Rejecting the Lord.
guardian Snow
Lord is a title granted by the King upon men that are his servants
loyal to his cause. Men seek to dominate other people and yet, in
scriptures we are to have no “Lords” aka Baal’s or “King” and one of
the first great sin’s of Israel was in fact to appoint a ruler over
them that was a man.
1Sa 8:5 and said to him, “Look, you are old, and your sons do not walk
in your ways. Now appoint for us a sovereign to rule us like all the
nations.” 6 But the word was evil in the eyes of Shemu’ĕl when they
said, “Give us a sovereign to rule us.” So Shemu’ĕl prayed to [Yahweh]
יהוה.
1Sa 12:17 “Is today not the wheat harvest? Let me call to [Yahweh]
יהוה, so that He sends thunder and rain – know then and see that your
evil is great, which you have done in the eyes of [Yahweh] יהוה, in
asking for yourselves a sovereign.”
This great truth is glossed over and replaced because men seek to rule
over you and this is not the desire of our set apart Elohim in
heaven. He has given a covenant with man and men seek to subvert this
covenant for the sake of MAN’S RULE over other men. This is why they
have removed the name of Yahweh and replaced it with a subservient
title that serves men.
We are not to seek “Lords” because I promise you, you will find them
in every church congregation that subverts the truth of his name.
1Sa 8:7 And [Yahweh] יהוה said to Shemu’ĕl, “Listen to the voice of
the people in all that they say to you, for they have not rejected
you, but they have rejected Me from reigning over them.
When men subvert his name it is because they have rejected Yahweh from
reigning over them. They have no true desire to serve ONLY Yahweh and
for them, religion is just another conduit of power over others.
In the world religion, you will find one name common in ALL religions,
the Freemasonry deity of “GOD”, a Phoenician deity spoken against by
the Prophets of Yahweh.
Rev 13:7 And it was given to him to fight with the set-apart ones and
to overcome them. And authority was given to him over every tribe and
tongue and nation.
Everybody keeps looking around to find “anti-Christ” not realizing
that they have been living in the Babylonian translation for a
thousand years already!
Act 2:21 ‘And it shall be that everyone who calls on the Name of יהוה
[Yahweh] shall be saved.’
The King James per-Version contains almost 2000 different
mistranslations, and of those over 500 changed the meaning of the text
itself. One of the many mistranslations happens about 6,800 times when
they translate YHVH into a meaningless “LORD” instead of the proper
YAHweh. Why do you think Satan would want to do this? The scriptures
say, "Whosoever shall call upon the name of Yahweh shall be saved". If
you don't know his name, then you can't call on His name and you won't
ever know his name if you are reading the King James per-Version. The
King James per-Version is authorized by Satan and Satan alone.
Joe 2:32 And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the
name of YAHWEH shall be delivered: for in mount Zion and in Jerusalem
shall be deliverance, as YAHWEH hath said, and in the remnant whom
YAHWEH shall call.
Lord comes from the old English spelling of "Lard" which comes from
"Lar/Larth Lares," Estruscan and Roman deities associated with Sun-
worship. The Greek word "Kurios" was originally a title for the Greek
and Roman Sun-deity "Helios" and was called "The Kurios (Lord) of
Heaven and Earth." The Hindu god "Krishna" is also known as "Lord."
The title "Lord" was eventually applied to all heathen deities. Most
Bible translators continue to use the title "Lord" as a substitute
name for YHVH (Yahweh).
YHVH (Yahweh) is the Name given to Moshe/Moses in Exodus 3:15. It is
the Name of the Elohim of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, which appears in
the Hebrew manuscripts, and is to be known by His people throughout
all generations.
Shalom,
*´¨)
¸.•´ ¸.•*´¨) ¸.•*¨)
(¸.•´ (¸.• (Snow(.¸.•*´¨)
But what is Hope? Nothing but the paint on the face of Existence; the
least touch of truth rubs it off, and then we see what a hollow-
cheeked harlot we have got hold of.
Lord Byron
http://www.e-sword.net/ Free bible software
http://groups.google.com/group/messianicYehoshua <-- join
http://www.isr-messianic.org/ <- download the scriptures free
or
http://messianicyehoshua.googlegroups.com/web/RNKJV.zip <--free
download of the Restored Names King James Version
Life is a gift, and it offers us the privilege, opportunity, and
responsibility to give something back by becoming more.
Tony Robbins
guardian Snow
.' '. __
. . . (__\_
. . . -{{_(|8)
gs ' . . ' ' . . ' (__/`
The new reformation and protestant church of this world is again
seeking to restore the truth of scriptures that has been lost, hidden,
muddled in a mixture of languages derived from heathens. Babylon is
where language was confounded and where the world again united in the
Persian Gulf War, where United States Troops remain even today, the
nation of Iraq.
Now it’s not that anybody is a liar or that they are bearing false
witness, it’s more that they don’t have access to the truth or if they
do, they don’t see and make the connections that they are in fact a
part of Babylon.
Isa 45:20 “Gather yourselves and come; draw near together, you who
have escaped from the gentiles. No knowledge have they who are lifting
up the wood of their carved image, and pray to a mighty one that does
not save.
This conglomeration of mistranslation of scriptures and “antichrist”
teachings already rule by means of the sheer magnitude of the beast
church and its leading scriptures, the King James Bible and the New
Living Translation.
When I have pointed out that the entire world worships the deity of
Freemasonry, “god” and not the deity of scriptures, “Yahweh”, I
receive typically double minded responses:
Aaron says, “I will also point out that Freemasonry does not have its
own deity. Freemasonry is not a religion, but does require that
members believe in a "Supreme Being" but leaves the specifics up to
the individual. The English word "God" does come from the Germanic
"Gott," but that is a generic term for any deity, just as "Elohay" can
be used for God or as a generic term depending on context. “
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.bible.prophecy/msg/5eb960c881ffca78
What Aaron doesn’t say is that the large “G” in Freemasonry symbolism
stands for “God” and that is the name of their “Supreme Being” that he
also uses in the place of Yahweh as is his faulty tradition. He
recently posted on alt.Freemasonry that while he isn’t a Freemason:
“I pity those broken people and wish that they would stop pretending
that they are serving God by attacking Freemasonry. God commanded us
to never bear false witness; you cannot serve God by falsely accusing
people.”
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.freemasonry/msg/d9853577ed133be4
Now, I know Yahweh made that command in the Torah but Aaron is unable
to recognize the pagan reference while admitting the Germanic “Gawd”
reference in the Freemasonry forum that he regularly post to.
http://www.yaim.org/Traina/god,_deity_of_nations.htm
According to “The World’s Popular Encyclopedia” Volume 6, which reads:
“GOD, OE. god, Dutch god, Ger Gott, was in heathen times, an idol, or
object of worship. Since the Teutonic acceptation of Christianity, it
is the name reserved to the Creator of the Universe.”
“God” is a deity name that has replaced Yahweh.
Isa 42:8 “I am [Yahweh] יהוה, that is My Name, and My esteem I do not
give to another, nor My praise to idols.
Isa 42:8 I am the LORD: that is my name
Any person knows which version of this is true and which one is a
lie. Yahweh’s name is not Lord and to say otherwise is a lie.
On Tue, 2 Jun 2009 09:43:01 -0700 (PDT), guardian Snow
<snowpheo...@eck.net.au> wrote:
>On Jun 3, 1:53 am, Aaron <a...@home.net> wrote:
>> >Should Christians turn to Judaism?
>> Yes.
>> Not Orthodox Judaism however. There is a great deal to be learned
>> about HaShem
Exo 9:16 “And for this reason I have raised you up, in order to show
you My power, and in order to declare My Name in all the earth.
>So what is his name? It is not HaShem.
No onw knows the vowels, so there are over 100,00 possible
pronunciations. HaShem is used a asign of respect rather than
insulting God by misprnouncing His Name. We do know that Messiah's
name is Yshu`a. So, maybe this is part pf HaShem's plan.
-----Snow---
What a sad excuse to fragrantly ignore the scriptures I quoted to him
in order to LIE and continue to give his praise to what he knows is
the false name of “HaShem” (meaning: the name) to mask his own
ignorance while continued celebration of Freemasonry and worship of
“GOD” that he doesn’t want to insult while spitting on the name of
Yahweh by never even mentioning it.
How can he claim to worship a deity whose name he doesn’t know by his
own admission? While he KNOWS that “God” is from a pagan origin and
this he regularly gives his praise to… disgusting.
Exo 20:7 “You do not bring the Name of [YAHWEH] יהוה your Elohim to
naught, for [YAHWEH] יהוה does not leave the one unpunished who brings
His Name to naught.
He ignores the commandment for his own tradition and continues to
bring his name to naught.. what use would anybody have for Judaism?
It’s just another extension of the world religion.
Aaron may not be a Freemason but he has a lot of love for them and
their deity and no praise for the one he claims to worship but won’t
utter his name when COMMANDED to by scriptures in Exodus 9:16 and the
covenant.
Pro 30:7 Two matters I have asked of You – Deny them not to me before
I die:
Pro 30:8 Remove falsehood and a lying word far from me; Give me
neither poverty nor riches; Feed me my portion of bread;
Pro 30:9 Lest I become satisfied and deny You, And say, “Who is
[YAHWEH] יהוה?” And lest I be poor, and steal, And seize the Name of
my Elohim.
http://groups.google.com/group/messianicYehoshua/web/freemasonry-and-the-bible
Shalom,
*´¨)
¸.•´ ¸.•*´¨) ¸.•*¨)
(¸.•´ (¸.• (Snow(.¸.•*´¨)
(
)
(
/\ .-"""-. /\
//\\/ ,,, \//\\
|/\| ,;;;;;, |/\|
//\\\;-"""-;///\\
// \/ . \/ \\
(| ,-_| \ | / |_-, |)
//`__\.-.-./__`\\
// /.-(() ())-.\ \\
(\ |) '---' (| /)
` (| |) `
gs \) (/
Every choice you make has an end result.
Zig Ziglar
http://groups.google.com/group/messianicYehoshua <-- join
http://www.isr-messianic.org/ <- download the scriptures free
or
http://messianicyehoshua.googlegroups.com/web/RNKJV.zip <--free
download of the Restored Names King James Version
Beliefs have the power to create and the power to destroy. Human
beings have the awesome ability to take any experience of their lives
and create a meaning that disempowers them or one that can literally
save their lives. Life is a gift, and it offers us the privilege,
walksalone
news:5db5f9bb-d436-443e...@r34g2000vba.googlegroups.com:
snip portion snow can only yap about, nothing left.
But here is somethiong he pretends to know about, & can not establish why
he should be accepted as anything but a liar for his pet god.
From: guardian Snow <snowp...@eck.net.au>
Newsgroups:
alt.religion.christian.baptist,alt.christnet.christianlife,alt.messianic.
yeshua,alt.bible,alt.messianic
Subject: The battle of Good and Evil
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 2009 09:40:13 -0700 (PDT)
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Lines: 127
Message-ID: <829f0745-9db9-4340-a809-
874e7f...@i28g2000prd.googlegroups.com>
> Were you going to comment and decided not too?
Neither, but that does not concern you. What does concern the
audience is your posturing & speaking of things you are glaringly
ignorant of.
To wit: the title of this thread you introduced & crossposted in
order to impress yourself.
There is no battle between good & evil, just people like you
pretending there is.
Good: an artificial concept used to describe things we want to do,
or have done to us. In nature, which we are part of, there is no
collective concious concept of good.
In the religious sense, what you want others to do.
Evil: Another artificial concept used to describe things we don't
want, or don't want done to ourselves.
In the religious sense, what you want others to do.
Collectively, used to mold peoples mental patterns in an effort to
control them. Both politicians & high & low priests use the terms
interchangably.
The concepts are useful when used as something other than boogey men.
Good, that which befefits a society, or gene pool, preferrably
without harming others.
Bad, that which harms a society or gene pool by causeing harm to
others, or a gene pool.
Now, you can play with those observations, you can play with the
dictionary & claim they are wrong. Or you can show them to be wrong
& you to be right. Care to play?
Hint, I will cram your attempts to divert & sidetrack by employing
scripture as an authority right back down your throat.
After all, what makes yolu think that if the Hebrew Bible & Greek
testments have historical errors, & they do, they don't have
mythological claims for the truth wrong as well.
No, that is not a threat, I don't bother with them. It is a fact.
Your only choice, should you elect to play BMOC, is to address the
concepts & falsify them.
walksalone who doubts the audience is having fun yet.
"Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a
Christian, presumably giving the
meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we
should take all means to
prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast
ignorance in a Christian and
laugh
it to scorn." -- Augustine, The Literal Meaning of Genesis
guardian Snow
must prevail instead of simply agreeing to disagree.
walksalone
ad98-bcc...@k20g2000vbp.googlegroups.com:
Through but not to snow.
> I'm always entertained by those who disagree and think that one idea
> must prevail instead of simply agreeing to disagree.
That must be why you continue to troll the xian groups and insist that
your version of name of god is correct even though, it is not. You see is
based on several things found in the Hebrew Bible, among them, the
admission that it is a euphemism and not a read-only. It is a substitute
for the real name, and therefore Yahweh is simply more verbal noise
associated with a particular item. In this case, the god of Judea.
I realized the concept required to understand that are not available to
you, but that's really not my problem. Nor is my problem you are unable
to support your claims with evidence such as in the following. That is,
has been, and will continue to be your problem. It's your credibility is
online. Unlike you, when I disagree with a point of view you present, I
prevent evidence to back it up. Those others can find or inquire about.
That's a bit of integrity you do not have, and apparently will never
have. Of course I can be proven wrong the first time you actually attempt
to stand up and defend your point. But I believe you realize that, in
this case, would be an exercise in futility.
walksalone who has serious doubts the snow will ever realize how easy
this is to resolve by defending his position. It may well be he actually
realizes, he's incapable of defending his position in any manner that
will bring glory to him.
Augustine did not realize that what he had to say about uninformed and
ill informed Christians applied as well to the uninformed or ill-informed
so-called reconverted Jews. It's never a pretty sight.
guardian Snow
activates the Enemy.”
Anybody that insists that I must conform to their belief system, like
you, is a control freak. I don't care what you believe Mike. I’m not
the one arguing atheism in a religious forum.
I'm also not like your control freak friend spamming rants that insist
anybody that doesn't answer is "evading" me because I don't care if
people answer me. In fact on many occasions I prefer just to put my
message out into the universe and be left alone.
I put my messages out and if people want to read them and respond to
them that is their right to do so as free speech permits but it is
also any persons right to remain silent and even people arrested are
(or should be) entitled this right without being harassed. When
people do respond, I will generally defend my position, as I am doing
this moment but it is done so because it is my desire, not because any
other person insist.
Buddha once said, “When one has the feeling of dislike for evil, when
one feels tranquil, one finds pleasure in listening to good teachings;
when one has these feelings and appreciates them, one is free of
fear.” Walksalone is delusional at best but to insist that someone
must answer him illustrates a need to control other people. What he
fails to grasp is that he has no control and in fact he is powerless,
ineffective and fearful and I even taunt him to show him that very
point.
The difference between you and me Mike, is I don't care if you believe
and it's not my job to make you believe... it's my job according to
the mandate given by my master Yehoshua to preach all that he
commanded.
Mat 28:19 “Therefore, go and make taught ones of all the nations,
immersing them in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Set-
apart Spirit,
Mat 28:20 teaching them to guard all that I have commanded you. And
see, I am with you always, until the end of the age.” Amĕn.
It is your right to ignore me as you have and it doesn't bother me the
slightest that your not a believer and in fact, I DON'T CARE what you
believe as an atheist. You and your completely delusional friend on
the other hand insist that I must be wrong. I take my beliefs on
faith and I confess this. You take your beliefs by faith and live in
denial.
The fact is that I'm not here for you. I'm not posting in alt.atheism
or any thread that isn't under the banner of a religion. You are the
intruder here in a religious forum and insisting that your point of
view is the only one acceptable to rational man and yet, you act
completely irrational.
Spare me the line about you being invited ... I did not invite you.
Now I don't see you posting in the anti-Santa clause, anti-Easter
bunny forums and that’s because you know it would be stupid because
only children would believe in such things. The very fact that you
are here to argue against my belief only adds validity to the words
that I speak of, so who is acting irrational?
If my belief is a "myth" as your friend keeps spamming, why do you
spend your day trying to dispel it?
The answer is simple in that my belief is credible and you’re afraid
I'm right and with every post you and your friend make, you only
continue to illustrate your fear that I am right.
So, who's the insane person, one who believes a myth or one who
(thinks he) knows it is a myth and is still afraid?
Mat 5:44 “But I say to you, love your enemies, bless those cursing
you, do good to those hating you, and pray for those insulting you and
persecuting you,
Mat 5:45 so that you become sons of your Father in the heavens.
Because He makes His sun rise on the wicked and on the good, and sends
rain on the righteous and on the unrighteous.
We both know that my religion forbids harming another man and in fact
encourages us to even love our enemy, so you don't have to worry about
violence on the part of my religion... so, go on and tell the world,
what do you think you are really afraid of?
Shalom,
*´¨)
¸.•´ ¸.•*´¨) ¸.•*¨)
(¸.•´ (¸.• (Snow(.¸.•*´¨)
People always fear change. People feared electricity when it was
invented, didn't they? People feared coal, they feared gas-powered
engines... There will always be ignorance, and ignorance leads to
fear.
Bill Gates
(Mat 28:1)(Mar 16:2) (Mar 16:9) (Luk 18:12) (Luk 24:1)
(Joh 20:1) (Joh 20:19) (Act 20:7) (1Co 16:2) (Heb 4:9)
Each of these verses that have the word Sabbath removed.
http://www.isr-messianic.org/ <- download the scriptures free
"Those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it."
http://groups.google.com/group/messianicYehoshua
Come post a message please, I'd love to hear from you. While this is
a moderated forum, the only moderation will be to remove spam.
walksalone
b90d-de2...@q2g2000vbr.googlegroups.com:
Through but not to snow. The concepts and obvious truths will elude them
at best, and give him a a headache at worst.
> Joel Osteen said and he is right, “Faith activates God - Fear
> activates the Enemy.”
>
> Anybody that insists that I must conform to their belief system, like
> you, is a control freak. I don't care what you believe Mike. I’m not
> the one arguing atheism in a religious forum.
Does this include you when you demand others conform to your belief
system? You do care what others believe and want that belief to be just
like yours. But they believe something else is immaterial to you.
> I'm also not like your control freak friend spamming rants that insist
> anybody that doesn't answer is "evading" me because I don't care if
Nobody has insisted that you answer, but what has been pointed out and
will continue to be pointed out is it shows your basic dishonesty. You
see, among adults it's common and when one makes a claim, especially an
absurd one, one is expected to pony up evidence or be branded a liar. Of
course, that's not the only source for one consider you a liar.
> people answer me. In fact on many occasions I prefer just to put my
> message out into the universe and be left alone.
With the universe does not want you to be left alone. This is not your
playground, this is not your schoolroom. This is a virtual is one of many
people from many different walks of life and they are entitled to expect
primarily, messages that agree with your point of view depending on which
newsgroup they are in. Your discourtesy and disregard for them make you a
control freak and a liar. You don't like it, change it. Stand up for once
in your life & quit pretending you are the one in charge. You're not even
in charge of your own life if you follow a god. Any god. But you are
special, you have a mission from Glod and you don't even know what it is.
> I put my messages out and if people want to read them and respond to
> them that is their right to do so as free speech permits but it is
Yes, you have a right to speak your mind and people have a right to
respond to them. You do not have the right of anticipating nothing but
accolades and whining when you fail. You want to be taken seriously, then
be serious and stand on your own 2 feet and defend your position using
logic and evidence. You cannot do this for several reasons, primarily
because you don't know enough to do it on your own. You must rely on
gullible people accepting passengers that have been selected with your
support in mind. No passage in the Hebrew Bible stands on its own, they
are all interrelated and supportive of each other unless one accepts as a
national epic which all indications are, it is.
> also any persons right to remain silent and even people arrested are
> (or should be) entitled this right without being harassed. When
If they have the right to remain silent, then they have the right to
speak out against what they find to be wrong. That makes you a control
freak because you believe this is not applicable to you. Here you are
complaining when you could be responding and eliminating your source of
woe. Or at least, trying to.
> people do respond, I will generally defend my position, as I am doing
> this moment but it is done so because it is my desire, not because any
> other person insist.
No one has insisted, you have read that into the message. You are given a
choice, that's not the same thing as a demand. You chose to run and
continue to run. That does not bother me because, I really did not expect
much else. However, that choice is you a way out of the continuing
appearance being nothing but a blowhard, a liar, & a coward. It's called
an ethical dilemma. Either you know which one talking about and can
support it, or you are lying to start with. I suspect the latter myself
because, to be blunt, your knowledge about the Hebrew mythology is
minimal to nonexistent at best.
> Buddha once said, “When one has the feeling of dislike for evil, when
The Buddha was a human who suffered apotheosis, consequently we know his
writings have been altered. How do we know this, because this happened in
every other case. At least, he had the decency, to exist. And though you
cannot realize it, the dislike you feel from others, especially those
that do not agree with you and rub your nose in your mess, is exactly
what he is talking about.
> one feels tranquil, one finds pleasure in listening to good teachings;
Unfortunate, you have no good teachings. And the teachings you do have
are inappropriate for the groups you want to dump on. Of course, being
you're so egotistical and self centered, that's immaterial. It would be
somewhat like me invading the newsgroup this type belongs in, the
messianic one, and ripping apart the Yahweh myth. It can be done, and
people like me can do it. But unlike you, people like me realized that
ethically speaking, that is wrong. It is not evil, is just wrong. Even if
done with the best of intentions, it is wrong. So you are reaping what
you have sown and you don't like it one damn bit.
> when one has these feelings and appreciates them, one is free of
> fear.” Walksalone is delusional at best but to insist that someone
> must answer him illustrates a need to control other people. What he
I'm not insisting, I'm offering you the chance to stand up and be a man
for once. You see, the problem braggarts like you have, you are not used
to anybody actually knowing more than you think you do and turning it
around on you. You used the blathering for one or two postings, and down
the road to go because no one has seriously held your toes to the fire
until now. And you don't like it, you don't like the fact that the trash
you talk is coming home to haunt you. It is establishing for the audience
that you have zero credibility because you cannot even support your
positions. Care to dance, that's no demand, it's an invitation. An
invitation to stand up and be counted for a change.
> fails to grasp is that he has no control and in fact he is powerless,
I don't want power, nor do I want control. It would be nice if people
like you were put in their part of a padded cell until they grew up, the
society says we can't do that anymore, and the finances are not there.
Consequently you are free to run around and the conditions of yourself
until such time as society has had enough. Well, society does not have
laws covering your conduct here, but the group and individuals have
ethics. Those ethics say you are wrong and will be challenged. Cushions
can do this because, judge not lest thou be judged is pounded into their
heads from day one. Absolutely great for any society where child abuse is
the norm.
But I do not have that restriction, and if I did, I would still have to
point out that you are less than honorable individual.
> ineffective and fearful and I even taunt him to show him that very
> point.
You don't even know what taunt is, child, I'm surprised you could even
spell the word.
Your mother was a hamster and your father smelled of elderberries is a
taunt beyond your meager capabilities no matter how hard you pray. If you
don't have the mental just to understand what you're reading, inventive
communications is beyond anything you will ever achieve.
> The difference between you and me Mike, is I don't care if you believe
> and it's not my job to make you believe... it's my job according to
Nowhere in the Hebrew Bible are you required to make converts. That is
your choice, and because you're on a mission from god, you don't care how
you do it.
> the mandate given by my master Yehoshua to preach all that he
> commanded.
You know as little about the Greek Testaments as you do about the Hebrew
Bible. It has been well known for years that the following passage is an
insertion. That or your Messiah was a liar because he can't he did not
come for the Gentiles but for the lost sheep of Israel. This means he
could not have been a god or he would've known door to more lost sheep of
Israel as that was a euphemism for the 10 lost tribes that no longer
existed.
> Mat 28:19 “Therefore, go and make taught ones of all the nations,
> immersing them in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Set-
> apart Spirit,
> Mat 28:20 teaching them to guard all that I have commanded you. And
> see, I am with you always, until the end of the age.” Amĕn.
>
> It is your right to ignore me as you have and it doesn't bother me the
More of an obligation. When a man cannot back up his word, there is no
reason to assume he knows what he's talking about.
> slightest that your not a believer and in fact, I DON'T CARE what you
> believe as an atheist. You and your completely delusional friend on
> the other hand insist that I must be wrong. I take my beliefs on
> faith and I confess this. You take your beliefs by faith and live in
> denial.
We don't insist you are wrong, you demonstrate that you are wrong. You
consistently attempt to rewrite the meetings of the passages that you
quote, assuming nobody else understands what they mean or, it doesn't
matter that they understand what it means. You cannot even walk the dog
and show why Abraham would have followed a god he already knew out of the
city of Ur. By the way, which is city of Ur was that, was it the southern
or northern city?
No, no one has to insist you are wrong, you keep verifying it by
yourself. Your ignorance of your mythology is phenomenal, and is
demonstrated by your insistence that you're right even though you can
show no reason that this should be the case.
> The fact is that I'm not here for you. I'm not posting in alt.atheism
> or any thread that isn't under the banner of a religion. You are the
The problem you have, among many others, is that you're off-topic for the
xian groups. They are quite happy with their version of the Hebraic myth.
Your version has nothing to do with them. You are attempting to subvert
their beliefs and make them synonymous with yours. Ethically, this is
morally repugnant to individuals who have ethics. It's in the same
category of somebody being on your door on a Saturday morning due to good
news about the coming of the Messiah, the Bunnyip Messiah. And staying on
your doorstep for the next five days beating there down to chew even
though, you have nothing in common.
> intruder here in a religious forum and insisting that your point of
> view is the only one acceptable to rational man and yet, you act
> completely irrational.
When the unreal becomes real, then the real becomes unreal. And you have
already reached that state of mind. Belief in unfounded claims is
irrational. And yet, you insist others accept your unfounded claim as
rational. It doesn't work that way and you get held up to ridicule.
> Spare me the line about you being invited ... I did not invite you.
And exactly which god died and put you in charge of the invitation list?
I was here when he was invited by a member in good standing, standing at
least as good as yours. And probably held in higher esteem. He too was a
troll. He too took himself seriously.
> Now I don't see you posting in the anti-Santa clause, anti-Easter
> bunny forums and that’s because you know it would be stupid because
No, he realizes that those newsgroups, should they exist, have nothing
for him to learn. Therefore, assuming that he is not as irrational as
you, he would never bother to join the.
> only children would believe in such things. The very fact that you
Get children managed to grow out of those beliefs, they give up their
imaginary friends. You have yet to reach that stage of life.
> are here to argue against my belief only adds validity to the words
> that I speak of, so who is acting irrational?
Actually, it does not. It has validity only in your mind because, it must
be true or else nobody would say its false is not a concept that works
with logic. If it is true, then you can provide evidence, supportive
objective evidence and not subjective evidence. You always fail to do
this with your claims because the evidence is not there. You will try to
delete the word evidence down by claiming the Hebrew Bible is evidence.
If you allow that claim to stand, then every holy writ is evidence of a
different god. And just as valid as yours.
> If my belief is a "myth" as your friend keeps spamming, why do you
> spend your day trying to dispel it?
There is a difference between trying to dispel a myth, and laughing at
you. I've never seen Mike go after the xian myth like you do. He is quite
comfortable with people believing as they will open a post nonsense about
how great it is or, some such malarkey, he has been known to point out
where it's not quite what they claim. And that's the idea behind usenet
in a way, the exchange of information. Not the exchange of opinions, even
though that is helpful in some cases, information. Information verifiable
by others.
> The answer is simple in that my belief is credible and you’re afraid
Your answer is so simple it's incorrect. What's to be afraid of, your
bogeyman. My bogeyman can beat up your bogeyman. And he's just as
existent. However I can speculate on my lack of WiFi or I'll be at once I
die. I cannot remember where I was before I was here, so the probability
is very strong that I will return there if there exists in any sense of
the word humanity can comprehend.
Alternatively, the chemical energy making of this body having dissipated
and ceased will wait until conditions are favorable again and then
continue in a different form.
> I'm right and with every post you and your friend make, you only
> continue to illustrate your fear that I am right.
Such arrogance and vanity is rarely seen past the age of six among the
majority of people who attempt to hold conversations meant to change the
minds of others. You have to believe that we fear you are right, because
if we don't, then you might be wrong. That you are wrong is immaterial,
you cannot accept that where you are concerned. After all, if you did not
believe you're right, you would try to find something that would make you
believe you are right. You change your release until such time as you
found some that had you believing you're right. This way people like you
work, your not unique. Ignorance is your fortress, within its walls you
are safe from reality. In this you are not alone, the majority of the
world prefers to be led and you are no different. You like to attend your
leader of men, the true spokesman for Glod, and you don't even know who
or what he is. But you think you do, and by cracky is good enough for
everybody else. Well, except for those that think for themselves. You
offer no reason or incentive for believing you're correct when you cannot
even defend your own word.
> So, who's the insane person, one who believes a myth or one who
> (thinks he) knows it is a myth and is still afraid?
I don't know, first of all you have to establish that anyone is afraid of
your bogeyman. Something you can claim, but you claim to know that good
and evil are real entities, but you cannot demonstrate. And for the same
reason, your imaginings are not evidence.
So the insane person apparently is the one who believes the myth, but
that's not the correct word. The word is deluded. Why not insane, because
insane is a word with different definitions depending on who and how it
is used. You certainly qualify for insane under the classic definition of
the person who keeps repeating the same action and expecting different
results.
>
> Mat 5:44 “But I say to you, love your enemies, bless those cursing
> you, do good to those hating you, and pray for those insulting you and
> persecuting you,
> Mat 5:45 so that you become sons of your Father in the heavens.
> Because He makes His sun rise on the wicked and on the good, and sends
> rain on the righteous and on the unrighteous.
>
> We both know that my religion forbids harming another man and in fact
No we don't, in fact, the Hebrew Bible is rife with people killing others
in the name of Glod. In fact, he commands it and does not become a gentle
god until late in the story. Where, I happen to know but I doubt you do.
> encourages us to even love our enemy, so you don't have to worry about
That's xianity, not Judaism. Are you now claiming to be a xian who has
the real word and everybody else is of course, wrong?
> violence on the part of my religion... so, go on and tell the world,
> what do you think you are really afraid of?
Nothing, especially nothing like you unless you gain political power. And
given the history of religion in political control, commonly referred to
as a theocracy like that of the Middle East today, fear would be a
natural outcome. Not of you, and not of your god, but the mis-application
of power over life and death you would wield.
Fanatics are always dangerous and they prefer to make others die first
and they never die.
But here's something you are an expert on, or at least you like to
pretend you are.
That's right, in your own words you are a liar and a coward because, you
cannot stand up and defend them, support them, or even show cause as to
why you should be taken seriously.
walksalone who is not so foolish as to anticipate snow responding in an
intelligent manner, it would appear his delusion has eaten his brain to a
high degree, or at least the higher critical thinking regions. He's what
is referred to around here as a perfect example why religion is not
necessarily a good thing for some humans. But then, I suspect we all have
already known this for some time.
Mike Painter
<snip>
>
> We both know that my religion forbids harming another man and in fact
> encourages us to even love our enemy, so you don't have to worry about
> violence on the part of my religion... so, go on and tell the world,
> what do you think you are really afraid of?
That people like you would gain power again.
Only by cherry picking can you make that claim. The vast majority of rules
in the bibe demand death for what is ignored by most and considered at best
a minor infraction today.
<snip>
> People always fear change. People feared electricity when it was
> invented, didn't they? People feared coal, they feared gas-powered
> engines... There will always be ignorance, and ignorance leads to
> fear.
> Bill Gates
>
Some people fear change, some embrace it and ignorance is at the heart of
that fear.
Fortunately religion is changing and disappearing in all but name. The
religion followed by people as little as 100 years ago was far harsher and
more important then it is now.
Only a small percentage of people unwilling to learn remain, each with their
own idea of the truth and based on their ignorance.
1st Century Apostolic Traditionalist
"Mike Painter" <mddotp...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
>The religion followed by people as little as 100 years ago was far harsher
>and more important then it is now.
Yes! it was called the Truth in those day, mostly free from liberal
corruption.
__
Veff...
Mike Painter
If it was the truth then it should be the truth now and all generations have
talked about how it was better in the old days.
The same book is used by most of the fundamentalists as was used 100 years
ago. A small minority of them still practice as was done then but for the
most part the church then would not be willing to associate with the church
today.
They let people of color in with the whites and women have rights.
The dress code for the average Baptist woman on a Sunday today would have
seen her jailed if she wore it on a beach 100 years ago.
The truth is that education is showing people how silly the belief in an
inerrant bible is, something that also dates from a little over 100 years
ago.
jwshe...@satx.rr.com
by John P. Koster
John P. Koster (Author)
Very convincing, May 8, 2002
By "malleus2002" (New York City)
This hard-to-find book is an excellent introduction to social
aetiology of clinical pyschosis and nuerocognitive behavior as they
relate to atheism. It is the first work I've seen which convincingly
demonstrates a direct causative bridge between an absence of faith in
God to recognized symptoms of mental illness such as paranoia, loss of
appetite, and bed-wetting.
When I took a graduate course on Darwinism a few years ago, I used
Koster's book as one of my texts. The proofs are very readable, clear
and simple. You'll see the subject develop right before your eyes.
(The little cartoons that accompany the text are mostly helpful,
although sometimes odd -- and in at least one instance rather
disturbing. You'll have to judge for yourself.)
There are a few points in the book where Koster seems to push the
envelope of credible argumentation and adopts what one might call a
"Rube Goldberg" analytical approach. On pg. 147, for example, he
suggests that Freud's awareness of his overbite fostered a poor self-
image and led inexorably to his ultimate conviction that his mother
was sexually promiscuous. Also, Koster's hypothesis (see pp. 431-79 et
seq.) with regards to the location of the privvy on the HMS Beagle and
how this factor contributed to the development of Darwin's nascent
theory of evolution simply doesn't wash, in my opinion.
That said, however, I would say that "The Atheist Syndrome" is
definitely a useful first-year graduate text covering the inherent
pitfalls of evolutionary theory, eigenvalue problems, and atheistic
moral decomposition. Some of the more unique (and interesting)
features of the book include a discussion of the impact of modern
computer animation on atheism; a handy directory of atheists' homes
and phone numbers; and a discussion of prominent modern atheists,
ranging from Jacobi to Klismann and even De Llundum.
BTW, if you plan on buying this book, here's a tip: when reading the
chapter on the atheist's dilemma when faced with infinite dimensional
vector spaces, try to draw a parallel with the finite dimensional
version of the subject, linear algebra. You'll appreciate the book all
the more. For every theorem relating to a bounded linear operator on
Hilbert space, replace the operator by a matrix on Euclidean n-space.
You'll say "Oh yeah! I remember that from linear algebra!"
http://www.amazon.com/Atheist-Syndrome-John-P-Koster/dp/0943497337
Stormin Mormon
--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.
"guardian Snow" <snowp...@eck.net.au> wrote in message
news:24515d71-f6d2-4620...@k20g2000vbp.googlegroups.com...
guardian Snow
Sorry Chris, I have no idea who that is. My point in this statement:
> I'm always entertained by those who disagree and think that
> one idea
> must prevail instead of simply agreeing to disagree.
is that people should learn to respect that not everybody is going to
agree with them. I have no problem with that idea and in fact, I know
most people don't agree with me and I'm perfectly comfortable with
that idea. Take care Mr. Young and have a great day.. be blessed.
Shalom,
*´¨)
¸.•´ ¸.•*´¨) ¸.•*¨)
(¸.•´ (¸.• (Snow(.¸.•*´¨)
Change will not come if we wait for some other person or some other
time. We are the ones we've been waiting for. We are the change that
we seek.
Barack Obama
http://www.e-sword.net/ Free bible software
http://groups.google.com/group/messianicYehoshua <-- join
walksalone
bf8d-9e7...@f19g2000yqh.googlegroups.com:
> On Jun 9, 11:36 pm, "Stormin Mormon"
> <cayoung61**spambloc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Through but not to snow, there is no way he will be able to follow the
obvious clues he has left behind.
>> You must find Craig Chilton totally entertaining?
>
> Sorry Chris, I have no idea who that is. My point in this statement:
What you have just told the audience is that you do not read the
newsgroups that you cross post your aberrant version of the Hebraic myth
to. Groups that have nothing to do with your version of the Hebraic myth.
>> I'm always entertained by those who disagree and think that
>> one idea
>> must prevail instead of simply agreeing to disagree.
>
> is that people should learn to respect that not everybody is going to
> agree with them. I have no problem with that idea and in fact, I know
In your case, it's up to you fail to do. You see, not all ideas are
worthy of respect and not all posters have earned it. In order for idea
to be worthy of respect, it must be factual and convey information that
can be verified. The leaves out things like your hypothesis that you know
the name of god even though nobody else does, your dogma is correct in
her biases is wrong, or, if you know that there is an actual battle
between good and evil. A battle requires participants, in this case one
entity called good and one called evil. I could give you a way out of
your ethical dilemma, but I won't. It's very uncomplicated and, not even
devious.
> most people don't agree with me and I'm perfectly comfortable with
It's not that they don't agree with you, they don't agree with your
ideas. And when you're ideas are not in congruence with the theme of the
newsgroup you posting to, that makes you a troll and an ignorant
individual. You do not mind violating the privacy of others, you don't
mind intruding on their desired reading material. As long as you get you
say,. And that's not a difference of opinion, that's the actions of a
individual who cares less about anybody but himself. That has nothing to
do with a difference of opinion. Of course you would like for that to be
the case, what you like is immaterial in this case as in most.
> that idea. Take care Mr. Young and have a great day.. be blessed.
Here is where it's not a difference of opinion, it's an observation that
you cannot back up your claims and, you have verified that would
continuously measures and pretensions of taking the moral high ground by
not answering as if that really did anything for your credibility.
walksalone who has found it amusing to watch snow is courting routine as
well as his evasion routine. Both have the occurrence of being polished
acts which means, he's been at for some time, or he's a natural liar one
of the two. I would not care to guess which is the most accurate
description.
Teresita
> The vast majority of rules
> in the bibe demand death for what is ignored by most and considered at best
> a minor infraction today.
Disobedience to Parents (Exodus 21:17, Deuteronomy 21:18)
Beastiality (Leviticus 20:15)
Violations of the Sabbath (Exodus 31:15)
Adultery (Leviticus 20:10, Leviticus 19:20)
Abominations (Leviticus 20:2)
Blasphemy (Leviticus 24:16)
Incest (Leviticus 20:11)
Homosexuality (Leviticus 20:13)
Witchcraft (Exodus 22:18, Leviticus 20:27)
False Prophecy (Deuteronomy 13:5)
Worshipping a false god (Deuteronomy 13:6-10)
Sodomy (Leviticus 18:22, 20:13)
Sex with a woman betrothed to another (Deuteronomy 22:25)
Daughters of preachers fornicating (Leviticus 21:9)
Juvenile delinquency (Deuteronomy 21:18-21)
Sacrificing to false gods (Exodus 22:20)
Disrespecting a judge or priest (Deuteronomy 17:22)
Sex with a woman during her period (Leviticus 20:18)
Unchastity (Deuteronomy 22:21-24)
vince garcia
And isn't it interesting how messianics, who teach every commandment of
the Law is still valid, don't get too vocal in praising laws like THOSE!
I also don't see too many of them affirming that a man who comes near a
menstruous woman must also be "cut off" as the scripture says.
I don't hear too many advocating stoning someone who travels further
than a "sabbath day's journey" (which is a few thousand cubits), though
that is forbidden along with kindling a fire or cooking on the sabbath;
and a guy who simply gathered sticks on the sabbath paid for it with his
life.
That's how seriously GOD takes the sabbath comamnds. But I sure don't
see the law-keepers walking in His example.
It's easy for them to call the Law "a delight" when they throw away the
unpleasant aspects of it, or whittle it down from 613 to 10
commandments.
@tampabay.rr.com Pastor Dave
<rub...@newsguy.com> spake thusly:
Assuming all of this to be accurate, you begin with
the false assumption that we *deserve* life and
that we are innocent.
--
Pastor Dave
The following is part of my auto-rotating
sig file and not part of the message body.
"By the time they had diminished from 50 to 8,
the other dwarves began to suspect 'Hungry'."
-Gary Larson
@tampabay.rr.com Pastor Dave
<vggar...@ix.netcom.com> spake thusly:
> And isn't it interesting how messianics, who teach
> every commandment of the Law is still valid, don't
> get too vocal in praising laws like THOSE!
That's because they are Futurists and Futurism always
ends up being self-contradictory.
Bottom line: All Futurists must contradict themselves
on this matter, but will deny doing so
and yet, will not be able to respond to
this issue with an answer that shows
that they are not contradicting themselves,
but rather, will *always* end up having to
attack the person who brings the issue up,
or they will be evasive and just repeat the
same doctrine that they already stated and
when shown that it can't reasonably be true,
the same thing will happen again.
If even one law is still active under penalty of death,
then all of the law is active. There is no picking and
choosing. Either the law is active and Matt 5:17-18
stands as something that is still true today, because
"heaven and earth" have not passed, which Futurists
claim is a physically literal statement and all of the law
is active (since Jesus said "not one jot nor tittle would
pass until all be fulfilled"), or the law has passed.
But we do not get to have it both ways.
A) The law is still active and the law includes
animal sacrifices for sin, which contradicts
what Jesus did.
B) Heaven and earth passed and the law is gone.
People can whine and complain, but that's all
they will have to respond with, because they
know deep down, that what I just said is true.
--
Pastor Dave
The following is part of my auto-rotating
sig file and not part of the message body.
"More imprisoned is he who ignores conscience
to avoid jail." - Unknown
vince garcia
>
> On Fri, 25 Dec 2009 07:12:41 -0800, vince garcia
> <vggar...@ix.netcom.com> spake thusly:
>
> > And isn't it interesting how messianics, who teach
> > every commandment of the Law is still valid, don't
> > get too vocal in praising laws like THOSE!
>
> That's because they are Futurists and Futurism always
> ends up being self-contradictory.
Good point. All messianics are futurists because they believe in a
literal messianic age and restored nation of israel to come, so that
requires a futurist view
@tampabay.rr.com Pastor Dave
<vggar...@ix.netcom.com> spake thusly:
> Pastor Dave wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 25 Dec 2009 07:12:41 -0800, vince garcia
>> <vggar...@ix.netcom.com> spake thusly:
>>
>> > And isn't it interesting how messianics, who teach
>> > every commandment of the Law is still valid, don't
>> > get too vocal in praising laws like THOSE!
>>
>> That's because they are Futurists and Futurism always
>> ends up being self-contradictory.
>
>Good point. All messianics are futurists because they believe in a
>literal messianic age and restored nation of israel to come, so that
>requires a futurist view
Yes, as does almost all other views. Most "Christians"
are indeed Futurists.
--
Pastor Dave
The following is part of my auto-rotating
sig file and not part of the message body.
Bathroom Fact: Most toilets flush in the key of E-Flat.
ProfQ
has been replaced by a new covenant (New Testament), then the old one is
put away completely, obsolete, has no validity whatsoever, therefore
Leviticus and Deuteronomy and all the OLD laws are null and void and no
longer apply.
randy
"vince garcia"
>> > The vast majority of rules
>> > in the bible demand death for what is ignored by most and considered at
>> > best
>> > a minor infraction today.
>> Disobedience to Parents (Exodus 21:17, Deuteronomy 21:18)
>> Beastiality (Leviticus 20:15)
>> Violations of the Sabbath (Exodus 31:15)
>> Adultery (Leviticus 20:10, Leviticus 19:20)
>> Abominations (Leviticus 20:2)
>> Blasphemy (Leviticus 24:16)
>> Incest (Leviticus 20:11)
>> Homosexuality (Leviticus 20:13)
>> Witchcraft (Exodus 22:18, Leviticus 20:27)
>> False Prophecy (Deuteronomy 13:5)
>> Worshipping a false god (Deuteronomy 13:6-10)
>> Sodomy (Leviticus 18:22, 20:13)
>> Sex with a woman betrothed to another (Deuteronomy 22:25)
>> Daughters of preachers fornicating (Leviticus 21:9)
>> Juvenile delinquency (Deuteronomy 21:18-21)
>> Sacrificing to false gods (Exodus 22:20)
>> Disrespecting a judge or priest (Deuteronomy 17:22)
>> Sex with a woman during her period (Leviticus 20:18)
>> Unchastity (Deuteronomy 22:21-24)
> And isn't it interesting how messianics, who teach every commandment of
> the Law is still valid, don't get too vocal in praising laws like THOSE!
Even nonmessianics like Rob, a Reform Jew, continues to assert the validity
of the Law and recommends that Christians follow Jesus in observing an
eternal applicability of the Law. I don't, of course, believe that Jesus
advocated an eternal observance of the Law. But it has to be recognized that
if Rob is going to claim the Law is still in effect, that it can't be
changed or reinterpreted, that he also must abide by the same principles. He
cannot change these death sentences. He cannot change the requirement that
the 613 mitzvot take place with a temple in Jerusalem and with a consecrated
priesthood. But he admits the changes Reform Judaism makes, while
maintaining that Christianity cannot do the same.
Rather, he points out the contradiction of conservative Christians who may
hunt or take on a political position that appears to leave the poor
uninsured. Yet he sees no contradiction in tolerating homosexuality that
does not include anal sex. He sees no contradiction in toleranting other
religious practises in a land where the God of that land commanded, "Have no
other gods before me."
> It's easy for them to call the Law "a delight" when they throw away the
> unpleasant aspects of it, or whittle it down from 613 to 10
> commandments.
Good point.
randy
randy
"Pastor Dave"
> ....There is no picking and
> choosing. Either the law is active and Matt 5:17-18
> stands as something that is still true today, because
> "heaven and earth" have not passed, which Futurists
> claim is a physically literal statement and all of the law
> is active (since Jesus said "not one jot nor tittle would
> pass until all be fulfilled"), or the law has passed.
> But we do not get to have it both ways.
The Law has indeed passed away. But this has nothing whatsoever to do with
Matthew 5.17-18 based on the interpretation I've given you. And it has
nothing whatsoever to do with "Futurism." As I've told you, Jesus exempted
his own return from the prophecy that "all these things will take place in
my generation" (paraphrased). Jesus was speaking of the fall of Jerusalem
and of the destruction of the temple when he said "all these things will
take place." Jesus was *not* speaking of his own return in glory. That event
has not taken place yet, and most Christians believe it is extreme error to
say that Jesus' coming has *already taken place.*
Jesus said heaven and earth would not pass away unless every element of the
Law was *fulfilled.* Jesus did not say the covenant of Law would be active
for all eternity, or at least until the end of the universe. On the
contrary, he said, "Think not that I have come to abolish the law and the
prophets; I have come not to abolish them but to fulfil them." This means
that the passing away of the Law as a covenant system was not meant by God
to be a complete revocation of Israel's hope, but rather, a means to an end.
The fall of Jerusalem was meant to turn Israel and all the world to Christ,
who alone has the keys to eternal life.
randy
@tampabay.rr.com Pastor Dave
<rkl...@wavecable.com> spake thusly:
> "Pastor Dave"
>
>> ....There is no picking and
>> choosing. Either the law is active and Matt 5:17-18
>> stands as something that is still true today, because
>> "heaven and earth" have not passed, which Futurists
>> claim is a physically literal statement and all of the law
>> is active (since Jesus said "not one jot nor tittle would
>> pass until all be fulfilled"), or the law has passed.
>> But we do not get to have it both ways.
>
> The Law has indeed passed away.
Then there is no observing any of it,
as a means to salvation.
> But this has nothing whatsoever to do with Matthew 5.17-18
You wish. Jesus specifically stated what He did
about the law and when it would pass. So either
"heaven and earth has passed", or the law is
still fully active, since Jesus said that "not one
jot nor tittle (not one dot, nor stroke) would pass,
until heaven and earth passed".
> based on the interpretation I gave you
I don't care what you try to twist it into.
When someone has to change what
Jesus said, then they are twisting what
He said to suit their own purpose.
Me, I just simply believe Him.
--
Pastor Dave
The following is part of my auto-rotating
sig file and not part of the message body.
"Fortune favors the bold." - Virgil - The Aeneid
Jonathan Schattke
> On Mon, 08 Jun 2009 09:41:19 -0700, Mike Painter wrote:
> > The vast majority of rules
> > in the bibe demand death for what is ignored by most and considered at best
> > a minor infraction today.
Technically, since we are now under the statues of men, we must follow
the Messiah's example, and leave capital punishment to the laws of the
lands we live in.
First among the death penalties, are breaking some of the 10
commandments:
> Sacrificing to false gods (Exodus 22:20)
> Worshipping a false god (Deuteronomy 13:6-10)
> Adultery (Leviticus 20:10, Leviticus 19:20)
> Abominations (Leviticus 20:2)
> Violations of the Sabbath (Exodus 31:15)
> Blasphemy (Leviticus 24:16)
> Disobedience to Parents (Exodus 21:17, Deuteronomy 21:18)
> Juvenile delinquency (Deuteronomy 21:18-21)
"wayward and rebellious" (ca'vrar v'ma'vrah in hebrew) - this is a
"juvenile delinquent" - and really, killing them is best for society.
You missed murder, which was allowed to be avenged. Also, the penalty
for False Witness is that the false witness gets the penalty which
would be meted out for the crime - up to death. The only breaking of
the 10 commandments which doesn't carry any possibility of death is
stealing.
> Incest (Leviticus 20:11)
> Sodomy (Leviticus 18:22, 20:13)
> Homosexuality (Leviticus 20:13)
> Beastiality (Leviticus 20:15)
> Sex with a woman during her period (Leviticus 20:18)
These are vile and dangerous practices, spreading disease and the
society is safer without the people who are doing these things.
> Disrespecting a judge or priest (Deuteronomy 17:22)
there are only 20 verses in Deu 17... you mean Deu 17:12.
And of course Outlaws are under a sentence of death.
> Witchcraft (Exodus 22:18, Leviticus 20:27)
> False Prophecy (Deuteronomy 13:5)
These would fall under the category of false worship, I think.
> Sex with a woman betrothed to another (Deuteronomy 22:25)
This falls under adultery.
> Unchastity (Deuteronomy 22:21-24)
The reason is given - dishonoring the father's house. 5th
commandment. And then, only if she is hated by her husband and he
makes an issue of it.
> Daughters of preachers fornicating (Leviticus 21:9)
Priests were held to higher standards.
Jonathan Schattke
> Teresita wrote:
> > On Mon, 08 Jun 2009 09:41:19 -0700, Mike Painter wrote:
> > > The vast majority of rules
> > > in the bibe demand death for what is ignored by most and considered at best
> > > a minor infraction today.
> > Disobedience to Parents (Exodus 21:17, Deuteronomy 21:18)
> > Beastiality (Leviticus 20:15)
> > Violations of the Sabbath (Exodus 31:15)
> > Adultery (Leviticus 20:10, Leviticus 19:20)
> > Abominations (Leviticus 20:2)
> > Blasphemy (Leviticus 24:16)
> > Incest (Leviticus 20:11)
> > Homosexuality (Leviticus 20:13)
> > Witchcraft (Exodus 22:18, Leviticus 20:27)
> > False Prophecy (Deuteronomy 13:5)
> > Worshipping a false god (Deuteronomy 13:6-10)
> > Daughters of preachers fornicating (Leviticus 21:9)
> > Disrespecting a judge or priest (Deuteronomy 17:22)
> > Sex with a woman during her period (Leviticus 20:18)
> > Unchastity (Deuteronomy 22:21-24)
>
> And isn't it interesting how messianics, who teach every commandment of
> the Law is still valid, don't get too vocal in praising laws like THOSE!
What? These death penalties are righteous and proper. It is a shame
that they are not practiced.
> I also don't see too many of them affirming that a man who comes near a
> menstruous woman must also be "cut off" as the scripture says.
It says what it says. But it would be a difficult rule to enforce,
don't you think?
> I don't hear too many advocating stoning someone who travels further
> than a "sabbath day's journey" (which is a few thousand cubits), though
> that is forbidden along with kindling a fire or cooking on the sabbath;
> and a guy who simply gathered sticks on the sabbath paid for it with his
> life.
Now, these are not in the code, but in other places. These were
judgments to deal with a particular situation. And Y'hvah had his
reasons for making the judgments he did.
> That's how seriously GOD takes the sabbath comamnds. But I sure don't
> see the law-keepers walking in His example.
It is not now our place to take the rule of law to ourselves in the
nations we live in. Y'hvah does not rule over us, as he did Israel;
therefore Y'hvah's judgments and statues are not upheld, and the
nations are weaker and sinful because of it.
> It's easy for them to call the Law "a delight" when they throw away the
> unpleasant aspects of it, or whittle it down from 613 to 10
> commandments.
If we were to set up a nation governed by the law, I believe it would
be a safer, more sane, and holy nation. But when under the rule of
man, we do not get to just decide to kill someone; indeed, we don't
even have the authority to execute a penalty of lesser strength.
Jonathan Schattke
> The writer of the Book of/to The Hebrews wrote that if the old covenant
> has been replaced by a new covenant (New Testament), then the old one is
> put away completely, obsolete, has no validity whatsoever, therefore
> Leviticus and Deuteronomy and all the OLD laws are null and void and no
> longer apply.
No writer ever gets to set aside the Laws of the Eternal Y'hvah.
Either Hebrews is a false book, or you misunderstand it.
vince garcia
I don't know you. Are you a christ-rejecting jew? Or are you some sort
of christian jew? What religious background do you have? Please be
specific. Thanks
Jonathan Schattke
> Jonathan Schattke wrote:
> > If we were to set up a nation governed by the law, I believe it would
> > be a safer, more sane, and holy nation. But when under the rule of
> > man, we do not get to just decide to kill someone; indeed, we don't
> > even have the authority to execute a penalty of lesser strength.
>
> I don't know you. Are you a christ-rejecting jew? Or are you some sort
> of christian jew? What religious background do you have? Please be
> specific. Thanks
Well, no, I'm not a Jew.
I accept the Messiah.
I grew up in a Fundamentalist Sabbitarian church, and have studied the
bible since to see what is true and what is false.
Snow
> It's easy for them to call the Law "a delight" when they throw away the
> unpleasant aspects of it, or whittle it down from 613 to 10
> commandments.
Are there really 613 commandments?
Eze 13:22 “Because with falsehood you have made the heart of the
righteous sad, whom I have not made sad. And you have strengthened the
hands of the wrong, so that he does not turn from his evil way, to
keep him alive.
I’ve posted to my brothers that there are 10 commandments in the
covenant:
Deu 4:13 “And He made known to you His covenant which He commanded you
to do, the Ten Words, and He wrote them on two tablets of stone.
His response back? Bill Farkas said, “Disregarding 603 commandments
in favor of ten is only a shade away from what you accuse Paul of
anyway. What about the entire law? Why are you excused from the laws
you either can't or just plain don't want to comply with.”
Isa 28:13 But the Word of Yahweh was to them, “Command upon command,
command upon command, line upon line, line upon line, here a little,
there a little,” so that they go and shall stumble backward, and be
broken and snared and taken captive.”
Notice you are again taken captive. There are not 613 commandments
that are the covenant unless of course you do not believe the very
words of the Torah. You illustrate the same faulty teachings of the
Pharisees in that you ignore the fact that there is in fact layers to
the Torah just like you can have Federal, State and Local laws and
then ordinances such as parking violations.
Gen 26:5 because Aḇraham obeyed
[1]My voice and guarded My Charge:
[2]My commands, [3]My laws,
[4]and My Torot1.” Footnote: 1Torot - plural of Torah, teaching
The other problem with lumping all the Torah as a command is that you
disregard it and then consider it a curse according to false apostle
Paul. I cannot lay the blame squarely on the Christian church when
the Oral tradition of the Jewish church continues to lie about the
number of commandments and thereby adding words to the Torah.
If we examine the Christian mindset, it says, “God brought the chosen
tribe out of Egypt and then heap 613 commands on them and cursed them
if they disobeyed the slightest ordinance. All Jews earned death by
even the slightest infraction until the Messiah came and freed us from
the law. If Jews don’t believe Jesus, they are damned to hell because
nobody can be saved by law.”
In other words, Christians believe in a sadistic and cruel deity.
Christians believe in a deity that relies on death and destruction on
his “Chosen” people for such small infringements of the Torah as not
making a sacrifice for sins. This couldn’t be farther from truth.
Bill Farker said, “No one, including you, is capable of keeping the
law. Do you honestly believe that God's sole interest in us is that we
sit up straight and behave better?”
Eze 33:11 Say unto them, As I live, saith the Master YHWH, I have no
pleasure in the death of the wicked; but that the wicked turn from his
way and live: turn ye, turn ye from your evil ways; for why will ye
die, O house of Israel?
Of course he wants you to behave better, duh? Don’t you get that
that’s the whole point of repentance? Even in the Covenant it speaks
of having a new spirit that you might live, what Yehoshua taught was
nothing new!
Eze 18:31 “Cast away from you all the transgressions, by which you
have transgressed, and make for yourselves a new heart and a new
spirit. For why should you die, O house of Yisra’ĕl?
Eze 18:32 “For I have no pleasure in the death of one who dies,”
declares the Master Yahweh. “So turn back and live!”
Christians do not recognize THEY ARE PHARISEES and students of a
Pharisee (Acts 23:5, Php 2:5) in Paul. What Christians fail to grasp
is this:
Eze 33:15 if the wrong restores the pledge, gives back what he has
stolen, and walks in the **laws of life** without doing crookedness,
he shall certainly live; he shall not die.
The Torah is the LAW OF LIFE. It is not a curse in any way shape or
form unless you never establish it’s teachings in your life. So it
becomes necessary to dispel Christian myth about Pharisees.
Myth 1: Pharisee’s were Torah observant and kept the commandments.
Mat 15:3 But He answering, said to them, “Why do you also transgress
the command of Elohim1 because of your tradition? Footnote: 1See Mat.
5:20.
Myth 2 and 3: Sin was forgiven only via sacrifice in the temple or at
the arrival of “Jesus Christ”. Sin means automatic death.
Eze 18:27 “And when the wrong turns away from the wrong which he has
done, and he does right-ruling and righteousness, he keeps himself
alive. 28 “Because he sees and turns away from all the transgressions
which he has done, he shall certainly live, he shall not die.
Let’s be clear, if one CONTINUES to sin, it will mean death but the
idea that “only in Jesus” can one be forgiven makes Yahweh an
uncompassionate deity that hates his chosen children if the Romans
didn’t murder his Son.
Heb 10:28 Anyone who has disregarded the Torah of Moses dies without
compassion on the witness of two or three witnesses.
The reality is that if Christian myth were true, nobody would be left
alive! The Christian deity would have killed off humanity long before
the arrival of the Messiah! Don’t believe it.. it’s a wicked and
terrible lie that blasphemies the compassion of Yahweh!
Mat 23:23 “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites!
Because you tithe the mint and the anise and the cumin,
and have neglected the weightier matters of the Torah:
the right-ruling and the COMPASSION and the belief.
These need to have been done, WITHOUT neglecting the others.
Hebrews and Paul are the doctrine of Pharisees!
Mat 9:10 And it came to be, as Yehoshua sat at the table in the house,
that see, many tax collectors and sinners came and sat down with Him
and His taught ones. 11 And when the Pharisees saw it, they said to
His taught ones, “Why does your Teacher eat with tax collectors and
sinners?” 12 And Yehoshua hearing this, said to them, “Those who are
strong have no need of a physician, but those who are sick.
1Co 5:11 But now I have written to you not to keep company with anyone
called ‘a brother,’ if he is one who whores, or greedy of gain, or an
idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or a swindler – not even to eat
with such a one.
This verse requires YOU to first off be your brothers JUDGE. Rather
than follow the Messiah’s example the Pharisee tells you to NOT even
eat with him.
Mat 9:13 “But go and learn what this means, ‘I desire COMPASSION and
not offering.’ For I did not come to call the righteous to repentance,
but sinners.”
This is not a teaching of the Messiah, he is quoting the prophets.
Mic 6:6 With what shall I come before YAHWEH, bow myself before the
high Elohim? Shall I come before Him with burnt offerings, with calves
a year old?
Mic 6:7 Is YAHWEH pleased with thousands of rams or ten thousand
rivers of oil? Shall I give my first-born for my transgression, the
fruit of my body for the sin of my being?
Mic 6:8 He has declared to you, O man, what is good. And what does
YAHWEH require of you **but to do right, and to love kindness, and to
walk humbly with your Elohim?**
It is the Pharisee and the wicked that want you to believe in a deity
with no compassion that is so exacting to the letter of the law that
he has no compassion and will destroy you.
Deu 4:31 “For Yahweh your Elohim is a compassionate Ěl, He does not
forsake you, nor destroy you, nor forget the covenant of your fathers
which He swore to them.
Yet within the very “Law” is the truth that YAHWEH IS COMPASSIONATE
and has been since the beginning when he spared the murderer Cain!
THE LAW IS COMPASSION and is weighed out against your judgment.
Jas 2:13 For the judgment is without compassion to the one who has
shown no compassion. And compassion boasts over judgment.
I left the Christian religion because they believe that you can’t be
one without Paul… that you can’t be Christian and know that Yahweh has
been and will always be kind and compassionate.
Jer 9:24 but let him who boasts boast of this, that he understands and
knows Me, that I am YAHWEH, doing kindness, right-ruling, and
righteousness in the earth. For in these I delight,” declares YAHWEH.
Christians do not believe the Messiah:
Mat 5:20 “For I say to you, that unless your righteousness exceeds
that of the scribes and Pharisees, you shall by no means enter into
the reign of the heavens.
Repent, turn and live.. be righteous in Yahweh’s Torah.
Joe 2:32 And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the
name of YAHWEH shall be delivered: for in mount Zion and in Jerusalem
shall be deliverance, as YAHWEH hath said, and in the remnant whom
YAHWEH shall call.
Shalom,
*´¨)
¸.•´ ¸.•*´¨) ¸.•*¨)
(¸.•´ (¸.• (Snow(.¸.•*´¨)
Change will not come if we wait for some other person or some other
time. We are the ones we've been waiting for. We are the change that
we seek.
Barack Obama
http://e-sword-users.org/ Free bible software
http://groups.google.com/group/messianicYehoshua <-- join
http://www.isr-messianic.org/ <- download the scriptures free
He who passively accepts evil is as much involved in it as he who
helps to perpetrate it. He who accepts evil without protesting against
it is really cooperating with it.
Martin Luther King, Jr.
vince garcia
OK. Well, i can tell you that there are many many reasons why it would
be impossible to run a country by the jewish law. For one, you could
never prosecute most crimes, because there have to be two witnesses
(deut 19) to bear witness against the accused. So if I rob a store with
only one clerk, i cannot be convicted of the crime on his word alone. He
needs another witness
For others, people would have to be stoned for the most insignificant of
things on the sabbath like carrying any sort of burden, gathering
sticks, traveling more than a few thousand feet, kindling a fire, and so
on.
I suggest, for one, that you try keeping the sabbath as the bible
actually commands, and if you do that you will find you cannot cook, use
a car to get to church, or even go to that church if it is further than
1800' or so away, if my memory is accurate. If cold, you may not turn up
the heater or add a log to the fireplace.
Living under the actual Law, and keeping it as God actually commanded,
is in reality a 'a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither
our fathers nor we were able to bear'
vince garcia
>
> On Dec 26, 2:12� am, vince garcia <vggarci...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> > It's easy for them to call the Law "a delight" when they throw away the
> > unpleasant aspects of it, or whittle it down from 613 to 10
> > commandments.
>
> Are there really 613 commandments?
Yes there are. In fact, there are actually much more than that with the
rabbinic aditions, and peter affirms their validity in acts 10
Snow
to the flesh. Psychologist Dr. Wayne Dyer teaches, “Begin to see
yourself as a soul with a body rather than a body with a soul.” Dr.
Wayne Dyer is correct in his understanding of the universal spirit
that connects all living things within the universe.
Isa 45:6 That they may know from the rising of the sun, and from the
west, that there is none beside me. I am YAHWEH, and there is none
else. 7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and
create evil: I YAHWEH do all these things.
Yehoshua was a PROPHET with the spirit of YAHWEH poured out on him
beyond measure and while it’s true according to the Good News that men
who saw him bowed down and worshiped him, he did not seek this. The
SPIRIT of YAHWEH was upon the man and this can’t be doubted and it is
this spirit that men saw IN the prophet that they worshiped, not the
man.
Joh 4:24 “Elohim is Spirit, and those who worship Him need to worship
in spirit and truth.”
That this spirit is universal in all living creatures is something
lost on those who have fixated on a singular deity of “Jesus Christ is
God”. They are unable to take in the Hebrew understanding that Elohim
is Spirit.
Num 23:19 El is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man,
that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath
he spoken, and shall he not make it good?
Dr Dyer also made another fundamental discovery in his research when
he said, “Everything you are against weakens you. Everything you are
for empowers you.” The very word “Satan” itself means, adversary and
while the world comes to understand Satan as the adversary of the
world, they fail to grasp that all things created good and evil are of
the same source, Yahweh.
Isa 54:17 “No weapon formed against you shall prosper, and every
tongue which rises against you in judgment you shall prove wrong. This
is the inheritance of the servants of Yahweh, and their righteousness
from Me,” declares Yahweh.
Understanding the oneness of spirit means that we must obey the 10
Commandments of Yahweh because being against them, weakens us. Many
Christians speak against the commandments of the Torah failing to
grasp that they are the very building blocks of the universe. If one
is against the commandments of Yahweh, they have opposed their own
very life
Joh 12:50 “And I know that His command is everlasting life. Therefore,
whatever I speak, as the Father has said to Me, so I speak.”
And if you break the command, you injure yourself.
Psa 9:16 Yahweh has made Himself known, He has done right-ruling; The
wrong is snared in the work of his own hands. Meditation. Selah.
The idea that “God destroys (or sends to hell) all who do not believe
in Jesus Christ” as Christian doctrine teaches, is a falsehood. This
does not mean that I oppose Christian doctrine but would rather you
have a better understanding of what is written. Christians have
focused on an image that does not grow and has locked them into a
false worship that was never intended by the true Messiah Yehoshua who
said:
Mar 9:37 “Whoever receives one of such little children in My Name
receives Me. And whoever receives Me, RECEIVES ME NOT, but the One WHO
SENT ME.”
On the topic of worship, Yehoshua said:
Mat 4:9 And saith unto him, All these things will I give thee, if thou
wilt fall down and worship me.
Mat 4:10 Then saith Yahushua unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it
is written, Thou shalt worship YAHWEH thy Elohim, and him only shalt
thou serve.
He didn’t say worship me, he told Satan to worship YAHWEH written of
by Moses and he said, “IT IS WRITTEN”. Where was it written?
Deu 6:13 “Fear YAHWEH your Elohim and serve Him, and swear by His
Name.
It doesn’t say worship Jesus Christ, whose name is NEVER written in
the Torah or any Old Testament book! In fact, the Hebrew Messiah’s
name wasn’t even Jesus; it was Yehoshua as recorded in Zechariah 6:
11-12 and this truth is hidden from all the churches of the world that
continue to live in Babylon and war against the Commandments of
YAHWEH.
Exo 15:26 And He said, “If you diligently obey the voice of YAHWEH
your Elohim and do what is right in His eyes, and shall listen to His
commands and shall guard all His laws, I shall bring on you none of
the diseases I brought on the Mitsrites, for I am YAHWEH [Rapha] who
heals you.”
From the pulpits across the world, the Church of the DRAGON rages
already. Pretending to pay tribute to Yahweh, they have fashioned a
canon that serves them and not one they serve. In a vain attempt to
serve a deity they don’t know, they tear his name out of scriptures
and make a deity out of his Messiah. A plague of the ignorant words
roars across the pews to the lost and confused masses, serving only
their own vanity and pocket books.
Rev 18:3 For all nations have drunk of the wine of the wrath of her
fornication, and the kings of the earth have committed fornication
with her, and the merchants of the earth are waxed rich through the
abundance of her delicacies.
The church of the dragon will claim the follow the whole bible but
they don’t! To them, False Apostle Paul, One man has become the entire
scripture. The puppet master made deity and worship by all Christians
his claim to have destroyed the religion based in law is true only for
him and his followers. They are the church of lawlessness,
Christianity.
As they go around screaming blasphemer, whaling at the name of YHWH
and decrying the very name that saves, their speech is built in the
foundation of idolatry, hatred and the very things they claim to be
against. Unwilling to recognize the truth they stand by the beast and
being of one mind give him all authority as they have done for a
thousand years now.
The Healing words of scriptures have been lost to a world gone mad.
Christian ministers live in faulty translations of scriptures and are
completely powerless to present ANY of the signs of the true
believers:
Mar 16:16 “He who has believed and has been immersed, shall be saved,
but he who has not believed shall be condemned.
Mar 16:17 “And these signs shall accompany the ones who believe: In My
Name they shall cast out demons, they shall speak with renewed
tongues,
Mar 16:18 they shall take up snakes, and if they drink any deadly
drink it shall by no means hurt them, they shall lay hands on the sick
and they shall get well.”
If a true church had presented any of these signs, can anybody tell me
that they would not make international news? Christians are completely
unable to do this because they are a false church, every last one of
them have forsaken the commandments and preached against the very
prophet they claimed to preach.
Yet, they continue to swear by Baal [Lord], decry his name and spit on
his commandments. Swine Flu, AIDS and a half dozen other plagues sweep
the world and they angrily return to their own vomit. The command is
clear to praise his name and they make it nought and still they will
not hear the truth.
Mar 12:29 And Yahushua answered him, The first of all the commandments
is, Hear, O Israel; YAHWEH is our Elohim, YAHWEH is one: 30 And thou
shalt love YAHWEH thy Elohim with all thy heart, and with all thy
soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the
first commandment.
This is a direct quote of the Torah:
Deu 6:4 Hear, O Israel: YAHWEH is our Elohim, YAHWEH is one: 5 And
thou shalt love YAHWEH thy Elohim with all thine heart, and with all
thy soul, and with all thy might.
Shalom,
*´¨)
¸.•´ ¸.•*´¨) ¸.•*¨)
(¸.•´ (¸.• (Snow(.¸.•*´¨)
http://groups.google.com/group/messianicYehoshua
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/messianic_Yehoshua/
If we all worked on the assumption that what is accepted as true is
really true, there would be little hope of advance.
Orville Wright
http://www.e-sword.net/ Free bible software
http://www.isr-messianic.org/
http://messianicyehoshua.googlegroups.com/web/RNKJV.zip
If history is any indication, all truths will eventually turn out to
be false.
Dean Kamen
Mat 19:17 And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is
none good but one, that is, Elohim: but if thou wilt enter into life,
keep the commandments.
Mat 19:18 He saith unto him, Which? Yahushua said, Thou shalt do no
murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou
shalt not bear false witness,
Mat 19:19 Honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy
neighbour as thyself.
Mar 7:9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of
YHWH, that ye may keep your own tradition.
Mar 10:18 And Yahushua said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there
is none good but one, that is, YHWH.
Mar 10:19 Thou knowest the commandments, Do not commit adultery, Do
not kill, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Defraud not, Honour
thy father and mother.
Mar 12:29 And Yahushua answered him, The first of all the commandments
is, Hear, O Israel; YAHWEH is our Elohim, YAHWEH is one: 30 And thou
shalt love YAHWEH thy Elohim with all thy heart, and with all thy
soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the
first commandment.
This is a direct quote of the Torah:
Deu 6:4 Hear, O Israel: YAHWEH is our Elohim, YAHWEH is one: 5 And
thou shalt love YAHWEH thy Elohim with all thine heart, and with all
thy soul, and with all thy might.
Luk 18:19 And Yahushua said unto him, Why callest thou me good? none
is good, save one, that is, YHWH.
Luk 18:20 Thou knowest the commandments, Do not commit adultery, Do
not kill, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Honour thy father
and thy mother.
Joh 14:15 If ye love me, keep my commandments.
Joh 14:21 “He who possesses My commands and guards them, it is he who
loves Me. And he who loves Me shall be loved by My Father, and I shall
love him and manifest Myself to him.”
Joh 14:24 “He who does not love Me does not guard My Words. And the
Word which you hear is not Mine but of the Father Who sent Me.
1Jn 5:3 For this is the love of YHWH, that we keep his commandments:
and his commandments are not grievous.
2Jn 1:6 And this is love, that we walk after his commandments. This is
the commandment, That, as ye have heard from the beginning, ye should
walk in it.
Rev 12:17 And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make
war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of
YAHWEH, and have the testimony of Yahushua the Messiah.
Rev 14:12 Here is the patience of the saints: here are they that keep
the commandments of YAHWEH, and the faith of Yehoshua.
Rev 22:14 Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may
have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates
into the city.
2Pe 2:21 For it had been better for them not to have known the way of
righteousness, than, after they have known it, to turn from the holy
commandment delivered unto them.
Jas 2:11 For he that said, Do not commit adultery, said also, Do not
kill. Now if thou commit no adultery, yet if thou kill, thou art
become a transgressor of the law.
Snow
Isa 28:9 Whom would He teach knowledge? And whom would He make to
understand the message? Those weaned from milk, those taken from the
breasts!
Isa 28:10 For it is: command upon command, command upon command, line
upon line, line upon line, here a little, there a little.
Isa 28:11 For with a jabbering lip and a foreign tongue He speaks to
this people,
Isa 28:12 to whom He said, “This is the rest, give rest to the weary,”
and, “This is the refreshing.” But they would not hear.
Isa 28:13 But the Word of יהוה was to them, “Command upon command,
command upon command, line upon line, line upon line, here a little,
there a little,” so that they go and shall stumble backward, and be
broken and snared and taken captive.
Isa 28:14 Therefore hear the Word of יהוה, you men of scorn, who rule
this people who are in Yerushalayim,
Isa 28:15 because you have said, “We have made a covenant with death,
and with the grave we have effected a vision. When the overflowing
scourge passes through, it does not come to us, for we have made lying
our refuge, and under falsehood we have hidden ourselves.”
Mat 23:2 Saying, The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat:
Scribes being translators and even today this prophetic statement
rings true.
Act 23:6 Now Sha’ul, perceiving that one part were Sadducees and the
other Pharisees, cried out in the council, “Men, brothers, I am a
Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee…
How do Christians reconcile this passage of scriptures? If Paul was
"inspired" by the "Holy Spirit" then either he told the truth and his
IS a Pharisee by his own testimony or a liar. Does the "Holy Spirit"
grant that an Apostle be allowed to lie?
Rom 3:7 For if the truth of God hath more abounded through my lie
unto his glory…
A lie is still a lie. The problem that I personally see with the
teachings of Paul vs the Messiah is that while the Messiah taught us
not to judge one another, everything I read in Paul is judgmental and
a Pharisee.
A clear example of how Paul is still preaching as a Pharisee is seen
here:
Mat 9:10 And it came to be, as Yehoshua sat at the table in the house,
that see, many tax collectors and sinners came and sat down with Him
and His taught ones.
Mat 9:11 And when the Pharisees saw it, they said to His taught ones,
“Why does your Teacher eat with tax collectors and sinners?”
1Co 5:11 But now I have written to you not to keep company with anyone
called ‘a brother,’ if he is one who whores, or greedy of gain, or an
idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or a swindler – not even to eat
with such a one.
Q: Where would you be if Paul was the Messiah or really spoke for
him? The true Messiah stated:
Mat 9:12 And Yehoshua hearing this, said to them, “Those who are
strong have no need of a physician, but those who are sick.
Mat 9:13 “But go and learn what this means, ‘I desire compassion and
not offering.’ For I did not come to call the righteous to repentance,
but sinners.”
When we put the teachings side by side, it’s clear to all except the
many “Christian Pharisee’s” in the world today that are a student of
this Pharisee. What does our heavenly Father tell us in his Torah?
Let’s break it down, First we know:
Deu 4:2 “Do not add to the Word which I command you, and do not take
away from it, so as to guard the commands of Yahweh your Elohim which
I am commanding you.
Isn’t it ironic that they took his name YAHWEH out of the very verse
that says not to alter it? We are not to add or take away from the
Torah. This specifically means the book of Deuteronomy, not the
entire collection of books known as the bible. We can be assured of
that here:
Deu 4:8 “And what great nation is there that has such laws and
righteous right-rulings like all this Torah which I set before you
this day?
Since Paul wasn’t written until thousands of years later, we know the
two are not connected in the command so continue with me please:
Deu 4:9 “Only, guard yourself, and guard your life diligently, lest
you forget the Words your eyes have seen, and lest they turn aside
from your heart all the days of your life. And you shall make them
known to your children and your grandchildren.
How many Christians have forgotten the words of this book? We carry
it around day and night and yet, most don’t know or care what it says
and treat it with disregard as if it’s something written only for that
tribe in the wilderness.
Exo 12:49 “There is one Torah for the native-born and for the stranger
who sojourns among you.”
So, if you consider yourself a person serving our Father, that one
Torah is for you too. Now what is the “Law of Moses” as Christians
call it? You see, most people want to say that it is 613 laws that no
one is able to keep but what does the Torah say?
Deu 4:13 “And He made known to you His covenant which He commanded you
to do, the Ten Words, and He wrote them on two tablets of stone.
The TEN COMMANDMENTS are the covenant! So, Just like the Messiah
preached, if you want to enter into life, guard the commandments! How
simple is that? The sign of the “Church of the Dragon” is the church
that has bitterly fought against the 10 commandments. THE CHRISTIAN
CHURCH! Every pastor that preaches against the Sabbath is unknowingly
or willingly a part of the false church!
Rev 12:17 And the dragon was enraged with the woman, and he went to
fight with the remnant of her seed, those guarding the commands of
Elohim and possessing the witness of Yehoshua Messiah.
YOU my dear reader may be a part of that very church. It is a bitter
pill to think that all these years, WE have been the false church. I
do not tell you this to accuse you but to inform you. Who will be
saved?
Rev 14:12 Here is the endurance of the set-apart ones, here are those
guarding the commands of Elohim and the belief of Yehoshua.
Those who guard the commandments are the ones set apart for our
heavenly father. The only reason that the church of the dragon
refuses to accept the truth is over ONE issue, THE SABBATH. For at
least a thousand years Rome has dictated to you what is scriptures and
told you what you are to consider, “the way of [Yahweh] יהוה” but
many do not even know his name and probably call him “GOD” or “LORD
GOD ALMIGHTY”. But that was not the name given to him and for
thousands of years, we have not had access to the truth.
A common cry of the “Church of the Dragon” is that it has been this
way for 2000 years but that’s not true either. The scriptures were not
even canonized until 325 by anti-Semites at the Council of Nicaea.
Then for another thousand years people were either not taught to read
or the words were dictated from pulpits in churches. Emperor
Constantine made sure that pagan Easter, Christmas and the Day of the
Sun were “harmonized” into scriptures and burned or destroyed many
books that were being distributed that didn’t suite his doctrine.
In 1440, German inventor Johannes Gutenberg invented a printing press
and the Gutenberg bible was distributed.
It was not lawful for people to even read the scriptures for
themselves. These bibles were distributed to Church’s with a Germanic
names, which is where the name “God” comes from, not Hebrew, Not Greek
which used, “Theos”.
In 1556, The Geneva (the New Testament completed in 1556 and
published, while the entire work was finished in 1560) Bible that the
“Puritans” brought on the Mayflower to America still read Passover.
It was in fact the Geneva Bible that King James hated so much that
inspired him to authorize his own version with his official stamp of
approval. The margin notes in the Geneva Bible were written by John
Calvin and those who kept the Geneva Bible were called, Calvinist,
Protestants and Puritans.
Being translated by “Protestants” during a time of persecution in
England, the translators converged in Geneva, Switzerland, where they
were able to arrange publication of their work. Fleeing the
persecution of Roman Catholic Queen Mary I (18 February 1516 – died
17 November 1558) in England, who would not tolerate the Protestant
Geneva Bible (which she only lived to see the New Testament version
of) proclaimed the Pope an “antichrist” in its commentary notes of
Revelation.
The Geneva Bible was where John Calvin first stated that the “Dragon
of Revelation” was in fact the Roman Catholic Church. So this
understanding is nothing new and still we keep its cannon except the
“Apocrypha” that was removed in the 19th century by American Bishops!
Note: The Catholic church still considers these books inspired.
In 1604 there was a ruling from the Hampton Court Conference between
the King James I and various clergymen. An agreement was reached that
there should be a revised English version of the Bible without the
side notes of the Geneva Bible. Forty-seven scholars began the
revision to create the King James Version which used the Tyndale,
“Bishop’s Bible” and Geneva Bibles English text, not the Greek or
Hebrew Text.
In 1611, King James’s Bible came along and continued to alter all the
names (except Satan) and removing words like “Sabbath” at key
locations in scriptures to fit his false doctrine. Examining Greek
text, we find that the word “Sabbath” is removed in many locations
after the resurrection.
(Mar 16:2) (Mar 16:9) (Luk 18:12) (Luk 24:1) (Joh 20:1) (Joh 20:19)
(Act 20:7) (1Co 16:2) (Heb 4:9)
And (Mat 28:1) Sabbath is removed the second instance of its use.
So then people had Germanic based deity names (In a Hebrew based
scripture) in bibles from English versions revised in the KJV but it
was the Geneva Bible is what was brought to the Americas. So again
we see that the words of scriptures were altered and removed by
scribes and translators. Can anybody say Babylon? The prophet
Jeremiah knew this and penned:
Jer 8:7 “Even a stork in the heavens knows her appointed times. And a
turtledove, and a swallow, and a thrush observe the time of their
coming. But My people do not know the right-ruling of Yahweh.
Jer 8:8 “How do you say, ‘We are wise, and the Torah of Yahweh is with
us’? But look, the false pen of the scribe has worked falsehood.
Ironically scribes again removing the name of Yahweh in a place where
the text reads the scribes mistranslate scriptures.
Jer 8:9 “The wise shall be put to shame, they shall be broken down and
caught. See, they have rejected the Word of Yahweh, so what wisdom do
they have?
The fact is it has not been since the invention of the internet and
the distribution of E-Sword [1998] and other bible software, which
everyday people have had access to what is written. The history… has
hidden the truth for a thousand years by knowing clergymen. Until we
all had computers that could search key words and free access to the
information that has been obscured in foreign languages, we simply did
not know.
NOW we know the truth so what does the Torah say?
Deu 4:23 “Guard yourselves, lest you forget the covenant of Yahweh
your Elohim which He made with you, and shall make for yourselves a
carved image in the form of whatever Yahweh your Elohim has forbidden
you.
It’s too late for that, even the modern day English speaking “Jews”
speak of the Germanic name in scriptures.
Deu 4:28 “And there you shall serve mighty ones, the work of men’s
hands, wood and stone, which neither see nor hear nor eat nor smell.
Christians bow before wood and stone crosses and statues all the time.
Deu 4:29 “But from there you shall seek Yahweh your Elohim, and shall
find, when you search for Him with all your heart1 and with all your
being.
When will we find the truth? When we search for him, with ALL our
heart and all our being. So the truth isn’t something that is readily
available, we must search for it. It’s not just a gift that’s tossed
around, we must pray for it and search for it and ask.
Deu 4:30 “In your distress, when all these words shall come upon you
in the latter days, then you shall return to יהוה your Elohim and
shall obey His voice.
Or so we hope you will but many of the Church of the Dragon will war
against the true word.
Deu 11:26 ‘See, I am setting before you today a blessing and a curse:
Deu 11:27 the blessing, when you obey the commands of Yahweh your
Elohim which I command you today;
Deu 11:28 and the curse, if you do not obey the commands of Yahweh
your Elohim, but turn aside from the way which I command you today, to
go after other mighty ones which you have not known.
Read carefully the curse, it say that if you do not obey the Ten
commandments, you are cursed. Now let’s examine what brother Paul
said:
Gal 3:10 For as many as are of works of Torah are under the curse, for
it has been written, “Cursed is everyone who does not continue in all
that has been written in the book of the Torah, to do them.”
Now the closest to this is here:
Deu 27:26 ‘Cursed is he who does not establish the Words of this
Torah.’ And all the people shall say, ‘Amĕn!’
Can you see where he added to the Torah? It does not say “all that
has been written”. What many consider to be a apostle of Christ ADDED
to the words of the Torah. The curse was if you DO NOT OBEY the
COMMANDMENTS and there are only Ten Commandments, regardless of what
Jews speak of.
Deu 4:13 “And He made known to you His covenant which He commanded you
to do, the Ten Words, and He wrote them on two tablets of stone.
That being said, is enough for me to recognize that Paul was in fact a
false apostle. I challenge any reader to find the words written by
apostle Paul in the Torah.
1Co 5:3 For I indeed, as absent in body but present in spirit, have
already judged the one who did this, as though I were present.
1Co 5:12 For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Do you not
judge those who are inside?
Mat 7:1 “Do not judge, lest you be judged.
1Co 6:1 Dare any of you, having a matter against another, go to law
before the unjust, and not before the saints?
In the book of Acts He is asked if he will go before Jerusalem to be
judged in the temple. Did he practice what he preached? Note: At the
time, Nero was Caesar.
Act 25:9 But Festus, willing to do the Jews a pleasure, answered
Paul, and said, Wilt thou go up to Jerusalem, and there be judged of
these things before me?
So he's asked if he will "go before the saints".
Act 25:10 Then said Paul, I stand at Caesar's judgment seat, where I
ought to be judged: to the Jews have I done no wrong, as thou very
well knowest.
We can clearly see that he didn't go back to Jerusalem. What happened
to his earlier account? He said,
Act 21:13 Then Paul answered, What mean ye to weep and to break mine
heart? For I am ready not to be bound only, but also to die at
Jerusalem for the name of the Lord Iesus.
It's historically recorded that he died in Rome and so we see this is
a false statement also!
Mar 8:15 And He was warning them, saying, “Mind! Beware of the leaven
of the Pharisees and of the leaven of Herodes.”
Act 13:1 And in the assembly that was at Antioch ... with Herodes the
district ruler, and Sha’ul.
How long will people ignore Paul's own testimony? If we know the
Roman Church is the Dragon, how come we keep it’s canon?
Shalom,
*´¨)
¸.•´ ¸.•*´¨) ¸.•*¨)
(¸.•´ (¸.• (Snow(.¸.•*´¨)
http://groups.google.com/group/messianicYehoshua
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/messianic_Yehoshua/
Failure is a detour, not a dead-end street.
Zig Ziglar
A nation or civilization that continues to produce soft-minded men
purchases its own spiritual death on the installment plan.
Martin Luther King, Jr.
http://www.e-sword.net/ Free bible software
http://www.isr-messianic.org/ <- download the scriptures free
or
http://messianicyehoshua.googlegroups.com/web/RNKJV.zip <--free
download of the Restored Names King James Version
Exo 31:13 “And you, speak to the children of Yisra’ĕl, saying, ‘My
Sabbaths you are to guard, by all means, for it is a sign1 between Me
and you throughout your generations, to know that I, יהוה, am setting
you apart. Footnote: 1The only sign of YAHWEH setting us apart, the
only sign of the everlasting covenant, is His Sabbaths, one of them
being the seventh day Sabbath. This is repeated in Ezek. 20:12 & 20.
Jonathan Schattke
You are mixing up Talmud and Torah. Learn the difference, and what it
means to be "lord also of the Sabbath Day."
vince garcia
I'm not mixing up peter's words at all, nor am i talking about the
talmud. It's not talmudic to say you cannot travel or kindle a fire on
the sabbath. And peter rightly calls the law a yoke of bondage, and the
gentiles are exempted from having to keep it for numerous good reasons.
Snow
> Exodus 4:16 (NIV)
> He will speak to the people for you, and it will be as if he were your
> mouth and as if you were God to him.
>
Elohim (Strong's H430)
1) (plural)
a) rulers, judges
b) divine ones
c) angels
d) gods
> I appreciate the significance of this. Roman Catholics are taught that
> when they are in the confessional booth, the priest becomes Jesus and thus
> they are confessing directly to Jesus.
The focus of this confession is should be corporeal and not static in
the sense that our prayers should be directly to the Spirit of Yahweh
and not the man that embodies the spirit.
Joh 4:24 Elohim is Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him
in spirit and in truth.
Christians have the hardest time understanding this simple concept
because the focus is always on images.
Daniel J. Boorstin once said, “An image is not simply a trademark, a
design, a slogan or an easily remembered picture. It is a studiously
crafted personality profile of an individual, institution,
corporation, product or service.”
Deu 27:15 ‘Cursed is the man who makes a carved or moulded image, an
abomination to Yahweh, the work of the hands of the craftsman, and
sets it up in secret.’ And all the people shall answer and say,
‘Amĕn!’
Beliefs have the power to create and the power to destroy. Human
beings have the awesome ability to take any experience of their lives
and create a meaning that disempowers them or one that can literally
save their lives.
Tony Robbins
What is an image?
The dictionary defines it like this: A reproduction of the form of a
person or object, especially a sculptured likeness. If we consider
the act of how we make an image, the artist CAPTURES the essence of
the object and FREEZES that moment in a single lifeless object. The
image has the limitation of perspective and is an outward appearance
that goes against the very grain of everything the Messiah was
attempting to teach.
,__
| `'.
__ |`-._/_.:---`-.._
\='. _/..--'`__ `'-._
\- '-.--"` === / o `',
)= ( .--_ | _.'
/_=.'-._ {=_-_ | .--`-.
/_.' `\`'-._ '-= \ _.'
gs ) _.-'`'-.. _..-'`
/_.' `/";';`|
\` .'/
'--'
Mat 23:25 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye
make clean the outside of the cup and of the platter, but within they
are full of extortion and excess.
Rather then looking at images, we should be looking inside of
ourselves where the truth was written on our hearts from the very
beginning.
Gen 1:26 And Elohim said, “Let Us make man in Our image…
The fact is we are taking an unlimited creator, capturing and by the
act destroying what it is that he is trying to teach us. Our creator
wanted us to avoid any image that was made by human hands because we
can’t make an infinite, all knowing image. Regardless of how
beautiful or highly regarded an image is, it’s death in perspective,
forever frozen in the constraints of perspective and that goes for
moving images also. It’s impossible to capture all perspectives and
place that inside the context of an image but we have something
better… WORDS.
Words are Power.
The universe ((uni) one (verse) spoken word) was created by words and
are unlimited in the capacity to deliver a message.
Gen 1:3 And Elohim said, “Let light come to be,” and light came to
be.
He spoke it and it came to be and you also have this same power
instilled within your very being and when you learn to let go of false
and pagan images, you learn to look inside at the true image that is
on your heart.
Pro 18:21 Death and life are in the power of the tongue, And those
loving it eat its fruit.
When you understand that YOU have the power of life and death in your
own mouth and that you have been created in the image of the almighty
creator, you understand how outright ignorant it is to use any symbol.
I am more afraid of my own heart than of the pope and all his
cardinals. I have within me the great pope, Self.
Martin Luther
This wasn’t a blasphemous rant. It’s confirmed by scripture that you
can’t look outside yourself and expect to find elohim.
Joh 10:34 Yehoshua answered them, “Is it not written in your own
Torah, ‘I said, “You are elohim” ’?
You are the future you create by your own words and your own words,
actions and deeds and no image is going to help you understand that.
Images are only going to LOCK you in, CONFINE your imagination and
keep you focused on OUTWARD appearances and not looking at what is
inside of YOU.
Mat 7:3 “And why do you look at the splinter in your brother’s eye,
but do not notice the plank in your own eye?
The entire message of the messiah was attempting to teach you to look
INSIDE YOURSELF! To be your own judge and take upon yourself the path
of righteousness and by YOUR example, lead others to the truth. If
you spend all your time trying to correct everybody else and the
mistake they make, you’re only going to end up being the object of
loathing. How many times have we seen it…
You smoke, you’re going to hell. You’re committing adultery… You’re a
homosexual… condemning everybody else instead of looking into the real
solution within themselves which is taking the log out of our eye so
that we see rightly. Until we learn that, you can have a million
images but they are all OUTWARD looking and we missed the entire
message, to LOOK INSIDE. Stop placing limitations on that which has NO
LIMITS.
If you want to be successful, find someone who has achieved the
results you want and copy what they do and you'll achieve the same
results.
Tony Robbins
Christians always ask, What would Jesus Do? And this is the best
question to be asking. When you consider that he kept the Torah and
placed his faith in the Father and not some image, you realize that
you had the answers all the time. You know the right thing to do when
you follow those words inscribed on your heart and in scriptures
already. You were created in his IMAGE and that’s the ONLY IMAGE you
need to focus your attention on.
> Personally, I don't think the two
> are quite the same. Essentially, I would treat the verse as when Moses
> speaks to the Pax Israel, God is speaking.. The voice you hear is not
> Moses, but God.
>
> I have a question for you regarding the Old Testament. Is the following
> verse translated from Hebrew? What is its significance?
>
> Isaiah 9:6
Isa 9:6 For a Child shall be born unto us, a Son shall be given unto
us, and the rule is on His shoulder. And His Name is called Wonder,
Counsellor, Strong Ěl, Father of Continuity, Prince of Peace.
Isa 9:7 Of the increase of His rule and peace there is no end, upon
the throne of Dawiḏ and over His reign, to establish it and sustain
it with right-ruling and with righteousness from now on, even forever.
The ardour of Yahweh of hosts does this. Footnote: 1See 16:5, Ps. 2,
Ps. 45:6, Mic. 5:2, Lk. 1:32-33.
You must include verse 7 in this most important Messianic Prophecy.
The first thing to understand is, “who is us?” that the child is given
to? The answer of course is Israel, to be her eternal King. The
names are spiritually significant because this Son of Man is given
great title and authority and especially significant is mighty EL
where the Hebrew word is GIBBOR. This use of GIBBOR is first used
here:
Gen 6:4 The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also
afterward, when the sons of Elohim came in to the daughters of men and
they bore children to them. Those were the *GIBBOR* men who were of
old, the men of name.
Remember that Yehoshua taught:
Joh 8:58 Yahushua said unto them, Verily,verily, I say unto you,
Before Abraham was, I am.
EL does not mean the Messiah is YHWH! An example of context is here:
Exo 15:11 Who is like unto thee, O YHWH, among the EL?
(KJV)
Exo 15:11 Who is like unto thee, O LORD, among the gods?
Notice that “GODS” is plural in this mistranslation. This take you
back to the fact that the Hebrew word EL only means mighty ones. So
to bring it full circle:
Mat 1:23 “See, a maiden shall conceive, and she shall give birth to a
Son, and they shall call His Name Immanu’ĕl,” which translated, means,
“Ěl with us.”
I’d like to see what you gain from this.
Shalom,
*´¨)
¸.•´ ¸.•*´¨) ¸.•*¨)
(¸.•´ (¸.• (Snow(.¸.•*´¨)
http://groups.google.com/group/messianicYehoshua <-- please join
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/messianic_Yehoshua/
Beliefs have the power to create and the power to destroy. Human
beings have the awesome ability to take any experience of their lives
and create a meaning that disempowers them or one that can literally
save their lives.
Tony Robbins
http://www.e-sword.net/ Free bible software
http://www.isr-messianic.org/ <- download the scriptures free
http://messianicyehoshua.googlegroups.com/web/RNKJV.zip <--free
download of the Restored Names King James Version
http://messianicyehoshua.googlegroups.com/web/Jubilees.pdf
The book of Jubilees.
randy
"Pastor Dave"
randy
>> The Law has indeed passed away.
> Then there is no observing any of it,
> as a means to salvation.
Right. The Law was never meant to be the source of eternal salvation anyway.
It was just a temporary fix, since it was clear under the Law that all men
were sinners and all men needed God's mercy. All of the sacrifices of the
Law conveyed the fact that *all Israel* needed God's mercy constantly!
Eternal salvation could only come by a means of raising us from the dead to
inherit immortal bodies. That alone is the definition of "eternal
salvation." The Law provided no means whatsoever for having mankind raised
from the dead to inherit immortal bodies.
>> But this has nothing whatsoever to do with Matthew 5.17-18
> You wish. Jesus specifically stated what He did
> about the law and when it would pass. So either
> "heaven and earth has passed", or the law is
> still fully active, since Jesus said that "not one
> jot nor tittle (not one dot, nor stroke) would pass,
> until heaven and earth passed".
No, Jesus said the heavens would not pass away unless the Law is first
*fulfilled.* The implication was that *Jesus himself* would participate in
fulfilling the Law. Once he had fulfilled the Law, the heavens could
conceivably pass away. But that wasn't the purpose of the statement. Jesus
was just stating that it was just as certain that he would fulfil the Law as
we can be certain that the heavens will remain in place.
The reason the heavens must remain in place long after Christ fulfilled the
Law is because Christ prophesied that many more things must continue to
unfold in history. The gospel must go out to the ends of the earth, and be
preached to all nations. The mercies of God must be displayed in the
constant attempt by God to renew the Church and to salvage something from
deteriorating Christianity. Israel must be restored to a position of
nationhood, and prepared to receive her Messiah. And the antichristian
forces in history must coalesce into a single Antichristian system,
attempting to shutdown Christ's program of salvation for the nations. Until
God's prophetic word is fulfilled, the heavens cannot be changed. But Christ
did fulfil the Law, and make it possible for the rest of prophecy to be
fulfilled in our day.
randy
Rob Strom
> "Pastor Dave"
...
> >> But this has nothing whatsoever to do with Matthew 5.17-18
> > You wish. Jesus specifically stated what He did
> > about the law and when it would pass. So either
> > "heaven and earth has passed", or the law is
> > still fully active, since Jesus said that "not one
> > jot nor tittle (not one dot, nor stroke) would pass,
> > until heaven and earth passed".
>
> No, Jesus said the heavens would not pass away unless the Law is first
> *fulfilled.*
You keep repeating this misquote.
He actually said the **Law** would not pass away until
the heaven and the earth passed.
A reference for this would be Matthew 5:18.
> ...Jesus
> was just stating that it was just as certain that he would fulfil the Law as
> we can be certain that the heavens will remain in place.
No, he was stating that *everybody* has to fulfill the Law until
the end of everything.
--
Rob Strom
@tampabay.rr.com Pastor Dave
<rkl...@wavecable.com> spake thusly:
>"Pastor Dave"
>randy
>>> The Law has indeed passed away.
>
>> Then there is no observing any of it,
>> as a means to salvation.
>
>Right.
I'm sorry, but I'm not interested in the words
of a man who snips almost all of my posts.
--
Pastor Dave
The following is part of my auto-rotating
sig file and not part of the message body.
GODISNOWHERE (now read it again)
Snow
> savior? Answer - no.
This is your answer but the Hebrew understanding of scriptures say
otherwise. You did not complete the thought written about by John.
Joh 1:12 But as many as received Him, to them He gave the authority to
become children of Elohim, to those believing in His Name,
Joh 1:13 who were born, not of blood nor of the desire of flesh nor of
the desire of man, but of Elohim.
Now notice it does not say whose name except that of Elohim. How is
it that you continue to deny the name of YAHWEH? Rather than continue
to tell you what you already know, that “god” is a mistranslation,
I’ll speak to the Messianic understanding.
Elohim is a collective of the prophets, including Moses. To be the
“children of Elohim” simply means that you are of that collective of
knowledge.
Isa 45:21 “Declare and bring near, let them even take counsel
together. Who has announced this from of old? Who has declared it from
that time? Is it not I, YAHWEH? And there is no mighty one besides Me,
a righteous Ěl and a Saviour, there is none besides Me.
Isa 45:22 “Turn to Me and be saved, all you ends of the earth! For I
am Ěl, and there is none else.
YAHWEH on the other hand is Elohim of Elohim and there is NO OTHER.
Deu 10:17 “For YAHWEH your Elohim is Elohim of mighty ones and Master
of masters, the great Ěl, mighty and awesome, who shows no partiality
nor takes a bribe.
My deity is YAHWEH and I have no other. The deity of the Messiah
Yehoshua was YAHWEH and he called out to him and proclaimed his name
that is lost and removed in translation of the Greek.
Elohim (Strong's H430)
1) (plural)
a) rulers, judges
b) divine ones
c) angels
d) gods
Here is the greatest translation flaw of the Scriptures crossing the
lips of every English speaking man on Earth.
Exo 15:11 Who is like unto thee, O YHWH, among the EL?
(KJV)
Exo 15:11 Who is like unto thee, O LORD, among the gods?
Gods? Has anybody recognize the KJV says there is only one deity?
How come the world is able to recognize ONE deity and still have
scriptures that speak of gods, not false gods but gods?
Exo 20:3 Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
Even the mistranslated commandment speaks of other “gods”, not false
gods. According to the scriptures, “God” is one and there is no
other, period.
(KJV) Isa 45:5 I am the LORD, and there is none else, there is no God
beside me: I girded thee, though thou hast not known me:
If there is “NO GOD” beside him, then every translation that says,
“Gods”, not false gods, must be a mistranslation. The name of the
Almighty and the Hebrew understanding restored reads:
Isa 45:5 ‘I am Yahweh, and there is none else
– there is no Elohim besides Me. I gird you,
though you have not known Me,
What about when we restore this understanding to the New Testament?
Mar 12:29 And Yehoshua answered him, The first of all the commandments
is, Hear, O Israel; YAHWEH is our Elohim, YAHWEH is one:
Mar 12:30 And thou shalt love YAHWEH thy Elohim with all thy heart,
and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy
strength: this is the first commandment.
Here we have a direct quote of Deuteronomy so that we can have no
doubt exactly what is said in the Hebrew when it quotes Deutoronomy:
Deu 6:4 Hear, O Israel: YAHWEH is our Elohim, YAHWEH is one:
Deu 6:5 And thou shalt love YAHWEH thy Elohim with all thine heart,
and with all thy soul, and with all thy might.
Yahweh is the ONE, the only and besides him there is no other.
Christians MUST ignore this simply because it means that they are
practicing a pagan religion. The do not desire truth, they desire to
maintain their dogma.
Gen 32:30 for I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved.
Gen 32:30 And Jacob called the name of the place Peniel: for I have
seen Elohim face to face, and my life is preserved.
In Genesis it’s recorded that Jacob wrestled all night with a man
“face to face” with “God” in almost all versions. It was how IsraEL
got its name. This presents a bit of a problem in the later text:
Exo 33:20 But He said, “You are unable to see My face, for no man does
see Me and live.”
Now examine John.
Joh 1:18 No man hath seen God at any time;
Jacob saw somebody face to face and the KJV tells you it’s “God”… who
did he see?
Joh 1:18 No one has ever seen Elohim. The only brought-forth Son, who
is in the bosom of the Father, He did declare.2 Footnotes: 1See 5:37,
6:46, 1 John 4:12. 2The pre-existent Son declared, and was the One who
appeared to men.
If we recognize that no one sees the Father and lives, it must be the
Son that wrestled with Jacob. This is why the name is IsraEL. Not
because Jacob wrestled with YHWH because the Torah is very clear he
would not have survived such an event. In this we see the truth of
the statement:
Joh 8:58 Yehoshua said unto them, Verily,verily, I say unto you,
Before Abraham was, I am.
This is not a declaration that he is the Almighty; simply that he was
pre-existent as one of the “Sons of Elohim”. I point this out to you
because in this example, we clearly see that “Elohim” a plural word
meaning “mighty one”, is mistranslated in most scriptures as “God”.
Next example.
Deu 10:17 For the LORD your God is God of gods, and Lord of lords, a
great God, a mighty, and a terrible, which regardeth not persons, nor
taketh reward:
We know that there is only one supreme deity named YHWH so how can he
be “God of gods”?
Isa 45:22 Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth:
for I am God, and there is none else.
If there is no other “God” how can it speak of plural gods and being
God of Gods? The word God is a mistranslation! The Hebrew word
Elohim applied reads:
Deu 10:17 For YHWH your Elohim is the mighty one of the elohim , and
Sovereign of sovereign, a great El, mighty, and terrible, which
regardeth not persons, nor taketh bribes:
Isa 45:22 Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth:
for I am El, and there is none else.
So we see that there is more than one Elohim and that they have a sort
of rank and structure where One is the Father and with him are his
servants, messengers (known as Malak translated angels) and Sons. God
is a word from the Germanic versions of scriptures that conveyed the
idea of a deity from the time of the Gutenberg Bible and its roots are
pagan, not Hebrew.
> Does becoming a son of God make you equal to Christ.
>Answer again -
> no. Christ is above all, he has been given a name that is above every
> name in heaven and on earth.
Do you not consider your brother an equal?
Mat 12:50 “For whoever does the desire of My Father who is in the
heavens is My brother and sister and mother.”
>By faith in him we are ADOPTED as sons,
> BECAUSE of Yeshua.
Don’t blame Yehoshua on your BAAL worship, he never said to worship
him.
Joh 12:49 For I have NOT spoken of MYSELF; but the Father WHICH SENT
ME, HE GAVE me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should
speak.
> The promise of the Spirit comes from Yeshua. It is this Spirit by
> which we receive *adoption* as sons into the family of God that is
> *Yeshua's by birthright*. He is the only begotten Son of God, the Word
> made flesh who was in the beginning with God and WAS God. None of us
> are the Word made flesh. Only Yeshua is that, and only he has the
> "glory as of the ONLY begotten Son of God, full of grace and truth".
Joh 5:30 “Of Myself I am unable to do any matter.
Joh 5:31 “If I bear witness of Myself, My witness is not true.
Funny because my deity is all powerful and is not a man, he never
changes. So while you continue in your dogma wondering why you have
never actually manifested the signs of a true believer, it is because
you have chosen to believe a faulty translation of scriptures that has
everybody from Moses to you being a deity.
Exo 7:1 And the Lord said unto Moses, See, I have made thee a god to
Pharaoh, and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet.
You are entitled to believe as you wish but at no point in scriptures
was Moses ever made a deity to be worshiped by Israel, Pharaoh or
anybody else for that matter. Clearly, “God” is a mistranslation.
Joh 10:34 Yahushua answered them, Is it not written in your law, I
said, Ye are Theos?
Theos being the Greek word translated “God”.
We know that this is a quote of Psalm 82:6 and we know the Hebrew word
was Elohim and so it naturally follows that what is “written” is based
in the Hebrew scriptures for understanding.
Psa 82:6 I have said, Ye are elohim; and all of you are children of
the most High.
Yehoshua is ELOHIM, just like Moses or any other mighty one but that
does not make him the Almighty.
Isa 19:20 And it shall be for a sign and for a witness to Yahweh of
hosts in the land of Mitsrayim. When they cry to Yahweh because of
the oppressors, He sends them a Savior and an Elohim, and shall
deliver them.
Moses was an Elohim to Israel and Aaron was his prophet.
Exo 4:16 “And he shall speak for you to the people. And it shall be
that he shall be a mouth for you, and you shall be an elohim for him.
Exo 7:1 And YAHWEH said unto Moses, See, I have made thee elohim to
Pharaoh: and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet.
Abraham was an Elohim and Adonai which in KJV could be translated LORD
GOD.
Gen 23:5 And the sons of Ḥĕth answered Aḇraham, saying to him, 6
“Hear us, my master [adonai also translated LORD in KJV]: You are a
Elohim [translated mighty in kjv but also GOD] prince among us. Bury
your dead in the choicest of our burial places. None of us withholds
from you his burial site, from burying your dead.”
Clearly Theos has been mistranslated to God instead of Elohim. I
don’t see any Christians running around trying to prove we should
worship Abraham and Moses and even Yehoshua said:
Mat 4:10 Then saith Yahushua unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it
is written, Thou shalt worship YHWH thy Elohim, and him only shalt
thou serve.
Again he says, “it is written” so we know it’s based on the Hebrew
text that reads:
Deu 6:13 Thou shalt fear YAHWEH thy Elohim, and serve him, and shalt
swear by his name.
Deu 6:14 Ye shall not go after other elohim, of the elohim of the
people which are round about you;
You should know that several words end up being translated to “God”
and it varies according to version but generally they include Eloah,
Elohim, El, adonai (lord) sometimes, Baal (lord or master) and even
the set part name of YHWH.
This might help you to understand how confusion reigns in the English
scriptures. I would strongly recommend you read when you have time:
http://groups.google.com/group/messianicYehoshua/web/removing-the-name-of-yhwh
I hope this made sense to you. This link should probably be
considered part two of this discussion.
Shalom,
*´¨)
¸.•´ ¸.•*´¨) ¸.•*¨)
(¸.•´ (¸.• (Snow(.¸.•*´¨)
And now here is my secret, a very simple secret; it is only with the
heart that one can see rightly, what is essential is invisible to the
eye. If you want to build a ship, don't drum up people to collect wood
and don't assign them tasks and work, but rather teach them to long
for the endless immensity of the sea.
Antoine de Saint-Exupery
http://groups.google.com/group/messianicYehoshua <-- please join
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/messianic_Yehoshua/
http://www.e-sword.net/ Free bible software
http://www.isr-messianic.org/ <- download the scriptures free
or
http://messianicyehoshua.googlegroups.com/web/RNKJV.zip
@tampabay.rr.com Pastor Dave
<snowp...@eck.net.au> spake thusly:
>> Can you be a son (child) of God without
>> receiving Christ as your savior? Answer - no.
>
>This is your answer but the Hebrew understanding of scriptures say
>otherwise. You did not complete the thought written about by John.
Jesus said the opposite of your claim.
>Joh 1:12 But as many as received Him, to them He gave the authority to
>become children of Elohim, to those believing in His Name,
To them HE GAVE. Read things more carefully.
--
Pastor Dave
The following is part of my auto-rotating
sig file and not part of the message body.
The Last Days were in the first century:
"For then must he often have suffered since the foundation
of the world: but NOW once in THE END OF THE AGE hath
He appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself."
- Hebrews 9:26
Snow
wrote:
> >> Can you be a son (child) of God without
> >> receiving Christ as your savior? Answer - no.
>
> >This is your answer but the Hebrew understanding of scriptures say
> >otherwise. You did not complete the thought written about by John.
>
> Jesus said the opposite of your claim.
>
> >Joh 1:12 But as many as received Him, to them He gave the authority to
> >become children of Elohim, to those believing in His Name,
>
> To them HE GAVE. Read things more carefully.
You really should read things more carefully Dave, GOOD ADVICE, after
all what does it say, "HIS NAME". His name being YAHWEH, the deity of
Yehoshua that Christians have rejected in favor of making a false
trinity doctrine that isn't supported by the Good News.
Joh 1:7 The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light,
that all men through him might believe.
Believe through him, not in him...
Joh 12:44 Then Yehoshua cried out and said, “He who believes in Me,
believes NOT IN ME but in Him who sent Me.
Why don't you believe through him?
Joh 7:28 Yehoshua therefore cried out in the Set-apart Place, teaching
and saying, “YOU both KNOW ME, and you know where I am from. And I
have NOT COME OF MYSELF, but HE WHO SENT ME is true, whom YOU DO NOT
KNOW.
Ike E 12/22/2009
"Pastor Dave" <newsgroup-mail @ tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:kds9j51hg5agris7b...@4ax.com...
>> every commandment of the Law is still valid, don't
>> get too vocal in praising laws like THOSE!
>
> ends up being self-contradictory.
>
> on this matter, but will deny doing so
> and yet, will not be able to respond to
> this issue with an answer that shows
> that they are not contradicting themselves,
> but rather, will *always* end up having to
> attack the person who brings the issue up,
> or they will be evasive and just repeat the
> same doctrine that they already stated and
> when shown that it can't reasonably be true,
> the same thing will happen again.
>
> If even one law is still active under penalty of death,
> choosing. Either the law is active and Matt 5:17-18
> stands as something that is still true today, because
> "heaven and earth" have not passed, which Futurists
> claim is a physically literal statement and all of the law
> is active (since Jesus said "not one jot nor tittle would
> pass until all be fulfilled"), or the law has passed.
>
> A) The law is still active and the law includes
> animal sacrifices for sin, which contradicts
> what Jesus did.
>
> B) Heaven and earth passed and the law is gone.
>
> People can whine and complain, but that's all
> they will have to respond with, because they
> know deep down, that what I just said is true.
Ah, no, everything you said above are ABSOLUTE SATANIC LIES.
Only a moron would think that heaven and earth have "passed" when they have
not, hence, the LAW STILL STANDS (for anyone dumb enough not to throw
themselves on the mercy of the court via the Gospel), and will CONTINUE TO
STAND till the judgment, which is YET TO COME.
Idiot.
Like most Satanists trying to change the Word into what you want, you
allegorize the literal and literalize the allegorical.
Ike
Ike E 12/22/2009
[snip]
> Yes, as does almost all other views. Most "Christians"
> are indeed Futurists.
Gee, maybe that's because that's what the Bible teaches, and NOT YOUR
SATANIC "I'll DO IT MY WAY" DOMINIONISM.
Ike
Ike E 12/22/2009
"ProfQ" <no...@nowhere.net> wrote in message
news:hh4tn6$fbn$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> The writer of the Book of/to The Hebrews wrote that if the old covenant
> has been replaced by a new covenant (New Testament), then the old one is
> put away completely, obsolete, has no validity whatsoever, therefore
> Leviticus and Deuteronomy and all the OLD laws are null and void and no
> longer apply.
Which is why Hebrews doesn't belong in the New Testament--Jesus, Paul, and
John never taught such a thing.
Too bad centuries of damage to both Christianity and Jews have been done
because of this spurious book.
Ike
Jonathan Schattke
> "Pastor Dave"
> randy
>
> >> The Law has indeed passed away.
> > Then there is no observing any of it,
> > as a means to salvation.
>
> Right. The Law was never meant to be the source of eternal salvation anyway.
> It was just a temporary fix, since it was clear under the Law that all men
> were sinners and all men needed God's mercy. All of the sacrifices of the
> Law conveyed the fact that *all Israel* needed God's mercy constantly!
>
> Eternal salvation could only come by a means of raising us from the dead to
> inherit immortal bodies. That alone is the definition of "eternal
> salvation." The Law provided no means whatsoever for having mankind raised
> from the dead to inherit immortal bodies.
Why then does the Psalmist write:
Psa 49:14 Like sheep they are laid in the grave; death shall feed on
them; and the upright shall have dominion over them in the morning;
and their beauty shall consume in the grave from their dwelling.
Psa 49:15 But God will redeem my soul from the power of the grave: for
he shall receive me. Selah.
Sounds a lot like your promise from Yahushwa for eternal life.
@tampabay.rr.com Pastor Dave
<wiz...@gmail.com> spake thusly:
What does the above have to do with the law
being a means of eternal salvation?
--
Pastor Dave
The following is part of my auto-rotating
sig file and not part of the message body.
Healing after abortion:
Snow
wrote:
> > Sounds a lot like your promise from Yahushwa
> > for eternal life.
>
> What does the above have to do with the law
> being a means of eternal salvation?
Why do you think the code of law is eternal "salvation" instead of the
compassion of YAHWEH?
Jonathan Schattke
wrote:
Obviously, that someone a lot closer to the text than you seemed to
think that because of their righteousness, they would be received into
eternity.
Righteousness is DEFINED by the LAW. Sin is the TRANSGRESSION of the
LAW. God hates SIN. God loves the righteous - those who do his LAW -
and will reward them with Eternal life.
Snow
You of course are right but I've come to the conclusion that it is not
worth the time to explain facts to a bunch of anti-semitic people.
Ike E 1/2/2010
"Jonathan Schattke" <wiz...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1f2c9b39-3e9e-4d42...@22g2000yqr.googlegroups.com...
[snip]
> Righteousness is DEFINED by the LAW. Sin is the TRANSGRESSION of the
> LAW. God hates SIN. God loves the righteous - those who do his LAW -
> and will reward them with Eternal life.
Ah, the creep towards legalism.
Hint: NO ONE was EVER righteous by the law (nor could they be) save Jesus
Christ, so if the gift of eternal life were BY THE LAW, there wouldn't be
anyone in heaven except Jesus, numbnuts.
We are saved by grace through faith, and that not of ourselves--it is the
GIFT of God.
(But the legalists just can't help putting the law BACK on, condemning
themselves to hell all over again.)
Ike
randy
"Rob Strom"
randy
> No, Jesus said the heavens would not pass away unless the Law is first
> *fulfilled.*
"You keep repeating this misquote.
He actually said the **Law** would not pass away until
the heaven and the earth passed."
No, it is *you* who are misquoting. The passage says *Jesus himself* must
fulfil every aspect of the Law *before* the universe is destroyed! The Law
is not *negated* as a reference to righteousness. That righteousness is
merely rechanneled through a covenant to which the Law clearly pointed.
Jesus clearly denied that the Law could persist, since Israel was out of
compliance. He was stating that the righteousness of the Law would have to
be rechanneled through himself, so that he could transfer his righteousness
to us.
Don't be fooled by Jesus' statement that "not a jot or tittle" would be
excluded. Every "jot and tittle" was necessary to show that human
righteousness is flawed and in need of a perfect Savior. When we adopt the
spirituality of a perfect Savior in place of our attempts at
self-justification, we learn to live by every "jot and tittle" that the Law
attempted to teach us.
randy
randy
"Pastor Dave"
randy
> I'm sorry, but I'm not interested in the words
> of a man who snips almost all of my posts.
Pastor Dave, you are just a "control freak" who wants to control the
conversation. You need to learn to be a servant, which is really what
Christianity is all about. But you seem to be subject to nobody, an
independent, a renegade. That is not true Christianity.
randy
randy
"Jonathan Schattke"
randy
> Eternal salvation could only come by a means of raising us from the dead
> to
> inherit immortal bodies. That alone is the definition of "eternal
> salvation." The Law provided no means whatsoever for having mankind raised
> from the dead to inherit immortal bodies.
"Why then does the Psalmist write:
Psa 49:14 Like sheep they are laid in the grave; death shall feed on
them; and the upright shall have dominion over them in the morning;
and their beauty shall consume in the grave from their dwelling.
Psa 49:15 But God will redeem my soul from the power of the grave: for
he shall receive me. Selah.
Sounds a lot like your promise from Yahushwa for eternal life."
Clearly, the promise of resurrection from the dead exists in the Jewish
Bible. It is not a doctrine that is elaborated upon in great detail, but it
is rather, simply assumed. It is assumed from the time God made man to
fulfil his destiny on earth, and from the time God condemned mankind to
death. The assumption is that God is a redeeming God, and will restore man
to his rightful place of destiny.
All of the history of Israel contains this suggestion, that salvation is
dependent upon victory over death. And that is why I say true salvation is
defined by resurrection from the dead. The Law, however, did not guarantee
that, because it was a contractual agreement between God and Israel that
*could be broken.* It is my argument that Israel did violate the agreement.
And I do believe that Jesus pointed out this basic failure in Israel to
follow the Law. Just as Moses pointed out, Israel would ultimately fail to
live by the Law, and would have to depend exclusively on God's mercy for
salvation. But this does require being raised from the dead, and assuming
immortal bodies.
randy
Ike E 1/2/2010
"randy" <rkl...@wavecable.com> wrote in message
news:qNWdnR0Mm9ZUEd7W...@wavecable.com...
[snip]
> Clearly, the promise of resurrection from the dead exists in the Jewish
> Bible.
Not until the exilic prophets, in particular, Ezekiel and Daniel.
Before that, the assumption was that all fulfillments were LITERAL and
IMMEDIATE.
> It is not a doctrine that is elaborated upon in great detail, but it is
> rather, simply assumed.
No, it's not.
It was introduced by the exilic prophets Ezekiel and Daniel et al., and it
appears in certain Psalms, which were also compiled DURING THE EXILE.
Before that, there was no obvious conception of discorporeal eternal life in
Judaism.
That's why the Sadducees rejected the resurrection and angels--they were NOT
taught in the Pentateuch, and they ONLY accepted the Pentateuch while
rejecting everything written after that.
[snip the rest of randy's attempt to manufacture a biblical history that
doesn't exist]
Ike
@tampabay.rr.com Pastor Dave
<wiz...@gmail.com> spake thusly:
That's a claim, not proof. And it doesn't
answer my question.
--
Pastor Dave
The following is part of my auto-rotating
sig file and not part of the message body.
We are born wet, naked and hungry. Then things get worse.
@tampabay.rr.com Pastor Dave
spake thusly:
Translation: You piss me off when you won't let me lie!
--
Pastor Dave
The following is part of my auto-rotating
sig file and not part of the message body.
You're only as sick as your secrets.
Rob Strom
> "Rob Strom"
> randy
>
> > No, Jesus said the heavens would not pass away unless the Law is first
> > *fulfilled.*
>
> "You keep repeating this misquote.
> He actually said the **Law** would not pass away until
> the heaven and the earth passed."
>
> No, it is *you* who are misquoting. The passage says *Jesus himself* must
> fulfil every aspect of the Law *before* the universe is destroyed!
Wrong!
Here are the exact words of this passage:
"till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot,
will pass from the law until all is accomplished."
Let t be the time that heaven and earth pass away.
For all times earlier than t, not an iota and not a dot
will pass from the law until all is accomplished.
It is obvious that
(a) although we don't know what t is,
we are at a current time c which is less than t
or we wouldn't be sitting on the earth sending this message.
(b) all isn't accomplished. Aristotle made clear
that the negation of a universal affirmative is
a negative particular, that is, "at least one thing
isn't accomplished". My work on deterministic
recovery schemes is not accomplished, so that
counts as one thing that is not accomplished.
If you want to claim that this verse is to
interpreted narrowly as confined to prophecy
or even prophecy about Jesus, then
Jesus' second coming is not accomplished.
Either way, at least one thing in the universe
of "everything" has not been accomplished.
By (a) and (b) not an iota or dot has passed from the law.
> The Law
> is not *negated* as a reference to righteousness. That righteousness is
> merely rechanneled through a covenant to which the Law clearly pointed.
This is where you try to bring in irrelevancies that aren't English.
I am learning to do that too. The prophetitude is *unchanneled*
through the determinism of the undershadowing of the covenant!!!
How's that????
...
> Don't be fooled by Jesus' statement that "not a jot or tittle" would be
> excluded. Every "jot and tittle" was necessary to show that human
> righteousness is flawed and in need of a perfect Savior.
Uh, no.
Now you're starting to sound like Suzanne, who believes that
the whole law exists to point the way to Jesus. Unfortunately,
nothing in the Bible says that. The law exists, as both
the Bible and Jesus say, so that we should live by it.
> When we adopt the
> spirituality of a perfect Savior in place of our attempts at
> self-justification, we learn to live by every "jot and tittle" that the Law
> attempted to teach us.
But no, because many Christians don't even ****read**** the
jots, much less the tittles, that are in the Jewish Law.
--
Rob Strom
randy
"Rob Strom"
randy
> "You keep repeating this misquote.
> He actually said the **Law** would not pass away until
> the heaven and the earth passed."
> No, it is *you* who are misquoting. The passage says *Jesus himself* must
> fulfil every aspect of the Law *before* the universe is destroyed!
"Wrong!
Here are the exact words of this passage:
"till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot,
will pass from the law until all is accomplished."
Let t be the time that heaven and earth pass away.
For all times earlier than t, not an iota and not a dot
will pass from the law until all is accomplished."
That is one way you can look at it, but not the only way. I don't believe
Jesus was saying that at all. He was not saying that the iotas and dots
would remain exactly in place as they were until the heavens and the earth
are destroyed. He was saying that before heaven and earth can pass away the
iotas and dots must actually come to a place of completion, or
"fulfillment."
Let's look at this in more organized fashion. If Jesus wanted the iotas and
dots to remain exactly as they were, would he have treated the Law as a
failed contract? He did exactly that. Would he have treated the temple as a
temporary phenomenon, as something soon to be destroyed? In fact many of the
laws contained in the Mosaic Law, including all of those "iotas and dots,"
would certainly be obliterated if the temple itself were removed! Yet Jesus
called for just that, within his own generation!
So no, Jesus was not calling for the static continuation of the iotas and
dots exactly as they were. What he was saying, however, was that these
things could not be altered without their somehow coming into their
permanent fulfillment. The details of the Law could not be changed without
their accomplishing the precise purpose for which they were given.
And they were given for two basic purposes. One, they were designed to show
that all men are flawed by sin. They absolutely require redemption, through
the mercy that can only be granted by God Himself. And two, they were
designed to show that redemption is a God-ordained process, that must
achieve certain defined objectives. Men must be repentant. They must have
their nature cleansed. And they must actually be able to put on divine
attributes, such as love and charity, in order to exhibit redeeming
qualities. This is what I call our "spirituality."
All of these "iotas and dots" had to achieve permanent status in the form of
eternal fulfillment. It has to take place *before* heaven and earth could
pass away, because the very heavens and earth exist for this very purpose,
to allow God's purposes to come to complete fulfillment.
"If you want to claim that this verse is to
interpreted narrowly as confined to prophecy
or even prophecy about Jesus, then
Jesus' second coming is not accomplished.
Either way, at least one thing in the universe
of "everything" has not been accomplished."
The verse was *not* talking about accomplishing everything in the universe.
It is just saying that a most essential thing to accomplish in the universe
is the fulfillment of the Law. In other words, God considered *redemption*
essential in the history of the universe. Restoring man to a proper
relationship with Himself was something God considered so essential that He
said heaven and earth could not pass unless this first takes place.
> Don't be fooled by Jesus' statement that "not a jot or tittle" would be
> excluded. Every "jot and tittle" was necessary to show that human
> righteousness is flawed and in need of a perfect Savior.
"Uh, no.
Now you're starting to sound like Suzanne, who believes that
the whole law exists to point the way to Jesus. Unfortunately,
nothing in the Bible says that. The law exists, as both
the Bible and Jesus say, so that we should live by it."
Suzanne is perfectly right. In God's plan of redemption, He did determine
that due to flawed human behavior, our spirituality had to be perfected by a
perfect Messiah--even more by a *divine* Savior. The Savior not only had to
restore to mankind perfect spiritual features, but these features also had
to be transferable to us. Only a divine Savior could transfer these features
to us. Only a perfect Savior could have perfect attributes that God
considers necessary to prove a true conversion has taken place in us.
randy
randy
"Pastor Dave"
randy
>>Pastor Dave, you are just a "control freak" who wants to control the
>>conversation. You need to learn to be a servant, which is really what
>>Christianity is all about. But you seem to be subject to nobody, an
>>independent, a renegade. That is not true Christianity.
> Translation: You piss me off when you won't let me lie!
Actually I'm quite happy with what I've said. If you think it's a lie, fine.
I'll let others judge.
randy
randy
"Ike E 1/2/2010"
randy
>> Clearly, the promise of resurrection from the dead exists in the Jewish
>> Bible.
> Not until the exilic prophets, in particular, Ezekiel and Daniel.
I don't agree. I think resurrection from the dead has been assumed from day
one.
> Before that, the assumption was that all fulfillments were LITERAL and
> IMMEDIATE.
If a fulfillment is called for, I should think that yes, it is to be
"literally" fulfilled. But I can't assume that the literal promise always
calls for an "immediate" fulfillment.
> Before that, there was no obvious conception of discorporeal eternal life
> in Judaism.
If something is being assumed as obviously hoped for, I should think there
is less need for explicit explanation for that hope.
> That's why the Sadducees rejected the resurrection and angels--they were
> NOT taught in the Pentateuch, and they ONLY accepted the Pentateuch while
> rejecting everything written after that.
The Sadducces were interpretors of the Scriptures long after the Scriptures
had been written. They indulged themselves in liberal interpretations, much
as liberal Christians interpret the New Testament today.
I think it is inherently nonsensical for the biblical authors to propose
*any kind* of a covenant relationship with God if it is not based on the
hope of resurrection. I believe all biblical saints hoped for an eternal
relationship with God following death. What traces exist of this hope in
Scriptures is stated as if it is an "assumed" hope. As such, no developed
theology of resurrection is required--not, at least, until the *means* of
this resurrection was fulfilled at the resurrection of Christ.
randy
Rob Strom
> "Rob Strom"
> randy
>
> > "You keep repeating this misquote.
> > He actually said the **Law** would not pass away until
> > the heaven and the earth passed."
> > No, it is *you* who are misquoting. The passage says *Jesus himself* must
> > fulfil every aspect of the Law *before* the universe is destroyed!
>
> "Wrong!
> Here are the exact words of this passage:
> "till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot,
> will pass from the law until all is accomplished."
> Let t be the time that heaven and earth pass away.
> For all times earlier than t, not an iota and not a dot
> will pass from the law until all is accomplished."
>
> That is one way you can look at it, but not the only way. I don't believe
> Jesus was saying that at all.
Do you think Matthew misquoted Jesus,
or do you think that the editors of
the RSV New Testament mistranslated it?
Because I'm giving you the literal meaning of the
words exactly as they appear in the text.
> He was not saying that the iotas and dots
> would remain exactly in place as they were until the heavens and the earth
> are destroyed.
Yes he was, because that's what the text says.
> He was saying that before heaven and earth can pass away the
> iotas and dots must actually come to a place of completion, or
> "fulfillment."
He said AFTER. "X won't pass away until Y passes away" means that if
X
passes away at all, it passes away AFTER Y.
>
> Let's look at this in more organized fashion. If Jesus wanted the iotas and
> dots to remain exactly as they were, would he have treated the Law as a
> failed contract?
No.
> He did exactly that.
No.
> Would he have treated the temple as a
> temporary phenomenon, as something soon to be destroyed?
Yes. He thought it was corrupt.
> In fact many of the
> laws contained in the Mosaic Law, including all of those "iotas and dots,"
> would certainly be obliterated if the temple itself were removed!
No, none of them would. And certainly none of the ones
you and I have been arguing about would.
...
>
> So no, Jesus was not calling for the static continuation of the iotas and
> dots exactly as they were.
Yes he was calling for the static continuation of the iotas and
dots exactly as they were, because that's what he said.
He even warned not to make the smallest relaxation of the law.
> What he was saying, however, was that these
> things could not be altered without their somehow coming into their
> permanent fulfillment. The details of the Law could not be changed without
> their accomplishing the precise purpose for which they were given.
No.
The sentence says nothing about the "precise purpose for which
they were given". You're making this up.
>
> And they were given for two basic purposes. One, they were designed to show
> that all men are flawed by sin.
You don't need a set of laws for that. God told Cain that
everyone is *tempted* by sin (not "flawed").
> They absolutely require redemption, through
> the mercy that can only be granted by God Himself. And two, they were
> designed to show that redemption is a God-ordained process, that must
> achieve certain defined objectives. Men must be repentant. They must have
> their nature cleansed. And they must actually be able to put on divine
> attributes, such as love and charity, in order to exhibit redeeming
> qualities. This is what I call our "spirituality."
Still, if God says pick up your neighbor's ox even if your neighbor
is an enemy, then do it. All this God-ordained process, and cleansed
nature and redeeming quality is beside the point. Pick up the ox.
>
> All of these "iotas and dots" had to achieve permanent status in the form of
> eternal fulfillment.
Again you have retreated to non-English. What does
achieving a status in the form mean?
>
> "If you want to claim that this verse is to
> interpreted narrowly as confined to prophecy
> or even prophecy about Jesus, then
> Jesus' second coming is not accomplished.
> Either way, at least one thing in the universe
> of "everything" has not been accomplished."
>
> The verse was *not* talking about accomplishing everything in the universe.
> It is just saying that a most essential thing to accomplish in the universe
> is the fulfillment of the Law.
The verse wouldn't say "all" (in some translations) or
"everything" (in other translations) if it meant
"one particular thing".
...
>
> "Uh, no.
> Now you're starting to sound like Suzanne, who believes that
> the whole law exists to point the way to Jesus. Unfortunately,
> nothing in the Bible says that. The law exists, as both
> the Bible and Jesus say, so that we should live by it."
>
> Suzanne is perfectly right.
No, she gets this from Paul. Paul rewrites Jesus.
> In God's plan of redemption, He did determine
> that due to flawed human behavior, our spirituality had to be perfected by a
> perfect Messiah--even more by a *divine* Savior. The Savior not only had to
> restore to mankind perfect spiritual features, but these features also had
> to be transferable to us. Only a divine Savior could transfer these features
> to us. Only a perfect Savior could have perfect attributes that God
> considers necessary to prove a true conversion has taken place in us.
I don't understand any of the above.
--
Rob Strom
randy
"Rob Strom"
randy
"Do you think Matthew misquoted Jesus,
or do you think that the editors of
the RSV New Testament mistranslated it?"
I think it is properly translated, to the best of my knowledge, but it is
apparently spoken idiomatically. Jesus is saying that the fulfillment of the
Law is so very important that unless it takes place, the universe itself
might as well cease to exist. Furthermore, Jesus is saying that *he* is the
fulfillment of the Law.
Context is very important here. Everything the four gospels say indicates
that Jesus believed himself to be the fulfillment of the Law. Jesus did not
believe the Law would continue statically, as it was, for all generations.
On the contrary, he believed he was the Lamb of God come to take away the
sins of the world. With his sacrifice, the need for other sin sacrifices
would cease. Again, everything Jesus said in the four gospels indicates that
this is the proper interpretation of what Jesus said in Matthew 5. If you
insist on imposing what you believe is a literal breakdown of what Jesus
said, you could be missing the wider context of what Jesus meant to be
saying.
So there are really only two possibilities here. Either Jesus meant to
promote the Law, exactly as it was, for all eternity. Or, he intended to
pass himself off as the final conclusion of all that the Law represented.
You believe in the former. I believe in the latter.
I grant you that Jesus made a special emphasis on every law is it existed at
that time, including all 613 laws, as it were. But this was not, I feel, to
preserve these laws as such for all eternity, but rather, to emphasize the
fact that every "jot and tittle" had its ultimate fulfillment in himself. To
diminish the smallest of the laws would be to rob Jesus of one aspect of his
holiness.
> In God's plan of redemption, He did determine
> that due to flawed human behavior, our spirituality had to be perfected by
> a
> perfect Messiah--even more by a *divine* Savior. The Savior not only had
> to
> restore to mankind perfect spiritual features, but these features also had
> to be transferable to us. Only a divine Savior could transfer these
> features
> to us. Only a perfect Savior could have perfect attributes that God
> considers necessary to prove a true conversion has taken place in us.
"I don't understand any of the above."
Jesus indicated *he himself* was the conclusion of the Law. All of the
righteousness displayed under the Law, including all of the "shadows" and
all of the realities of righteousness, would be *prophetically* fulfilled in
Jesus. Many of the laws given by Moses were intended to guide imperfect men,
but not a perfect Christ. When Christ came, he came to fulfil in his own
perfect life all that sinful men could not do for themselves.
So the Law simply had to change, and was designed to change. The Law was
meant to *prepare the way for* Christ. His coming was a *prophetic*
fulfillment of the Law--not a static continuation of a Law that was designed
to be observed by imperfect men in anticipation of the coming of a perfect
Savior. When Jesus came he was under a different law, a law of perfection,
as it were. And this perfect law fulfilled all that the Law had been
designed to prepare for.
randy
Rob Strom
> "Rob Strom"
> randy
>
> "Do you think Matthew misquoted Jesus,
> or do you think that the editors of
> the RSV New Testament mistranslated it?"
>
> I think it is properly translated, to the best of my knowledge, but it is
> apparently spoken idiomatically. Jesus is saying that the fulfillment of the
> Law is so very important that unless it takes place, the universe itself
> might as well cease to exist.
That's not what that passage says. Also "fulfillment" doesn't
mean the termination, and in fact he goes out of his
way to say "don't think I've come to abolish the law",
just in case someone mistakenly thought that it did.
In effect, Jesus was explicitly telling people not to write
things such as the verses in the book of Hebrews.
Unfortunately, some people ignored Jesus and
wrote these verses anyway and others ignored
Jesus and put Hebrews in the canon. You
would do well to put an asterisk next to
Hebrews saying "don't read this for its message".
> Furthermore, Jesus is saying that *he* is the
> fulfillment of the Law.
>
> Context is very important here. Everything the four gospels say indicates
> that Jesus believed himself to be the fulfillment of the Law.
That just means he believed himself to be Messiah.
It doesn't mean that being the fulfillment would change
anything about the law itself. It couldn't because
the passage we're arguing about explicitly
said nothing will change the law until
heaven and earth passes!
> Jesus did not
> believe the Law would continue statically, as it was, for all generations.
Huh????
Why do you think that?
> On the contrary, he believed he was the Lamb of God come to take away the
> sins of the world.
Even so, it wouldn't mean that the law would end.
> With his sacrifice, the need for other sin sacrifices
> would cease.
He didn't say that, but even if he had, it wouldn't
mean the law would end.
> Again, everything Jesus said in the four gospels indicates that
> this is the proper interpretation of what Jesus said in Matthew 5. If you
> insist on imposing what you believe is a literal breakdown of what Jesus
> said, you could be missing the wider context of what Jesus meant to be
> saying.
The wider context of what Jesus was saying was follow the
law, help the weak and poor and that's how you get
eternal life.
>
> So there are really only two possibilities here. Either Jesus meant to
> promote the Law, exactly as it was, for all eternity.
Yes.
> Or, he intended to
> pass himself off as the final conclusion of all that the Law represented.
The fulfillment does not mean the final conclusion. It means that
a prophecy that a messiah would come was fulfilled.
> You believe in the former. I believe in the latter.
>
> I grant you that Jesus made a special emphasis on every law is it existed at
> that time, including all 613 laws, as it were. But this was not, I feel, to
> preserve these laws as such for all eternity,
yes it was. Jesus would be very unhappy to hear you say otherwise.
> but rather, to emphasize the
> fact that every "jot and tittle" had its ultimate fulfillment in himself.
Oops you just dropped away from English.
He said every jot and tittle would *remain*.
> To
> diminish the smallest of the laws would be to rob Jesus of one aspect of his
> holiness.
I think that saying a law is obsolete is a kind of diminishing, don't
you?
...
>
> Jesus indicated *he himself* was the conclusion of the Law.
I don't see a dot of text from Jesus that says this.
> All of the
> righteousness displayed under the Law, including all of the "shadows" and
> all of the realities of righteousness, would be *prophetically* fulfilled in
> Jesus.
This isn't English.
> Many of the laws given by Moses were intended to guide imperfect men,
> but not a perfect Christ. When Christ came, he came to fulfil in his own
> perfect life all that sinful men could not do for themselves.
And he wanted everybody else to follow him and fulfill it too.
>
> So the Law simply had to change, and was designed to change.
Why?
> The Law was
> meant to *prepare the way for* Christ.
No. Now you're talking like a Pauline.
> His coming was a *prophetic*
> fulfillment of the Law--not a static continuation of a Law that was designed
> to be observed by imperfect men in anticipation of the coming of a perfect
> Savior. When Jesus came he was under a different law, a law of perfection,
> as it were. And this perfect law fulfilled all that the Law had been
> designed to prepare for.
Now you're speaking gobbledegook again. Laws can't fulfill laws.
People fulfill laws.
--
Rob Strom
Linda Lee
The Scriptures do not say the law prepared the way for Christ. The NT
Scriptures said that John the Baptist (who preached repentance,
baptism, and announced the Lamb of God/Christ) was Elijah (Matt.
11:14) who would prepare the way for God as the Christ (Matt. 11:10):
Christ said of John the Baptist:
Mat 11:10 For this is he, of whom it is written, Behold, I send my
messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee.
Mat 11:11 Verily I say unto you, Among them that are born of women
there hath not risen a greater than John the Baptist: notwithstanding
he that is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.
Mat 11:12 And from the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom
of heaven suffereth violence, and the violent take it by force.
Mat 11:13 For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John.
Mat 11:14 And if ye will receive it, this is Elias [ELIJAH], which
was for to come.
Mat 11:15 He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.
Here is the verse Christ referred to, in which God says God's
messenger will prepare the way before God (Christ in the NT said
Elijah would prepare the way before Christ, quoting this verse in
Malachi using "thee" (Matt. 11:10) instead of "me" (Mal. 3:1):
Mal. 3:1 "Behold, I will send my messenger, and he shall prepare the
way before me: and the Lord, whom ye seek, shall suddenly come to his
temple, even the messenger of the covenant, whom ye delight in:
behold, he shall come, saith the LORD of hosts".
The Messiah said John the Baptist was Elijah (Matt. 11:14), but John
was not aware of that, or else he denied it out of fear (John
1:21-23); however, he and the apostles did recognize John as 'the
voice of one crying in the wilderness who was to prepare the way
before God, making his 'paths' straight'.
Mat 3:1 In those days came John the Baptist, preaching in the
wilderness of Judaea,
Mat 3:2 And saying, Repent ye: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.
Mat 3:3 For this is he that was spoken of by the prophet Esaias
[Isaiah], saying, The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare
ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight.
Isa. 40:3 "The voice of him that crieth in the wilderness, Prepare ye
the way of the LORD, make straight in the desert a highway for our
God".
Joh 1:21 And they asked him [John the Baptist], What then? Art thou
Elias [Elijah]? And he saith, I am not. Art thou that prophet? And he
answered, No.
Joh 1:22 Then said they unto him, Who art thou? that we may give an
answer to them that sent us. What sayest thou of thyself?
Joh 1:23 He said, I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness,
Make straight the way of the Lord, as said the prophet Esaias.
Joh 1:24 And they which were sent were of the Pharisees.
Joh 1:25 And they asked him, and said unto him, Why baptizest thou
then, if thou be not that Christ, nor Elias, neither that prophet?
Joh 1:26 John answered them, saying, I baptize with water: but there
standeth one among you, whom ye know not;
Joh 1:27 He it is, who coming after me is preferred before me, whose
shoe's latchet I am not worthy to unloose.
Joh 1:28 These things were done in Bethabara beyond Jordan, where
John was baptizing.
Joh 1:29 The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith,
Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.
Linda Lee
wrote:
> Snow wrote:
>
> > On Dec 26, 2:12Â am, vince garcia <vggarci...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> > > It's easy for them to call the Law "a delight" when they throw away the
> > > unpleasant aspects of it, or whittle it down from 613 to 10
> > > commandments.
>
> > Are there really 613 commandments?
>
> Yes there are. In fact, there are actually much more than that with the
> rabbinic aditions, and peter affirms their validity in acts 10
Don't you mean Acts Chapter 15?
Act 15:5 But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which
believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to
command them to keep the law of Moses.
Act 15:6 And the apostles and elders came together for to consider of
this matter.
Act 15:7 And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and
said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago
God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear
the word of the gospel, and believe.
Act 15:8 And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving
them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us;
Act 15:9 And put no difference between us and them, purifying their
hearts by faith.
Act 15:10 Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck
of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?
Act 15:11 But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus
Christ we shall be saved, even as they.
Linda Lee
> It begins with a simple understanding, that the spirit is not limited
> to the flesh. Psychologist Dr. Wayne Dyer teaches, “Begin to see
> yourself as a soul with a body rather than a body with a soul.”
The author Wayne Dyer is not a psychologist. He was a guidance
counselor at a Detroit high school and a professor of counselor
education at St. John's University, who was initially a self-published
author. He is considered a humanist and is against organized religion.
Jonathan Schattke
Well, I'm against organized religion, too.
As to being "considered a humanist" - by whom? Does he claim,
himself, to be one?
randy
"Rob Strom"
randy
> I think it is properly translated, to the best of my knowledge, but it is
> apparently spoken idiomatically. Jesus is saying that the fulfillment of
> the
> Law is so very important that unless it takes place, the universe itself
> might as well cease to exist.
"That's not what that passage says. Also "fulfillment" doesn't
mean the termination, and in fact he goes out of his
way to say "don't think I've come to abolish the law",
just in case someone mistakenly thought that it did."
What Jesus meant *in context* is that he did not come to devalue the import
of the Law, to lessen its significance. Every aspect of the Law was to be
fulfilled in himself. This meant that after the system was fulfiled in
Jesus, the Law no longer had to be followed, because with Jesus redemption
is completed. But this doesn't at all diminish the significance of any
aspect of the Law. Jesus did not therefore come to devalue the Law, but
rather, to uphold its total significance in the light of the fact it had
been given to prepare the way for Messiah and his redemption.
You're simply saying that fulfillment does not equal abolishment, that Jesus
specifically denied abolishment in favor of fulfillment. But I'm saying that
abolishment can be interpreted in two senses, as the termination of a system
or a termination of a system's significance. Jesus came to uphold the system
for only a time, until he fulfilled it, but he didn't come in the least to
diminish the importance of the Law's significance. In fact, it was his own
fulfillment of that system that reinforced its significance, particularly as
it evolved from a temporary system into a permanent reality. Upholding every
element of the Law for Jesus was simply a matter of his own fulfillment of
the system as a whole, in order to render the process of redemption a
completed reality.
> Furthermore, Jesus is saying that *he* is the
> fulfillment of the Law.
> Context is very important here. Everything the four gospels say indicates
> that Jesus believed himself to be the fulfillment of the Law.
"That just means he believed himself to be Messiah.
It doesn't mean that being the fulfillment would change
anything about the law itself. It couldn't because
the passage we're arguing about explicitly
said nothing will change the law until
heaven and earth passes!"
No, that begs the question. Jesus said that his own fulfillment was the
terminal point in practising the Law, because the true value of every
element within the Law was a matter of focusing all its worship on him! It
was not an abolishment of the importance of every element of the Law. It
was, however, in effect an abolishment of outmoded worship that had nothing
whatsoever to do with what every "jot and tittle" of the Law represented.
I might add here that it was the temporal nature of the elements of the Law
that itself made the Law temporary and unable to endure "until heaven and
earth pass away." The Law simply had to be fulfilled by elements that were
more eternal, and less temporal. Jesus came to resolve the problems
associated with a corrupt people--their mortality, and a corruptible temple,
which was soon to be destroyed. Instead, Jesus placed himself as the eternal
One, a divine man who would rise from the dead and give his divine Spirit to
us so that we could share not just in his character attributes, but also in
his incorruptible nature.
> Jesus did not
> believe the Law would continue statically, as it was, for all generations.
"Huh????
Why do you think that?"
Because Jesus saw himself as the lamb slain for the sins of the world. It
was a radical reinterpretation of the Law, from the perspective of the
religious rulers in his day. Yet for him, it was the truly prophetic
interpretation of Scriptures. The Law was written for imperfect men in
preparation for a messicanic redemption that would liberate men from the
sentence of sin, which was death. Once Jesus, the perfect man, had come, a
means of permanent redemption had come, thus fulfilling what every jot and
tittle of the Law had meant to represent. Out of Jesus, the perfect man, we
get what only a divine man can give, the Spirit of God and divine attributes
that truly justify us, that truly indicate genuine repentance. When we show
the character traits of God, God is satisfied with our repentance, and is
willing to forgive our sins forever. Jesus had to be perfect in order to
qualify to give us the perfect attributes of God. He had to give us in
effect *his own* attributes.
> All of the
> righteousness displayed under the Law, including all of the "shadows" and
> all of the realities of righteousness, would be *prophetically* fulfilled
> in
> Jesus.
"This isn't English."
The temple system, according to a Hebrew perspective, is based on spiritual
realities. You read where God's true dwelling is "in heaven," that an
earthly temple cannot actually contain His full presence. His token presence
alone lived within the temple. As such, the temple was only a shadow of
God's actual dwelling in heaven. It was a "shadowed" worship practised by
sinful men in the hope that ultimately they would be redeemed from sin, and
obtain unobstructed relationship with God forever.
randy
Linda Lee
> On Jan 13, 7:17 am, Linda Lee <lindagirl...@juno.com> wrote:
>
>
> > > It begins with a simple understanding, that the spirit is not limited
> > > to the flesh. Psychologist Dr. Wayne Dyer teaches, “Begin to see
> > > yourself as a soul with a body rather than a body with a soul.”
>
> > The author Wayne Dyer is not a psychologist. He was a guidance
> > counselor at a Detroit high school and a professor of counselor
> > education at St. John's University, who was initially a self-published
> > author. He is considered a humanist and is against organized religion.
>
> Well, I'm against organized religion, too.
> As to being "considered a humanist" - by whom? Does he claim,
> himself, to be one?
I doubt it; he doesn't seem the type to want to label himself
(limitless thinking and all). I have a few of his books; he's alright,
and an easy read.
Linda Lee
>
>
> This meant that after the system was fulfiled in
> Jesus, the Law no longer had to be followed,
You're a false teacher. The Messiah's real apostles (after his death
and resurrection) still taught to obey the Commandments of God i.e.
the Ten Commandments:
1Jn 5:2 By this we know that we love the children of God, when we
love God, and keep his commandments.
1Jn 5:3 For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments:
and his commandments are not grievous.
randy
"Linda Lee"
randy
> This meant that after the system was fulfiled in
> Jesus, the Law no longer had to be followed,
"You're a false teacher. The Messiah's real apostles (after his death
and resurrection) still taught to obey the Commandments of God i.e.
the Ten Commandments:
1Jn 5:2 By this we know that we love the children of God, when we
love God, and keep his commandments.
1Jn 5:3 For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments:
and his commandments are not grievous."
First of all, I'm not a false teacher. I teach what the church has taught
for over 2000 years. Since you're on the radical fringe of Christianity, I
would suspect your teaching instead. Secondly, the Law is not the Ten
Commandments. Thirdly, when the apostles of Jesus taught obedience to the
commandments of Christ, they were not teaching observance of the Law. Not
the same thing.
Jesus did not teach that every element of the Law would remain forever.
Instead he said that he came to establish every element of the Law as
important, and as necessary for *him* to fulfil as Messiah. He fulfilled the
Law not by retaining the temporal aspects of the Law, but rather, by
fulfilling it in himself, indicating that the Law was merely a shadow of
something more important. Every element of the Law, therefore, was not meant
to be fulfilled in eternal observance, but rather, in terms of Messianic
fulfilllment, in which Jesus himself demonstrated perfect righteousness, a
righteousness that could be transmitted to us spiritually by *obedience to
him.*
randy
Linda Lee
> "LindaLee"
> randy
>
> > This meant that after the system was fulfiled in
> > Jesus, the Law no longer had to be followed,
>
> "You're a false teacher. The Messiah's real apostles (after his death
> and resurrection) still taught to obey the Commandments of God i.e.
> the Ten Commandments:
> 1Jn 5:2 By this we know that we love the children of God, when we
> love God, and keep his commandments.
> 1Jn 5:3 For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments:
> and his commandments are not grievous."
>
> First of all, I'm not a false teacher. I teach what the church has taught
> for over 2000 years. Since you're on the radical fringe of Christianity, I
> would suspect your teaching instead. Secondly, the Law is not the Ten
> Commandments. Thirdly, when the apostles of Jesus taught obedience to the
> commandments of Christ, they were not teaching observance of the Law. Not
> the same thing.
You most definitely are a false teacher. I John 5:2-3 is referring to
God's commandments, which are the Ten Commandments; you can't get
around this one.
Address the point, randy, instead of being evasive with your usual
doublespeak. It is a lie that the Messiah taught the law no longer had
to be followed; instead he taught his apostles to teach that we were
to follow the commandments of God:
Snow
learned that courage was not the absence of fear, but the triumph over
it. The brave man is not he who does not feel afraid, but he who
conquers that fear.-
Nelson Mandela
(1971) Willy Wonka: *We* are the music makers... and *we* are the
dreamers of dreams.
٩(͡๏̯͡๏)۶ Come with me And you'll be In a world of Pure imagination
Take a look And you'll see Into your imagination
We'll begin With a spin
Traveling in The world of my creation
What we'll see Will defy Explanation
If you want to view paradise
Simply look around and view it
Anyth...ing you want to, do it
Wanta change the world? There's nothing To it
randy
"Linda Lee"
randy
> First of all, I'm not a false teacher. I teach what the church has taught
> for over 2000 years. Since you're on the radical fringe of Christianity, I
> would suspect your teaching instead. Secondly, the Law is not the Ten
> Commandments. Thirdly, when the apostles of Jesus taught obedience to the
> commandments of Christ, they were not teaching observance of the Law. Not
> the same thing.
"You most definitely are a false teacher. I John 5:2-3 is referring to
God's commandments, which are the Ten Commandments; you can't get
around this one."
I don't need to get around it. It's false. 1 John 5:2-3 is *not* a reference
to the Ten Commandments. John was an apostle of Jesus, and recorded that
Jesus called for a "new commandment."
Joh 13:34 A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another; even
as I have loved you, that you also love one another.
"Address the point, randy, instead of being evasive with your usual
doublespeak. It is a lie that the Messiah taught the law no longer had
to be followed; instead he taught his apostles to teach that we were
to follow the commandments of God:..."
I have addressed it. Now, why don't you address the fact that Jesus brought
forth a *new* commandment? Why don't you address the fact that Jesus said
the entire superstructure of the Law would come down, namely the temple? Why
don't you address the fact Jesus saw the religious rulers as being out of
compliance with the Law, and near to being exiled away from their land,
under the curse that the Law promised would happen to those who broke the
Law?
Then why don't you address Pauline theology, which explains what Jesus meant
when he said salvation must come exclusively through him (and not through
the Law)? Jesus meant to say that eternal salvation comes not by a return to
the Law, which could never bring about eternal salvation, but rather,
through forgiveness for having failed under the Law.
randy
Linda Lee
> "Linda Lee"
> randy
>
> > First of all, I'm not a false teacher. I teach what the church has taught
> > for over 2000 years. Since you're on the radical fringe of Christianity, I
> > would suspect your teaching instead. Secondly, the Law is not the Ten
> > Commandments. Thirdly, when the apostles of Jesus taught obedience to the
> > commandments of Christ, they were not teaching observance of the Law. Not
> > the same thing.
>
> "You most definitely are a false teacher. I John 5:2-3 is referring to
> God's commandments, which are the Ten Commandments; you can't get
> around this one."
>
> I don't need to get around it. It's false.
You're false. It is referring to the COMMANDMENTS OF GOD, which
everyone knows are the Ten Commandments. And you're so deliberately
false, that you've deleted what it says because you know this is not
referring to a new commandment, but to the Commandments received from
God.
1Jn 5:2 By this we know that we love the children of God, when we
love God, and keep his commandments.
1Jn 5:3 For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments:
and his commandments are not grievous.
Looks like John Gill wouldn't have considered you a "true Christian".
'John Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible':
"1Jn 5:3 For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments -
This constitutes true love; this furnishes the evidence of it.
And his commandments are not grievous - Greek, “heavy” - βαρεῖαι
bareiai; that is, difficult to be borne as a burden. See Mat_11:30.
The meaning is, that his laws are not unreasonable; the duties which
he requires are not beyond our ability; his government is not
oppressive. __It is easy to obey God when the heart is right; and
those who endeavor in sincerity to keep his commandments do not
complain that they are hard. All complaints of this kind come from
those who are not disposed to keep his commandments.__ Indeed, they
object that his laws are unreasonable; that they impose improper
restraints; that they are not easily complied with; and that the
divine government is one of severity and injustice. __But no such
complaints come from true Christians.__ They find his service easier
than the service of sin, and the laws of God more mild and easy to be
complied with than were those of fashion and honor, which they once
endeavored to obey. The service of God is freedom; the service of the
world is bondage. __No man ever yet heard a true Christian say that
the laws of God, requiring him to lead a holy life, were stern and
“grievous.”"__
> 1 John 5:2-3 is *not* a reference
> to the Ten Commandments.
More of your false teaching.
> John was an apostle of Jesus, and recorded that
> Jesus called for a "new commandment."
Should I just delete that verse like you delete things you don't want
to see? I don't have to; in that "new commandment" Christ says NOTHING
about it superseding previous commandments; it was an additional
commandment.
>
> Joh 13:34 A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another; even
> as I have loved you, that you also love one another.
'John Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible':
"Joh 13:34 A new commandment - This command he gave them as he was
about to leave them, to be a badge of discipleship, by which they
might be known as his friends and followers, and by which they might
be distinguished from all others. It is called new, NOT because there
was no command before which required people to love their fellow-man,
for one great precept of the law was that they should love their
neighbor as themselves Lev_19:18; but it was new because it had never
before been made that by which any class or body of people had been
known and distinguished.
The Jew was known by his external rites, by his uniqueness of dress,
etc.; the philosopher by some other mark of distinction; the military
man by another, etc. In none of these cases had love for each other
been the distinguishing and special badge by which they were known.
But in the case of Christians they were not to be known by
distinctions of wealth, or learning, or fame; they were not to aspire
to earthly honors; they were not to adopt any special style of dress
or badge, but they were to be distinguished by tender and constant
attachment to each other.
This was to surmount all distinction of country, of color, of rank, of
office, of sect. Here they were to feel that they were on a level,
that they had common wants, were redeemed by the same sacred blood,
and were going to the same heaven. They were to befriend each other in
trials; be careful of each other’s feelings and reputation; deny
themselves to promote each other’s welfare".
Only a sociopath would decide if someone tells you not to kill, and
then later says to be loving, that means you can kill now (as long as
you do it 'out of love' and love Christ).
>
> "Address the point, randy, instead of being evasive with your usual
> doublespeak. It is a lie that the Messiah taught the law no longer had
> to be followed; instead he taught his apostles to teach that we were
> to follow the commandments of God:..."
>
> I have addressed it.
You addressed nothing; you did your usual deletion magic.
It is a lie that the Messiah taught the law no longer had to be
followed; instead he taught his apostles to teach that we were to
follow the commandments of God.
> Now, why don't you address the fact that Jesus brought
> forth a *new* commandment?
> Why don't you address the fact that Jesus said
> the entire superstructure of the Law would come down, namely the temple?
Because Christ became our temple, and we are to worship in private in
the spirit has NOTHING TO DO with obedience to the Ten Commandments,
randy.
> Why
> don't you address the fact Jesus saw the religious rulers as being out of
> compliance with the Law,
> and near to being exiled away from their land,
> under the curse that the Law promised would happen to those who broke the
> Law?
What about it? Christ said the Pharisees didn't follow the law
themselves and placed additional burdens of law on men that God never
intended. That doesn't mean believers are free to disobey the Ten
Commandments at will.
>
> Then why don't you address Pauline theology,
Because Pauline theology appeals only to conscienceless sociopaths who
reject the plain teachings of the Messiah.
> which explains what Jesus meant
LOL!
> when he said salvation must come exclusively through him (and not through
> the Law)? Jesus meant to say
LOL! Now YOU, as well as your false god Paul, know what "Jesus meant"
and speak what "Jesus meant to say". Incredible.
It's too bad that Christ was an inadequate teacher compared to you and
Paul who give a better understanding. It's too bad too that Christ's
real apostles kept throwing in confusing comments about works and
commandments thereby muddying up the pure salvation offered by Paul
<SARCASM>.
> that eternal salvation comes not by a return to
> the Law, which could never bring about eternal salvation, but rather,
> through forgiveness for having failed under the Law.
Unfortunately for you and those you are attempting to teach, you're
leaving out half of the following equation:
Rev. 12:17, "And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make
war with the remnant of her seed, which KEEP THE COMMANDMENTS OF GOD,
and have the TESTIMONY OF JESUS CHRIST".
Rev. 14:12, "Here is the patience of the saints: here are they that
KEEP THE COMMANDMENTS OF GOD, and the FAITH OF JESUS".
фكشغהּטּﮝ
>
> "Linda Lee"
> randy
>> First of all, I'm not a false teacher. I teach what the church has taught
>> for over 2000 years. Since you're on the radical fringe of
>> Christianity, I
>> would suspect your teaching instead. Secondly, the Law is not the Ten
>> Commandments. Thirdly, when the apostles of Jesus taught obedience to the
>> commandments of Christ, they were not teaching observance of the Law. Not
>> the same thing.
>
> "You most definitely are a false teacher. I John 5:2-3 is referring to
> God's commandments, which are the Ten Commandments; you can't get
> around this one."
>
> I don't need to get around it. It's false. 1 John 5:2-3 is *not* a
> reference to the Ten Commandments.
I am afraid you are wrong. I've included below 1 John 5, verses 1 -4
which contain the context before and after the verses you speak of,
2-3, and Matthew 4:4 makes it abundantly clear what GOD expects....
1Jo 5:1 Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God:
and every one that loveth him that begat loveth him also that is
begotten of him.
1Jo 5:2 By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love
God, and keep his commandments.
1Jo 5:3 For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and
his commandments are not grievous.
1Jo 5:4 For whatsoever is born of God overcometh the world: and this is
the victory that overcometh the world, even our faith.
Mat 4:4 But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by
bread alone, but by *every word* that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.
фكشغהּטּﮝ
> "Jonathan Schattke" <wiz...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1f2c9b39-3e9e-4d42...@22g2000yqr.googlegroups.com...
>
> [snip]
>
>> Righteousness is DEFINED by the LAW. Sin is the TRANSGRESSION of the
>> LAW. God hates SIN. God loves the righteous - those who do his LAW -
>> and will reward them with Eternal life.
>
> Ah, the creep towards legalism.
>
> Hint: NO ONE was EVER righteous by the law (nor could they be) save Jesus
> Christ, so if the gift of eternal life were BY THE LAW, there wouldn't be
> anyone in heaven except Jesus, numbnuts.
Says the habitual offender of the Law, the angry man who refuses to
correct his way, and may find hell his reward....read well, for the
context is before you, learn quickly to abide by all, for time is
short...
Mat 18:1 At the same time came the disciples unto Jesus, saying, Who is
the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?
Mat 18:2 And Jesus called a little child unto him, and set him in the
midst of them,
Mat 18:3 And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and
become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.
Mat 18:4 Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child,
the same is greatest in the kingdom of heaven.
Mat 18:5 And whoso shall receive one such little child in my name
receiveth me.
Mat 18:6 But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe
in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his
neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.
Mat 18:7 Woe unto the world because of offences! for it must needs be
that offences come; but woe to that man by whom the offence cometh!
Mat 18:8 Wherefore if thy hand or thy foot offend thee, cut them off,
and cast them from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life halt
or maimed, rather than having two hands or two feet to be cast into
everlasting fire.
Mat 18:9 And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from
thee: it is better for thee to enter into life with one eye, rather than
having two eyes to be cast into hell fire.
Mat 18:10 Take heed that ye despise not one of these little ones; for I
say unto you, That in heaven their angels do always behold the face of
my Father which is in heaven.
Mat 18:11 For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost.
Mat 4:4 But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by
bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.
фكشغהּטּﮝ
> The writer of the Book of/to The Hebrews wrote that if the old covenant
> has been replaced by a new covenant (New Testament), then the old one is
> put away completely, obsolete, has no validity whatsoever, therefore
> Leviticus and Deuteronomy and all the OLD laws are null and void and no
> longer apply.
>
Yes, I agree with you; the old covenant is done away with
and new laws do take effect, according to the ASV version,
so the disparities will be found in the translations; accordingly
GOD has put away BOTH the old covenant and several generations
of Hebrew peoples for disobediance to His word, and new laws
instituted. It is natural that followers of judaism and messianic
Christianity would question the book of hebrews; we are instructed
to test all things whatsoever; to ascertain that they are from GOD;
Heb 8:1 Now in the things which we are saying the chief point is this:
We have such a high priest, who sat down on the right hand of the throne
of the Majesty in the heavens,
Heb 8:2 a minister of the sanctuary, and of the true tabernacle, which
the Lord pitched, not man.
Heb 8:3 For every high priest is appointed to offer both gifts and
sacrifices: wherefore it is necessary that this high priest also have
somewhat to offer.
Heb 8:4 Now if he were on earth, he would not be a priest at all,
seeing there are those who offer the gifts according to the law;
Heb 8:5 who serve that which is a copy and shadow of the heavenly
things, even as Moses is warned of God when he is about to make the
tabernacle: for, See, saith he, that thou make all things according to
the pattern that was showed thee in the mount.
Heb 8:6 But now hath he obtained a ministry the more excellent, by so
much as he is also the mediator of a better covenant, which hath been
enacted upon better promises.
Heb 8:7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, then would no
place have been sought for a second.
Heb 8:8 For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come,
saith the Lord, That I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel
and with the house of Judah;
Heb 8:9 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers In
the day that I took them by the hand to lead them forth out of the land
of Egypt; For they continued not in my covenant, And I regarded them
not, saith the Lord.
Heb 8:10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of
Israel After those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their
mind, And on their heart also will I write them: And I will be to them a
God, And they shall be to me a people:
Heb 8:11 And they shall not teach every man his fellow-citizen, And
every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: For all shall know me,
From the least to the greatest of them.
Heb 8:12 For I will be merciful to their iniquities, And their sins
will I remember no more.
Heb 8:13 In that he saith, A new covenant he hath made the first old.
But that which is becoming old and waxeth aged is nigh unto vanishing away.
фكشغהּטּﮝ
> The writer of the Book of/to The Hebrews wrote that if the old covenant
> has been replaced by a new covenant (New Testament), then the old one is
> put away completely, obsolete, has no validity whatsoever, therefore
> Leviticus and Deuteronomy and all the OLD laws are null and void and no
> longer apply.
>
>> On Fri, 25 Dec 2009 06:28:44 +0800, Teresita
>> <rub...@newsguy.com> spake thusly:
>>
>>
>>> On Mon, 08 Jun 2009 09:41:19 -0700, Mike Painter wrote:
>>>
>>>> The vast majority of rules in the bibe demand death
>>>> for what is ignored by most and considered at best
>>>> a minor infraction today.
>>>
>>> Disobedience to Parents (Exodus 21:17, Deuteronomy 21:18)
>>>
>>> Beastiality (Leviticus 20:15)
>>>
>>> Violations of the Sabbath (Exodus 31:15)
>>>
>>> Adultery (Leviticus 20:10, Leviticus 19:20)
>>>
>>> Abominations (Leviticus 20:2)
>>>
>>> Blasphemy (Leviticus 24:16)
>>>
>>> Incest (Leviticus 20:11)
>>>
>>> Homosexuality (Leviticus 20:13)
>>>
>>> Witchcraft (Exodus 22:18, Leviticus 20:27)
>>>
>>> False Prophecy (Deuteronomy 13:5)
>>>
>>> Worshipping a false god (Deuteronomy 13:6-10)
>>>
>>> Sodomy (Leviticus 18:22, 20:13)
>>>
>>> Sex with a woman betrothed to another (Deuteronomy 22:25)
>>>
>>> Daughters of preachers fornicating (Leviticus 21:9)
>>>
>>> Juvenile delinquency (Deuteronomy 21:18-21)
>>>
>>> Sacrificing to false gods (Exodus 22:20)
>>>
>>> Disrespecting a judge or priest (Deuteronomy 17:22)
>>>
>>> Sex with a woman during her period (Leviticus 20:18)
>>>
>>> Unchastity (Deuteronomy 22:21-24)
>>
>> Assuming all of this to be accurate, you begin with
>> the false assumption that we *deserve* life and
>> that we are innocent.
>>
>
A very wise man once said;
Mat 4:4 But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live
by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.
Follow this teaching first and foremost, and you will be fine.
randy
"Linda Lee"
randy
> "....I John 5:2-3 is referring to God's commandments, which are the Ten
> Commandments; you can't get
> around this one."
> I don't need to get around it. It's false.
"You're false...."
I'm "false" about what? 1 John 5:2-3 does not even mention the "10
Commandments." So it is a legitimate question to ask whether this passage is
even referring to the 10 Commandments. There is nothing false about asking
the question!
"It is referring to the COMMANDMENTS OF GOD, which
everyone knows are the Ten Commandments...."
So that's your argument? Even though 1 John 5:2-3 says *not one thing* about
the 10 Commandments, you believe it has to be assumed "because everyone
knows" this? That's painfully weak, Linda, and it certainly doesn't mean I'm
"false."
"And you're so deliberately false, that you've deleted what it says because
you know this is not referring to a new commandment, but to the Commandments
received from God."
You're slanderously accusing me of deleting things for reasons that don't
even enter my mind. I have no need to repeat your biblical quotes when I
know them by heart, and when we've been discussing them. Well, at least I
used to know them by heart. Years ago, when I memorized the entire letter of
1 John, I never once thought John was referring here to the 10 Commandments
(at least I can't remember such). So obviously, I'm not interested in
deleting anything for the reasons you stated.
"1Jn 5:2 By this we know that we love the children of God, when we
love God, and keep his commandments.
1Jn 5:3 For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments:
and his commandments are not grievous."
You see. You can read the above verses and cannot see a single direct
reference to the 10 Commandments. I have no need to delete it. It is pure
and simple that the reference is only to God's commandments generally--not
to any specific set of commandments, such as the 10 Commandments. But we
know that John believed eternal salvation is available only through faith in
Jesus, through faith in his spirituality within us. Therefore, we also know
that John believed all of God's commandments had to do with Jesus'
spirituality, and with our walking in that spirituality. It had nothing to
do with an outdated contract with the nation Israel, a contract which had
completely been broken by Israel.
> 1 John 5:2-3 is *not* a reference
> to the Ten Commandments.
"More of your false teaching."
God's commandments have now been applied in a new context, in the context of
the New Testament, in the context of Jesus and his spirituality. When we
follow God's commandments today, we are obeying the commandments of
Jesus--not the Law of Moses, not the 10 Commandments, which were part of the
Law of Moses.
This does not mean we ignore such commands as "Do not murder," and "Do not
commit adultery." On the contrary, in the New Testament we believe these
commands of God are oriented to a "new commandment," and apply in the
context of a new covenant. So we wouldn't call these commandments the "10
Commandments." Rather, we would call them "the commandments of Jesus," and
would not any longer represent a specific list, nor would they include
things like "remember the Sabbath day," since this no longer applies in the
light of redemption already accomplished by Jesus.
> Joh 13:34 A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another; even
> as I have loved you, that you also love one another.
'John Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible':
"Joh 13:34 A new commandment - This command he gave them as he was
about to leave them, to be a badge of discipleship, by which they
might be known as his friends and followers, and by which they might
be distinguished from all others. It is called new, NOT because there
was no command before which required people to love their fellow-man,
for one great precept of the law was that they should love their
neighbor as themselves Lev_19:18; but it was new because it had never
before been made that by which any class or body of people had been
known and distinguished..."
I'm not sure what point you wish to make here. You quote John Gill, and he
doesn't seem to argue for you at all. The previous commands of God, prior to
Jesus, indeed reflected a true morality, a morality that continues today.
But this morality no longer applies in the context of an outdated contract,
the Law of Moses. What made Jesus' commandments "new" was the fact that they
applied only to the spirituality of Jesus, and not to a weak spirituality
that was in effect under the Law, a spirituality that could no longer
achieve eternity, a spirituality that always needed purification and
forgiveness. What made Jesus' commandments "new" was the fact this
righteousness was no longer hampered by our mortality. Rather, Jesus coupled
his offer of spirituality with a righteousness that was immortal. He said
that if we obeyed him, we would "never die." Of course we continue to be
mortal, and die. But what he meant was that we can now rise from the dead
and obtain an eternal relationship with God, if we choose to follow his
righteousness.
> I have addressed it.
"You addressed nothing; you did your usual deletion magic."
That's not true. I addressed it by saying that Paul taught the Law was no
longer in play. Therefore you cannot address a subset of the Law, the 10
Commandments, as if they are still in play. No set of laws can apply *when
they are coupled together* with an old, outmoded pact. But the same
principles can apply, assuming they are now strictly coupled together with
the new pact. The old subset of the Law, the 10 Commandments, cannot apply
not just because they are called "the 10 Commandments," but also because
they include the Sabbath Day requirement, which is only applicable under the
Law.
And I've addressed the issue with other arguments, such as Jesus'
condemnation of Israel under the Law, with the accusation that they have
destroyed the agreement by their noncompliance. I addressed it by pointing
out that Jesus called for the imminent destruction of the temple. Your
answer to all this: I did not supposedly address the issue. That's insane,
Linda. The whole reason I'm still here is because I'm *addressing the
issue.* Now you may not agree with my answers, but I am addressing the
issues.
And now I'm addressing the issue by claiming the verses you cite do not even
*mention* the 10 Commandments specifically. And they *do not!* Yet you say
the reason I have to agree with you is because everybody agrees with you.
That's pure bunk. And you're being blatantly dishonest when you say I'm not
addressing the issues. I most obviously *am* addressing the issues.
> Why don't you address the fact that Jesus said
> the entire superstructure of the Law would come down, namely the temple?
"Because Christ became our temple, and we are to worship in private in
the spirit has NOTHING TO DO with obedience to the Ten Commandments,
randy."
That is a most absurd argument, Linda. *Everybody knows* the 10 Commandments
were attached to God's requirement under the Law that Israel worship at the
temple. Three times a year they were to go to the temple and observe feasts.
Every day priests were to offer burnt offerings at the altar, morning and
evening. The requirement to obey the 10 Commandments were positively
attached to this contract, which absolutely required service at the temple.
You are absolutely destroying the very meaning of what the Law of Moses was.
Why even discuss it even further?
randy
randy
"Linda Lee"
randy
> Then why don't you address Pauline theology,
"Because Pauline theology appeals only to conscienceless sociopaths who
reject the plain teachings of the Messiah."
That is not addressing Pauline theology. You seem to slanderously accuse
Paul of being libertine, or lax with his morality. Nothing could be farther
from the truth! Paul made it clear that the sum total of OT morality was
summed up in Christ. Paul did not diminish the morality of the Law at all.
He only wished to deny that we are under *that contract* anymore. Therefore,
many things that are *not a matter of morality,* that were specific to *that
contract* no longer apply! Things like eating pig meat don't have a thing to
do with morality today, when we are no longer under the Law. Things like
purifying ourselves in holy water have nothing to do with morality today,
when we have already been cleansed by the spirituality of Christ.
Here then is proof that Paul called for a clear morality in the New
Testament:
Romans 13:8 Owe no one anything, except to love one another; for he who
loves his neighbor has fulfilled the law.
9 The commandments, "You shall not commit adultery, You shall not kill, You
shall not steal, You shall not covet," and any other commandment, are summed
up in this sentence, "You shall love your neighbor as yourself."
10 Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfilling of
the law.
Clearly, Paul addressed the matter of morality under the Law, and clearly
said that it applies now in the context of Christianity, in the context of a
new pact. We don't have to observe ceremonies that look forward to our
eternal redemption. Eternal redemption has already been won by Christ. We
don't have to serve at the temple, and offer sacrifices at the temple. And
if there are principles that need to be kept today that were listed under
the 10 Commandments, we continue to follow those principles today under
Christ. But because they are not under the Law, we no longer refer to them
as the "10 Commandments." We just call them the "commandments of God," or
the "commandments of Christ."
Man has always been required to obey the commandments of God generally. But
they are not followed any longer within the *context* of the Law of Moses.
Those commandments applied to only that day and age. Today, we follow the
same principles, but under an entirely new covenant.
Paul clearly said that we are to *do no wrong to our neighbor.* That is
hardly saying it is okay to commit adultery, or steal from your neighbor! It
is hardly saying it is okay to defy the principles contained in the 10
Commandments. But we don't follow the 10 Commandments as a specific list
associated with the Old Testament pact. Among other reasons, the list
contains reference to the Sabbath Day, which applied only under the ancient
pact, and not in Christ. Christ promoted the Law in Israel for only the
brief time of his earthly ministry. But at his death he meant to show that
Israel had fully put off the Law, had fully rejected the Law, and the Law
was therefore fully broken and annuled. Jesus came to forgive Israel for
this failure under the Law. And in its place he offered his own
spirituality, which not only forgives, but offers *eternal* redemption, and
immortality in the presence of God. This not only does what the Law hoped
for, but completes everything the Law meant to accomplish.
"<SARCASM>."
That says it all. Your morality is weak and shallow. You don't have Christ's
spirituality living within you, because you replace Christ's love with
*sarcasm.* It would be okay to be sarcastic if you had a loving motive. But
you have no love--just hatred for your opponents. But I'm here to tell you
that you've missed the boat, Linda. Christianity is not just a "head"
religion. It is a religion of the heart, in which we humbly submit to the
virtues of Christ, virtues that we must humbly admit we do not have in
ourselves. When you submit to love, and do so on a regular basis, you have
entered into salvation. Unless you do so, your salvation will never be
eternal.
randy
randy
"фكشغהּטּﮝ"
randy
>> ....1 John 5:2-3 is *not* a reference to the Ten Commandments.
> I am afraid you are wrong. I've included below 1 John 5, verses 1 -4
> which contain the context before and after the verses you speak of, 2-3,
> and Matthew 4:4 makes it abundantly clear what GOD expects....
You've got two issues going on here. One, you say 1 John 5, verses 1-4
proves me wrong, and verifies that 1 John 5:2-3 refers to the *10
Commandments.* Well, none of those verses refer to the 10 Commandments. So
no context is established in which we must see any reference to the 10
Commandments at all.
Secondly, you mention Matthew 4:4. I quote you here:
"Mat 4:4 But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by
bread alone, but by *every word* that proceedeth out of the mouth of God."
Living by God's word is not a reference to just *any example* of God's word.
For example, God's word was given to a prophet in the OT who was told to
give a prophecy of judgment and then go home without stopping to eat with
anybody. When that prophet disobeyed God, and stopped to eat with someone,
he was killed by wild animals. Now that was a word from God! But that word
is not for us today. We may learn from it, but it was a word *specific to
that particular prophet.*
So it is disingenuous to refer to every example of God's word to show that
we must keep the Law and the 10 Commandments. Those were examples of God's
word given to a specific group of people at a specific time. That pact was
given to ancient Israel in the preChristian era. Those commandments may have
principles that apply to us today as God's word, but they represent God's
word for only a specific people at a specific time.
randy
фكشغהּטּﮝ
>
> "фكشغהּטּﮝ"
> randy
>>> ....1 John 5:2-3 is *not* a reference to the Ten Commandments.
>
>> I am afraid you are wrong. I've included below 1 John 5, verses 1 -4
>> which contain the context before and after the verses you speak of,
>> 2-3, and Matthew 4:4 makes it abundantly clear what GOD expects....
>
> You've got two issues going on here. One, you say 1 John 5, verses 1-4
> proves me wrong, and verifies that 1 John 5:2-3 refers to the *10
> Commandments.* Well, none of those verses refer to the 10 Commandments.
If this were so, then you should have been able to prove it thru the
scriptures. I have taken note of the fact that no proof has accompanied
your claim, therefore your claim has to be based entirely on your belief
that you are rightly understanding the Word.
> So no context is established in which we must see any reference to the
> 10 Commandments at all.
>
> Secondly, you mention Matthew 4:4. I quote you here:
> "Mat 4:4 But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by
> bread alone, but by *every word* that proceedeth out of the mouth of God."
>
> Living by God's word is not a reference to just *any example* of God's
> word. For example, God's word was given to a prophet in the OT who was
> told to give a prophecy of judgment and then go home without stopping to
> eat with anybody. When that prophet disobeyed God, and stopped to eat
> with someone, he was killed by wild animals. Now that was a word from
> God! But that word is not for us today. We may learn from it, but it was
> a word *specific to that particular prophet.*
The fact of the matter is that Matthew 4:4 made it abundantly clear
when it stated *every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of GOD*.
Only the dullest among you will fail see this truth...
It is clear that you are doing the heretic shuffle in an attempt at
sidestepping the truth contained within Matthew 4:4. My posting
Matthew 4:4 was for your benefit should you accept the Word, or for
your condemnation should you shirk the truth. Truly, you have rejected
the truth and published a false teaching in an attempt to refute and
nullify the Word.
GODs curse resides upon you in your darkness. You stand out as a
warning beacon, that those you have misled may find the path back to
the light. You are not qualified to lead them to the light, but you
may be allowed to follow them to once again find it.
Linda Lee
And that fact that you were so cowardly about what was "sarcasm" that
you had to deliberately delete/hide it, as well as delete/hide your
arrogance in saying what "Jesus meant to say" shows your own weak
shallow morality. Let me replace it for you, since you're criticizing
my sarcasm:
<BEGIN QUOTE from my post>
randy said, "Then why don't you address Pauline theology,"...
I said, "Because Pauline theology appeals only to conscienceless
sociopaths who reject the plain teachings of the Messiah."
randy continues "which explains what Jesus meant"...
I laugh, "LOL!"
randy continue, "when he said salvation must come exclusively through
him (and not through the Law)? Jesus meant to say"...
I replied, "LOL! Now YOU, as well as your false god Paul, know what
"Jesus meant" and speak what "Jesus meant to say". Incredible.
It's too bad that Christ was an inadequate teacher compared to you and
Paul who give a better understanding. It's too bad too that Christ's
real apostles kept throwing in confusing comments about works and
commandments thereby muddying up the pure salvation offered by Paul
<SARCASM>."
<END QUOTE>
> You don't have Christ's
> spirituality living within you, because you replace Christ's love with
> *sarcasm.*
I am so glad you said that because you've told me before that Paul was
only being "sarcastic" when he says things about himself that reveal
his evil methods, and I know Paul's words reveal he does not have
Christ's love within him. Double standard, randy; sarcasm is okay for
the false apostle, but in anyone else you claim it reveals they have a
weak and shallow morality. Paul the sarcastic, inept, lawless, immoral
false apostle...
Linda Lee
> "LindaLee"
> randy
>
> > "....I John 5:2-3 is referring to God's commandments, which are the Ten
> > Commandments; you can't get
> > around this one."
> > I don't need to get around it. It's false.
>
> "You're false...."
>
> I'm "false" about what? 1 John 5:2-3 does not even mention the "10
> Commandments." So it is a legitimate question to ask whether this passage is
> even referring to the 10 Commandments. There is nothing false about asking
> the question!
So what are God's commandments, randy?
>
> "It is referring to the COMMANDMENTS OF GOD, which
> everyone knows are the Ten Commandments...."
>
> So that's your argument? Even though 1 John 5:2-3 says *not one thing* about
> the 10 Commandments, you believe it has to be assumed "because everyone
> knows" this? That's painfully weak,Linda, and it certainly doesn't mean I'm
> "false."
It SAYS it is talking about God's commandments, which you pretend to
mean the new commandment the Messiah gave that we should love one
another. Everyone knows God's commandments are the Ten Commandments
given by God and written with His own finger. And you are false.
>
> "And you're so deliberately false, that you've deleted what it says because
> you know this is not referring to a new commandment, but to the Commandments
> received from God."
>
> You're slanderously accusing me of deleting things for reasons that don't
> even enter my mind. I have no need to repeat your biblical quotes when I
> know them by heart, and when we've been discussing them.
LOL - if you knew them by heart you wouldn't ignore what they say.
>
> "1Jn 5:2 By this we know that we love the children of God, when we
> love God, and keep his commandments.
> 1Jn 5:3 For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments:
> and his commandments are not grievous."
>
> You see.
I see, but you're blind.
>
> > 1 John 5:2-3 is *not* a reference
> > to the Ten Commandments.
>
> "More of your false teaching."
>
>
> This does not mean we ignore such commands as "Do not murder," and "Do not
> commit adultery." On the contrary, in the New Testament we believe these
> commands of God are oriented to a "new commandment," and apply in the
> context of a new covenant. So we wouldn't call these commandments the "10
> Commandments." Rather, we would call them "the commandments of Jesus," and
> would not any longer represent a specific list, nor would they include
> things like "remember the Sabbath day," since this no longer applies in the
> light of redemption already accomplished by Jesus.
Oh that's your problem; the Sabbath day. Believers observed the
Saturday sabbath for hundreds of years after the Messiah lived.
>
> > Joh 13:34 A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another; even
> > as I have loved you, that you also love one another.
>
> 'John Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible':
> "Joh 13:34 A new commandment - This command he gave them as he was
> about to leave them, to be a badge of discipleship, by which they
> might be known as his friends and followers, and by which they might
> be distinguished from all others. It is called new, NOT because there
> was no command before which required people to love their fellow-man,
> for one great precept of the law was that they should love their
> neighbor as themselves Lev_19:18; but it was new because it had never
> before been made that by which any class or body of people had been
> known and distinguished..."
>
> I'm not sure what point you wish to make here. You quote John Gill, and he
> doesn't seem to argue for you at all.
He most certainly does when he says there were already existing
commandments that still apply.
And since you want to pretend Gill agrees with you, here is the text
you so conveniently deleted from Gill saying true Christians don't
balk at obeying the laws of God, what are obviously God's Ten
Commandments, saying, "No man ever yet heard a true Christian say that
the laws of God, requiring him to lead a holy life, were stern and
“grievous.”".
I wrote:
"1Jn 5:2 By this we know that we love the children of God, when we
love God, and keep his commandments.
1Jn 5:3 For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments:
and his commandments are not grievous.
Looks like John Gill wouldn't have considered you a "true Christian".
'John Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible':
"1Jn 5:3 For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments -
This constitutes true love; this furnishes the evidence of it.
And his commandments are not grievous - Greek, “heavy” - βαρεῖαι
bareiai; that is, difficult to be borne as a burden. See Mat_11:30.
The meaning is, that his laws are not unreasonable; the duties which
he requires are not beyond our ability; his government is not
oppressive. __It is easy to obey God when the heart is right; and
those who endeavor in sincerity to keep his commandments do not
complain that they are hard. All complaints of this kind come from
those who are not disposed to keep his commandments.__ Indeed, they
object that his laws are unreasonable; that they impose improper
restraints; that they are not easily complied with; and that the
divine government is one of severity and injustice. __But no such
complaints come from true Christians.__ They find his service easier
than the service of sin, and the laws of God more mild and easy to be
complied with than were those of fashion and honor, which they once
endeavored to obey. The service of God is freedom; the service of the
world is bondage. __No man ever yet heard a true Christian say that
the laws of God, requiring him to lead a holy life, were stern and
“grievous.”"__ "
>
> > I have addressed it.
>
> "You addressed nothing; you did your usual deletion magic."
>
> That's not true. I addressed it by saying that Paul taught the Law was no
> longer in play.
Who CARES what the false apostle Paul said. TELL ME WHERE THE MESSIAH
SAID WHAT YOU CLAIM.
This is pointless; you will never comprehend the Messiah's teachings.
You have rejected the Word of God incarnate in favor of the lawless
evil teachings of your false god and saviour Paul.
Rob Strom
> randy
>
> > I think it is properly translated, to the best of my knowledge, but it is
> > apparently spoken idiomatically. Jesus is saying that the fulfillment of
> > the
> > Law is so very important that unless it takes place, the universe itself
> > might as well cease to exist.
>
> "That's not what that passage says. Also "fulfillment" doesn't
> mean the termination, and in fact he goes out of his
> way to say "don't think I've come to abolish the law",
> just in case someone mistakenly thought that it did."
>
> What Jesus meant *in context* is that he did not come to devalue the import
> of the Law, to lessen its significance. Every aspect of the Law was to be
> fulfilled in himself. This meant that after the system was fulfiled in
> Jesus, the Law no longer had to be followed,
What a contradiction!! Jesus didn't want to *annul* the law --
to you that really meant he didn't want to *devalue the import* of
the law. But to you that means the Law no longer had
to be followed. Huh?
If the law doesn't have to be followed doesn't that
devalue the import of the law?? And it certainly
contradicts the statement that it isn't being annulled!!
And to mention *context*, the statement that it isn't
being annulled is not qualified by other statements
but instead is reinforced with statements that not
a jot or tittle will pass from it, and that he who
loosens the smallest amount from the law will
be considered least in heaven.
> because with Jesus redemption
> is completed. But this doesn't at all diminish the significance of any
> aspect of the Law.
You've gotta be kidding.
It used to be God's holy law, a law to live by, a law
that was the very definition of righteousness. Now,
in your view, it's obsolete, doesn't have to be obeyed,
a relic interesting for nostalgia but not necessary
to be obeyed in any way. And you don't consider
that in the slightest to be a diminution of its significance....
> You're simply saying that fulfillment does not equal abolishment, that Jesus
> specifically denied abolishment in favor of fulfillment. But I'm saying that
> abolishment can be interpreted in two senses, as the termination of a system
> or a termination of a system's significance.
You can always duck out of a Bible verse by saying that
the words in it can also be interpreted to have the
opposite meaning.
...
> Upholding every
> element of the Law for Jesus was simply a matter of his own fulfillment of
> the system as a whole, in order to render the process of redemption a
> completed reality.
And here once again you distort the plain meaning
of words. Upholding the law doesn't mean doing it,
it means making a rendering of a process.
...
>
> "That just means he believed himself to be Messiah.
> It doesn't mean that being the fulfillment would change
> anything about the law itself. It couldn't because
> the passage we're arguing about explicitly
> said nothing will change the law until
> heaven and earth passes!"
>
> No, that begs the question. Jesus said that his own fulfillment was the
> terminal point in practising the Law,
He didn't say anything of the kind.
> because the true value of every
> element within the Law was a matter of focusing all its worship on him!
So that's like saying that fulfilling Jesus' commandment
to love ones neighor is a matter of reading Alan Dershowitz's books.
> It
> was not an abolishment of the importance of every element of the Law.
Do you see how silly it sounds to say that stopping the
obeying of the law and replacing it by Jesus worship
doesn't abolish the importance of every element?
...
> I might add here that it was the temporal nature of the elements of the Law
> that itself made the Law temporary and unable to endure "until heaven and
> earth pass away."
Except Jesus said it *would* endure "until heaven and earth pass
away".
...
>
> > Jesus did not
> > believe the Law would continue statically, as it was, for all generations.
>
> "Huh????
> Why do you think that?"
>
> Because Jesus saw himself as the lamb slain for the sins of the world.
Actually, you are confusing Jesus with John the Baptist.
And even so, this has nothing to do with preventing the
Law from continuing.
> ... The Law was written for imperfect men in
> preparation for a messicanic redemption that would liberate men from the
> sentence of sin, which was death. Once Jesus, the perfect man, had come, a
> means of permanent redemption had come, thus fulfilling what every jot and
> tittle of the Law had meant to represent.
No. The law not to steal was a real law, not a symbol
that represented something else.
Otherwise, why can't I equally well say that the commandments
in the book of Acts are also symbols, representing
the need to read Dershowitz, which, once done,
eliminates the need to read the new testament,
because the laws of Acts take on an enhanced
respect once they're not obeyed any more and
replaced by reading of Dershowitz's books.
...
> The temple system, according to a Hebrew perspective, is based on spiritual
> realities. You read where God's true dwelling is "in heaven," that an
> earthly temple cannot actually contain His full presence. His token presence
> alone lived within the temple. As such, the temple was only a shadow of
> God's actual dwelling in heaven. It was a "shadowed" worship practised by
> sinful men in the hope that ultimately they would be redeemed from sin, and
> obtain unobstructed relationship with God forever.
I haven't the slightest clue of what this has to do with anything.
--
Rob Strom
> randy
Linda Lee
That's a very good example of Paulspeak.
> ...
>
> > The temple system, according to a Hebrew perspective, is based on spiritual
> > realities. You read where God's true dwelling is "in heaven," that an
> > earthly temple cannot actually contain His full presence. His token presence
> > alone lived within the temple. As such, the temple was only a shadow of
> > God's actual dwelling in heaven. It was a "shadowed" worship practised by
> > sinful men in the hope that ultimately they would be redeemed from sin, and
> > obtain unobstructed relationship with God forever.
>
> I haven't the slightest clue of what this has to do with anything.
randy's had excellent training in doublespeak absurdities from
scrutinizing the drivel of the false apostle Paul. That is the plain
truth; you will get no forthright speech or thought from him, only
Paulspeak.
randy
"Linda Lee"
randy
> I'm "false" about what? 1 John 5:2-3 does not even mention the "10
> Commandments." So it is a legitimate question to ask whether this passage
> is
> even referring to the 10 Commandments. There is nothing false about asking
> the question!
"So what are God's commandments, randy?"
I've told you before, but I'll tell you again. "God's commandments" are
God's commandments *generally.* That is, they do not have to apply in any
particular context, in connection with any particular covenant. God's
commandments may have applied specifically under the Law, and not apply
outside of the Law. Or they may have been commandments meant to apply for
all time, such as God's intention to create man in His own image, so that
humanity always obeys Him.
God's commandments therefore have to do with what I've been calling
"universal morality." They are the commands of God to man in any situation
we find ourselves, so that what we do conforms to the image of God. But if
God's commandments took place only within a narrow context, we cannot expect
to apply those commandments outside of that context. For example, God may
have told the Prophet Ezekiel to behave in a certain way, for example, bake
food upon animal excrement, and yet we should not feel obligated to obey
this "commandment of God" ourselves! ;)
Neither do we need to feel obligated to obey the commandments of God given
to Israel under the Law. The reason is, the Law was a unique covenant made
with ancient Israel that is no longer in effect. Israel broke that contract,
and God has therefore annuled it. But He also did something wonderful. He
also *fulfilled* that covenant by accomplishing everything that Israel
failed to do under that agreement, so that not only could Israel's
relationship with God continue, but it could also continue on forever.
Therefore we must not interpret the "commandments of God" to be the Law of
Moses. That contract has expired, whereas the commandments of God have not
expired. As long as God lives, and as long as we live, God will command us
to do things. And if we are to live in His image, we must obey Him.
> So that's your argument? Even though 1 John 5:2-3 says *not one thing*
> about
> the 10 Commandments, you believe it has to be assumed "because everyone
> knows" this? That's painfully weak,Linda, and it certainly doesn't mean
> I'm
> "false."
"It SAYS it is talking about God's commandments, which you pretend to
mean the new commandment the Messiah gave that we should love one
another. Everyone knows God's commandments are the Ten Commandments
given by God and written with His own finger. And you are false."
You are wrong. Not "everyone" believes this passage refers to the Ten
Commandments. Not everyone believes John was teaching the continuing
applicability of the Ten Commandments. If that were so John would also be
preaching the continuing need to obey the Sabbath law. And most Christians
do not believe John was teaching this.
> You're slanderously accusing me of deleting things for reasons that don't
> even enter my mind. I have no need to repeat your biblical quotes when I
> know them by heart, and when we've been discussing them.
"LOL - if you knew them by heart you wouldn't ignore what they say."
Linda, I *memorized* the whole epistle of 1 John back in 1973! At that time
I had no preconceived notions about what John meant, and I did not think the
"commandments of God" referred to either the Law or the Ten Commandments.
The commandments of God are any commandments that God gives to men under the
circumstances in which they are required to keep them. We are not required
to keep either the Law or the Ten Commandments today. Yet we are required to
obey many of the rules contained in the Ten Commandments--I just would not
use the term "Ten Commandments," lest we confuse observance of God's general
requirements with a specific list associated with both the Law and the
Sabbath law.
"Oh that's your problem; the Sabbath day. Believers observed the
Saturday sabbath for hundreds of years after the Messiah lived."
I have no problem with customary observance of the Sabbath day. But
Christians are not *required* to obey it, because it was required only under
the Law of Moses. And that Law is not in effect anymore. Your attempt to
reduce the Law to Ten Commandments is a redefinition of the Law--it is not
actually the Law of Moses at all.
> I'm not sure what point you wish to make here. You quote John Gill, and he
> doesn't seem to argue for you at all.
"He most certainly does when he says there were already existing
commandments that still apply.
And since you want to pretend Gill agrees with you..."
I did not in the least say Gill agrees with me. I don't know what he
believes. All I said is that I don't know what point you wished to make,
because nothing in your quotation of Gill confirms your beliefs.
"....here is the text
you so conveniently deleted from Gill saying true Christians don't
balk at obeying the laws of God, what are obviously God's Ten
Commandments, saying, "No man ever yet heard a true Christian say that
the laws of God, requiring him to lead a holy life, were stern and
“grievous.”"..."
Linda, once again, nothing I read here indicates that Gill agrees with you
that either the "commandments of God," or the "laws of God" are the
equivalent of the Law of Moses. As far as I know, Gill may consider the
"laws of God" to refer to the moral laws of God in general, completely
distinct from the Law of Moses.
> That's not true. I addressed it by saying that Paul taught the Law was no
> longer in play.
"Who CARES what the false apostle Paul said. TELL ME WHERE THE MESSIAH
SAID WHAT YOU CLAIM."
I care about what the Apostle Paul said, obviously! I'm addressing your
issues by references to what *I believe*--not by what *you believe.* So I am
in fact addressing the issues, even if you don't like what I believe. What
Paul believed is based on what he thought Jesus taught. And what I believe
is also what I think Jesus taught, in the same way Paul interpreted it. So
when I argue from Paul, I'm also arguing my own beliefs, even if you don't
agree with me. Just don't say I'm deleting things and not addressing issues,
when that is precisely what I'm here doing!
Jesus himself indicated Israel had broken the Law, and indicated that this
transgression would be complete at the cross. And so we have to understand
that the Law was also annuled at the cross. Yet Jesus had made eternal
salvation available exclusively through himself, and a matter of fulfilling
all of the intents and purposes of the Law. Therefore Jesus taught not just
that the Law would be abolished, but that this was part of God's plan in
enabling him to fulfil the Law, apart from the Law. Jesus fulfilled the Law
in his own spirituality, which has now been giving to those who believe
this.
randy
Rob Strom
>
> Jesus himself indicated Israel had broken the Law, and indicated that this
> transgression would be complete at the cross. And so we have to understand
> that the Law was also annuled at the cross.
Why? Jesus said that the Law would not be annulled.
--
Rob Strom
Linda Lee
>
> "So what are God's commandments, randy?"
>
> I've told you before, but I'll tell you again. "God's commandments" are
> God's commandments *generally.* That is, they do not have to apply in any
> particular context, in connection with any particular covenant. God's
> commandments may have applied specifically under the Law, and not apply
> outside of the Law. Or they may have been commandments meant to apply for
> all time, such as God's intention to create man in His own image, so that
> humanity always obeys Him.
>
Mankind in God's image is not a commandment.
> Therefore we must not interpret the "commandments of God" to be the Law of
> Moses.
Quit trying to cause confusion, false teacher. I said nothing about
the entire Law of Moses. I said the "commandments of God" refers to
the Ten Commandments written by God Himself.
>
> > So that's your argument? Even though 1 John 5:2-3 says *not one thing*
> > about
> > the 10 Commandments, you believe it has to be assumed "because everyone
> > knows" this? That's painfully weak,Linda, and it certainly doesn't mean
> > I'm "false."
>
> "It SAYS it is talking about God's commandments, which you pretend to
> mean the new commandment the Messiah gave that we should love one
> another. Everyone knows God's commandments are the Ten Commandments
> given by God and written with His own finger. And you are false."
>
> You are wrong.
You are. It SAYS it is talking about God's commandments, which you
pretend to mean the new commandment the Messiah gave that we should
love one another. Everyone knows God's commandments are the Ten
Commandments given by God and written with His own finger.
>
> > I'm not sure what point you wish to make here. You quote John Gill, and he
> > doesn't seem to argue for you at all.
>
> "He most certainly does when he says there were already existing
> commandments that still apply.
> And since you want to pretend Gill agrees with you..."
>
> I did not in the least say Gill agrees with me. I don't know what he
> believes.
Because you've been reading Paul's gibberish so long that rational
thought is incomprehensible to you? Gill said what he believed; it was
very clear.
> All I said is that I don't know what point you wished to make,
> because nothing in your quotation of Gill confirms your beliefs.
>
> "....here is the text
> you so conveniently deleted from Gill saying true Christians don't
> balk at obeying the laws of God, what are obviously God's Ten
> Commandments, saying, "No man ever yet heard a true Christian say that
> the laws of God, requiring him to lead a holy life, were stern and
> “grievous.”"..."
>
Once again, you've deviously deleted part of it, and then you claim
"nothing I read here indicates that Gill agrees with you"! I've
restored it below.
> Linda, once again, nothing I read here
> that either the "commandments of God," or the "laws of God" are the
> equivalent of the Law of Moses. As far as I know, Gill may consider the
> "laws of God" to refer to the moral laws of God in general, completely
> distinct from the Law of Moses.
You know full well I was not saying the commandments were the whole
law of Moses (because I said specifically they were the Ten
Commandments). You're just trying to cause confusion, false teacher.
You know I am speaking about the Ten Commandments, and so is Gill when
he says the following:
"It is easy to obey God when the heart is right; and
those who endeavor in sincerity to keep his commandments do not
complain that they are hard. All complaints of this kind come from
those who are not disposed to keep his commandments.__ Indeed, they
object that his laws are unreasonable; that they impose improper
restraints; that they are not easily complied with; and that the
divine government is one of severity and injustice. __But no such
complaints come from true Christians.__ They find his service easier
than the service of sin, and the laws of God more mild and easy to be
complied with than were those of fashion and honor, which they once
endeavored to obey. The service of God is freedom; the service of the
world is bondage. __No man ever yet heard a true Christian say that
the laws of God, requiring him to lead a holy life, were stern and
“grievous.”"
What he says is true; you balk at God's commandments, and spend every
day here trying to justify doing so, because you are not a true
Christian.
>
> > That's not true. I addressed it by saying that Paul taught the Law was no
> > longer in play.
Pathetic.
>
> "Who CARES what the false apostle Paul said. TELL ME WHERE THE MESSIAH
> SAID WHAT YOU CLAIM."
>
> I care about what the Apostle Paul said, obviously! I'm addressing your
> issues by references to what *I believe*--not by what *you believe.*
And this was your response to me saying, "TELL ME WHERE THE MESSIAH
SAID WHAT YOU CLAIM." because the Messiah NEVER SAID what you claim.
And your only response is, "I care about what the Apostle Paul said,
obviously!"
And that is the problem. I only care what the Messiah said; you
DON'T. You only care what Paul said, and I don't give a hoot what
that false apostle has to say about disobeying God's holy Commandments
or any other matter. Paul is not MY teacher. Christ is my teacher.
> Just don't say I'm deleting things and not addressing issues,
> when that is precisely what I'm here doing!
Right, that is what you've done here and is what you always do.
>
> Jesus himself indicated Israel had broken the Law, and indicated that this
> transgression would be complete at the cross. And so we have to understand
> that the Law was also annuled at the cross.
Says your false apostle who says it was nailed to the cross. It was
not annulled. You must be aware that even before Christ, the Jews made
atonement for their sins once a year, a time of repentance towards God
because they knew the law alone could not sustain them.
> Yet Jesus had made eternal
> salvation available exclusively through himself, and a matter of fulfilling
> all of the intents and purposes of the Law. Therefore Jesus taught not just
> that the Law would be abolished, but that this was part of God's plan in
> enabling him to fulfil the Law, apart from the Law.
That is Paulspeak, doublespeak. Your sentences make absolutely no
sense.
You don't know what you're talking about in reference to his
fulfillment of the law. It is obvious what you say about it being
annulled is false because the Messiah followed his statement of "one
jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be
fulfilled" with "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". So THAT is what you're doing to yourself and
trying to do to others.
Mat 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the
prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
Mat 5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one
jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be
fulfilled.
Mat 5:19 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.
> Jesus fulfilled the Law
> in his own spirituality, which has now been giving to those who believe
> this.
> randy
Do you really think you look spiritual? You look like you're squirming
with all your might to get away from God. He'll catch up with you come
Judgment Day.
Snow
Lord is a title granted by the King upon men that are his servants
loyal to his cause. Men seek to dominate other people and yet, in
scriptures we are to have no “Lords” aka Baal’s or “King” and one of
the first great sin’s of Israel was in fact to appoint a ruler over
them that was a man.
1Sa 8:5 and said to him, “Look, you are old, and your sons do not walk
in your ways. Now appoint for us a sovereign to rule us like all the
nations.” 6 But the word was evil in the eyes of Shemu’ĕl when they
said, “Give us a sovereign to rule us.” So Shemu’ĕl prayed to [Yahweh]
יהוה.
1Sa 12:17 “Is today not the wheat harvest? Let me call to [Yahweh]
יהוה, so that He sends thunder and rain – know then and see that your
evil is great, which you have done in the eyes of [Yahweh] יהוה, in
asking for yourselves a sovereign.”
This great truth is glossed over and replaced because men seek to rule
over you and this is not the desire of our set apart Elohim in
heaven. He has given a covenant with man and men seek to subvert this
covenant for the sake of MAN’S RULE over other men. This is why they
have removed the name of Yahweh and replaced it with a subservient
title that serves men.
We are not to seek “Lords” because I promise you, you will find them
in every church congregation that subverts the truth of his name.
1Sa 8:7 And [Yahweh] יהוה said to Shemu’ĕl, “Listen to the voice of
the people in all that they say to you, for they have not rejected
you, but they have rejected Me from reigning over them.
When men subvert his name it is because they have rejected Yahweh from
reigning over them. They have no true desire to serve ONLY Yahweh and
for them, religion is just another conduit of power over others.
In the world religion, you will find one name common in ALL religions,
the Freemasonry deity of “GOD”, a Phoenician deity spoken against by
the Prophets of Yahweh.
Rev 13:7 And it was given to him to fight with the set-apart ones and
to overcome them. And authority was given to him over every tribe and
tongue and nation.
Everybody keeps looking around to find “anti-Christ” not realizing
that they have been living in the Babylonian translation for a
thousand years already!
Act 2:21 ‘And it shall be that everyone who calls on the Name of יהוה
[Yahweh] shall be saved.’
The King James per-Version contains almost 2000 different
mistranslations, and of those over 500 changed the meaning of the text
itself. One of the many mistranslations happens about 6,800 times when
they translate YHVH into a meaningless “LORD” instead of the proper
YAHweh. Why do you think Satan would want to do this? The scriptures
say, "Whosoever shall call upon the name of Yahweh shall be saved". If
you don't know his name, then you can't call on His name and you won't
ever know his name if you are reading the King James per-Version. The
King James per-Version is authorized by Satan and Satan alone.
Joe 2:32 And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the
name of YAHWEH shall be delivered: for in mount Zion and in Jerusalem
shall be deliverance, as YAHWEH hath said, and in the remnant whom
YAHWEH shall call.
Lord comes from the old English spelling of "Lard" which comes from
"Lar/Larth Lares," Estruscan and Roman deities associated with Sun-
worship. The Greek word "Kurios" was originally a title for the Greek
and Roman Sun-deity "Helios" and was called "The Kurios (Lord) of
Heaven and Earth." The Hindu god "Krishna" is also known as "Lord."
The title "Lord" was eventually applied to all heathen deities. Most
Bible translators continue to use the title "Lord" as a substitute
name for YHVH (Yahweh).
YHVH (Yahweh) is the Name given to Moshe/Moses in Exodus 3:15. It is
the Name of the Elohim of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, which appears in
the Hebrew manuscripts, and is to be known by His people throughout
all generations.
Shalom,
*´¨)
¸.•´ ¸.•*´¨) ¸.•*¨)
(¸.•´ (¸.• (Snow(.¸.•*´¨)
But what is Hope? Nothing but the paint on the face of Existence; the
least touch of truth rubs it off, and then we see what a hollow-
cheeked harlot we have got hold of.
Lord Byron
__,
.-'_-'`
.' {`
.-'````'-. .-'``'.
.'(0) '._/ _.-. `\
} '. )) _<` )` |
`-.,\'.\_,.-\` \`---; .' /
) ) '-. '--:
( ' ( ) '. \
'. ) .'( / )
)/ ( '. /
'._( ) .'
gs ( (
`-.
http://www.e-sword.net/ Free bible software
http://groups.google.com/group/messianicYehoshua <-- join
http://www.isr-messianic.org/ <- download the scriptures free
or
http://messianicyehoshua.googlegroups.com/web/RNKJV.zip <--free
download of the Restored Names King James Version
Life is a gift, and it offers us the privilege, opportunity, and
responsibility to give something back by becoming more.
Tony Robbins
Linda Lee
> to Israel under the Law. The reason is, the Law was a unique covenant made
> with ancient Israel that is no longer in effect. Israel broke that contract,
> and God has therefore annuled it.
We? That's only you, randy, who doesn't feel obligated to obey the
Ten Commandments of God.
THE TEN COMMANDMENTS or TEN WORDS:
'John Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible':
"Exo 20:1 And God spake all these words,.... Which follow, commonly
called the decalogue, or ten commands; a system or body of laws,
selected and adapted to the case and circumstances of the people of
Israel; striking at such sins as they were most addicted to, and they
were under the greatest temptation of falling into the commission of;
to prevent which, the observation of these laws was enjoined them; not
but that whatsoever of them is of a moral nature, as for the most part
they are, are BINDING ON ALL MANKIND, and TO BE OBSERVED BOTH BY JEW
and GENTILE; and are the best and shortest compendium of morality that
ever was delivered out".
Exo 20:1 And God spake all these words, saying,
Exo 20:2 I am the LORD thy God, which have brought thee out of the
land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.
Exo 20:3 Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
Exo 20:4 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any
likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth
beneath, or that is in the water under the earth:
Exo 20:5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for
I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the
fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them
that hate me;
Exo 20:6 And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and
keep my commandments.
Exo 20:7 Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain;
for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in
vain.
Exo 20:8 Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.
Exo 20:9 Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work:
Exo 20:10 But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in
it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter,
thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger
that is within thy gates:
Exo 20:11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea,
and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the
LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.
Exo 20:12 Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long
upon the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee.
Exo 20:13 Thou shalt not kill.
Exo 20:14 Thou shalt not commit adultery.
Exo 20:15 Thou shalt not steal.
Exo 20:16 Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.
Exo 20:17 Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not
covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant,
nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's.
Paul preaches the TEN COMMANDMENTS to the ROMANS (i.e. GENTILES):
Rom 13:8 Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that
loveth another hath fulfilled the law.
Rom 13:9 For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not
kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou
shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly
comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as
thyself.
Rom 13:10 Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love is the
fulfilling of the law.
'John Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible':
"Rom 13:9 For this, thou shalt not commit adultery,.... The apostle
here reckons up the several laws of the second table [of the TEN
COMMANDMENTS], with this view, that it might appear that so far as a
man loves his neighbour, whether more near or distantly related, he
fulfils the law, or acts according to it. He omits the first of these,
the fifth commandment, either because he had urged this before, so far
as it may be thought to regard magistrates; or because, according to
the division of the Jews, who reckon five commands to each table, this
belonged to the first: and he puts the seventh before the sixth, which
is of no great moment; the order of things being frequently changed in
the Scripture, and which is often done by Jewish writers, in alleging
and citing passages of Scripture; and with whom this is a maxim, אין
מוקדם ומאוחר בתורה, "that there is no first nor last in the law" (c);
that is, it is of no importance which stands first or last in it: it
follows,
thou shall not kill, thou shalt not steal, thou shalt not bear false
witness, thou shalt not covet; which are the sixth, eighth, ninth, and
tenth commands of the decalogue, Exo_20:13,
and if there be any other commandment; of God, respecting the
neighbour, either in the decalogue, as there was the fifth, Exo_20:12
["Honour thy father and thy mother"], or elsewhere, the apostle
repeating this by memory:
it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, thou shall love thy
neighbour as thyself; see Lev_19:18; this is the summary and epitome
of them; so Christ reduces the laws of the first table to the head of
love to God, and those of the second to the head of love to the
neighbour, Mat_22:37, as the apostle does here, and in Gal_5:14, and
the Apostle James, in Jam_2:8."
randy
"Rob Strom"
randy
> Jesus himself indicated Israel had broken the Law, and indicated that this
> transgression would be complete at the cross. And so we have to understand
> that the Law was also annuled at the cross.
"Why? Jesus said that the Law would not be annulled."
His insinuation was that *Israel* would render the Law null and void. Jesus
merely said he did not come to fail in his own application to the Law. His
purpose was to come as Messiah to save Israel, precisely because they were
failing under the Law. The Law called for God's redemption of Israel. The
only way this could be effected, after the failure of Israel under the Law,
was by proposing a Messianic salvation, one that would take place apart form
Israel's compliance with the Law.
I describe this new salvation as a salvation based on the spirituality of
Jesus. This in effect removes any further need to observe the Law. An
eternal salvation by definition renders all temporal forms of salvation
unnecessary, and in this case counterproductive. It is counterproductive to
observe the Law and continue to assert a future need for salvation, when
that salvation has already come.
randy
randy
"Linda Lee"
randy
> I've told you before, but I'll tell you again. "God's commandments" are
> God's commandments *generally.* That is, they do not have to apply in any
> particular context, in connection with any particular covenant. God's
> commandments may have applied specifically under the Law, and not apply
> outside of the Law. Or they may have been commandments meant to apply for
> all time, such as God's intention to create man in His own image, so that
> humanity always obeys Him.
"Mankind in God's image is not a commandment."
Sure it is. God commanded man, by implication, to walk in His own image,
after His own likeness. This mandate is impressed upon the consciences of
all men and women.
> Therefore we must not interpret the "commandments of God" to be the Law of
> Moses.
"Quit trying to cause confusion, false teacher. I said nothing about
the entire Law of Moses. I said the "commandments of God" refers to
the Ten Commandments written by God Himself."
You do have an unruly way about you, Linda. I am expressing my own honest
opinion--not trying to unsettle you! I've answered your arguments. The Law
is not just some abbreviated version of the same, known as "the Ten
Commandments." Rather, the Law consists of the sum total of all its
requirements, all of its temple law, all of its priestly law, and all of its
sacrificial law. Observance of all the feasts and observance of every
sabbath is required, along with the cancellation of debts, dietary laws,
sexual laws, laws of social justice, etc. The Law absolutely cannot be
reduced below the sum total of all its requirements. God did in the past
endure something less than perfect conformity with the Law, not by His own
wishes, but rather, by the necessity of recognizing human imperfection.
The "commandments of God" do not necessarily represent "the Ten
Commandments," as I've tried to prove. The commandments of God *before* the
giving of the Law did not mean "the Ten Commandments," did they? Neither do
the "commandments of God" today mean "the Ten Commandments."
"You are. It SAYS it is talking about God's commandments, which you
pretend to mean the new commandment the Messiah gave that we should
love one another. Everyone knows God's commandments are the Ten
Commandments given by God and written with His own finger."
Here we are again, with your argument that "everyone knows" this! I've
already informed you that this is the weakest possible argument you could
offer. It's like saying, "Everybody agrees with me," when very few actually
do. You offered evidence that "God's commandments" mean the "Ten
Commandments" by citing Gill. Yet nothing Gill even said indicated this.
Even if Gill did say this, it wouldn't provide proof that "everyone knows
this." You have yet to cite even one good source to prove *lots of people*
believe this!
"...Gill said what he believed; it was very clear."
Please quote to me where he even mentions that "God's commandments" equals
"the Ten Commandments" in this passage!
"Once again, you've deviously deleted part of it, and then you claim
"nothing I read here indicates that Gill agrees with you"! I've
restored it below."
Please quote where the "Ten Commandments" are even mentioned by him!
> Linda, once again, nothing I read here
> that either the "commandments of God," or the "laws of God" are the
> equivalent of the Law of Moses. As far as I know, Gill may consider the
> "laws of God" to refer to the moral laws of God in general, completely
> distinct from the Law of Moses.
"You know full well I was not saying the commandments were the whole
law of Moses (because I said specifically they were the Ten
Commandments). You're just trying to cause confusion, false teacher."
I'm talking about your failure to show the equivalency of the "commandments
of God" with the "Ten Commandments!" Where did Gill even mention the "Ten
Commandments" in reference to 1 John 5.2-3?
"You know I am speaking about the Ten Commandments, and so is Gill when
he says the following:
"It is easy to obey God when the heart is right; and
those who endeavor in sincerity to keep his commandments do not
complain that they are hard. All complaints of this kind come from
those who are not disposed to keep his commandments.__ Indeed, they
object that his laws are unreasonable; that they impose improper
restraints; that they are not easily complied with; and that the
divine government is one of severity and injustice. __But no such
complaints come from true Christians.__ They find his service easier
than the service of sin, and the laws of God more mild and easy to be
complied with than were those of fashion and honor, which they once
endeavored to obey. The service of God is freedom; the service of the
world is bondage. __No man ever yet heard a true Christian say that
the laws of God, requiring him to lead a holy life, were stern and
�grievous.� "
Nothing here identifies the "commandments of God" with the "Ten
Commandments." Nothing here identifies the "laws of God" with the "Ten
Commandments," or with the Law of Moses. Christians use the term "God's
commandments" in a general sense, understanding that they apply only in the
circumstances in which God applies them. Since God no longer applies the Law
of Moses as a covenant system, the only laws of God that apply today apply
within the context of Christian spirituality. There is certainly a need to
conform with many of the commandments contained within the Ten Commandments.
But we are not beholden to the Ten Commandments as a subset of the Law, nor
even in the sense that it *is* the Law. That would mean that we would have
to observe the Sabbath Day as well, and Christians do not generally believe
that.
> I care about what the Apostle Paul said, obviously! I'm addressing your
> issues by references to what *I believe*--not by what *you believe.*
"And this was your response to me saying, "TELL ME WHERE THE MESSIAH
SAID WHAT YOU CLAIM." because the Messiah NEVER SAID what you claim.
And your only response is, "I care about what the Apostle Paul said,
obviously!" "
No, I'm referencing Paul as an interpretor of what Christ said. I thought I
explained that to you?
"And that is the problem. I only care what the Messiah said; you
DON'T...."
No, I most certainly base my eternal salvation on the spirituality of
Christ, and upon his word of forgiveness, upon his word of righteousness.
But you diminish what this Christian salvation means when you indicate
things like we are under the Law, which means the Ten Commandments.
This is insensible. The Ten Commandments were part of the system of Law
under Moses, and can only apply today in limited ways. We are not under any
numerical set of commandments at all. In fact, we are beholden to Christ
constantly, every day, and every hour. His commandments to us are endless,
and we have to respond positively to every one. Yet we are not under the
Mosaic system at all. We are only under the system that belongs to Christ.
That is how I'm interested in Christ and in his words. This is just a word
of Christ you want to disagree with.
"Says your false apostle who says it was nailed to the cross. It was
not annulled. You must be aware that even before Christ, the Jews made
atonement for their sins once a year, a time of repentance towards God
because they knew the law alone could not sustain them."
Exactly, the Law saved them temporarily, but could never save them
eternally. The Law was a record of human failure, because it *always* had to
be in play. Every day, morning and evening, burnt offerings had to be
offered to God, indicating the fallen state of man. And so, eternal
salvation had to come apart from the Law, when human imperfection could no
longer present an impediment to immortality.
> Yet Jesus had made eternal
> salvation available exclusively through himself, and a matter of
> fulfilling
> all of the intents and purposes of the Law....
"You don't know what you're talking about in reference to his
fulfillment of the law. It is obvious what you say about it being
annulled is false because the Messiah followed his statement of "one
jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be
fulfilled" with "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". So THAT is what you're doing to yourself and
trying to do to others."
No, Jesus established that the Law was a record of human failure, and a
record of Israel's failure. He came to present his own perfect righteousness
as a substitute for the Law. Otherwise, humanity could never be saved on a
permanent basis. As long as sin existed on earth, there would be mortality.
Mortality is removed only when there is a resurrection to immortality. That
could come only by Jesus, because only he was sinless. And because he was
divine he could transmit his sinless nature to us also, so that even in our
imperfection we could display his flawless love.
randy
randy
"Linda Lee"
randy
> Neither do we need to feel obligated to obey the commandments of God given
> to Israel under the Law. The reason is, the Law was a unique covenant made
> with ancient Israel that is no longer in effect. Israel broke that
> contract,
> and God has therefore annuled it.
"We? That's only you, randy, who doesn't feel obligated to obey the
Ten Commandments of God."
No, I don't obey the "Ten Commandments," nor do most Christians, when they
truly recognize NT theology. Christian scholarship recognizes this, even if
many average Christian laymen do not (in their ignorance.) We do follow the
commandments of God every day, including many of the laws included in the
Ten Commandments. We obey "Do not murder, do not steal, and do not commit
adultery." These are eternal principles not limited to the Law of Moses.
randy
Linda Lee
> "Rob Strom"
> randy
>
> > Jesus himself indicated Israel had broken the Law, and indicated that this
> > transgression would be complete at the cross. And so we have to understand
> > that the Law was also annuled at the cross.
>
> "Why? Jesus said that the Law would not be annulled."
>
> His insinuation was that *Israel* would render the Law null and void. Jesus
> merely said he did not come to fail in his own application to the Law. His
> purpose was to come as Messiah to save Israel, precisely because they were
> failing under the Law. The Law called for God's redemption of Israel. The
> only way this could be effected, after the failure of Israel under the Law,
> was by proposing a Messianic salvation, one that would take place apart form
> Israel's compliance with the Law.
>
> I describe this new salvation as a salvation based on the spirituality of
> Jesus. This in effect removes any further need to observe the Law.
Bull. The Messiah *spiritually* said, if you want eternal life, "keep
the commandments" (Matt. 19:16-17).
> An eternal salvation by definition renders all temporal forms of salvation
Good grief, you don't even know what eternal salvation means.
Mat 19:16 And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what
good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?
Mat 19:17 And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is
none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life,
keep the commandments.
Mat 19:18 He saith unto him, Which? Jesus said, Thou shalt do no
murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou
shalt not bear false witness,
Mat 19:19 Honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy
neighbour as thyself.
Mat 19:20 The young man saith unto him, All these things have I kept
from my youth up: what lack I yet?
Mat 19:21 Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell
that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in
heaven: and come and follow me.
If "thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments", follow the
Messiah, and give to the poor. That was the Messiah's prescription for
obtaining eternal life.
The Messiah did NOT just say "follow me"; he said to "keep the
commandments", follow him, and give to the poor if we want to obtain
eternal life.
And you can quit pretending only Jews are to observe the Sabbath as
your excuse to reject obedience to the Ten Commandments.
Sanctification of the Sabbath day has nothing to do with the
Israelites or Moses and the Mosaic Law.
Gen 2:1 Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the
host of them.
Gen 2:2 And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made;
and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made.
Gen 2:3 And GOD BLESSED THE SEVENTH DAY, and SANCTIFIED IT: because
that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and
made.
The church has fallen away from the teachings of the Messiah, and I'm
not sure that can be blamed on Paul. Even when Paul tells you flat-out
to obey the Commandments, as he's done in Rom. 13:8-10, it is deleted
and/or ignored or twisted to say he is saying the opposite
randy
"Linda Lee"
randy
> That is not addressing Pauline theology. You seem to slanderously accuse
> Paul of being libertine, or lax with his morality.
"<SARCASM>."
> You don't have Christ's
> spirituality living within you, because you replace Christ's love with
> *sarcasm.*
"I am so glad you said that because you've told me before that Paul was
only being "sarcastic" when he says things about himself that reveal
his evil methods, and I know Paul's words reveal he does not have
Christ's love within him. Double standard, randy; sarcasm is okay for
the false apostle, but in anyone else you claim it reveals they have a
weak and shallow morality. Paul the sarcastic, inept, lawless, immoral
false apostle..."
No, I don't find "sarcasm" in itself offensive. It is when sarcasm is not
coupled with Christ's love that it is offensive. When you lack the
spirituality of Christ, you can say all the Christian words you want--but it
won't be Christ's love. You must have Christ within you in order to evidence
his love.
randy
randy
"фكشغהּטּﮝ"
randy
>> You've got two issues going on here. One, you say 1 John 5, verses 1-4
>> proves me wrong, and verifies that 1 John 5:2-3 refers to the *10
>> Commandments.* Well, none of those verses refer to the 10 Commandments.
> If this were so, then you should have been able to prove it thru the
> scriptures....
Don't you realize that since you're making a claim that lacks evidence, the
burden of proof is yours? Nothing in the passage (1 John 5:2-3) indicates
the "commandments of God" equals "the 10 Commandments." Are you denying that
there is such a thing as "commandments of God" apart from the Ten
Commandments? If there is such a thing as "commandments of God" that are not
linked to the Ten Commandments, then the burden of proof is yours to prove
that 1 John 5:2-3 refers to the 10 Commandments!
> The fact of the matter is that Matthew 4:4 made it abundantly clear
> when it stated *every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of GOD*.
> Only the dullest among you will fail see this truth...
The point is that every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God must be
directed to someone at some point of time. If that word does not apply to us
today, then it is not a word of God for us!
The 10 Commandments were a word of God for ancient Israel before Jesus died
on the cross. It was a word for a very specific group of people at a very
specific period of time. These commandments do not therefore apply to us
today, except as a testimony to what kind of laws apply to the spirituality
of Christ. The Sabbath Day requirement certainly does not apply to the
spirituality of Christ in the same way it once applied to Israel under the
Law. The Sabbath Day requirement didn't even apply to Christ. Rather, he
fulfilled the need for human rest by offering us a spirituality that was
based on his own work alone. We can now enter into eternal rest by enjoying
the eternal life that he has promised us.
randy