Shar

Angels have many duties throughout the Bible.  The greatest good news they delivered was to the Shepherds when Christ was born.  Luke 2:8-14.  The Lord uses his angels, servants, and man for His purposes, as He determines.  While we do not see them normally preaching the gospel, we do see, in God's one final effort to warn man in Revelation 14:6, an angel flying midair with the eternal gospel to proclaim to those who live on the earth.  So, there is your examples that they have delivered the gospel.  In short, God uses His angels and his Heavenly hosts as He sees fit.  

1 hour ago, Joline said:

Shar, Aren't you shooting yourself in the foot here? If kosher had anything to with health, then anything from the ground could not be poisonous? As for food, say to Noah as I gave in the beginning now I give all things. God here is reckoning back to when he gave food in the beginning. Nothing was forbidden from the ground. But Adam did sin and that sin did cause inedible to man, things to come forth from the ground.

My reply above was to his claim that "all you have to do is give thanks and any creature is good for food.  I countered his argument with the above response.  Of course, these frogs are inedible.  My point.  You simply cannot say all creatures are good and not to be refused for food, simply because you give thanks. 

If your argument is "God is reckoning back to when he gave food in the beginning," then He would only be talking about food with seed.  Adam and Eve, were vegetarians.  Not anything from the ground was permissible for food in the Garden.  God says to man in Ge.1:29 - "I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it.  They will be yours for food".

They were totally vegan, as were all the animals and birds, too.

46 minutes ago, Joline said:

What I meant by nothing from the new testament teachers of Christ. As I said to someone else I am not seeing these things you are speaking of in their teachings. When I asked where you got your views from, I wanted to know how you came to understand the prophets the way you do is all. Especially since I do not see this teaching in the new covenant teachings. I have been quite open about the fact I do not agree with the teachings of the Pharisees as a sect of Judaism. I know some people do not like that, but I believe stating it that way is much more culturally accurate to the first century context. As I see what I believe to be verses speaking against the peculiars of that sect. Such midrash aggada, which is exegesis through storytelling. 

2Ti 4:4  And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables <3454>.
Tit 1:14  Not giving heed to Jewish fables <3454>, and commandments of men, that turn from the truth.
2Pe 1:16  For we have not followed cunningly devised fables <3454>, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty.

3454 μυθος muthos moo’-thos

 

perhaps from the same as 3453 (through the idea of tuition); TDNT-4:762,610; n m

 

AV-fable 5; 5

 

1) a speech, word, saying
2) a narrative, story
2a) a true narrative
2b) a fiction, a fable
2b1) an invention, a falsehood

so, I asked where you got your views from.

The scripture you quoted has nothing to do with Jewish Midrash, but rather what will happen in the end times.  During this time, people will turn away from the truth and seek teachers to tell them what they want to hear.  They will turn away from scripture.  In Titus, a group was teaching error for dishonest gain.  We see plenty of that on TV today.  In Peter, he is assuring others they have not followed cleverly invented stories, like some who create stories for a following, but that he was an eyewitness to the majesty of Christ.

Remember, they are talking about the only scripture that existed, the OT.  The letters to various churches mostly addressed problems in the churches and did not substitute for all of God's word.  We must look to the whole of Scripture to get solid teaching and understanding.  If you look only to the NT to authenticate you will miss a lot.  See the OT Scriptures can exist without the NT.  Jesus said, "Search the Scriptures, for they tell of Me".  He was speaking of the OT.  However, the NT could not exist without the OT.  A large amount of that which is written in the NT has a OT reference.

You referenced fables.  We know fables are stories that are made up with a purpose to teach a moral or spiritual lesson.  Do you know that parables are the same thing?  Yet, Jesus and the many rabbis before Him taught with parables.  Parables were not new when Jesus began to teach.  Parables were a common way to teach.  Even some of the parables Jesus taught were actually taught earlier.  Jesus just further expounded on them.

A Midrash is the equivalent of our commentaries.  Just like we sometimes will seek out a commentary to give us some greater insight to our reading, so did the Jews.  The Midrash would expound on a certain Biblical text, clarify or expound on a point of law, or develop some illustration to a moral principal or character.

To indicate that these verses can be taken for more of an anti-Jewish stance toward Jewish teachings is not fair nor accurate.

Just now, Joline said:

I do not reject the old testament, nor have I divorced myself from it? You did not quote the old testament? You quoted from the prophets? The scripture includes  three parts, the law, the prophets and the writings. The law contains several covenants. So I do not know why this attack on me? As for the new testament not existing, it was preached for sure. But I cannot understand why the attack? I do not recall saying anything to offend you.

Actually not attacking, but responding to you stating "nothing from the NT."  Besides Revelation, there were numerous references to the prophets.  These men who hold the prophecies of the coming kingdom.  You asked me where I got this information, as if it was something new and I responded it as mostly detailed in the OT.  I did not mean for you to take offense, and for that, I deeply apologize.  I guess the way you stated "nothing from the NT" made me believe that the OT did not count.  When you asked where I got this information, it seemed logical to me that you have not been studying the OT.  Sorry, if there was any miscommunication.

6 minutes ago, Joline said:

So, nothing from the new covenant teachings? What I am asking is where are you getting your views on this from?

I said Revelation.  I see now where you are coming from.  You have divorced yourself from the OT or have valued it less than the NT.   This is something to be concerned about.  Why?  Because always and whenever Jesus, the disciples, and Paul ever talked about Scripture or referenced it, they were only speaking about the OLD TESTAMENT.   The NT did not exist.  Manuscripts were not found until in the 3rd century AD and the Council of Nicea did not convene until the 4th century AD.   The whole of the church studied, read and relied on the Scriptures of the OT.   Get to know them!  God's promises and his plan for the future are greatly detailed here.

3 hours ago, Joline said:

I do not understand the significance, nor the connection you are making.

Lu 16:16  The law and the prophets were until John: since that time the kingdom of God is preached, and every man presseth into it.

Mt 11:13  For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John.

 

Joh 18:36  Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.

Heb 2: 5 ¶  For unto the angels hath he not put in subjection the world to come, whereof we speak.

2:8  Thou hast put all things in subjection under his feet. For in that he put all in subjection under him, he left nothing that is not put under him.  But now we see not yet all things put under him.
 

Where are you getting your teaching of an earthly kingdom from? I would agree that John's baptism may have included the law and the prophets, but Christ and the Apostles spoke of his heavenly kingdom. So again what are your teachings concerning an earthly worldly reign, and where do you get them Shar?

From Revelation, Isaiah, Zechariah, Ezekiel, which all speak of our Lord's coming physical reign here on Earth, the Future Kingdom on Earth, His restoration of Israel, the Priests and the worship, The Glory of God returning to the Temple, and the division of the Land of Israel and its boundaries re-established.  Start with these books in the OT and read them carefully. 

1 hour ago, Joline said:

I do not understand the difference you are making? You are talking about an earthly kingdom, instead of his heavenly one?

I am speaking of when He fulfills His promise to Israel and sets up His Davidic reign at the end times.  I am not speaking of His Heavenly kingdom.

29 minutes ago, rollinTHUNDER said:

Dear sister,

That may be what you've been taught, but Paul was specifically called to preach to the Gentiles.  And he wrote most of the New Testament.  The same cannot be said about Peter, who was instructed to feed Christ' sheep (Israel). 

This would be a good time to search for the truth, in order to see if you have been deceived or not.  Christ warned His followers not to let anyone deceive them.

It was the Romans that corrupted God's Word.  They are responsible for changing His times and laws (Dan. 7:25).  And Rome is the origin of our pagan holidays and traditions of men (Christmas, Easter, Halloween, etc., etc.).  None of these are God's appointed times.  Christ told us to do one thing in remembrance of Him, and it wasn't celebrating His birth (Christmas).  That word is not found anywhere in God's Word, and I'm telling you this as a Gentile believer.

I hope you will seek truth, instead of just defending what you have come to believe.  For it is the truth that sets us free, not what we may believe.

 

Cheers     

I think that quite a few of us must be careful not to accuse our fellow brethren of being deceived.  I have seen a number of us state so when someone simply disagrees with another's position.  I find that the warnings regarding deception in the Bible are more clearing around believing in another gospel that does not hold out Jesus as the Messiah and that there is another way to be right with God.  Also, when we are deceived by sin in our lives and we think everything is just fine, when it is clearly not.

However, if one simply interprets points of Scripture different from you, we cannot accuse them of being deceived.  We all come from different backgrounds and denominations.  What we are trying to achieve is to share our knowledge and to learn from others.  As we explore these posts and search out the Scriptures, we may find a different understanding as we gain more insight and knowledge. 

I have attended many churches in my life.  Baptist, Methodist, Catholic, Episcopalian, Non-Denominational, and Messianic.  I find elements of truth in their doctrines and elements of prejudice, misunderstanding, traditions, or just pure error.  These experiences drove me to a complete and pure study of the Scriptures.  I have let the Word speak to me, and I have throughout the years, changed my position on a number of matters I previously held.  I believe I have grown more mature for it.

I don't see Therese deceived.  I see that she is clearly my sister in the Lord.  We may have disagreements in some points of Scripture, but that is how we discuss and learn.  I will not always agree with everyone, but I am commanded to love you with an Agape love. 

5 hours ago, thereselittleflower said:

rollinThunder, Peter was called to go to the Gentiles before Paul was.   And Paul went to the Jews everywhere he went, going straight to the synagogue.   They BOTH went to BOTH Jew and Gentile.

 

 

Therese, I believe that Peter's vision was to get him out of his prejudice for Gentiles and to fully know that Gentiles are accepted.  Of course, you know Peter goes to Cornelius house thereafter to share the Gospel.  Peter could not continue in this prejudice, as he would have ultimately violated the Great Commission of our Lord;  "to the Jew first, the Samaritan (half-Jew), than to the Gentiles."

However, we clearly see that Paul was designated the apostle to the Gentiles and Peter, along with the others, to the Jews.  In Ga.2:7 - "On the contrary, they saw that I had been entrusted with the task of preaching the gospel to the Gentiles, just as Peter had been to the Jews."

Gal. 2:9-10, Paul references the Jerusalem Council which was the decision making group over the Church.  Paul states, "James (the Head of the Council), Peter and John, those reputed to be pillars, gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship when they recognized the grace given to me.  They agreed that we should go to the Gentiles, and they the Jews."

In Acts 15, Paul goes before the council regarding the believing of Gentiles and for a ruling on circumcision requirements.  The Council agrees that Gentiles do not need to be circumcised.  They further see that God is working in the Gentiles to bring them to the faith.  They appoint a couple of men from the council with Paul and Barnabas to deliver the letter to the church at Antioch.  The leaders (Judas and Silas), returned to Jerusalem and blessed Barnabas and Paul as they set sail on their missionary journey to the Gentiles.

So, Peter, while he had some contact with some Gentiles, he was primarily an apostle to the Jews.

7 hours ago, rollinTHUNDER said:

Hi Shar,

I agree.  Christ was a Jew, and so were the original twelve disciples.  The Church was born in Jerusalem, not Rome as some believe.  It was the Romans that hijacked His Church and led the world into the dark ages.  They crucified Christ and later killed His disciple's, except John escaped and later penned the book of Revelation.

The RCC claims that Peter was the first Pope, but it was Paul that was called to preach to the Gentiles.  Peter was told to feed Christ' sheep (Israel).   The holy nation is referring to Israel, and Peter was addressing the Jews who had been scattered.

Gentiles (wild olive branch) are grafted into the natural olive tree (Israel).

Romans 11:11-24
I say then, have they stumbled that they should fall? God forbid! But through their transgression salvation has come to the Gentiles, to make them jealous. ¹² Now if their transgression means riches for the world, and their failure means riches for the Gentiles, how much more will their fullness mean?

¹³ For I am speaking to you Gentiles. Inasmuch as I am the apostle to the Gentiles, I magnify my ministry, ¹⁴ if somehow I may make my kinsmen jealous and may save some of them. ¹⁵ For if their rejection means the reconciliation of the world, what will their acceptance mean but life from the dead? ¹⁶ If the first portion of the dough is holy, the batch is also holy. And if the root is holy, so are the branches.

¹⁷ But if some of the branches were broken off, and you, being a wild olive shoot, were grafted in among them and became a partaker with them of the root and richness of the olive tree, ¹⁸ do not boast against the branches. If you boast, remember you do not sustain the root, but the root sustains you. ¹⁹ You will say then, “The branches were broken off, so that I might be grafted in.” ²⁰ This is correct. They were broken off because of unbelief, but you stand by faith. Do not be arrogant, but fear. ²¹ For if God did not spare the natural branches, neither will He spare you.

²² Therefore consider the goodness and severity of God—severity toward those who fell, but goodness toward you, if you continue in His goodness. Otherwise, you also will be cut off. ²³ And these also, if they do not remain in unbelief, will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again. ²⁴ For if you were cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and were grafted contrary to nature into a cultivated olive tree, how much more will these, who are the natural branches, be grafted into their own olive tree?

 

Cheers

I agree, rollinTHUNDER!

7 hours ago, Qnts2 said:

I believe that all believers, are members of the New Covenant priesthood. 

In the message to the 7 churches in Revelation:

Rev 1:4 John to the seven churches that are in Asia: Grace to you and peace, from Him who is and who was and who is to come, and from the seven Spirits who are before His throne, ⁵ and from Jesus Christ, the faithful witness, the firstborn of the dead, and the ruler of the kings of the earth. To Him who loves us and released us from our sins by His blood— ⁶ and He has made us to be a kingdom, priests to His God and Father—to Him be the glory and the dominion forever and ever. Amen.

Rev 5:9And they *sang a new song, saying,

“Worthy are You to take the book and to break its seals; for You were slain, and purchased for God with Your blood men from every tribe and tongue and people and nation.

¹⁰ “You have made them to be a kingdom and priests to our God; and they will reign upon the earth.”

Qnts2, I agree they are a kingdom of priests.  That is evident in quotes within Revelation.  I was just speaking about I Pe. that LittleFlower was quoting and speaking about the context in which he was speaking.  I was referencing his address to Jewish Christians that fled Jerusalem and were scattered aboard, at that particular time in history.

10 hours ago, thereselittleflower said:

I am Not in Asia Minor Shar.   In Asia Minor the believers were predominately gentiles.   The conversion of the gentiles had exploded by the time Peter wrote that letter.

I added to my post above.  Let me repeat here:

The letters were addressed to the various churches in Asia Minor, the population of which was predominately gentile.

• 1 And it happened, while Apollos was at Corinth, that Paul, having passed through the upper regions, came to Ephesus...8 And he went into the synagogue and spoke boldly for three months, reasoning and persuading concerning the things of the kingdom of God. 9 But when some were hardened and did not believe, but spoke evil of the Way before the multitude, he departed from them and withdrew the disciples, reasoning daily in the school of Tyrannus. 10 And this continued for two years, so that all who dwelt in Asia heard the word of the Lord Jesus, both Jews and Greeks. (Acts 19:1,8-10)

The School of Tyrannus is where Paul went when he was no longer welcome in the synagogue after just 3 short months - he went to the Gentiles - he taught in the gentile, secular school for 21 months:

• TYRANNUS (tī-răn'ŭs, Gr. Tyrannos, tyrant). According to a well-supported reading of Acts.19.9, Paul taught daily at Ephesus “in the lecture hall of Tyrannus.” This could indicate a public building traditionally so named or a school founded by Tyrannus. Another common reading, “in the school of one Tyrannus” (kjv), would refer to the school of a living Ephesian schoolmaster named Tyrannus. W. M. Ramsay discusses the question in The Church in the Roman Empire, p. 152, and St. Paul the Traveller and Roman Citizen, p. 271. - See more at: https://www.biblicaltraining.org/library/tyrannus#sthash.lsWiVoca.dpuf

 There is nothing here to claim Peter wrote only to the Jewish believers in Asia Minor.

 

Again, if this was addressed to Jews only, the Peter was ignoring the larger population of gentile believers.  On the contrary, this was written to them all, so all believers are a kingdom of priests:

 

• chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God's special possession

 

 

 

Therese, I am not really disputing we are not a priesthood.  That is very evident in several verses quoted in Revelation. 

As far as the churches, those particularly named in Peter's First Epistle were in Asia Minor.  The churches you are referencing were not named in the letter.  The ones you named here may have not been.

1 minute ago, thereselittleflower said:

Shar, these were written to CHRISTIANS  those in Christ are neither Jew nor Greek.

He did not write those words to Jews, but to Christians.

The letters were addressed to the various churches in Asia Minor, the population of which was predominately gentile.   If this was addressed to Jews only, the Peter was ignoring the larger population of gentile believers.  On the contrary, this was written to them all, so all believers are a kingdom of priests:

 

• chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God's special possession

 

Do a true historical study on when it was written to whom.  The early church was primarily Jewish and Peter, specifically in his opening of this letter, addresses those who were scattered abroad throughout Asia Minor.  The church in Jerusalem, primarily Jewish, were those who scattered to avoid the serious persecution that was occurring in Jerusalem at the time.  AD 62-64, was when I Peter was written.

30 minutes ago, thereselittleflower said:

Shar, christians are the kingdom of priests:

 

• 1 Peter 2:9
  But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God's special possession, that you may declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light.

 

 

Peter was writing this around A.D. 62-64, primarily to the Jewish Christians who were driven out of Jerusalem and were scattered throughout Asia Minor.  He parallels the speaking of Israel as a holy nation and kingdom of priests as in Ex.19:5 and De.10:5.

This does not mean we aren't today, because the church is mostly Gentile, but at this time Peter was speaking primarily to Jews and spoke in terms within the O.T. they knew and understood.  Jews were suppose to be a light unto the nations throughout the OT.  Here, Peter throughout his epistle calls them to this type of testimony.

That is historical, not my interpretation.  LOL

3 hours ago, Qnts2 said:

3 hours ago, Qnts2 said:

Scripture does say that the Jewish people were to be a nation of priests.

And we know by the beliefs of the 'Judaizers' that they expected that the Gentiles who believed on Jesus should convert to Judaism. I do not believe that Gentiles who believe on Jesus need to be circumcised, becoming Jewish, in order to be fully accepted by God with an equal standing before God. The Levitical priesthood were intercessors between the children of Israel and God. The New Covenant priesthood is also to be intercessors but not in the same capacity as the Levitical priests. The New Covenant priesthood is to pray (intercede) and share the gospel, which means hoping to lead non-believers to Jesus, in which case, the new believers themselves become priests. There is no one who is to stand between believers and the Father other then Jesus in the New Covenant. 

Among believers, we have a diversity of cultures and ethnicities, with no one culture or ethnicity being the only right culture. If a believer chooses to worship and fellowship among believers of another culture/ethnicity, the believer should not attempt to change the culture of the ethnic group. If a believer goes to another culture to share the gospel, they need to be culturally aware so as not to insult, drive away, or force the others to live like the believers culture. Do Gentiles need to live like a Jew? No. Do Jewish believers need to live like Gentiles? Again, no.

I have been on a Native American reservation, and in Canada, a First Nations reservation, with fellow believers and attended their services. The worship music made use of Native American drums, and some was sung in the Native American languages of that tribe (Iroquoian for the Mohawks , Algonquin for the Cree, and Mi'kmaq for the Micmac). It was enjoyable as we were all believers, worshipping Jesus. I have been to conferences with people from many different countries, and it was amazing to realize that all of these people, are one in the Lord. I remember at one such conference, a couple behind me wanted to pray for me. They did not speak English so prayed in their language. Believer to believer. I prayed for them in English.  

Scripture does say that the Jewish people were to be a nation of priests.

And we know by the beliefs of the 'Judaizers' that they expected that the Gentiles who believed on Jesus should convert to Judaism. I do not believe that Gentiles who believe on Jesus need to be circumcised, becoming Jewish, in order to be fully accepted by God with an equal standing before God. The Levitical priesthood were intercessors between the children of Israel and God. The New Covenant priesthood is also to be intercessors but not in the same capacity as the Levitical priests. The New Covenant priesthood is to pray (intercede) and share the gospel, which means hoping to lead non-believers to Jesus, in which case, the new believers themselves become priests. There is no one who is to stand between believers and the Father other then Jesus in the New Covenant. 

Among believers, we have a diversity of cultures and ethnicities, with no one culture or ethnicity being the only right culture. If a believer chooses to worship and fellowship among believers of another culture/ethnicity, the believer should not attempt to change the culture of the ethnic group. If a believer goes to another culture to share the gospel, they need to be culturally aware so as not to insult, drive away, or force the others to live like the believers culture. Do Gentiles need to live like a Jew? No. Do Jewish believers need to live like Gentiles? Again, no.

I have been on a Native American reservation, and in Canada, a First Nations reservation, with fellow believers and attended their services. The worship music made use of Native American drums, and some was sung in the Native American languages of that tribe (Iroquoian for the Mohawks , Algonquin for the Cree, and Mi'kmaq for the Micmac). It was enjoyable as we were all believers, worshipping Jesus. I have been to conferences with people from many different countries, and it was amazing to realize that all of these people, are one in the Lord. I remember at one such conference, a couple behind me wanted to pray for me. They did not speak English so prayed in their language. Believer to believer. I prayed for them in English.  

Qnts, regarding the Israelites, Ex.19:5-6 Says, "....you will be for me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.

4 hours ago, Joline said:

The twelve apostles rule in their priesthood over the twelve tribes.

 

Mt 19:28  And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.
 

Judging the twelve tribes of Israel is not the same as the nation of Israel being a kingdom of priests and a light to the nations here on Earth at the time of Jesus' earthly reign

17 minutes ago, Joline said:

Acts 8:1   And Saul was consenting unto his death. And at that time there was a great persecution against the church which was at Jerusalem; and they were all scattered abroad throughout the regions of Judaea and Samaria, except the apostles.
2  And devout men carried Stephen to his burial, and made great lamentation over him.
3  As for Saul, he made havock of the church, entering into every house, and haling men and women committed them to prison.
4   Therefore they that were scattered abroad went every where preaching the word.

To the Samaritans

14  Now when the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John:
15  Who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost:
16  (For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.)

In the desert

26   And the angel of the Lord spake unto Philip, saying, Arise, and go toward the south unto the way that goeth down from Jerusalem unto Gaza, which is desert.
27  And he arose and went: and, behold, a man of Ethiopia, an eunuch of great authority under Candace queen of the Ethiopians, who had the charge of all her treasure, and had come to Jerusalem for to worship,
when laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost.

Azotus until Caesarea

39  And when they were come up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip, that the eunuch saw him no more: and he went on his way rejoicing.
40  But Philip was found at Azotus: and passing through he preached in all the cities, till he came to Caesarea.

Peter preaches to Cornelius, the gospel goes out to the nations

11:19   Now they which were scattered abroad upon the persecution that arose about Stephen travelled as far as Phenice, and Cyprus, and Antioch, preaching the word to none but unto the Jews only.
20  And some of them were men of Cyprus and Cyrene which, when they were come to Antioch, spake unto the Grecians, preaching the Lord Jesus.
21  And the hand of the Lord was with them: and a great number believed, and turned unto the Lord.
22  Then tidings of these things came unto the ears of the church which was in Jerusalem: and they sent forth Barnabas, that he should go as far as Antioch.

I do not understand why you think it  has not happened already?

I was not saying that the good news has not gone out to the nations.  I was specifically referring to Israel's role when Jesus returns to rule on earth during the Davidic reign.

4 hours ago, Joline said:

I say Pharasaic because that is what the Talmud is made of mostly. Their traditions and ideas.

one spiritual nation? In what capacity is the nation of Israel spiritual apart from other nations in Christ? Do you believe the nation of Israel to be a priesthood to the nations?

They will be.  Read the later chapters 53 - the end of Isaiah.  The male representative from each nation will have to travel to one of the pilgrim feast, Feast of Tabernacles, each year to celebrate this Feast.  If they do not show, that land will not get rain for one year. (Ze.14:16). 

God claimed Israel to be a Holy nation and a kingdom of Priests, out of all the nations of the earth. (Ex.19:6)  I Peter was written about A.D. 62-64 to Jewish Believers who had been driven out of Jerusalem and scattered throughout Asia Minor.  He reminds them in chapter 2:9 that they are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation..."

14 hours ago, thereselittleflower said:

You're simply presenting your personal interpretation.   

I disagree your personal interpretation is correct, and you disagree mine is.

But this is what we are indeed discussing when we use the scriptures here - our respective personal interpretations.

I am asking you for solid, expert scholarly sources that document your interpretation with evidence.

 

 

Therese, there are too many to list here, but I will list a few.  Jesus the Pharisee by Dr. Harvey Falk.  This is written by an Orthodox Rabbi and published by a Catholic publishing house.  This is where you see the distinction between the two main schools of thought in the Pharaisic Sect.  You see that Jesus consistently upheld the school of Hillel teachings, as did Paul the Apostle.  This school was the more gracious, loving and tolerant group of Pharisees.

The other school was the teachings of Shammai.  This is the group that Jesus directed most of His criticisms.  The School of Hillel and the School of Shammai were mostly at odds with each other.

King of Jews by Dr. Thomas Lancaster

Yeshua: Guide to the Real Jesus by Dr.Ron Moseley, a professor at Jubilee Christian College

Meet the Rabbis:  Rabbinic Thought and Teachings of Jesus by Dr. Brad Young, Professor of Biblical Studies in the Graduate School at Oral Roberts University

There are numerous historical sources too.  Dr. Amy-Jill Levine is Jewish and the Professor of New Testament and Jewish Studies at Vanderbilt.  While she is not a Jewish believer in Jesus, she is proficient in the actual history.  She has written, "The misunderstood Jew:  The Church and the Scandal of the Jewish Jesus", "The Historical Jesus" and the Jewish Annotated New Testament.

I could go on and on.  The matter is that my presentation of argument is not based on conjecture.  However, even if I did not have many scholarly sources, one could easily surmise by how he practiced and taught the disciples and masses.  What He taught and believed fell into the camp of the Pharisees.  Some of what He taught and practiced fell distinctly to only the Pharisaic Sect.  As a Jew he was raised up in Judaism and would have been in one of the Sects.

6 minutes ago, thereselittleflower said:

Others sought out Jesus too.

I'm sorry but I see nothing that actually substantiates your claims.     And you haven't provided anything other than your arguments.  Where are expert sources which document this?

 

What Jesus taught.  The Bible

2 hours ago, Joline said:

Shar, the decisions which came from the seat of Moses were not sectarian. The verse is speaking the exact reverse of what you have said. When Christ spoke of the seat of Moses He spoke of them as Judges in the high court (supreme court) where Decisions were made under the authority of the HIGHPRIEST (Sadducees) Therefore any decision made from that chair was non sectarian. That was the hypocrisy of the sect. That is why Jesus said to do what they say.....as enforcing law as JUDGES in the Sanhedrin. But as a sect they did not were independent of that court in their teachings. Their teachings went beyond their authority as Judges under the law. An example would be their teachings on the prophets and the resurrection and angels. The judges by law were given no authority to make law, or to adjudicate law concerning the next world and the next life.

They were going beyond their lawful jurisdiction as a sect. That there were two sects ruling on matters of law in Christs day, each sects application of law was really a "DISPUTABLE MATTER". Since the very nature of the court being sectarian could not agree on certain things.

.Here is true oral law established by Moses. There was no law made unless the high priest agreed to a sentence

De 21:5  And the priests the sons of Levi shall come near; for them the LORD thy God hath chosen to minister unto him, and to bless in the name of the LORD; and by their word shall every controversy and every stroke be tried:
 

Deut 17:8 If there arise a matter too hard for thee in judgment, between blood and blood, between plea and plea, and between stroke and stroke, being matters of controversy within thy gates: then shalt thou arise, and get thee up into the place which the LORD thy God shall choose;
9  And thou shalt come unto the priests the Levites, and unto the judge that shall be in those days, and enquire; and they shall shew thee the sentence of judgment:
10  And thou shalt do according to the sentence, which they of that place which the LORD shall choose shall shew thee; and thou shalt observe to do according to all that they inform thee:
11  According to the sentence of the law which they shall teach thee, and according to the judgment which they shall tell thee, thou shalt do: thou shalt not decline from the sentence which they shall shew thee, to the right hand, nor to the left.
12  And the man that will do presumptuously, and will not hearken unto the priest that standeth to minister there before the LORD thy God, or unto the judge, even that man shall die: and thou shalt put away the evil from Israel.
13  And all the people shall hear, and fear, and do no more presumptuously.
 

 

The seat of Moses was more than Judges.  They had the authority to teach and interpret Torah and "place a fence around the Torah" to insure someone would not accidentally violate it.  This fence sometimes had requirements that some of the Pharisees themselves did not keep and that was the hypocrisy Jesus was referring to.

2 hours ago, thereselittleflower said:

You bring up a good point.

Never did the pharisees claim Jesus as one of their own.

 

 

Pharisees were very careful to only personally associate with their Sect.  Several Pharisees sought out Jesus to have an audience with Him.  Others even invited Him several times to their homes for dinner. Lk 7:36.

2 hours ago, thereselittleflower said:

That doesn't say to learn the traditions of the pharisees.  It says to obey them, to do what they say to do because of their position of authority  - this is speaking of actions, works.  He was speaking of their position of AUTHORITY and because they sat in the position of the Authority of Moses, they were to be obeyed.

I can see where you get the logical connection between the two, but it's not because Jesus was a Pharisee, but because of their authority in Israel.

 

I base his association with the sect of the Pharisees on what He believed and taught.  The Pharisees were distinctive in their beliefs over other sects of Judaism, as I explained.  Such as belief in the resurrection, the return of the Messiah, angels, Hell, and various traditions such as a blessing before the meal.

Yes, they had the position of authority and that authority was to teach and interpret Torah.  He ascribed to their halachic authority.  This was specifically how to keep and walk in Torah.  Jesus, however, did have some criticism to some of the Pharisees when there was a weight to their requirements.  In particular, some of the Pharisees were hypocritical and did not themselves keep their own requirements.  Some translations used traditions for this type of Pharisaic requirements.

The point being, in addition to what He taught and believed, He would not have encouraged adherence to the Pharisees interpretation had He been of a different sect. 

9 minutes ago, Willa said:

Historicly I believe that John the Baptist was a 

 

 

I thought that John the Baptist was a Zealot, and historicly Jesus was also considered to be a Zealot.  This is why the people thought He was going to set up His kingdom at the triumphal entry into Jeruselem.  They expected Him to lead the revolt against the Roman oppression.  So instead He was crucified and mockingly called the King of the Jews.   He has yet to come again to fulfill those prophesies.

Judas was considered a Zealot (known by his surname Iscariot, meaning dagger men, which were a group of ultra-Zealots) and Simon the Zealot, who was a different Simon, not Simon Peter.

14 hours ago, Joline said:

Catholic yes, but I would not know if you were Greek Catholic, Roman Catholic, Coptic, Catholic, etc. There is no substance to what you have said that I can see. Where do you get that Jesus said to learn the traditions of the Pharisees?

See my last post to litteflower