Anno Domini—The Significance of New Years

MSMB ^ | January 1, 2011 | Rob W. Case

[Making_Sense [Rob W. Case]]

It’s 11:59pm and the countdown begins. We are about to transition out of the current year and enter into the New Year. Anticipation runs through. We are about to start something new. 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1, Happy New Year!!!! Bands all across the world play the timeless classic song, “Auld Lang Syne,” and people everywhere go in to the new year with a set of goals to help better their lives, and at least some form of willingness to hopefully eliminate some of the bad habits that drag them down and take the focus off their more productive priorities. And yet, within the atmosphere come every New Years, there is a working backdrop as to the dynamics that define this Holiday.

New Years is a time of new beginnings. Before the incarnation of Christ, the New Year was celebrated within the borders of the former ancient empires. Yet when Jesus Christ came on the scene, the New Year transitioned into something of deep meaning and greater significance than was there before.

[Making_Sense [Rob W. Case]]

For the past several years, I have been very interested in digging for the deep, live meanings of the Holidays. Here is a little something interesting about the Holiday of New Years. Have a very Happy and Healthy New Years Everybody!!!!!!

[Venturer]

My only goal for the New Year is to live through it.

[brent13a]

Yet when Jesus Christ came on the scene, the New Year transitioned into something of deep meaning and greater significance than was there before.

Nothing like a good old dose of dispensationalism to ring in the pagan new year.
Man's genius good intentions always overriding God's Word.....and rewriting history.

[brent13a]

"And vainly they fear me while they are teaching the doctrines of the commandments of the sons of men"….. He said to them, "You well rejected the Commandment of Elohim that you might establish your tradition……And you despise the Word of Elohim, because of the tradition that you have handed down and that resemble these many things that you do." (Mark 7:7, 9, 13.)

[brent13a]

"When YHWH, your Elohim, will cut down the nations, to which you come to take possession from them, before you, and you will take possession from them and settle in their land, beware for yourself lest you be attracted after them after they have been destroyed before you, and lest you seek out their gods saying, ‘How did these nations worship their gods, and even I will do the same.’ You shall not do so to Elohim, your Master YHWH, for everything that is an abomination of Elohim, that He hates, have they done to their gods; for even their sons and their daughters have they burned in the fire for their gods." (Deut. 12:29-31)

Funny how Torah/Tanakh can mirror so many things even in this day and age. All I ever hear is that when "The Church" took hold it conquered paganism yet instead of eradicating it completely major parts of it were accepted into "The Church" to keep the former pagans happy. These pagan holidays and celebrations then were decreed to be "christian" and therefore became "holy" and "fine".....even though there was no precedence for doing so and in fact the Torah/Tanakh (God's written Word) in multiple places explicitly forbids doing so. Of course it was easy to do this and dismiss Torah/Tanakh (God's written Word) because of the old "Old Testament"/"New Testament" mainstay of Marcionism that still permeates christianity to this day (in the guise of dispensationalism and covenantism).

[Salvation]

There's more here!

Why is it 2011? (or) Why New Years is Not Simply Secular

[Salvation]

My favorite book, chapter and verses about time:

Ecclesiastes
Chapter 3

1

There is an appointed time for everything, and a time for every affair under the heavens.

2

A time to be born, and a time to die;

a time to plant, and a time to uproot the plant.

3

A time to kill, and a time to heal;

a time to tear down, and a time to build.

4

A time to weep, and a time to laugh; a time to mourn,

and a time to dance.

5

A time to scatter stones, and a time to gather them;

a time to embrace, and a time to be far from embraces.

6

A time to seek, and a time to lose;

a time to keep, and a time to cast away.

7

A time to rend, and a time to sew;

a time to be silent, and a time to speak.

8

A time to love, and a time to hate;

a time of war, and a time of peace.

My favorite book, chapter and verses about time:

Ecclesiastes
Chapter 3

1

There is an appointed time for everything, and a time for every affair under the heavens.

2

A time to be born, and a time to die;

a time to plant, and a time to uproot the plant.

3

A time to kill, and a time to heal;

a time to tear down, and a time to build.

4

A time to weep, and a time to laugh; a time to mourn,

and a time to dance.

5

A time to scatter stones, and a time to gather them;

a time to embrace, and a time to be far from embraces.

6

A time to seek, and a time to lose;

a time to keep, and a time to cast away.

7

A time to rend, and a time to sew;

a time to be silent, and a time to speak.

8

A time to love, and a time to hate;

a time of war, and a time of peace.

[Making_Sense [Rob W. Case]]

No matter which way you look at it, Christ’s influence here on earth has effectively changed the world for approximately 2,010 years. And yet it is yet another chance at redemption.

2 Corinthians 5:17
17 Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, the new creation has come: The old has gone, the new is here!

This, along with the start of a new year can be celebrated, but it must be met with a willingness to change the heart and life. And for some 2010 years, Christ has effectively done that.

[Making_Sense [Rob W. Case]]

Man's genius good intentions always overriding God's Word.....and rewriting history. How so?

[brent13a]

That would be the Marcionism, Docitism, Dispensationalism, covenantism, & supersessionism that Paul and his epistles ushered in (that I previously spoke about).

Saying the same lie over and over again for 2000 years doesn't make it true.

Ironically, all the original immediate descendants from the "Jerusalem Church" IE the Original 12 Disciples to include the Nazoreans, Ebionites, and jewish-christians in Arabia (they all came from the same doctrine taught by Jesus) none of them ever accepted Paul or his writings as Doctrine ever taught by Jesus. Paul wasn't accepted until well after Romans began corrupting what Jesus brought.

So what I'm saying is, you can quote "Pauline Epistle" all you want but I know the history and I know Jesus' Word only.....He never said anything about incorporating paganism into his teachings.

Yep, Paul said it, Paul said all sorts of nifty things that approved all sorts of brand new goings-on, but Jesus never said them nor did his Father. What Jesus DID say mirrored exactly what His Father said.....which is what I've already quoted.

[brent13a]

During the height of the "Jerusalem Church" era, directly following the crucifixion, the Original Disciples especially James fought with the outsider Paul constantly over the doctrine he was teaching. The "Jerusalem Church" was "hebrew-christian"; adherents directly following Jesus' doctrine were observant Hebrews (Jews) who followed Torah and believed the Messiah had come. Gentiles where allowed to become part of the fellowship but they either were required to proselytize OR fully assimilate into the Hebrew Laws and culture. Paul and the doctrine he was teaching eventually caused a great schism in the Jerusalem Church and when the destruction of Jerusalem happened those fellowshippers of Jesus' actual original doctrine, followers of the 12 Original Disciples, escaped being dispersed throughout the Middle East and Asia.

There's new proof (from the past 10 years) of the following: 1. The "Essenes" did not live or have a monkery in Qumran, it was an old pottery manufacturing place and they simply hid the DSS there. 2. The DSS were from the era that includes the Jerusalem Church and probably originated IN Jerusalem (where Paul and his doctrines were despised).

There's proof from the past 50 years that: 1. The "Essenes", "Nazoreans", "Ebionites", or any other Hebrew-Christian sect were not separate groups and their doctrines were not much different from each others. They were all from the same Jerusalem Church's original doctrine and it was only unknowing "Christian Church Fathers" (Origen, Jerome, Tertullian, etc) who in their ignorance labeled them as separate groups. 2. Christianity as it is known today is a response of Hebrew-Christianity, the original doctrine of Jesus and the Jerusalem Church. Christianity did not spring from Hebrew-Christianity, the original doctrine of Jesus and the Jerusalem Church…..it was a response to it because Constantine needed a political card to unite his humongous kingdom, and you can't serve an emperor and his laws when you have some all powerful YHWH telling you His Laws. Paul's version of Jesus' original doctrine had made it's way to the rest of the Roman Empire and it was very palatable to Constantine and what he wanted.
The descendants of Jesus' original doctrine & teachings (jewish-christians, nazoreans, ebionites, etc) were wiped out and driven into obscurity by the might of the Roman Empire. Paul's version of the religion took hold and was further corrupted by Constantine and his subsequent rulers and bishops.

"Damascus Fragments and the Origin of the Jewish Christian Sect" by J.L. Teicher
"The Site of the Dead Sea Scrolls: Archaeological Interpretations and Debates" by Katharina Galor
"The Jewish Christians of the Early Centuries of Christianity According to a New Source" by Shlomo Pines
"Nazarene Jewish Christianity" by Ray Pritz
"The Teaching of Pre-Pauline Church in the Dead Sea Scrolls" by J.L. Teicher
"Constantine and the Christian Empire" by Charles ODahl

[brent13a]

Almost all christians will blanketly state that anything attributed to Paul or his contemporaries (Luke) is valid because he quotes the "Old Testament".

This is not true. Paul utilizes Torah/Tanakh scripture for his needs, misquoting everything either by not saying the scripture word for word (as would be provided by divine inspiration) and he rarely utilizes Torah/Tanakh scripture in it's proper context.

Paul made The Word his own, changing YHWH's divine Word and utilizing it for his own needs, corrupting it as he went.

In "Holy Scripture in the Qumran Commentaries and Pauline Letters" Prof. Timothy H. Lim he states:
that, although Paul shows that he had no problem using different forms of the same text, e.g., Isa 40:13 in 1 Cor 2:16 and Rom 11:34, it is now uncertain to what extent he altered texts and to what extent he used existing, differing texts. Also, he claims, it is not possible to say that Paul used primarily Septuagintal biblical texts. Texts should not be referred to as "Septuagintal" simply because the same words are found in one of the editions of the Greek Jewish scriptures.

In the end this all boils down to several things:
1. Did Y'shua or any of the original 12 Disciples ever alter YHWH's Word for their own benefit? 2. Did Y'shua or any of the original 12 Disciples ever state alteration of YHWH's Word was to be allowed?
The answer to those 2 questions will not matter to some one who is a dispensationalist, supersessionist, nomianist, or paulinist. However, to those who want to follow the true Son of Man and "do all the words which He has commanded us forever" the answer should be blatantly obvious.

Blatant perversions and corruption of "OT"/"NT" scripture by Paul:

“And again, the Lord knows the thoughts of the wise, that they are vain" l Cor. 3:20

Paul misquoted Psalm 94:11   "The Lord knoweth the thoughts of man, that they are vanity".

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"And again, Isaiah saith, There shall be a root of Jesse, and he that shall rise to reign over the Gentiles; in him shall the Gentiles trust" Rom. 15:12

Paul misquoted Isa. 11:10
  "And in that day there shall be a root of Jesse, which shall stand for an ensign of the people; to it shall the Gentiles seek.  

Isaiah does not say he shall reign or rule over the Gentiles Isaiah refers to "it" not "him." This seems to be a trick taught by Paul which Christians have learned well and they apply it to the Comforter.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him" 1 Cor. 2:9

Paul misquoted Isa. 64:4
  "From of old no one has heard or perceived by the ear, no eye has seen a God besides thee, who works for those who wait for him".

Nowhere in Isa. 64:4 does it say, "neither have entered into the heart of man." Paul states, "the things which God hath prepared for them that love him." Yet, Isaiah 64:4 does not state or even imply that there will be a future reward for those that love God. It merely states that God will work for those who wait for him. Paul also omits, "no eye has seen a God besides thee,

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Wherefore he saith, When he ascended up on high, he led captivity captive, and gave gifts unto men" Eph. 4:8

Paul misquoted Psalm 68:18
 
"Thou hast ascended on high, thou hast led captivity captive: thou hast received gifts for men."

Psalm 68:18 says "received gifts" not "gave gifts." It also says "thou" not "he." Jesus never led captivity captive, led others to a high mount, or gave gifts unto men. There is a big difference between "giving gifts to men" and "receiving gifts for men."

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"…as it is written, that thou might be justified in thy sayings, and might overcome when thou art judged" Rom. 3:4

Paul misquoted Psalm 51:4
 
"…that thou mightest be justified when thou speakest, and be clear when thou judgest".   Psalm 51:4 says "judgest" not "art judged." Psalm 51:4 also says "and be clear" or "blameless," not "and mightest overcome" or "prevail."

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"But as it is written, To whom he was not spoken of, they shall see: and they that have not heard shall understand" Rom. 15:21

Paul misquoted and misapplied Isa. 52:15
 
"…the kings shall shut their mouths at him: for that which had not been told them shall they see; and that which they have not heard shall they consider".

Isaiah 52:15 says nothing about "he was not spoken of"; it says "that which had not been told them." It says "that," not "he." "They that have not heard shall understand" is not the same as "that which they have not heard shall they consider."

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Then said I, Lo I come [in the volume of the book it is written of me] to do thy will, O God" Heb. 10:7

Paul distorted Psalm 40:7-8
  "Then said I, Lo, I come: in the volume of the book it is written of me. I delight to do thy will, O my God: yea, thy law is within my heart".  
He left out the last phrase ("thy law is within my heart") which shows God's will is the law.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"…then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory. O death, where is thy sting? O grave where is thy victory?. 1 Cor. 15:54-55

Paul misquoted Isa. 25:8

  "He will swallow up death forever"

  and  
Hosea 13:14
 
"…O death, I will be thy plagues; O grave, I will be thy destruction".

Isaiah says death will be swallowed up "forever" not "in victory."
Hosea says "thy plagues" not "thy sting."
"Hosea was not written in interrogatory form.
Hosea says "thy destruction" not "thy victory." It is difficult to see how Paul's words could be accurately derived from Isaiah and Hosea.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"…ye might receive thy promise. For yet a little while, and he that shall come will come, and will not tarry" Heb. 10:36-37

Paul perverted Hab. 2:3

  "For the vision is yet for an appointed time, but at the end it shall speak, and not lie: though it tarry, wait for it; because it will surely come, it will not tarry".

Habbakuk says nothing about "he." The "it" in the verse is a vision, not Jesus. Hab. is referring to the maturation of a vision he has. The "it" referred to has nothing to do with the arrival of any individual.
Where in the OT, esp. Hab., did God promise "he will come and not tarry?"

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Let their table be made a snare, and a trap and a stumbling block, and a recompense unto them: let their eyes be darkened, that they may not see, and bow down their back always" Rom. 11:9-10

Paul misstated Psalm 69:22-23
  "Let their table become a snare before them: and that which should have been for their welfare, let it become a trap. Let their eyes be darkened, that they see not; and make their loins continually to shake".

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Zion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob, For this is the covenant unto them when I shall take away their sins" Rom. 11:26-27

Paul misquoted and misused Isaiah 59:20-21
  "And the Redeemer shall come to Zion, and unto them that turn from transgression in Jacob, saith the Lord. As for me, this is my covenant with them, saith the Lord....".

Isaiah 59:20 says "to Zion," not "out of" Zion. Isaiah says the Redeemer shall come "unto them that turn from transgression in Jacob." It does not say the Deliverer "shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob." In other words, he will come to those who turned from transgression on their own volition. It does not say he will turn away ungodliness. Moreover, "when I shall take away their sins" is not in Isaiah 59. Paul created that out of nothing. Nowhere does Isaiah use the word "saved" or "salvation" as Paul uses it.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"as he saith also in Hosea, I will call them my people, which were not my people; and her beloved, which was not beloved. And it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people; there shall they be called the children of the living God" Rom. 9:25-26

Paul misquoted and misused Hosea 2:23
 B> "…and I will say to them which were not my people, Thou art my people; and they shall say, Thou art my God"
  and  
Hosea 1:10   "…and it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people, there it shall be said unto them, Ye are the sons of the living God". Hosea 1:10 is speaking only of Jews as Hosea 1:11 "Then shall the children of Judah and the children of Israel be gathered together" shows. It is not referring to Gentiles and does not justify spreading the word to Gentiles. "and her beloved, which was not beloved" is not in Hosea. Paul created the words. Hosea 2:23 says, "and they shall say, Thou art my God," which Paul conveniently left out of his quote since millions of Gentiles have clearly not made such a statement.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"But the righteousness which is of faith speaketh on this wise, Say not in thine heart, Who shall ascend into heaven? [that is, to bring Christ down from above] or, who shall descend into the deep? [that is, to bring up Christ again from the dead]. But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach....", Rom. 10:6-8

Paul mutilated Deut. 30:12-14
  "It is not in heaven, that thou shouldest say, Who shall go up for us to heaven, and bring it unto us, that we may hear it, and do it? Neither is it beyond the sea, that thou shouldest say, Who shall go over the sea for us, and bring it unto us, that we may hear it? But the word is very nigh unto thee in thy mouth, and in thy heart, that thou mayest do it".  
The latter is only saying that his (Moses) commandments are easy to obtain. They are not far off but as close as one's heart or mouth. Deut. says nothing about "faith." It refers to seeking "it" and doing "it," not seeking "him" or doing "him." It does not even imply Christ or Jesus, let alone mention him. Deut. is referring to Penitence and is not about believing on or bringing down Jesus from heaven or up from the dead. Deut. is saying that God wills us to repent of sin and that you may know when you have sinned. You have only to look at his law which is very close by.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them; and their sins and iniquities will I remember no more" Heb. 10:16-17

Paul misquoted and misapplied Jer. 31:33-34   "…but this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the Lord, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts,...for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more".
  The New Covenant referred to in Jer. 31:31 is not that of Jesus' New Testament but a reaffirmation with Israel of the importance of following the Old Law. Jer. 31:33 clearly states that God's law (my law) will be put in them. Jer. says the law will be written in their hearts, not their minds and God's law will be put in their inward parts, not their hearts. "And in their minds will I write them" does not appear in Jer.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"As it is written, Behold, I lay in Zion a stumbling stone and rock of offence: and whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed" Rom. 9:33

Paul misquoted Isa. 28:16  
"Therefore thus saith the Lord God, Behold, I lay in Zion for a foundation a stone, a tried stone, a precious corner stone, a sure foundation: he that believeth shall not make haste".  
Isaiah says nothing about "on him" or "being ashamed." Isaiah says God will lay a precious corner stone, a sure foundation, not a stumbling stone or rock of offence. Isa. 8:14 "And he shall be for a sanctuary; but for a stone of stumbling and for a rock of offence to both the houses of Israel." speaks of a stumbling stone and a rock of offense, but it is speaking of God himself. Paul deceptively combined two unrelated verses and altered the text in the process.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For they could not endure that which was commanded, And if so much as a beast touch the mountain, it shall be stoned, or thrust through with a dart Heb. 12:20

It is a misconstruction of Ex. 19:12-13

And thou shalt set bounds unto the people round about, saying, Take heed to yourselves, that ye go not up into the mount, or touch the border of it: whosoever toucheth the mount shall be surely put to death:
 13There shall not an hand touch it, but he shall surely be stoned, or shot through; whether it be beast or man, it shall not live: when the trumpet soundeth long, they shall come up to the mount.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For we which have believed do enter into rest, as he said, As I have sworn in my wrath, if they shall enter into my rest: although the works were finished from the foundation of the world. Heb. 4:3

It is a perversion of Psalm 95:11.

Unto whom I sware in my wrath that they should not enter into my rest.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"For even Christ pleased not himself: but, as it is written, The reproaches of them  that reproached thee fell on me" Rom. 15:3

Paul misinterpreted Psalm 69:9. The "me" referred to in Psalm 69:9 is David; he is speaking, not Jesus.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"…I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?" Heb. 1:5

Paul misinterpreted and misapplied 2 Sam. 7:14

"I will be his father, and he shall be my son. If he commit iniquity, I will chasten him with the rod of men and with the stripes of the children of men".
  In 2 Sam. 7:14 God is saying he will call Solomon, not Jesus, his son. How could Jesus commit iniquity which Paul omitted. It must be referring to a mere mortal like Solomon. Certainly God would not beat Jesus with a rod, cause stripes to be put on him, or threaten to chasten him with stripes.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In Heb. 12:21 "…and so terrible was the sight, that Moses said, I exceedingly fear and quake...."   Paul is referring to the fear Moses had when he stood at the base of an untouchable mountain and witnessed blazing fire, gloom, darkness, trumpets sounding, and words.

Yet, Paul is using Deut. 9:19   "For I was afraid of the anger and hot displeasure, wherewith the Lord was wroth against you to destroy you"
  which is actually referring to Moses' fear of the Lord's anger at the time he found them worshipping the Golden Calf.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"...even Jesus made an high priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec"   Paul misapplied Psalm 110:4

"The Lord hath sworn, and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek") to Jesus.
  The "thou" in Psalm 110:4 is referring to David, not Jesus.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree"   Paul used Deut. 21:22-23

"And if a man have committed a sin worthy of death, and he be put to death, and thou hang him on a tree: his body shall not remain all night upon the tree, but thou shalt in any wise bury him that day, ...."  
for his own ends.
 
Deut. 21:22 is referring to a sinful man who couldn't be Jesus since the latter is supposedly sinless (1 Peter 2:22). Jesus was not hanged. He did not die on a tree and never remained "upon the tree" during the night. Actually Paul is calling the alleged "Savior" cursed.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"For we know him that hath said, Vengeance belongeth unto me, I will recompense, saith the Lord" Heb. 10:30

Paul quoted part of Deut. 32:35

"Vengeance is mine, and recompense...."   and falsely attributed the original comment to the Lord. The quote was actually made by someone who felt he was God's agent.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly his faith is counted for righteousness. Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works, Saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered. Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin" Rom. 4:5-8

Paul misinterpreted Psalms 32:1-2

"Blessed is he whose transgression is forgiven, whose sin is covered. Blessed is the man unto whom the Lord imputeth not iniquity, and in whose spirit there is no guile".   Just because God forgave iniquities does not mean one is saved by faith. Psalms says nothing about belief or believing "on him." In no sense does Psalms imply that a man's sins are forgiven because he believed or accepted something.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"But God raised him from the dead. And he was seen many days of them which come up with him from Galilee to Jerusalem, who are his witnesses unto the people. and we declare unto you glad tidings how that the promise which was made unto the fathers, God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second psalm '...the Lord hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee'".   Where does Psalm 2 say or where is it equivalent to saying in some distant day I will raise Jesus of Nazareth, Joseph's son, from the dead.

The second Psalm does not promise that:
anyone will rise from the dead,
he who is the Son of God must rise from the dead,
Jesus of Nazareth is the son of God or
anyone risen from the dead shall be the son of God.
 
Moreover, the Psalmist in Psalm 2:7 is speaking of himself, not Jesus.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me; In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin thou hast had no pleasure"       Heb. 10:5-6

Paul misquoted and misapplied Psalm 40:6

"Sacrifice and offering thou didst not desire; mine ears hast thou opened: burnt  offering and sin offering hast thou not required".  
"but a body hast thou prepared me" is not in Psalm 40:6. Paul created it. "mine ears hast thou opened" is in Psalm 40:6 but Paul omitted it.
Psalm 40:12 "...mine iniquities have taken hold upon me, so that I am not able to look up; they are more than the hairs of mine head...." was written by the same person who wrote Psalm 40:6 who couldn't have been Jesus since the former committed many iniquities. Paul took the verse out of context.
Moreover, nowhere in the Gospels did Jesus say what Paul attributed to him in Heb. 10:5-7.

[Captain Kirk]

Are these Paul’s mistakes are is just quoting the Septuagent? Didn’t Jesus do the same?

[Captain Kirk]

Are these Paul’s mistakes are is he just quoting the Septuagent? Didn’t Jesus do the same?

[brent13a]

Jesus quoted Torah, to be specific Jesus speaks the Words (law) of his Father which were written upon his (Jesus') heart. I'm trying to highlight the mistake of taking Paul's word over that of Jesus or YHWH. Using Paul's doctrine to override everything in Torah is a mistake: "All that other scripture is meaningless cuz Paul says so and you can just disregard whatever you want."

[brent13a]

Taking the word of a guy who contradicts himself and using it to make excuses to disregard the true doctrine and history is a baaaad idea.

Jesus never abolished the Law/Torah, He came to fill it full, every last jot & tittle.

What He abolished was the handwriting against us, the penalty detailing our sins, was nailed to the execution stake making it null & void, cancelled, annulled & making it possible for us to be set free from the curse of sin NOT the Law/Torah.

Dispensationalism, supersessionism, nomianism, and docetism are all dark roads to go down. There are a lot of christians that need to learn how Jesus became a christian, more succinctly, how Jesus and the original 12 Disciples were made to be christians when they never were "Christians" nor ever taught or accepted Paul's brand called "Christianity".

It's The RENEWED Covenant. NOT the New Testament

"Behold, the days come, says YHWH, that I will make a renewed (chadash) covenant (brit) with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they broke, although I was an husband unto them, says YHWH: But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, says YHWH, I will put my Torah in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their Elohim, and they shall be my people. And they shall teach no more every man his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, Know YHWH: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, says YHWH: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more." (Jeremiah 31:31-34)

Both Aramaic "khawdata" and Hebrew "chadasha" mean to renew, make anew or to repair. Notice how chadash has been translated in: 1 Sam. 11:14; 1 Chr. 15:8; 2 Chr. 24:4, 12; Job 10:17; Psalm 51:10; 103:5; 104:30; Isaiah 61:4; and Lamentations 5:21.

"You chadash (renew) your witnesses against me, and increase your indignation upon me; changes and war are against me." (Job 10:17)

"Create in me a clean heart, O Elohim; and chadash (renew) a right spirit within me."(Psalm 51:10) 

"Who satisfies your mouth with good things; so that your youth is chadash (renewed) like the eagle's." (Psalm 103: 4)

"Turn Thou us unto you, O YHWH, and we shall be turned; chadash (renew) our days as of old." (Lam. 5:21)

It is impossible in the context of these verses for chadash to mean "new." Isaiah 61:4 also uses chadash to refer to those in Mashiyach who: "...chadash (repair) the waste cities, the desolations of many generations." The word "chadash" is so instrumental to "replacement theology" that the James Strong's Concordance (a popular Christian resource), chose to give this term two reference numbers: renew #2318 and new #2319. Theologians have long used this term to steer "the church" away from Torah. As mentioned previously, Marcion, a post-apostolic church founder who was actually considered a heretic by the early Church, coined the terms "Old Testament" and "New Testament" suggesting, in effect, that the "old" replaced the "new." Polycarp referred to him as the "firstborn of the Devil," yet his false anti-Torah theology is still being honored by nearly every Christian on earth.

YHWH did not torture and kill His own son to establish the Renewed Covenant; it was man's religious "justice system" that put the perfection of Y'shua Mashiyach on the torture stake. If sin is condemned by means of the Commandment, how much more is it condemned by being responsible for putting to death YHWH's own likeness? Man's sin put Mashiyach on the torture stake; therefore, the Renewed Covenant upholds the Word of YHWH (Torah) which defines sin and love. "And walk in love; as the Mashiyach also has loved us and has given up himself for us, an offering and a sacrifice to Elohim, for a sweet aroma." (Ephesians 5:2)

The term and definition of "New Testament" is anti-Mashiyach; it was coined by a Christo-Pagan named Marcion who viewed Y'shua as akin to one of the Greek gods of his own culture. Marcion taught that the G-d of the Jews was an evil god of wrath, judgment and terror, but that Je-Zeus was a kind and loving god. Marcion coined the terms "Old and New Testament" to demarcate YHWH and Y'shua as two separate Gods who were at war with each other; hence, the dualism in Christian churches that use the terms Old and New Testament to uphold replacement and dispensational theology. The consequences of the fatal anti-Torah and anti-Mashiyach deception is very far reaching; so much so, in fact, that permissiveness of Covenant breaking is commonplace throughout Christendom.

The "Renewed Covenant" was foretold when Adam and Eve broke Covenant with YHWH. YHWH forgave their sin and promised the ultimate redemption which He Himself provided through the seed of the woman (Genesis 3:15). Just as Adam and Eve are the father and mother of all living souls, so is the Renewed Covenant offered to all inhabitants of the Earth through Mashiyach Y'shua. A very clear fulfillment of Isaiah 56:1-9 is seen in Mashiyach's followers when Gentile converts observe Shabbat and permit the Ruach haKodesh to write Torah upon their hearts as one body of believers along with Jews.

[Captain Kirk]

I asked a very specific question about whether Jesus and Paul quoted the Septuagent (hence the apparent contradcitions to other translations) and you give me a long dissertation on other issues. How about my initial question?

[Making_Sense [Rob W. Case]]

What does this have to do at all with New Years? I’m curious. This is a thorough attack on the Apostle Paul. And yet, I will weigh in on some things here.

The Apostle Paul never set out to contradict Christ, nor did he do so. He never met Christ EXCEPT during the event where he was on the road to Damascus. Paul’s ministry did not revolve around trying to quote this or that, or twist anything around.

Christ’s ministry on earth was before the influence of the Holy Spirit. All of the four gospels record Christ’s birth, ministry, death, and resurrection. Paul picks up after the resurrection and experiences the Holy Spirit. The whole purpose of Paul’s writings place into context the Law, how Christ fulfilled the law, and the experience pertaining to living in this world with the Holy Spirit and chronicles the essence of the struggle.

Regardless of the attacks leveled at Paul, we who have accepted Christ as our Lord and Savior, can relate to Him and identify with him on a PERSONAL LEVEL with his experiences.

Wherever this Anti-Paul stuff comes from, it is derrived from some sort of a conspiracy which does nothing more than create chaos and mass confusion. After all the essence of the salvation message is communicated effectively through Paul. It’s definately something to think about.