humility. Did he ever say this to any other church? I don’t recall ever reading such statements to other churches. The point was why did Paul unashamedly use the term “robbing” other churches (isn’t there a commandment about stealing); and by saying this, he’s admitting he’s a thief. He wouldn’t take it from Corinth, but had no problem taking it from others. And you have no problem with it!??! To each their own.
ME: I did not miss at all what you are saying, you just want to be very narrow minded with one passage it most now certainly seems and let your imagination provide meaning ignoring the surrounding context. I thought the verses I supplied would suffice, that it wouldn’t be needed to have to spell everything out for you.
8 I robbed other churches by receiving support from them so as to serve you. 9 And when I was with you and needed something, I was not a burden to anyone, for the brothers who came from Macedonia supplied what I needed. I have kept myself from being a burden to you in any way, and will continue to do so.10 As surely as the truth of Christ is in me, nobody in the regions of Achaia will stop this boasting of mine. 11 Why? Because I do not love you? God knows I do! 12 And I will keep on doing what I am doing in order to cut the ground from under those who want an opportunity to be considered equal with us in the things they boast about. 13 For such people are false apostles, deceitful workers, masquerading as apostles of Christ.
2 Cor 8:13 Our desire is not that others might be relieved while you are hard pressed, but that there might be equality.14 At the present time your plenty will supply what they need, so that in turn their plenty will supply what you need. The goal is equality,
17 For Titus not only welcomed our appeal, but he is coming to you with much enthusiasm and on his own initiative. 18 And we are sending along with him the brother who is praised by all the churches for his service to the gospel…24 Therefore show these men the proof of your love and the reason for our pride in you, so that the churches can see it.
2 Cor 9:. 2 For I know your eagerness to help, and I have been boasting about it to the Macedonians, telling them that since last year you in Achaia were ready to give; and your enthusiasm has stirred most of them to action.
SOME SIMPLE FACTS FOR YOU DT!
Paul previously asked Corinth for donations and received donations from Corinth. Paul even speaks to how their donations encouraged other churches to give.
Pay attention here DT,
Paul unto Corinth, “show these men the proof of your love and the reason for our pride in you, so that the churches can see it.”
Paul unto Corinth “your plenty will supply what they need, so that in turn their plenty will supply what you need. “THE GOAL IS EQUALITY”.
So NO robbing at all DT and the goal Paul has among the churches is equality in giving and in giving shows your love.
DT, can you acknowledge the simple fact that Corinth was asked to give by Paul but then Paul didn’t want their donations anymore and such had a reason behind it?
When Paul tells Corinth that he is robbing from other churches in continuing to serve them in the context that he is not going to take their money, he is reminding them of what the goal was supposed to be, that all churches were to give equally. The focus then becomes as to WHY then he doesn’t want their money, why is he telling them that he is not holding them to the goal, where without their part in the equality it’s like the other churches are being robbed.
Paul tells us why,
“12 And what I do I will continue to do, in order to undermine the claim of those who would like to claim that in their boasted mission they work on the same terms as we do.”
“14 Now I am ready to visit you for the third time, and I will not be a burden to you, because what I want is not your possessions but you.”
DT it’s like you have no interest in context and understanding whatsoever, and in this negligence you slander Paul making assertions that are far from the truth.
Paul told Corinth how he boasted about their giving to other churches and he speaks to giving out of love.
Paul finds out that they are giving to false apostles what does that say about their love for Paul’s ministry, for their love of the church? It draws it into question.
Not only this but Paul has found them to be committing sin in a number of ways. Paul wants them, he wants their sincere love and commitment for the gospel, not their money. He only wants donations out of love. He is not going to work on the same terms that the false apostles do. What kind of conscience would Paul have if he took their donations knowing full well it wasn’t out of love?
DT, are you going to continue to assert that Paul was literally robbing churches, that he wasn’t actually receiving donations from those churches?
DT, do you care to give your explanation as to why Paul asked Corinth for donations but then later he did not want their donations?
DT, can you speak to the fact that Paul’s GOAL WAS FOR THE EQUALITY IN GIVING AMONG THE CHURCHES, INCLUDING CORINTH and to GIVE OUT OF LOVE?
Why would I go with an Aramaic translation when we have access to the Hebrew? You found an interesting translation; how long did it take for you to find that butchering of God’s word?
KJV “Thus saith the LORD, Write ye this man childless, a man that shall not prosper in his days: for no man of his seed shall prosper, sitting upon the throne of David, and ruling any more in Judah.”
NIV “This is what the LORD says: “Record this man as if childless, a man who will not prosper in his lifetime, for none of his offspring will prosper, none will sit on the throne of David or rule anymore in Judah.”
Douay-Rheims “Thus saith the Lord: Write this man barren, a man that shall not prosper in his days: for there shall not be a man of his seed that shall sit upon the throne of David, and have power any more in Juda.”
Good News “This man is condemned to lose his children, to be a man who will never succeed. He will have no descendants who will rule in Judah as David’s successors. I, the LORD, have spoken.”
Chabad “So said the Lord: Inscribe this man childless, a man who will not prosper in his days, for no man of his seed shall prosper, sitting on the throne of David or ruling anymore in Judah.”
Steinsaltz “So said the Lord: Write and mark this man, Konyahu, as childless, a man who will not succeed in his days; as, even if he will father children, no man of his descendants will succeed, sitting upon the throne of David, and ruling anymore in Judah. This will be the end of both the man and the royal dynasty.”
I really don’t have to analyze anything; I like to call it reading and comprehension. The words are right in front of you! None of Jechoniah’s descendants sat on David’s throne. What God didn’t say was HE wasn’t going to use any of Jechoniah’s descendants for HIS purpose. You are to heavily focused on the “signet ring” and it’s clouding your ability to think.
If you don’t get it after this, live in your ignorance; this has become a waste of my time. When God said “As I live,” declares the Lord, “even though Jechoniah the son of Jehoiakim king of Judah were a signet ring on My right hand, yet I would pull you off.”
Another translation give a clearer perspective “The LORD says, As surely as I am the living God, you, Jechoniah, king of Judah, son of Jehoiakim, will not be the earthly representative of my authority. Indeed, I will take that right away from you.”
Steinsaltz translation for another perspective “As I live – the utterance of the Lord – for even if Konyahu son of Yehoyakim king of Judah would be like a permanent signet ring upon My right hand, then even from there I would sever you.”
This “signet ring” signifies God authority granted to the king and God removed it; not only from Jechoniah but from all his descendants. If the king of England has been dethroned, do any of his children have rights to the throne? Not at all! Since the writer of Matthew tells us Jesus is in this specific line, he would not be able to sit on the throne of David. The writer made a huge blunder. But the church has to make it work because if Jesus isn’t in this line the entire christian religion collapses. Not that it doesn’t already with the “conception” being of the “holy spirit” and NOT of a man in the line of David.
Hi DT,
You: @Carmel,
Why would I go with an Aramaic translation when we have access to the Hebrew? You found an interesting translation;
how long did it take for you to find that butchering of God’s word?
ME: for the sake of the truth:
ALL MY LIFE:
FROM MY SIDE THAT’S WHAT YOU ARE DOING AS WELL!!! NO???
HERE IS WHAT YOU ASKED FOR:
https://mechon-mamre.org/about.htm#pisuq
Jeremiah Chapter 22: 30 Thus saith the LORD: Write ye this man childless, a man that shall not prosper in his days; for no man of his seed shall prosper, sitting upon the throne of David, and ruling any more in Judah.
NOW READ AGAIN THE ARAMAIC HEREUNDER, AND EXPLAIN HOW AND WHERE GOD’S WORD IS BUTCHERED!
ARAMAIC:
Jeremiah 22:30 Thus says LORD JEHOVAH: “Write him, this accursed man, without sons. because a man from his seed shall not prosper in his days,
a man who sits on the throne of Davidis authorized again in Yehuda
Mechon Mamre and Our Work
“Mechon Mamre” is Hebrew for “the Mamre Institute”. Mamre is the name of the place where Abraham our patriarch lived (see Genesis 13,18). Abraham is the forefather of both Jews and Gentiles who live by the instructions of God, and our site is intended for Jew and Gentile alike.
Mechon Mamre is a small group of observant Jewish Torah scholars in Israel who live by the plain and simple meaning of the RaMBaM’s Mishneh Torah and actively encourage others to do so. Most of us belong to the mainstream “Baladi” Yemenite Jewish community, continuing the tradition of living by the Mishneh Torah since the very days when the RaMBaM lived, and are students of the Rav Yosef ben-Dawid QaafiH zS”l (the leading rabbinical expert in recent generations on the teachings of the RaMBaM in general and on his Mishneh Torah in particular)……
More to come!
Peace and love in Jesus Christ
I have been to Mechon Mamre, but they use the JPS translation and am not really a fan of it as it reads very similar to the KJV. The positive with the JPS is they haven’t changed the tenses of verbs to make them appear to be referring to the future. Additionally, because I don’t know Hebrew, the site became pointless; so I found another.
You: FROM MY SIDE THAT’S WHAT YOU ARE DOING AS WELL!!! NO???
Me: This statement is very revealing; “my side”, which really means “my religion.” This goes back to when I first joined and commented on there being 30,000 different religions worldwide today, with each claiming theirs is the correct one and all others are wrong. Jesus says in Luke 12:51 “Do you suppose that I came to give peace on earth? I tell you, not at all, but rather division.” Judging from the number of religions in the world today, I’d say Jesus has done a fantastic job. This side against that side; I’m right and your wrong – division! Your messiah came to divide the world, but the Messiah of the Tanakh is to unite it. In the book of Revelation, your messiah is going to bring destruction to the world, but the Messiah of the Tanakh is to bring peace. Something doesn’t align!!
This is your “for sake of truth.” Does the Messiah of the Tanakh match the messiah of the Greek Testament?
Jodi ou said……>”DT it’s like you have no interest in context and understanding whatsoever, and in this negligence you slander Paul making assertions that are far from the truth.”
Jodi, not only does DT, “IGNOR CONTEXT”, and make false assertions against, Paul, but also against Peter, and the other apostles and even Jesus Christ, himself, but even against God himself, Because God sent sent Jesus and Jesus sent the apostles.
DT, simply cherry picks scriptures and uses his “laser”. To focuses on a single word, to try to make his points, he reminded me of the saying, “they strain out a gnat and swallow a camel”.Anyway, may God bring him back to the “true way” , again.
peace and love to you and yours Jodi, you do a great job of defending the truth here……….gene
Hey there DT!
YOU: You then site I John as proof to Paul’s understanding, except Paul was gallivanting all over eastern Rome would he have received this letter John wrote? Upon further investigation we find the letter to Galatians was written around AD 48 and it’s believed John wrote his letter around AD 95 -110. Unless we have another time traveling Paul; Paul wouldn’t have been “referencing” John. Guess again!
ME:
I had said, “The below verse is not from Paul but a truth to which Paul knew and is to certainly be applied to what he said in Galatians 5.
It’s a truth that Paul knew I never said it was a truth that Paul gained from John. I have studied the chronological order of the NT books FYI.
Are John’s words a lie?
If not, are you arguing that they are some sort of HUGE mystery that God ONLY revealed to John and up until John gave them, all other apostles were totally in the dark?
Your position would then be held through your own assumption and I would say a pretty ridiculous one at that.
Romans 13:8 Let no debt remain outstanding, except the continuing debt to love one another, for whoever loves others has fulfilled the law. 9 The commandments, “You shall not commit adultery,” “You shall not murder,” “You shall not steal,” “You shall not covet,” and whatever other command there may be, are summed up in this one command: “Love your neighbor as yourself.” 10 Love does no harm to a neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.
Paul also taught,
“do all to the glory of God“
“your work and labor of love, which ye have shewed toward HIS NAME“.
“the things which God has prepared FOR THEM THAT LOVE HIM“.
“in the hope of eternal life, which God, who does not lie, promised before the beginning of time“
Luke 10:25 On one occasion an expert in the law stood up to test Jesus. “Teacher,” he asked, “what must I do to inherit eternal life?” 26 “What is written in the Law?” he replied. “How do you read it?” 27 He answered, “Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind’ ; and, ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.” 28 “You have answered correctly,” Jesus replied.
DT, are you arguing that Paul did NOT teach that one must love God to inherit eternal life?
Are you arguing that Paul’s passages do NOT tell us that we are to love our neighbor as ourselves TO THE GLORY OF GOD?
Paul did in fact know that which John also knew and spoke of, we read it in the below passage,
Hebrews 6:10 God is not unjust; he will not forget your work and the love you have shown him as you have helped his people and continue to help them.
Paul teaches that one shows that he loves God (the first and great commandment) through loving our neighbor (the second commandment) AND LOVE FULFILLS THE LAW.
Think about that for a moment DT.
The entire law then is indeed fulfilled in loving your neighbor, as loving your neighbor is the very act of showing God that you love him.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
