Days of Unleavened Bread
Cogwriter
As WCG has gone fairly public (the latest WWN) about changing the Passover,
this article may be of some interest to those who do not accept their changes:
Should Christians Keep The Days of Unleavened Bread?
In Leviticus 23:5-6, the Bible states, "On the fourteenth day of the first
month at twilight is the LORD's Passover. And on the fifteenth day of the same
month is the Feast of Unleavened Bread to the LORD; seven days you must eat
unleavened bread." Similarly in Exodus 12:19-20 it states, "For seven days no
leaven shall be found in your houses, since whoever eats what is leavened, that
same person shall be cutoff from the congregation of Israel, whether he is a
stranger or a native of the land. You shall eat nothing leavened; in all your
habitations you shall eat unleavened bread." Are these Days of Unleavened Bread
to be kept now? Why would Christians want to keep them? What happens if they
don't?
The Bible shows that the Days of Unleavened Bread are connected to Passover
(Lev 23:5-6; Ex 12:19-20; I Cor 5:7-8). While most professing Christians are
aware that I Cor 5:7 teaches that "indeed Christ our Passover, was sacrificed
for us", they do not seem to literally observe the verse that follows.
"Therefore let us keep the feast, not with the old leaven, nor with the leaven
of malice and wickedness, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth"
(I Cor 5:8). Actually, most professing Christians do not seem to be aware that
they are supposed to keep any biblical feast. There are many reasons, though,
to so do.
In Rom 3:25 it states, "in His forbearance God had passed over the sins that
were previously committed". Does this mean we are to continue is sin? Of course
not! "On the contrary, we establish the law" (Rom 3:31). So while many
understand that the Passover pictures a remembrance of Jesus Christ and his
sacrifice (I Cor 11:24-26), many more seem to not understand that we are not to
continue in sin. Why? Maybe one of the reasons is that they do not observe the
Days of Unleavened Bread.
In the world, leaven is all around. Not only is it in baked goods, it is now in
many other products. Leaven spreads and most of the items it becomes part of
crumble. In the Bible, leaven normally pictures malice, wickedness, and
hypocrisy (I Cor 5:8; Mat 16:6,12; Luk 12:1). Leaven pictures the teachings of
the Pharisees (Mat 16:6,12; Luk 12:1) which were filled with hypocrisy and
lawlessness (Mat 23:28). In that way leaven also pictures sin, since "sin is
lawlessness" (I John 3:4). Keeping seven days of unleavened bread, pictures
that we are not continue to sin.
Why seven days? In the Bible God seems to use the number seven to show
completeness. There are seven days in a week (Ex 20:6), seven days of creation
(Gen 1), seven Churches in Rev 2&3, seven candlesticks (Rev 1:20), seven days
of the Feast of Tabernacles (Lev 23:34), etc. The seven Days of Unleavened
Bread seem to picture that after our sins have been forgiven through the
sacrifice of Jesus (Rom 3:25, I Cor 5:7)), that we are to no longer continue in
the old ways but to walk in the ways of sincerity and truth (I Cor 5:8). The
Days of Unleavened Bread help us to understand that sin is to put out of our
lives; throughout the year it reminds us that sin is all around and needs to be
avoided. People who do not keep the Days of Unleavened Bread are not reminded
about sin through this symbol during the year; maybe they do not want to be.
Now it is interesting to note that Jude warned that, "For certain men have
crept in unnoticed, who long ago were marked out for this condemnation, ungodly
men who turn the grace of our God into licentiousness and deny the only Lord
God and our Lord Jesus Christ" (Jude 4). This is interesting because in the
next verse he ties this problem with deliverance (from Egypt) during the Days
of Unleavened Bread (which should be kept as an annual reminder of sin and
deliverance). "But I want to remind you, though you once knew this, that the
Lord, having saved the people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed
those who did not believe" (Jude 5). In like manner, just because of the
sacrifice of Jesus "God had passed over the sins that were previously
committed" (Rom 3:25), he may afterward destroy "those who did not believe".
How do you know if you truly have faith and believe? By doing what God says.
James warned, "You believe there is one God. You do well. Even the demons
believe--and tremble! But do you want to know, O foolish man, that faith
without works is dead (Jas 2:19-20). In a similar way Paul wrote, "for not the
hearers of the law are just in the sight of God, but the doers of the law will
be justified" (Rom 2:13). Paul also warned, "For if we sin willfully after we
have received knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for
sins, but a certain fearful expectation of judgment, and fiery indignation"
(Heb 10:26-27).
Like the Old Testament (Ex 12:19), the New Testament teaches us "Therefore
purge out the old leaven" I Cor 5:7. From a physical standpoint it is easy to
not obey these teachings. Physically it is easier not to purge or remove all
the leaven from our dwellings. But spiritually, by not keeping the Days of
Unleavened Bread, many fail to understand that they have to live the way of
life that Jesus taught. Jesus said, "If you love Me, keep My commandments"
(John 14:15). By not keeping the Days of Unleavened Bread, many have fallen for
a false religion based upon traditions of men instead of God's commands.
Believe it or not Jesus ran into the same problem in His day. The religious
rulers (the Pharisees) were condemned because "you have made the commandment of
God of no effect by your tradition" (Mat 15:6). Although traditions of men say
that Jesus condemned the Pharisees for keeping the law, the opposite is true.
Jesus said to them that "inside you are filled with lawlessness and hypocrisy"
(Mat 23:28). Actually, they pretended that the believed the Bible, but taught
that their understandings (hermeneutics in modern terms) were more important
than the literal commands in the Bible (Mar 7:8-9). This problem exists even to
our day. Many professing Christians believe God's laws and Holy Days are no
longer in effect even though all the ten commandments are specifically enjoined
in the New Testament and all the biblical Holy Days are mentioned after the
crucifixion of Jesus.
The Worldwide Church of God as a church used to teach and keep the Days of
Unleavened Bread. But no longer. In the February 1999 issue of its official
publication The Worldwide News (WWN), it contained the following information in
an article written by Don Mear, "We knew that Jesus commanded us to "eat his
flesh and drink his blood" by taking the bread and wine of communion. And we
understood that in doing so we were partaking of the Lamb of God. We did it
annually because we saw the Lamb of God as being the Passover lamb, and we knew
that the Passover was an annual observance. But Jesus is more than just the
Passover lamb...The author of Hebrews pointed out that we Christians "have an
altar from which those who minister at the tabernacle have no right to eat."
His implication is that just as they had their altar to eat from, we have our
own altar to eat from. And by extension, as freely as they ate from theirs, we
may eat from ours. This points us to the conclusion that Christians, who under
the new covenant, are a nation of priests (1 Pet. 2:9), may eat of the
sacrificial Lamb of God just as freely and frequently as did those priests of
the old covenant. We are not restricted to eating the Lamb of God only once a
year, any more than they were. Jesus is always our sin offering; he is always
our guilt offering; he is always our peace and thank offering...Thank God our
Father for the communion he gives us with himself in his beloved Son!" The fact
is that priests only ate the Passover once per year.
If the Days of Unleavened Bread were always kept in conjunction with Passover
(which they always are in the Bible), then the sort of logic in the WWN article
would be shown to be false. If every time one consumed the symbols representing
body and blood of Jesus, they also had to keep seven days of Unleavened Bread
and this was done weekly, then those so doing would never consume regular
bread! Now for those that argue that keeping the Days of Unleavened Bread is
just a physical thing, there are two points to consider: the point of purging
leaven out is to have sin out of our life (which is spiritual) and consuming
the "Lamb of God" is also physical (with spiritual implications). Doing one
without the other reminds me of certain Asiatic religions which feel that
spinning a prayer wheel is equivalent to spending hours in prayer. Those
followers probably at least think about some deity before they spin the wheel,
but is that how God really wants to be worshiped? Does He approve of other
"traditions of men" over His word?
Although the Days of Unleavened Bread are first mentioned in the Old Testament,
it is in the New Testament that we learn that leaven pictures sin. The New
Testament shows the connection between Jesus' Passover sacrifice and the
removal of sin from our lives. By keeping the Days of Leavened Bread,
Christians picture that they have heard the word of God, accepted the sacrifice
of Jesus, try to put the word of God into practice, and have symbolically put
sin out of their lives. By keeping the Days of Unleavened Bread, Christians
show that they are willing to obey God over the traditions of men. In
conclusion, as is says in I Cor 5:8, "Therefore let us keep the feast".
http://members.aol.com/cogwriter/home.htm
Best regards,
Bob Thiel
piddy
>Dear All:
All replies: -------->>>
<snipped>
>While most professing Christians are
>aware that I Cor 5:7 teaches that "indeed Christ our Passover, was sacrificed
>for us", they do not seem to literally observe the verse that follows.
>"Therefore let us keep the feast, not with the old leaven, nor with the leaven
>of malice and wickedness, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth"
>(I Cor 5:8). Actually, most professing Christians do not seem to be aware that
>they are supposed to keep any biblical feast. There are many reasons, though,
>to so do.
All adds: -------->>>
How many times do you have to be told, Bob? That is a figure of
speach! Notice what you are to eat at the feast: "bread of sincerity
and truth." Notice what you are not to eat: "leaven of malice and
wickedness." Does that require a literal feast at a literal table?
Sheeeesh! Can't you understand that this verse by Paul reveals the
hidden meaning in the old testament holiday -- what it typified. Now
that you have the meaning, follow the meaning and forget about
annually rehearsing the rituals.
Matthew 16:11 How is it that ye do not understand that I spake it not
to you concerning bread, that ye should beware of the leaven of the
Pharisees and of the Sadducees?
Is this at all helpful?
Visiting
Pasto...@webtv.net
Click here to Visit Our web site!Click here to visit Our on line store! Click here for Omega 2000 Ministries
Cogwriter
Your defintion of liberty includes behaviors not condoned in any part of the
Bible. Please re-read the following which I believe is biblically-based:
Should Christians Keep The Days of Unleavened Bread? Updated 2/10/99
In Leviticus 23:5-6, the Bible states, "On the fourteenth day of the first
month at twilight is the LORD's Passover. And on the fifteenth day of the same
month is the Feast of Unleavened Bread to the LORD; seven days you must eat
unleavened bread." Similarly in Exodus 12:19-20 it states, "For seven days no
leaven shall be found in your houses, since whoever eats what is leavened, that
same person shall be cutoff from the congregation of Israel, whether he is a
stranger or a native of the land. You shall eat nothing leavened; in all your
habitations you shall eat unleavened bread." Are these Days of Unleavened Bread
to be kept now? Why would Christians want to keep them? What happens if they
don't?
The Bible shows that the Days of Unleavened Bread are connected to Passover
(Lev 23:5-6; Ex 12:19-20; I Cor 5:7-8). While most professing Christians are
aware that I Cor 5:7 teaches that "indeed Christ our Passover, was sacrificed
for us", they do not seem to literally observe the verse that follows.
"Therefore let us keep the feast, not with the old leaven, nor with the leaven
of malice and wickedness, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth"
(I Cor 5:8). Actually, most professing Christians do not seem to be aware that
they are supposed to keep any biblical feast. There are many reasons, though,
to so do.
In Rom 3:25 it states, "in His forbearance God had passed over the sins that
were previously committed". Does this mean we are to continue is sin? Of course
not! A few verses later Paul wrote, "On the contrary, we establish the law"
(Rom 3:31). So while most understand that the Passover pictures a remembrance
of Jesus Christ and his sacrifice (I Cor 11:24-26), many seem to not understand
that we are not to continue in sin. Why? Maybe one of the reasons is that they
do not observe the Days of Unleavened Bread.
In the world, leaven is all around. Not only is it in baked goods, it is now in
many other products. Leaven spreads and most of the items it becomes part of
crumble. In the Bible, leaven normally pictures malice, wickedness, and
hypocrisy (I Cor 5:8; Mat 16:6,12; Luk 12:1), while unleavened bread pictures
sincerity and truth (I Cor 5:8). Leaven pictures the teachings of the Pharisees
(Mat 16:6,12; Luk 12:1) whom Jesus called hypocrites (Mat 23:23,25,27,29).
According to Strong's, the Greek word Jesus used that was translated as
hypocrite means, "an actor under an assumed role". The Pharisees were false
religious leaders who pretended to keep God's law, but really did not (Mat
15:3-9). Jesus further described the Pharisees by saying, "you also outwardly
appear righteous to men, but inside you are full of hypocrisy and lawlessness"
(Mat 23:28). Jesus thus tied leaven (the Pharisees teachings, Mat 16:12) to
false religion (being hypocrites) and sin (since "sin is lawlessness", I John
3:4). In Exodus it states that the Days of Unleavened Bread, "shall be a sign
to you on your hand and as a memorial between your eyes, that the LORD's law
may be in your mouth" (13:9). Keeping seven days of unleavened bread pictures
that we are to live in sincerity and truth by keeping God's law--that we are
not continue in false religion, not to continue in sin.
Why seven days? In the Bible God seems to use the number seven to show
completeness. There are seven days in a week (Ex 20:6), seven days of creation
(Gen 1), seven Churches in Rev 2&3, seven candlesticks (Rev 1:20), seven days
of the Feast of Tabernacles (Lev 23:34), etc. The seven Days of Unleavened
Bread seem to picture that after our sins have been forgiven through the
sacrifice of Jesus (Rom 3:25, I Cor 5:7)), that we are to no longer continue in
the old ways but to walk in the true ways of the Bible (I Cor 5:8). The Days of
Unleavened Bread help us to understand that sin is to put out of our lives;
throughout the year it reminds us that false religion is all around and needs
to be avoided. People who do not keep the Days of Unleavened Bread are not
reminded about false religion and sin through this symbol during the year;
maybe they do not want to be.
Now it is interesting to note that Jude warned that, "For certain men have
crept in unnoticed, who long ago were marked out for this condemnation, ungodly
men who turn the grace of our God into licentiousness and deny the only Lord
God and our Lord Jesus Christ" (Jude 4). This is interesting because in the
next verse he ties this problem with deliverance (from Egypt) during the Days
of Unleavened Bread (which should be kept as an annual reminder of sin and
deliverance, Ex 13:3-10, I Cor 5:8). "But I want to remind you, though you once
knew this, that the Lord, having saved the people out of the land of Egypt,
afterward destroyed those who did not believe" (Jude 5). In like manner, just
because of the sacrifice of Jesus "God had passed over the sins that were
previously committed" (Rom 3:25), he may afterward destroy "those who did not
believe". How do you know if you truly have faith and believe? By doing what
God says. James warned, "You believe there is one God. You do well. Even the
demons believe--and tremble! But do you want to know, O foolish man, that faith
without works is dead (Jas 2:19-20). In a similar way Paul wrote, "for not the
hearers of the law are just in the sight of God, but the doers of the law will
be justified" (Rom 2:13). Paul also warned, "For if we sin willfully after we
have received knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for
sins, but a certain fearful expectation of judgment, and fiery indignation"
(Heb 10:26-27).
Like the Old Testament (Ex 12:19), the New Testament teaches us "Therefore
purge out the old leaven" I Cor 5:7. From a physical standpoint it is easy to
not obey these teachings. Physically it is easier not to purge or remove all
the leaven from our dwellings. But spiritually, by not keeping the Days of
Unleavened Bread, many fail to understand that they have to live the way of
life that Jesus taught--many accept a false outward religion! Jesus said, "If
you love Me, keep My commandments" (John 14:15). By not keeping the Days of
Unleavened Bread, many have fallen for a religion based upon traditions of men
instead of God's commands!
Believe it or not Jesus ran into the same problem in His day. The religious
rulers (the Pharisees) were condemned because "you have made the commandment of
God of no effect by your tradition" (Mat 15:6). Although traditions of men say
that Jesus condemned the Pharisees for keeping the law, the opposite is true.
Remember that Jesus said to them that "inside you are filled with lawlessness
and hypocrisy" (Mat 23:28). Actually, they pretended that they believed the
Bible, but taught that their understandings (hermeneutics in modern terms) were
more important than the literal commands in the Bible (Mar 7:8-9). This problem
exists even to our day. Many professing Christians believe God's laws and Holy
Days are no longer in effect even though all the ten commandments are
specifically enjoined in the New Testament and all the biblical Holy Days are
mentioned after the crucifixion of Jesus.
The Worldwide Church of God officially used to teach and keep the Days of
Unleavened Bread. But no longer. In the February 1999 issue of its official
publication The Worldwide News (WWN), it contained the following information in
an article written by Don Mear, "We knew that Jesus commanded us to "eat his
flesh and drink his blood" by taking the bread and wine of communion. And we
understood that in doing so we were partaking of the Lamb of God. We did it
annually because we saw the Lamb of God as being the Passover lamb, and we knew
that the Passover was an annual observance. But Jesus is more than just the
Passover lamb...The author of Hebrews pointed out that we Christians "have an
altar from which those who minister at the tabernacle have no right to eat."
His implication is that just as they had their altar to eat from, we have our
own altar to eat from. And by extension, as freely as they ate from theirs, we
may eat from ours. This points us to the conclusion that Christians, who under
the new covenant, are a nation of priests (1 Pet. 2:9), may eat of the
sacrificial Lamb of God just as freely and frequently as did those priests of
the old covenant. We are not restricted to eating the Lamb of God only once a
year, any more than they were. Jesus is always our sin offering; he is always
our guilt offering; he is always our peace and thank offering...Thank God our
Father for the communion he gives us with himself in his beloved Son!" Although
the preceding quote suggests otherwise, the fact is that priests only ate the
Passover once per year.
If the Days of Unleavened Bread were always kept in conjunction with Passover
(which they always are in the Bible), then the sort of logic in the WWN article
would be shown to be false. If every time one consumed the symbols representing
body and blood of Jesus, they also had to keep seven days of Unleavened Bread
and this was done weekly, then those so doing would never consume regular
bread! Now for those that argue that keeping the Days of Unleavened Bread is
just a physical thing, there are two points to consider: the point of purging
leaven out is to have sin out of our life (which is spiritual) and consuming
the "Lamb of God" is also physical (with spiritual implications). Doing one
without the other reminds me of certain Asiatic religions which feel that
spinning a prayer wheel is equivalent to spending hours in prayer. Those
followers probably at least think about some deity before they spin the wheel,
but is that how God really wants to be worshiped? Does He approve of other
"traditions of men" over His word?
Now it is true that leaven is not always shown to be bad. Jesus even stated,
"the kingdom of God...is like leaven, which a woman took and hid in three
measures till it was all leavened" (Luk 13:20-21). This parable seems to
illustrate that, even though the leaven was at first hidden, in the future all
will know the true religion. Which is consistent with Hab 2:14, "For the earth
will be filled with the knowledge of the glory of the LORD as the waters cover
the sea". Thus, leaven may be a symbol of false religion now, but true religion
in the future.
Although the Days of Unleavened Bread are first mentioned in the Old Testament,
it is in the New Testament that we learn more fully that today's leaven
pictures false religion and sin. The New Testament shows the connection between
Jesus' Passover sacrifice and the removal of sin from our lives. By keeping the
Days of Unleavened Bread, Christians picture that they have heard the word of
God, accepted the sacrifice of Jesus, try to put the word of God into practice,
and have symbolically put false religion and sin out of their lives. By keeping
the Days of Unleavened Bread, Christians show that they are willing to obey God
over the traditions of men. In conclusion, as is says in I Cor 5:8, "Therefore
let us keep the feast".
Best regards,
Bob Thiel
Dick M
We have been around this tree before. Galatians 2:19-21, "For through
the law I died to the law so that I might live for God. I have been
crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The
life I live in the body, I live BY FAITH in the Son of God, who loved me
and gave himself for me. I do not set aside the grace of God, for IF
RIGHTEOUSNESS could be gained THROUGH the LAW, CHRIST DIED for NOTHING!"
We must put on Christ's righteousness. Neither the law, including the
Sabbath, or anything else can make us righteous.
Galatians 3:1-3, "You foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? Before
your very eyes Jesus Christ was clearly portrayed as crucified. I would
like to learn just one thing from you: Did you receive the Spirit by
OBSERVING the LAW, or by BELIEVING what you heard? Are you so foolish?
After beginning with the Spirit, are you now trying to attain your goal
by HUMAN effort?
Dick
--
"The enemies of moral truth have an impoverished understanding of
reality, of human dignity and the human drama. They declare, implicitly
or explicitly, that there is nothing worthy to which we should give
allegiance; nothing deserving of our reverence; nothing elevating for
which to live; an nothing -- not family, country, faith, honor or truth
-- for which to sacrifice or even die."
-- Bill Bennett, "Truth," Oklahoma City, November 9, 1998.
George Pinckney
"So while most understand that the Passover pictures a remembrance
of Jesus Christ and his sacrifice (I Cor 11:24-26), many seem to not
understand
that we are not to continue in sin. Why? Maybe one of the reasons is
that they
do not observe the Days of Unleavened Bread."
I presume by this statement you mean that many in the "falsely so-called Christian world do not understand that we are not to continue in sin." Why? Your answer is that maybe it is because they don't observe the Days of UB. But what about the members of the WCG who were keeping the days of UB and yet did not get the message, as evidenced by the sins in their lives, that we are not to continue in sin. And what about the many in non *CG, non- Days of Unleavened Bread keeping churches who do understand very clearly, as evidenced by their willingness to give their lives (in real death, in the real 1990's), that they are not to continue in sin?
This is a good example of the fallacies in our own logic: We said "You must keep this law." Yet the law says "...cut off from Israel." We did not put people out of the church for eating croutons on salads, or forgetting and eating half a cookie at work, or eating half a hamburger, or overlooking leaven in their home, etc, etc. So... excuse me for shouting, but WE DID NOT KEEP THE LAW. At least not as its written. At least not the ones in Exodus - Deuteronomy. We kept our human interpretation of it. We kept our blend of its literal-ness and its spirit.
In 1971 in Bricket Wood Mr. Raymond McNair gave a sermon in which he confessed that he had found a package of biscuits in his desk drawer at home - that he didn't "unleaven" his office because he never ate in there - that he was busy writing an article so he thought "I'll just get up and throw these out later" - and forgot. So as he was speaking his home was not unleavened.
The point is that most of us lived the days of UB by understanding the spirit and meaning and NOT keeping the letter of the OT law in its entirety. Many of us look back and think it was hypocritical to tell others "You must keep the law" and not keep it ourselves. I believe that we lived its spirit, and explained it wrong.
Cogwriter
Yes, it is tragic that many did not understand even when they tried to keep the
Days of Unleavened Bread. There was a similar problem in physical Israel.
However, the fact that people decided to not obey God does not excuse those who
deliberately do. In WCG they are arguing whether to keep one set of days or
two (God's Holy Days or the non-biblical substitutes). Right now JT Jr. has
decided that allowing both is the correct approach. I do not think that that
is biblically correct.
I have to go out of town for a few days and probably will not be able to answer
any response you may post. But it is my position that many have turned aside
from the biblical "faith once and for all delivered".
Best regards,
Bob Thiel
King David
Feast of Unleavened Bread do not care what the Bible, especially the OT,
say, only what their beloved Pastor General says.
DK
Cogwriter wrote in message <19990211205052...@ng135.aol.com>...
Dick M
1. I do care what the Bible says. That is why I am a New Covenant
Christian, obeying Christ in 'living' God's way, not 'keeping' it.
2. As far as my 'beloved' Pastor General... You are also my 'beloved'
brother according to Christ's word.
God bless,
Dick
King David wrote:
>
> Bob, you have to remember that the majority of those who do not keep the
> Feast of Unleavened Bread do not care what the Bible, especially the OT,
> say, only what their beloved Pastor General says.
>
> DK
>
> Cogwriter wrote in message <19990211205052...@ng135.aol.com>...
> Dear Robby:
>
> Your defintion of liberty includes behaviors not condoned in any part of the
> Bible. Please re-read the following which I believe is biblically-based:
>
> Should Christians Keep The Days of Unleavened Bread? Updated 2/10/99
--
Pasto...@webtv.net
Flat Razor
Bob
I Co 5:7 Remove this evil cancer-this wicked person-from among you, so
that you can stay pure. Christ, God's Lamb, has been slain for us.
I Co 5:8 So let us feast upon him and grow strong in the Christian
life, leaving entirely behind us the cancerous old life with all its
hatreds and wickedness. Let us feast instead upon the pure bread of
honor and sincerity and truth.
This is quoted from the Living Bible. You might also check Vines
Commentary on the New Testament. There is no command in the New
Covenant to observe the Mosaic Laws, they are only a shadow of the
reality. Why do a shadow if you can have the reality?
The Days of Unleavened Bread were a physical pointer to the time when
Christ would come, overcome sin and His sinless life imputed to us.
That time has been here for almost 2000 years now.
You can continue to observe these days,but it's a waste of time and
detracts your time and money from doing what Christ wants you to do:
feed the hungry, clothe the naked, visit the afflicted, etc. If you
want to do what Christ wants then give to charities like Christian
Children's Fund, help at a local shelter for abused women, work a day
a week at a food kitchen for the homeless, etc.
In response to a different topic:
Christ's attitude is always the same but not how he works with us:
27 And they were all amazed, insomuch that they questioned among
themselves, saying, What thing is this? what >>new doctrine<< is this?
for with authority commandeth he even the unclean spirits, and they do
obey him.
Christ was teaching a new doctrine NOT the Mosaic Law. (A change,
something new!)
Jn 13:34 A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another;
as I have loved you, that ye also love one another.
This is the new doctrine that Christ taught and Christ said it was
new, not the same old thing.
And the Old Covenant was NOT made with Abraham, Isaac or Jacob.
Deut 5:3 The LORD made not this covenant with our fathers, but with
us, even us, who are all of us here alive this day.
Christ has a New Covenant with us today, He wants us to demonstrate
His love in our lives. Other people's problems are our problems, we
are our brother's keeper.
Flat
Dick M
said it better.
ybic,
Dick
Flat Razor wrote:
>
> >Should Christians Keep The Days of Unleavened Bread?
>
--
If Moses had been a bureaucrat, the ancient nation of Israel would still
be in the wilderness.
Flat Razor
>said it better.
Thank you Dick. You're too kind. I just hope it starts coming
togather for Bob.
Flat
""
Dick M
Dick
--
Piddypiddl
>tonight. I'm a writer and I couldn't have
>> >said it better.
>Dick
you guys once could see and now you
are blind.
that living bible trans. you quoted is a
false idea of men.
Dick M
Piddy..., Did you know you parreted a hackneyed cliché from cultists
and KJV only proponents about any modern translation? I don't know if
you are a KJV only person, but let me make an observation:
1. You did not agree with what Flat said, which you are entitled to do
on this NG. But, your reasoning, to say what you did, was lame. No
specifics -- just a general condemnation of a translation.
2. We once could see and now are blind? I suppose you only can see. I
could probably say that about you but I do not know how much you see and
how much you do not. But your comments make one suspicious.....
3. A false idea of men? Who told you this? The electric light bulb was
an idea of man. The Living Bible is not my favorite version but it has
brought many, who could not understand the stilted English of the KJV,
to salvation. What if the translation were guided by the Holy Spirit.
Do you really know the mind of God that well? Could that be snuggling
close to blasphe.... No, perish the thought. The apostle Paul's
teacher, Gamaliel, was careful about criticizing what he did not know
(Acts 5:34-39).
4. Be humble, piddy. Some of your comments are difficult to reconcile
with a humble mind and heart.
God bless you and give you an understanding heart,
Dick M
Flat Razor
>are blind.
>
>that living bible trans. you quoted is a
>false idea of men.
PP,
Dick made some valid comments, I hope you consider them seriously.
The KJV is popular with cults. For an example check out Texe Marrs
web site at http://www.texemarrs.com/ . The obscurity of the 1611
English plus errors in translation make twisting of the KJV scriptures
easy for those of a mind to do so.
The KJV does have the advantage of having a number of study aids such
as numerous commentaries, concordances and handbooks available for it.
This helps to find the historical context that existed when some of
the books were written. Without the historical context some of the
scriptures make no sense and even seem contradictory. They also help
to expose errors in the translation or show more suitable
interpretations than that given in the body of the KJV.
At any rate there are rules of hermeneutics for Bible study and you
should look into and apply them before pronouncing a particular
translation to be faulty or making statements of dogma.
As I said before Christ's new command to us is to love one another.
Nothing else was included. Exercise your love toward your fellow man
and the rest will take care of itself. Do not exercise your love
toward your fellow man and no matter what you do Christ will not be
pleased.
Flat
""
Piddypiddl
>Nothing else was included. Exercise your love toward your fellow man
>and the rest will take care of itself. Do not exercise your love
>toward your fellow man and no matter what you do Christ will not be
>pleased.
Dear sir,
you are right we are to love one another,
but you are wrong that this was a new command. the living Christ was able to
show
true love that mere humans didnt understand
until he showed them in the flesh.
Jesus Christ , the same person who wrote
the old testement, the logos, the word of God.
No, not a new commandment. Anymore than he done away with the torah and its
commands.
if he did he changed his word and was a wayward son which he is not.
he demands MORE than the mere "love"
of man as you say. He demands his children to
honor and worhip the father and OBEY his
laws, to be seperate from the world, if we are called in this present life.
>Flat
>""
>
>
>
>
>
>
Cogwriter
I will chose to try to live as Jesus lived and Jesus taught. He kept the Days
of Unleavened Bread, He kept the ten commandments, He did not keep pagan
holidays.
Best regards,
Bob Thiel
Dick M
As I have written before, no one has picked up my challenge to show me
where Jesus, Paul, or any of the apostles commanded the Sabbath, since
the 'keeping of the Sabbath' is the major concern here, not the rest of
the commandments.
It is disobedient to Jesus to think that we can 'obey' by
disobeying the command to believe the gospel which is the presentation
of the new covenant. As it says in very plainly in Hebrews, the new
replaced the old. As it also says in Matthew 11:13 and Luke 16:16 that
the law was UNTIL JOHN!
God was very diligent in the Old Covenant to explicitly command the
Sabbath for Israel under the old covenant. It was DRIVEN into them. The
Sabbath was given to them, NOT as a memorial of cration, but for them to
remember that God BROUGHT THEM OUT OF PHYSICAL SLAVERY (Deut 5:15) as a
shadow to when Jesus would, as the FULFILLMENT OF THE REALITY OF THE
SABBATH, bring us out of spiritual slavery. "Come unto me, all you that
labor [try to keep the commandments] and are heavy laden [weighted down
with sin (spiritual slavery)], and I will give you rest [Salvation,
permanent, eternal rest from sin and the punishment for sin as Jesus
paid it for us].
It is disobedient to 'keep' the commandment in place of allowing Jesus
to keep them as he dwells in us. he alone is the fulfillment of the
Sabbath. He fulfilled the law. We do not keep the law with his help.
We can not keep the law with anyone's help. He lives in us and keeps
it. We were taught in error that the word means to "fill full."
According to linquists, it means to fulfill as in fulfilling a contract
and ending the agreement.
It is serious. If one is set on keeping any part of the law, he is
obligated in keeping all points or the law will judge him, which is the
real meaning of James 2:10.
God loves us totally unconditionally. He gave his Son 'before' any of
us were born. We will not be able to say to Him at that day that we
lifted a 'pinky' on behalf of our own salvation. We do not have to earn
his love.
Yes, he demands more that just love. He expects us to develop the
fruits of the Spirit, a RESULT of the love he has put in us and the
faith he has given us.
Cordially,
Dick
--
Dick M
11:13).
"The law and the prophets were until John; since that time the kingdom
of God is preached, and every man presses into it" (Luke 16:16).
"Brothers, my heart's desire and prayer to God for the Israelites is
that they may be saved. For I can testify about them that they are
zealous for God, but their zeal is 'not based' on knowledge. Since they
did not know the 'righteousness' that comes 'from God' and sought to
ESTABLISH their own, they did NOT 'submit' to God's righteousness.
Christ is the END OF THE LAW so that there may be RIGHTEOUSNESS for
EVERYONE who believes. Moses describes in this way the righteousness
that is by the law: "The man who does these things will live by them"
(Romans 10:1-5). The man or woman who 'keeps' the law must live in them
and be judged by them, not by the grace of Christ.
Jesus was born under the law to redeem those under the law (Galatians
4:4-5). He was born before John's preaching which signalled the end of
the law as pointed out in Matthew 11:13 and Luke 16:16. The four
gospels is a transition period in which Jesus began the process of
magnifying the law (Isaiah 42:21) in the Sermon on the Mount. The Royal
law of love (James 2:8 -- an expression which those keeping the law in
the letter seem not to like) written on fleshly tables of our heart (2
Cor. 3:3), supercede and replace the ten commandments which WERE the old
covenant (Exodus 34:28 and Deut 4:13).
The central point of contention in the law is the insistence on "keeping
the physical sabbath," given to the ancient physical nation of Israel as
a reminder of God (we know as the pre-existing Christ) bringing Israel
out of physical slavery, not a memorial of creation per se.
Jesus IS the reality of the Sabbath. He is the Sabbath. We have our
rest in him. And insisting on keeping a physical sabbath in place of the
spiritual Sabbath which is Jesus is "Idolatry!"
Righteousness can not come by the law (Gal 2:21)! If it does, Christ
died in vain!
Answer this: If the Sabbath can not bring righteousness, can I lose my
righteousness by not keeping it?
Answer this: Other than during the Moses' dispensation, where has God
ever commanded the Sabbath? Don't quote Matthew 19:18-19. Some of the
commandments are listed but not the Sabbath. Remember that some of the
commandments are principles drawn from the Royal law of love that has
existed with God from eternity. The ten commandments contained moral
laws as well as the commandment on he Sabbath.
Jesus fulfilled the entirety of Old Covenant Law. In the past we were
told that the word fulfill means to "fill full." Wrong. We can not
just take words apart like 'fulfill' and 'atonement' to mean fill full
and at-onement! Rediculous. Fulfill means to complete all obligations
for and then to dispense with it. A contract fulfilled need not be
fulfilled again. I paid off my mortgage some years ago. My obligation
is fulfilled. I do not own any money on my house to anyone. it belongs
lock, stock, and barrel to my wife and me. If you borrow money from
someone, you are indebted to him. Once you pay him off, you have
fulfilled your obligation. How can you 'fill it full.'
Please take this seriously. Read about the sheep and the goats in
Matthew 25:32-46. Christ missed another golden opportunity to teach
about the Sabbath as he also did in the Sermon on the Mount.
Also read 1 Cor. 6:9-10. 'Sabbath breaking' is not mentioned as one of
the sins that would keep us out of the kingdom of God. Please consider
the option of ceasing to 'obey' rules and to begin to obey Chist's
commandment given to us in the New Covenant.
In love,
ybic,
Dick M
--
Ken Hygh
> Dear Flat:
>
> I will chose to try to live as Jesus lived and Jesus taught. He kept the Days
> of Unleavened Bread, He kept the ten commandments, He did not keep pagan
> holidays.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Bob Thiel
Bob,
Jesus was a celibate Jew who worked as a carpenter and wore a robe. He lived in
Palestine and worshipped at a temple.
I don't think anyone would suggest that these need be done for one to be a
follower of Jesus, how do you draw the line between some of these things Jesus did
that aren't required and others that are? This is one of the questions I
struggled with in regard to the 'follow me as I follow Christ' instruction.
For that matter, I never did get where we drew the line on what commands in the OT
we kept and which we didn't.
Regards,
Ken Hygh
Dick M
Good post and good logic. Jesus knew we would have a problem with the
laws in the Old Covenant. That is why the entire Old Covenant is no
longer in force. Jesus fulfilled all of the provisions of it and
replaced it with the New Covenant. This way we know we do not have to
pick and choose which of the 613 laws of the O.C. to observe.
He issued a new commandment based entirely on love from which the
original Old Covenant laws, basic principles, were extracted for a
physical people and for a shadow for the Christ and the New Covenant to
come. Jesus commanded us to become disciples, learn the gospel, and
then preach it to allow others to come to him in salvation. In
addition, every action that shows kindness to others is developing
fruits of the spirit in obedience based on faith. Every action that
does harm to others or is not of faith is sin.
The Holy Spirit, which is more than just the power of God, will help us
to interpret the law of love which is in our hearts and mind through his
indwelling.
ybic,
Dick
--
UCG Canada
lived in Palestine and worshipped at a temple.
>I don't think anyone would suggest that these need be done for one to be a
Hi Ken,
It is not possible for most of us to be Jews, to earn a living as a
carpenter, worship at the temple, or be God's Son for that matter. It IS
possible to keep the commandments, celebrate the Holy Days, Honor the
Sabbath....that's where I draw the line.
Kyle M. Smith
Hmmm...sounds like you just drew a line between the Old and New Covenant. I
think by drawing that line you open yourself up to condemning Ken, Dick, and
others for not strictly observing these things. On the other hand, I suspect
that they -- and I shouldn't presume to speak for them -- wouldn't condemn you
for your dedication, but would only hope that it doesn't limit your
understanding of Christ. I think they really have your best interest at heart.
-Kyle
P.S. And they sign their name to their posts too. <hint>
Dick M
>
> >Jesus was a celibate Jew who worked as a carpenter and wore a robe. He
> lived in Palestine and worshipped at a temple.
> >I don't think anyone would suggest that these need be done for one to be a
> follower of Jesus....
>
> Hi Ken,
>
> It is not possible for most of us to be Jews, to earn a living as a
> carpenter, worship at the temple, or be God's Son for that matter. It IS
> possible to keep the commandments, celebrate the Holy Days, Honor the
> Sabbath....that's where I draw the line.
ucg,
Can you also draw the line at the New Moon (Amos 8:5, Psalm 81:3-5)?
Can you draw the line for your farmer sabbath keepers to continue
letting their land lay idle the seventh year (Lev. 23:10-11)? This
dodge HWA let us lay part of it rest every year was a cop out. Do you
keep the weekly sabbath 3 hrs and 27 min. all 7 days?
When you eat in a restaurant, do you ask the cook if he cooks ham or any
unclean fool on it (Lev 11:34-35)?
Do you follow the regulations concerning mildew (Lev 13:47-59)?
If a man touches his wife during her period, he is unclean until evening
(Lev 15:19)?
Do you keep the Jubilee (Lev 25:8)? If God wanted you to celebrate the
Jubilee year, he would have revealed the proper year through the Jews to
whom he gave the oracles of God (Rom 3:1-2)?
Many of the 613 law of God in the Old Covenant were civil laws for a
nation who had unity between church and state. You can not possibly
observe them in most nations today.
Can you stone a sabbath-breaker?
If your wife is unfaithful, do you apply the test in Numbers 5:11?
Tassels on garments was commanded in Numbers 15:37-41 to remind the
Israelites to keep he commandments because God brought them out of
slavery in Egypt.
For the same reason, God gave them the Sabbath, "and remember that thou
wast a servant in Egypt, and that the Lord thy God brought thee out
thence through a mighty hand and by an stretched out arm: 'therefore'
the LORD thy God commanded thee to keep the sabbath day (Deut 5:15).
Do you observe the law of marrying your brother's widow (Deut 25:5)?
Check a map and see where the aleutian Islands are. The authorities
(whomever they be) moved the dateline far to the west to include the
islands so they would be in the same day as Alaska. Which day is the
true Sabbath to them?
Do you leave your residence on the Sabbath other than going to church?
Exodus 16:29, "Bear in mind that the LORD has given you the Sabbath;
that is why on the sixth day he gives you bread for two days. Everyone
is to stay where he is on the seventh day; no one is to go out
Do you cook on the sabbath. Frying eggs on the Sabbath is still
cooking. Exodus 16:23, "He said to them, "This is what the LORD
commanded: `Tomorrow is to be a day of rest, a holy Sabbath to the LORD.
So bake what you want to bake and boil what you want to boil. Save
whatever is left and keep it until morning.'" This is why Friday (the
sixth day) is called the preparation day.
Do you build a fire or use gas or electricity others are working to
produce on the Sabbath? Exodus 35:3, "Do not light a fire in any of your
dwellings on the Sabbath day." Moses said to the whole Israelite
community, "This is what the LORD has commanded.
The laws of the Old Covenant could only be kept by Israelites living in
a totally controlled environment. If we are still under the Old
Covenant, there is much more than just the weekly Sabbath to observe.
The Old Covenant controlled the lifestyles of the children of Israel
from sun set to sun set; from the infant to the elderly; from the
Israelite to the stranger in their midst; controlling every
ecclesiastical, moral, ceremonial, and civil aspects of conduct.
That is why it is called bondage (John 8:32-33). If you can do all that
and more -- more power to you!
yhs,
Dick M
Ken Hygh
> >Jesus was a celibate Jew who worked as a carpenter and wore a robe. He
> lived in Palestine and worshipped at a temple.
> >I don't think anyone would suggest that these need be done for one to be a
> follower of Jesus....
>
> Hi Ken,
>
> It is not possible for most of us to be Jews, to earn a living as a
> carpenter, worship at the temple, or be God's Son for that matter. It IS
> possible to keep the commandments, celebrate the Holy Days, Honor the
> Sabbath....that's where I draw the line.
Dear UCG,
Who decides what's possible and what isn't? If 3 tithes are possible in the US
but not in another country with a much higher tax rate, then what is 'the
law'? Also, I'm really uncomfortable with deciding what law is based on 'what
is possible', I'd rather find Biblical precedent.
I lived outside the US for a couple of years, and was dumbfounded with what was
taught in the WCG (this was just before all the changes), because it was not
the same as what I heard in sermons in the States. If God's law is immutable,
then how come I had (HAD) to pay 3rd tithe and they didn't?
Dick's post mentions all the accoutrements to the Holy Days, does your line
include them? Again, who decides?
As Kyle points out (hey bud, you still in San Jose?) we're not trying to be
sarcastic, but trying to point out that the line of reasoning you're on has
some problems. I have lots of friends in UCG, even attend there occasionally,
and bunches of 'em are dedicated followers of Christ. We're just serving Him
in different ways, each according to the understanding He's given us.
Regards,
Ken Hygh
d...@doodle.com
Hi Dick,
Congratulations, you have put many things into their proper
perspective. It is impossible to keep all the laws in today's
world. Those that try would be accused of murder, incest and other
"crimes" were they to keep ALL the laws. And we are NOT given the
option of picking and choosing which laws to keep.
The only conclusion is that the law was given to a "church state"
(Isreal).
Thank God that we have been losed from the laws of bondage and been
given true freedom through the sacrificial blood of Jesus Christ, who
has fulfilled all our requirements for salvation. And given us a true
sabbath rest. Let all who have ears hear of the greatness of our
Lord!
YBIC
Dip
Kyle M. Smith
>As Kyle points out (hey bud, you still in San Jose?) we're not trying to be
>sarcastic, but trying to point out that the line of reasoning you're on has
>some problems. I have lots of friends in UCG, even attend there occasionally,
>and bunches of 'em are dedicated followers of Christ. We're just serving Him
>in different ways, each according to the understanding He's given us.
Hi Ken,
I wasn't sure if you remembered me. Yes, I still live in San Jose. I've lived
hear almost 18 years now. I e-mailed your brother about a month ago and
mentioned that you post in this group. He sounded intrigued, so maybe he's
been lurking.
I enjoy reading your posts. It's good to know that there are people out
there who survived the Imperial & WCG experience without become bitter
like me. I think that gives you a unique insight into understanding grace and
the law. Maybe it was all for a reason...
Anyway, keep up the good work.
Cheers,
-Kyle
Dick M
>
> UCG Canada wrote:
>
> > >Jesus was a celibate Jew who worked as a carpenter and wore a robe. He
> > lived in Palestine and worshipped at a temple.
> > >I don't think anyone would suggest that these need be done for one to be a
> > follower of Jesus....
> >
> > Hi Ken,
> >
> > It is not possible for most of us to be Jews, to earn a living as a
> > carpenter, worship at the temple, or be God's Son for that matter. It IS
> > possible to keep the commandments, celebrate the Holy Days, Honor the
> > Sabbath....that's where I draw the line.
>
> Dear UCG,
> Who decides what's possible and what isn't? If 3 tithes are possible in the US
> but not in another country with a much higher tax rate, then what is 'the
> law'? Also, I'm really uncomfortable with deciding what law is based on 'what
> is possible', I'd rather find Biblical precedent.
>
> I lived outside the US for a couple of years, and was dumbfounded with what was
> taught in the WCG (this was just before all the changes), because it was not
> the same as what I heard in sermons in the States. If God's law is immutable,
> then how come I had (HAD) to pay 3rd tithe and they didn't?
>
> Dick's post mentions all the accoutrements to the Holy Days, does your line
> include them? Again, who decides?
>
> sarcastic, but trying to point out that the line of reasoning you're on has
> some problems. I have lots of friends in UCG, even attend there occasionally,
> and bunches of 'em are dedicated followers of Christ. We're just serving Him
> in different ways, each according to the understanding He's given us.
>
> Ken Hygh
Cood comment, Ken. My brother, a deacon, went with UCG. He is a
dedicated honest family man who is very sincere in his beliefs.
Dick
Dick M
Thanks, Dip. I have just begun. I'm filled with the love of God given
me through his grace and I want to share it.
ybic,
Dick M
I feel by your posts that you are fairly balanced compared to some and
that you roll with the punches and bounce back.
Hang in there,
ybic,
Dick
Kyle M. Smith wrote:
>
> In article <36D2A3B6...@netscape.net>, ken...@netscape.net wrote:
> >As Kyle points out (hey bud, you still in San Jose?) we're not trying to be
> >sarcastic, but trying to point out that the line of reasoning you're on has
> >some problems. I have lots of friends in UCG, even attend there occasionally,
> >and bunches of 'em are dedicated followers of Christ. We're just serving Him
> >in different ways, each according to the understanding He's given us.
>
> Hi Ken,
>
> I wasn't sure if you remembered me. Yes, I still live in San Jose. I've lived
> hear almost 18 years now. I e-mailed your brother about a month ago and
> mentioned that you post in this group. He sounded intrigued, so maybe he's
> been lurking.
>
> I enjoy reading your posts. It's good to know that there are people out
> there who survived the Imperial & WCG experience without become bitter
> like me. I think that gives you a unique insight into understanding grace and
> the law. Maybe it was all for a reason...
>
> Anyway, keep up the good work.
>
> Cheers,
> -Kyle
--
UCG Canada
>Also, I'm really uncomfortable with deciding what law is based on 'what is
possible', I'd rather find Biblical precedent.
You make a good point here - it is indeed far better to find out what
scripture says about any subject than trying to determine for ourselves what
is right. I think that God leaves many grey-area issues at our discression
to see what we are made of. Your mention of the third tithe issue is a good
one. In Canada we were told to pay the third tithe even with our high
taxes - which were so high to help the country as a whole with poverty - the
very thing third tithe was supposed to address. Yet, when I talk to people
about this time (I am only 25) they tell me how difficult it was but how
they always seemed to be able to get by - God blesses those who are trying
to obey Him...even when they are going WAY beyond the call of duty.
When that organization matured enough to see this fact we no longer had to
pay all three. This is similar to David's eating of the shew bread - the
laws of God always have exceptions for mercy.
In short, it seems that God make sure there are grey-areas to see what we
will do, what choices we will make, how important He is to us, and what
sacrifices we are willing to make.
Your thoughts?
Ray Voegele
You ask UCG Canada whether he does all these things (below) when you know he
does not. When you believed as he now believes you didn't do them did you?
Did you believe ten years ago that you were under the Old Covenant? Why
should you think UCG Canada would believe that about himself at this time?
You say, "I'm filled with the love of God given me through his grace and I
want to share it" but I believe you are mocking UCG Canada.
Ray
Ken Hygh
Um, actually I'm having a hard time writing this through the tears in my eyes.
It's such an awesome feeling to reach out through my computer here and touch a
kindred spirit in another church in another country.
Needless to say, I agree 100%, enthusiastically and exultantly. God's given us
a bunch o' grey-areas and said 'now, what will YOU do for ME?'. You wanna eat
unleavened bread to Him, go for it! I'll do what I do to Him as well!
God bless you,
Ken Hygh
Jubilee Temple
Dick M wrote:
> But, to get back to the bottom line, why not do all of the 613
> commandments listed in the Old Covenant instead of picking and
> choosing. And by what authority do we pick and choose. Jesus
> knew that it would be a problem.
Why else would He say "it is finished" when and where He did?
Think about it!
--
Bro. Frank
Jubilee Temple
http://homepages.infoseek.com/~jubileetemple/index.html
For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God,
our Savior; who desires to have all men to be saved,
and come to full knowledge of the truth. 1 Timothy 2:3,4
Kyle M. Smith
>Hi, Kyle,
>
>I feel by your posts that you are fairly balanced compared to some and
>that you roll with the punches and bounce back.
>
>Hang in there,
>
>ybic,
>
>Dick
Thanks for the encouragement Dick.
-Kyle
Dick M
You're right!
I knew he didn't do all those things because I did not. And this
began to trouble me some time ago. And it troubled a lot of
others also. Do you know that some of the WCG ministers and
members also kept the New Moon?
My hope is to encourage UCG Canada, or whoever, that it is not
consistent to keep the Old Covenant partly and not all of it and
then to call others 'disobedient' for not keeping the Sabbath. I
believe it is very serious to waste time and money to maintain
certain days and beliefs when they can be put to much better use.
But, to get back to the bottom line, why not do all of the 613
commandments listed in the Old Covenant instead of picking and
choosing. And by what authority do we pick and choose. Jesus
knew that it would be a problem. Consequently, he completed
ended the Old Covenant with the appearance of John the Baptist
(Matt 11:13 and Luke 16:16), and replaced it lock, stock, and
barrel with the New -- completely fulfilled in Christ. The old
man in the book of Colossians is the Old Covenant and the New Man
is the New Covenant.
If we can pay 3 tithes in faith, why not the New Moon, when we
would be ridiculed even by fellow sabbatarians? I do not mean to
mock anyone and I apologize if I appeared to do so. But, I still
think the inconsistency of legalistic applications of the law
deserve an answer, but I do not expect one. It would be
embarrassing.
YHS,
Dick
Ray Voegele wrote:
>
> Dick,
>
> You ask UCG Canada whether he does all these things (below) when you know he
> does not. When you believed as he now believes you didn't do them did you?
> Did you believe ten years ago that you were under the Old Covenant? Why
> should you think UCG Canada would believe that about himself at this time?
> You say, "I'm filled with the love of God given me through his grace and I
> want to share it" but I believe you are mocking UCG Canada.
>
> Ray
<snip>
George Pinckney
Our dirty little secret was that we believed Mr A was God's apostle, and surely God would lead him to see which ones we should keep and which we shouldn't. His answer when he came to one of these we didn't keep was "That's obviously ceremonial." These things bothered many of us in the 60's and 70's and 80's - we kind of kept them on the back burner as unanswered questions.
Many of us find it hypocritical now (not to call you a hypocrite - how can I condemn you for believing what I believed for 25 years?) to tell people that God will not give them salvation if they eat pork and eat it ourselves (in restaurants). Or God will not give them salvation if they break the Sabbath and break it ourselves. We've come to see that the way we in the WCG kept the Sabbath was a human invention - a human interpretation of how we thought the law should apply to NT Christians - we definitely never kept it the way the law was written.
On a positve note - if anyone knows of a systematic explanation any of the *CG's has published on the subject of "Which Laws?" please let us know.
Flat Razor
>you are right we are to love one another,
>but you are wrong that this was a new command.
Jn 13:34 A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another;
as I have loved you, that ye also love one another.
Excuse me! Christ said it was a new command. You are calling Christ
a liar. You should rethink this very carefully.
>the living Christ was able to
>show true love that mere humans didnt understand
>until he showed them in the flesh.
Read this:
MT 25:34 Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye
blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the
foundation of the world:
35 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye
gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in:
36 Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in
prison, and ye came unto me.
37 Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee
an hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink?
38 When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and
clothed thee?
39 Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee?
40 And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you,
Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my
brethren, ye have done it unto me.
Christ said you would be judged based on your love for others. Not on
holy days, Sabbaths or any of the other accoutrements of the OC. Is
there anything you can't understand about the scriptures above? Have
you fed and clothed the poor? Have you visited the sick in a hospital
or those in prison? There are ministries that do these very things.
Are you a part of them or do you claim they are the works of men?
Christ says otherwise.
>Jesus Christ , the same person who wrote
>the old testement, the logos, the word of God.
>No, not a new commandment. Anymore than he done away with the torah and its
>commands.
>if he did he changed his word and was a wayward son which he is not.
Yes, a new commandment. See above.
God's love for man never changes, but how He works with mankind does.
Look at this verse:
HE 7:12 For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a
change also of the law.
It says the law was changed. At whose direction? God's of course.
God changed the law. God's love is immutable not the law.
>he demands MORE than the mere "love"
>of man as you say.
The love described above is Christ's definitioin not some mans.
>He demands his children to
>honor and worhip the father and OBEY his
>laws, to be seperate from the world, if we are called in this present life.
A 12 year old Hindu child can understand MT 25:34 - 40 and do it. It
happens every day. Can you do it? Do you even want to? Christ asks
little more of us than that.
Flat
""
Dick M
I believe that Christ fulfilled ALL. But, you show thought in
your postiongs.
God bless,
Dick
--
Ray Voegele
I appreciate your post. It contains much food for thought and asks for
answers that I cannot provide at this time. I would like to pose similar
questions to you. I didn't take your questions to be challenges or
criticism, which is the spirit in which I present mine.
We seem to be told quite specifically in Acts 15 that Christians are not to
eat blood nor things strangled. In all my years I have never heard of any
church advising its members to observe this admonition - save one. No need
to tell you which one. If a Christian is in a restaurant intending to dine
on chicken, should he ask the waiter to verify that the chicken he will eat
did not have its neck wrung? Should he ask for assurance that all of the
blood was drained from his chicken? Are these admonitions NT commandments
that are required for practicing the law of love? Does the NT say
specifically that a Christian will not enter the Kingdom unless he strictly
adheres to these tenets? Will a Christian be denied admittance to the
Kingdom for ignoring these admonitions? Some seem to make this demand in
regard to the Sabbath.
I see statements on this NG referring to similar restaurant scenarios
involving pork, etc. Such statements generally convey ridicule yet no
apparent connection is made to Acts 15.
Granted I do not ask such questions because, for the most part, I trust the
meat is prepared the proper way for economic reasons. But how many have
asked when there were signs that it had not? I do ask if I have doubts.
Finally, go to a butcher shop and ask them for "Johnny In The Sack". It
might be known by a different name in other parts of the country (or world
for that matter) but what you'll get in Porkopolis (Cincinnati) is "blut".
It comes in a cloth sack about 3" to 4" in diameter and a foot long or so.
You slice it off like you would lunch meat, cheese or sausage, put it on
bread and enjoy your sandwich. What you are eating is dried pig's blood.
The really good blut has white chunks of fat in it. My dad ate it regularly
as did many others of Germanic heritage. In fact he made his own back on
the pre-Depression farm. As for me, I never touched it thankfully.
I don't think it's necessary to go into the different fowls and rabbit that
are economically killed by strangulation and consumed by Christians. But why
worry about it? Ever heard any criticism from a pulpit besides the old WCG?
If I'm being too subtle, just say I'm suggesting the same selective
commandment keeping charged against those who keep the Sabbath could apply
equally to NT Christians.
I give this as food for thought, George, and I'll chew on your message for
awhile myself. Thanks.
Ray
Ray Voegele
I appreciate your candor. I knew your message to UCG Canada wasn't
mean-spirited and you rightly recognized that my very gentle admonition
wasn't either.
You touch on an area that doesn't permit a simple explanation. The rule of
thumb I apply is this. The spiritual Law is personal and eternal while the
Old Covenant was separate, temporal and national. You state that concept
yourself (church state). I can personally choose not to lie but I need
outside help to apply the ordinance on mildew. Hence I keep the former and
not the latter.
Knowing the distinction goes back to which body of law initiated the
ordinance. The Law of God was written by God on tablets of stone (Deut.
4:13) while the Law of Moses was written by Moses in a book (Ex. 24:3-4;
Deut 31:24; Galatians 3:10).
Ray
Ray Voegele
Dick M
I apologize if my remark about "pork" in a restaurant sounded
like ridicule. Orthodox, Hasidic, and some Conservative Jews
along with Muslims make sure no pork was cooked on the same grill
as their beef. There are variations even among them what they
require. Hasidic Jews, to the best of my knowledge, will not eat
even beef in anything but 'Kosher' kitchens.
The Sadduccees argued with the Pharisees on occasion because they
were sticklers for the original law without the additions the
Pharisees put on the law. They were for consistency and thought
the Pharisees as "liberals" in religious thought and practice.
This is a valid questions. Were we "liberals" in the service of
the law? And did we not serve the law and not Christ?. Did we or
did we not maintain consistency. Christ was concerned about the
consciousness of New Covenant Christians. He knew we would have
trouble with this point. Acts 15, as you point out, has more to
say that just Circumcision and the eating of blood and things
strangled. Verse 19, James said, "It is my judgment, therefore,
that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are
turning to God." The apostles did not want to force Old Covenant
requirements on the new Christians, Jew or Gentile.
James, et al., figured that the requirement of circumcision, not
required under the New Covenant and demanded by Judaizers, would
turn many potential converts away from accepting Jesus Christ,
which it would.
Circumcision was not a part of the Mosaic Covenant anyway. It
was the sign of the Abrahamic Covenant and continued as part of
the Mosaic Covenant which were made with physical Jews, sons and
daughters of Abraham.
Verse 28, "It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to
burden you with anything beyond the following requirements: You
are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from
the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You
will do well to avoid these things. Farewell." The apostles did
not teach other than what we see in this verse. No law. No
sabbath. What could be more clear?
Luke 16:16. The law "was until John." Caput! All gone.
Replaced by the New Covenant. We do not have to wonder which
laws to keep and which not to keep. Jesus in us kept the royal
law of Love (James 2:8). No law exists against the fruits of the
spirit (Gal 5:22).
ybic,
Dick
--
Dick M
Thank you. I always enjoy your posts. You have a humble
approach to the subject under discussion.
I have just entered another post on the subject,
ybic.
Dick
Dick M
>
> What a typical Worldwide Church of God copout!
> Exactly what laws of the Ten Commandments can't we keep today? Murder?
> Adultery? Lying?
You do not seem to understand about what it means to magnify the
law which is to 'fulfill' it in the spirit. The Ten Commandments
are principles taken from the Royal Law of Love. But then
without a proper understanding the true nature of the Holy
Spirit, it is difficult to understand the spiritual magnification
of the law. The Sabbath is magnified in Christ, our New Covenant
of Rest. The day is not commanded to be observed under the New
Covenant.
> While those of us who refused to follow that heretic Tkatch and his idiot
> son, into apostasy are still in the freedom of Christ and His laws I ask you
> to show me where the "burden" is.
Much time and money is spent maintaining the keeping of the
Sabbath that could be better used elsewhere in propagating the
true gospel which is needed now, and not to wait until the
kingdom comes.
> I am really looking forward to hearing how keeping the Ten Commandments of
> God, rather than the law of Tkach and his idiot cohorts of perdition, would,
> in this society, mean a person would be guilty of incest and murder.
I guess you aren't up on church history. Of course if you
believe the first 100 years were lost, you wouldn't know that the
early Christians were accused of those very things.
> At long last those of us God really called are free from the lies and two
> faced selfrighteousness of you false brethren of World wide Church of God,
> who used to fellowship with us but whose conversion was always as
> transparent as plastic.
>
> We are glad to be rid of you, thanks to God. 2 Thess 2:11-15
>
Thank you for revealing your concept of love for your brethren.
My humble opinion expressed in love,
Dick
> d...@doodle.com wrote in message <36d2cd6...@news.ptd.net>...
> >On Tue, 23 Feb 1999 05:39:56 GMT, Dick M <dickn...@flash.net> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >Hi Dick,
> >
> >Congratulations, you have put many things into their proper
> >perspective. It is impossible to keep all the laws in today's
> >world. Those that try would be accused of murder, incest and other
> >"crimes" were they to keep ALL the laws. And we are NOT given the
> >option of picking and choosing which laws to keep.
> >
> >The only conclusion is that the law was given to a "church state"
> >(Isreal).
> >
> >Thank God that we have been losed from the laws of bondage and been
> >given true freedom through the sacrificial blood of Jesus Christ, who
> >has fulfilled all our requirements for salvation. And given us a true
> >sabbath rest. Let all who have ears hear of the greatness of our
> >Lord!
> >
> >YBIC
> >
> >Dip
--
The probability of anything happening is in inverse ratio to its
desirability.
Robert
Exactly what laws of the Ten Commandments can't we keep today? Murder?
Adultery? Lying?
son, into apostasy are still in the freedom of Christ and His laws I ask you
to show me where the "burden" is.
God, rather than the law of Tkach and his idiot cohorts of perdition, would,
in this society, mean a person would be guilty of incest and murder.
At long last those of us God really called are free from the lies and two
faced selfrighteousness of you false brethren of World wide Church of God,
who used to fellowship with us but whose conversion was always as
transparent as plastic.
We are glad to be rid of you, thanks to God. 2 Thess 2:11-15
Cogwriter
You wrote to Robert: "You do not seem to understand about what it means to
magnify the
law which is to 'fulfill' it in the spirit. "
To quote Jesus, "it is fitting for us to fulfill all righteousness" (Mat 3:15).
He was then baptized. He fulfilled baptism by being baptized, we fulfill the
law by keeping it.
Best regards,
Bob Thiel
Dick M
Hi Bob,
Glad you 'posted.' Always glad to help out a brother. How does
one magnify the law? It is to allow Jesus to keep the royal law
in us to help us to serve others; to help to bring others into
the kingdom of God.
You are comparing apples and oranges. Baptism is not necessary
for salvation. But, Jesus knew he would have to set an example
for others by beginning his journey with John the Baptist. This
was the beginning of his ministry; the beginning of his
fulfilment of the law.
How do you fulfill righteousness? Not throught the law (Gal
2:21), "I do not set aside the grace of God, for if righteousness
could be gained through the law, Christ died for nothing."
Cordially,
Dick
Mikey
Cogwriter wrote in message <19990226220513...@ng156.aol.com>...
>Dear Dick M:
>
>You wrote to Robert: "You do not seem to understand about what it means to
>magnify the
>law which is to 'fulfill' it in the spirit. "
>
>To quote Jesus, "it is fitting for us to fulfill all righteousness" (Mat
3:15).
> He was then baptized. He fulfilled baptism by being baptized,
"we fulfill thelaw by keeping it."
--------------------------------------
Hi Bob:
That is an interesting concept. Is it we who have fulfilled the law then (by
keeping it)?
Have we or do we fulfill the law of circumcision.....(if we still practce
it)?
Is that exactly what scripture says? I dont think so.
Romans 13: 8 does indicate that as far as loving our brother this is
correct, if we love our brother then yes we have refrained from breaking the
last six commandments.
BUT, it also says in verse 9 however "IF there be any other commandment, it
is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy
neighbour as thyself.
Could we possibly fulfill ALL LAWS (as Christians) by loving one another.
One of the scriptures that "jumped out at me" a few years ago was Galatians
5: 14, "for ALL the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt
love thy neighbour as thyself".
It does say all.......(I checked in the Greek) the law is fulfilled. I used
to believe only half the law was fulfilled by loving my brother.
I have come to believe that the old qualifiers (of the WCG's view of who was
and wasn't Christian) of having all the right days, times, methods,
doctrines, and all "proper outward forms of worship" were not a fulfillment
of worship in spirit and in truth.
In spirit means (to me) without outward form or ceremony (alone,...... since
outward acts can encourage, [or tweak] worship deep from within ).
The Samaritans claimed they had all the right stuff. The right place to
worship, the right doctrines, the right scriptures the, right ceremonies (By
the way there are still modern decendents of them in Palestine today making
the same claims). The jews were incensed at these claims.
Christ said the time is comming and now is when they that worship him must
worship in spirit and in truth. Not in any place not with any symbolism
(alone), Not with special ceremonies (alone), but in spirit (inwardly), and
further more that rather than depend on having all the correct outward
ceremony etc etc (which can end up being worshipped itself) this inward
worship would be worship in truth (in actuality), as opposed to worship in
form (alone).
Ah but I'm rambling again.
YBIC
Mikey
----------------------------
>Best regards,
>
>Bob Thiel
Cogwriter
One does not know how to love one's neighbor if one does not keep the 10
commandments.
Jesus, Paul, and the other NT writers kept and taught all of them. They also
kept the Days of Unleavened Bread. There are articles on these subjects at my
site, URL is http://members.aol.com/cogwriter/home.htm
Best regards,
Bob Thiel
Dick M
Did Mother Teresa know how to love her neighbor?
Cordially,
Dick
--
Mikey
I have been to your website. I have read your articles. I have even given
sermons along the same lines as your articles. I no longer do.
Perhaps I missed something though, you claim that unless I "obey" all 10 of
the commandments (including a physical Sabbath rest) I am not loving my
brother. I was never taught that in the old WCG (or from any of RCM's
writings). Is this new understanding? I was always taught the first four
were how we showed love to God, and the last six were how we showed love to
our brother. Has this changed with the advent of the Living Church of God?
I noticed the same implication in a couple of posts to Dick, so perhaps you
can enlighten me.
Have I missed something in Rom.. 13:8 and Galatians 5:14 ?
By the way, one of the things that really bothered me when I read early
church history with regards to Polycarp and Polycrates, was their absence of
pulling out their big guns. Why didn't they tell the church at Rome the FULL
TRUTH, meaning that not only did we get this custom from John, who got it
from Jesus, but ALSO IT IS THE ONLY TRUE WAY TO WORSHIP, AND IF YOU DON'T DO
IT THIS WAY YOU WILL LOSE OUT ON SALVATION?
Funny how they fell so short of laying it all out. They simply said it was
their custom and a viable one.
YBIC (or maybe you don't think so....don't worry, I won't be offended)
------------------------------------------------
Cogwriter wrote in message <19990227143627...@ng-cb1.aol.com>...
Ken Hygh
> Dear Mikey:
>
> One does not know how to love one's neighbor if one does not keep the 10
> commandments.
>
> Jesus, Paul, and the other NT writers kept and taught all of them. They also
> kept the Days of Unleavened Bread. There are articles on these subjects at my
> site, URL is http://members.aol.com/cogwriter/home.htm
>
> Best regards,
>
> Bob Thiel
Bob,
Gotta butt in here, sorry :-)
We know how to love our neighbor because the Holy Spirit dwells in us. God has
written his commands on our hearts.
Not that I'm arguing against keeping the 10 commandments, but they aren't a
prerequisite. First we receive the HS, then we live according to his/its lead.
On the topic of Unleavened Bread, I don't believe that I Cor 5 is discussing
physical bread (note that 'bread' is not in the original in v. 8), and that this
is the same misunderstanding that the disciples had when Jesus was talking about
leaven of the Pharisees in Matt 16. ULB didn't picture the putting out of sin,
but the sinless life. The focus isn't our human efforts, because our best efforts
are filthy rags.
YbiC,
Ken Hygh
Flat Razor
>Dear Flat:
>
>I will chose to try to live as Jesus lived and Jesus taught. He kept the Days
>of Unleavened Bread, He kept the ten commandments,
Christ was born a Jew in Israel during the time of the Old Covenant.
As a Godly person of course he observed Old Covenant. You are not a
Jew born in Israel during the time of the Old Covenant. Sorry, but if
you are doing what Christ taught you have never mentioned it on here.
What you keep talking about is the kind of stuff the Pharisees were
into.
>He did not keep pagan holidays.
Bob, read the following verse:
COL 1:20 And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him
to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, I say, whether they be
things in earth, or things in heaven.
What does it mean when Paul says "reconcile all things unto himself"?
Does it really mean all things? But maybe not some things like
Christmas or Easter?
When people celebrate Christmas or Easter they don't think of pagan
gods or idols, they think of Christ, God and/or their families. These
observances have been reconciled to Christ.
2 TI 3:5 Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof:
from such turn away.
Be careful that you are not denying the power of the cross of Christ.
Bob, I will make an observation: I do not know you personally but it
is obvious that you have a desire to please God. I would encourage
you to look at the scriptures not physically but in the framework of
Christ's command to love one another. This can lead you to a new
understanding and a new life in Christ.
Flat
""
Flat Razor
>Dear Mikey:
>
>One does not know how to love one's neighbor if one does not keep the 10
>commandments.
You can lock yourself in your basement and keep the ten commandments.
Think about this:
Lu 17:10 So likewise ye, when ye shall have done all those things
which are commanded you, say, We are unprofitable servants: we have
done that which was our duty to do.
>Jesus, Paul, and the other NT writers kept and taught all of them. They also
>kept the Days of Unleavened Bread.
Of course they kept them when around the Jews. The Gentiles were not
told to keep them. Remember Acts 15?
19 Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from
among the Gentiles are turned to God:
20 But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of
idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from
blood.
>There are articles on these subjects at my
>site, URL is http://members.aol.com/cogwriter/home.htm
I looked at your web site. It's the same old stuff I saw for 32 years
in Herbert's cult.
Very nice photo of you and your family though.
Flat
""
Richard Cheney
Which ressurection have you decided the poor deluded lady will be in?
Cogwriter wrote:
> Dear Dick M:
>
> She prayed to Mary and did many things which violated the second (and other
> commandments). Buddists do good works, but no one is saved by works.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Bob Thiel
Cogwriter
Cogwriter
Actually, only those keeping the commandments will enter into the city of God
(Rev 22:14). They do not stay in any basement.
Best regards,
Bob Thiel
Cogwriter
No, Flat missed again. If you read the next verse in Rev you would see that
those who break some of the ten commandments are not allowed in. Also, the
word commandments is in the NKJ which is best on the most recent knowledge of
Greek translation.
Best regards,
Bob Thiel
Cogwriter
God decides, not I.
Best regards,
Bob Thiel
Cogwriter
This is not true. She signed a paper urging the pope to make Mary the
"co-redemtrix" with Jesus Christ! Plus she was a Catholic "mother". These two
facts show that she did (or should have by virtue of her position) pray to
Mary and at least urged others to do so. Do you not understand the danger in
the type of petition she signed?
Best regards,
Bob Thiel
Ray Voegele
In answer to the statement, "Jesus, Paul, and the other NT writers kept and
taught all of [the commandments and they kept the Days of Unleavened Bread]"
you say, "Of course they kept them when around the Jews. The Gentiles were
not told to keep them. Remember Acts 15?"
It sounds very much like you are saying Jesus, Paul, and the other NT
writers were big hypocrites. At the very least you are saying there are two
laws, one law for Jews and a different law for Gentiles. Which is it?
Ray
Kyle M. Smith
>Dear Duck:
Was this a typo, or is Bob getting a little testy? Must be a typo.
Ray Voegele
Nothing more to say about the righteousness of Mother Teresa? I'm
disappointed. You know it's no different to judge a person positively than
to judge them negatively. Judging is judging either way you slice it.
As one raised in the Catholic Church, I'm ready to make wagers regarding any
claim that a nun who died at a ripe old age never prayed to Mary. That's
not gambling, it's a sure thing!
Ray
Ray Voegele
comment. At least so far as Christmas and Easter. A person would have to
be deaf, dumb and blind to believe that Christians "think of Christ, God
and/or their families" when celebrating those events. What about the
colored eggs, chocolate bunnies, evergreen trees, fat man in a red suit,
flying reindeer and the biggest retail shopping spree in the world? Come
on, Flat, what planet are you writing from?
We may have been in the "cult" all these years as some would believe, but
we're not deaf, dumb or blind as to the things that go on around us. Nor do
we delude ourselves they aren't happening as we see them.
Ray
none@none
in a footwashing state of mind.
Look beyond those whom you judge, really you judge God
Cogwriter <cogw...@aol.com> wrote in article
<19990228120904...@ng67.aol.com>...
: Dear Rick:
:
Richard Cheney
would seem to indicate that whatever doctrinal misunderstanding she might have had
she would still qualify as one of the sheep.
Dick M
I'm glad that God judges her, ...and me, ...and you.
Dick
Cogwriter wrote:
>
> Dear Dick M:
>
> This is not true. She signed a paper urging the pope to make Mary the
> "co-redemtrix" with Jesus Christ! Plus she was a Catholic "mother". These two
> facts show that she did (or should have by virtue of her position) pray to
> Mary and at least urged others to do so. Do you not understand the danger in
> the type of petition she signed?
>
> Best regards,
>
> Bob Thiel
--
Dick M
1 Cor 9:20 "And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might
gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the
law, that I might gain them that are under the law" (KJV).
Respectfully,
Dick
Dick M
about the righteousness (or lack of it) with someone is
fruitless.
My answer was, "I'm glad it is God who judges her, and me, and
you (referring to Bob, of course).
Thanks for your interest,
Dick
--
Dick M
We are individuals in some things now; we do not have a WCG
catechism we have to adhere to. My congregation still has some
diehard sabbatarians who could have written some of Bob's posts.
Some celebrate those things you mentioned and some don't. I
don't.
Dick
Kyle M. Smith
>Dear Bob,
>
>Flat is absolutely correct as a child who could read and know
>nothing about theology. The word is singular and has several
>meanings. Please do look at the next verse: "Without are dogs
>[men of impure hearts -- which of the ten commandments is this?],
>and sorcerers [pharmakos -- pertaining to the magical arts, which
>of the commandments is this?], whoremongers [which means
>'fornicators', the commandment on adultery is for married
>people. Fornication is taken up elsewhere in the law], and
>whoever makes an loves a lie" (KJV). The ninth commandment
>involves only giving false testimony against others.
>
>Men of impure hearts, sorcerers, fornicators, sorcerers, liars, &
>other sins which can only be described within the innumerable
>interpretations of the Royal Law of Love as interpreted by the
>indwelling of the Holy Spirit. But then, without understanding
>the personal nature of the Holy Spirit, this would be difficult
>to understand, would it not?
>
>But rather this is the more important: Jas 2:10 "For whosoever
>shall keep the whole law [nomos], and yet offend in one [point],
>he is guilty of all." Then it goes on, in context, to show, this
>time, examples of the the ten commandments. It does not say "You
>shall keep the whole law..." but "Whosoever shall keep...."
>Whoever "chooses" to keep the law must then keep the whole law or
>suffer penalty if he/she breaks one of them. This individual
>would then be judged by the law rather than be justified by the
>blood of Jesus.
>
>By the way, the Sabbath is not mentioned here nor anywhere else
>the law is mentioned.
>
>This is serious business, Bob. Do you want to be judged by law
>or by Christ's mercy?
>
>Cordially,
>
>Dick
This is a brilliant post Dick, if I may say so. You make it so easy to
understand.
Respectfully,
-Kyle
Dick M
Flat is absolutely correct, as even a child who could read and
know
nothing about theology would also be able to deduce. The word is
Cordially,
Dick
--
Dick M
Dick
Richard Cheney wrote:
>
> Don't know about these things, but looking at the story about the sheep and goats
> would seem to indicate that whatever doctrinal misunderstanding she might have had
> she would still qualify as one of the sheep.
>
> Cogwriter wrote:
>
> > Dear Dick M:
> >
> > This is not true. She signed a paper urging the pope to make Mary the
> > "co-redemtrix" with Jesus Christ! Plus she was a Catholic "mother". These two
> > facts show that she did (or should have by virtue of her position) pray to
> > Mary and at least urged others to do so. Do you not understand the danger in
> > the type of petition she signed?
> >
Dick M
To me it has become simple. Paul said nothing except Jesus "and
him crucified."
ybic,
Dick
Kyle M. Smith wrote:
>
> In article <36D9A9C3...@flash.net>, di...@flash.net wrote:
> >Dear Bob,
> >
> >Flat is absolutely correct as a child who could read and know
> >nothing about theology. The word is singular and has several
> This is a brilliant post Dick, if I may say so. You make it so easy to
> understand.
>
> Respectfully,
> -Kyle
--
Richard Cheney
it is not wrong to do them if you want to. If one did not wish to offend by
ommision, then observing customs of those you were trying to reach would not be
hypocritical as long as said cutoms do not constitute sin. Remember the
admonition on not exercising your freedom at the expense of offending those who
don't have your level of understanding.
YBIC
Rick
Jubilee Temple
Dick M wrote:
> Hi Ray,
>
> We are individuals in some things now; we do not have a WCG
> catechism we have to adhere to. My congregation still has some
> diehard sabbatarians who could have written some of Bob's posts.
>
> Some celebrate those things you mentioned and some don't. I
> don't.
Hello Dick & All,
Only the person and God know why one keeps a law.
It is clear to me, however, if one believes that by keeping a law, he is
in anyway gaining favor or righteousness with God has totally lost favor
with Christ! A harsh statement, I know.
We all know and have seen the Bible verses in Paul's letters concerning
the law Vs Christ's sacrificial atonement on the cross and how clinging
to the law is an affront to Christ's death, burial and resurrection. In
addition, to live by the law is asking for judgement by the law; who in
their right mind wants that sort of judgement? Not I!
If one follows the 'Royal Law' as to be a beacon of God's glory and
mercy, I say, Godspeed!
Just my thoughts...
--
Bro. Frank
Jubilee Temple
http://homepages.infoseek.com/~jubileetemple/index.html
For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God,
our Savior; who desires to have all men to be saved,
and come to full knowledge of the truth. 1 Timothy 2:3,4
Ray Voegele
I believe Paul's statement means he discussed things with Jews from the
Jewish understanding he possessed and he discussed things with Gentiles from
the understanding he probably obtained from his father. Any intelligent
person would do that.
To pretend to be what you are not - to deliberately deceive people - is
Satanic. Remember, Satan is a liar and the father of it. I believe Paul
possessed a pure heart and would not stoop to trickery to fulfill his
calling nor should he have to with the help he received from the Holy
Spirit.
The same goes for Jesus and the NT writers mentioned in the original
article. For them to behave as Flat indicated is hypocrisy. Remember it
was Paul who chastened Peter for his hypocrisy. Peter had one code of
conduct in front of Gentiles and another when in the presence of Jews. The
very thing suggested by the erroneous interpretation of the cited Scripture
from Paul.
Respectfully,
Ray
Dick M wrote in message <36D9AB4A...@flash.net>...
>Dear Ray,
>
>1 Cor 9:20 "And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might
>gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the
>law, that I might gain them that are under the law" (KJV).
>
>Respectfully,
>
>Dick
>
Flat Razor
>Dear Dick M:
>
>She prayed to Mary and did many things which violated the second (and other
>commandments). Buddists do good works, but no one is saved by works.
The average Christian will not be saved without works.
Flat
""
Flat Razor
>Actually, only those keeping the commandments will enter into the city of God
>(Rev 22:14).
Note that the word "commandments" in Rev 22:14 is incorrectly
translated from the Greek 'entole', Strong's number 1785. The
correct translation is commandment (singular).
RE 22:14 Blessed are they that do his commandment, that they may have
right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the
city.
"his commandment" refers to Christ's commandment. I presume you know
which one this refers to since there is only one:
JOHN 13:34 A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one
another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another.
> They do not stay in any basement.
Are you being flip or did you completely miss the point?
Flat
""
Dick M
Dick
Flat Razor wrote:
>
> cogw...@aol.com (Cogwriter) wrote:
>
> >Dear Flat:
> >
> >I will chose to try to live as Jesus lived and Jesus taught. He kept the Days
> >of Unleavened Bread, He kept the ten commandments,
>
> Christ was born a Jew in Israel during the time of the Old Covenant.
> As a Godly person of course he observed Old Covenant. You are not a
> Jew born in Israel during the time of the Old Covenant. Sorry, but if
> you are doing what Christ taught you have never mentioned it on here.
> What you keep talking about is the kind of stuff the Pharisees were
> into.
>
> >He did not keep pagan holidays.
>
> Bob, read the following verse:
>
> COL 1:20 And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him
> to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, I say, whether they be
> things in earth, or things in heaven.
>
> What does it mean when Paul says "reconcile all things unto himself"?
> Does it really mean all things? But maybe not some things like
> Christmas or Easter?
>
> When people celebrate Christmas or Easter they don't think of pagan
> gods or idols, they think of Christ, God and/or their families. These
> observances have been reconciled to Christ.
>
> 2 TI 3:5 Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof:
> from such turn away.
>
> Be careful that you are not denying the power of the cross of Christ.
>
> Bob, I will make an observation: I do not know you personally but it
> is obvious that you have a desire to please God. I would encourage
> you to look at the scriptures not physically but in the framework of
> Christ's command to love one another. This can lead you to a new
> understanding and a new life in Christ.
>
> Flat
Dick M
You got that right!
ybic
Dick
Ken Hygh wrote:
>
> Cogwriter wrote:
>
> > Dear Mikey:
> >
> > One does not know how to love one's neighbor if one does not keep the 10
> > commandments.
> >
> > Jesus, Paul, and the other NT writers kept and taught all of them. They also
> > kept the Days of Unleavened Bread. There are articles on these subjects at my
> > site, URL is http://members.aol.com/cogwriter/home.htm
> >
> > Best regards,
> >
> > Bob Thiel
>
> Bob,
> Gotta butt in here, sorry :-)
>
> We know how to love our neighbor because the Holy Spirit dwells in us. God has
> written his commands on our hearts.
>
> Not that I'm arguing against keeping the 10 commandments, but they aren't a
> prerequisite. First we receive the HS, then we live according to his/its lead.
>
> On the topic of Unleavened Bread, I don't believe that I Cor 5 is discussing
> physical bread (note that 'bread' is not in the original in v. 8), and that this
> is the same misunderstanding that the disciples had when Jesus was talking about
> leaven of the Pharisees in Matt 16. ULB didn't picture the putting out of sin,
> but the sinless life. The focus isn't our human efforts, because our best efforts
> are filthy rags.
>
> YbiC,
> Ken Hygh
Dick M
and many do not. You might ask some of your Catholic friends (if
you have any).
If Mother Teresa was a true Christian, and I believe she was, she
is forgiven her sins because she had faith that He was her savior
and had forgiven her.
However, for those who need to earn the right for God to forgive
them, well............ Anyway, she cergainly did not live a self
righteous life.
Cordially,
Dick
Cogwriter wrote:
>
> Dear Dick M:
>
> She prayed to Mary and did many things which violated the second (and other
> commandments). Buddists do good works, but no one is saved by works.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Bob Thiel
Dick M
Dick
Flat Razor wrote:
>
> cogw...@aol.com (Cogwriter) wrote:
--
Dick M
1 Cor 9:20 "And unto the Jews I BECAME AS A JEW, that I might
gain the Jews; TO THEM THAT ARE UNDER THE LAW, as under the
law, that I might gain them that are UNDER THE LAW" (KJV). The
verb 'became' is "ginomai," became, came to pass, be made, or be
done.
When we read the Bible and take it for what it says, we need no
interpretation. As I am not God, I cannot say what I believe
what he really meant if he didn't mean what he said. I am not
psychic and I do not believe any of us here are.
An additional point in the verse not mentioned but relevant to
other arguments concerning the law: It does NOT say, "under the
[penalty of] the law which some would add in other places. Let
us leave the scriptures alone. They mean what they say.
With respect,
Dick
<snip>
Dick M
Peter's sin was in 'separating' himself from Jewish Christians
contrary to the New Covenant teaching. The verse about Paul
being "as a Jew," refers to non-Christian Jews. Once again, let
us take the Bible as it is.
Cordially,
Dick
Ray Voegele wrote:
>
> Dick,
>
> I believe Paul's statement means he discussed things with Jews from the
> Jewish understanding he possessed and he discussed things with Gentiles from
> the understanding he probably obtained from his father. Any intelligent
> person would do that.
>
> To pretend to be what you are not - to deliberately deceive people - is
> Satanic. Remember, Satan is a liar and the father of it. I believe Paul
> possessed a pure heart and would not stoop to trickery to fulfill his
> calling nor should he have to with the help he received from the Holy
> Spirit.
>
> The same goes for Jesus and the NT writers mentioned in the original
> article. For them to behave as Flat indicated is hypocrisy. Remember it
> was Paul who chastened Peter for his hypocrisy. Peter had one code of
> conduct in front of Gentiles and another when in the presence of Jews. The
> very thing suggested by the erroneous interpretation of the cited Scripture
> from Paul.
>
> Respectfully,
>
> Ray
>
<snip>
Flat Razor
>... At least so far as Christmas and Easter. A person would have to
>be deaf, dumb and blind to believe that Christians "think of Christ, God
>and/or their families" when celebrating those events.
The Christians that I know do eactly that. When was the last
Christmas service or dinner that you went to? The sevices I've been
to focus on Christ's birth and glorify God. The Christmas dinners
focus on family usually with strong Christain religious overtones. If
you've seen something else that was unfortunate for you because you
have taken this rare instance and generalized it to make a whole class
of people as pagans.
> What about the
>colored eggs, chocolate bunnies, evergreen trees, fat man in a red suit,
>flying reindeer and the biggest retail shopping spree in the world? Come
>on, Flat, what planet are you writing from?
I'm living on earth at the end of the 20th century, not ancient Israel
under the OC.
>We may have been in the "cult" all these years as some would believe, but
>we're not deaf, dumb or blind as to the things that go on around us. Nor do
>we delude ourselves they aren't happening as we see them.
You aren't deaf, dumb and blind? How many people have you seen
singing the praises of Baal or making sacrifices to Saturn or bowing
down to Ishtar during Christmas or Easter. I haven't seen any! Have
you?
"the colored eggs, chocolate bunnies, evergreen trees, fat man in a
red suit, flying reindeer and the biggest retail shopping spree in the
world" have no connection to paganism except in the mind of cult
members that have been brainwashed to think so in order to separate
the member from his family and friends who might tell him that he is
being misled. This is a typical cult tactic used by Moon, Armstrong,
the SDA, Mormons, etc.
Paul said all things have been reconciled to Christ through the power
of His blood on the cross.
Open your eyes and look around! Christ wants you to go forth and do
good in the world not isolate yourself with strange customs of a
bygone age. The poor and hungry are crying out for help. Christ had
compassion on them. Do you?
Flat
""
Flat Razor
Dick,
Thank you for your followup. I have a severe cold and wasn't able to
follow up in a timely manner although I did send one before I saw
yours.
Flat
""
Flat Razor
>No, Flat missed again. If you read the next verse in Rev you would see that
>those who break some of the ten commandments are not allowed in.
Let's look at that verse:
REV 22:15 For without are dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and
murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie.
Where do the 10 commandments forbid being a dog, sorcerer or
whoremonger? Dog and whoremonger refer to male homosexuality and male
prostitution respectively. They're forbidden in the OC but not the
10. There is no reference to female homosexuality in the OC. Does
this mean female homosexuality is OK? By the OC it sure is.
Female homosexuality is condemned in the NC because it and and the
sins above are ALL condemned not by the 10 commandments but by
Christ's command to love one another .
>Also, the word commandments is in the NKJ ...
I'm pleased to see you have more than one translation. You need to
get a good commentary and concordance if you don't have any aleady.
>which is best on the most recent knowledge of Greek translation.
Says who? Please quote an acknowledged authority. I want to see it.
1 JOHN 2:7, MAT 15:3, MAT 15:6, MAT 22:36, MAT 22:38, MARK 7:8 plus a
whole bunch more use the same Greek word, entole, and it is
translated in the singular and it is obvious froom the context that it
has to be singular. I think you need to find another "authority".
When are you going to quite clinging to this dead horse, it's been
dead for nearly 2000 years now.
Flat
""
Flat Razor
>In answer to the statement, "Jesus, Paul, and the other NT writers kept and
>taught all of [the commandments and they kept the Days of Unleavened Bread]"
>you say, "Of course they kept them when around the Jews. The Gentiles were
>not told to keep them. Remember Acts 15?"
>
>It sounds very much like you are saying Jesus, Paul, and the other NT
>writers were big hypocrites. At the very least you are saying there are two
>laws, one law for Jews and a different law for Gentiles. Which is it?
No, Ray, there's only one law, the new commandment that Christ gave
us.
1 CO 9:19 For though I be free from all men, yet have I made myself
servant unto all, that I might gain the more.
20 And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to
them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them
that are under the law;
21 To them that are without law, as without law, (being not without
law to God, but under the law to Christ) that I might gain them that
are without law.
22 To the weak became I as weak, that I might gain the weak: I am made
all things to all men, that I might by all means save some.
Flat
""
Cogwriter
Yes, typing "Duck" was a typo. It amazes me how you and Dick so badly want to
believe that Christians are not supposed to keep the ten commandments even
though Jesus, Paul, and the other NT writers did.
Yes, I know I need Christ's mercy--but not as an excuse to sin.
Best regards,
Bob Thiel
Dick M
What do you mean, 'excuse to sin?' Do you mean if we do not keep
the ten commandments [excuse me, I mean the Sabbath], we are
sinning deliberately, looking for an excuse? This is judging
another man's servant.
Please believe that we want to do more than 'keep' the ten
commandments. We have explained many, many, [ad infinitum, ad
nasauem] times that much much more is involved in reflecting the
royal law of love spiritually inscribed in our hearts. The Ten
commandments are very limited.
Gal 2:16-19 "know that a man is NOT JUSTIFIED by OBSERVING the
LAW, but by FAITH in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith
in Christ Jesus that we may be JUSTIFIED by FAITH in Christ and
NOT by observing the law, because by OBSERVING the law NO ONE
will be JUSTIFIED. 'If, while we seek to be justified in Christ,
it becomes evident that we ourselves are sinners, does that mean
that Christ promotes sin? Absolutely not! If I rebuild what I
destroyed, I prove that I am a lawbreaker. For through the law I
DIED TO THE LAW so that I might live for God.'"
[Note, bob. Paul did not say he died to the PENALTY OF the law,
but Died to the law.]
Verse 20-21 "I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer
live, but Christ lives in me. The life I live in the body, I live
by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for
me. I do not set aside the grace of God, for IF RIGHTEOUSNESS
COULD BE GAINED BY THE LAW, CHRIST DIED FOR NOTHING!"
Bob, we obey because we WANT to in love to Christ. Many others
have told you about the Great Commandment with says nothing about
the Sabbath.
Christ was born under the Law to redeem those under the law.
Naturally, he "observed" the Sabbath. Paul, before the
crucifixion, and while an unconverted Jew "observed" the Sabbath
and the ten commandments. After conversion, Paul "worshipped" on
the seventh day and also on the first day of the week, and
probably on other days, too.
God love you, Bob, and bring you to the point where you can
realize that it is okay to worship on any day of the week, just
don't call those who do not "keep" the Sabbath on the seventh
day, Sinners. You may or may not sin by observing the Sabbath
depending on your reason for doing so.
But it is a sin to judge others.
God did not make an evil day. All days are good; God created all
of them. God does not withdraw from a day because evil people
did evil things on the days he created. If you really want to
know which day the most evil was done, it was probably the
seventh day from what I have researched.
God is now converting people, days, and time. He made them all
and he said "it is good." He is making all things new. We are
now to redeem the time because the days are evil [man did evil
things on those good days God created].
Galatians 3:1-11, "You foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you?
Before your very eyes Jesus Christ was clearly portrayed as
crucified. I would like to learn just one thing from you: Did
you receive the Spirit by OBSERVING THE LAW, or by BELIEVING what
you heard? Are you so foolish? After beginning with the Spirit,
are you now trying to attain your goal by human effort? Have you
SUFFERED so much FOR NOTHING --if it really was for nothing?
Does God give you his Spirit and work miracles among you because
you observe the law, or because you believe what you heard?
Consider Abraham: "He believed God, and it was credited to him
as righteousness." Understand, then, that those who believe
are children of Abraham. The Scripture foresaw that God would
JUSTIFY the Gentiles by faith, and announced the gospel in
advance to Abraham: "All nations will be blessed through you." So
those who have faith are blessed along with Abraham, the man of
faith. All who RELY ON OBSERVING THE LAW are under a CURSE, for
it is written: "Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do
everything written in the Book of the Law." [If you take it upon
yourself to observe the law, you will be judged by the law and
this is serious].
Can you save yourself?
Cordially,
Dick Mann
--
Ray Voegele
I said I did not believe Paul would deliberately deceive people. Your
responses say Paul became as a non-Christian Jew to gain non-Christian Jews.
For Paul to pretend to be a non-Christian Jew is, in my humble opinion, a
deliberate deception regardless of what his motives might be.
For Peter to temporarily separate himself from Gentiles when the Jews were
around was to pretend that he always separated himself from the Gentiles,
which was a deliberate deception. You can temporarily separate yourself
from anyone and not sin. It was not a sin for Peter to temporarily separate
himself from the Gentiles. It was a sin for him to deceive and mislead
people.
Ray
Dick M wrote <snip> "Peter's sin was in 'separating' himself from Jewish
Ray Voegele
Your statement was, "When people celebrate Christmas or Easter they don't
think of pagan
gods or idols, they think of Christ, God and/or their families". I humbly
maintain the term "people" is not synonymous with "Christians". I don't
have to go to a Christmas service to see how "people" celebrate Christmas.
I see it at work, on TV, amongst friends and relatives, etc. Is it
necessary for me to put 1,000,000 electric lights on my house to properly
observe Christmas or is 10,000 good enough?
sincerely,
Ray
Flat Razor wrote in message <36dc0456...@news.akos.net>...
Ray Voegele
Sorry if I seem tedious, I’m really not trying to be. Here is the
background on my recent postings.
In response to a message from Cogwriter, in which Bob (Cogwriter) said,
"Jesus, Paul, and the other NT writers kept and taught all of them
[commandments]. They also kept the Days of Unleavened Bread." Flat said, "Of
course they kept them when around the Jews. The Gentiles were not told to
keep them. Remember Acts 15?"
I then wrote to Flat and said, "It sounds very much like you are saying
Jesus, Paul, and the other NT writers were big hypocrites.", interpreting
what Flat said to mean that Jesus, Paul, and the other NT writers kept and
taught all of these things insincerely in order to please men.
Then you wrote to me and said, "1 Cor 9:20 ‘And unto the Jews I became as a
Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as under
the law, that I might gain them that are under the law’ (KJV).", which I
took to mean you were saying it was okay for them to practice this
subterfuge based upon the Scripture you cited. So I countered that I did
not think Paul, Jesus or the other NT writers practiced such hypocrisy as
using the subterfuge of pretending they were keeping something they did not
believe simply because they where around the Jews.
You then replied in the next message, "And unto the Jews I BECAME AS A JEW,
that I might gain the Jews; TO THEM THAT ARE UNDER THE LAW, as under the
law, that I might gain them that are UNDER THE LAW" (KJV). The verb 'became'
is "ginomai," became, came to pass, be made, or be done." This was followed
by another message in which you said. "The verse about Paul being ‘as a Jew,
’ refers to non-Christian Jews." I understood that to mean Paul became as a
"non-Christian Jew".
Again, I wasn't trying to be picky or tedious but I interpreted the
statement, "The verse about Paul being ‘as a Jew,’ refers to non-Christian
Jews.", to mean that when Paul said, "I became as a Jew, that I might gain
the Jews;" means he became as a non-Christian Jew in order to gain
non-Christian Jews.
To conclude differently would have us believe that Paul who was already was
a Jew, became something different from what he was. Since a Jew cannot
become a Jew since he already is a Jew, then he had to become something
different such as a non-Christian Jew. At least that’ the way I understood
your messages.
Again, no offense intended. I was trying to follow the train of thought.
Sincerely,
Ray
Dick M wrote in message <36DB3EAE...@flash.net>...
>NO, no, no! A thousand times no! I said Paul became a "Jew" not
>a non-Christian Jew! Is my English that screwed up?
>
>What is the point here?
<snip>
Dick M
a non-Christian Jew! Is my English that screwed up?
What is the point here?
Dick
Peter WAS guilty of discrimination which included deception.
> Christians contrary to the New Covenant teaching. The verse about Paul
> being "as a Jew," refers to non-Christian Jews.
--
Dick M
I.C. Thanks for the clarification.
Dick.
> >NO, no, no! A thousand times no! I said Paul became a "Jew" not
> >a non-Christian Jew! Is my English that screwed up?
> >
> >What is the point here?
> <snip>
gar...@hotmail.com
tsco...@hotmail.com wrote:
> "the colored eggs, chocolate bunnies, evergreen trees, fat man in a
> red suit, flying reindeer and the biggest retail shopping spree in the
> world" have no connection to paganism except in the mind of cult
> members that have been brainwashed to think so in order to separate
> the member from his family and friends who might tell him that he is
> being misled. This is a typical cult tactic used by Moon, Armstrong,
> the SDA, Mormons, etc.
Yes, those things do have a connection with paganism and modern day pagans and
heathens proudly look to them to show how the old faith continued in Europe
after the introduction of Christianity.
Those customs are vital links with our ancestors giving us glimpses of their
spirituality and their customs. It shows us that even the crusading zeal of
Catholic monks and the forced conversion of the populace couldn't entirely
destroy the heathen religions.
I find the heathen customs that still survive to be comforting. They provide
me with a link to my Folk through the many centuries.
Kind regards
Russ
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own