Nazarene Space

Does the messianic community practice the tongue like Pentecost or Charismatic? ( sorry if my English language less, i usually speak Indonesia )

Views: 152

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Dennis,

Here's what the Nazarene community has to say about praying or speaking in another "tongue" or language.

Many in the "messianic" and even X-tian community teach and practice this not realizing it MAY NOT be from the Father. I say this using these verses as my proof text:

Eze 36:24  For I will take you from among the heathen, and gather you out of all countries, and will bring you into your own land. 
Eze 36:25  Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean: from all your filthiness, and from all your idols, will I cleanse you. 
Eze 36:26  A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh. 
Eze 36:27  And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them. 

Not sure about you, but I have seen many that are not Torah observant claim to be "spirit filled" yet how can they be if they do not "walk in His statues and judgements/admonishments and do them"?

Hope this helps.

PS) Still waiting for your reply on the other thread.

Shalom,

I've just joined Nazarene Space and came across this discussion.

My background is Pentecostal, and I received the gift of the Holy Spirit some 26 years ago (gift = dorea in Greek, not charisma as for 9 gifts - sorry, don't know the Hebrew/Aramaic term).

I think it's rather a process of seeking the truth in all ways possible. In other words, having received the Holy Ghost with the sign of speaking in tongues doesn't automatically kick off 100% obedience to the entire Tanakh & Brit Chadashah (+ Jewish traditions), and it's also not a guarantee that this will ever happen.

However, everyone who has had this experience described in ACTS 2:4, ACTS 10:44-46, or ACTS 19:6, will never be the same again, as the fire of the Holy Spirit will start an inner cleansing process. The Spirit will cause a sensitivity for things which are not good, but it's always in conjunction with the Word, with meditating on things, etc. = a newborn immature spiritual babe which is indoctrinated with unbiblical stuff (in the guise of biblical teaching), will not necessarily pick up error - despite speaking in tongues.

I usually pray every day in tongues (see 1 COR 14:18), but it'd seem odd for me to say, "See, I've got the real thing - it's not from the other side."   

The above 'proof text' proves to me that God will pour out His Spirit (of Grace) on the Jews at Armageddon, i.e., the Jews will repent, accept Yeshua ben Yosef/David as the Messiah, and subsequently obey ALL that Yeshua taught. EZE 36:24 was fulfilled in 1948, and the subsequent verses will be fulfilled very soon. Too often we think that things happen in one go when they are described in successive verses, but there are many examples of long time periods expressed in a very short passages (e.g., LUKE 21:24 comprises some 1,900 years - from 70 AD till 1948).

To finish off, I personally do realize that 'tongues' may not be from the Father (as the devil counterfeits anything), but on the other hand I'd be carefully not to judge prematurely. I have broken the Sabbath and have attended Sunday meetings for 25 years - if this is indication enough to conclude that "such a person cannot possibly be Spirit-filled", then I would obviously disagree for the above reasons.

Hope that helps.

Shalom,

Jake  

  

Hi Jake,

Glad you have found us. I hope I don't start a lot of "rabbit trails" here in my reply. I would much rather stick to the thread topic instead. A few preliminary things for you to consider if you wish...

Are you aware the term "Pentecostal" translates to English as "count 50"? If yes, good, if no perhaps you would like to look into it further. Furthermore, "Brit Hadashah" is kind of a misnomer. We don't refer to a collection of books (...aka "Bible") as the "New, or re-Newed, covenant". We prefer, The Tanak and Ketuvim Netzarim, or Writings of the Nazarenes. Also we do NOT refer to the Eternal One as "g-d". Mainly due to the stringent warning in scripture advising us not to! (Is 65:11 This is not normally obvious in English translations).

Regarding the term, "Jews". Many ask me that. Someone the other day, "How was your X-Mass", Me: "I don't do X-Mass I keep Chaunakh". Next question, "Are you Jewish". My reply, "Why, ..which type of being Jewish are you referring too"? The question remains unanswered due to my reluctance to answer yes being completely unaware of what the term "Jew" might mean to them! Instead I ask them, "Do you believe scripture"? This way I can defer letting them know, until they are ready to hear it, that scripture, which they normally SAY they believe, requires a conversion! (Some around here will differ with me on this point but it is so, regardless of anyone's opinion).

Back on topic now... :)  

I don't agree that the instructional teachings provided and used in my "proof text"  is to be interpreted as only applying to specific time periods. This kind of thinking reminds me of the "dispensation" lies Darby promoted. Many times, as my guess is you know, we are told the Torah is for "all generations and forever". 

As far as "breaking Sabbath" goes, I will be the 1st to let you know I too have many times inadvertently and sometimes by "necessity" failed in my best efforts to adhere to Sabbath admonishments. This IMO does not negate my assurance of  redemption. Yet on the other hand, deliberate defiance is a dangerous mindset for anyone who finds the truth.

Yes, I was not saying, nor do I think it's impossible for anyone unknowingly involved in the travesty of X-anity, to be spirit led. The Eternal can do as He wishes to at any time He wishes to, right? It is possible, yes, yet not probable in many cases IMO.

Hi Mikha,

Thanks for your reply.

Yes, I'm aware of the timing. 'Brit chadashah' in JER 31:31 aptly describes what occurred on Shavuot in 31 AD, so - sorry, please be patient with me in regards to the usage of the 'correct' terms. For example, I'd still intend to use 'Christians' when talking about the Sabbath-keeping Waldenses (the saints of Revelation) which probably belonged to the last pockets of Nazarenes.

As to 'Jews', I can't follow you really, as I obviously meant ethnic Israel, not spiritual Israel. And let's not argue about EZE 36:24 plus dozens of comparable verses - I think it's 1948 (no clue about Darby). I thought the topic was tongues?

Shalom,

Jake

Jake, Sure thing, (...being patient)

1) Your 1st post used that term to describe the collection of books commonly known here as I have mentioned above.

2) Now using Jer 31:31 to describe the renewed covenant...

Jer 31:31  “See, the days are coming,” declares יהוה, “when I shall make a renewed covenant with the house of Yisra’ěl and with the house of Yehuḏah.

Yes, this more aptly describes what we are discussing concerning using the messy-Antics term, "Brit Hadasha". Acts 2 as you likely know was a follow-up to the 1st Shavout which occurred at Sinai. 

Perhaps doing a bit of etymological studies concerning the use of the term <Xxxxxx-ians) might sway your thinking about that term. Note: Ever notice how the 1st actual believers (Nazarenes) were CALLED that? 

My guess is you have recently come out of the "Messianic" movement. I would rather point out a link that Dr. Trimm has written concerning "ethnic Israel or spiritual Israel". Either of those terms a vague IMO. Try this one:

 http://nazarenespace.com/profiles/blog/show?id=2182335%3ABlogPost%3...

Vague I know concerning the 2 new phrases you have elected to use. The House of Israel is the term scripture uses to refer to the apostatized once members of the House of Yahudah. Using these clears up things along those lines IMO

1948? Darby was the originator of the lie of Dispensationalism. Yep, tongues it still is! (...along with any "rabbit trails" which are hard to avoid as usual) 

Thanks Mikha,

Appreciate your reply (my email address is jakewilson888@gmail.com - maybe we should continue via email?)

I am happy to be corrected, seriously, but won't jump onto things immediately (because the majority of 'scholars' says so and so, etc.). Well, I may have to do some homework first... anyway, just very briefly:

# You're right - I tried to find a way out and thus diverted to JER 31:31 - well spotted :-)

# As to ACTS 2 - yes, my current view is that the law was put into the hearts (and the power to fulfill it) on that day, just like the law itself was given on that day at Sinai. 

Re Dr. Trimm's blog

I would hesitate to establish doctrine on one single quote, i.e: “But these… did not call themselves Christians – but Nazarenes” (Epiphanius; Panarion 29), because:

  1. The quote suggests that there was a group of people which called themselves Christians (thus contradicting the claim that they were only thus called by Gentile unbelievers)
  2. In 1. PET 4:16 the apostle of the circumcision, writing to dispersed Jews, says: “Yet if any man suffer as a Christian, let him not be ashamed” (KJV). Why does he not write: “If any man suffer as a Nazarene…”? Peter/Kefa is a Jew who uses the term “Christian” referring to believing Jews – or not?
  3. How do you know that Tertullus was an unbelieving Jew and not a Roman, who used “Nazarenes” as a derogative term for Paul and his followers (just as unbelieving Jews cursed the Nazarenes)? If he was a Roman, than we have an example of a Gentile unbeliever applying the term “Nazarene” (contradicting that only unbelieving Jews called Jewish believers “Nazarenes”). Besides, the verse shows that Paul’s sect was called “Nazarenes” by unbelievers in any case (and not by Paul himself). Thus, there is no verse which states that believing Jews called themselves Nazarenes.
  4. How do you know that the Christians in ACTS 11:26 were only Gentiles? Verse 19 states that they preached only to Jews in Antioch and then verse 20 talks about Gentiles being preached to in Antioch. So why may one not conclude that there was a mix of Jews & Gentiles who got saved in Antioch, and who were called “Christians”?
  5. In ACTS 26:28, in Caesarea, (probably some two years after Paul was accused by Tertullus), King Agrippa - who was an unbelieving Jew - calls a Jewish believer (Paul) a Christian – in full contradiction to the blog’s statement: “The name nonbelieving Jews gave to Jewish believers was “Natzaratim”. Why did Agrippa not say: “Almost thou persuadest me to be a Nazarene (instead of Christian)”? And why does the Jew Paul advertise Christianity by replying: “I would to God, that not only thou, but also all that hear me this day, were both almost, and altogether such as I am”? I thought the term Christian does not denote Jewish believers but only Gentile believers in Yeshua?

So it’s not that clear-cut I find. As to the Messianic movement, no, since I left my Pentecostal assembly a year ago, I couldn’t find any other proper group.

I’ve never heard about the House of Israel being the apostatized members of the House of Yahudah (I suppose it has to do with the Ten Lost Tribes). If you could give me please some verses which support this claim.

Shalom,

Jake

Jake,

I'm almost certain it's quite fine to continue discussions here. I have italicized yours...

Re Dr. Trimm's blog
I would hesitate to establish doctrine on one single quote, i.e: “But these… did not call themselves Christians – but Nazarenes” (Epiphanius; Panarion 29), because:
1. The quote suggests that there was a group of people which called themselves Christians (thus contradicting the claim that they were only thus called by Gentile unbelievers)

Right, likely those that came about from the likes of Rome did call themselves that just as all the daughter Kirtch's still do today!

There's no need to "hesitate" since the quote above is not the only "Kirtch Father" that expounded on the first followers of the Eternal One. "Jerome; (On. Is. 8:14) also described the Nazarenes as, those "....accept the Messiah in such a way that they do not cease to observe the old law".

Hegesippus expounded upon them also. There is also archeological evidence of them and Josephus described their customs in his writings. Please don't ask me to do this homework for you. I'd love to but do not have the available time.

2. In 1. PET 4:16 the apostle of the circumcision, writing to dispersed Jews, says: “Yet if any man suffer as a Christian, let him not be ashamed” (KJV). . Why does he not write: “If any man suffer as a Nazarene…”? Peter/Kefa is a Jew who uses the term “Christian” referring to believing Jews – or not?

Since we have 2 verses that say they were being called a Twistian and only one that could be inteprepted in a manner as you have presented, perhaps not realizing this also could be thought of as "if you suffer as (..what they are calling you), let him not be ashamed". Ditto my previous paragraph.

Ponder this thought also.... Surly you are aware of Constantine's "power grab"? Was it not he that coined the term? Are historically known facts not facts?

How do you know that Tertullus was an unbelieving Jew and not a Roman, who used “Nazarenes” as a derogative term for Paul and his followers (just as unbelieving Jews cursed the Nazarenes)? If he was a Roman, than we have an example of a Gentile unbeliever applying the term “Nazarene” (contradicting that only unbelieving Jews called Jewish believers “Nazarenes”). Besides, the verse shows that Paul’s sect was called “Nazarenes” by unbelievers in any case (and not by Paul himself). Thus, there is no verse which states that believing Jews called themselves Nazarenes.

I don't recall saying I know for certain Tertullus's ethnicity. I know because of the other writings and evidence that exists. Why are you so vigorously defending a word of known pagan origin?

3. How do you know that the Christians in ACTS 11:26 were only Gentiles? Verse 19 states that they preached only to Jews in Antioch and then verse 20 talks about Gentiles being preached to in Antioch. So why may one not conclude that there was a mix of Jews & Gentiles who got saved in Antioch, and who were called “Christians”?

By the reasons I have mentioned above. Your scenario is possible sure. This doesn't negate the possibility of a then commonly used term similar to how we have inherited terms of pagan origin and inadvertently/deliberately use them even now.

4. In ACTS 26:28, in Caesarea, (probably some two years after Paul was accused by Tertullus), King Agrippa - who was an unbelieving Jew - calls a Jewish believer (Paul) a Christian – in full contradiction to the blog’s statement: “The name nonbelieving Jews gave to Jewish believers was “Natzaratim”. Why did Agrippa not say: “Almost thou persuadest me to be a Nazarene (instead of Christian)”? And why does the Jew Paul advertise Christianity by replying: “I would to God, that not only thou, but also all that hear me this day, were both almost, and altogether such as I am”? I thought the term Christian does not denote Jewish believers but only Gentile believers in Yeshua?

I don't see/understand your proposed "contradiction" in light of the fact a known pagan term was widely being used then just as it still is. The term you are defending has not and does not describe "believers" in most senses of the word. Can you show me any Goy that actually "believes" what he or she says they "believe"? Most times I have had the opportunity to discuss scripture with a Goy, and show them a few contradictions in their “belief” they shrug it off and go right back to their misguided (...due in most part to what Lew White has accurately termed, “the masquerading messengers of Torahlessness”) system of "belief".

So it’s not that clear-cut I find. As to the Messianic movement, no, since I left my Pentecostal assembly a year ago, I couldn’t find any other proper group.

You have found the "one faith" here. Keep researching if you are so inclined. (NazareneJudasim.com)

I’ve never heard about the House of Israel being the apostatized members of the House of Yahudah (I suppose it has to do with the Ten Lost Tribes). If you could give me please some verses which support this claim.
Shalom,
Jake

1 Kings 12.

Mazeltof

Thanks Mikha,

Firstly, and to take the edge off a bit, I'd like to give you my take on the term "Christian": You will probably agree that the "Whore of Babylon" is Antichrist, viz. that it promotes a counterfeit Christianity, as well as her so-called Protestant daughters. Grafted-in Gentiles submit to Torah - not in order to earn salvation - but because they love Eloah (in the ideal case).

Having said that, - I don't really see that the above insights warrant to reject the term "Christian" and replace it with "Nazarene". Even if we were to assume that both terms, "Nazarene" as well as "Christian", are used as derogatives in scripture (which seems to be the case), and even if the 'Greek NT' constitutes another area of replacement, - nevertheless both terms are scriptural:

Messianic (anointed) is found thrice in the Hebrew/Aramaic original, and ditto its Greek equivalent Christian (anointed). The mere translation of a term doesn't change its origin or meaning; it's like saying the Holy Spirit is a pagan invention, but the Ruach HaKodesh is not. The claim that Christian is a pagan invention is therefore false, and by the way, it was not Constantine who coined the term (you seem to mix up the Christian Apostasy enforced by Constantine with Christianity - two completely different things). PS: I must admit that etymologically the Greek term Christian itself has pagan roots. (just read something about it). But what would be a good alternative rendering of Mashiachim? "If any man suffer as a Messianic..." or, "If any man suffer as an anointed one..."? Also, how can we be sure that they didn't call themselves Mashiachim on the grounds that it was used as a scornful term - after all we find Mashiachim 3 x and Netzarim only once (in reference to Yeshua's followers)?

Lastly, before commenting further (as the following is actually what really counts, see JOHN 3:5): Are you anointed? That is, do you have the spirit of the Messiah in you? A sure sign which evidences this - ignoring counterfeits - is "speaking in tongues" (as seen in ACTS wherever people received the Ruach HaKodesh). That'd be my personal question to you - our initial subject is tongues after all.

I have inserted my remaining comments into your reply, as it's just much easier...

__________________________________________________________________________________________

Jake,

I'm almost certain it's quite fine to continue discussions here. I have italicized yours...

Re Dr. Trimm's blog
I would hesitate to establish doctrine on one single quote, i.e: “But these… did not call themselves Christians – but Nazarenes” (Epiphanius; Panarion 29), because:
1. The quote suggests that there was a group of people which called themselves Christians (thus contradicting the claim that they were only thus called by Gentile unbelievers)

Right, likely those that came about from the likes of Rome did call themselves that just as all the daughter Kirtch's still do today!

Fair enough, I have covered this above a bit.

There's no need to "hesitate" since the quote above is not the only "Kirtch Father" that expounded on the first followers of the Eternal One. "Jerome; (On. Is. 8:14) also described the Nazarenes as, those "....accept the Messiah in such a way that they do not cease to observe the old law".

Hegesippus expounded upon them also. There is also archeological evidence of them and Josephus described their customs in his writings. Please don't ask me to do this homework for you. I'd love to but do not have the available time.

I have read the articles on the history of the Nazarenes, and I know that Paul and "his sect of the Nazarenes" kept Torah (as I can read this in my Bible). My point was that in contrast to Epiphanius' statement, there is not one verse in the Bible showing that they called themselves Nazarenes - which I find important (and in principle I don't establish biblical doctrine solely on secular sources).

2. In 1. PET 4:16 the apostle of the circumcision, writing to dispersed Jews, says: “Yet if any man suffer as a Christian, let him not be ashamed” (KJV). . Why does he not write: “If any man suffer as a Nazarene…”? Peter/Kefa is a Jew who uses the term “Christian” referring to believing Jews – or not?

Since we have 2 verses that say they were being called a Twistian and only one that could be inteprepted in a manner as you have presented, perhaps not realizing this also could be thought of as "if you suffer as (..what they are calling you), let him not be ashamed". Ditto my previous paragraph.

OK, providing Christian is meant in a derogatory way here. I would assume that Nazarenes was also used derogatively when Paul was branded corrupt and causing sedition, because he led the Nazarenes. Here it says Netzarim in the Hebrew (correct me if I'm wrong), and there it says Mashiachim. N.B.: see my PS above (I didn't want to re-formulate everything, but in between I read up on the word Christian).

Ponder this thought also.... Surly you are aware of Constantine's "power grab"? Was it not he that coined the term? Are historically known facts not facts?

How do you know that Tertullus was an unbelieving Jew and not a Roman, who used “Nazarenes” as a derogative term for Paul and his followers (just as unbelieving Jews cursed the Nazarenes)? If he was a Roman, than we have an example of a Gentile unbeliever applying the term “Nazarene” (contradicting that only unbelieving Jews called Jewish believers “Nazarenes”). Besides, the verse shows that Paul’s sect was called “Nazarenes” by unbelievers in any case (and not by Paul himself). Thus, there is no verse which states that believing Jews called themselves Nazarenes.

I don't recall saying I know for certain Tertullus's ethnicity. I know because of the other writings and evidence that exists. Why are you so vigorously defending a word of known pagan origin?

Not literally meant. I could have also asked: was he A) an unbelieving Jew, or B) a Roman? I any case, one cannot conclude from this statement that Yeshua's followers called themselves "Nazarenes", but it rather suggests that they were branded "Nazarenes" by unbelievers.

3. How do you know that the Christians in ACTS 11:26 were only Gentiles? Verse 19 states that they preached only to Jews in Antioch and then verse 20 talks about Gentiles being preached to in Antioch. So why may one not conclude that there was a mix of Jews & Gentiles who got saved in Antioch, and who were called “Christians”?

By the reasons I have mentioned above. Your scenario is possible sure. This doesn't negate the possibility of a then commonly used term similar to how we have inherited terms of pagan origin and inadvertently/deliberately use them even now.

This sounds vague. Referring to ACTS 11:19-26 the blog clearly states: "the term Christian was invented by Gentiles to describe Gentiles in a Gentile environment", in other words, it's presented as fact that all those saved in Antioch were Gentiles (which is simply a biased view).

4. In ACTS 26:28, in Caesarea, (probably some two years after Paul was accused by Tertullus), King Agrippa - who was an unbelieving Jew - calls a Jewish believer (Paul) a Christian – in full contradiction to the blog’s statement: “The name nonbelieving Jews gave to Jewish believers was “Natzaratim”. Why did Agrippa not say: “Almost thou persuadest me to be a Nazarene (instead of Christian)”? And why does the Jew Paul advertise Christianity by replying: “I would to God, that not only thou, but also all that hear me this day, were both almost, and altogether such as I am”? I thought the term Christian does not denote Jewish believers but only Gentile believers in Yeshua?

I don't see/understand your proposed "contradiction" in light of the fact a known pagan term was widely being used then just as it still is. The term you are defending has not and does not describe "believers" in most senses of the word. Can you show me any Goy that actually "believes" what he or she says they "believe"? Most times I have had the opportunity to discuss scripture with a Goy, and show them a few contradictions in their “belief” they shrug it off and go right back to their misguided (...due in most part to what Lew White has accurately termed, “the masquerading messengers of Torahlessness”) system of "belief".

OK, I have covered this as well above when explaining my view of the term Christian. Also, I have only realised now the difference between Natzarim (derogatory) and Netzarim.

So it’s not that clear-cut I find. As to the Messianic movement, no, since I left my Pentecostal assembly a year ago, I couldn’t find any other proper group.

You have found the "one faith" here. Keep researching if you are so inclined. (NazareneJudasim.com)

I’ve never heard about the House of Israel being the apostatized members of the House of Yahudah (I suppose it has to do with the Ten Lost Tribes). If you could give me please some verses which support this claim.
Shalom,
Jake

1 Kings 12.

That's about the split of the 10 Tribes from Judah & Benjamin, but those who "fell away" were not members of the House of Judah, they were simply the other tribes (sorry, I don't understand)

Mazeltof

Jake,

...the above has grown to large to follow so I have condensed things...

All of Twistianity is "counterfeit", Yeshua did not come to start a new religion, rather He came to be the savior of the ONE faith that existed, Judaism. This being the case, no I do not agree the "whore of Babylon" is any anti-messiah, it is clearly Twistianity and it's "mother Kirtch" Catholicism IMO.

Nazarene is not used "derogatorily" in scripture. Check the Hebrew origin of the root words and I think you might then agree. The Hebrew of the word does not "appear only once" but many times.

Yes, I do agree speaking or praying in the spirit (aka..."tongues") is an indication of torah adherent true, not the so-called ones, believers. 

So, because there is a verse proving as a whole they were referred to properly and not one saying they called themselves that is PROOF they did not exist?

Those "saved" at Antioch were "not" former goys? What were they then? What is Paul saying when he mentions "former gentile in the flesh" or when Yeshua says to "go into the whole earth teaching the "nations" (goyim) the same thing I have taught you"? 

They were all members of the House of Judah before the split. (I agree they consisted of a "mixed multitude")  You should read it again perhaps? Are you aware of Ez 2 sticks prophecy? If yes, surely you agree they don't come together under equal terms?

Hi Mikha,

The Tanakh contains hundreds of prophecies about Yeshua, and many prophecies about the outpouring of the Rauch HaKodesh (pointing towards some anointing). The Torah was given 50 days after the Exodus, and the power to fulfil the Torah (grace) was given 50 days after the resurrection, i.e., on Shavuot (Acts 2:4). The latter was not a new religion but a decisive turning point, and those who believed in it - that Yeshua was the Son of God who had risen from the dead, had ascended & and given the Holy Spirit, etc. - those who believed in it were either called Nazarenes or Mashiachim, the latter being a derogatory term (I didn't say Nazarenes didn't exist, you didn't get the point).

I have realised that the Greek rendering of Mashiachim - Christians - is indeed pagan (after all it's a Gentile people who have used the term in other pagan contexts, and etymologically it has nothing to do with 'being anointed'). Thus, this is the misleading result of substituting Greek scriptures for the original Hebraic.
Nevertheless, there was this distinct group of followers of Yeshua, whether you call them Nazarenes, Messianics, or by the pagan corrupt name 'Christians' (besides saints, brethren, talmidim, et al.). Some 10 million of these true followers of Yeshua were killed by pagan Rome, though we know that corruption set in as early as 70 AD, with Sunday replacing the Sabbath, etc. Generally speaking, those who confessed Yeshua HaMashiach were persecuted and killed by pagan Rome (and unbelieving Jews) until 313 AD.
When Constantine declared 'Christianity' state religion, the persecution stopped (REV 12:16). However, you were only safe as long as you succumbed to the increasing pagan corruption which was now declared to be 'Christian'. The word 'Christians' under Constantine doesn't describe the same as 'Christians'/Mashiachim in the Ketuvim Netzarim. It's merely that one and the same term is used for two entirely opposed groups of people.

In other words, the persecution would soon continue for those who didn't submit to Constantine's "paganism in the guise of Christianity". It was the beginning of the 'Christian' Apostasy, which, after the fall of Rome, would lead into the 1,260-rule of the Papacy during which 50 million saints were tortured and killed - in the name of Elohim of course (REV 13:5-7).
Among the victims in the Middle Ages were the Waldenses & Albigenses (who kept the Sabbath), the Anabaptists in the 16th century (who baptised by immersion), the Huguenots in France in the 17th century, up until the last Protestants who were burned alive in Italy in 1866. Not all of those 50 million may have run around with tefillin or tassels of tekhelet (no offense), but they were all followers of The Word. They rejected pagan superstition such as transsubstantiation, the rosary, praying to Mary as the mediatrix (Queen of Heaven), celibacy, indulgences, relics, idolatry, etc. - everything which the Whore of Babylon had invented calling it 'Christianity'. Those who refused to bow to the Papacy (the beast of REV 13:1) were burned, drowned, buried alive, etc. (BTW, persecution under Pagan Rome was lenient in comparison to what Papal Rome did with 'heretics' ). The same counts of course for the Jews, e.g., during the Spanish Inquisition, only that this was part of Israel's Great Tribulation which started in 70 AD and ended in 1948 when the two sticks of EZ became one (I've read 1. KINGS 12 again, see also LUKE 21:24).

During the Dark Ages the Bible was a forbidden book, if you were found with a page, you were burned. With the Reformation people for the first time could read the Bible, and everyone realised that the Beast of Revelation is the Papacy (staging as 'Christian', or Messianic if you prefer, but in reality Antichristian/Antimessianic).

ACTS 11:26 states they were there for a year, and vs. 19 shows Jews had been preached to = it's ludicrous to maintain "only goys got saved in Antioch". So, do you speak in tongues? Jake

Jake,

I agree with most of what you said above. It's these items, especially the 1 st one, that I need to further address perhaps or perhaps we need to agree to disagree:

The word 'Christians' under Constantine doesn't describe the same as 'Christians'/Mashiachim in the Ketuvim Netzarim. It's merely that one and the same term is used for two entirely opposed groups of people.

I agree, to a point. What I don't agree with is your assertion they called themselves that. Where is your proof of this?

The same counts of course for the Jews, e.g., during the Spanish Inquisition, only that this was part of Israel's Great Tribulation which started in 70 AD and ended in 1948 when the two sticks of EZ became one (I've read 1. KINGS 12 again, see also LUKE 21:24).

And this one unless of course we agree this prophecy is in an ongoing fulfillment mode.

ACTS 11:26 states they were there for a year, and vs. 19 shows Jews had been preached to = it's ludicrous to maintain "only goys got saved in Antioch". So, do you speak in tongues? Jake

2 things... 1) I don't maintain anyone is "saved"...yet. Ransomed or redeemed perhaps, not "saved". The verse you have mentioned obviously states only the Yahudim were made aware the Eternal One came in the form of a human at Antioch. This outreach changed course later of course.  2) I don't "speak" (...to others) in the spirit, I do however believe that my spirit prays in an unknown, to me, language(s) normally only during specific moments. Not "continually" as Twistianty teaches.

Mikha,

I didn't assert that the talmidim called themselves Christians, at least not in this last reply.

ACTS 26:28 and 1. PETER 4:16 seem to support the notion that 'Christian' was indeed a derogatory term, once used by Agrippa and once by Peter (the latter simply quoting what the talmidim were called by scorners).

But neither the above, nor ACTS 11:26 show that only Gentile believers were called 'Christians'. Agrippa did neither confuse Paul with a Gentile, nor was he nearly persuaded to become like one of the goyim within Paul's group. Agrippa was talking about becoming one of Paul's, i.e., Yeshua's followers (though expressed in a mocking way I think). And Kefa, a Jew encouraging dispersed Jews, obviously identified himself with that person "who suffers as a Christian" - because that's what the talmidim were scornfully called - all of them, not just the goyims who were grafted in.

That ACTS 11:21 adds "and a great number [of the goyim] believed", and vs. 19 doesn't add that the Jews believed - that alone doesn't prove that the Antiochian talmidim consisted exclusively of goyim up to that point. Besides, one must assume that for one year (vs. 26), and despite continuous "gathering and teaching many people", no further souls were added to the flock in Antioch, at least not a single Jew (as that wouldn't fit our wishful presupposition that ONLY GENTILES WERE IN THE ANTIOCH-FLOCK [except for Shaul & Bar Nabba of course], and thus the term CHRISTIAN in vs. 26 only refers solely to the goyim, because the talmidim in Antioch were all goyim, as proven beyond doubt now, bladibla bladibla. .. I've rarely heard anything more ridiculous (but the whole point is anyway not that important - followers of Yeshua the Nazarene are called Nazarenes, which is admittedly a much more accurate term than the phony 'Christian').

# Yes, the prophecy is ongoing/of gradual fulfilment: 1897, 1917, 1948, 1967, 2017... the Spirit of Grace still needs to be poured upon the House of David (which will happen very soon).

# Twistianity doesn't teach "continually", must be your imagination. "Speaking in tongues/praying in the spirit" is audible, visible, and can be operated at any time whenever you decide (it's not some inner, mysterious, subconscious communication). ACTS 10:46 | "For they heard them while speaking in different tongues..." (ACTS 2:4; 10:44-46; 11:15-18; 19:6 & 1. COR 14).

Hence, you don't speak in tongues as described in the Ketuvim Netzarim - that's all I wanted to know.

Shalom,
Jake

Reply to Discussion

RSS

 

 

 

















 

LINKS

 

 

 

 

Badge

Loading…

© 2018   Created by James Trimm.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service