Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Yom Kippur: Israel's Reconciliation
The B'rit Chadasha Pages | 9/29/06 | Michael D. Bugg

Posted on 09/29/2006 8:27:34 AM PDT by Buggman

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 251-292 next last
To: Diego1618; XeniaSt; kerryusama04; HarleyD; 1000 silverlings; jude24; Dr. Eckleburg
You always come back to this false statement. I have showed you time after time this is totally non scriptural....but you persist. You obviously wish this were the case....to support your "Pagan Day of the Sun" theory....but you know it's not.

Denial is not just a river in Egypt.

Of course to you it is a "false statement" since I do not accept the traditions of your cult as truth. But to the 99.9% of Christ's body, the church, who reads the Scriptures plainly it is quite clear that Jesus rose from the dead on the first day of the week.

You would think that if this fact can be so easily contradicted that more than an insignificant handful of folks would believe as you do. But they do not.

With all these bold assertions we should expect this alleged last day resurrection to literally leap off the pages of Scripture. But it does not. It remains merely a theory based on clever Scripture twisting.

101 posted on 10/10/2006 2:11:28 PM PDT by topcat54
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

To: topcat54; kerryusama04; XeniaSt; DouglasKC; Diego1618; 1000 silverlings; jude24; Dr. Eckleburg; ...
First of all, my apologies to everyone for my absence and for the delay in posting the article on Sukkot, the Feast of Tabernacles. My girlfriend was in town (long-distance relationship) for the Feast, and so I did some rearranging of my priorities. I have the notes for Sukkot written up, and hopefully I'll have time tonight to put them together into an article. Everyone's patience is appreciated.

I'm seeing a lot of the same-old, same-old here, so you'll forgive me if I don't go back to hit every line of every post. Instead, I'm going to hit some broad points and some of the specific arguments and questions that have leapt out at me. I'll write an entirely separate post to deal with the issue of sacrifice and answer TC in full on that issue.

I see that once again, TC is running around passing judgment on the Messianic and Sabbatarian segments of the board in defiance of Col. 2:16—and his arguments are mutually contradictory! In post #79, he objects,

God nowhere in His word authorized the church (Jews and gentiles together) to worship on the old covenant last day sabbath, or with the shadows of the new moons and feast days of the Jews.
But in post #88, he appeals to the “universal practice of the church according to the Scripture”! Of course, after numerous requests on numerous threads, he has yet to provide the supposed Scriptural support for this universal practice. God is quite explicit about the proper day of the Sabbath (Exo. 20:10, Deu. 5:14)—in fact, He wrote the day in stone by His own finger, literally. It would take an equally explicit countermand from the Lord Himself in order to change the Sabbath!

Does TC provide any such countermand? No. Instead, he provides only passages into which a change can be read back into (eisegesis, not exegesis). But without a passage clearly making a change in this particular aspect of the Torah, there is no reason to read the passages in the way he does.

For example, he has pointed out that the Resurrection occurred on a Sunday. Okay, and? Is there any passage of Scripture which then goes on today, “And therefore the Lord commanded that the Sabbath be observed henceforth on the first day”? If not, then why should we read such an interpretation back into the event? This is a clear case of twisting Scripture in order to uphold a tradition of men.

Second, he’s pointed to Sha’ul’s nighttime speech in Troas (Acts 20:7). Again, TC is guilty of committing eisegesis: While it’s true that this passage says that the brethren were gathered together to break bread “upon the first day of the week,” again, one must ask, “So what?” First of all, the Biblical day begins at sundown, not at daybreak or midnight (Gen. 1:5, Lev. 23:5, Lev. 23:32, etc.), and therefore this meeting which continued “until midmight” would have been taking place on Saturday night by our calendar, not Sunday night as some have imagined. Secondly, there is no reason to connect the coming together to break bread with the Sabbath—“to break bread” simply meant that they gathered together to eat and in this case to hear Sha’ul’s last words before he departed.

Again, there is no reason to take this oblique statement as overturning the direct command to keep the seventh-day Sabbath. Only a person who sets out to defend a pre-existing tradition of men could read it as such.

And third, TC ironically appeals to the aforementioned Col. 2:16. He claims that it is written to address the Judaizers. This does not hold up to the context of the passage. In v. 8, we read the setup: “Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Messiah.” “Rudiments” here is stoicheia (from stoicheion, Strong’s #4747), which means “elements” and is explained in v. 20 to mean, “the elements of the world” which Sha’ul further elaborates to be equivalent to “the commandments and doctrines of men” (v. 22). This by definition excludes the Torah, of which he writes, “For we know that the Torah is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin” (Rom. 7:14), and “Wherefore the Torah is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good (7:12).

The Torah (i.e., the commandments of the Torah) was given by God Himself—it is therefore sheer blasphemy to say that anything the Torah commands is “the commandments and doctrines of men.”

What then is he talking about, if not about the Torah? Two possibilities suggest themselves:

First, that he is not referring to believers being judged in regard to the actual commands of the Torah, but on the extra-Biblical traditions of the rabbis. This would make this passage parallel with Mat. 15, in which the Pharisees judge the disciples of Yeshua HaMashiach not based on the violation of an actual command of the Torah, but because they were not obeying the extra-Biblical tradition of ritually washing their hands before eating. It should be noted that they did not make the same criticism of Yeshua Himself, which means that He was keeping the tradition personally, but that He still condemned them for judging His disciples based on “the commandments of men” (v. 9) and pointed out where their own transgression violated the actual Scriptures (vv. 4ff).

It is entirely possible that Sha’ul was dealing with a similar situation, in which the Gentile believers were being condemned by some of the non-believing Jews, not for violating the actual commands of the Torah in regards to God’s Appointed Times, but for not keeping them in the fashion of Jewish tradition. One can easily imagine a Gentile being condemned for walking more than the half-mile “Sabbath’s day journey” allowed by the rabbis in order to attend service on a Friday evening, for example, or not saying the “correct” traditional prayers on the Feasts and new moons—especially if the Gentile believers were actively adapting and creating songs and liturgy to reflect their belief in Christ.

Indeed, as I’ve mentioned before, it’s also possible that whether they wanted to or not, many Gentile believers simply couldn’t observe the Sabbaths of both the week and the Feasts due to their situations: A slave did not get to claim time off, nor indeed did many freemen have that option. However, if such was the situation and the intent of Sha’ul’s letter, such did not represent the abrogation of all the Feastdays—for we see throughout the book of Acts that Sha’ul and the other Apostles continued to observe them—but a mercy extended to the Gentiles, a reassurance that their “circumcision without hands” sealed their salvation despite their inability to keep all of God’s commands. That would say nothing about whether a person who has the luxury of keeping God’s Appointed Times should or not, let alone whether those who desire to “may.”

However, the context does not seem to make this Sha’ul’s primary intent, which brings us to our second possible interpretation: That Sha’ul was speaking of judgment being passed by pagans, not by Jews.

Stoicheia, the elements, can also bear the meaning, “the elemental spirits.” As John MacArthur gives a fair presentation of the two possible translations when he writes :

b) Rudiments of the World

That is not an easy term to determine because there are several possibilities. Let me give you a general idea of what Paul had in mind.

(1) ELEMENTAL RUDIMENTS

In its literal sense, the term refers to the basic elements of learning. Rudiments would be like learning ABC's. It literally means "things in a column," or "things in a row" (i.e., 1, 2, 3, or a, b, c). Paul says that those are the rudimentary principles of instruction for childhood and not adequate for mature adults.

The thought of Paul is this: To return to philosophy would be to cast away the mature teaching of the Bible for the infantile poverty- stricken opinions of an immature religion drawing its being from this world and not God. The same phraseology is used in Galatians 4:3, "Even so we, when we were children, were in bondage under the elements of the world [The elementary teaching of human religion]" (cf. Heb. 5:12). In Galatians, Paul was referring to the Jews' religion; in Colossians, he is referring to the religions of the Gentiles. And what is the elementary teaching of human religion? Salvation is by works. Where does that philosophy come from? It comes from tradition--perpetuated error--and from man's infantile, primer religion. It isn't some advanced, deep, new, profound spiritual knowledge. The really advanced people are those who know the Word of God.

(2) ELEMENTAL SPIRITS

The phrase "rudiments of the world" has a second possible meaning in the ancient world, although I would guess that the first meaning I gave you is probably the one Paul had in mind. It could also refer to elemental spirits--spirit beings. The people of that day were bound up in associating spirits with the stars and the planets. They were heavily involved in astrology. It's amazing that people today think that astrology is something new when it's the same old rudiments of the world.

For example, Julius Caesar was an astrology buff who governed his whole life by what the stars told him. Alexander the Great ruled his life in the same way. They were both devout believers in the influence of the stars. People who believed in those elemental spirits were in the grip of a rigid kind of determinism that was set by the stars. The influence of those spirits through those stars dominated their lives.

It was said that there was only one way of escape: You were an absolute prisoner of the stars and the spirits unless you knew the right passwords or formulas in order to escape the fatalism built into the stars. It was said that you had to have a secret knowledge--a secret teaching. So along came the false teachers who said, "We have the secret teaching that can relieve you from the fatalistic determinism of the stars. Jesus Christ can't save you from the spirits in the stars and planets. We have the secret information for that." Some of the people in the Colossian church had probably been involved in that kind of system. Even when they were saved out of that system, they still might have had lingering thoughts about it. They might have been tempted to say, "What if these teachers are right?"

But Paul warned them (and us) to be constantly aware of the false truth--that which is just human tradition. It is perpetuated ignorance--infantile, inadequate human religion of the past being revived. We have Christ; God is enough.

Though not absolutely required, the latter interpretation definitely seems to be favored by the context, in which Sha’ul emphasizes that the Messiah “is the head of all principality and power” (v. 10) and “having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a shew of them openly, triumphing over them in [the cross]” (v. 15). It’s also supported by the mention of “the worship of angels” (v. 18) and asceticism (v. 23), neither of which were nominal Jewish practices in the first century. The entirety of the passage is written around assuring the Colossian Christians that the old gods and spirits who once dominated their lives had no more power over them, for they were fully in the Messiah Yeshua, baptized with Him in death, and raised to live in Him, forgiven of all sins. It would seem odd to suddenly take a swipe at the “Judaizers”—on the contrary, Sha’ul is telling them not to let themselves from being dissuaded in joining with their Jewish brothers and sisters in celebrating “an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the Sabbath” just because the stars weren’t right!

The very most that our Sunday brethren can glean from this verse is a reiteration of the idea conveyed in Rom. 14, that we should not judge each other on matters of holy days and kosher—but if that’s the case, that’s a two-way street.

TC wants it to be a one-way street, where everyone who doesn’t do everything exactly the way he does, according to the traditions of his particular denomination, is proclaimed a heretic and a cultist. That’s most Pharisaical of him.

It is most telling how often TC appeals to “the New Testament” as if it were in opposition to instead of the continuance of the Tanakh. Marcion would be proud. No doubt many here have wondered why I continually refer to the Hebrew Scriptures as the Tanakh (an acronym for the Hebrew words for Torah, Prophets (Nevi’im, and Writings (Ketuvim)) instead of the Old Testament. This illustrates precisely why: The “Old Covenant” referred to in Hebrews is neither the Tanakh nor the Torah nor the legal part of the Torah—it is the promise all Israel made to keep all of the Lord’s commandments under their own power (Exo. 24:7), “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 (Jer. 31:32, Heb. 8:9).

By referring to the Hebrew and Apostolic Scriptures as the “Old” and “New” Testaments/Covenants, we confuse the issue, and make it sound as if the NT was written to supercede the Old. But Yeshua did not come to destroy the Torah or the Prophets, but to make them complete (Mat. 5:17-19) and the New Covenant did not come with a promise to take away the Torah but to write it on our hearts (Jer. 31:33).

102 posted on 10/10/2006 3:38:08 PM PDT by Buggman (http://brit-chadasha.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: topcat54; kerryusama04; XeniaSt; DouglasKC; Diego1618; 1000 silverlings; jude24; Dr. Eckleburg; ...
Okay, on to the issue of the Levite priesthood. Again, I’ll begin by emphasizing that this issue is tangential to the question of whether the Feasts of the Lord, including the Sabbath, should still be celebrated.

Post #70:
In the new covenant all the saints are priests of God (Rev. 5:10).

This just proves that you don’t bother to actually read the Tanakh—and that is why your understanding of the New Testament is so flawed. In the Old (that is, Mosaic) covenant, all Israel was “a kingdom of priests” (Exo. 19:6) as well. Did that make every Israelite a Levitical priest? Hardly.

To take them literally . . . an artificial literalism . . .”

Yes, I believe that the Scriptures mean what they say. A pity you don’t.

Why would God give the Jewish John the Revelator a vision of a pyramid?

I don’t know that He did; I suspect that He may have, based on reasons that are outside our scope here to go into. I was just pointing out the fallacy of making assumptions based on the “square” dimensions of the New Jerusalem and then building doctrine upon those assumptions. I don’t mind kicking this around with you, but I’m not going to build an argument about the Levitical priesthood based on it.

Here’s a snippet for you to consider: “But ye are come unto Mount Zion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels” (Heb. 12:22). Assuming that “the heavenly Jerusalem” is one and the same with the New Jerusalem, in what sense is it a “Mount” if its shape is cubical?

Moreover, you contradict yourself by trying to draw comparisons between Ezekiel 40-47 and the NJ—the former describes a Temple and its service in detail, the latter has “no temple therein: for the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are the temple of it” (Rev. 21:22). The same passage would seem to preclude the idea of the NJ being a type of the Holy of Holies.

Remember what the Temple was: A place for the Lord YHVH to meet with His people on the earth and dwell among them. If you object to the idea of there being a Temple after the Second Coming, one has to ask just what you would call the building in which the Lord Yeshua will dwell when He rules bodily upon the earth?

Anyway, speculation about the age after the Millennium is fun, but ultimately futile, since the Bible simply does not provide us with enough data on it other than that all sin and sadness and death will be done away with.

Given this understanding it seems far more likely that Rev. 21 has the temple as its backdrop rather than a pagan symbol like a pyramid.

I personally think the pagans ripped off the idea of the pyramid from an ancient knowledge of the Mount of Assembly, the Mountain of God, not the other way around. In any case, since I think that the NJ is the spiritual reality of which the whole of Mt. Zion, (i.e., Jerusalem) not just the Temple at its peak, symbolizes, something that looks like a mountain makes a lot of sense to me.

These are obviously non-literal images depicting spiritual reality. The new Jerusalem is not really a physically construct literally a cube overlayed with gold and miles on a side.

Ah, there’s that word again: Literal. You know, when God describes a place using real measurements, I see no reason not to expect Him to make it exactly as He has said. Yes, certainly there is much symbolic in the details we are given, but in the Bible, the existence of a symbol has never meant that there is no literal fulfillment as well: We are raised with the Messiah symbolically and spiritually, but we will also be raised with Him physically, for example.

Post #72:
But nothing based on racial distinctions.

It’s amazing to me how obsessed you Calvinists are with race. It’s also amazing how offended you are at the idea that God might elect a particular family to a particular role—which you don’t particularly want anyway. What, was God racist for electing the family of David to bring forth the Messiah, thereby electing David’s “race” to the throne of Israel forever? Was He racist for only calling Jews to be Apostles? How then do you get offended that God might also elect the family of Phinehas and Zadok to serve the Messiah in the Temple after His Second Coming? Isn’t God sovereign? Can He not fashion vessels according to His own purpose? If He wants to take a particular lump of clay and fashion it to a unique calling, what is that to you, O Man?

It’s not as if I am saying that only Levites or only born Jews are saved—the election of purpose is separate from the election of salvation. Nor am I saying that you do not have a priesthood—you do, as indeed all Israel, into whom you are grafted, is “a kingdom of priests.” But in case you haven’t gotten this yet, there is more than one order of priesthood; indeed, there are at least three: Melchizedek, Israel, and Aaron. Are you envious at another man’s priesthood? You might as well be envious that you are not a prophet or an apostle.

Buggman points to Jer. 33 as somehow endorsing this view, but it's interesting to alo read Isaiah 66:19-21 where we see God raising up "Levites" even from among the gentiles.

That’s one possible interpretation; however, it could just as easily be read as meaning that God will take of the Israelites that the Gentiles bring to Him (cf. vv. 18-20) for priests and Levites, not the Gentiles. In this case, God would simply be restoring those born of the house of Phinehas and Zadok back to their proper roles, in keeping with those passages which show that He still keeps track of who belongs to which tribe (Rev. 7) and which family (Zec. 12:12ff).

But let’s say that your interpretation is correct and that God will pronounce some Gentiles to be Levites and priests. Would this in any way annul His promise to Phinehas that “he shall have it, and his seed after him, even the covenant of an everlasting priesthood” (Num. 25:13) or to Zadok that “these [in the Millennial Temple] are the sons of Zadok among the sons of Levi, which come near to YHVH to minister unto Him” (Ezk. 40:46)? No; rather, these Gentiles would be “grafted into” the tribe of Levi, being added to the natural branches, not replacing them.

Neither interpretation changes in the least the promise that there will always be Levites (plural) to offer sacrifices before the Lord. Indeed, you’ve not even attempted to present a workable alternative interpretation; you’ve just claimed that I’m being “too literal.” So says the homosexual confronted with “You shall not lie with a man as with a woman; it is an abomination,” and the universalist confronted with, “I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life. No man comes unto the Father except through Me.”

All heresies ultimately have at their root the allegorization of Scripture.

Oh, and while we’re quoting Isaiah, perhaps you should finish reading the chapter: “And it shall come to pass, that from one new moon to another, and from one Sabbath to another, shall all flesh come to worship before Me, saith YHVH” (v. 23). Read Isa. 56 while you’re at it.

If you believe Isa. 66 to be a picture of the present age, when the Gentiles are being gathered to the Lord (v. 18)—not that this is the correct interpretation, but let’s follow your logic to its conclusion—then should you not be coming to worship before God specifically on the new moons and the Sabbaths as it says?

103 posted on 10/10/2006 3:38:58 PM PDT by Buggman (http://brit-chadasha.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: topcat54; Diego1618; kerryusama04; HarleyD; 1000 silverlings; jude24; Dr. Eckleburg

Let's actually look at the text and not guess what it says.

"Now on the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul, ready to depart the next day, spoke to them and continued his message until midnight."

It explicitly says they came together "on the first day of the week." It does not say they were gathered on the last day and then lingered on into the first day.

97 posted on 10/10/2006 2:51:55 PM MDT by topcat54

I'm not sure what kind of a cult you belong to,
but we followers of Y'shua the Anointed
read the Holy Word of G-d in context.
We do not cherry pick verses out of context and
apply Eisegesis to the selected verse.
Acts 20:6 We sailed from Philippi after the days of Unleavened Bread,
and came to them at Troas within five days; and there we stayed seven days.

Acts 20:7 On the first day of the week, when we were gathered together
to break bread, Paul {began} talking to them, intending to leave the next day,
and he prolonged his message until midnight.

Acts 20:8 There were many lamps in the upper room where we were gathered together.

Read the selected verses with the Ruach haKadosh removing the scales
from your eyes and tell me if Rav Shaul celebrated Pesach and Shabbat.
b'shem Y'shua
104 posted on 10/10/2006 4:14:22 PM PDT by Uri’el-2012 (Psalm 144:1 Praise be to YHvH, my Rock, who trains my hands for war, my fingers for battle.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: topcat54; HarleyD; 1000 silverlings; jude24; Dr. Eckleburg; XeniaSt; Diego1618; kerryusama04; ...
OK, Sunday-keepers. It is time to shift gears. I am absolutely curious, especially HarleyD and TC, how do you square the following scriptures. I will even use the NKJV so we can all be on the same page, well at least for a minute.

Mat 5:17 Do not think that I have come to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I have not come to destroy but to fulfill. Mat 5:18 For truly I say to you, Till the heaven and the earth pass away, not one jot or one tittle shall in any way pass from the Law until all is fulfilled. Mat 5:19 Therefore whoever shall relax one of these commandments, the least, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of Heaven. But whoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of Heaven. Mat 5:20 For I say to you that unless your righteousness shall exceed that of the scribes and Pharisees, you shall in no case enter into the kingdom of Heaven.

Mat 7:21 Not everyone who says to Me, Lord! Lord! shall enter the kingdom of Heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in Heaven. Mat 7:22 Many will say to Me in that day, Lord! Lord! Did we not prophesy in Your name, and through Your name throw out demons, and through Your name do many wonderful works? Mat 7:23 And then I will say to them I never knew you! Depart from Me, those working lawlessness!

2Co 6:14 Do not be unequally yoked together with unbelievers; for what fellowship does righteousness have with lawlessness? And what partnership does light have with darkness? 2Co 6:15 And what agreement does Christ have with Belial? Or what part does a believer have with an unbeliever? 2Co 6:16 And what agreement does a temple of God have with idols? For you are the temple of the living God, as God has said, "I will dwell in them and walk among them; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people." 2Co 6:17 Therefore come out from among them and be separated, says the Lord, and do not touch the unclean thing. And I will receive you 2Co 6:18 and I will be a Father to you, and you shall be My sons and daughters, says the Lord Almighty.

2Th 2:7 For the mystery of lawlessness is already working, only he is now holding back until it comes out of the midst. 2Th 2:8 And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the breath of His mouth and shall destroy with the brightness of His coming, 2Th 2:9 whose coming is according to the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders, 2Th 2:10 and with all deceit of unrighteousness in those who perish, because they did not receive the love of the truth, so that they might be saved. 2Th 2:11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie, 2Th 2:12 so that all those who do not believe the truth, but delight in unrighteousness, might be condemned.

1Jo 3:4 Everyone who practices sin also practices lawlessness, for sin is lawlessness.

How do y'all square your theologies which are squarely in opposition to God's Law with the above scriptures? And how do you square you doctrines, especially TC's, which are rife with the commandments of men and very light on scripture?

Mat 15:9 But in vain they worship Me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men." 2Ti 4:3 For a time will be when they will not endure sound doctrine, but they will heap up teachers to themselves according to their own lusts, tickling the ear. 2Ti 4:4 And they will turn away their ears from the truth and will be turned to myths.

Eph 4:13 And this until we all come into the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a full-grown man, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ; Eph 4:14 so that we no longer may be infants, tossed to and fro and carried about by every wind of doctrine, in the dishonesty of men, in cunning craftiness, to the wiles of deceit.

105 posted on 10/10/2006 6:48:23 PM PDT by kerryusama04 (Isa 8:20, Eze 22:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: kerryusama04; HarleyD; 1000 silverlings; jude24; Dr. Eckleburg; XeniaSt; Diego1618
OK, Sunday-keepers. It is time to shift gears. I am absolutely curious, especially HarleyD and TC, how do you square the following scriptures. I will even use the NKJV so we can all be on the same page, well at least for a minute.

[Mat 5:17-20]

Matthew 5:17-20 seems to be the heart of the issue. I've asked this before, but I'm not sure I recall the answer, how does anyone square the language of Matt. 5 with, for example, the book of Hebrews esp. with respect to all the laws regarding the sacrifices and the Levitical priesthood? How do you square Matt. 5 with regard to the law being a "shadow" (Heb. 10:1)?

Unles you say that absolutely nothing has changed from old covenant to new covenant, then Matt. 5 is really not an issue. All we are doing is arguing over the details of what has changed and what as not.

Seems to me that "Sunday keepers" as you call us are in more more trouble with Matt. 5 (or any of the other verses you quoted) than anyone who does all the old covenant laws precisely as they are written down in the Old Testament.

Perhaps if you can point out specifically where in these passage "Sunday keepers" are in trouble, but those who do not keep kosher or sacrifice small animals or celebrate "new moon" festivals on a regular basis are not, then I would say you may have a point.

106 posted on 10/11/2006 9:11:36 AM PDT by topcat54
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: XeniaSt; Diego1618; kerryusama04; HarleyD; 1000 silverlings; jude24; Dr. Eckleburg
Acts 20:6 We sailed from Philippi after the days of Unleavened Bread, and came to them at Troas within five days; and there we stayed seven days.

Quoting verses but not telling use what they mean in conmtext is really not very interesting. That simple statement does not tell you anything about what we may or may not have done wrt the particulars of President's Day. Likewise, simply mentioned "Unleavened Bread" may be nothing mnore than a reference to days on a calendar. (That is commonly how folks told time back in those days.) But we know thing else from the context.

Now I'm sure according to you eisegesis you read all sorts of things into the verse regarding what Paul and the others did on those actuals days. But that would be all speculation, now wouldn't it? The context does not help you out.

I appreciate your zeal, but the fact remains as I have stated it. The is no observance of the Jewish sabbath or other Jewish holy days by baptized members of the church, Jews and gentiles together, anywhere in the NT.

107 posted on 10/11/2006 9:22:00 AM PDT by topcat54
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: Buggman; kerryusama04; XeniaSt; DouglasKC; Diego1618; 1000 silverlings; jude24; Dr. Eckleburg
Marcion would be proud.

Since we can't seem to get past the labels, I'll will, once again, say "have a nice day". A much as I would like to share with folks who might be really seaching, it's obviously not worth my time to do it in this sort of setting.

108 posted on 10/11/2006 9:34:25 AM PDT by topcat54
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: XeniaSt; Diego1618; kerryusama04; HarleyD; 1000 silverlings; jude24; Dr. Eckleburg
I wrote, "Quoting verses but not telling use what they mean in conmtext is really not very interesting. That simple statement does not tell you anything about what we may or may not have done wrt the particulars of President's Day."

There is a section missing due to some bad html.

It should have read:

Quoting verses but not telling use what they mean in context is really not very interesting.

The fact that Luke mentions the Jewish feast day is as simple and unassuming as saying, "We went to visit grandmother on President's Day", rather than "We went to visit grandmother on Febraury 20th".

That simple statement does not tell you anything about what we may or may not have done wrt the particulars of President's Day.

Sorry for the confusion.
109 posted on 10/11/2006 9:44:10 AM PDT by topcat54
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: topcat54; kerryusama04; XeniaSt; DouglasKC; Diego1618; 1000 silverlings; jude24; Dr. Eckleburg
Once again, we see that you can't take what you dish out. You have called me a Judaizer--and in the past, a Gnostic and six other types of heretic--have referred to all Sabbatarians as cultists, and have said, "Christians do not keep the Sabbath" by way of excluding all of us--and all of the Messianic Jews who lived between the first and fourth centuries--from Christian fellowship.

Sorry TC, but you don't get to play the victim here. Nor do you get to claim to be some font of wisdom that we might all "share" in. You've not shared anything of value to the study in either thread--you've just shared your objections that we are having the study at all.

I hope you join back in someday, I really do. But I hope that when you do, you come to discuss the Scriptures, not cast judgment on everyone who has a different opinion about interpretation and practice than you.

110 posted on 10/11/2006 10:00:20 AM PDT by Buggman (http://brit-chadasha.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: topcat54; HarleyD; 1000 silverlings; jude24; Dr. Eckleburg; XeniaSt; Diego1618; Buggman
Matthew 5:17-20 seems to be the heart of the issue. I've asked this before, but I'm not sure I recall the answer, how does anyone square the language of Matt. 5 with, for example, the book of Hebrews esp. with respect to all the laws regarding the sacrifices and the Levitical priesthood? How do you square Matt. 5 with regard to the law being a "shadow" (Heb. 10:1)?

No, TC, all the scriptures I cited in post 105 have a common theme - The Law. What you reference regarding Levitical Laws have been covered time and time again. The animal sacrifices were required for the forgiveness of sin prior to Christ. Christ fulfilled that part. Sin remains, obviously, but Christ's sacrifice once for all is the fulfillment part of 5:17. Another part, that is a continuation of this fulfillment, is that we confess our sins directly to the Lord now, thus we don't need the priesthood.

Now, if sin remains, and sin is the transgression of the Law, then the Law remains. How do you define the Law? Christ warns us to not break "these least Commandments" and especially not to teach men to do so. What can possibly be considered "these least Commandments" if not the 10 Commandments spoken by God directly to the Chosen People and written in stone by His finger? Revelation says the remnant keep the Commandments of God and the testimony of Jesus Christ. What can possibly be the Commandments of God if not the 10 Commandments. I'm open to it being more, but it simply cannot be less than those precious 10.

Paul writes that the brethren are to work out their own salvation with fear and trembling. Aren't you the least bit worried about your salvation? What is your definition of "lawlessness"? Do you really want to bank your afterlife on the "penumbra of an emanation" of scripture that is Sunday worship?

And please refrain from answering by quoting some theologian. I want to know what it is you believe. Most of us on the right side of this issue have bared our theology for all the world to see. Let us see yours now.

111 posted on 10/11/2006 5:44:02 PM PDT by kerryusama04 (Isa 8:20, Eze 22:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: topcat54; Buggman; kerryusama04; XeniaSt; DouglasKC; Diego1618; 1000 silverlings; jude24; ...
Since we can't seem to get past the labels,

Oh, man, that is rich. Here's to me "virtually" puting on sackcloth and sprinkling ashes on my head.


112 posted on 10/11/2006 5:55:18 PM PDT by kerryusama04 (Isa 8:20, Eze 22:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: topcat54; kerryusama04; DouglasKC; Buggman; XeniaSt
The fact that Luke mentions the Jewish feast day is as simple and unassuming as saying, "We went to visit grandmother on President's Day", rather than "We went to visit grandmother on February 20th".

So, the fact that Paul says "Therefore, let us keep the Feast" [1 Corinthians 5:7-8].....the very same feast Luke is speaking of in Acts 20:6, means nothing to you. God's sacred Holy Days are simply "Over the river and through the woods....to Grandmother's house we don't go"!

But, just wait until Christmas. Then we'll honor God by having drunken parties, decorating with pagan symbols, and buying gifts for everyone.....except the one we're supposed to be honoring. God will understand....just like when we ignored his Festivals and Sabbaths. He knows his Holy Days mean nothing to the modern Christian. He'll understand............

113 posted on 10/11/2006 7:19:24 PM PDT by Diego1618
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: Diego1618; topcat54; kerryusama04; DouglasKC; XeniaSt
Guys, I hate to do this, but we need to reign in a couple of things here.

First, salvation is by God's grace received in faith (trust), not by keeping the seventh-day Sabbath or any other Feastday, so kerry's question, "Aren't you the least bit worried about your salvation?" is out of line. TC honestly believes that we are to gather on Sunday--he's honestly mistaken, but he's honest nevertheless--and he does love the Lord and trust the same Messiah that we do for the forgiveness of his sins. We don't need to make the error of turning this into a salvational issue.

Second, since the Lord has shown so much grace to those of us who know and accept that His Torah is still fully in effect and yet still fall short of keeping it, we should be equally graceful to those who have been mistaught about its significance.

It was years after the first time I celebrated Passover and the first time I realized the significance of Mat. 5:17-19 before I reached the point of being able to give up my (then) twenty-seven years of Protestant tradition and emotional attachment to, for example, Christmas. My parents, though they acknowledge intellectually that I am right about the Torah, have even more nostalgia for their family traditions to overcome, and haven't reached the point of doing so yet. To them, Christmas has always been a time full of worship and Christian symbolism, not the pagan celebration that it has in its origins. Yet they too love the Lord, and live for Him, and have been extraordinarily supportive of my calling--indeed, they join me in keeping every Feastday of the Lord.

So let's not descend to the level of questioning another's salvation or commitment to the Lord over an area of honest disagreement--or questioning the honesty of that disagreement. If the Lord has convicted TC or anyone else by His Spirit on this matter and they have turned away, that's between them and the Lord, not for us to try to judge from the outside.

Our job is simply to teach the Word and live in it.

114 posted on 10/11/2006 8:09:04 PM PDT by Buggman (http://brit-chadasha.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: Buggman; Diego1618; topcat54; kerryusama04; DouglasKC; XeniaSt
Guys, I hate to do this, but we need to reign in a couple of things here.

Reasearch, Mike, research.

From Google

And here on one of your threads.

It is obvious to even the most casual reader that following the Law does not save anyone. For instance, not stealing cars will not earn you a good result at the Resurrection. No sleeping with your neighbor's wife will not earn your place in the Kingdom. Keeping 52 Sabbaths a year and the Holy Days will not earn your salvation. If it could, then we would not have needed a Saviour. The gift of salvation is free, and one must accept it. Obedience to God's Law is the product of faith.

TC, I am eager to see your response to my earlier post. Let us move the discussion to the next level. We have been hashing this out for too long now. Surely, I will be able to learn something from you.

115 posted on 10/11/2006 10:19:20 PM PDT by kerryusama04 (Isa 8:20, Eze 22:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies]

To: kerryusama04; topcat54; HarleyD; 1000 silverlings; jude24; Dr. Eckleburg; XeniaSt; Diego1618; ...
Christ warns us to not break "these least Commandments" and especially not to teach men to do so. What can possibly be considered "these least Commandments" if not the 10 Commandments spoken by God directly to the Chosen People and written in stone by His finger?

Rarely do I get involve in these types of conversations and I have not closely followed this conversation. If a person wants to worship on Saturday or Sunday, it doesn't matter-or it shouldn't matter. What I see is a hidden belief that if one does not worship on Saturday, they are transgressing the Law of God. Isn't this correct?

Let's take this a step further. It is being said that we are required to keep the Ten Commandments. Now this is different than simply worshiping on Saturday and has progressed to the next level. We're not only require to go to church on Saturday, according to the Law, but now we are required to keep the Ten Commandments. Sounds OK so far, and it is hard to argue with the fact that we should not murder but, as the TV commercial exclaims, "There's more."

The dietary laws are not part of the Ten Commandments. Yet we are also told that we should observe these commands as well. These don't seem to be as important as the other laws which should be more rigirously enforced. Now we have moved from the Ten Commandments to saying all (or some) 613 laws are in full effect. Yet it seems upon the whim of individuals which of these 613 laws should be in effect. Are people saying that all Christians are required to follow these as well? If it is just "whatever God lays upon your heart" then what is the discussion for?

The problem in all of this goes back to worshiping on Saturday or Sunday. If you wish to go on record as saying this is part of the Law, then, as the progression shows all 613 laws are in full effect. If this is true then it is a very serious matter for those who do not follow these laws are willfully (or out of ignorance) breaking God's commandments. Furthermore, those Messianic Jews who don't follow all 613 Laws are willfully breaking them unless they have some sort of Biblical justification (it better be good) for not following them.

This creates a dilemma. Are the Messianic Jews prepared to tell the rest of us we are willfully breaking God's Laws? Isn't this legalism?

116 posted on 10/12/2006 5:28:53 AM PDT by HarleyD ("Man's steps are ordained by the Lord, How then can man understand his way?" Prov 20:24)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: Diego1618
So, the fact that Paul says "Therefore, let us keep the Feast" [1 Corinthians 5:7-8].....the very same feast Luke is speaking of in Acts 20:6,

I already dealt what that issue here. It is plain from the context of 1 Cor. 5, 10 and 11 that Paul is not referecing the literal keeping of the old covenant feast of the Jews, since he spiritualizes the enterre discussion with phrases like "Christ is our Passover" and "unleavened bread of sincerity and truth". There is no literal bread or passover sacrifice in view in that passage at all. So Luke and Paul are no speaking of the same "feast". One is carnal and of the Jews. One is spiritual and of the Christian body.

But, just wait until Christmas. Then we'll honor God by having drunken parties

What do you mean "we", Kimosabe? I didn't take you for a Christmas keeper. And as for me, I've made my views on that subject of Christian "holy days" very clear. So, try another tune. That one is a bit off key.

117 posted on 10/12/2006 6:25:32 AM PDT by topcat54
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: HarleyD
This creates a dilemma. Are the Messianic Jews prepared to tell the rest of us we are willfully breaking God's Laws? Isn't this legalism?

I am simply curious to know how your theology squares with the scriptures in Post 105. If lawlessnes is a bad thing, then how do you define lawfullness? For two weeks now (more like 18 months), I have been on the defensive and operating under the unspoken assumption that Sabbatarianism is wrong and having to prove point after point using scripture. I belive that the scriptures I posted prove that the Sabbath remains for the Christian, but you guys still say I'm wrong. Please, then show me the error of my ways. Bring me back into the fold as it were. Using only scripture, show me plain evidence that I am wrong so that I can stop making a fool of myself (OK, that's a stretch).

118 posted on 10/12/2006 7:13:16 AM PDT by kerryusama04 (Isa 8:20, Eze 22:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]

To: kerryusama04; Diego1618; topcat54; DouglasKC; XeniaSt
Obedience to God's Law is the product of faith.

And that is in fact the key to walking between legalism and dead faith. Thank you for offering the clarification.

Now, if TC is knowingly and purposefully violating a commandment of God, then there's a bit of a problem there, to put it mildly--no one doubts that. But that's not (at least as far as any of us can tell via computer) what's happening here; rather, this is a debate about what those commandments are, which are still in effect, and which if any have been annulled or changed by the New Covenant. TC has, we believe, been taught erroniously, and we're trying to correct that by saying, "Look, forget your tradition for a moment; what does the Scripture say?" But we all have to recognize that it's very hard to not read back into Scripture that which you've been taught your entire life. I know how long it took the Spirit to bring me around.

So let's not even imply that this is a salvational issue; it's not. Rather, this is a discussion about how we should walk with God after we are already saved. One does not lose or invalidate one's salvation by faith by having the wrong theology; sins of ignorance are covered by the Sacrifice (Lev. 4).

If we so much as imply otherwise--and I know that wasn't your intent, kerry, but that's how it read to me, and I know you better than that--then we fall into the wrong.

119 posted on 10/12/2006 7:27:11 AM PDT by Buggman (http://brit-chadasha.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

To: HarleyD; kerryusama04; topcat54; 1000 silverlings; jude24; Dr. Eckleburg; XeniaSt; Diego1618
If a person wants to worship on Saturday or Sunday, it doesn't matter-or it shouldn't matter.

As a matter of technical obedience to the Word of God, I agree. Nowhere does Torah specifically mandate "a holy convocation" on the Sabbath as it does, for example, Yom Kippur. The command for the Sabbath, rather, is to set it apart from the rest of the week and rest. Within that command it is certainly appropriate and right to follow our Lord's example and set the Sabbath apart by gathering to worship and learn from God's Word on that day (Luke 4:16), but it's no more wrong to gather to worship on Sunday than it is to gather and worship on Wednesday. Heck, one of the discussions at Beth HaMashiach is whether to start a "Resurrection Day" service.

So the issue is not principally about which day we should set to gather together--though doubtless our conclusions on the real issue will have an impact on our attitudes there--but about whether God has ever annuled or changed the command to set apart and rest the 24 hours between sundown Friday and sundown Saturday. He has not.

The dietary laws are not part of the Ten Commandments. Yet we are also told that we should observe these commands as well.

I can't speak for everyone here, but personally I don't believe that the dietary laws are manditory for Gentiles living outside of the Land. God gave Noah all the animals to eat, not just the clean ones, and a Jew was permitted to sell meat from an animal that had been accidentally slain to a Gentile stranger.

However, I also believe that God giving "looser" dietary standards for the Gentiles was a mercy born out of His foreknowledge that not everyone would have kosher meat to eat. There are many parts of the world where pig is the best food animal available, and it would be putting people's health at risk to forbid them from it.

Therefore, I conclude that it is good for a person who has the luxury of choosing what meats to eat to choose to keep kosher out of a love for and desire to be like our Lord Yeshua in every way, but not required. I also believe that it's better to not serve pork and shellfish at church functions as a show of respect for any Jews, believers or not, who may be present. But as a matter of private practice, since the Torah itself is ambiguous about the requirement for Gentiles to keep kosher and the NT even more so, I consider that a matter of private conscience.

And before you get hung up on "a matter of private conscience" and argue that I've just made the Bible a matter of private interpretation, consider this: Not all sacrifices were required. A person could choose to make a peace offering as a sign of love and gratitude to the Lord (Lev. 3), and it was good to do so, but there was no requirement to. A person could choose to take a Nazrite oath, and it was good to do so, but there was no requirement to. Therefore, there have always been commands which are required at all times ("Thou shalt not murder"), and commands that are "optional," a matter strictly between the worshipper and God.

Now we have moved from the Ten Commandments to saying all (or some) 613 laws are in full effect.

That is correct:

Think not that I am come to destroy the Torah, or the Prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil (lit. 'make full'; idiomatically, 'make full by interpreting properly'). For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one yod (the smallest letter) or one tittle (the least penstroke) shall in no wise pass from the Torah till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. (Mat. 5:17-19)

Do we then make void the Torah through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish (uphold, keep) the Torah. (Rom. 3:31)

Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good. . . For I delight in the law of God after the inward man . . . (Rom. 7:12, 22)

Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the Torah; for sin is the transgression of the Torah. (1 Jn. 3:4)

What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the Torah, but under grace? God forbid. (Rom. 6:15)

Now, Hebrews 7:12 speaks of a "change" in the Torah, but this is a mistranslation: "For the priesthood being transfered/moved (metatithemenes), there is made of necessity a transferrance (metathesis) also of the Torah." The same root words, with different tenses, are used in Heb. 11:15 to describe Enoch's translation into Heaven without death. Therefore, the author is not refering to the wholesale switchover of one Torah for another, as has been often wrongly read into him, but of the transferrance of the office of the High Priest from Levi to Judah, and from the earthly Temple to the true Temple in heaven.

This is made clear by the succeeding verses:

For he of whom these things are spoken pertaineth to another tribe, of which no man gave attendance at the altar. For it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Judah; of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood. And it is yet far more evident: for that after the similitude of Melchizedek there ariseth another priest, Who is made, not after the law of a carnal commandment, but after the power of an endless life. (7:13-16)
So then, it may be argued that those of the 613 commandments which specifically have to with offering sacrifices have not been annulled, but have been "transferred" from being fulfilled in an earthly temple to being fulfilled by our great High Priest before the Father's throne, as every sin we commit is paid for on the sacrificial Cross.

However, as a matter of our day-to-day walk with God, this actually affects the commands which directly affect you and I very little, since we would not be personally performing the sacrifices in the Temple in Jerusalem anyway. Moreover, the sacrificial laws in the Torah explain how to atone for sin, ultimately pointing to the Messiah, but all the rest of the commands tell us how not to sin. And that includes the "ceremonial" commands like wearing tzitzit (tassels with blue threads) or observing God's Appointed Times.

Are people saying that all Christians are required to follow these as well? If it is just "whatever God lays upon your heart" then what is the discussion for?

I believe that Christians should follow all of the commands of God. "What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the Torah, but under grace? God forbid." However, I also recognize honest differences in opinion about what those are and allow the Spirit room to work in shaping a person's walk. But since the Word of God is the Sword of the Spirit, I point you first and foremost to the Scriptures to know God's commands, and then leave it up to the Spirit to convict you where you fall short, just as He convicts me.

If you wish to go on record as saying this is part of the Law, then, as the progression shows all 613 laws are in full effect. If this is true then it is a very serious matter for those who do not follow these laws are willfully (or out of ignorance) breaking God's commandments.

Tell me, Harley, is not murdering, stealing, or committing adultery part of the Law? Is the command against idolatry? Homosexuality? The occult? If you wish to go on record as saying these are part of the Law, then, as the progression shows all 613 laws are in full effect. If this is true then it is a very serious matter for those who do not follow these laws are willfully (or out of ignorance) breaking God's commandments.

Furthermore, those Messianic Jews who don't follow all 613 Laws are willfully breaking them unless they have some sort of Biblical justification (it better be good) for not following them.

I agree 100%, and this is why I counsel grace; if we who believe that the 613 are still in effect so often fall short of keeping them (and we do), and must therefore depend solely upon the grace of God for our salvation, how can we then turn around and fail to show that same grace to those of our brothers and sisters in the Messiah who are in honest error about which commands are still in effect?

This creates a dilemma. Are the Messianic Jews prepared to tell the rest of us we are willfully breaking God's Laws? Isn't this legalism?

TC just came in here telling us that we were willfully breaking God's New Testament laws. Isn't that legalism?

120 posted on 10/12/2006 8:30:02 AM PDT by Buggman (http://brit-chadasha.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]

To: kerryusama04; Buggman; Diego1618; DouglasKC; XeniaSt; HarleyD; Dr. Eckleburg; jude24
TC, I am eager to see your response to my earlier post. Let us move the discussion to the next level. We have been hashing this out for too long now. Surely, I will be able to learn something from you.

What else can I say other than what I have already stated on numerous occasions?

I happen to agree with the vast majority of Christians who interpret the Scripture to say two fairly clear things:

1) The moral law regarding the weekly day of rest and worship was "changed" by the example of Jesus and His apostles from the last day to the first day of the week.

2) The ceremonial law having to do with the regulations of Israel as a "church under age" (to use the language of my confession) were temporary and passed away with the coming of the new covenant.

The arguments for both of these positions have been laid out from Scripture by faithful churchmen for 2000 years. It doesn't help for folks on your side to call this "paganism" or try to identify it as one other piece of erroneous Roman Catholic doctrine, since neither of these claim can be supported by reality. The fact is that there is a the vast number of non-pagans and non-Roman Catholics who hold (1) and (2) who get their views from the Bible rather than from Mount Olympus or Rome.

The bottom line for me is that I would need to have a very good, substantial reason from Scripture to buck the testimony of these faithful men for 2 millennia. Sine I believe in true sola Scriptura I believe that no Scripture is a matter of private interpretation, but rather the church as the body of Christ has a part in helping her children come to a correct understanding of the truth. That may sound "Roman Catholic" to those ignorant of church history and doctrine, but it is clearly the view of the magisterial reformers through whom my theology flows.

Some folks have had their "eyes opened" by sitting at the feet of recent, innovative teachers. My eyes were opened when I started to read in the Bible in light of the teachings of the historic church fathers. I trust the Holy Spirit in preserving truth in the "catholic" (universal; everywhere for all time) church. This is the difference between sola Scriptura and solo Scriptura.

The arguments I have seen here calling for change do not rise to the level of universal suitability. It's that simple. These practices -- last day sabbath-keeping and following old covenant shadows -- are not, according to Scripture, true marks biblical godliness or love for Christ.

Let me also make it clear that I do not believe this is simply a matter of taste, like chocolate vs. vanilla. Nor do I believe that God "speaks" differently to a handful last day sabbatarians than He does to the rest of us. That would make Him the author of confusion to His church.

I believe it boils down to a fundamental error on the part of last day sabbatarians and old covenant law-keepers as to how to interpret the Word of God.

If even the last day sabbatarians cannot agree on which laws are to be kept and which are not, why hold the rest of the church to an impossible standard?

With all this in mind, and since the universal teaching and practice of the church has been established for 2000 years, how would you go about changing that practice? Yes, you can convince an unwary soul here or there to adopt your views, but far more "Sunday keepers" are converted every year than the handful of folks who may adopt last day sabbatarian views.

How do you convince the larger church that your views are more than just a cultish fad?

121 posted on 10/12/2006 8:34:38 AM PDT by topcat54
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

To: topcat54
What do you mean "we", Kimosabe? I didn't take you for a Christmas keeper. And as for me, I've made my views on that subject of Christian "holy days" very clear. So, try another tune. That one is a bit off key.

"We", meaning.....generically.....modern Christianity, Tonto.

I really don't mind if any celebrate Christmas at all. And, I most certainly do not believe it is going to cause any to lose their salvation. Just know what is actually being celebrated.....is my point.

By your answer, I would assume you don't put much credence on the traditional holidays either.

There is no literal bread or passover sacrifice in view in that passage at all. So Luke and Paul are not speaking of the same "feast"

It is still called by the same name.....and takes place at the same time.....and the Apostles and their second, third, and fourth generation disciples still celebrated the Passover and Days of Unleavened Bread well into the fourth century. You know that.

122 posted on 10/12/2006 8:35:03 AM PDT by Diego1618
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

To: kerryusama04; topcat54; 1000 silverlings; jude24; Dr. Eckleburg; XeniaSt; Diego1618; Buggman
I am simply curious to know how your theology squares with the scriptures in Post 105. If lawlessnes is a bad thing, then how do you define lawfullness?

I've been busy today and have not had a chance to look through all these posts. That being said, given all your scripture verses on "not one iota will pass away until the Law is fulfilled" has been accomplished. The Law is finished, completed, satisfied. It was satisfied by Christ.

You and I and topcat and buggman and everyone else would never be able to keep the Law. Some people would say that's unfair of God to impose impossible standards. The Law isn't bad just because we can't live by it. But it does show our failings.

God demands perfection and breaking His Law is death. The solution was Christ.

The Law of God will NEVER die until heaven and earth pass away. By then all things will be decided. But the Law only shows how we cannot live by God's standards. Even if you want to go to church every Saturday, there will come a time when there will be a baseball game, a wedding to attend, you'll be out of town, or you'll just want to sleep in late. Whatever the reason you will NEVER be able to live up to this commandment. That is what the Law of God shows us-our failings-it will not pass away.

The Law of the Spirit has sent us free from these restrictions so that, while we may fail and want to go to that baseball game on Saturday, God understands and has set us free to worship Him as best we can. Where we fail we have an advocate who intercedes for us and helps us in our weaknesses.

123 posted on 10/12/2006 8:45:15 AM PDT by HarleyD ("Man's steps are ordained by the Lord, How then can man understand his way?" Prov 20:24)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]

To: Buggman; HarleyD; kerryusama04; topcat54; 1000 silverlings; jude24; Dr. Eckleburg; Diego1618

However, I also believe that God giving "looser" dietary standards for the Gentiles
was a mercy born out of His foreknowledge that not everyone would have kosher meat to eat.
There are many parts of the world where pig is the best food animal available,
and it would be putting people's health at risk to forbid them from it.

Therefore, I conclude that it is good for a person who has the luxury of choosing
what meats to eat to choose to keep kosher out of a love for and desire to be like
our Lord Yeshua in every way, but not required. I also believe that it's better to not
serve pork and shellfish at church functions as a show of respect for any Jews,
believers or not, who may be present. But as a matter of private practice,
since the Torah itself is ambiguous about the requirement for Gentiles to keep kosher
and the NT even more so, I consider that a matter of private conscience.

Please don't confuse the folks about Kosher which is rabbinical
and not scriptural and dietary standards which are in the Torah.

Guidance can be gained as to what is Rabbinical or not by reviewing
the Karaites, who strictly keep the Tanach and not the rabbinical traditions.

b'shem Y'shua
124 posted on 10/12/2006 9:11:48 AM PDT by Uri’el-2012 (Psalm 144:1 Praise be to YHvH, my Rock, who trains my hands for war, my fingers for battle.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies]

To: Diego1618
I really don't mind if any celebrate Christmas at all.

Then why bring it up, esp. when writing to me? And why denigrate those who do by referencing "drunken parties"? Either you have an issue with "Christmas" or you don't.

It is still called by the same name.....and takes place at the same time

The "temple" on earth and the "temple" in heaven and the "temple" that is the church are all "called by the same name", but they are clearly not the same thing.

Thus we see the same in 1 Cor. 5:7. Jesus is our spiritual "passover". We participate in His "passover" and we truly "keep the feast" when we practive our religion not with " malice and wickedness" but rather with "sincerity and truth". That is the simple teaching of 1 Cor. 5. There is absolutely no mention of the physical elements associated with the old cobvnant passover observance in that passage. He spiritualized the passover and applied it to Christ.

As I said in a earlier post, that fact that Paul was not speaking of the literal feast day of the Jews is evidenced by the fact that he later speaks of the commuion of Our Lord when the church is to participate in "often".

"The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? For we, though many, are one bread and one body; for we all partake of that one bread." (1 Cor. 10:16,17).

The "breaking of bread" is the Lord's Supper, not the feast of the Jews. It is what the apostles did when they gathered together with the church (cf. Acts 2:42; 20:7). It is what the church does today on a regular basis.

This is the Lord's Supper wherein Christians remember our Lord's sacrifice on our behalf. It is not "the feast" since that phrase is never used in conjuction with the supper. Just read 1 Cor. 11.

125 posted on 10/12/2006 9:16:19 AM PDT by topcat54
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies]

To: XeniaSt; HarleyD; kerryusama04; topcat54; 1000 silverlings; jude24; Dr. Eckleburg; Diego1618

A very important distinction; thank you for pointing that out.


126 posted on 10/12/2006 9:18:51 AM PDT by Buggman (http://brit-chadasha.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: topcat54; kerryusama04; Buggman; Diego1618; DouglasKC; HarleyD; Dr. Eckleburg; jude24

With all this in mind, and since the universal teaching and practice of the church
has been established for 2000 years, how would you go about changing that practice?
Yes, you can convince an unwary soul here or there to adopt your views, but far more
"Sunday keepers" are converted every year than the handful of folks who may adopt last day sabbatarian views.

How do you convince the larger church that your views are more than just a cultish fad?

Matthew 7:13 "Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and there are many who enter through it.

Matthew 7:14 "For the gate is small and the way is narrow that leads to life, and there are few who find it.

Matthew 7:15 "Beware of the false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves.

Matthew 7:16 "You will know them by their fruits. Grapes are not gathered from thorn {bushes} nor figs from thistles, are they?

Matthew 7:17 "So every good tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears bad fruit.

Matthew 7:18 "A good tree cannot produce bad fruit, nor can a bad tree produce good fruit.

Matthew 7:19 "Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.

Matthew 7:20 "So then, you will know them by their fruits.

Matthew 7:21 "Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven {will enter.}

Matthew 7:22 "Many will say to Me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?'

Matthew 7:23 "And then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you; DEPART FROM ME, YOU WHO PRACTICE LAWLESSNESS.'

b'shem Y'shua

127 posted on 10/12/2006 9:22:29 AM PDT by Uri’el-2012 (Psalm 144:1 Praise be to YHvH, my Rock, who trains my hands for war, my fingers for battle.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: XeniaSt; Buggman; HarleyD; kerryusama04; 1000 silverlings; jude24; Dr. Eckleburg; Diego1618
Guidance can be gained as to what is Rabbinical or not by reviewing the Karaites, who strictly keep the Tanach and not the rabbinical traditions.

Do they worship Jesus as the Savior of men, and divine person of the triune God?

If not, then they do not "strictly keep the Tanach" since Jesus Himself said that the "Law of Moses" along with the Prophets and the Psalms all testified of Him.

If they do not recognize Jesus, why should we believe they properly interpret the Tanach?

The "Tanach" without Jesus is just another tradition of men, no?

128 posted on 10/12/2006 9:22:55 AM PDT by topcat54
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: XeniaSt; kerryusama04; Buggman; Diego1618; DouglasKC; HarleyD; Dr. Eckleburg; jude24
"How do you convince the larger church that your views are more than just a cultish fad?"

[Matthew 7:13 etc.]

Again, without an interpretation of the passage which unequivocally condemns the theology and practice of the universal church for the last 2000 years, just quoting a verse is useless.

E.g., show us that eating swine flesh, for example, is a form of "lawlessness" according to the Bible.

All heretics and cults quote the Bible.

129 posted on 10/12/2006 9:26:40 AM PDT by topcat54
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 127 | View Replies]

To: topcat54
The "Tanach" without Jesus is just another tradition of men, no?

No! I believe the Tanach is the Holy Word of G-d.

B'shem Y'shua


130 posted on 10/12/2006 9:28:22 AM PDT by Uri’el-2012 (Psalm 144:1 Praise be to YHvH, my Rock, who trains my hands for war, my fingers for battle.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies]

To: topcat54; HarleyD
Do they worship Jesus as the Savior of men, and divine person of the triune God?

If not, then they do not "strictly keep the Tanach" since Jesus Himself said that the "Law of Moses" along with the Prophets and the Psalms all testified of Him.

If they do not recognize Jesus, why should we believe they properly interpret the Tanach?

The "Tanach" without Jesus is just another tradition of men, no?

Amen.

"Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me." -- John 14:6

131 posted on 10/12/2006 9:32:30 AM PDT by Dr. Eckleburg ("I don't think they want my respect; I think they want my submission." - Flemming Rose)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Eckleburg; topcat54; HarleyD

TC>The "Tanach" without Jesus is just another tradition of men, no?

Amen.

"Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me." -- John 14:6

131 posted on 10/12/2006 10:32:30 AM MDT by Dr. Eckleburg

The Karaites know and profess that YHvH is their salvation.

Exodus 15:2 "The LORD is my strength and song, And He has become my salvation;
This is my God, and I will praise Him; My father's God, and I will extol Him.
"Yah has become my salvation" translates to Yah'shua

They simply do not know the foreign word: Jesus

b'shem Yah'shua
132 posted on 10/12/2006 9:49:50 AM PDT by Uri’el-2012 (Psalm 144:1 Praise be to YHvH, my Rock, who trains my hands for war, my fingers for battle.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]

To: XeniaSt; Dr. Eckleburg; HarleyD
"Yah has become my salvation" translates to Yah'shua They simply do not know the foreign word: Jesus

So they do not follow the teaching of the apostles and prophets, is that correct? (Eph. 2:20)

Have they been baptized in the name or the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit? (Matt. 28:19,20)

Do they "confessed with their mouth the Lord Jesus and believed in their hearts that God has raised Him from the dead?" (Rom. 10:9,10)

Do they follow the commands of Jesus? (John 14:15)

Peter said, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved", not "beleive on your rendition of 'YHvH' and you will be saved".

Sounds like they have a "zeal for God, but without knowledge." Unfortunately for them, Paul makes it clear that their zeal cannot save them. Neither can "Tanach" keeping. Only the acknowledged blood of the true Lamb of God.

If they are not followers of Jesus then they practice a false religion.

133 posted on 10/12/2006 10:28:18 AM PDT by topcat54
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 132 | View Replies]

To: XeniaSt; Dr. Eckleburg; HarleyD
No! I believe the Tanach is the Holy Word of G-d.

The "Tanach" without Jesus is a human tradition. Otherwise you can just throw out all of the NT since it serves no purpose.

134 posted on 10/12/2006 10:30:06 AM PDT by topcat54
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies]

To: XeniaSt; Dr. Eckleburg; HarleyD
Let me also add that if the "Tanach" a person follows does not drive that person to Jesus Christ, then it is not the Word of God.

"Therefore the law was our tutor to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But after faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor." (Gal. 3:24,25)

135 posted on 10/12/2006 10:36:12 AM PDT by topcat54
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 132 | View Replies]

To: topcat54
Matthew 25:40 "The King will answer and say to them, 'Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did it to one of these brothers of Mine, {even} the least {of them,} you did it to Me.'

Matthew 25:41 "Then He will also say to those on His left, 'Depart from Me, accursed ones, into the eternal fire which has been prepared for the devil and his angels;

Matthew 25:42 for I was hungry, and you gave Me {nothing} to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave Me nothing to drink;

Matthew 25:43 I was a stranger, and you did not invite Me in; naked, and you did not clothe Me; sick, and in prison, and you did not visit Me.'

Matthew 25:44 "Then they themselves also will answer, 'Lord, when did we see You hungry, or thirsty, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not take care of You?'

Matthew 25:45 "Then He will answer them, 'Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me.'

Matthew 25:46 "These will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life."

Y'shua is speaking about the Jews when he speaks of his brethren

136 posted on 10/12/2006 10:50:32 AM PDT by Uri’el-2012 (Psalm 144:1 Praise be to YHvH, my Rock, who trains my hands for war, my fingers for battle.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]

To: Buggman; HarleyD; kerryusama04; topcat54; 1000 silverlings; jude24; Dr. Eckleburg; XeniaSt; ...
If a person wants to worship on Saturday or Sunday, it doesn't matter-or it shouldn't matter.
As a matter of technical obedience to the Word of God, I agree. Nowhere does Torah specifically mandate "a holy convocation" on the Sabbath as it does, for example, Yom Kippur.

It does matter. And scripture does say that a holy convocation is to be held on the sabbath:

Lev 23:2 Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, Concerning the feasts of the LORD, which ye shall proclaim to be holy convocations, even these are my feasts.
Lev 23:3 Six days shall work be done: but the seventh day is the sabbath of rest, a holy convocation; ye shall do no work therein: it is the sabbath of the LORD in all your dwellings.

As far as worshipping on other days, certainly one can worship God on any day, but the sabbath is a mark, a reminder, a token, and a separate covenant that God HAS established with his children, the children of Israel:

Exo 31:16 Wherefore the children of Israel shall keep the sabbath, to observe the sabbath throughout their generations, for a perpetual covenant.
Exo 31:17 It is a sign between me and the children of Israel forever: for in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested, and was refreshed.

God sanctified, set aside, specific days that he expects his worshipers to convene on. Convening on days AT THE EXPENSE of God's days at the best shows ignorance of God's instructions and at the worst blatant disregard and disobedience of God's instructions.

This might seem a little harsh, but those who purport to teach and expound on what exactly God wants are held to a pretty high standard. God does things, and wrote down things, for a reason. He knows that once human thought and reasoning begin to interpret an issue then corruption certainly follows.

In the case of the sabbath and his holy days, God left specific, written instuctions. Yet man in his wisdom has decided that they don't mean anything. There's something wrong with that and anyone who advocates and teaches something different should be called out on it.

137 posted on 10/12/2006 11:07:28 AM PDT by DouglasKC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies]

To: XeniaSt; Dr. Eckleburg; HarleyD
[Matt. 25] ... Y'shua is speaking about the Jews when he speaks of his brethren

Christ's brethren are those who believe in Him, and no other.

"And He stretched out His hand toward His disciples and said, 'Here are My mother and My brothers! For whoever does the will of My Father in heaven is My brother and sister and mother.' " (Matt12:49,50)

"Whoever receives Me receives Him who sent Me. For he who is least among you all will be great." (Luke 9:48)

"And this is the will of Him who sent Me, that everyone who sees the Son and believes in Him may have everlasting life; and I will raise him up at the last day." (John 6:40)

Whoever does not acknowldege Jesus is not doing the will of the Father, and consequently is not Christ's brethren.

"But it is not that the word of God has taken no effect. For they are not all Israel who are of Israel, nor are they all children because they are the seed of Abraham;" (Rom. 9:6,7)

"As it is written: 'Behold, I lay in Zion a stumbling stone and rock of offense, And whoever believes on Him will not be put to shame.'" (Rom. 9:33)

The trick is to look at what all the Bible says about "Israel", anmd to not make excuses for unbelieving "Zion". In reality these Karaites are merely stumbling over Jesus.

The will of God is not bound up in the shadowy law of the old covenant. The will of God is in seeing Jesus Christ as He is revealed supernaturally in the Scriptures through the power of the Spirit.

138 posted on 10/12/2006 11:11:14 AM PDT by topcat54
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 136 | View Replies]

To: DouglasKC; Buggman; kerryusama04; topcat54; 1000 silverlings; jude24; Dr. Eckleburg; XeniaSt
It does matter. And scripture does say that a holy convocation is to be held on the sabbath...God sanctified, set aside, specific days that he expects his worshipers to convene on. Convening on days AT THE EXPENSE of God's days at the best shows ignorance of God's instructions and at the worst blatant disregard and disobedience of God's instructions....This might seem a little harsh, but those who purport to teach and expound on what exactly God wants are held to a pretty high standard.

Exactly. You've hit the nail on the head. This is the problem one has. God doesn't have one standard for Jews and another for Gentiles. All are held accountable to His ONE standard. There is only one Ten Commandments. I doubt if any of us would say this is only applicable to the Jews. This is part of the Law. The WHOLE Law. There isn't part for this person and part for that person.

The problem is no one will be able to live by these standards. While you personally may wish to try to live your life to this standard, it is wrong to ask this of others. It amounts to living under the Law.

139 posted on 10/12/2006 11:27:07 AM PDT by HarleyD ("Man's steps are ordained by the Lord, How then can man understand his way?" Prov 20:24)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 137 | View Replies]

To: DouglasKC; HarleyD; kerryusama04; topcat54; 1000 silverlings; jude24; Dr. Eckleburg; XeniaSt
Good catch. I'd double-checked the two sets of the Ten Commandments to see if a worship service (holy convocation) was commanded, but it'd slipped my mind that the Sabbath was reiterated with the other Feasts on Lev. 23. Thank you, and I stand corrected.

Convening on days AT THE EXPENSE of God's days at the best shows ignorance of God's instructions and at the worst blatant disregard and disobedience of God's instructions.

And that is in fact the issue. There's no problem with adding a day to be observed--like my oft-exampled annual pot-luck dinner to celebrate a particular congregation's founding--but any such gatherings must not violate God's Word or override His Appointed Times in any way, nor can such "local traditions" be used as a means of judging the orthodoxy or fellowship or faith of others.

So then, we can say that there's nothing wrong with having a Sunday service--or with having a Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, or Thursday service for that matter--but that those trying to follow a strictly Biblical belief, lacking any passage in the NT which overrides the Mosaic command, should gather together on the Sabbath as well.

140 posted on 10/12/2006 12:02:09 PM PDT by Buggman (http://brit-chadasha.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 137 | View Replies]

To: HarleyD
Exactly. You've hit the nail on the head. This is the problem one has. God doesn't have one standard for Jews and another for Gentiles. All are held accountable to His ONE standard. There is only one Ten Commandments. I doubt if any of us would say this is only applicable to the Jews. This is part of the Law. The WHOLE Law. There isn't part for this person and part for that person.

Glad you agree. So when will you be participating in a Sabbath service, now? :^)

The problem is no one will be able to live by these standards. While you personally may wish to try to live your life to this standard, it is wrong to ask this of others. It amounts to living under the Law.

So, if someone were committing adultery in your congregation, you'd just let it pass since, "While you personally may wish to try to live your life to this standard, it is wrong to ask this of others. It amounts to living under the Law."

Interesting.

141 posted on 10/12/2006 12:05:24 PM PDT by Buggman (http://brit-chadasha.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 139 | View Replies]

To: topcat54; XeniaSt; kerryusama04; Buggman; Diego1618; DouglasKC; HarleyD; Dr. Eckleburg; jude24
Again, without an interpretation of the passage which unequivocally condemns the theology and practice of the universal church for the last 2000 years, just quoting a verse is useless.

First of all, she's pointing out that simple popularity is not evidence of the truth--in fact, if you see a flood of people going through the same gate as you, you might want to double-check its width.

Secondly, Sunday-worship was not the universal practice of the Church for at least the first four centuries. There are too many Church Fathers who attest to the contrary, with reactions ranging from perplexed tolerance (Justin Martyr) to anti-Semetic rants (John Chrysostom) for you to sustain such an argument. There is some evidence that the Nazarines survived until at least the eleventh century, but even ignoring that, you can only claim the "universal Church" as your witness by acceeding to all of the other Catholic beliefs and practices which were "universal" by the fourth century as well, including the Eucharist and the Mass, Baptismal Regeneration, the perpetual virginity of Mary, etc.

The fact that you claim fourth-plus century tradition as authoritative, yet pick and choose what you accept from it, is evidence of the weakness of your position.

142 posted on 10/12/2006 12:14:55 PM PDT by Buggman (http://brit-chadasha.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 129 | View Replies]

To: topcat54; Dr. Eckleburg; HarleyD

[Matt. 25] ... Y'shua is speaking about the Jews when he speaks of his brethren

Christ's brethren are those who believe in Him, and no other.

"And He stretched out His hand toward His disciples and said, 'Here are My mother and My brothers! For whoever does the will of My Father in heaven is My brother and sister and mother.' " (Matt12:49,50)

"Whoever receives Me receives Him who sent Me. For he who is least among you all will be great." (Luke 9:48)

"And this is the will of Him who sent Me, that everyone who sees the Son and believes in Him may have everlasting life; and I will raise him up at the last day." (John 6:40)

Whoever does not acknowldege Jesus is not doing the will of the Father, and consequently is not Christ's brethren.

"But it is not that the word of God has taken no effect. For they are not all Israel who are of Israel, nor are they all children because they are the seed of Abraham;" (Rom. 9:6,7)

"As it is written: 'Behold, I lay in Zion a stumbling stone and rock of offense, And whoever believes on Him will not be put to shame.'" (Rom. 9:33)

The trick is to look at what all the Bible says about "Israel", anmd to not make excuses for unbelieving "Zion". In reality these Karaites are merely stumbling over Jesus.

The will of God is not bound up in the shadowy law of the old covenant. The will of God is in seeing Jesus Christ as He is revealed supernaturally in the Scriptures through the power of the Spirit.

138 posted on 10/12/2006 12:11:14 PM MDT by topcat54

Re-read all of those verses you provided, where Y'shua speaks of doing what the Father commands.

Pray and ask for the Ru'ach haKodesh to illuminate the Word for you.

If you are not doing what the Father commands, you are not a brother of Y'shua.

Job looks forward to Y'shua (job 19:25-27)

The Karaites look forward to Y'shua, when He will come again to reign and rule.

b'shem Y'shua
143 posted on 10/12/2006 12:39:48 PM PDT by Uri’el-2012 (Psalm 144:1 Praise be to YHvH, my Rock, who trains my hands for war, my fingers for battle.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 138 | View Replies]

To: Buggman
First of all, she's pointing out that simple popularity is not evidence of the truth--in fact, if you see a flood of people going through the same gate as you, you might want to double-check its width.

He; chuck is XeniaSt

144 posted on 10/12/2006 12:42:24 PM PDT by Uri’el-2012 (Psalm 144:1 Praise be to YHvH, my Rock, who trains my hands for war, my fingers for battle.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 142 | View Replies]

To: XeniaSt

My apologies.


145 posted on 10/12/2006 12:55:02 PM PDT by Buggman (http://brit-chadasha.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 144 | View Replies]

To: XeniaSt; Dr. Eckleburg; HarleyD
Re-read all of those verses you provided, where Y'shua speaks of doing what the Father commands. Pray and ask for the Ru'ach haKodesh to illuminate the Word for you. If you are not doing what the Father commands, you are not a brother of Y'shua. Job looks forward to Y'shua (job 19:25-27) The Karaites look forward to Y'shua, when He will come again to reign and rule.

Looks to me like you are reading Job but ignoring Paul. He makes it clear what is the condition of those in this present age who do not openly, verbally, and specifically acknowledge Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior.

You see, it not a matter of following old covenant shadows to gain righteousness. It's purely a matter of believing in Jesus Christ.

I have already come to Christ by the Holy Spirit working in my life. I can read the plain words of Scripture and see the condition of the Karaites and all others who do not believe in Jesus. Today is the day of salvation. If a Karatire dies only to stand before the judgment throne of Almighty God clothed in their woen righteousness instead of the righteousness of Christ, they will suffer eternal torment in the lake of fire.

Sady, some Christians today cannot come to grips with that simple fact.

146 posted on 10/12/2006 1:14:54 PM PDT by topcat54
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 143 | View Replies]

To: topcat54
I pray your name is written in the book of Life.

147 posted on 10/12/2006 1:23:07 PM PDT by Uri’el-2012 (Psalm 144:1 Praise be to YHvH, my Rock, who trains my hands for war, my fingers for battle.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 146 | View Replies]

To: XeniaSt
I pray your name is written in the book of Life.

I rejoice that my name is written in heaven (Luke 10:20), because I trust God and what He has promised in His Holy Word.

"If you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. For the Scripture says, 'Whoever believes on Him will not be put to shame.' " (Rom. 10:9-11)

All that matters, from a human perspective, is a good testimony about the Lord Jesus Christ -- nothing more, nothing less.

You really need to pray for your Karaite friends that they would come to a knowledge of the truth, and stop their stumbling over Jesus.

"He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God." (John 3:18)

148 posted on 10/12/2006 1:33:15 PM PDT by topcat54
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 147 | View Replies]

To: Buggman; XeniaSt; kerryusama04; Diego1618; DouglasKC; HarleyD; Dr. Eckleburg; jude24

Thank you for your perspective on church history. It certainly rises to the same level as your understanding of theology.


149 posted on 10/12/2006 1:35:49 PM PDT by topcat54
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 142 | View Replies]

To: HarleyD; 1000 silverlings; jude24; Dr. Eckleburg
All are held accountable to His ONE standard. There is only one Ten Commandments.

Unless one is into a different theology based on so-called "the Noachide Laws".

The Ten Commandments were a summary of the moral law as given to us by God. The Westminster Confession (my personal confession) puts it this way:

1. God gave to Adam a law, as a covenant of works, by which he bound him and all his posterity to personal, entire, exact, and perpetual obedience, promised life upon the fulfilling, and threatened death upon the breach of it, and endued him with power and ability to keep it.

2. This law, after his fall, continued to be a perfect rule of righteousness; and, as such, was delivered by God upon Mount Sinai, in ten commandments, and written in two tables: the first four commandments containing our duty towards God; and the other six, our duty to man.

3. Beside this law, commonly called moral, God was pleased to give to the people of Israel, as a church under age, ceremonial laws, containing several typical ordinances, partly of worship, prefiguring Christ, his graces, actions, sufferings, and benefits; and partly, holding forth divers instructions of moral duties. All which ceremonial laws are now abrogated, under the new testament.

4. To them also, as a body politic, he gave sundry judicial laws, which expired together with the State of that people; not obliging any other now, further than the general equity thereof may require.

5. The moral law doth forever bind all, as well justified persons as others, to the obedience thereof; and that, not only in regard of the matter contained in it, but also in respect of the authority of God the Creator, who gave it. Neither doth Christ, in the gospel, any way dissolve, but much strengthen this obligation.

6. Although true believers be not under the law, as a covenant of works, to be thereby justified, or condemned; yet is it of great use to them, as well as to others; in that, as a rule of life informing them of the will of God, and their duty, it directs and binds them to walk accordingly; discovering also the sinful pollutions of their nature, hearts, and lives; so as, examining themselves thereby, they may come to further conviction of, humiliation for, and hatred against sin, together with a clearer sight of the need they have of Christ, and the perfection of his obedience. It is likewise of use to the regenerate, to restrain their corruptions, in that it forbids sin: and the threatenings of it serve to show what even their sins deserve; and what afflictions, in this life, they may expect for them, although freed from the curse thereof threatened in the law. The promises of it, in like manner, show them God's approbation of obedience, and what blessings they may expect upon the performance thereof: although not as due to them by the law as a covenant of works. So as, a man's doing good, and refraining from evil, because the law encourageth to the one, and deterreth from the other, is no evidence of his being under the law; and, not under grace.

7. Neither are the forementioned uses of the law contrary to the grace of the gospel, but do sweetly comply with it; the Spirit of Christ subduing and enabling the will of man to do that freely, and cheerfully, which the will of God, revealed in the law, requireth to be done.

Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter 19

This general outline is what the vast majority of the church has believed and taught for 2000 years. It certainly makes the most sense out of relating the old covenant to the new, and how Christ our pefect Lawgiver expects us to relate law to grace.
150 posted on 10/12/2006 1:49:42 PM PDT by topcat54
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 139 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 251-292 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson