The governers of Judah

[Guest shiloh357]

Just now, Sister said:

shiloh357

I am sharing what I have discovered over the years.  No one should just believe me, but should check it out for themselves if they are interested to see if they can find a rhythm to God's speech.

 

Yes, I am checking this out, and it is all wrong.  Jesus is not Judah, Christians are not Judah.   You are out in left field and I don't where you discovered this stuff, but you are not getting it from the Bible.

[Guest shiloh357]

Just now, Sister said:

shiloh357

And who do you think Melchizedek is?

No one really knows.  Some think it was Jesus, but there is no way to be dogmatic about it.

[Guest shiloh357]

3 minutes ago, Sister said:

shiloh357

And who do you think Melchizedek is?

If the argument being made is that Jesus is Melchizedek, it is important to note that Melchizedek was a theophany, a pre-incarnate appearance of Jesus.   Melchizedek predates Judah.  Judah did not exist when Melchizedek appears in Genesis.

So you cannot make the case the Melchizedek is of the Tribe of Judah.

[Sister]

8 hours ago, shiloh357 said:

9 hours ago, Sister said:

shiloh357

I have a question.  When Israel was made a state in 1948, and all of Israel which was dispersed throughout the nations were invited to come and live, were they all of Judah only, or from all the tribes?

 

We don't know, since the records were destroyed in 70 AD.  But that is really neither here nor there.   The leaders of Israel are located geographically, in the area that was granted to the tribe of Judah.   And because of that geographical location, they are called "the governors of Judah."

You are taking a prophecy about the restoration of Israel and twisting it and contorting it into false doctrine that true Christians will reject.   You need to come back down to earth and learn how to interpret Scripture.    You are woefully lacking in that skill.

Shiloh357

I think you and I both know that they were from all the tribes where they were all scattered throughout the earth.  This means that the tribes are all mixed up today, and that would include Samaria also.

The point I am making is that there is no real tribe of Judah today like it was in the past.  With royalty it's always passed down through the bloodline, but in this case today it's different because all the descendants of the tribes were called back into Jerusalem then spread out.  So besides the ruling party, who is the real Judah today?

 

[Guest shiloh357]

53 minutes ago, Sister said:

Shiloh357

I think you and I both know that they were from all the tribes where they were all scattered throughout the earth.  This means that the tribes are all mixed up today, and that would include Samaria also.

The point I am making is that there is no real tribe of Judah today like it was in the past.  With royalty it's always passed down through the bloodline, but in this case today it's different because all the descendants of the tribes were called back into Jerusalem then spread out.  So besides the ruling party, who is the real Judah today?

 

The problem is that you are trying spiritualize "Judah."  We are not of the bloodline of Jesus.   So we are not Judah.  Judah is not a spiritual concept.   You are clearly out of sync with the Bible.

You have some made up idea that you are trying to pencil into the Bible, or you are trying to mold the Bible around some idea that you have.  Judah is an ethnic tribe, not a spiritual people.  

You need abandon this foolish  and ridiculous false teaching.   You are simply wrong at all points. 

[Daniel 11:36]

"And because of that geographical location, they are called "the governors of Judah."

 

Absolutely correct

[Heleadethme]

2 hours ago, Sister said:

God always uses symbolism as examples on what happened in the past.

For example, God calls Jerusalem Sodom and Egypt.  Jerusalem is not Sodom, nor Egypt, but God is speaking about that same spirit they have which is why he calls them that.  Why he calls them Egypt, is because Egypt was the land of oppression.  Israel were freed once, but returned spiritually to be in bondage, therefore he calls them Egypt because of that spirit of oppression.  He also calls the world Egypt in many verses, meaning the land that oppresses, and is oppressed because of own doings.

When God mentions Tyre, he is speaking about that land of commerce.  Not the actual place.  Also Chittim, means trading also.  When he mentions Assyrians he is speaking of the land of military might.  When he mentions Esau, or Edom, it's that land spiritually where people sold their inheritance.  When God mentions Babylon, it's that city of confusion,...the world.  That's only a few examples how God lays down clues for us to follow up on so we know specifically what he is speaking about.  So when he says Judah in Zech 12, it's Christ's kingdom, and the governors he has chosen from his kingdom. Christ is not only from the seed of Judah, but is the lawgiver.  Judah means ruling authority. Royalty. 

 

Amen.....Jesus is the Word made flesh.........and it says elsewhere that Jesus spoke to them in parables, and without a parable He did not speak.  We have to see His word with His spiritual eyes to understand the parables that His word is chock full of, that are speaking to us of heavenly/spiritual things, when we have eyes to see and ears to hear.  Thinking about those who the secrets of heaven were hidden from in parables lest they see with their eyes and hear with their ears......we have to become as little children to understand.  As long as we are wise in our own eyes we won't be able to see/understand.  I know you understand these things Sister, but I am just speaking hopefully for the benefit of others.

[Dennis1209]

5 hours ago, Sister said:

shiloh357

And who do you think Melchizedek is?

I'm glad you brought that up! I was wanting to jump in and ask that question myself but didn't want the wrath of MG visiting me 

Sure isn't much known about Melchizedek based on my studies. He had to be a very important man for Abraham to pay tithes of everything he had. Some suspect Melchizedek may have been Shem? It seems apparent to me he was a 'type' or 'shadow' of the coming Messiah possibly? What's your thoughts?

[simplejeff]

3 minutes ago, Dennis1209 said:

He had to be a very important man for Abraham to pay tithes of everything he had.

VS quote from online bible search: "Abraham gave Melchizedek a tenth of everything he had captured. "

Which is more accurate ?

[Dennis1209]

5 hours ago, shiloh357 said:

No one really knows.  Some think it was Jesus, but there is no way to be dogmatic about it.

Very well could have been the pre-incarnate Jesus, based on his office of king and priest, and the tithes of Abraham paid of everything he had. Or at least a 'shadow' or 'type' of the coming Messiah. Some think it was Shem, but they don't give much reasoning as to why. Melchizedek is a fascinating figure and mystery that hasn't been reveled.