The 144,000

[Rahab]

16 hours ago, Ron Amnsn said:

It is often important to quote more than just one verse.  In this case the "them" is a subset of the Israelites.

When Moses and Aaron had listed the people at Sinai (Numbers 1), God had instructed them to not list the Levites.  Eleazar the priest was a Levite, so he would not have been listed in the earlier census which contained the list of "them" from which all died except Caleb and Joshua.

There were others besides the Levites who were not listed in the earlier census.  From all the other tribes the males that were under 20 years of age were not listed in the census at Sinai.  And probably none of the women were listed in the census at Sinai.

Deuteronomy 2:14-17 also specifies that it was the men of war who died in the wilderness.  Since Eleazar was a priest rather than a man of war, he was not included in those who died.

I checked it out and thank you.. I agree with this.  My problem was... was Eleazar born before the exodus or after?  I believe now that it was before.  

[Rahab]

22 hours ago, 8thdaypriest said:

We do not know how many persons from creation to the flood, actually sought the LORD and tried to follow His way.  We know about Enoch.  We know about Able and Seth.  There probably were others who lived and died before the time of the flood.  We know that only 8 of those living at the time of the flood, "made it through".

Of the multitudes who came out of Egypt, we know that THREE men crossed the Jordan into the promised land - Caleb, Joshua, and the High Priest Eleazar, son of Aaron (Joshua 24:33). 

Rahab,  I am scolding you, because I am a mother in Israel.  

You posted "this is truth".  But I showed you that your information was either not accurate, or not knowable.  

On this forum, we debate folks view concerning what "is truth".  Sometimes THE truth lies just beyond our present understanding. 

I see now after looking it over, that you are correct.  Thank you yes, Eleazar was born before the exodus.

[8thdaypriest]

2 hours ago, Rahab said:

I agree but on forums it is wise to be brief otherwise people will not read....

God has protected the bible through all ages and if we stick to the textus receptus we are better off than other versions...

Are you talking to me, or to stinsonmarrie?

My post was 9 lines - double spaced.  On this forum, that IS "brief".  LOL 

[Rahab]

5 hours ago, 8thdaypriest said:

Are you talking to me, or to stinsonmarrie?

My post was 9 lines - double spaced.  On this forum, that IS "brief".  LOL 

I was told my posts are too brief...  I could do more but I'm hoping that people will take note and do the background work for themselves and of thine own self be approved.

As for brevity?  I think on forums it is important...speaking to everyone on this but there might be some cases where context is very important... 

I read in SOP that Jesus spoke simply as possible with not long sentences but they carried a punch like none other.  He was brief and to the point.  People understood Him clearly as His words searched the hearts.

and Yes, Jesus is the Word!!

[JoeMo]

11 hours ago, Rahab said:

I was told my posts are too brief.

Brief posts are much easier to answer.  Every once and a while, a long post is appropriate if you are passionate about something.  In general (but not always), anything longer than one screen's worth is too long.

[stinsonmarri]

On 7/24/2017 at 8:25 PM, Rahab said:

Stinsonmarri:

Rom_2:11  For there is no respect of persons with God.

Rahab: That's my point. But, just look at what people say and how they do. Everyone in the Bible Books, pictures etc., that we have in our stores, shows that everyone looks White! Where is the respect of person that our church should show if they are following that principles? I do not agree that Blacks should be better than Whites either! However, we must be realistic, Nimrod was Black, he was against ELOHIYM but all nations follow his commands. YAHWEH came down and did not down any tower, they left the city. They did not finish building it, can you please read it!!! Yes, the Blacks retain the city until, the Chaldeans came from the north of Euphrates and started the Neo-Babylon period. Man's language was confounded and if each was given a new language, they had to learn how to write all over again. Some never did! You then must accept that Ham's children and Shem children were intimate and that Japheth children did not come into the picture until the Medes and the Persians!

The Hebrew people were more intimately associated with the Hamitic races (people) than with the descendants of Japheth. Cush, or Kush, is ancient Ethiopia, which was in classical times called Nubia. It was not Abyssinia, but included a part of Egypt and a part of the Sudan, extending from the first cataract of the Nile, at Aswan, as far south as Khartoum. In Egyptian inscriptions this land is called Kash, in Assyrian cuneiform texts, Kusu. Cush, however, included not only African Nubia but also the western part of Arabia bordering on the Red Sea. Some of the sons of Cush are known to have settled there. The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary Vol. 1, p. 273

Then the greatest lie told was that Ham was a homosexual, let's read what the Bible said:

And he drank of the wine, and was drunken; and he was uncovered within his tent. And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brethren without. And Shem and Japheth took a garment, and laid it upon both their shoulders, and went backward, and covered the nakedness of their father; and their faces were backward, and they saw not their father's nakedness. And Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his younger son had done unto him. Gen 9:21-24

Now the verse 24 was added on to that change the whole thought here is the proof:

And Noah H5146 awoke H3364 from his wine, H4480 H3196 and knew H3045 (H853) what H834 his younger H6996 son H1121 had done H6213 unto him. Gen 9:24 

Unto him there are no Hebrew words that was added and did not need to be added. Done unto him as if he did something and of course he was accuse of some type of sexual act! Ham should have respected his father and clothes him like his brother's did but he didn't. Noah awoke and condemn Canaan. Now none of us was there, but most likely Canaan saw his grandfather naked and Ham did not rebuke him, instead laugh with his son. He call his brother's as we do today to be in on the joke that his father was drunk and naked. It was not funny, and the two oldest did the correct thing. They covered up their father properly. Let's make this clear, this had nothing to do with skin color but disrespect!!!

And he said, Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren.  And he said, Blessed be YAHWEH ELOHIYM of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant. Gen 9:25, 26 

Now servant of servants-not slaves- first, would Canaan be to his three older brothers. Canaan never ruled his brothers they all ruled and made Canaan tribute unto them! Shem not Japheth was bless, but this is because YAHWEH'S SON would come through Shem's seed. If Shem was so bless, why would YAHWEH in Gen 9:27 state; that Japheth shall dwell in the tents of Shem and yes Canaan would serve both of his uncles? This show truth because the Canaanite lost their land to both the Philistine and Israel. But if you notice even today the Philistine, even today still has the name of the land. We call it Palestine which is the land of the Philistine. Who are they again the Bible will speak for itself:

And the sons of Ham; Cush, and Mizraim, and Phut, and Canaan. And Mizraim begat Ludim, and Anamim, and Lehabim, and Naphtuhim,  And Pathrusim, and Casluhim, (out of whom came Philistim,) and Caphtorim. Gen 10:6,13, 14 

Carthage should have won the Punic wars, on the sea and with Hannibal who was Black. These were the Phonecians who ships were the master of the sea. Hannibal was a military genius and should have wiped Rome out! But, the prophecy that Canaan would never rule his uncles was true! If we read the history about both Punic wars, something happen to turn the tide into Rome's favor!

So you see ELOHIYM is no respect of person. It never had to do with skin color, it had to do with sin. It just so happen that the Canaanites were Black people! Yes, YAHWEH still used them and many of them obeyed HIM! Melchizedek was a Jebusite and Jerusalem known also as Salem was build by the Canaanites. Abraham paid tithe to this only known king/priest of THE MOST HIGH! Keturah a Canaanite, married Abraham after Sarah died! The Midianite came through this union and Zipporah married Moses! Miriam did a horrible thing and she was immediately curse with leprosy. She made a racist remark about Zipporah skin and YAHWEH showed all, HE was not going to tolerate this nonsense! Joseph married an Egyptian woman and both of his sons were included in Israel. Moses was found by an Egyptian princess and named after her father's dynasty, Ahmose, his sons Thutmose! I could go on but I also want to say that Shem was olive brown so the myths that Abraham and all the people of the Old Testament were White that is an untruth! The Whites did not come into play until the Medes and Persians,  an Aryan German tribe did mix with the children of Heth producing the Mongolian people. It is known today that their language is trace back to Turkey, the area  of Heth intermingling with the Aryan people.

We must realize that YAHWEH selects people base on their service and obedience to THE FATHER and not the color of their skin! When they fail to obey, HE call others from each of Noah's sons. The blessing came through Shem, but Ham's children also was a part of the seed that produce the children of Israel. Keep that in mind when you watch these racist movies who depict everyone as White! Then ask yourself all who fail to see about respect of people; then read Romans 1:17-23, then maybe you will realize how unkind people of color have been treated! Where is our respect and recognition today from White SDA!!!! Respect the Bible and read it right and give all cultures their do! One race, one mankind!

Happy Sabbath and be bless!

[Gregory Matthews]

The subject that is introduced in the post above is an exceedingly complex one, perhaps more complex than the above post indicates?

*  It is clearly wrong to use this Biblical story to suggest, as some do, that God and the Bible condem  so-called Black people.

*  It cannot be proven, as some suggest, that all descendents of Ham were Black and  that all Black people descended from Ham.

*  As a matter of fact, anthropologists, sociologists and others do not agree on a common definition of the word "race."   

*  Due to the above, the SDABC is  using the word "race," in the cited passage, in the manner of one of the accepted definitions even if the word "people" might be considered by some to be a better word.

*  I would not argue against using "people" in that passage.  

 

[Gregory Matthews]

“Race” has been considered to be:

1. A group of people identified as distinct from other groups because of supposed physical or genetic traits shared by the group. Most biologists and anthropologists do not recognize race as a biologically valid classification, in part because there is more genetic variation within groups than between them.

2. A group of people united or classified together on the basis of common history, nationality, or geographic distribution: the Celtic race.

3. A genealogical line; a lineage.

4. Humans considered as a group.

Race, as a social construct, is the classification of humans into groups based on physical traits, ancestry, genetics, or social relations, or the relations between those groups.[1][2][3][4][5][6] First used to refer to speakers of a common language and then to denote national affiliations, by the 17th century race began to refer to physical (i.e. phenotypical) traits. The term was often used in a general biological taxonomic sense,[7] starting from the 19th century, to denote genetically differentiated human populations defined by phenotype.[8][9]

Social conceptions and groupings of races vary over time, involving folk taxonomies[10] that define essential types of individuals based on perceived traits. Scientists consider biological essentialism obsolete,[11] and generally discourage racial explanations for collective differentiation in both physical and behavioral traits.[12][13][14][15][16]

It's a common belief that race can be broken down into three categories: Negroid, Mongoloid and Caucasoid. But according to science, that's not so. While the American concept of race took off in the late 1600s and persists even today, researchers now argue that there’s no scientific basis for race.

Sociologists define race as a concept that is used to signify different types of human bodies. While there is no biological basis for racial classification, sociologists recognize a long history of attempts to organize groups of people based on similar skin color and physical appearance. The absence of any biological foundation makes race often difficult to define and classify, and as such, sociologists view racial categories and the significance of race in society as unstable, always shifting, and intimately connected to other social forces and structures.

Race - a specious classification of human beings created by Europeans (whites) which assigns human worth and social status using "white" as the model of humanity and the height of human achievement for the purpose of establishing and maintaining privilege and power.

 

 

NOTE:  The above is selected from a number of different sources on the Internet.   One can access all of those and more, simply by doing a search for the word "race" and ignoring the hits that refer to a contest.

 

[Rahab]

" It never had to do with skin color, it had to do with sin."  stinsonmarri I like what you said here...

this is truth... anyone can be a son or daughter of Abraham...it is about being a human being and who you choose to worship...

it is really all about choice

whom do you choose to worship?  the world and Satan or the Living Loving God of the bible,  Jehovah and His Son Jesus

this is the root of the matter.

it is the power of Satan that likes to stir things up among us ...  he likes to get people looking at differences and causing strife and confusion

[stinsonmarri]

Thank you Rahab I truly believe what you stated. Oh, how I pray that we will start healing this problem. Once this problem can heal some of us; I know that those who are call and chosen will unite humbly together. Understanding through THE POWER of THE HOLY RUACH/SET APART ONE we will be ready to finish the work of THE MOST HIGH!

Be bless!

[Rahab]

9 hours ago, stinsonmarri said:

Thank you Rahab I truly believe what you stated. Oh, how I pray that we will start healing this problem. Once this problem can heal some of us; I know that those who are call and chosen will unite humbly together. Understanding through THE POWER of THE HOLY RUACH/SET APART ONE we will be ready to finish the work of THE MOST HIGH!

Be bless!

This is true...  we are united in Christ alone and everything else is nothing.

[stinsonmarri]

Pastor Matthew: You stated: “The subject that is introduced in the post above is an exceedingly complex one, perhaps more complex than the above post indicates?”

It complex only to those who do not accept the Bible!

You stated: “It is clearly wrong to use this Biblical story to suggest, as some do, that God and the Bible condem  so-called Black people.”

Well Pastor appears that you are in the time period when you know that this was the thought of the day. Shall we go down memory lane:

C.F. Keil and F. Delitzsch take this view when they write, "The Phoenicians, along with the Carthaginians and the Egyptians, who all belonged to the family of Canaan, were subjected by the Japhetic Persians, Macedonians, and Romans; and the remainder of the Hamitic tribes either shared the same fate, or still sigh, like the Negroes, for example, and other African tribes, beneath the yoke of the most crushing slavery." See "The Pentateuch" in Commentary on the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1987), vol. 1, 178

"The doom of Ham has been branded on the form and features of his African descendants. The hand of fate has united his color and destiny. Man cannot separate what God hath joined."  United States Senator James Henry Hammond. William Lee Miller, "Arguing About Slavery: The Great Battle in the United States Congress." Alfred A. Knopf, (1996), Page 139

 

“Cursed be Canaan [Genesis 9:25]—this doom has been fulfilled in. . . the slavery of the Africans, the descendants of Ham.”—Commentary, Critical and Explanatory, on the Whole Bible

 From Genesis 10:6, we learn that the sons of Ham were Cush (Ethiopia), Put (Libya),

Egypt and Canaan: Scofield’s interpretation is that the curse of Genesis 9:27 is a curse that condemned the entire continent of Africa.

While Scofield’s note may initially sound innocent, notice the word “Japhetic.” Japheth’s sons moved into the land that is currently Turkey, Greece and the western Mediterranean, essentially the ancestors of white Europeans. “Japhetic” means the superiority of the white race. This was the attitude of many in Europe and America in the 1800’s and 1900’s. It is devastatingly sad that accomplished theologians such as Scofield could be so prideful, as well as so thoroughly blinded by their cultural understanding so as to misinterpret the Scriptures. Bear in mind that the same danger is possible for us today, perhaps in different areas of our thinking. Racism In Theological Disguise Contributed by Paul Barreca

By the 19th century, many historians agree, the belief that African-Americans were descendants of Ham was a primary justification for slavery among Southern Christians. 2017 The New York Times Company

Here is when the Jews commented when the Gentiles had already replace the Hebrews:

Three copulated in the ark, and they were all punished — the dog, the raven, and Ham… Ham was smitten in his skin. Sanhedrin (108b)

…smitten in his skin…i.e., from him descended Cush (the negro) who is black-skinned. The 11th century commentary of Rashi

You stated: “It cannot be proven, as some suggest, that all descendents of Ham were Black and  that all Black people descended from Ham.  As a matter of fact, anthropologists, sociologists and others do not agree on a common definition of the word "race."   

Now if you want to know what is complex are these two statements????? So now you are saying that all Black people did not come from Ham. Now I wonder why you made this statement because I am truly sorry to say Pastor this to me is racist. Why because you do not want to give credit where credit is due. As a Biblical Historian I am aware that the Canaan’s children spread abroad and even the Paleo Hebrew language known as Semitic is included under the Afro-Asiatic languages. It is strange that everyone realize that Ham’s children had a spectrum of color as indicated even in my family. My oldest brother is ebony which is known as black, my second oldest brother is red with red hair; my third oldest brother is paper sack brown. My sister is also paper sack brown like my mother. My father is red, but my mother had two brothers that were so red all over from the hair to their feet. I myself was a high yellow but as I got older became more reddish brown with sandy red/brown hair! My mother’s sister was red with a golden color hair; it was not blonde which is more yellow! I have done also my  mother side of my DNA and I am 87% Afrikan, some Chinese and Indian very little European.

But to say that Ham did not produce all Black is totally wrong and trying to analyze it is base on sociological mumble mess is, forgive me ridiculous! By the way my minor is Anthropology and my professor at Georgia State University agreed with me because I provided evidence. The most convincing evidence is DNA! Anthropologist believe man comes from apes do you believe that too? My discovery of the so call Neanderthal man and all the other was due to eating raw flesh. It is sad that one will try to erase that fact that Ham produced the Afrikans, Southern Arabs, Canaanite-Asians, Dravidian Indians of India, American Indians and more. Shem’s children are from Elam on the East to the Mediterranean on the West, this included part of East and Northwest Arabia.

The descendants of Ham include the Egyptians, Ethiopians, Canaanites, Phoenicians and Hittites.  His descendants appear to be the first to fill the earth, as they were the early settlers of Africa, Asia, Australia, the South Pacific and the Americas. . . Also Cham or Kham.  Literal meanings are passionate, hot, burnt or dark (father of the Australoid, Negroid and Mongoloid people groups - Hamites). . . Tribes in other parts of Africa, Arabia and Asia, aboriginal groups in Australia, native Pacific Islanders, American Indians and Eskimos were birthed from descendants of Canaan, Cush, Mizraim and Phut. Table of Nations by Tim Osterholm

Ham's descendants are interpreted by Moses, Flavius Josephus and others as having populated Africa and adjoining parts of Asia. From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ham (Heb. "hot" or "Black") was Noah's second oldest son and part of the family of eight who survived the great flood. Bible History Online: The Table of Nations

Ham as a Nationality (30 Nations came out of Ham):

The name given, in Psalms 105:23, 17; 106:22 (compare 78:51), to Egypt as a descendant of Ham, son of Noah. . . . it has been supposed that Ham meant, as is not improbable, "black." This is supported by the evidence of Hebrew and Arabic, in which the word chamam means "to be hot" and "to be black," the latter signification being derived from the former.

It is interesting to note that the Biblical record defines Egypt as the Land of Ham. -- Psalm 105: 23 "Israel also came into Egypt...the land of Ham."

Ham: warm, hot, and hence the south; also an Egyptian word meaning "black", the youngest son of Noah ( Genesis 5:32 ; comp Genesis 9:22 Genesis 9:24 ). Bible Study Tools

Burnt, swarthy, black, A son of Noah, Genesis 5:32 7:13 9:18 10:1. Bible Hub: ATS Bible Dictionary

Meaning of the Word:

That Ham is connected with the native name of Egypt, Kem, or, in full pa ta' en Kem, "the land of Egypt," in Bashmurian Coptic Kheme, is unlikely, as this form is probably of a much later date than the composition of Gen, and, moreover, as the Arabic shows, the guttural is not a true kh, but the hard breathing h, which are both represented by the Hebrew cheth. Return To Glory by Dr. Freeman

When I first read about these concepts, they brought tears to my eyes. As a white person in a predominantly white country, I also began to gain a better understanding of and a greater appreciation for the black experience in the United States.

Is the Bible a book by a white God for white people? Of course not. God is spirit and does not have "color" in our human and earthly sense. There is nothing in the Scriptures to indicate that people are excluded from God’s saving grace on the basis of ethnic origin or skin color. God is "not wanting anyone to perish" (2 Peter 3:9). Jesus is the Savior of all peoples. Nevertheless, it is a fact that the majority of European artists and Bible commentators painted and described all biblical characters, including God, as white. This had the effect of excluding blacks from being a part of Scripture and has led some people of color to question the Bible’s relevance to them. Evidence of Black Africans in the Bible by Dr. Dan Rogers

I guess all of the scholars and writers are all wrong!!!!! Well to honest Japheth means fair so why do you call yourself white? Pastor Matthew does it mean that all of Japheth children are not really white people?

You said: "Due to the above, the SDABC is  using the word "race," in the cited passage, in the manner of one of the accepted definitions even if the word "people" might be considered by some to be a better word.  I would not argue against using "people" in that passage." 

You know, I should have used mankind instead of people because that is who we all are! You know my whole point is how the oldest brother’s children have mistreated his youngest brother’s children and also his middle brother’s children as well. Why because the color of their skin! We should never use race at all but Adam kind that is what man mean. Here are some Text so should read as well as evidence to back each one up.

And Miriam and Aaron spake against Moses because of the Ethiopian woman whom he had married: for he had married an Ethiopian woman.  And the anger of YAHWEH was kindled against them; and he departed. And the cloud departed from off the tabernacle; and, behold, Miriam became leprous, white as snow: and Aaron looked upon Miriam, and, behold, she was leprous. Num 12:1, 9, 10

Can the Ethiopian change his skin or the leopard his spots? then may ye also do good that are accustomed to do evil. Jer 13:23 

And Melchizedek king of Salem brought forth bread and wine: and he was the priest of THE MOST HIGH ELOHIYM. And he blessed him, and said, Blessed be Abram of THE MOST HIGH ELOHIYM, POSSESSOR of Heaven and earth: And blessed be THE MOST HIGH ELOHIYM, which hath delivered thine enemies into thy hand. And he gave him tithes of all. Gen 14:18-20 

The question of Zadok's origin is extremely obscure, for there is no clear and accurate picture of his background in the Bible. In the narrative he appears, as it were, from nowhere. In II Samuel 8:17 he is called the "son of Ahitub" and seems to be connected with the House of Eli, but this verse is clearly the result of a textual corruption. Indeed, the prophecy of I Samuel 2:27–36 (cf. I Kings 2:27) makes it clear that the House of Zadok was considered to have supplanted the House of Eli. Nor are the genealogies in Chronicles and Ezra (I Chron. 5:27–34; 6:35–38; 24:3; Ezra 7:2), which treat Zadok as a descendant of the Aaronide house of Eleazar, any more reliable, for they repeat the error of II Samuel 8:17. Zadok thus remains without a genealogy in the ancient texts.

Since Zadok does not appear until after the capture of Jerusalem and since his genealogy is not given, he may have been a priest of Jebusites Jerusalem before the conquest by David (Rowley). Jewish Virtual Library

Thus, David appointed Abiathar to serve as the priest for the Israelite population and Zadok to be the priest for the Canaanite population who lived in Jerusalem. Zadok also served in the Tabernacle that was at Gibeon (1 Chronicles 16:39). The Gibeonites were the Canaanite people who deceived Israel in the days of Joshua (Joshua 10:1).

These are some of the reasons that point to the fact that Zadok was a Jebusite who later became a follower of YAHWEH. Claude Mariottini, Professor of Old Testament; Northern Baptist Seminary

Zadok’s association with Jerusalem (rather than with Shiloh), combined with the absence of a background story, has caused scholars to offer a wide range of theories pertaining to Zadok’s origins. Was he really a member of the older clergy located at Shiloh, or was he rather a member of a rival priestly family from Hebron? Could he have been a priest from Gibeon, or a Jebusite priest from Jerusalem, or even a member of the old royal Jebusite family? As of today, there is no consensus view in this matter, yet most scholars tend to see Zadok as a ‘new man’ without ties to the early Israelite priesthood at Shiloh. Olyan, S. M. “Zadok’s Origins and the Tribal Politics of David.” Journal of Biblical Literature 101 (1982): 177-93

I can affirm to the errors, but not to the origin of Zadok. But it is possible that he could have been a Jebusite like King Melchizedek who also was a priest. However here are scholars who rise above the fray to present the facts according to how the Bible is consistent.

And the children of Israel dwelt among the Canaanites, Hittites, and Amorites, and Perizzites, and Hivites, and Jebusites: And they took their daughters to be their wives, and gave their daughters to their sons, and served their mighty ones. Judges 3:5-6

And David sent and inquired after the woman. And one said, Is not this ||Bath-sheba, the daughter of ||Eliam, the wife of Uriah the Hittite? 2 Samuel 11:3

Eliphelet the son of Ahasbai, the son of the Maachathite, Eliam the son of Ahithophel the Gilonite, 2 Samuel 23:34

According to II Samuel 11:3, Bath-Sheba was the daughter of Eliam, and according to I Chronicles 3:5, she was the daughter of Ammiel, who the rabbis of the Talmud (Sanh. 69b) identify with Eliam son of Ahithophel the Gilonite (II Sam. 23:34). . . Jewish Virtual Library

The presence of Blacks in the Old Testament/Hebrew Bible is rather substantial; fortunately ours is an age that increasingly allows such an important fact to be acknowledged more widely than perhaps ever before. This topic has long been studied by Dr. Gene Rice, Professor of Old Testament, and he has supplied a representative listing of key Old Testament passages that mention, indeed often celebrate, the Black biblical presence:

Matthew 1:1-14 - The genealogy of Jesus, in which four Afro-Asiatic women are included: Rahab, Tamar, Ruth, and Bathsheba.

Matthew 2:13-18 - Out of Egypt (Africa) have I called my son (see Hosea 11:1). Blacks In Biblical Antiquity; American Bible Society

Conclusion is that the blacks are not Gentiles as I stated and before the Hebrews, YAHWEH came first to the black man. He knew YAHWEH but stop obeying and the Canaanite were given 430 years. The Amorites were the last children of Canaan that YAHWEH gave them probation. Gen 15:16 But eventually the cup of iniquity had come to tuition. YAHWEH told Israel to destroy them all but they did not. They were told they would be a thorn in their side and that became true. But the main thing is there father was known by his name to mean “hot or black.” YAHWEH is no respect of person but HE came to each one of Noah’s sons justly to give them a chance to bring their cousins back to HIM! That is what this is truly about, we all had a chance to witness. This time from all nationality that EGW saw-the 144,000 is Israel that have overcome in these last days to complete what was not done by those HE called from each son of Noah.

Blessings!

[Gregory Matthews]

Of course it was the thought of the day.  That does not make it correct.

As to the rest of your post:  O.K.  You are welcome to your thoughts and to post them here.

 

[stinsonmarri]

On 8/2/2017 at 8:03 AM, Gregory Matthews said:

Of course it was the thought of the day.  That does not make it correct.

As to the rest of your post:  O.K.  You are welcome to your thoughts and to post them here.

 

May I kindly ask what does this mean? What was the thought of the day? Why say that my post is ok? Why say I am welcome to post my thoughts when I thought we all had that privileged? Have I offended you in someway because I surely would like to know!

Happy Sabbath!

[Ron Amnsn]

On 8/1/2017 at 9:07 PM, stinsonmarri said:

Well Pastor appears that you are in the time period when you know that this was the thought of the day.

Stinsonmarri, Thank you for summarizing the problems with the erroneous "thought of the day" that was once a normal part of Christian belief in America. 

There are still a number of other erroneous beliefs that are still commonly believed by many Christians today-- beliefs that are also supported by abusing various passages from the Bible just as the erroneous "thought of the day" from previous generations was supported by abusing passages from the Bible, as you have shown.

You quoted one of the abused passages earlier in this topic.  Matthew 23:38  "Behold, your house is left unto you desolate."  This verse is often quoted by those who believe God rejected Israel and reneged on the Sinai covenant.  However, the verse doesn't actually say anything about God rejecting Israel, does it?  Jesus was addressing "Jerusalem, Jerusalem," and was speaking about a house in Jerusalem that was already desolate and would be left desolate "until" Jerusalem says a certain thing (verse 39).  I believe Jesus was referring to a particular prophecy found in Jeremiah 22:1-5 where disobedience would result in desolation of the palace of the King of Judah in Jerusalem and obedience would result in the house of the King of Judah being inhabited by the kings of the house of David, such as Jesus himself (see Luke 1: 32). 

The prevalent Christian "thought of the day" which teaches that God rejected the Israelites is contrary to the original covenant with Israel and contrary to what God said later, even after the Israelites had demonstrated their rebellion and had been sent into captivity.  The disobedience of the people of Israel did not catch God by surprise.  Yet God still said in Jeremiah 33, "23 And the word of the LORD came to Jeremiah, saying, 24 “Have you not observed what this people have spoken, saying, ‘The two families which the LORD chose, He has rejected them’? Thus they despise My people, no longer are they as a nation in their sight. 25 Thus says the LORD, ‘If My covenant for day and night stand not, and the fixed patterns of heaven and earth I have not established, 26 then I would reject the descendants of Jacob and David My servant, not taking from his descendants rulers over the descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. But I will restore their fortunes and will have mercy on them.’ ”  This promise states very clearly the conditions of the promise right within the promise itself.  These conditions depend on God being faithful rather than on Israel being faithful.   The covenant for day and night that is specifically mentioned as a condition for this promise is found in Genesis 8:22 and it still stands (as was demonstrated today and every day).  So we know to this day (and night) that God has not rejected the descendants of Jacob.  The notion that God had replaced the Israelites with "the church" was apparently invented to supposedly give legitimacy to the political church of the Roman empire.

[Gregory Matthews]

Stinsonmarri, as Ron Amnsn has quoted you, it was you that introduced the phrase "thought of the day,' and you considered it to be incorrect.  I agreed with you that your cited point was the thought of the day and I so stated.

Following that, in your post, you made a number of statements at to your thinking and belief.  In my response I let you know that I had read your response.  But, in my response, I did not make any statement as to whether or not I agreed with you.  I simply welcomed your comments.  I do not believe that I need to comment on every point that you or anyone else makes.  You, specifically, are welcome to post here and I do not intend to comment on everything that you post.

 

[stinsonmarri]

Ron Amnsn: You stated: “Stinsonmarri, Thank you for summarizing the problems with the erroneous ‘thought of the day’ that was once a normal part of Christian belief in America.”

I wasn’t referring to that even though you are trying to imply this situation to it and it does not fly!

You stated: "There are still a number of other erroneous beliefs that are still commonly believed by many Christians today-- beliefs that are also supported by abusing various passages from the Bible just as the erroneous ‘thought of the day’ from previous generations was supported by abusing passages from the Bible, as you have shown.”

It appears that you are my friend because you want to make the Israeli’s a part of Israel and they themselves claim they are Ashkenazi’s and oh yeah I know about the other sects. However the above are the predominant group who call themselves Jews. Paul didn’t in his day they were called Hebrews, proof is the book he wrote. If you would be kind and check up on your history you will find how the word Jew came about.

You stated: "You quoted one of the abused passages earlier in this topic.  Matthew 23:38  "Behold, your house is left unto you desolate."  This verse is often quoted by those who believe God rejected Israel and reneged on the Sinai covenant.  However, the verse doesn't actually say anything about God rejecting Israel, does it?  Jesus was addressing "Jerusalem, Jerusalem," and was speaking about a house in Jerusalem that was already desolate and would be left desolate "until" Jerusalem says a certain thing (verse 39).  I believe Jesus was referring to a particular prophecy found in Jeremiah 22:1-5 where disobedience would result in desolation of the palace of the King of Judah in Jerusalem and obedience would result in the house of the King of Judah being inhabited by the kings of the house of David, such as Jesus himself (see Luke 1: 32)."

One thing that the Bible is famous about is symbols: Satan is the dragon/serpent; certain animals are called beasts symbolizing empires; horns-kingdoms, tyrant; water people; wind strife; three, four, seven, ten are also use for symbolic thing, woman is describe as good church and deck woman pagan church etc. There are a lot of symbols and YAHWEH does not leave us ignorant on what they mean so see if you can understand what a house symbolize. Here are the clues:

Even them will I bring to MY Holy Mountain, and make them joyful in MY House of prayer: their burnt offerings and their sacrifices shall be accepted upon MINE altar; for MINE House shall be called an House of prayer for all people. Isa 56:7 

And said unto them, It is written, MY House shall be called THE House of prayer; but ye have made it a den of thieves. Matt 21:13 

And HE taught, saying unto them, Is it not written, MY House shall be called of all nations THE House of prayer? But ye have made it a den of thieves. Mark11:17 

Saying unto them, It is written, MY House is THE House of prayer: but ye have made it a den of thieves. Luke 19:46 

You stated: "The prevalent Christian ‘thought of the day’ which teaches that God rejected the Israelites is contrary to the original covenant with Israel and contrary to what God said later, even after the Israelites had demonstrated their rebellion and had been sent into captivity.  The disobedience of the people of Israel did not catch God by surprise.  Yet God still said in Jeremiah 33, "23 And the word of the LORD came to Jeremiah, saying, 24 “Have you not observed what this people have spoken, saying, ‘The two families which the LORD chose, He has rejected them’? Thus they despise My people, no longer are they as a nation in their sight. 25 Thus says the LORD, ‘If My covenant for day and night stand not, and the fixed patterns of heaven and earth I have not established, 26 then I would reject the descendants of Jacob and David My servant, not taking from his descendants rulers over the descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. But I will restore their fortunes and will have mercy on them.’ ”  This promise states very clearly the conditions of the promise right within the promise itself.  These conditions depend on God being faithful rather than on Israel being faithful.   The covenant for day and night that is specifically mentioned as a condition for this promise is found in Genesis 8:22 and it still stands (as was demonstrated today and every day).  So we know to this day (and night) that God has not rejected the descendants of Jacob." 

Considerest thou not what this people have spoken, saying, the two families which YAHWEH hath chosen, he hath even cast them off? Thus they have despised MY people, that they should be no more a nation before them. Thus saith YAHWEH; if MY Covenant be not with day and night, and if I have not appointed the Ordinances of Heaven and earth; Then will I cast away the seed of Jacob, and David MY servant, so that I will not take any of his seed to be rulers over the seed of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob: for I will cause their captivity to return, and have mercy on them. Jer 33:24-26 

Have you carefully read this? This very passage shows clearly that YAHWEH was about to remove their seed then, but again had mercy on them.

Here are so more Texts I have for you:

These are the words of the covenant, which YAHWEH Commanded Moses to make with the children of Israel in the land of Moab, beside the Covenant which he made with them in Horeb. And Moses called unto all Israel, and said unto them, ye have seen all that YAHWEH did before your eyes in the land of Egypt unto Pharaoh, and unto all his servants, and unto all his land; keep therefore the words of this covenant, and do them, that ye may prosper in all that ye do. Ye stand this day all of you before YAHWEH your ELOHIYM; your captains of your tribes, your elders, and your officers, with all the men of Israel, your little ones, your wives, and thy stranger that is in thy camp, from the hewer of thy wood unto the drawer of thy water: that thou shouldest enter into covenant with YAHWEH thy ELOHIYM, and into HIS Oath, which YAHWEH thy ELOHIYM maketh with thee this day: That HE may establish thee today for a people unto HIMSELF, and that HE may be unto thee a ELOHIYM, as HE hath said unto thee, and as HE hath sworn unto thy fathers, to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob. Neither with you only do I make this covenant and this Oath; But with him that standeth here with us this day before YAHWEH our ELOHIYM, and also with him that is not here with us this day: Lest there should be among you man, or woman, or family, or tribe, whose heart turneth away this day from YAHWEH our ELOHIYM, to go and serve the mighty one (Satan) of these nations; lest there should be among you a root that beareth gall and wormwood; And it come to pass, when he heareth the words of this curse that he bless himself in his heart, saying, I shall have peace, though I walk in the imagination of mine heart, to add drunkenness to thirst: YAHWEH will not spare him, but then the Anger of YAHWEH and his Zealous shall smoke against that man, and all the curses that are written in this book shall lie upon him, and YAHWEH shall blot out his name from under heaven.  And YAHWEH shall separate him unto evil out of all the tribes of Israel, according to all the curses of the covenant that are written in this book of the law: And the anger of YAHWEH was kindled against this land, to bring upon it all the curses that are written in this book: And YAHWEH rooted them out of their land in Anger, and in Wrath, and in great indignation, and cast them into another land, as it is this day. Deut 29:1, 2, 13-15, 18-21, 27, 28

Yea, all Israel have transgressed thy Law, even by departing, that they might not obey THY VOICE; therefore the curse is poured upon us, and the oath that is written in the law of Moses the servant of ELOHIYM, because we have sinned against HIM. Dan 9:11 

Daniel was a student of Jeremiah's prophecies, and understood that the 70 years of captivity for the Israelites had come to an end Jeremiah 25:11-12  The seventy years that Jeremiah had prophesied about had now come to an end with the fall of Babylon. Starting date for this decree is 457 B.C In Daniel 9:2 the angel Gabriel now gives an understanding to part of the 23 hundred day prophecy in Chapter 8. This time is 70weeks if you understand prophetic time. A week have 7 seven days which in prophecy means 7 years so:  Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to Anoint THE MOST HOLY (Daniel 9:24).

This would mean 70 weeks x 7 = 490 years Israel would  be given probation. It started in 457 BC. The 490 years were appointed to the Israel nation. The angel gives a breakdown of the 70 weeks as follows:

• 7 weeks of years for rebuilding of Jerusalem (verse 25) means 49 literal years. 457 BC-408 is the time Israel rebuilds Jerusalem and the earthly Sanctuary.
• 62 weeks of years to THE MESSIAH (verses 25-26) means 434 literal years.  This brings us to "THE MESSIAH THE PRINCE" Anointed by THE HOLY SPIRIT AD 27! Luke 3:21-23 YAHSHUA Said "The time is fulfilled." Mark 1:15
• And HE shall confirm the Covenant (ELOHIYM’S Commandments) with many for one week: and in the midst of the week HE shall cause the sacrifice and oblation to cease Daniel 9:27
• 1 week of years to the close of the period (verse 27) means 7 literal years. YAHSHUA would confirm the Covenant made with Israel for one prophetic week (7 years). Then only the sacrifices (killing of lambs mainly for sacrifices on the burnt altar) and oblation (offerings) would cease in the middle of the week (3 ½ years after 27 AD). 483 years + 457 beginning date = A.D. 26 + 1 year for 1 B.C.-A.D. 1 (there was no zero year) = A.D. 27

This mid-point brings us to 31 AD—the year YAHSHUA was crucified. It was at HIS death that HE put an end to the ritual of sacrifices and offerings practiced by Adam to Israel for so many years and not YAHWEH HIS FATHER'S Holy Convocations. The prophecy next predicted that YAHSHUA would be "cut off," or crucified, in the middle of the last week of the 70-week prophecy. Counting three and one-half years from HIS anointing in the fall of A.D. 27 would take us to the spring of A.D. 31, which is precisely when YAHSHUA was crucified. At the time HE died, the temple veil was torn into two sections from top to bottom (Matthew 27:50, 51), indicating that YAHSHUA had caused the sacrifices and oblations to cease by HIS death as THE LAMB.

YAHSHUA insisted that HIS disciples preach first to the Israel, because they still had three and a half years remaining of their 490-year opportunity to accept and proclaim THE MESSIAH. The prophecy in Daniel 9:27 said that YAHSHUA would confirm the Covenant, or the great Plan of Salvation, with many for one prophetic week (seven literal years). But YAHSHUA was crucified in the midst of that final week allotted to this chosen nation, so how could HE confirm the Covenant with them after HIS death? The answer is found:   

How shall we escape, if we neglect so great Salvation; which at the first began to be spoken by YAHSHUA, and was confirmed unto us by them that heard HIM. Hebrews 2:3

YAHSHUA'S disciples preached to Israel for that final three and a half years, until the nation officially rejected the gospel message in A.D. 34 when Stephen, a righteous deacon, was publicly stoned. After teaching in the temple for several days, YAHSHUA left its precincts for the last time. Again HE was choked with anguish as HE saw the ultimate result again of the people that ELOHIM had chosen and allowed HIS SON to be born through had now apostatized. YAHSHUA exclaimed in Matthew 23:37, 38 that we discuss earlier! The Hebrews nation was eventually destroyed. YAHSHUA had made it very clear that the special status of the Judaic nation of Israel would be taken away if the people persisted in rejecting THE MESSIAH. As a result of not responding to ELOHIM'S call to turn from their abominations, their temple was to be desolated. This prophecy was fulfilled in 70 A.D. when the Roman armies of Titus burned the temple to the ground. This second desolation of the temple perfectly paralleled its first destruction. On both occasions the abominations were done by the apostate people of ELOHIM and the desolation was an act of judgment performed by a unrighteous army that ELOHIM had chosen according to THE FATHER'S WILL and purpose. Because Israel rejected THE MESSIAH they lost their seed as a people know as Hebrews and DNA proves that this claim.

You said: “The notion that God had replaced the Israelites with "the church" was apparently invented to supposedly give legitimacy to the political church of the Roman empire.”

The Catholic Church spread that lie, I do not accept their claim neither does the Bible.

Happy Sabbath and be bless!

[stinsonmarri]

9 hours ago, Gregory Matthews said:

Stinsonmarri, as Ron Amnsn has quoted you, it was you that introduced the phrase "thought of the day,' and you considered it to be incorrect.  I agreed with you that your cited point was the thought of the day and I so stated.

Following that, in your post, you made a number of statements at to your thinking and belief.  In my response I let you know that I had read your response.  But, in my response, I did not make any statement as to whether or not I agreed with you.  I simply welcomed your comments.  I do not believe that I need to comment on every point that you or anyone else makes.  You, specifically, are welcome to post here and I do not intend to comment on everything that you post.

 

Pastor Matthew: I owe you an apology, I truly understand what you mean. It was how people though during that time. May I say it is worst today due to Trump. The Bible and EGW said racism would return and it has! No none of us need to comment on every ones comments, I agree. I still don't understand  the last sentence about me posting here. I've been posting. But anyways when I see I have misunderstood something I try by the Grace of YAHWEH make it right.

Happy Sabbath and be bless!

[phkrause]

I believe Ron you need to read Deuteronomy  28, the blessings of obedience and the curses of disobedience; 29 the exhortation to keep the covenant and the punishment for forsaking the covenant!! You can't tell me that the Israelites did not forsake God?? They kept disobeying and than coming back throughout there history, but they have definitely not comeback to God since just after Jesus died!! And when they stoned Stephen that was the last straw?? The Israel of today is definitely not following in the footsteps of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob or are they?? or even following the Covenant that Moses was speaking to them about in these two chapters??

[Gregory Matthews]

Stinsonmarri:  You are gracious.

 

[Ron Amnsn]

4 hours ago, stinsonmarri said:

It appears that you are my friend because you want to make the Israeli’s a part of Israel and they themselves claim they are Ashkenazi’s and oh yeah I know about the other sects.

I don't have any particular opinion whether the modern-day citizens of the State of Israel are a part of the genetic descendants of Jacob.  I trust that God knows which individuals are genetic heirs to the promises given to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob; and heirs to the promises given to the Israelite nation as a whole; and heirs to the promises given to particular individuals within that nation such as Aaron, Phinehas, and David.  As far as I know, God has not appointed us to judge who is and who is not a legitimate heir or descendant of Jacob.

Because God's covenant with the Israelites contained provisions that would result in individuals being "cut off" from their people, I believe that many genetic descendants of Jacob may have lost their natural inheritance among the Israelites and would need to be grafted back in through faith in Messiah.

Also, from the very beginning God's covenants with Abraham and the Israelites had provisions to include foreigners within those covenants and promises.  God's covenant with Abraham stipulated that the purchased servants/slaves of Abraham's descendants were to receive the sign of the covenant.  That's how I am included in God's covenants and promises-- I am a Gentile that has been purchased by a descendant of Abraham -- Jesus -- He is my Lord and I am his purchased servant/slave -- thus I have become an heir of Abraham.  God's covenant at Sinai also included at its inception the mixed multitude that left Egypt with Moses that joined into the covenant at Sinai along with the Israelite nation.  The commonwealth of the Israelites has always been inclusive.  Examples of that include Rahab of Jericho, Uriah the Hittite, and Ruth the Moabitess.  Even the wives of the 12 sons of Jacob were foreigners -- not descendants of Abraham.

Only about 10% of the citizens of today's State of Israel are considered to be "religious" Jews.  The vast majority of the current citizens of the State of Israel are secular or non-religious.

Because the government and judicial system of the modern State of Israel is mostly non-religious or anti-religious, I don't consider its decisions and judgments to have any more authority in God's eyes than the government of any other nation, except that some of those decisions have more significance because they affect the real estate that God considers to be his own -- where God's name was placed forever -- the Land that was assigned as an inheritance to the descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.   However I do believe that the State of Israel is blessed by God because of the presence there of the natural heirs and descendants of Jacob along with all the grafted-in heirs from many nations-- especially the devout ones, just as the household of Potiphar in Egypt was blessed because of the presence of Joseph.

 

[Ron Amnsn]

4 hours ago, phkrause said:

I believe Ron you need to read Deuteronomy  28, the blessings of obedience and the curses of disobedience; 29 the exhortation to keep the covenant and the punishment for forsaking the covenant!! You can't tell me that the Israelites did not forsake God?? They kept disobeying and than coming back throughout there history, but they have definitely not comeback to God since just after Jesus died!!

Which particular verses in Deuteronomy 28 and 29 do you interpret to mean that the Israelites as a nation could be cut off permanently from the promises and punishments of the covenant? 

I've read it many times and just read it again.  I do not see any provision there that says the nation of the Israelites as a whole could do something that would get them out of their covenant with God.  Do you see a verse there that limits the number of times that Israel could sin or be punished?

When Jesus taught that we should be willing to forgive those who sin against us, what limit did he put on the number of times we should forgive?  Do you think God is willing to forgive the Israelites more times or fewer times than that?

[Ron Amnsn]

4 hours ago, phkrause said:

They kept disobeying and than coming back throughout there history, but they have definitely not comeback to God since just after Jesus died!!

When Elijah complained to God that he was the only faithful prophet left, how many faithful did God say would be left in Israel who had not bowed to baal? Only 7000, yet that was enough to constitute a remnant of faithful Israelites. 

In the book of Acts, how many Jews and Israelites does it say joined the believers?  Were there not more than 7000?  Do you know of a Bible verse that says those tens of thousands of Jews who believed in Jesus did not constitute a faithful remnant of Israelites?

 

[Ron Amnsn]

4 hours ago, phkrause said:

And when they stoned Stephen that was the last straw??

Which passage in the Bible tells us that the stoning of Stephen was the "last straw" for the Israelites ?

Considering that Paul wrote the book of Romans several decades after the stoning of Stephen, what Paul says of the unbelieving Israelites in the present tense at that time seems rather significant, "They are Israelites, and to them belong the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises. To them belong the patriarchs, and from their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ, who is God over all, blessed forever. Amen."  (Romans 9:4-5)

[Ron Amnsn]

5 hours ago, phkrause said:

The Israel of today is definitely not following in the footsteps of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob or are they?? or even following the Covenant that Moses was speaking to them about in these two chapters??

Who are you identifying as "the Israel of today" ?  If you mean the State of Israel, then I would tend to agree with you.

However, I believe that God is keeping track of the descendants of the Israelites who are the heirs of the covenants wherever they may be.  Among those people there are probably at least 7000 that are currently faithful in God's eyes.  There may even be 7000 descendants of the Israelites who are Seventh-day Adventists, if that is significant.  Revelation tells us that there will be 144,000 faithful from the twelve tribes of Israel.  I think that's sufficient faithful Israelites to inherit the covenant that is contained in the Ark of the Covenant that is seen in within God's temple in heaven in Revelation 11:19.