posted
In a posting on curious words, Laurie Ann raised the question of change in the context of Passover. This issue is one of the most important that has ever faced Christianity. Almost all Christians claim it's true but they don't have any specifics nor do they understand it. So how about the house motion?
The early Christian Church had a problem once Simon, the Peter, introduced the OT to them. The summation of the Torah (Gen-Deut) was to love The ELOHIM first and most; and second, to love thy rea as thyself. Christiantiy was infused with Greek philosophy and humanism. It was easy to follow the Septuagint sample of changing the Hebrew rea in Lev 19:18 to the Greek plesion and allow that love but how about love of YHWH as manifested in keeping certain Sabbath days, eating certain diet, wearing certain clothes, etc.
The OT provided a history of the world which was valuable to the early church. But the church wanted to abolish all that love of YHWH shown by certain OT proscriptions (this Greek problem went all the way back to the Greek rule over Palestine 300-100 BCE). It was impossible to merely abolish the OT after Simon had introduced it to his Christian followers in Rome.
Until Constantine came in c321 and standarized Christian worship with dictatorial fiat, Christian leaders struggled with how to do away with the OT. It was no easy task. But over time, they settled in on the theology of NT change to nullify all parts of the OT which were inconsistant with Greek humanism/philosophy.
While the problem started with Simon, it really crystalized with Christian leader Marcion c137 in Rome. Marcion was profoundly important to Christianity because he was the first leader to decide on the abolishment of the OT and replacing it with something called a NT. In Apostolic days, the NT worshippers never had a NT. They had and used the OT as was the Jewish practice throughout the Roman empire. Authoritative Scripture was always the Hebrew OT.
After Marcion proposed his canon, other leaders over the years came forth with their proposals (most or all of which varied). Catholic Church councils around 397 CE made the ultimate decision on which NT period writings were to be a part of the approved NT canon. By then, the theology of change was in full force to change everything which Rome disapproved of in the OT.
But the idea of change was totally foreign in the Scriptures--to include the NT period writings adopted by Rome. Since it didn't exist, it was put over by dictatorial fiat and never really questioned by the masses until religious freedom arrived with the protestant reformation. Anyway, the Scriptures themselves prove the utter folly of change. Once YESHUA died, His testament came into full force and could not be changed (on this, see Heb 9:16-17. Once a man dies, his last will and testament cannot be changed. It is fixed at death).
Next the Scriptures themselves repeatedly say that YHWH does not change. It is utterly ridiculous to attribute change to Him. He is not an idiot or man that could create pandimonium and confusion in His Word by change--Num 23:19: I Sam 15:29; Ps 110:4; Isa 44:26, 45:23, 55:11; Ps 89:34; Rom 11:29; I Cor 14:23; Jas 1:17; Heb 13:8; Mal 3:6; Jo 10:35.
For sure, He is immutable, contrary to the wishes of Christendom. What was sin was sin for Adam, Avraham, Yisrael, Moshe, David, YESHUA, you and me. The definition of sin has never changed. For all those Christians arguing change, it should be said that maybe their ideas on salvation also changed. If He changed, He easily could change back and forth at random on salvation and other things. No, it is man that changes, not YHWH.
Starting with Simon and intensifying with others like Clement of Rome, Clement of Alexandria, Marcion, etc, Christian leaders began a process of altering and changing the NT period writings. Today, there are at least 5,500 early Greek manuscripts--all of which are different and say different things (this problem does not exist with the OT because the Jews were precise in protecting its accuracy, as now proven by the Dead Sea scrolls). Question, which one of these 5,500 NT manuscripts is right?
One of the methods of change involved substituting Greek words which were foreign and wrong for Hebrew words--like using the Greek plesion for the Hebrew rea (this one started with the Septuagint in Lev 19:18 and continued with Christianity). But rea and plesion are not the same. There are numbers of Hebrew words utterly lost in Greek and now English--like rea, hesed, ger, nokri, nekar, toshab, Torah, chet, pesha, asham, maal, awon, etc. Tragically, the Greek concepts on these words took over all translations to other languages--like English.
There is one particular NT text which Christians use for change which doesn't mean change at all. It is Heb 7:12 where the Greek metathesis is translated change. Change implies the end of one thing to be replaced with another. Metathesis actually means a transference from one valid and proper system to another valid and proper system (per Vines, Thayers, ete).
In 70 CE, the destruction of the Temple suspended the work of the YHWH approved and ordained priesthood and and priesthood ordnances. This suspension has lasted since then (but it is about to end as a new Temple will soon go up and the daily sacrifice will recommence--the prophets are clear on this). This will happen with YHWH's approval when He sends His man Eliyahu to supervise it.
And here, please don't start hollering about the Passover sacrfice. No Passover lambs have been slain since 70 CE. Yet Jews and others have kept the Passover for the last 1937 years. i have kept it for 38 years without offering any sacrifices. And if one wants to argue sacrifices, then he should argue over Easter, Christmas, Sunday and all other Christian days as sacrfices were offered daily on them every day in which the Temple stood).
Now anyone wanting to argue change should go to the Scriptures and prove it. Christian theories won't hack it here. For example, Christians say "Jesus" died on Good Friday and rose at sunrise on a Sunday morning. Yet, there is nothing in the Word that says this. Instead, the Book conclusively proves that YESHUA died on the fourth day of the week and was resurrected to life 72 hours later on the late afternoon of the next weekly Sabbath.
So, can any reader come up with any true changes in the NT. Thank you LA for bringing up this profoundly important subject!
posted
Thanks John. i use motion and movement to refer to the so-called House church development. i personally don't approve of or use the English word church. It has a very bad meaning which is far removed from the Scriptures.
posted
Start a new thread when you are able on your disapproval of the word church, RD. The idea is new to me. Do you happen to have a web page where you deal with 'church'?
posted
And RD: Could you also do a scripture chronology on the resurrection? I've heard this assertion, and I've tried to piece it together from the gospels, but haven't been able to work it out, since I don't know the Jewish chronology of "day of preparation" etc.
I'd like to address the issue of whether the NT changed anything. Other than fulfilling the Sacrifice so that we no longer need to make sacrifices, I think Jesus made it clear that whatever we do, we keep in mind both the Whole Counsel of God and His Overriding Purposes. This wasn't a change from the OT. It was a change in our ability. It was a leap from a list of rules to a way to live - and power to live so.
Jesus modeled this many times. Keeping the Sabbath is important - but healing the sick and proclaiming the Kingdom of God to the lost trumps legalistic definitions of "work". Eating kosher is critical for long-term health - but not offending potential or new converts by disparaging their hospitality builds the Kingdom. Jesus showed us what it looked like to obey all the commands of God, yet to hold the Law of Love highest of all.
So, I believe the family homestead community life that God created in Israel is his highest ideal for how people "should" live. Yet, he not would have us neglect proclaiming His kingdom in the slums of the city. Having a true Sabbath is honorable - yet with only two days out of seven to interact with and be a blessing to our lost neighbors, we don't feel free to lock the doors on Friday night. As with almost every scriptural principle, we live in the tension of the paradox, and we must walk daily in the Spirit to accomplish His purpose - that All Nations Praise Him.
Others?
Laurie Ann
-------------------- You & Me and Jesus. We are enough!
posted
Yes, Laurie Ann, it can be cleared up. First, let me suggest chapter 9 on the Sign of YESHUA in vol 1, Ezekiel and YHWH's judgment for the Good News people, on the Internet at www.ageend.com. This is a detailed account.
Next, in Mt 28:1, the word Sabbath is in the plural. There were 2 Sabbaths that week--the 1st was the high/great sabbath of Aviv 15 (defined in Lev 23) on a 5th day of week and then on the 7th day, the weekly Sabbath came.
Starting in Gen 1, YHWH laid out the days starting at sundown. When sundown comes at the end of the 7th day, the next day, sunday, starts at sundown, not sunrise.
The word dawn in Mt 28:1 is from the Greek epiphosko which was used in Luke to describe His burial--that happened just before sundown. The word means approahing sundown, not sunrise. Bad translation in the KJV and other English translations.
The next big item is that the several accounts of the visits to the tomb of the women in the "Gospels" all address separate visits. Most Christians try to make them one visit. But this won't fit so it is impossible. Even the descriptive timing is different.
Chronology: YESHUA died c3PM on a Wed afternoon of Aviv 14 (preparation for the coming high Sabbath), Passover day. He was buried just before sundown. The next day, Aviv 15 was the high "annual" Sabbath following Passover (1st day of Unleavened Bread). The next day, Aviv 16 (preparation for the weekly Sabbath), the watch over the tomb was still in place and the women could not do the embalming.
The weekly Sabbath came on Aviv 17 and the women rested and waited for Sabbath to end. Just as Sabbath was ending, Mt 28:1 occured as the 2 Marys came just as the earthquake unsealed the tomb. But the women did not see the resurrection. He had already risen and exited the tomb. There were no human witnesses of His resurrection or even His exit from the tomb. All the interplay happened after He was resurrected and had left the tomb.
The sign of Jonah, the ante-type, was fulfilled when it became His sign of 3 days and 3 nights or 72 hours in the tomb (Mt 12:38-40). Actually, He was dead 72 hours and He was in the tomb 72 hours. That was the only sign He gave man to authenicate WHo HE was.
posted
I find it hard to imagine we would all agree on a great number of things over which many believers have struggled with each other in the past. I'm much closer to you, Laurie Ann, on seeing a Law of God much higher than the Law of Moses. I find Moses at best a shadowy reflection of it, fitting a narrow purpose for that people, that time, that place. I'm sure RD and I could have lots to argue about if we were so inclined. Were we HC folk not peculiar as a group, we would not be members of this forum. Naturally, we are going to be different from each, but even more different from the IC folks.
For my wife and I, we are intentional invaders in the urban area where we reside. It's where God has led us, and we are hardly concerned our tribal emphasis is completely "out of place" here. It's not as if Christ has no witness here, but we intend to build a witness of a different sort. We also believe a part of it includes anticipating major social upheaval in the coming months across the US. (That's not politics, just an observation.)
A critical part of our underlying convictions hold us at variance with RD on textual history of the NT. The academic field is quite large and complicated, but our house has concluded the Majority Text (underlying the KJV and NKJV somewhat, along with a few other little known translations), AKA the Byzantine Greek Text, is the most trustworthy. I find the Eastern NT churches resisted corruption of the text far better than Rome and Western churches. This puts me far away from RD on many points. While I do believe lots of junk found its way into the NT textual copies from the Alexandrian community, I maintain all of the NT was originally published in Greek. Perhaps Matthew's early notes were in Aramaic, but I'm satisfied his Gospel came out in Greek, in part because it's hard to imagine he couldn't read and write it in his business before his calling to follow Christ.
I'm at peace with my current answers to such questions. Call me a "hardhead" but nothing has shaken me much in the past decade. I have too many other tasks from God to revisit such issues.
posted
In a thread on the English Word Church, LA brought up something called the burned over district of the 1800s (which was news to me). As an example, she used the matter of women wearing head coverings as is described at length in I Cor 11 (where also, i discussed it in a thread on women teachers). Per a rejection of burned over doctrines, women are now free to do whatever they want to on this issue, whereas in the 19th century, there was at least some effort for women to wear a hat, doily on something on their heads. Perhaps now, as a fall out of the Charismatic and New Age motions (where truly, anything goes), women have been freed from I Cor 11. Surely, this is a great change in Christendom.
For 2000 years Christians worked overtime to do away with all laws and rules in the OT which defined sin. They claimed that the NT substituted a new set of laws and rules and that it was only this NT stuff that Christians had to obey. Now, per this burned over district thing, Christians are not even obligated to obey the NT. They can be their own gods (per Gen 3) and do whatever they please without any laws or rules saying otherwise.
In deciding what is sin, the NT says that by the law (the OT Torah) is the knowlege of sin (Rom 3:20); for where there is no law, there is no transgression (Rom 4:15); sin is not imputed when there is no law (Rom 5:13); and he (Shaul) had not known sin, but by the law (Rom 7:7). Thus, sin is the transgression of the law (I Jo 3:4). Every failure to obey YHWH's law is sin (I Jo 5:17, J. B. Phillips Translation). To have and define sin, YHWH's OT laws must be present. There is no other way.
In abolishing the OT and OT laws (the Torah), Christians like to hop on Matt 5:17 and claim that The MESSIAH ended the OT law when He "fulfilled it." If that happened He would be a bumbling idiot not worthy of worship. After all, He said in the same text "think not that I am come to destroy the law..." Yet Christians say that that was exactly what He did. Well, i would suggest that He would never be such a fool to contradict himself in the same text.
The English fulfill comes from the Greek pleroo. Per Jamieson, Fausset & Brown's repected commentary, it means "to live fully." Yes, He didn't come to destroy the OT law, He came to live it fully without sin. Now if you won't accept that, then take a look at the contextual uses of the word pleroo elsewhere in the NT. For example, it is used in Matt 3:15 on righteousness. Did all righteousness end because it was fulfilled? Mk 1:15 uses it in reference to time. Did time end because of pleroo? How about Lu 2:40 and pleroo on wisdom. Did wisdom end with pleroo? Jo 16:24 and Acts 2:28 use with it joy. Did joy end with pleroo? It blows my mind how Christians can "invent" some idea which makes The MESSIAH out to be an utter fool.
Hebrews 9:16-17 above discusses the fact that once a man is dead, it is impossible to change his last will and testiment. If Matt 5 didn't change anything, where then did it change before His death? Christians then jump on the so-called new covenant and say it changed everything they disapprove of. i wonder how many Christians have actully sat down with a concordance and dictionary to see what the so-called "new" covenant is all about. I doubt if many have ever looked at it because if they did, they would be in for a shock. It doesn't say what Christians say at all.
The words start in the OT Hebrew where they are the berit hadahah which can mean "renewed." Renewed is sort of like refresh on one's computer screen. Anyway both the OT and NT references on this are manifestly clear that the issue concerns a renewal of the OT covenant which YHWH had with Israel. As of today, it is still future. Contrary to all the hype, it simply has not happened yet.
Isa 59:20-21 alludes to it where its purpose is stated to turn the Israelites from their transgressions. But it is Jer 31:33 which really defines what it is all about. Here, YHWH says that He will make a (renewed) covenant with the House of Yisrael (which is described in the thread in this forum on the Recipients of the Good News) and He will place His law in their hearts. Why? Well, verse 32 says it. They broke His law. Therefore, He will make a renewed covenant with the House of Yisrael (NOT CHRISTIANITY, the Jews or other people of the world). Why will the Old Covenant have to be renewed? Because YHWH divorced His wife the House of Yisrael (Jer 3). He did not divorce His other wife, the House of Yehudah. When He divorced Yisrael (with the Assyrian captivity), she lost His name, His sign of identification, His language and everything else of religious significance. That's why she became in secular history, lost Yisrael. Ezek 37:26 cites it and says that it will become reality in the future Messianic kingdom when YESHUA returns to rule the earth with a rod of iron.
In the NT, Rom 11:26-27 mentions it and says "all Israel" (that includes both the House of Yehudah and the House of Yisrael which have been divided for the last 2700 years) shall be saved when He takes away their sins. Hebrews 8:10 sums it up and repeats Jer 31:33. It says that this coming Covenant that YHWH will make "will" in the future be made with the House of Yisrael. After those days, or in those later days (per Goodspeed), YHWH will put His laws in their hearts and minds.
Why? Because historically, Yisrael has always been rebellious, evil and in sin in defiance of the former covenant YHWH made with them (per Jer 31:32). In the coming future Messianic kingdom (on earth by the way and not in heaven), YHWH comes as YESHUA to accomplish all these prophecies when at last Israel will learn to live the law and obey it. He will put it in their hearts and minds in such a way that the people of the House of Israel (who have been in sin and rebellion in their entire history) will at last have in their hearts and minds a desire and will to start obeying. Once they start obeying and living the law fully (as YESHUA did), sin will end (at least for the House of Israel).
To recap, YHWH made a covenant with all Israel when He brought her out of Egypt (in Exodus). But Israel always disobeyed and refused to abide by the covenant. The kingdom split into two houses. YHWH remained married to Yehudah (the Jews), but He divorced the House of Isrsel and sent her into Assyrian captivity. Per the prophets, her captivity ended. But she remained in sin and transgression. SO YHWH promised a renewal of the Covenant whereby He will put His laws into their hearts and minds in such a way that they will willingly obey and start living fully the laws which they transgressed heretofore.
This time occurs in the future Messianic age and specifically at the wedding supper of YESHUA (Rev 21:2-9). The bride, New Jerusalem, is elsewhere defined as Israel. Yes, He will remarry a unified Israel. That's when the renewed covenant will be made with Israel. All of this is future. There is no new covenant in effect today. And when it happens, the Word says it will be between YHWH and Israel--not the Christian Church and not the billions of people living around the world. Now maybe some can see why the great commission was never to the world. It was to the lost sheep of the House of Israel.
So did change happen during YESHUA's life in the NT? No way Jose/Hose!
Some words on the work of Shaul (whom Christians call Paul). Here's what he says about YHWH's laws. Faith does not void the law; but establishes it (Rom 3:31); that where sin abounds, grace did much more abound (Rom 5:20-21), therefore, should the believer should continue in sin so that grace would abound (Rom 6:1-2)? The answer is no!
He then added that the hearers of the law (the Torah) only would not be justified, but the doers of the law (the Torah) would be justified (Rom 2:13); that the law (the Torah) was kodesh (holy in the KJV), just and good (Rom 7:12; I Tim 1:8), that he delighted in it (Rom 7:22), and that he (Shaul) served (obeyed) the law (Torah--Rom 7:25). So did Shaul change anything?
Here's a few other relevant messages. Proverbs 28:9 says that if a man won't hear the law, then even his prayer is an abomination. A number of texts say the same thing--Job 35:3; Prov 15:29; Isa 59:1-3; Mic 3:4; Zech 7:12-13; Jo 9:31. Actually, the Word is that YHWH will not even listen to the prayers of people in sin (in transgressing the law).
Lu 16:31 cites YESHUA as saying that if a person won't hear Moshe,then that person won't hear Him. Jo 5:46-47 adds that if a person won't believe Moshe, he won't believe YESHUA.
There is a great text at Matt 5:19. It says that whomsoever breaks the least of YHWH's commandments and teaches others to break them will be least in YESHUA's coming kingdom. Whomsoever obeys and teaches others to obey shall be great. So if you want to be great one day, not today, then obey and teach others to obey. If i have an agenda, it is that!
posted
I'm not sure which laws you feel "Christians" have done away with. Perhaps you could come right out and give specifics? What you have said here is certainly not accessible to "the little child" whom Jesus pointed to as the model of how we follow him.
Jesus substituted the law of Love for the law of Moses. The law of inner righteousness supplants the law of legalism. The point of the law of Moses was to require people to not violate one another by doing things they wouldn't want done to them. No one wants to be lied to, cheated, betrayed or abandoned in their old age. Oddly enough, Hebrew history up to that point was full of such things - God was taking away the acceptability of tribal warfare and crimes that to us are obviously wrong, but were evidently not avoided by the Hebrews (such as Abraham lying to Pharaoh, Jacob's boys murdering the Shechemites, Rachel stealing her father's idols) and codifying a global standard of conduct that would make sense anywhere. That is, the ten commandments.
He also implemented religious practices that filled the void that would be created when the people stopped worshiping the gods of the Egyptians. He filled their lives with ceremony. Was it not this ceremony that was "fulfilled" by Jesus' final sacrifice -- sacrifices, festivals and priestly ornamentation? We now are welcome into the Holy of Holies just as we are, cleansed in the blood. We now have "sabbath rest" every day, for we no longer have to work for divine favor - it is granted. We no longer need a high priest in fancy garb, for we have a High Priest who is ever interceding.
Jesus raised the standard by saying, not only to refrain from these acts of wickedness, but to do higher good to all. Without a new heart, and a new mind, even the Ten Commandments were beyond our ability to keep. But as a Christian, the standard is higher, not lower, if I follow Christ's commands instead of Rabbinical commentary.
Jesus came "incognito" - he followed the customs and traditions of his community in any way that they did not violate the laws of God (with the exception of Sabbath-breaking, which he did, explaining the higher law - of love- as his pretext). Jesus then made clear that the law of Moses was supposed to be about the heart, not about outward forms of dress or worship.
So, taking women's head coverings as an example. If I were to wear a head covering all the time, or every time I speak the Word or pray (which is pretty much all day long) or speak prophetically to an unbeliever (which I do every chance I get) then I would not be "incognito" I would be "weirdo". While it is true that there is a certain attraction to groups like the Amish which make a spectacle of themselves in outward appearance, it is not the Jesus way. No one remarked on his appearance, except Isaiah who said that nothing in his appearance would make us notice him!
So, I walk around bareheaded. I speak bareheaded. That is my "suburban mom camouflage". I would rather dress differently - I'm a big fan of victorian modesty. I like outward piety! But it is not about me - it is about my neighbors!
"Whomsoever obeys and teaches others to obey shall be great..." We are to lead them to obey by example... and the first example we set is by living out the Cross-Life in a way that any sinner, great or small, can observe and say, "I can do that!" rather than, "I can't do that because I can't see past your outfit."
Jesus scolded the Pharisees and teachers of the law for putting "heavy yokes on others... and not lifting a hand". I think Levitical law is such a yoke. The Way of Jesus can be lived out without taking on the yoke of religion. If I am "loving my neighbor as myself" I am doing everything the Law of Moses required! So, I will set an example of a peaceful life - but I will probably not light candles at sunset on Friday night. I will not condemn such things, but if God does not reveal a clear profit, I probably will not do them. You and I are free in these "matters of New Moons, Festivals and Sabbaths" according to Shaul, right?
I can understand the attraction to living the Jewish way - it reduces the need to walk by the Spirit if we are dictated to all day long about outward practices. "Whom the Son sets free is free indeed". There is a price to that freedom - I have only principles to guide me - not rituals.
So, I guess the question is, are you siding with the Judaizers of the early church? If so, does that mean you don't hold the writings of Paul to be God's word? I'm not sure I understand you on that.
Blessings to you, Glory to Him, Laurie Ann
-------------------- You & Me and Jesus. We are enough!
Gotta jump in here... Did you just accuse Jesus of breaking the Sabbath commandment? Scripture plainly tells us that no sin was found in Jesus. He kept the law perfectly. He came to "fulfil the law" not destroy it nor break it. But if a person breaks the law then they sin for "sin is the transgression of the law." If you accuse Jesus of breaking the law then you find sin in him who had no sin.
Perhaps what you meant to say was that Jesus magnified the law showing us the spiritual side of it. He was accused of breaking the Sabbath, as were his disciples when they picked grain. But these accusations came from the Jewish religious leaders. Of his relationship with his Father he said, "My Father hasn't left me along, for I do always those things which please him." Actually, Jesus kept the Sabbath command as it was meant to be kept when he gave it on Mt. Sinai. What Jesus broke was the burden that the Pharisees had placed upon the Sabbath in order that they might demonstrate their own piety.
You seem to distinguish between Jesus' "law of love" and the "law of Moses." Who gave those laws to Moses? Did Moses make them up or did God write them on tables of stone with his own finger? And, apparently, you have never read that to love one's neighbor is accomplished in keeping all the commandments. "For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself." "For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself." "Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law."
Did you catch that? "Love is the fulfilling of the law." Therefore, since God is love and Jesus is truly God then surely Jesus fulfilled the law--for he has the greatest love of all. Now the converse should also hold true. If you do not fulfill the law--you lie, covet, cheat on your spouse (lust after another), hate without cause, etc...-- then you cannot possibly love your neighbor. Why, you don't even love yourself. Don't try to separate love for neighbor from keeping the law. The law of God is a law of love and liberty to all and for all. By the keeping of its precepts is the only sure guarantee that every human being can pursue life, liberty, and happiness. Otherwise, every man is for himself and we know the consequences of that route.
What was the Old Covenant? God said, "Keep my laws and statutes" and the people said, "All that they Lord has said, we will do." This was symbolized by the writing of the law on tables of stone by the finger of God. Their hearts were hard and cold. Therefore, they could not obey because they lacked the heartfelt love for God.
What is the New Covenant? God said, "I will write my laws in their hearts and minds." "Not in table of stone, but in fleshy tables of the heart." "Written not with ink, but with the spirit of the living God."
The law did not change but the application of it to our lives certainly did change. What Israel of old failed to do in that their flesh was weak, God did by sending his own son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemning sin in the flesh. How did he condemn sin? By taking on our weak flesh and fulfilling, or keeping, all the law perfectly without fault. (See Romans 8:3).
Now, what about our new birth? Our natural birth was of the flesh. Our new birth is spiritual. Of whom was our natural birth? Of our parents with their sinful natures and propensity toward sin. Was it possible for them to give us a perfect, noble character? No. They could not give us what they did not possess themselves. But, of whom is our spiritual birth? It is of Jesus? Do we then now posses the nature given to us by our natural parents? Or, do we now posses the nature of Christ? We are made partakers of the "divine nature" by virtue of the exceeding great and precious promises of God. (See 2Peter 1:4). "Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new." (2Cor 5:17).
Do you believe this? The Jews did not believe this and having not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God, went about to establish their own righteousness. (See Romans 10:3). Therefore, God swore they would never enter into his rest by the works of the law. (See Hebrews 3:17-4:10).
What does it mean that they went about to establish their own righteousness? They would not submit to obey God but hardened their hearts. Yet, they took upon themselves a form of godliness but it lacked the power of a true godly life. They had just enough religion to make themselves feel pious, yet not enough to actually enter into the rest that Jesus promises.
What is the rest that Jesus promises? Could it be restful to have to worry about keeping a list of commandments? Now, that would be burdensome. But Jesus tells us how to enter into that rest while still keeping the law? He says, "If you love me, keep my commandments." It is when we truly love Jesus that we delight to do his will. Then obedience is a joy and not a burden. It becomes a light burden, easy to carry. "For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous."
So if you do not truly love Jesus--and you cannot love him in truth unless you know the truth--then first learn to love him and then you will want to obey him. If you try to obey him without first learning to love him then it will be difficult, burdensome, and grievous, and you will not be at rest. One way to approach the matter is to reacquaint yourself with your Saviour. Understand for yourself why he is called Saviour and why he had to die on the cross. When you look into his holy law and realize how short you have come and the wages you have earned then you will move fully appreciate his loving sacrifice for you and you will love him even more. Then the scripture will be fulfilled which says that the law is our schoolmaster to bring us to Christ that we might be justified, not by our works, but by faith in Jesus. (See Gal 3:24).
As you learn more truth about Jesus you will learn to love him more and more. The law can never save or justify the sinner. But Christ can. What the law can do is to make us painfully aware of our shortcomings, our inability to keep it in our own strength, our final wages for sin, and thus drive us to seek safety in Jesus as our Saviour--our only hope.
posted
Western law has four main definitons. There is constitutional law, the supreme law of the land (supposedly). Next there is legislative statutory laws which are made to implement constitutional law. Next, there is judicial law which arises from court decisions made to interpret the constitutional and statutory laws. Finally, there are local ordnances which local government agencies enact on purely local matters--like street speed limits, no smoking ordnances, etc. Local ordnances are limited in time, area or otherwise.
The Torah defines precisely the same type of law arrangment. There are the ten things or words (Hebrew davar) which are YHWHs's supreme constitutional law. Next, the Torah has statutory laws (Hebrew choq), judicial decisions/judgments (Hebrew mishpat) and ordnances (Hebrew chuqqah, mainly in the book of Leviticus). The ordnances deal with the Temple and the sacrificial system which were local in application to Jerusalem, obviously while the Temple stood. All are called commandments (Hebrew Mitzwot plural or mitzwah singular).
The Torah (Gen-Deut) has 613 of these laws. The ten commandments, words or things are the basic constitutional laws defined by The ONE LAWGIVER YHWH. The Torah gives the statutes which define and tell how to keep the ten words. For example, one of the ten deals with adultery. In Statutes, YHWH has presented a series of laws which define legal marriage, divorce, adultery, fornication and on and on. It is impossible to know, understand and properly keep the ten words without understanding and relying upon YHWH's statutes and indeed judgements.
After the book of Deuteronomy, the OT prophets and writers all issued judgments or interpretations of the law in given situations (and how the people were violating the Torah). In addition, this is what YESHUA and the NT writers did. They gave judicial decisions on the ten words, the statutes and judgments. That's why YESHUA and Shaul wrote at length about marriage, fornication, etc. There are 1,050 of these NT judgments, far more than are the basic laws in the Torah. WHile 1663 may seem a lot, they are nothing compared to US law where there are over 20,000 US government laws in effect (not counting the tens of thousands in the US states) which can send you or me to jail. WHile the 2d amendment says Congress shall not infringe on the right to bear arms, there are over 2000 laws in effect which precisely infringes on this alleged right.
Question, why is it that Christian Americans sit back and accept the mass of laws which Washington imposes, yet complain about the relatively few (comparatively) which YHWH sets forth? YHWH's 1663 are nothing compared to Washington and the 50 US states.
posted
One of the enigmas of the modern Christian culture is that if one takes a pro support position of YHWH's laws, the immediate reaction from many Christians is that they enter a trance state and begin throwing out words of opposition about legalism, legalist or Judaizer (and once, on this forum, i was called a heretic). Then these Christians offer a supposed contrast for themselves by claiming that they've got the spirit, are spiritual, have love, are holy, and so forth (meaning that somehow, YHWH's laws do not apply to them).
On these words of hate/opposition, it is amazing that they are not defined or described in the Hebrew and Greek Scriptures (here, Phil 3:2's words are in some translations and not in the Greek). In fact, they are not even broached in the Hebrew and Greek Scriptures. Since they seem foreign to the Book, one must wonder why such loving Christians use them to attack YHWH's laws that define righteousness, good and evil.
So here is a challenge to those Christians which use the words Judaizer, legalist or legalism to attack YHWH's laws. Can you please find Scriptures which define those terms and apply them in oppositon to YHWH's Torah? Frankly, i don't believe there is any basis for this common Christian attack on the Torah. But since those terms have been shot at me, their supporters must be given a chance to Scripturally defend their choice of words.
By the way, the Psalms (especially PS 119) gives David's great love for the Torah/law (even after being severly chastened by it). Would you allow that the people back then called him a Judaizer or legalist?
But then he probably knew and understood the idea contained in Matt 5:19 that one who breaks and opposes the least of YHWH's laws will be least in the coming kingdom; while he who obeys the least and teaches others to obey the least will be great in that kingdom.
posted
Of course, Jeff is right. It is utterly absurd to accuse the NT MESSIAH of breaking the Sabbath or any other Scriptural edict. He obeyed them all perfectly. There is a problem and it's not with the Scriptures. The problem is with Christians who are locked in fiction and myths that they were taught since childhood that are totally unscriptural. And how can you induce study, learning and understanding from ignorant Christians (who know almost nothing about the Word except for a little nonsense and garbage--or crap as most people would say today in our modern Christian society)?
In truth there were some 24 different sects of Judaism in 2d Temple days. They were sharply divided (not as bad as Christendom with its 40,000 sects of Babylonian confusion). The Pharisees (and YESHUA, Shaul and the others were all Pharisees contrary to Christian ignorance and confusion) were divided into two groups--Shammai and Hillel (with some 357 doctrinal differences between them). These groups were further divided. The Hillelites from the Galilee had subs like the Hasidem, Nazarenes, etc. Probably the Haverim were a reality in the Shammai sect (although it could have come along a little later).
Beyond the legitimate judgments (in the Tanakh), all these different sects had their ideas and thinking on issues. This would have been no big deal. But too bad as many people then were like they are today. In ignorance, they jump in and start spouting their mouths off about things which they are simply ignorant and uniformed on (and that's one of the contributing reasons for the 40,000 different Christian sects).
The Talmud was not yet finalized in writing but it reflected all of these differences--mainly in the vein of opinion. The Shammai had their beliefs and they relied heavily on the Mishna (which was interpretations over the years on the Torah). The Mishna has a set of "rules" for keeping the Sabbath (like on practicing medicine which was prohibited on the Sabbath day; how many grains of wheat you could pull and eat on a Sabbath day; and multitudes of other things). The Haverim were fanatics over ritual cleanness--like how many times a day one had to ritually dip his hands in water.
By the way, many of the Shammai were racial Amalekites and not real Jews at all. They were all show and nothing in terms of obedience (they are indicted for their hypocrisy in Mt 23. When reading Mt 23, one can see the parallels with Christians who also are prone to hypocrisy. In fact almost all men love to be hypocrites by saying one thing and doing another).
In general, the Hillelites disagreed with most of this stuff from Shammai and the Haverim. YESHUA was categorically a Hillel Pharisee. There are numerous proofs of this. But i will give one. He was a Rabbi and the Rabbi office was exclusive for the Pharisees. If a man was a Rabbi then he had to be a Pharisee.
The NT often uses the expression "traditions of the elders" to describe this opinion. Most, much or all of this was not Scriptural. It was opinion just like the nonsense put forth by modern Christians who have not the foggiest notion of what they are talking about. For pride and vanity reasons, people want to be teachers and leaders over other people. This reality affects Christians generally and especially in the ICs (but also in the House groups as well).
James 3:1 has some wisdom here. The KJV uses the word masters but the Greek refers to teachers. Yes, all would be teachers are going to face a more severe judgment from YHWH one day (maybe a double judgment). Why? Their stupid nonsense can lead ignorant/innocent people into sin and depravity. The point is that would be teachers had better settle down and do some study and learning of the Book before they shoot their mouths off on things they simply don't understand.
By the way, Judaism largely (not completely) adopted the Hillel teachings after the fall of Jerusalem. Even today, in Israel, on Yom Kippur or any other Sabbath, one can hear sirens. Yes, hospitals and medical practictioners practice their offices on any and everyday without restriction. Yet, from the Mishna, the case might can be made that they are wrong.
The point is that some Jews back then accused YESHUA of violating their rules. Of course, He either ignored them and/or in some instances shot their ignorance down with truth. Yes, there were idiots/fools involved in religion back then just like today. Like Shlomo wrote in Eccelesiastes, there is nothing new under the sun.
Many Christians like to criticize and condemn the law (the Torah); all the while that they walk around and claim that they are “righteous and good” because they practice what they call “love,” as if there is no love apart from their mis-interpretations of the Word.
The Apostle Yohanan wrote a fascinating little remark when he said that everyone that loves knows The ELOHIM and everyone who does not know The ELOHIM does not love (I Jo 4:7-8). Therefore, Scriptural love is closely attached to a knowledge of The MOST HIGH. The acquisition of knowledge involves study. Is it possible to love without Scriptural study?
In another instance, Yohanan wrote that one must not “love” in speech and talk, but must love in deeds, actions and in truth (I Jo 3:18). Can one love if he or she merely talks about it and has no deeds and acts of love? Can one love if he or she is not in truth? It doesn’t seem possible, does it?
The Two Great Summaries of the Law
On love, The MESSIAH had some choice remarks when He quoted Moshe and the Torah (Matt 22:35-39; Mk 12:28-33; Lu 10:27) by saying that the duty of His followers was and is to love The ELOHIM first with all of their hearts, souls and mights (quoting the shema at Deut 6:4-5; and second, to love their (Hebrew) rea (translated as neighbour) as themselves (quoting Lev 19:18).
YESHUA then went on to declare that all of the law (Torah) and prophets (which are two of the three main sections or divisions of the Hebrew Tanakh) hang on these two great commands from the law (Torah) which He had just recited (Matt 22:40). In effect, He was saying that the two great commands were summaries merely of all of the law in the Old Testament Scriptures.
In an article on the “Decalogue and the New Testament” in the Nov/Dec 1990 “Jerusalem Perspective” (p. 6-8), former Hebrew University Professor David Flusser said that in Second Temple days, people held that the first five commandments in the Decalogue (Ex 20) were summarized by love of The MOST HIGH, and that the second five commandments summarized love of neighbour (Hebrew rea).
Flusser quoted the famous teacher, Hillel, who commented on the Jewish golden rule of love of rea, and said that it was “the whole Torah (law or instruction from Genesis to Deuteronomy) and all the rest is explication (meaning that The ELOHIM’s commandments simply spell out and interpret the golden rule)--go and learn it.”
This distinction between commandments expressing love of The ELOHIM, as opposed to love of rea, can be identified by two different Hebrew concepts. Commandments outlining love of YHWH are called “mishpatim,” while those indicating love of a rea are called “chukkim” (“Soncino Books of the Bible,” Ezekiel, p. 25).
In another wonderfully related statement, The MESSIAH also declared that “whatever you wish that men would do to you, do so to them; for this is the Torah and the Prophets” (Matt 7:12) or as R. Akiva stated “you shall love your neighbor as yourself” and as Hillel put it to a pagan “what is hateful to you, do not do to anyone else” (Talmud, Shabbat 31a, per Flusser).
Shaul gets in on this question of love when he wrote that love of one’s “rea” constituted or summarized the latter five of the Ten Commandments (relating to obligations one Israelite was to have toward his fellow Israelites) given by The SUPREME to Moshe at Sinai (Ex 20:13-17; Rom 13:8-10).
As David Flusser pointed out, this thinking prevailed among religious Jews in Second Temple days (Nov/Dec 1990 “Jerusalem Perspective,” p. 6-8).
Since the part of the Ten Commandments that regulated Israelites’ duties to each other was summarized in the law by the “love of rea” (Lev 19:18), then is it not apparent that the first five commandments (Ex 20:1-10) are likewise summarized in the shema in love of The HIGHEST (Deut 6:4-5), as held in Second Temple Judaism (and as mentioned by David Flusser)?
The place one must come to on this line is that when one does not steal from his rea, does not covet the property of his rea, does not murder his rea, etc, then that constitutes love of his rea. Likewise, when one worships The ELOHIM alone, does not practice idolatry, does not misuse the name of YHWH and observes and keeps YAH’s Seventh day Sabbath, then that constitutes love of The SOVEREIGN YHWH.
Consequently, when a person obeys, accomplishes and fulfills (not terminates) The CREATOR’s mitzwot (from the Old Testament), then such actions and deeds constitute love (Rom 13:8, 10; Gal 5:14).
Of course, other New Testament writers would repeatedly echo this truth by saying that the keeping of YHWH’s laws and commandments represent love (Jo 14:15, 21-24; 15:9-20; I Jo 2:3-5; 3:10-18; 3:22-24; 5:2-3; II Jo 1:6).
Love Equals the Law and the Law Equals Love
So therefore, love summarizes the entire Torah (I Jo 4:7-21). Obviously, this axiom can be restated to say that obedience of the Torah equals and means the same thing as love.
Thus, when one fulfills (obeys) the law (Torah), then he/she has loved or when one loves, he/she has fulfilled (accomplished, not terminated) the law (Rom 13:8). Some more examples of this linkage can be recognized clearly when one looks carefully at some specific laws.
The law expressly stated that a Hebrew slave was to be freed in the seventh year (Ex 21:2); that one should not afflict or wrong the widow, orphan, deaf, blind or poor hired servant (Ex 22:22; Lev 19:14; Deut 24:14-15); that one should use just weights (Lev 19:35-36); and that one should even show mercy to dumb animals, as touched upon previously (Ex 23:4-5, 10-12; Deut 22:1-4, 6-7, 10; 25:4); etc.
In terms of having a welfare system, the Word (specifically the Torah) defines the best one of all. For example, the Torah says that a farmer should leave some of his agricultural crops in the field for the needy to harvest for sustenance.
Yes, the produce is to be left in the field for the poor to harvest for food because the Book declares that he who won’t work is not to eat (Ex 23:10-11; Deut 24:19-22; II Thes 3:10). Thus, the poor will have food to eat if they work for it.
In regards to fair play with the rea (a Hebrew word meaning racial kinsmen), the law prescribes that a fair price be paid and received in commercial transactions (Lev 25:14) and that no interest be charged on loans to a brother (Ex 22:25; Lev 25:35-37; Deut 23:19; Neh 5:7) under penalty of death (Ezek 18:8,13,17; 22:12).
Most people can never get it through their heads, but these laws contain the greatest concepts of charity in existence. They establish broad principles of doing true good to others. What a shame it is that liberals, do-gooders, and misinformed humanitarians know nothing about YHWH’s wonderful mitzwot and they could care less about finding out about them as well.
Beyond all of these marvelous and wonderful laws, there is still one more that is most gracious and compassionate. Moshe wrote it by saying that if thy brother be waxen poor, then we are to uphold him and not take increase from him (Lev 25:35-36). In short, the believer is commanded to help and support needy brethren according to their needs and to take no profit or gain from them in any circumstance.
“Maimonides The Commandments” perceptively notes on this charity commandment that the distribution of charity is the distinguishing mark of righteousness in the seed of Avraham--per the commandment to his descendants to keep the way of YHWH and do righteousness and justice (Gen 18:19).
Also, the Israelites individually were commanded to give generously (by law) to their poor brethren (Deut 15:7-11). Actually, there are a host of mitzwot in the Torah which offer specifics on accomplishing charity in the context of righteousness and justice.
Moreover, the prophets had many remarks and observations to report over the years on this issue as well. For example, Isaiah 54:14 can be interpreted to teach that Yisrael will not be established, nor will the true faith endure, save through charity (“Maimonides The Commandments,” p. 209).
Finally, as Maimonides reported (p. 209), quoting the Talmud, the best charity is done in secret. And from the Mishnah, he said that there was a chamber in the Temple called the “Chamber of the Silent” where the rich placed their alms and the poor secretly received them, in ignorance of each other’s identity.
Love Is Obedience of YAH’s Torah
Therefore, beyond the clear statements in the law (Torah) about the variously described positive and negative duties, The MESSIAH communicated that the law (Torah) also contains some “weightier” matters like judgment, loyalty (Hebrew hesed) and faith (Matt 23:23, apparently quoting Mic 6:8) which are an integral part of the law (Torah) and must be obeyed as well (i.e. Ex 23:2; Lev 19:15; Deut 24:16-18; 25:1).
This category likely includes some of YHWH’s wonderful laws on charity, as mentioned above. Isn’t it patently clear that when one obeys the law (the Torah), he or she is expressing love? Manifestly, love is the obedience of YHWH’s Torah.
The Apostle Shaul wrote a fascinating little dissertation on the importance of love to the Corinthians (I Cor 13:1-12). In that message, he used the Greek word “agape” which is best translated as “love.” Mistakenly, the King James translation used the word “charity” here instead of love. But the reader can recognize the issue of love.
As Shaul put it, nothing matters in truth beyond love (obedience of YHWH’s law/Torah). Thus, if a person gives all of his money away to feed the poor and he has not love, it means zero. If he has all knowledge and understanding, but lacks love, he is nothing. If he has all faith and no love, his faith means zero.
And if he gives his body up to be burned alive at the stake (because of that faith, as so many religious martyrs have done over the centuries), it means absolutely nothing without love (obedience of YAH’s Torah).
What a tragedy it has been that millions of Christian martyrs died (many by being burned alive at the stake by their fellow Christians--the ruling Catholic authorities and/or sometimes Protestant governments), all the while that they flagrantly disobeyed YAH’s laws on the premise that they were abolished. Was it love for these people to die while disobeying YHWH’s Torah?
Distinguishing Between the Physical and the Spiritual
This mention by YESHUA of weightier matters in the Torah brings up a need for some clarification. It is true that there are a host of commandments which are expressed literally and involve physical actions (as most of the 613 mitzwot precisely state). But there are spiritual aspects of obeying YHWH’s Torah, as outlined in Matthew 23 when YESHUA condemned certain scribes and Pharisees for their hypocrisy.
In an article on “Work’s Righteousness” (p. 9), the previously cited Oct-Dec 1999 Hebrew Roots distinguishes between obeying the letter of the law so as to appear righteous before men, and the spirit of the law so as to appear righteous before The ELOHIM (which is the message of Matthew 23--in that men can appear righteous and good on the outside while they are evil and bad on the inside).
This Hebrew Roots’ article gives the illustration of the letter of the law which prohibits murder. However, the spirit of the law goes beyond that to prohibit hatred (as often, the real basis for murder) which is beyond the letter of the law in order to reach out to what is in one’s heart (hatred) besides what is in one’s hand (murder).
The whole thrust of Matthew 23 and indeed much of the NT addresses both of these aspects of obeying the Torah. As YESHUA demonstrates, it is simply not enough to flee from murder. But also, there is the need to not even contemplate hate (which can produce murder).
Many uninformed Christians wish to believe that they obey and respond to the spiritual aspects of righteousness, as taught in the New Testament. But if one does not obey the Torah literally and physically as it reads, how in the world can he argue that he keeps the weightier, spiritual aspects of the Torah. Obviously, obedience involves obeying both the physical and spiritual aspects of the Torah.
In Matthew 23:23, The MESSIAH focused upon tithing--which was a very physical, literal requirement of the Torah. As YESHUA said, this physical law should have been obeyed in its literal sense (“these ought ye to have done,” as stated in the KJV). But it is then that He goes beyond the physical into the realm of the spiritual in terms of what is in the heart.
Incidentally, many or most of these Christians (who march around and claim to be in Scriptural love--because of something that they say is in their hearts) inevitably offer a very physical illustration of how wrong they are. Most of them are very self righteous and proud. Of course, pride is sin and it cuts proud people off from The HIGHEST.
Yet, many of these Christians brag and boast about their supposed righteousness. They inevitably enter into a trance to start mumbling something about being saved (right now) and going to heaven and that they are good. Once they start bragging about being saved and being among the righteous saints, they are expressing pride and vanity (especially since most of them are hypocrites, wallowing in blatant sin).
The Torah Is Righteousness
Much of Christendom can never get it or ever be able to understand it, but it is the Torah which establishes righteousness. YAH’s mitzwot provide the standards of truth which measure and define righteousness and unrighteousness (Deut 6:25; Ps 119:106, 160; Eccl 12:13). And of course, the Torah is truth (Neh 9:13; Ps 111:7-8; 119:160-172).
Since the Torah represents truth, love and righteousness, the Psalmist said that he had affection for the Torah and that it was perfect (Ps 19:7-10; 119:18, 92, 97-106, 160-172). And as noted in some earlier comments, Shaul declared that the law (Torah) was kodesh (translated as holy), just and good; that he delighted in it; and that the doers of the law (Torah) would be justified (Rom 2:13; 7:12, 22; I Tim 1:8).
In regards to this theme that it is the law/Torah which constitutes righteousness, it must be observed that Shaul expressly stated this fact on more than one occasion.
For example, he wrote that Moshe established the righteousness of or in the Torah (Rom 10:5), and that the purpose of The MESSIAH was to bring the believer to that righteousness (Rom 10:4); so that that righteousness (of the Torah) might be fulfilled (the Greek pleroo, meaning performed, lived and accomplished--not terminated) in each believer (Rom 8:4).
Yohanan added that one can know The HIGHEST by keeping His laws (I Jo 2:3); that if one claims to love YHWH and does not keep His commandments, then he is liar (I Jo 2:4); that the patience of the elect people is that they keep the commandments (Rev 14:12); and that blessed are those who do keep the commandments (Rev 22:14).
YESHUA provided some of the most powerful statements of all on the Torah when He declared that one must keep The ELOHIM’s commandments to enter into life (Matt 19:17), and that His disciples are known by their love (obedience of the Torah) for one another (Jo 13:34-35).
Dr Robert L Lindsey, former Pastor of the Narkis Street Baptist Church congregation in Jerusalem, Israel (1945-1952 and 1954-1986), and a Hebrew-Greek scholar of some reputation, wrote at least two books which commented upon the Hebrew concept of righteousness.
In one instance, Lindsey focused his attention on The MESSIAH’s famous Sermon on the Mount where the King James text reads “Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness’ sake: for their’s is the kingdom of heaven” (Matt 5:10).
Lindsey’s study of the underlying Hebrew prompted him to conclude that the statement more correctly should read “blest are the righteousness-driven” (“Jesus, Rabbi & Lord”). Per this interpretation, it was this first century CE righteous driven election (with a passion, zeal and dedication for righteousness [the Torah]) who would see the kingdom of heaven.
In his second important work on this subject, Lindsey directed his attention to the Hebrew concept of righteousness (Hebrew tsedakah, Greek dikaiosyne) and observed that as The ANOINTED ONE used it, it correctly was synonymous with redemption (from “The Jesus Sources: Understanding the Gospels”). Of course, redemption is thoroughly linked to righteousness (the above comments came from v. 3, chap 36 of Ezekiel and YHWH's Jugement for the Good News People, on the Internet at www.ageend.com).
A thank you here must go to Laurie Ann for bringing this issue up. It's qustionable that i would have ever bothered with it, save for LA's push.
quote:Originally posted by RD Bradshaw: Many Christians like to criticize and condemn the law (the Torah); all the while that they walk around and claim that they are righteous...
Who, for instance?
-------------------- You & Me and Jesus. We are enough!
posted
Well, you for instance. But a better illustration would be the thousands/millions of the professional clergy, starting with the popes and going down the line to the other catholic and protestant holinesses/reverends.
Even this forum has had a school trained, ordained minister and professional pastor (per his own words) with Ed Hurst. The professional pastor has several websites wherein he attacks/criticises/condemns others with some regularity--like me (i am #one on his hate list as he charges me with being a mason, kabalist, judaizer and nut case); his former church (a monster as Ed calls it); other religious groups he has had contact with (which he didn't like); apparently some five different web forums/blogs (which he either quit or was kicked off of); Jews, Israel, Judaism, and the Torah/law.
i wish you would not have asked me this question Laurie. But i can answer it easily enough.
posted
Why should i? Laurie you constantly change and alter words/messages you want to address and have a conflict over. Any person above the idiot level can easily go back and see precisely what my words were and what your words were. Laurie you also seem to have an obsession over having conflict with others. Do you ever settle down and try to get along with others? Do you want me to now name and list each of your personal conflicts with others--at least on this forum? Well, if you do, i will now advise anyone interested to go back and look at all of your postings and those of others which relate to you. The words exchanged are laid out and can be esaily accessed.
posted
The NT didn't change the OT. It clarified it for me. As; The wind bloweth where it listeth, and no man can tell whince it cometh, or wheather it goeth, so is everyone born of the Spirit. Take that with you to Ezekiel, and the dry bones, and you'll see that a man becomes Spiritually alive BEFORE he hears God's Minister unto salvation. The wind blew first before they came alive. In the matter of Cain and Abel we see works as opposed to grace. Abel came as God commanded: Cain came with his works. With Adam and the fig leaf (his works) Example; Christ's work in blood must be shed for covering our sins. Typified by the lamb on the altar. Example of the Christian life - The exodus from Egypt to Canaan. The Spiritual meanings: "Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made; He sayeth not to seeds as of many, but as of one, meaning Christ; and if ye be Christ's then are ye Abraham's seed and heirs according to the promise". "The Children of the flesh, these are not the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted for the seed". Rom. 9:8 Also read Gal. Ch.3: vers. 7, 16, and 29. The Spiritual meaning of the types and shadows of the OT are revealed to us through Christ and His NT. By God's Grace. Lionel
Email this page to someone.
