951753

This Site Is No Longer Active

Check out RESTITUTIO.org for new blog entries and podcasts. Feel free to browse through our content here, but we are no longer adding new posts.


Jesus is STILL a Jew

  

The latest from Restoration Fellowship and Anthony Buzzard.

106 Responses to “Jesus is STILL a Jew”

  1. on 16 Jun 2010 at 4:29 pmRon S.

    FIRST! Well actually I do have more to say. 🙂

    Anthony showed a rough cut of this at the Theological Conference at the end of April in Atlanta. The final editing and synchronization that has been done to the piece since then really helped polish it off. Kudos to Carlos & Sara & others that worked on it.

    Overall it is a great piece that we should send and recommend to as many people as we can. And think about that! What if everyone that owns a computer or smart-phone (capable of watching You Tube videos) watched this? How many seeds could be planted in waking people up to the truth of Scripture? How many of those out there who have never bought into the concept of the trinity might start their quest for the real truth?

    And as Anthony discussed in the piece, how many of our Jewish and Islamic brethren would be open to dialog with Christians who believed that God was truly ONE just as they believe. It would go a long way towards opening doors in the future to discussing how Jesus is the Messiah (what Jews don’t believe) and how he will return to resurrect the dead and establish the Kingdom of God in the future age to come – the “Olam Ha Ba” (what Muslims don’t believe).

  2. on 16 Jun 2010 at 8:23 pmDoubting Thomas

    Antioch
    In the other thread (Tolerance among Unitarians msg. 31) you said, “I’m a new Christian (six months ago). My church is Trinitarian. About 4 months ago, I was given the book ‘One God & One Lord”. For the first time I questioned the Trinity.”

    The above ‘You Tube’ link is perfect for someone like yourself. I wish I had access to this kind of material when I first became a Unitarian.

    Anthony Buzzard is a great speaker and is always very good at giving a logical and easy to understand explanation of the Bible and what it is that Jesus actually taught. I’ve already watched the above link twice and I will probably watch it again tomorrow because there is too much info to take it all in on just one viewing…

  3. on 16 Jun 2010 at 8:59 pmXavier

    Ron S.

    Thanx for the compliments but I really didn’t have anything to do with this piece. It was made by a long time associate of Anthony’s, Mark Dockery.

    The following link is for a video I recently did for one of my Sunday preachings:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6sLP5c0pvC8

    Also check out our new RF Youtube page:
    http://www.youtube.com/user/AbrahamicMovement

  4. on 17 Jun 2010 at 6:49 amWolfgang

    Hi there,

    I seem to be missing a whole lot here ….

    (a) after listening to the video clip I am asking myself, What does the title of this thread / video actually have to do with the content that is presented in the clip?

    (b) one could almost get the impression that someone who believes in God and in His Son Jesus Christ better become a Jew and avoid being a Christian ….

    I found this a bit confusing … and the confusion seemed to be rooted in a “re-defining” of terms such as “Jew” / “Christian” / “kingdom” / etc.

    Cheers,
    Wolfgang

  5. on 17 Jun 2010 at 5:12 pmDoubting Thomas

    Xavier
    The 2 links you posted were excellent. I would recommend them to anybody…

  6. on 17 Jun 2010 at 9:01 pmXavier

    Doubting…

    Kuddos! 🙂

  7. on 17 Jun 2010 at 9:12 pmAnthony Buzzard

    Wolfgang, the point is this: Christians of the biblical type are commanded to listen to the Son of God, the final prophet in whose mouth God has placed his words. That said, let us listen to Jesus.
    He quotes the Jewish-biblical unitarian creed. The churches however have gone beyond Jesus and substituted a philosophical Trinitarian creed. Thus Christianity in the the post-biblical sense has gone off-base and left Jesus behind on the most fundamental issue of defining who God is. We call for a return to Jesus’ creed and also to obedience to his command that we repent and believe the Gospel of the Kingdom (Mark 1:14, 15). Hope that is clear. Jesus is still a Jew and as such must be understood in his Hebraic context and not misunderstood in terms of post-biblical Greek philosophy.
    I said nothing about adopting Judaism and everything about following Jesus.

  8. on 17 Jun 2010 at 10:16 pmXavier

    Wolfgang

    one could almost get the impression that someone who believes in God and in His Son Jesus Christ better become a Jew and avoid being a Christian…

    I agree with this statement in part, with a few refinements on tis meaning.

    Due to the Catholic/Protestant induced dogma of the last 2000 years or so the biblical teaching regarding Christianity has been badly obscured and in many places lost all together. We tend to forget that Jesus was a Jew, just like his apostles, ending with Paul [who was a Pharisee!].

    The truth is that in order to fully grasp and understand the scriptures [Old & New Testaments alike] we have to understand not only something about the original languages in which they were composed, but recognize the Ancient Near Eastern context in which they developed.

    Its not about becoming a proselyte or forsaking the label of “Christian”, but about having the mind of Christ, who was a Jew, and the mind of his followers, who were Jewish-Christians!

  9. on 18 Jun 2010 at 8:17 amAnthony Buzzard

    Gentlemen, Try this out on your friends: Christianity is the only world religion which begins by discarding its own founder’s creed!
    This fact ought to be a salutory shock. Is not the creed the most fundamental element of any faith? How is it possible that churches have banned Jesus’ own unitary creed (agreed with a Jewish scribe, Mk 12:29ff.) and substituted, on pain of excommunication, a pagan philosophical creed from Nicea 3:25?! Where are the whistle-blowers to warn that this development is highly dangerous. Christians are to be judged by the words of Jesus. We had better heed him, as God commanded.

  10. on 20 Jun 2010 at 5:46 amWolfgang

    Hello Anthony,

    perhaps you could define the terms “Jew” (respectively “Judaism”) and “Christian” (respectively “Christianity”) as you use them ?

    Were those who are referred to as “Jews” in the NT Scriptures followers of the Lord Jesus Christ or adherents to an OT based (and, at least in part, an apostate) religion?

    Were those who are referred to as “Gentiles” followers and believers in the Lord Jesus Christ or rather folks who did not believe in him and who also were not natural descendants of the 12 tribes of Israel?

    Were those who are referred to as members of the “church of God” believers in and followers of the Lord Jesus Christ who then were also called by the term “Christian”? (cp 1Co 10:32 where Paul uses all 3 terms in one statement)

    Were those of a Gentile background who repented and believed in and became followers of the Lord Jesus Christ biblically speaking still “Gentiles” or had they become members of the “church of God” and thus were now “Christians” rather than “Gentiles”?

    Were those of a Jew background who repented and believed in and became followers of the Lord Jesus Christ biblically speaking still “Jews” or had they become members of the “church of God” and thus were now “Christians” rather than “Jews”?

    Cheers.
    Wolfgang

  11. on 20 Jun 2010 at 6:37 amWolfgang

    Dear Anthony,

    you mention above

    Gentlemen, Try this out on your friends: Christianity is the only world religion which begins by discarding its own founder’s creed!

    Well, I suppose that if one understands “Christianity” to be “a world religion”, then I would need to know what definition or descriptive term one should use for those who are believers in and followers of the Lord Jesus Christ in the biblical sense … since “Christian” would then not be fitting for the biblical followers of Christ?

    Thus far I have sort of utilized the terminology of “Jew”, “Gentile” and “church of God [Christians]” as found in 1Co 10:32 to describe those categories into which people in a somewhat general sense fall. “Jew” (in other NT places described as “the circumcision”) and “Gentile” (in other NT places described as “uncircumcision”) appear to be terms used for those who are not yet members of “church of God” (in other NT places described as “believers”, as those who “believe in (on) the Lord Jesus”, as “Christians”).

    I do think that there is at times far too much emphasis put on “Jewish” in order to somehow counter the various “church club dogmas” … do we really want to become “Jewish”, seeing what the NT scriptures tell us about “the Jews” at the time of Christ and their beliefs ? Is it a good idea to use such “Jewish” thinking as a means to correctly understand the Scriptures when it is more or less obvious and clear that such “Jewish thought” at the time of Christ was incorrect ?

    Where such adherence to “Jewish thought” can lead we know all too well from the arguments of many Trinity teachers with their claims that the Jews in Joh 8 and Joh 10 were right in their beliefs that Jesus was making himself God ??? Was the Jewish understanding of the coming kingdom with Christ as a political leader and deliverer and re-establisher of a “earthly nation” correct, or was it false? etc etc etc …

    As I mentioned above, to me it seems that there are a few things “off track” in correctly understanding the Scriptures when “Jewish thought” at the time of Christ is used as if it were the “universal key” to understanding the Bible. Could it be that perhaps the Jews at the time of Christ had as many things wrong concerning Christ as the later folks who claimed to be “Christian” but adhered to coloured and adjusted polytheistic concepts ?

    Cheers,
    Wolfgang

  12. on 20 Jun 2010 at 10:23 amRay

    Anthony seems to be saying by the quote we see given in post 11, that even though Christ founded Christianity, many of those who were taught by Christ (if indeed they have been taught by him) have turned to worldly ways which are contrary to their founder and that this anomoly makes unique among religions, suggestiong that all other religions strongly adhere to their founder, not seeming to easily depart.

  13. on 21 Jun 2010 at 8:35 amAnthony Buzzard

    Dear Wolfgang. My point is a very simple one. NT Christianity, the religion of Jesus, what he commands us to believe and do, has been corrupted by the world religion known as Christianity. Thus Christianity may refer to the true religion of Jesus (his followers were called Christians). But the term Christianity stands also of course for world religion claiming allegiance to Jesus.
    The Jewishness of Jesus is important in terms of the proper definition of God. Jesus affirmed the Jewish (ie OT Hebrew) creed, which is unitarian.
    However, NT Christianity is not just a copy of biblical Judaism, and Paul fought constantly the tendency of the Moses party to drag Christians back under the Old Covenant.
    My point in “Jesus is still a Jew” is a Christological and theological one, firstly. The creed of Jesus ought to be the creed of all Christians. But this is not the case. Thus obviously post-biblical Christianity has departed from the biblical Christianity of Jesus– at the most fundamental level. The God of Jesus and biblical Christianity is not the Triune God.

  14. on 23 Jun 2010 at 6:09 amJoseph

    I think it can never be stressed enough the importance of the Jewish sh’ma. It is the glue that held together belief in the true Creator of the world through many battles against the misdirection of man.

    I have no problem with the term Christian, but in today’s world it needs to be scrutinized to the core of what exactly does the title Christian mean. We need to realize that the sects of Christianity have much disagreement on who is God, while the sects of Judaism are pretty much all in agreement. We can even learn more from the Jews in this regard, and I think the video posted in this blog does that quite well.

    Anthony,

    I do disagree with you in one point from your last post. Although the NT is not a copy of the OT, it is the Bible that our Apostles and Messiah studied. One thing is clear is that Paul testified himself to the Torah. So it’s not a question of did he try to prohibit those of becoming followers of the Law, rather, emphasized in which way should we follow the Law. He expressed in faith. Why? Because you don’t go to the pagan world and “throw the book at them.” Paul fed them milk, just enough to spread the seed of faith and he emphasized on this. Why?, because true faith must come first and obedience naturally follows. Faith is what defines our true intentions toward our God’s commandments, it is what only God can measure inside of us, and what is immeasurable to man. Paul was not against the Torah, he was in the business of spreading seeds.

    Sorry, don’t want to change the subject here, just wanted to expand on that one point.

  15. on 23 Jun 2010 at 2:19 pmWolfgang

    Hello Anthony,

    you mention

    My point is a very simple one. NT Christianity, the religion of Jesus, what he commands us to believe and do, has been corrupted by the world religion known as Christianity. Thus Christianity may refer to the true religion of Jesus (his followers were called Christians). But the term Christianity stands also of course for world religion claiming allegiance to Jesus.

    I would think it to be a good idea to distinguish and clarify of which “Christianity” one is speaking … I have previously already clarified my use of terms in light of the distinction of 3 groups of people as used by the apostle Paul in 1Co 10:32 …

    The Jewishness of Jesus is important in terms of the proper definition of God. Jesus affirmed the Jewish (ie OT Hebrew) creed, which is unitarian.

    In light of the fact that in the NT scriptures any “Jewishness” seems mostly used for the beliefs / actions of “unbelieving Jews”, one ought perhaps to notice more emphatically the difference between “divine truth” and “Jewish teaching” ? You also make reference to this aspect when you write

    However, NT Christianity is not just a copy of biblical Judaism, and Paul fought constantly the tendency of the Moses party to drag Christians back under the Old Covenant.

    In addition, you mention

    The creed of Jesus ought to be the creed of all Christians. But this is not the case. Thus obviously post-biblical Christianity has departed from the biblical Christianity of Jesus– at the most fundamental level. The God of Jesus and biblical Christianity is not the Triune God

    I certainly agree with this observation. But I would not emphasize “Jew” and “Jewish” here (because of above mentioned concerns) but emphasize — as you do here as well — Jesus’ teachings of “biblical Christianity” rather than speaking about “Jewish roots” or “Jewishness”, etc. …
    Have a great day
    God bless you
    Wolfgang

  16. on 23 Jun 2010 at 8:59 pmAnthony Buzzard

    There is a fallacy involved in saying that Paul only had the OT. Paul was himself producing scripture, as we now know and what Paul said and wrote is scripture for us. Paul waged a relentless war against those who wanted Christians to be circucmcised and observe food laws and sabbath, holy days and new moons. The words of Paul are just as much scripture as the OT, in fact they are the final word to us in the New Covenant.
    I use the word Jewish to describe the creed of Israel and of Jesus because everyone knows that that creed was unitarian.
    The alarming thing is that Christians believe they can be Christians and disregard the teaching of Christ. Thus the Word Biblical Commentary on Mark 12:29 says that “Jesus affirmation of the Shema is not remarkable or specifically Christian.”
    I invite everyone to reflect on that amazing statement!

  17. on 23 Jun 2010 at 9:52 pmrobert

    “Paul waged a relentless war against those who wanted Christians to be circucmcised and observe food laws and sabbath, holy days and new moons.”

    Anthony
    I think you should reconsider this statement because the way it is worded makes it completely false.

    There is a big difference between Gentile Christians and Hebrew Christians.
    Paul never once was against this for the hebrew christians, matter of fact Paul promoted it because the hebrew christians ALSO belonged to the material promise of land which these requirements are vey important.
    But the gentile christians belong to the promise of ALL nations being blessed(GRACE) which has only requirements set forth by Jesus and comes after the land promise to those of the circumcision.
    You need to separate the 2 covenants and 2 callings instead of trying to take the land promise by force(pressing into it)

  18. on 23 Jun 2010 at 10:18 pmXavier

    robert

    Paul never once was against this for the hebrew christians…

    Watch out for those dogs, those evildoers, those mutilators of the flesh. Phil 3.2

    Brethren, 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 of God and sought to establish their own, they did not submit to God’s righteousness. Christ is the culmination of the law so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes. Rom 10

  19. on 23 Jun 2010 at 10:26 pmrobert

    Xavier
    Whats your point
    This is not speaking of Hebrew christians
    This is hebrews who deny christianity.
    NOT ALL JEWS WERE AGAINST CHRISTIANITY.
    To the matter of fact they were many during the apostle’s time.
    Acts deals with both and and paul deals some with hebrew christians while most were gentile christians.
    Maybe you need to reread the whole bible along with the NT because there is a big difference

  20. on 24 Jun 2010 at 12:13 pmXavier

    robert

    My point…the Apostles [like Paul] were against both Hebrews [non-Christians] and Hebrew Christians [Judaizers] of the “circumcision party”.

  21. on 24 Jun 2010 at 1:05 pmrobert

    “My point…the Apostles [like Paul] were against both Hebrews [non-Christians] and Hebrew Christians [Judaizers] of the “circumcision party”. ”

    Xavier
    I think you totally missed my point.
    Yes paul was against Judaizing Gentile christians But was never against a hebrew christian following the law themself.
    The gentile christians were never a part of Israel’s material promises of land as made to Abraham. They are taking into the promise to Abraham to bless ALL nations by the actions of Jesus,this is known as Grace.
    the requirements for the material blessing had never changed throught out the preaching of the apostles but was never a requirement for salvation of which Jew and gentile receive together after the Land blessing promise to Abraham and Israel has been fulfilled during the 1000 year sabbath rest of God in which Jesus will reign over Israel. Salvation comes when the New Heaven and Earth is created. this is the Gospel to the gentiles which paul preached to them.

  22. on 24 Jun 2010 at 10:23 pmXavier

    robert

    Yes paul was against Judaizing Gentile christians But was never against a hebrew christian following the law themself.

    Bro all I can say is read the book of Galatians. For example, according to Gal 3.29 only “in Christ” do people of all nations, bloods, and creeds become the new commonwealth [Israel] of God [Gal 6.16].

    That is the whole point of the New Covenant presented in the NT. All of humanity can be part of the nation of God not by the flesh [of which the Apostles are always teachin against] but through the Spirit.

  23. on 24 Jun 2010 at 11:00 pmrobert

    29 And if ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.

    Xavier
    The above is very correct, you just cant understand what promise
    and as for below you need to see that THEM are separate fromTHE ISRAEL OF GOD. and so you can see there is 2 callings to 2 different promises you should read 1 Corinthians 7:17-24 which is at bottom of this post

    16 As many as walk by this rule, peace and mercy be on them, and on God’s Israel.
    16 And as many as walk according to this rule, peace be on them, and mercy, and upon the Israel of God.
    16 As many as walk by this rule, peace and mercy be on them, and on God’s Israel.
    16 And as many as walke according to this rule, peace shalbe vpon them, and mercie, and vpon the Israel of God.
    16 And who euere suwen this reule, pees on hem, and merci, and on Israel of God.
    16 And as many as shall walk by this rule, peace and mercy be on them and on the Israel of God.

    17 But as God hath distributed to every man, as the Lord hath called every one, so let him walk. And so ordain I in all churches. 18 Is any man called being circumcised? let him not become uncircumcised. Is any called in uncircumcision? let him not be circumcised. 19 Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of God. 20 Let every man abide in the same calling wherein he was called. 21 Art thou called being a servant? care not for it: but if thou mayest be made free, use it rather. 22 For he that is called in the Lord, being a servant, is the Lord’s freeman: [3] likewise also he that is called, being free, is Christ’s servant. 23 Ye are bought with a price; be not ye the servants of men. 24 Brethren, let every man, wherein he is called, therein abide with God.

  24. on 24 Jun 2010 at 11:21 pmXavier

    robert

    NT testifies to one dispensation for all of humanity, not 2 or 3 and certainly not based on blood, creed, nation.

    There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to one hope when you were called; one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all. Eph 4.4-6

    There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, neither male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. Gal 3.28

  25. on 24 Jun 2010 at 11:39 pmrobert

    “NT testifies to one dispensation for all of humanity, not 2 or 3 and certainly not based on blood, creed, nation.”

    Xavier
    Yes exactly
    But thats when the New Heaven and Earth is Created

    I have no idea if i will enter Gods sabbath rest with Jesus as my King But if i follow the morals Jesus taught i am sure i will take part in the New heaven and Earth.

    I can tell you this
    The 1000 year sabbath is for those who separated themselfs from the other nations by following the mosaic law as it was given to Moses and the 10 commandments as it was spoken by God and then after that they will join those dead in christ in the sky waiting for the old earth to be renewed.

  26. on 25 Jun 2010 at 4:13 amMiguel de Servet

    @ Anthony,

    in your YouTube video you remind us of a simple truth:

    “Jesus Is Still A Jew, and God is still the same God of Israel, YHWH.”

    Two immediate accompanying corollaries are that the “trinity” and the “survival of the disembodied soul” are heathen-philosophical lies, that later Christianity filched from the pagan world, and that heavily pollute Christianity to this day.

    But this truth would remain incomplete, if you omitted to say that Jesus is certainly a man, but a rather unique man:

    “Jesus Is The Unique Incarnation of God’s Eternal Word”

    This is NOT made up by later Christianity: it is all in the Bible, It is all in …

    The Prologue to the Gospel of John

    1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was fully God. 2 The Word was with God in the beginning. 3 All things were created by him, and apart from him not one thing was created that has been created. 4 In him was life, and the life was the light of mankind. 5 And the light shines on in the darkness, but the darkness has not mastered it.

    6 A man came, sent from God, whose name was John. 7 He came as a witness to testify about the light, so that everyone might believe through him. 8 He himself was not the light, but he came to testify about the light. 9 The true light, who gives light to everyone, was coming into the world. 1:10 He was in the world, and the world was created by him, but the world did not recognize him. 11 He came to what was his own, but his own people did not receive him. 12 But to all who have received him – those who believe in his name – he has given the right to become God’s children 13 – children not born by human parents or by human desire or a husband’s decision, but by God.

    14 Now the Word became flesh and took up residence among us. We saw his glory – the glory of the one and only, full of grace and truth, who came from the Father. 15 John testified about him and shouted out, “This one was the one about whom I said, ‘He who comes after me is greater than I am, because he existed before me.’” 16 For we have all received from his fullness one gracious gift after another. 17 For the law was given through Moses, but grace and truth came about through Jesus Christ. 1:18 No one has ever seen God. The only one, himself God, who is in closest fellowship with the Father, has made God known. (John 1:1-18)

    NOTE: if you really do not like the Latinizing word “incarnation”, you may use the word “ensarkosis” (see http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07706b.htm), which is straight from the Greek of John 1:14, or, for that matter, the awkward English word “enfleshment”, that is embodied in flesh or taking on flesh (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incarnation)

  27. on 25 Jun 2010 at 6:26 amMiguel de Servet

    @ Anthony

    In your video (Reminder #2 that Jesus is still a Jew – from time 4:09) we read (and hear) …

    The Gospel is not ONLY about Jesus’ death, burial and resurrection (“as modern Christians propose”)

    It is firstly about the KINGDOM OF GOD (“as the fulfillment OF God’s Covenant with Abraham”)

    … which is absolutely correct, and aptly supported with the quotation of Luke 4:43 and Matt 9:35

    But then, you (literally) break through and go on to say (from time 5:13)…

    “Jesus, when he preached the gospel, did not speak about his death and resurrection … Only in the very last section of his ministry … in the last half year … did he even raise the issue of death …”

    Now, this is a gross misrepresentation of what the Gospels, for instance the Gospel of Matthew says. NOT ” in the very last section of his ministry”, but in Caesarea Philippi (north of Galilee) , immediately after Peter’s Confession (Mat 16:13-20) that Jesus is the Messiah …

    “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” (Mat 16:16)

    … there follows the First Prediction of Jesus’ Death and Resurrection (Mat 16:21-28)

    From that time on Jesus began to show his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things at the hands of the elders, chief priests, and experts in the law, and be killed, and on the third day be raised. (Mat 16:21)

    I believe you should amend your video, on this essential point.

  28. on 28 Jun 2010 at 4:35 pmAnthony Buzzard

    The suggestion has been made above that Paul approved two forms of Christianity, one for Jewish converts and one for Gentiles. His whole point in Galatians would be dismantled on this theory. “Circumcision is nothing,” he said, and he did not add “I am talking to Gentile converts only.” The struggle for a unified faith must go on. Anyone who has worked with people emerging from various groups knows that disagreements about which day to meet on are most unhelpful! I am standing for Paul’s concept of one faith for all nations and it does not include mandated sabbath keeping or circumcision for anyone.

  29. on 28 Jun 2010 at 5:05 pmrobert

    1 Corinthians 7:19
    Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of God.

    Actually both are nothing, but the the keeping of the commandments of God are whats important for both groups

    this is just showing circumcision was just a sign of Gods people and uncircumcision was the contrast.

    we find in 1 Corinthians 7 there are 2 separate callings

    17 But as God hath distributed to every man, as the Lord hath called every one, so let him walk. And so ordain I in all churches. 18 Is any man called being circumcised? let him not become uncircumcised. Is any called in uncircumcision? let him not be circumcised. 19 Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of God. 20 Let every man abide in the same calling wherein he was called. 21 Art thou called being a servant? care not for it: but if thou mayest be made free, use it rather. 22 For he that is called in the Lord, being a servant, is the Lord’s freeman: [3] likewise also he that is called, being free, is Christ’s servant. 23 Ye are bought with a price; be not ye the servants of men. 24 Brethren, let every man, wherein he is called, therein abide with God.

    in Romans 1 we find Paul himself showing to separate groups, but they both receive the same salvation that comes from the gospel of the NEW covenant and has nothing to do with the promise of the Old covenant. Israel and All NATIONS will receive the blessing of the NEW COVENANT but the elect of Israel and those who joined themselfs by becoming elect by following the law will be the few that enter the sabbath reign of Jesus.
    ANTHONY, NOBODY IS SAYING YOU WONT RECEIVE SALVATION, I AM SAYING YOU HAVE DONE NOTHING TO BE CONSIDERED THE ELECT, THATS ALRIGHT BECAUSE I DONT THINK I HAVE DONE ENOUGH MYSELF. THANK GOD FOR GRACE
    16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.

  30. on 29 Jun 2010 at 4:49 pmDavid

    I would have to agree with the statements made above regarding the Mosaic Covenant, and that the interpretation given by Anothony (imho) may be rendered improperly. I propose the word circumcision as used by the Hebrews is meant to mean the ritual of circumsion, the rite which enters one into the Mosaic Covenant (Brit Malah).

    The text in it’s context is speaking about about the purpose of the non-Hebrew nations (gentiles). Not weather Jews should not practice the faith given to them. The idea of a “new” covenant doing away with the “old” covenant would be foreign because the words of Messiah himself supersede that of Paul no matter how we dice it.

    Matt 5:18 “For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled.”

    Mat 23:2 Saying, “The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat:
    All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not.”

    Messiah himself says these things about it. The world hasn’t cracked in half and fallen apart, and also messiah is telling the Jew to whom he is speaking to “do and observe” the law not focusing on the works, but in the heart behind it. We cannot understand them to mean otherwise. Anytime a text in “red” seems to be contradicted by an interpretation of other NT text (especially if it’s in black) it is very possible that the interpretation is incorrect.

    Since we are all here with an open mind in search of truth we should consider this possibility. If it is Christianity, the message and original meanings from Christ should be central in its Hebraic context. Otherwise, if the above is to be correct and the Mosaic covenant is interpreted to be done away with, we have a faith attributed to Messiah, that says the very faith (Judaism) from which Messiah comes, doesn’t matter. We then have what could be construed as an Anti-Torah faith with an Anti-Torah messiah. It becomes replacement theology…

    I have to say I have nothing but the utmost respect for Sir Buzzard’s work. I do regard him highly, possibly more so than I do any other Christian Theologian… so we should, all of us, myself included, continue to seek out the truth.

    What I propose is that the Mosaic Covenant isn’t replaced by the New Covenant we have in Messiah. But rather that it is made “complete”. That is not to say “completed”, but whole and at peace.

    Perhaps we should understand them as Promise 1 and Promise 2. However, Promise 1 only applies to the Jews. Those who have been either born of a Jewish mother and bris’d on the 8th day, or have gone thru conversion and became bris’d by the Rabbinical Court.

    Promise 2 is given to all peoples in Messiah. This does make the Jewish nation G-d’s elect, but weren’t they always? They were chosen to recieve Torah, and chosen to follow it, and chosen to be the people from which Messiah comes! They were to be sanctified and set apart as a nation of priests. To say that they won’t be who G-d said they would be is reintroducing yet more confusion to what we’ve already untangled with the Trinity.

    Messiah is a symbol for G-d’s law as it should have been understood, a matter of the heart. His entire life was an idiom for it, and he practiced and kept all 613 of the commandments of Torah and then some!

    The importance of us understanding this point. Is that if we do not, we are preaching a faith that says the Jews are failing horribly for keeping the same law which Messiah taught and said to observe… however, that Mosiac law only applies to Jews by Mosaic law itself.

    If we interpret Paul’s words into a doctrine which to alienates the Jew we risk alienating and separating them from Messiah Himself, and calling calling the very Faith that brings Messiah null… this is hot icecubes as well and not inviting to the Jew! We can’t stamp Messiah’s seal on a doctrine like that! This is like a comment I read where one said “Scripture doesn’t dictate faith, the church does!” (Or something to that effect) and then they quoted a scripture to prove it.
    I believe here the language spoken is not to alienate the Jew, but to welcome the Gentile.

    We have to remember there are more than one law we talk about in the bible. There’s Mosaic Law (G-d’s laws), and there’s laws G-d created to govern nature and other things. (Reap what you sow, rising and sitting of the sun, the seasons, sin and death).

    Reading the bible can get tricky when the word law is used in place of many different things, just as it is so tricky with the usage of words and the possible trinitarian interpretation thru the confusion.

    I believe this proposes a more supportive and unified approach to keep continuity of the scriptures without proposing ideas such as “it once was but now it’s not, or that’s for a different time period, or it wasn’t then it’s meant for today, whatever.” This isn’t eschatology guys, this section shouldn’t have to that confusing. Thus if we try this method of interpretation on, it means 1) Mosaic Covenant isn’t dead 2) Messiah is not anti Moses 3) The New Covenant doesn’t replace the old but adds further promises and blessings TO it. 4) If you’re not jewish, you don’t need to keep Torah. This is a Jewish thing, ask a Rabbi, “do I need to keep Torah if I’m not a Jew”. He’ll tell you no.

    Do I keep Torah? Yes, (as best as I can at least) but that is my personal choice to be as close as I can in my thinking, speaking and traditions as I can be to my Messiah and the Faith he practiced and not a requirement for my salvation. Being in G-d and having faith in Him and His Messiah AND following Torah for me is a double portion of blessing.

  31. on 29 Jun 2010 at 5:49 pmrobert

    David
    That was very well put.
    I do not claim that Mosaic Law is required for Salvation because it was just a requirement of a nation who never really truely received the land as promised to Abraham because the former possession was just a shadow of God’s 1000 year sabbath.

    The sabbath rest was the true promise of the Old covenant and if you read the OT you will find there was strict requirements.
    Salvation was a promise of the New covenant which includes all nations Jew or Gentile in which a strict following of the law isnt required but the morals from the law are still a very good way to keep yourself acceptable to God.

    My problem with people claiming the law was done away with is they try to claim the promises of the Old covenant without the requirements. THIS WILL NEVER HAPPEN AND IS TAUGHT NOWHERE IN THE BIBLE.

  32. on 29 Jun 2010 at 6:28 pmXavier

    David

    The idea of a “new” covenant doing away with the “old” covenant would be foreign because the words of Messiah himself supersede that of Paul no matter how we dice it.

    Have you read what [minor] prophets like Joel, Malachi etc., have to say regarding YHWH’s New Covenant and the promise of the Messiah to come who would institute it?

    What is the difference between “complete” and “fulfilled” or “finished”? The reality is that we are not under the Old Covenant, since it has been superseded by the establishment of a New Covenant YHWH God has designated for the whole of humanity and not just for a nation!

  33. on 29 Jun 2010 at 6:48 pmDavid

    ^^^^ well put.

    The scriptures cannot be broken. They have to be one singular cohesive, coherent, unified whole.

    There are two parts for any covenant: The conditions and the promise of either blessings or curses. Unfortunately, most of today’s mainstream doctrine puts the focus on the “Law” part of the Mosaic Covenant and then attributes other things to it. “The law being dead” to mean, the laws of Moses. This all comes from the same pit where the Trinity came from. Every covenant in the bible is given in the form of a conditional promise, which are understood to be in perpetuity. (One example would be the Abrahamic covenant.) The covenant cannot exist if the people don’t but perhaps that’s why the Jewish Diaspora. If the people do not exist, then Messiah cannot return because he’s a Jew and he will be a Jew when he returns. So a promise of G-d is a promise is a promise is a promise.

    …Unless that is, G-d can reverse or break a promise… but that’s not in my bible.

    I admit, Paul’s writings can be hard to figure out. But I firmly believe the Scriputres cannot be broken, and to reconcile them is to reconcile our faith to the historical faith…

    This is me musing about, and not to be intended as a doctrine, just food for thought and playing with words: If the word is G-d and G-d is one whole then… all we’re doing by breaking the word into contradictions is doing the same thing Trinitarianism does in a different way. It requires a new doctrine to explain the discrepancies with mystery. (Paul writing to a future time is one of the funny ones that I remember hearing.) Anyway you slice it, it’s divisive and completely irrational.

  34. on 29 Jun 2010 at 6:57 pmrobert

    Xavier
    I have read ALL the prophets and there is NO such understanding to be found.
    The Mosaic law was established for a certain purpose to keep a people separate so a seed could come in the line of David,Jacob,Isaac,Abraham,Shem,Seth and Adam.
    YES THIS WAS ACCOMPLISHED and those who followed the requirements that made this possible are the reason this was accomplished. But as we read throughout All the prophets we find the promise of the land (SABBATH REST) is extended to all that follow the same requirements. The Sabbath rest of God in no way replaces the promise of salvation but those who will be risen to participate in the Sabbath rest will be guarantied salvation in the Age following the Sabbath rest of God.
    I cant tell you if a or what current group will enter the Sabbath rest but i can for certain tell you that one who doesnt follow the law will never enter that 1000 year Sabbath rest.
    I dont think that 1 year out of my 47 years is enough to quailify me but who knows I might be very pleasently surprized.
    This is not the reason I love all Gods laws and will be content to just receive salvation and enterance into the New Heaven and Earth. God can decide my fate

  35. on 29 Jun 2010 at 8:08 pmRay

    Do the Jews believe that Jesus did not exist until he was conceived by the Holy Spirit in the womb of Mary? Do they teach that? Has that historically been a part of their doctrine?

  36. on 29 Jun 2010 at 8:21 pmMark C.

    Do the Jews believe that Jesus did not exist until he was conceived by the Holy Spirit in the womb of Mary? Do they teach that? Has that historically been a part of their doctrine?

    Since the first century, the Jews (for the most part) do not believe he was conceived by the Holy Spirit. They believe he was just an ordinary man, the son of Mary and Joseph. Some think he was a good teacher, others think less of him.  However many Jews at the time of Jesus believed he was the Messiah and became Christians.

  37. on 29 Jun 2010 at 8:51 pmDavid

    What is the difference between “complete” and “fulfilled” or “finished”? The reality is that we are not under the Old Covenant, since it has been superseded by the establishment of a New Covenant YHWH God has designated for the whole of humanity and not just for a nation!

    It was the Mosaic Covenant which I was referring to. Not the Covenant we have in Messiah. I have to agree that you are completely correct in saying that this New covenant is for Everyone and not a Nation.

    The Mosaic Covenant and Torah was given only to the people that were present at Mt. Sinai. The covenant in the Tanach was made to the nation of Israel as stated in Exodus:

    3 Then Moses went up to God, and the L-RD called to him from the mountain and said, “This is what you are to say to the house of Jacoband what you are to tell the people of Israel: 4 ‘You yourselves have seen what I did to Egypt, and how I carried you on eagles’ wings and brought you to myself. 5 Now if you obey me fully and keep my covenant, then out of all nations you will be my treasured possession. Although the whole earth is mine, 6 you [a] will be for me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.’ These are the words you are to speak to the Israelites.”

    How would you go about answering. If the Mosaic covenant it were a covenant for the entire world then why would one need the rite circumcision in order to enter it?

    If it were for the whole world: Why is this not stated anywhere in the bible? Also, how do we explain why after 3300 years the very people who it has been given to (the Jews) haven’t figured this out and insist it is Noah’s laws for the rest of the world?

    Also if it is superseded by the New Covenant, how would you compare this with the very words of Messiah where he says to “Do and observe” the commandments in the Torah? Or where he says that “not one jot/yud or tittle shall pass away?”

    Other passages:

    Matt 19:17 And he said to him, Why callest you me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if you wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.

    Matt 22:37 Jesus said to him, you shalt love the Lord your G-d with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind. 38 This is the first and great commandment. 39 And the second is like to it, you shalt love your neighbour as yourself. 40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

    Luke 16:17 And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail.

    Acts 21:24 Them take, and purify yourself with them, and be at charges with them, that they may shave their heads: and all may know that those things, whereof they were informed concerning you, are nothing; but that you yourself also walkest orderly, and keepest the law.

    Acts 24:14 But this I confess to you, that after the way which they call heresy, so worship I the G-d of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the law and in the prophets:

    Rom 2:12 For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law; 13(For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified

    Rom 2:23 you that makest your boast of the law, through breaking the law dishonourest you G-d?

    Rom 3:31 Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.

    Rom 7:12 Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good.

    Rom 7:16 If then I do that which I would not, I consent to the law that it is good.

    Rev 22:14 Blessed are those who do his commandments, that they may have the right to the tree of life, and may enter in by the gates into the city.

    Amongst many many many many others.

    What I proposed is simply only that G-d does not “Replace” a contract He makes when He makes a new contract. We can be in “breach” of contract and pay the consequences but we have to be UNDER that contract.

    It is clear. Over and over in the Scripture G-d is very clear that He can’t break his word, and his word can’t change…..so his promise is also unchangeable.

    Matt 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. 18 For verily I say to you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be completed.

    Here Yeshua says himself that the law won’t pass away untill heaven & earth pass away not even the smallest stroke or crows-foot dot will a the time all is fullfilled. This sets a clear time constraint, and sets a clear meaning of the terms.

    fulfill
    v 1: put in effect; “carry out a task”; “execute the decision of
    the people”; “He actioned the operation” [syn: {carry through}, {accomplish}, {execute}, {carry out}, {action},
    {fulfil}]
    2: fulfil the requirements or expectations of [syn: {satisfy},
    {fulfil}, {live up to}] [ant: {fall short of}]
    3: fill or meet a want or need [syn: {meet}, {satisfy}, {fill},
    {fulfil}]

    None of those fit the definition of “destroy” however, theology today seems to think the words “fulfill” mean destroy… Lets look at the definition for “destroy”.

    [1913 Webster]
    2. To ruin; to bring to naught; to put an end to; to
    annihilate; to consume.

    Clearly…. then IF we are to read it as the New Covenant replaces the Old (Mosaic) Covenant then we are calling Yeshua HaMashiach (Jesus Christ) a bold faced liar. When he was executed and G-d rose him up again, the universe didn’t collapse in on itself and cease to exist. Heaven and earth didn’t pass away either.

    I truly believe the “replacement” doctrine is suspect of error due to the (mis)interpretation of the words of Paul and those of Jeremiah fortelling the new covenant. Taking a quick look at a dictionary shows that. As students of the word we should MUST weigh this evidence and not hold on to “traditional” Christian doctrine.

    THUS…. the a logical and Scripturally supported option (…one I offer that G-d put in my heart) is that it wasn’t superceded, but that a new covenant has been introduced into play one which EVERYONE can enter into BECAUSE of what Messiah has done for us. That is a VERY beautiful thing. In the time of the Return of Messiah and the Completion of the World to Come, the whole world will know G-d. At that point, we would not have to teach Mosaic Law, and thus it would then be completely grandfathered out because in that time we would already be walking it as it would be ingrained within our hearts completely!

    Unfortunately the argument that “New replaces Old” has been hammered into our psyche. Yes the covenant in Messiah is better, bigger and with more promises. Heb 8:6-13

    Mosaic Covenant won’t be phased until the words Jeremiah spoke about the coming world and G-d’s plan is 100% complete. At that time there will be no denomination or division, and ALL WILL BE ….

    ONE.

    Thanks for giving me the opportunity to share my thoughts. I am very intersted in these things G-d has shown me. Test them out. We’re here to study what the scriptures say. That in itself is a holy endevour! 🙂

  38. on 29 Jun 2010 at 8:54 pmXavier

    robert

    I have read ALL the prophets and there is NO such understanding to be found.

    Jer 31.31-34

    David

    Perhaps we should understand them as Promise 1 and Promise 2. However, Promise 1 only applies to the Jews; again this separation within the church; again isn’t that the whole point of Galatians – that we are all one in Messiah – no Jew or Gentile same promises, same rewards.

    Previously I asked why you write “G-d” and use Hebraic terminology. WHy?

  39. on 29 Jun 2010 at 9:10 pmrobert

    Ray
    No jew ever thought Jesus pre-existed his birth nor did any of his followers.Actually none of them believed he was not the Blood son of Joseph. The myth of him having no human father came late first century or early second. The first followers of Jesus and those of the apostles all believed he was completely of human decent and this is testified by many early church fathers in the early mid second century but by then the doctrine of the christian hellenist had started defining Jesus as they did other gods and most of the early church fathers promoted this doctrine and other doctrines to separate christianity from the jewish faith of Jesus which most jewish and gentile christians followed.
    If it wasnt for these early church fathers and those jews who denied the messiah we would probably be all of the same faith today. It was both groups who caused this separation of christianity from the truth even though there was still remote groups that followed the truth but most were murdered by christians and jews and their writings and the original writings of the NT that they used were destroyed.

  40. on 29 Jun 2010 at 9:20 pmrobert

    Xavier
    This covenant is only to those Israel and Judah and from what i am understanding lately, i am not sure it has been established yet.
    This is not a promise to any other than Israel and Judah and those who have joined themselfs to this particular promise by following the laws that set apart a particular people from the rest of the nations(THE BEAST).
    Your going to have to do better than this.

    31 Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: 32 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the Lord: 33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the Lord, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people. 34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the Lord: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.

  41. on 29 Jun 2010 at 9:25 pmDavid

    HELP! I flubbed just submitted a reply and put Xaviers name in the name box when I was thinking to myself “I’m going to reply to Xavier”…

    Can we get a moderator to pleaaase fix that?

  42. on 29 Jun 2010 at 9:58 pmMark C.

    David,

    I fixed your post.

  43. on 29 Jun 2010 at 10:07 pmDavid

    Xavier,

    I write G-d and use Hebraic words because I am a Messianic Believer…

    I study and practice Torah (the best I can), read and speak Hebrew (albiet as a second language and I’m quite rusty). My personal studies are primarily around the Hebrew faith with a special attention to pre- Nicean Christianity.

    Because of this, I’m always using Hebrew terms because it’s the way I think. I refer to Jesus as Yeshua because it is what his mother and brothers would have called him. I do not use other “Y” spellings because that would be confusing, especially if I was talking about the other Yeshua (Yehoshua/Joshua) in the Bible. I associate in my mind the greek rendition of the name “Jesus” to refer to the man-god. In conversations I have with my wife or friends who know me that is name that comes up when I’m referring to what I believe is a replacement Messiah.

    I think that the anti-messiah, if you will is is not a separate person, but the shadow that is created of the incorrect interpretation of who Messiah really is, other than a term that describes all false prophets. At Messiah’s trial they said Who do you want me to release? They released “Bar Abbas.” That lit means in Hebrew: Son of the Father. It’s like a trick question. They both have the same name, but one is a murderer possessed by demons and the other is our King. The Catholic church fathers, replaced a Jewish Messiah, with a g-d man, replaced G-d with man, and made three people out of G-d. As I would say, “that’s tripple six” as man’s number is 6. This new replacement “god’ has a theology, that G-d’s law is abolished. He also replaces “god”. Because of the new “messiah” they paint is roman my brothers do not know who Messiah is. He has been changed so badly that he is a roman, his doctrine is roman, and his views on the plan’s of G-d’s kingdom is roman. None of His Hebrew brother’s recognize him. And after the romans did this to him they tried to kill all the Jews? Isn’t someting with that picture just slightly screwy? Isn’t 2nd Thesselonians 2:4 describing this very thing?

    I’m actually crying as I wrote that… People are decieved! Trinity Broad Casting network. Everyone sits down in front of this inanimate box, that talks and has a mans face on it. It shows how the Trinity does does awesome miracles and heals millions! Daystar: Same stuff. Just lots of money pumped into this sick machine.

    It’s not a different person, it’s identity theft due to corruption of scripture and a lie about the man who was Messiah. All the good lies have to have “some” truth in it. We need to strive for ALL truth. It removed the G-d of Israel from the thrown. It put some other form of “god” in His place and demanded we worship it and all the time preaches that G-d’s word has been superceded and replaced and is dead.

    THIS is why I chose to align with this Unitarian movement in today’s time of deception and apostacy.

    … Ok… going on a wild tangent… got to get back on topic.

    I know I say some things that aren’t “orthodox”… I am trying to witness for my Messiah and his Faith in the one true G-d, and trying to shed some perspective on how a 2nd Temple Era Jew would interpret these things, and remove the Plato, and Airistotle, and Socrates from our sadly hellinzed doctrine, and put G-d and his Messiah back in it.

    Hebrew words are common to me. To illustrate the point, my son was given the name “Yehoshua Yisrael ben David.” at his Brit.

    It’s common for Jews and Messianic Believers to write “G-d” or HaShem out of respect to Him. This is so it is not printed out and discarded as trash on accident. We will also not customarily write out the four letter name, out of the same respect for G-d.

    …. Sorry guys, I know I blah-blah a lot. I don’t even know how these comments of mine get so long!

  44. on 29 Jun 2010 at 10:29 pmDavid

    Xavier, I didn’t answer your other question…

    What I’ve gathered from the scriptures is that in the time of the fulfillment of all the promises of the 2nd covenant, (I think i wrote this) the Mosaic Covenant will pass away. That actually is specifically in the bible and it gives that time frame and also backs up what Yeshua said. It is during that time there will be no anything, no division.

    Even today some laws are impossible to perform. Some because there is no ruling King in Israel. Some because there is no Beit HaMikdash (Jewish Temple)…

    In the day the promises of the New Covenant, all of the Torah will be complete by everyone, thru the work our Messiah has done.

    This is spoken about when Jerimiah says (paraphrasing) “The whole world will know G-d” and that “it will be on the lips of children” and that we will not have to teach “love your neighbor as yourself”.

    In that time, in the fulfillment of the Promise, and in the return of our Messiah, all these things will come to pass according to Scripture.

    If we think about it….

    G-d created the world in 7 days. Some rabbi’s actually teach (You don’t have to buy this, just hear me out…) that if you take a look at the big bang, and much of what today’s evolution appologists say….that our history (earth) actually occurred in the exact order it did in the Bible. From day 1 to 7. They propose, that this “time period” if you will (today) is the middle of day 6 – man’s creation.

    Now, Jews understand the creation in Genesis/Bereishit to mean “phases” than “days” as we do not know how long those took because a day to G-d “is as 1000 years.” He’s “timeless”…

    So evolution… by that definition, is us… looking at G-d’s act of Creation, in extreeeeeemely super duper sloooooooowww motion.

    If this is the case, then the Biblical notion of Everlasting Life on Earth, would be supported by Evolutionary Appoligists.

    According to Evolution, a rose has thorns and a snake has venom because things and creatures “mess with it” over a very long time. If this is how G-d created it to be, then if we remove “sin” from the equasion… then life would fall into a homeostacis. That is, the thorns would eventually go away, and the snake would not have venom but would probably have … the opposite of venom instead.

    Hebrew and Jewish thinkers come up with some neat stuff. The secret is in the unifying thinking v.s. linear. That is we believe since G-d is One, all things should be One so instead of tossing this and that out. We have to see how “all things are possible”. (my pun)

    When we do that, then all the other stuff just falls away.

    Isn’t that strange? Evolutionary Appoligists having a theory that actually supports the Creation in the Bible and the reality that we can have Eternal Life thru Messiah in our G-d. As if they’ve tried so hard to prove that G-d didn’t exist they proved He DOES. hahah.

    Sorry… I’m running on tangents again. I need a time out!

  45. on 29 Jun 2010 at 11:44 pmDavid

    I now remember why I went into evolution spiel in the above post.

    To explain that some of the things our eternal timeless creator says, take a lot of time. From day 1 to day 2 in creation…. if man watched, would have taken, who knows how long? Only G-d knows how long. If we watched G-d’s work unfold from our subjective human perspective, because we see reality in space/time; how would the creation of the first of the life forms look? To G-d it would happen instantly. Actually, it would have “always been”.

    From a timeless perspective, you break one law you break them all. Also all the promises of the bible are already there.

    From our limited perspective we can only see things in slow motion because we are created in a way that we sense space/time. That is how our G-d created us. So… if watching G-d create would take ages, so too watching his other work since it happens between day’s 6 and 7.

    Again, that is not provable fact, but rather a theory and it’s best to be acknowledged only as such. But a theory that fits or promotes scripture is okay for now… but only as long as it isn’t specifically said so in Scripture or taught as doctrine. Some people come up with odd doctrine that has no foundation in scripture but isn’t exactly refuted by scripture. (Some of what Scientology holds as “truth” comes to mind.) I’m sure that a lot of what RLH says about his “sci-fi” isn’t talked about in scripture…

    In this sense, it’s okay to read “in between” the lines… but don’t go outside. Or as I try to teach my son: Dude, you gotta color in between the lines… elmo isn’t green! lol.

    To sum up, by studying or watching what we know the Bible tells us G-d did (create), we learn that 1 day to Him takes a loooooooooong time to us if we watch it unfold. I propose that it may be possible for other things that our eternal G-d does takes a looooooooooong time to (us) unfold if we are watch it.

    Today what we are seeing is the process of “grandfathering” in a new time, the time of Messiah and the promises of the new covenant.

    Mosaic Covenant: Active and available to Jews or those who wish to convert… but phasing out… as in Jeremiah: one day we will not have to teach Torah because the entire world will know it. But, that is the day that the bible speaks “is coming”.

    New Covenant: Active and available to everyone, Jews welcome.

  46. on 30 Jun 2010 at 12:44 amXavier

    David

    I associate in my mind the greek rendition of the name “Jesus” to refer to the man-god.

    Apart from our agreement regarding the Pagan Christianity that has replaced that of the NT, your argument doesn’t make sense. Can we also agree that the NT authors did not have a problem writing in Greek, hence calling the Messiah Jesus?

    In that time, in the fulfillment of the Promise, and in the return of our Messiah, all these things will come to pass according to Scripture.

    You make it sound as if the New Covenant has not been enacted yet. If so, how do you explain the Lord’s Supper and his reference to the present inauguration of said covenant at Lu 22.20?

  47. on 30 Jun 2010 at 1:17 amDavid

    Xavier,

    I really enjoy your posts because they really make me think. I also really appreciate the way you put your questions, they seem sincere to me and not like a slap in my face. I’ve been booted off of forums and told that I should be hit in the head with rocks until dead by another Messianic Follower. I greatly appreciate the courtesy you are extending to me, and that you are listening.

    Apart from our agreement regarding the Pagan Christianity that has replaced that of the NT, your argument doesn’t make sense. Can we also agree that the NT authors did not have a problem writing in Greek, hence calling the Messiah Jesus?

    You are correct. The NT authors did write his name as “Jesus”. They did write the name that way. I’m not refuting it. I only meant that in my mind, I personally associate that name with the Pagan “image” if you will that has been paraded as Messiah and G-d since the Nicean council. When I think “Jesus”, again this is just me, I don’t think of the biblical Messiah (personally). What comes to mind for me are the catholic paintings of him with sacred heart imagary and halos. Or my favorite is the one with with lighting bolts and swords dripping with blood or something I saw somewhere. I’m not quite sure who painted that one but it comes to mind. I’m not saying that this is the way it has to be, I’m not an advocate for the sacred name movement or whatever. I wont’ tell anyone that they should or shouldn’t reffer to messiah as “Jesus”. It’s just my personal preference. You had asked why I used idioms like “HaShem and Yeshua” and wrote “G-d” with a hyphen. 🙂

    You make it sound as if the New Covenant has not been enacted yet. If so, how do you explain the Lord’s Supper and his reference to the present inauguration of said covenant at Lu 22.20?

    Oh… no by all means. Please let me clarify. Future promised “blessing”. The messianic age and the world to come, isn’t here yet. But it is here where it is to happen on this world right here. In our limited reference of “time” we haven’t fully entered into that age that is spoken of. What we have done is gone thru the time of the work Messiah did on the cross, stake, “T”, whatever anyone wants to call it. The work has been done by Moshaich, which along with saving us initiates the Covenant. So it is active and enacted. It doesn’t (as I propose) “replace” the Mosaic, that’s already enacted. However, the future promise as the reward, for this Covenant between those who Follow Messiah isn’t here yet. The return of the King Messiah, and the Resurrection of the dead and the restoration of our world, isn’t all here yet – those are the benefits and promises of the New Covenant as described by Jeremiah. But because of Messiah’s saving work all nations may enter. The work he is to do when he returns, is the other half of the promise. He still needs to return, in order to usher in this promised age in the bible.

    So, yes the New Covenant is in full effect. It’s been started, and the atoning work has been finished! We are now awaiting the promise portion! And until then all us people that have entered into the New Covenant, all we need to do is follow what Messiah taught:

    “Love the L-rd your G-d with all of your Heart, all of your soul, and with all of your might; and Love your Neighbor as Yourself.”

    Because we believe in Melech HaMoshiach and in the G-d who sent him… and that Yeshua/Jesus IS who he says he is, we believe his words which are G-d’s words, to be true… and so we follow. 🙂

    Cool! 🙂

  48. on 30 Jun 2010 at 1:44 amDavid

    … added …

    Hope that explains that G-d is our supreme “administrator” and His promises, covenants, and instructions given in Scripture tell use “who” and “when” each one is for. This has been something that has stumped me before. And it’s something that I was shown today when I was in prayer. One of those moments we all get to from time and again where the colors get really bright, and the hair stands on end and everything glows, and everything “clicks”. When “in His presence” is what I’d call it.

    Again… the things I’m saying I only propose as an option that maybe should be explored, in the spirit of finding the truth. I think the unifying Hebraic mindset if you will is an important key to understanding these things. I think many will agree with that. Not just in a historical or social settings, but also in worldview/outlook and processing and hermeneutics… It’s actually something anyone one can get, quite easily. I think it’s something that just “rings”. Like we know truth when we hear it… it’s an interesting thing.

    It’s like all the scriptures of the OT and NT just “fall” into place, with no contradiction, and without “something” one passage says negating the other. I’ve devoted my life to this work. Albeit, I’m quite young and on the fringe with some things. I’m almost 30, not quite there yet so I will admit, I’ve got a way to go, and in that same spirit, I have to admit that I too am still growing, and still seeking the truth. It’s good for me when I find that I’ve got something not quite right, because it’s an opportunity for me to re-examine it. After all I’m honestly seeking His face and His Kingom. I really want you to know that I appreciate the discussions we have, Xavier… your insights and discourse; they have been a blessing to me.

  49. on 30 Jun 2010 at 3:16 amDavid

    Another thought, on the “simultaneous” thing. This is because I said “New Covenant: For Everyone Jews Welcome” and I don’t feel that is correct…

    I proposed elsewhere about this concept. That we focus on “belief” in Messiah with the emphasis of say “belief” in the tooth-fairy. What he did alone in his atoning work, redeemed us. In the Heberw Bible, although human sacrifice is foreign to Judaism, the first fruits always redeems the “rest”. This is a re-occuring thing. A god-man can’t die and redeem us, we’re human! We need a human redeemer! Thus
    the New Covenant is in effect. Elsewhere we see that a promise can’t be reversed so I proposed the two co-existing.

    Under the Mosaic Law, the Jews are are Jewish and thus under that Covenant. However under the New Covenant, one must simply do what Messiah said to do. When we belelieve in Messaiah, we beleive he is who he says he is and we follow his teaching because we know this is from G-d! Would not the Jews, who are already walking in G-d’s Torah already be entered into this Covenant and fulfiling it themselves by default?

    Any Jew will tell you that the Torah is about Love. There is a famous Rabbi who said: “Love the L-rd your G-d with all of your heart, soul and mind, and Love your Neighbor as Yourself! All the rest is commentary!”

    The message of Yeshua’s ministry was clear! Repent! (Teshuvah!) because the Kingdom of G-d is coming! All you need to do is turn to what G-d said to do!!! Love.

    So my proposition is that this applies to the Jews who are walking in that Law, and to the Gentile who is walking in that law who does not know Christ personally! I know a tree from it’s FRUIT. I don’t care who’s orchard it’s from. It’s all G-d’s!

    The parable of the Good Samaritan was given by Yeshua in an answer to the question: “Rabbi, what must I do to inherit Eternal Life”… and a parable was told about a man, who did not follow (likely, Samarian history is mixed) the same G-d of Israel, or may have been an idol worshipper, but it was clear he was not a Priest, not a Levi, and certainly not a member of the same faith or religious background of Yeshua. Yet by the actions because of the spirit in his heart, is the one who gains “eternal life”.

    To me “eternal life” means = Salvation. Jesus teaches, no creeds, just a good heart. Your religious orientation will not save you. I’ve saved you by what will do on the cross and because of that EVERYONE is welcome. Just love.

    I am the way the truth and the life. No one gets to the Father but by Me.

    God’s word is eternal so it has already been in the plan from the beginning. All we need to do is get this out!

    There we go, another doctrine created by greek thinking, possibly (by this theory based on scripture that I’m offering up) making it so that salvation was taken away!

    It took away the saving work Yeshua did! That’s another thing! The good news is this is DONE. He’s not the easter bunny! He’s not the tooth fairy! He’s not santa-clause! That’s not the kind of belief that was written about! Try it out!

    We’re here, we just need to see it. Wow.

  50. on 30 Jun 2010 at 4:36 amXavier

    David

    …all we need to do is follow what Messiah taught

    Can we agree Messiah’s teachings extends to what Paul and the other disciples [Luke] and apostles [Peter] of Jesus teach in their NT writings?

  51. on 30 Jun 2010 at 5:18 amDavid

    I agree in that. They have to. It’s Christianity for a reason… If they don’t, then we’re unraveling scripture. However… the option I throw out above has a hole in it:

    Romans 10:9 and 10:10
    That if you confess with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved.

    And that has to do with confessing with their mouth… I”ll have to look at the text in it’s entire context and get into it to either substantiate or disprove the idea I posted about simply following above. It’s late and I am tired. I haven’t gotten that far into it and I could be wrong it’s just a theory.

    Thats what we’re here for, to shoot ideas around and find which stick in light of Scripture. It would be one worth investigating to see if it flies or not.

  52. on 30 Jun 2010 at 4:25 pmDoubting Thomas

    Robert
    I’m back from vacation and have been trying to catch up with the conversation. I see we have a newcomer (David) that has views that are similar to yours and mine. I hope everything is well with you and with everyone else here on this blog…

    David
    I strongly agree with what you said in msg. #30 above, “The idea of a ‘new’ covenant doing away with the ‘old’ covenant would be foreign because the words of the Messiah himself supersede that of Paul no matter how we dice it. Matt. 5:18 ‘For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled’…”

    I also love what you said in msg. #49 above, “The parable of the Good Samaritan was given by Yeshua in answer to the question: ‘Rabbi what must I do to inherit eternal life’… and a parable was told about a man, who did not follow the same G-d as Israel, or may have been an Idol worshiper, but it was clear he was not a Priest, not a Levi, and certainly not a member of the same faith or religious background as Yeshua. Yet by the action, because of the spirit in his heart, is the one who gains ‘Eternal Life’..”

    I also don’t believe in orthodoxy, where we are all going to be judged by our doctrines. I believe in orthopraxy, where we are all going to be judged by our behavior/actions. It is actions that God is interested in and not doctrines. He will forgive our mistaken doctrines but won’t so easily forgive our behavior/actions unless we repent and change our behavior.

    I am not Messianic, but I have a lot of respect for Jewish Christians. As a Gentile Christian I believe the 10 commandments and all the teachings (laws) and parables given to us by Yeshua apply to me including the decision reached by the council of Jerusalem in Acts 15:19-20 which I refer to as Noah’s law.

    Robert and I also honor the Sabbath and try to keep it holy as a time to try to be close with God. Of course Robert and I are a minority among the Gentile Christians in this regard…

  53. on 30 Jun 2010 at 5:13 pmrobert

    Thomas
    Welcome back, I hope it was very enjoyable.
    Yes we have added here a brother who seems to be seeking the truth zealously. His approach to this task seems to me of one who proves and reproves. I believe he will very profitable to a lot of discussions here.

  54. on 30 Jun 2010 at 8:02 pmXavier

    Doubting Thomas

    The idea of a ‘new’ covenant doing away with the ‘old’ covenant would be foreign because the words of the Messiah himself supersede that of Paul no matter how we dice it.

    I thought we all agreed that Jesus speaks through Paul and his other disciples/apostles. What you guys are suggesting is dangerous to say the least!

  55. on 30 Jun 2010 at 9:25 pmRay

    Mark, in responce to your answer of #36, I will say that the scripture teaches us that not all who are of Israel are Israel,
    that not all Jews are Jews, and that I was not enquiring concerning the manner of life of the worldy minded religious groups.

    I find no suggestion of scripture that Jesus did not exist prior to his conception in the womb of Mary. I have heard no call that I consider to be of God to believe such a thing.

    Jesus being a Jew must have been aware of Psalm 2 which not only speaks of David’s manner of life, but also that of the Son of God who ruled from Zion.

    From the heavenly city, Jesus was king and had his glory with the Father. Psalm 2 suggests things that were present at the time of it’s writing as well as things to come.

    Jesus as a Jew must have been aware of this Psalm as well as other scriptures that spoke of him in the present at the time when they were written of him.

  56. on 30 Jun 2010 at 9:30 pmDavid

    “Whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.” This specific phrase is used three times in the Scriptures (Joel 2:32, Acts 2:21, and Romans 10:13)

    But I was just reading Matt. 7:21-23 where Yeshua speaks:

    22″(S)Many will say to Me on (T)that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?’

    23″And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; (U)DEPART FROM ME, YOU WHO PRACTICE LAWLESSNESS.’

    And in Luke 6:46-49

    46″(AW)Why do you call Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ and do not do what I say?
    47″(AX)Everyone who comes to Me and hears My words and acts on them, I will show you whom he is like:

    48he is like a man building a house, who dug deep and laid a foundation on the rock; and when a flood occurred, the torrent burst against that house and could not shake it, because it had been well built.

    49″But the one who has heard and has not acted accordingly, is like a man who built a house on the ground without any foundation; and the torrent burst against it and immediately it collapsed, and the ruin of that house was great.”

    Here we have what Messiah says, appears to contradict what Paul said. The logical answer is that Paul can’t be superseding Messiah by word. I’ll have to look into the entire context. The answer then would have to lie in either “who” the epistles were written for directly (which I don’t feel one way or another about) or that Paul’s word’s are true, but Messiah’s words are more true as it reaffirms what Paul says, but with a warning and with clarification. Messiah was at “ground zero” of his ministry after all.

    Any thoughts?

  57. on 30 Jun 2010 at 9:40 pmDavid

    … added, that I believe Paul’s statements agree with Yeshua’s, and that Yeshua’s agree with Paul’s but elaborates on one caveat. I’d like to look in a bit more on this because if this is the case, then the work done on the cross was for everyone as long as they walk in Love, and we may have been in error when we said that a man made creed was what would allow one entrance into the covenant. This means Messiah’s work of salvation is a lot BIGGER than what we’ve been taught by traditional Christianity.

    This also means that the Jews who are keeping the Mosaic Law today are under that covenant, and are awarded it’s blessings, and that by default are also under the new covenant at the same time, inheriting those blessings as well. If this is correct then we have all been very wrong with not only with Christology, but the doctrine of salvation; as it was taught as one that was divisive and selective and not universal. Catholicism is universal in the way of dividing itself from everything, claiming to be the only, and then attempting to fascistly crush all else. The this proposal would make it all inclusive, and universal as the language of Love is universal, and G-d is universal and not divided.

    Knowledge of Good and evil. Not knowledge of only G-d which is only good. The deception is that we are divided when we already are one.

    Any thoughts?

  58. on 30 Jun 2010 at 10:11 pmXavier

    David

    Here we have what Messiah says, appears to contradict what Paul said. The logical answer is that Paul can’t be superseding Messiah by word.

    Simply put, there is an “obedience of faith” on the part of whoever follows Christ [i.e. a Christian]. I do not see any contradiction in the phrase “calling on the name of the Lord” if it is understood properly as those who properly understand and obey YHWH’s commandments. Be it in the OT through the Mosaic Law or in the New Covenant through His “one of a kind” Son, Jesus.

    In other words, Jesus is crystal clear that if your a hypocrite [a Pharisaic mindset] your not only lying to yourself but to God, Who is the only one who knows people’s hearts. And Paul obviously calls all those who adhere and continue in steadfast faith and fidelity to continue “calling on the name of the Lord”!

    This also means that the Jews who are keeping the Mosaic Law today are under that covenant, and are awarded it’s blessings, and that by default are also under the new covenant at the same time, inheriting those blessings as well. If this is correct then we have all been very wrong with not only with Christology…

    No it is not correct. Please read and study the following passages: Heb 10.19-31; 2Cor 3

  59. on 30 Jun 2010 at 10:15 pmMark C.

    David,

    As Xavier pointed out, it has to do with understanding what “call upon the name of the Lord” means. The context of Romans 10 clearly defines what it means in this day and age – confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead.

  60. on 30 Jun 2010 at 10:24 pmDoubting Thomas

    David
    You said, “But I was just reading Matt. 7:21-23 where Yeshua speaks: Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy, and in your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?’ And I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; DEPART FROM ME, YOU WHO PRACTICE LAWLESSNESS’…”

    I find it strange that the basic foundation of the Jewish faith “the law” was supposedly overturned at Pentecost and replaced with a “new convenant” and yet there is no mention of this outside of Paul’s writings. Peter doesn’t mention it, James doesn’t mention it, Acts doesn’t mention it, and the Synoptics which were written long after Paul’s letters also doesn’t mention anything about a “new covenant” where the law does not apply anymore.

    As a matter of fact in Acts 21:20-24 it says, “(20) And when they heard it (about the work of the Holy Spirit among the Gentiles), they glorified God. And they said to him (Paul) ‘You see, brother, how many thousands there are among the Jews of those that have believed (In Jesus/Yeshua as Messiah). They are all zealous for the law, (21) and they have been told about you that you teach all the Jews who are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children or walk according to our customs. (22) What then is to be done? They will certainly hear that you have come. Do therefore what we tell you…..(24)……Thus all will know that there is nothing in what they have been told about you, but that YOU YOURSELF ALSO LIVE IN OBSERVANCE OF THE LAW.”

    James and the church leaders made it clear to Paul that he had to prove that he himself lived in observance of the law and these stories about him teaching the Jews of the diaspora to forsake Moses and not to circumcise their children or walk according to Jewish customs were not true (there is nothing in what they have been told about you).

    I think it’s plain that Paul’s teachings in regards to the laws were not accepted by James and the elders of the Jerusalem Church. And since the Jerusalem was founded by Peter and the Apostles and based on their teachings it’s not that difficult to figure out what Peter and the Apostles taught about whether the law still applied or not.

    It is clear from Acts 15 that the Christian Jews were zealous for the law and that the Gentile Christians were not to be burdened with the full law, but that a modified form of the Law of Noah was all that was required of them (plus the 10 commandments and of course the teachings/laws of Jesus)…

  61. on 30 Jun 2010 at 10:49 pmDoubting Thomas

    Correction to above, “It is clear from ‘Acts 21’ that the Christian Jews were zealous for the law and that the Gentile Christians were not to be burdened with the full law, but that a modified form of the Law of Noah was all that was required of them.”

  62. on 30 Jun 2010 at 10:54 pmrobert

    Thomas
    The bible and i agrees. very well put.

  63. on 01 Jul 2010 at 8:56 amJaco

    David,

    I have not been following much of this tread lately. I have found the issues you raise quite interesting. You say:

    I associate in my mind the greek rendition of the name “Jesus” to refer to the man-god.

    If you’re not familiar with Greek, maybe you would want to consult an alphabetical list. But, can you transliterate the name Yeshuah into Greek? Also, how would you write Yehowah transliterated in Greek?

    You also said:

    It’s common for Jews and Messianic Believers to write “G-d” or HaShem out of respect to Him. This is so it is not printed out and discarded as trash on accident. We will also not customarily write out the four letter name, out of the same respect for G-d.

    This is rather odd – I mean, for someone who appears to agree with Messiah that no additional laws should be added to what Yehowah has revealed in his word.

    Mark 7:13 and thus you make the word of God invalid by your tradition which you handed down. And many things similar to this you do.

    We all know how the chasidim in Jesus’ time tried to increase their devotion to Adonai Yehowah by adding to the Laws they believed in extra laws to somehow improve on what was revealed. That is exactly what the motivation was behind not uttering the Divine Name. What is so interesting, is that, even with this additional and stringent law, they still wrote the name, while doing it in a way as to ensure its ineffability (without vowel signs). Modern-day followers of this law (undoubtedly very sincere in it) certainly have their justifications for it. Fact is that Yehowah wants us to use his Name. As much as we should use Jesus’ name, for the same reasons (and more) should we use Yehowah’s name (Joel 2:32, Mal. 1:11).

    G-d created the world in 7 days. Some rabbi’s actually teach (You don’t have to buy this, just hear me out…) that if you take a look at the big bang, and much of what today’s evolution appologists say….that our history (earth) actually occurred in the exact order it did in the Bible.

    I agree with you here. The Genesis story is in harmony with what we’d scientifically expect should happen. (In school, when asked how we would populate Mars, I used the Genesis account as a proposal.)

    David, how do you understand the following:

    Heb. 7:11-14 “If indeed then perfection were through the Levitical priesthood (for the people established law upon it), what need was there still for another priest to arise according to the order of Melchizedek, and not to be named according to the order of Aaron? For since the priesthood being transposed, from necessity also a transposition of law takes place. For the man respecting whom these things are said, partakes of another tribe, from which no one has officiated at the altar. For it is exposed to view that our Lord has risen from out of Judah, for which tribe Moses spoke nothing concerning priesthood.”

    Heb. 8:13 “In his saying ‘a new covenant’ he has made the first old. And the one being old and growing old is near extinction.”

    You referenced Yeshua’s obedience to the Old covenant. That, then, as a reason for continuous obedience to it, even after Yeshua’s death. What do you make of Heb. 9:17 “For a covenant is valid over dead victims, since it is not in force at any time while the human covenanter is living”? Wouldn’t we expect Yeshua to have followed the Old Covenant, since his death had not inaugurated the New Covenant yet?

    Would you consider the sacrifice of Yeshua instead of those stipulated in the Mosaic Law a change or a violation of Law? Would you consider the heavenly temple instead of the earthly a violation? How do you understand prolepsis?

    Sorry, but my aim is not to bombard you with questions. Nor is it to convince you otherwise. It’s good to hear the other person’s ideas.

    Regards,

    Jaco (Yaaqov)

  64. on 01 Jul 2010 at 12:05 pmrobert

    Genesis 17:8
    And I will give unto thee, and to thy seed after thee, the land wherein thou art a stranger, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession; and I will be their God.

    How many here claim this promise was completely fulfilled?

    For those that see it wasnt completely fulfillled why do you not understand what the book of Hebrews was adressing and who it was addressing. There was drastic changes that had taken place and more to come for the hebrew people this was addressed to. there was a need for them to understand how they were to accomplish the requirements for them to take part in this promise to Abraham from God. Hebrews deals with this completely and confirms that this separate promise is still offered to those who accept this calling. This has nothing to do with the blessing of grace extended to all nations which was a separate promise made to Abraham from God even though the hebrew people will also partake of that promise after the first promise is COMPLETELY fulfilled when Abraham receives his reward.
    why do people who have forsaked the requirements of this promise force their way into this promise.
    Is it not enough that all good people will be saved as the blessing to all nations promise is fulfilled.
    Its time to separate these promises as they were given to Abraham separately and let those called stay within their own calling. Without those that separated themself from other nations there would of been no way that Jesus could of come to fulfill the means of all nations being blessed

  65. on 01 Jul 2010 at 1:30 pmDavid

    Xavier,

    In post #58 you mentioned some bible passages. I don’t think the interpretation is correct. At least on point #2. The new doesn’t replace the old. It will eventually, when all things are complete as was said by Yeshua and as spoken by Jerimiah. Thus the interpretation has to be that both Messiah and Paul must be in accordance. It’s Christianity, not Paulianity. Paul speaks the truth, but it must be compared and interpreted to match with what Messiah speaks. What Messiah speaks, IF he is who he says he is (which I believe) must be compared to what is written in the Tanach and must follow in accordance. All three must be in line and not broken. Paul must be interpreted by Messiah, Messiah must be interpreted by the Hebrew Scriptures. It’s not paul, supersedes, messiah, who supersedes the OT, that’s backwards, linear, western thinking.

    The passages in hebrews clearly states that one who sets aside the law of moses dies without mercy on the account of two or more witnesses. This is true. If you study Jewish law, one who is condemned to be put to death, must have 2 witnesses against them. These two witnesses are required by Jewish Rabbinical law (outlined in the Talmud) to warn the transgressor that they are committing a capital offense. The transgressor must say to the witnesses, “I know what I am doing is a capital offense and against G-d’s law and I do not care and will not repent!” Only then are they put to death.

    Hense, those who put aside (forsaken) Moses’ law are put to death without mercy if they have two or more witnesses.

    This is compared to how much more vengeance will be given to them who are in violation of the new covenant. The laws of which were stipulated clearly by Messiah himself.

    I think that it is not only of a “Pharisaic” mindset (at least of the handful of Pharisees that were talked about in the bible). But any mindset that promotes self-righteousness and hypocrisy. One cannot boast to be full of love, and pure of heart, and then see themselves separate and divided from one another because love doesn’t do that. One can’t simply interpret the passages that describe the dregs of a group and take and toss all their kind into a bag. This is a matter of the personal heart.

    I didn’t see how the passages above referred in any way to what I was speaking. Could you please elaborate? I may have been missing the point. It really went over my head, and I’m not just saying that, I really want to understand what you are saying. My wife says things go in one ear and out the other to me sometimes. *smacks head*

    —–

    Jaco, those are some interesting thoughts. I’ll have to respond when I get back. I don’t feel bombarded. I like it. Challenges are good because they direct us into a better direction. I don’t know everything and like being corrected or learning something new must more than being right. Thomas edison had to try so many times before getting a light bulb, and each “failure” he contributed as only part of the path to getting it right.

    I’m running late for a meeting so I’ll have to ponder what you have said until later tonight when I return.

  66. on 01 Jul 2010 at 1:52 pmDavid

    Apparently, i’m not the only one running late so I have some time…

    Xavier…

    You must be referring to Heb. 10:29. That is up for interpretation. I take it that you say it is impossible for the Jews to be counted because they directly say “No” and that this could not be from G-d. I see what you are saying. An interesting thought to ponder…

    They are comparing this to someone who is a “willful” deviant or apostate from Mosaic law, being compared to someone who is a “willful” deviant or apostate from the New Covenant, one with only one law.

    If the former interpretation is correct, it still doesn’t put today’s Christian doctrine out of harms way. As it would still be suspect as it still has “regulations” and creeds by which one may selectively receive what has already been payed for by Messiah’s blood. They would still be as guilty as everyone else, if not more… thus then by your definition, Christianity would too be Condemned by the same condemnation it places on the Jews due to this passage of scripture, because I’m sure we haven’t gotten it all right yet. Christian theology is still a tangled greek mess.

    It’s just something to ponder. I’m just throwing it out there for you.

    Ok, now I really need to cut and run.

  67. on 01 Jul 2010 at 9:36 pmXavier

    David

    Paul speaks the truth, but it must be compared and interpreted to match with what Messiah speaks.

    Once Messiah ascended to heaven and was no longer here on earth to continue teaching us concerning the things of the coming KOG, and how we should live etc., he began to speak through his Apostles and their disciples.

    As per this rule, it would not be wise to do as you suggest, go back to the Gospels and compare what they are saying with what Messiah previously said. Think about it. In some cases we obviously have to and can go back and apply this process, but surely not in all instances.

  68. on 02 Jul 2010 at 12:10 amDavid

    Xavier,

    If we are “Christians” isn’t our faith “Christ” centered? Wouldn’t it make better sense to interpret the words of Paul in a manner that they agree with what Messiah says? The interpretation I offered was an attempt to show that in this sense there is less contradiction, between what Paul says and what Messiah said. Paul is an apostle of Messiah, and Paul’s words are true and they should be followed. But can be sure that today’s interpretation of his words are Biblically sound?

    Check it out: We can all agree the pecking order is: Father G-d 1st, King Messiah 2nd, and everyone else 3rd. If Messiah is “one” with the Father why should we interpret anyone else as having a separate opinion?

    Think about it… where in the Bible does anyone say “Messiah may have told you one thing on this matter, but I’m telling you he’s actually wrong… I have the final word on this!”

    Think about it.
    .
    ..

    ….

    It’s absolutely no where. You won’t find it, because they didn’t teach that way. They never would have said “Our King Messiah taught you one thing, but I tell you that it has changed!”… you will find it nowhere.

    It’s merely a left-over idea that’s stuck in our psyche because of the word acrobatics that previous orthodox doctrine has caused us to believe… Orthodoxy completely turned the Biblical “chain of command” upside down if you think of it.

    By suggesting that we cannot and should not always interpret the words of the apostles in a way that interprets them to being “in accordance” to what Messiah says they are preaching whatever they feel like.

    If one says that we should not heed and listen closely if Messiah may have said anything to espouse or elaborate on the very same matters in which the apostles were speaking of, I think his interpretation is suspect because it left out the factor of who’s in charge.

    The message needs to be interpreted as coming from the top down without corruption of translation. If not then would we not be at risk of playing “the telephone game” with G-d’s will as made manifest in Scripture?

    If we don’t, wouldn’t we be saying that Paul has the right to “change” or “trump” Messiah and make his own rules? It’s highly unlikely that this can be the case. I do not believe Paul would attempt to take such liberties as he himself claims to be a submissive captive to Messiah. Paul clearly acknowledges the authority of Messiah (many times over in the epistles) and also emphasizes his submission to Messiah. Wouldn’t we be wise to apply this model when we interpret Paul’s words using this model, and not just “some” of the time?

    Does any of that make sense? It seems all very sensible to me, even more so than the alternative.

  69. on 02 Jul 2010 at 1:06 amDavid

    Jaco,

    I don’t really understand what you are saying in reference to the spelling of names. When I said “in my mind I associate the Greek….” I didn’t literally mean Ἰησοῦς . What I meant was that, I associate “in my mind” the word “Jesus” with the messiah painted by corrupted Pagan doctrine . I associate the word “Yeshua/Yehoshua” with the historical and Biblical messiah. Jesus and Yeshua mean the same thing and are the same person, it’s the pictures that come to my mind upon hearing each name…. hence “What” I associate either name with.

    I’m not going to attempt to write the name of the Holy One in any language, out of reverence and i’m not sure why you are asking me to render all these things in Greek? I do not understand how this was pertaining to anything I said… but I hope that clears the misunderstanding.

    This is rather odd – I mean, for someone who appears to agree with Messiah that no additional laws should be added to what Yehowah has revealed in his word.

    Firstly, I do this out of “reverence”. It is nothing more than a simple tradition; one that I keep, out of love and conviction for our G-d and not out of guilt.

    Secondly, other Jews to whom I write would find it offensive. Out of love for my G-d and thus subsequent respect and love for other people, I try to refrain from what I know is openly offensive to others.

    By that logic one could argue that there is no direct instruction to refrain from foul language in the Torah, but only in the Talmud. However many of us refrain from use of this because it too would be offensive to others.

    This is commonly called amongst Jewish circles “putting a fence” around Torah. Messiah did this when talking about “… if you even look at a woman in lust, you have committed adultery” and “… if you are angry without cause, you have committed murder”. This is not written in the Torah. We surely couldn’t argue that he was inventing laws.

    Again, this is just what it is that I do. I do it out of love. Just as you do what it is you do out of love. It is in this love and mutual respect that we are united.

    You referenced Yeshua’s obedience to the Old covenant. That, then, as a reason for continuous obedience to it, even after Yeshua’s death. What do you make of Heb. 9:17 “For a covenant is valid over dead victims, since it is not in force at any time while the human covenanter is living”? Wouldn’t we expect Yeshua to have followed the Old Covenant, since his death had not inaugurated the New Covenant yet?

    Hebrews 9:16:17 Talks about inheritance… If one writes a living will it cannot be put into effect until that person who wrote the will dies.

    This means that the death of Messiah did inaugurate the New Covenant. Prior to his death and resurection he did follow and encouraged those to follow the Torah. But I believe this is a process as written in Hebrews it says that the Old is “fading” and it will not be complete until the perfection of the world. This is something Jeremiah speaks of and is also something the Jews would agree with… but they will go on studying Torah and teaching it as a beacon of light to the world. The “old covenant” I don’t think should be used as a word that’s interchange-able with “Torah” or “Law”. For the things that were done away with was not the Good instruction of the Torah, but the law of sin and death: The requirement for blood atonement to reconcile us with G-d.

    Would you consider the sacrifice of Yeshua instead of those stipulated in the Mosaic Law a change or a violation of Law? Would you consider the heavenly temple instead of the earthly a violation?

    I wouldn’t consider them a change or a violation but rather making obsolete. Something needed to inaugurate the promise of a new covenant made by Jeremiah. There are plenty laws that are obsolete today. Animal sacrifice for instance, because simply we have no temple. This is just something that is not acknowledged in Judaism due to (at least in my mind) the catastrophes suffered by them since the inception of Christianity.

    How do you understand prolepsis?

    With regard to whom?

    Good questions, nope not bombarded. I like to share my views and learn of others. Really tired and thirsty though. lol.

    I have to get ready and go to bed and pack up to go camping. Will return in a few days. 🙂

  70. on 02 Jul 2010 at 1:49 amDavid

    I do propose though, the alternative is that if the Old replaced the New that it wasn’t yanked out from under Israel and given away. Rather that G-d said, I’m going to stop counting your sins and send a final redeemer to atone once and for all… do as he says. Which is the same as what Torah teaches, “Love G-d with all your heart, all of your soul, and all of your might, and love your neighbor as your self”.

    What is abolished is simply this: The penalty for screwing it up. The requrement to be a Jew or of any other creed to enter it. And the further need for any sacrifice to be made to reconcile us with G-d.

    Messiah is very clear that creeds and rituals won’t save anyone. There is no Jew or Gentile. The Gentiles means the Uncircumcised or the Nations (Goyiim). The non jew… all others included. That would mean all of the following: Buddhist, Hindu, Muslim, Shintoist, Taoist, Atheist or any “ist” in Christ.

    This is as clearly stated as plainly as possible in Luke 10:25-37 as a direct question given to Jesus. “Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life.” Not only is the question answered very directly, but it is also elaborated on in great detail.

    This is different than what is currently taught pertaining to confession, and I challenged (well proposed) that we look into this further and truly put these word to the test. As Yeshua clearly stated “Not all who call me Lord” and in some translations “Not all who call upon my name” shall be granted entrance.

    This that I proposed elsewhere is based upon little children. That one must have eyes of a little child to see the kingdom.

    Put a 15 little children in a room. All of various nationalities, social/economical backgrounds, religious creeds, and levels of intelligence. Completely random….

    What does any of the little children see? I tell you that all of these children see the kingdom of G-d for they are innocent and not yet deceived. Each one sees 14 other human children, just like them. Someone to call a friend. Someone to play with. Someone to get along with. They do not see one set as good and the other set as bad simply because of how they look, dress, think or believe what have you.

    But a child will know if one of the children mistreats them or acts violently. And if one of the children shows hate or indifference… a child will not understand WHY for they do not understand these things.

    Out of everything I believe is found in the Bible, I truly believe this form of “universalism” under G-d’s banner of Love is the one doctrine that we would be not only “out of our minds” but out of our “hearts” not to investigate.

    I told an Athiest friend (one of the most kind people) I’ve known the other day about this possibility and what this meant for him. That whether or not he liked it, someone died for him and redeemed him. And all he needs to do is walk in love. He became excited and wanted to know more. He said, “This does indeed make what Jesus did a whole heck of a lot bigger than what the church said he did!”

    As I said… it’s the craziest idea. But could it actually be. What was actually meant? The one creed-less faith to end all the ideas of division created by religions in itself? This very exact division IS the very reason for the commandment against Idols and IS the very reason for the 1st and foremost commandment.

    I have to just put that out there for everyone. Is this what we have been missing? We need to take a long hard look at this. People have gone on about it for a while, but nobody really takes them seriously because most just don’t know their bible enough, and those that do know a thing or two have a lot of man’s doctrine in them. They would never listen to someone who didn’t know scripture.

    I don’t want to debate it…. you don’t even need to comment. Just search the scriptures, search your heart, and see if there is truth in what it is that I’m saying.

  71. on 02 Jul 2010 at 7:37 amXavier

    David

    All I am saying is that we should understand that Messiah speaking through his apostles and their disciples is as authoritative and “biblically sound” as if it were the Messiah himself [cp. Acts 1.7].

    Its a simple matter of understanding and what Jesus taught as the Jewish principle of Angency [Shaliach]. As you rightly state, when we hear the Son of God its the same as if we’re hearing his Father and God. When we hear the Apostles and their disciples, its the same as if we were hearing Messiah.

    Amen I say to you, whoever receives the one I send receives me, and whoever receives me receives the one who sent me…Jesus said to them again, “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I am sending you.” Jn 13.20; 20.21

  72. on 02 Jul 2010 at 10:31 amrobert

    “I told an Athiest friend (one of the most kind people) I’ve known the other day about this possibility and what this meant for him. That whether or not he liked it, someone died for him and redeemed him. And all he needs to do is walk in love. He became excited and wanted to know more. He said, “This does indeed make what Jesus did a whole heck of a lot bigger than what the church said he did!” ”

    David
    this might be the most christian message that i have ever seen a christian spread and fits very well in my current belief of which i have recently come to.
    God loves all his creation and wishes to save all.
    Why shouldnt someone who also loves Gods creation not be acceptable to God no matter what doctrine or religion they are associated with.

  73. on 02 Jul 2010 at 5:47 pmDoubting Thomas

    Robert/David
    Amen to what you guys are saying. I’ve always believed doctrine comes second to someone’s behavior…

  74. on 02 Jul 2010 at 8:29 pmXavier

    Doubting Thomas

    According to Jesus, one’s behaviour should be dictated by his teaching and commandments:

    Why do you call Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ and do not do what I say?…If you love me you will keep my commandments…If you keep my commandments, you will abide in my love, just as I have kept my Father’s commandments and abide in his love. Lu 6.46; John 14.15; 15.10

  75. on 03 Jul 2010 at 12:32 amDoubting Thomas

    Xavier
    Some people follow Jesus’ teachings and commandments naturally even though they are ignorant when it comes to God’s/Jesus’ laws (it appears to be written in their hearts). Like Robert said in the “How Important is Correct Doctrine?” thread Msg. #12 where he quotes Romans 2:14-16…

  76. on 03 Jul 2010 at 1:25 amXavier

    Doubting Thomas

    As you said “some people” and not to be taken as a general rule of thumb. Especially with those who claim to be strong in the scriptures!

  77. on 04 Jul 2010 at 12:27 amDoubting Thomas

    Xavier
    You said, “As you said ‘some people’ and not to be taken as a general rule of thumb.”

    I agree. Most unbelievers would not fall into this category.

    You also said, “Especially with those who claim to be strong in the scriptures!”

    I’m not sure if I understand what you mean, but I have noticed that there are some people who seem to be extremely knowledgeable when it comes to the scriptures and the bible but don’t seem to behave very Christian like at times. It is difficult for us to see what is in a person’s heart.

    Only God and Jesus know what is in a person’s heart and whether they are really sincere or not. Like I’m always saying. It’s not your doctrines or how you interpret scripture that’s important to God. It’s your behavior/actions which of course are based on your sincerity and your innermost feelings/beliefs…

  78. on 04 Jul 2010 at 3:39 amXavier

    Doubting

    It is difficult for us to see what is in a person’s heart.

    As scripoture says, we can know them by their fruits since each tree is known by its own fruit [Mat 7.16; Lu 6.43].

    It’s not your doctrines or how you interpret scripture that’s important to God.

    This is the thing we have to understand, its all doctrine friend. Let’s not split Jesus [as scripture warns us not to do] by adhering to one thing and not the other. Christian living [ethics and morals] is the product of what Paul terms “sound doctrine” [knowing what the Gospel is and who God and Jesus are, cp. Jn 17.3].

    I believe it is all interconnected. To simply focus on one aspect of Christian teaching and not the other will not get us into the coming Kingdom.

    For just as the body without the spirit [which is the word/seed of the Gospel message] is dead, so also faith [the Gospel] without works is dead. Jam 2.26

  79. on 04 Jul 2010 at 9:27 amJaco

    Guys!

    Why do we discuss eligibility for salvation in the first place? This is God’s business, not ours. As soon as we tread on soil not ours (very serious! Remember King Uzziah) we will keep some and discard other essentials, and end up with a system ruining people’s lives (simply consider the exclusivist groups). Let’s leave eligibility for salvation to the One God appointed to be Judge. In the mean time, let’s focus on what IS required on our part: Obeying the Shema, loving neighbor intensely, strive toward sanctification and worshiping God in spirit and doctrinal and intentional truth. Beyond that is simply not ours!

    Jaco

  80. on 04 Jul 2010 at 10:01 amXavier

    Jaco

    I thought the “saints” [people of God] will participate in the judgement of the world [“even the angels“, 1 Cor. 6:2–3] with Christ at the final judgement. cp. Dan. 7:22; Matt. 19:28; Luke 22:30; Rev. 3:21.

  81. on 04 Jul 2010 at 10:08 amDoubting Thomas

    Jaco
    You said, “Why do we discuss eligibility for salvation in the first place?…..Let’s leave eligibility for salvation to the One God appointed to be Judge.”

    You are of course correct. Jesus was clear in his teachings that we are not to judge one another. I apologize if I offended anyone…

  82. on 04 Jul 2010 at 11:17 amJaco

    Hey, Xavier

    I fully agree with you, Xavier. But I can only judge according to what my eyes see. I also judge the actions of a brother, as to whether they correspond to what Scripture clearly says is acceptible and unacceptible behaviour (I Cor 6:9, 10). But beyond that, I cannot judge. Even the sinner’s eternal future I cannot judge, since I do not know the heart. I do believe, though, that our King will endow us with the ability to judge the hearts.

    Isa. 11:3-5 – “And he will not judge by any mere apprearance to his eyes, nor reprove simply according to the thing heard by his ears. And with righteousness he must judge the lowly ones, and with uprightness he must give reproof in behalf of the meek ones of the earth. And he must strike the earth with the rod of his mouth; and with the spirit of his lips he will put the wicked one to death. And righteousness must prove to be the belt of his hips, and faithfulness the belt of his loins.”

    I believe we will judge accordingly. Angels will be included in the judgment. I just don’t think we should judge others’ eligibility for everlasting life as yet. That privilege is preserved for us in the future.

    David,

    Thank you for your reply. Your explanation regarding refraining from pronouncing the Name has been noted and appreciated. I won’t be the judge of your intentions and, although I disagree with you from a Scriptural point of view, we can leave this matter disagreed upon with respect.

    Just to clarify the reasons behind my asking you to give the respective Names in Greek; you actually explained yourself when you said that only “in your mind” is a pagan Jesus conjured. I understand that and don’t see anything wrong with that explanation. There are those of the “Sacred Name Movement”, however, who commit the fallacy, cum hoc ergo propter hoc, meaning, correlation does not imply causation. They commit this fallacy by claiming that Iesou (without the grammatical article in the end) originates from a pagan Roman deity, Isus. The inconsistency in their argumentation is clearly highlighted in that they accept the correlation with Isus on meager evidence, while rejecting the correlation with Apolonius although the latter is founded on qualitatively stronger evidence (I reject both). So, just for the record, the transliteration into Greek can only be IESOU(S), hence the form Jesus. The same with the Divine Name, in that pre-Christian texts in both mystical an non-mystical sources we have IAW and IEOA as transliterations of the Hebrew “Yehowah”.

    This is commonly called amongst Jewish circles “putting a fence” around Torah. Messiah did this when talking about “… if you even look at a woman in lust, you have committed adultery” and “… if you are angry without cause, you have committed murder”. This is not written in the Torah. We surely couldn’t argue that he was inventing laws.

    Whether Jesus actually promoted this tradition of “putting a fence” around Torah, or in reality introducing the “spirit” of the Law is debatible. To me, not using fowl language, is not from obeying Talmudic oral traditions, but from Messiah’s New Covenant teachings (Matt. 15:11, Lu. 6:43-45).

    Hebrews 9:16:17 Talks about inheritance… If one writes a living will it cannot be put into effect until that person who wrote the will dies.

    I do not see inheritence to be the issue here. “Then, indeed, the first on had ordinances of worship, and the sanctuary furnished; being imposed together with meats and drinks and various immersions – fleshly ordinances – only till a period of emendation. And on this account, he is Mediator of a new covenant, so that death having taken place for a redemption of the transgressions against the first covenant, those having been invited might receive the promise of the aionian inheritance. Hence not even the first has been instituted without blood.” – vss. 1, 10, 15, 18. To me, this refers to divine covenants and not mere wills of inheritance.

    I wouldn’t consider them a change or a violation but rather making obsolete. Something needed to inaugurate the promise of a new covenant made by Jeremiah. There are plenty laws that are obsolete today. Animal sacrifice for instance, because simply we have no temple. This is just something that is not acknowledged in Judaism due to (at least in my mind) the catastrophes suffered by them since the inception of Christianity.

    I fully agree with you here. These are the very reasons why I consider myself obedient to Yehowah and His Messiah, since, to me, the First Covenant with its laws have been repealed and better ordinances have been ratified. I also agree with the writer of Hebrews, in that, from the time Jeremiah uttered his words of a New Covenant, that which was decaying and growing old was near vanishing away.

    We can respectfully disagree, David. I really respect you for your sincerity.

    Jaco

  83. on 04 Jul 2010 at 11:25 amJaco

    Thomas,

    It’s not your doctrines or how you interpret scripture that’s important to God. It’s your behavior/actions which of course are based on your sincerity and your innermost feelings/beliefs…

    I view judging as referring to both condemnation and exemption. I cannot condemn someone eternally, since I do not have the whole picture. Nor can I assure anyone of eternal life, for the very same reasons. I do think, however, that to say that doctrine is not important is an oversimplification of the issues. As with behaviour, Jesus will also take our reaction to clear Scriptural teaching into consideration, but he won’t end there. He will also consider factors we’re currently unable to render judgment on.

    It is my contention, thus, to live as sincerely and truthfully as possible – doctrinally and behaviourally – but to leave judgment to the One God appointed as Judge.

    God bless you,

    Jaco

  84. on 04 Jul 2010 at 2:05 pmDoubting Thomas

    Jaco
    You said, “It is my contention, thus, to live as sincerely and truthfully as possible – doctrinally and behaviorally – but to leave judgment to the One God appointed as Judge.”

    That is my intention as well. I didn’t mean to imply in my messages that I knew who would attain salvation and who wouldn’t. I just wanted to say that there are more important things than having the correct doctrine. The fact is that everybody (expert or layman) claims to have the correct doctrine…

  85. on 04 Jul 2010 at 2:33 pmrobert

    “That is my intention as well. I didn’t mean to imply in my messages that I knew who would attain salvation and who wouldn’t. I just wanted to say that there are more important things than having the correct doctrine. The fact is that everybody (expert or layman) claims to have the correct doctrine… ”

    Thomas
    i fully agree
    The thing is nobody can be sure they have a complete correct doctrine but we can make sure our behavior matches that acceptable to God which the bible in full can provide this if we use it as a guide. This is not saying that God didnt create us with the ability to know what behavior is acceptable as we see in other groups besides christians. I believe the words of Jesus just help us understand better what God put in every humans heart which might give a christian an advantage in this .
    I also believe that if you are basing your salvation on doctrine you must be 100% correct for it to provide for it ,in which i see no group today possess. there is nothing wrong with the search of true doctrine because the more truth you find the more will be revealed. Ultimatly God will choose whomever he chooses but cant imagine him not choosing someone who does things he is pleased with.

  86. on 04 Jul 2010 at 8:05 pmXavier

    Jaco

    I just don’t think we should judge others’ eligibility for everlasting life as yet.

    Isn’t that Paul’s argument though, that we should start judging earthly matters that include taking your brethren to court at 1Cor 6.1-7?

  87. on 04 Jul 2010 at 11:28 pmDoubting Thomas

    Xavier
    Judging earthly matters like disputes between Christians is one thing but judging other people’s eligibility for everlasting life is something completely different. And because of our human limitations (limited perceptions/prejudices/preconceptions etc..) it is far beyond our ability to judge such things…

  88. on 05 Jul 2010 at 8:35 amXavier

    Doubting

    Sometimes we have to make “life or death” decisions here on earth. Anyways, the point is we are judges in preperation.

  89. on 05 Jul 2010 at 2:14 pmrobert

    “Isn’t that Paul’s argument though, that we should start judging earthly matters that include taking your brethren to court at 1Cor 6.1-7?”

    Xavier
    Actually i think Paul fought against legalism tooth and nail when it was applied to salvation.
    I see you have created your own form of legalism that you feel must be followed for others to take part in salvation in which you feel you have been given judgement over.
    Grace is Grace and is just one of the callings, the other calling many flat out ignore because they trust their teachers know what they are saying.

    Isaiah 56
    10 His watchmen are blind: they are all ignorant, they are all dumb dogs, they cannot bark; sleeping, [2] lying down, loving to slumber. 11 Yea, they are greedy [3] dogs which can never have enough, and they are shepherds that cannot understand: they all look to their own way, every one for his gain, from his quarter. 12 Come ye, say they, I will fetch wine, and we will fill ourselves with strong drink; and to morrow shall be as this day, and much more abundant.

  90. on 05 Jul 2010 at 8:31 pmXavier

    robert

    How old are you friend? What do you do? Been a christian long?

  91. on 05 Jul 2010 at 8:40 pmrobert

    Xavier
    I am your senor by several years.

    I am 47 and been a christian 47 years
    and dont know what game your playing by asking.

  92. on 05 Jul 2010 at 8:43 pmXavier

    robert

    Just asking. Adios.

  93. on 05 Jul 2010 at 8:43 pmDoubting Thomas

    Robert
    You said, “The other calling many flat out ignore because they trust their teachers know what they are saying.”

    I agree. Most Christians just blindly accept what their religious leaders/teachers tell them thinking that they must know because of the many years of schooling etc… It appears some religious teachers say that if you don’t follow them and their teachings and follow another teacher than God is somehow going to condemn you for having faith and trusting the other religious leaders and teachers and not trusting and following them.

    Personally I think God is bigger than that…

  94. on 05 Jul 2010 at 8:59 pmrobert

    Xavier
    I held all your beliefs for 45 and half years till i decided to prove and reprove and reprove what i believe. My beliefs fell like flies when i research and read and reread my bible. the more lies i uncovered the more i looked for. Some beliefs held up but most fell to the real truth. I have no sacred cows to defend cause i slaughter every one i find. Even everything i belief right now is subject to continual reproving.

    Thomas
    we shouldnt just trust everyone with our salvation when with an open mind we can find all the truth we need

  95. on 05 Jul 2010 at 11:14 pmXavier

    robert

    Even everything i belief right now is subject to continual reproving.

    Wish you luck friend, its a terrible thing to “always be learning and never able to arrive at a knowledge of the truth.” [2Tim 3.7]

  96. on 05 Jul 2010 at 11:27 pmrobert

    “Wish you luck friend, its a terrible thing to “always be learning and never able to arrive at a knowledge of the truth.” [2Tim 3.7] ”

    Well i feel sorry for you if that your attitude. I rather doubt anyone can in this present day know for sure because of tradition and corruption within the copies of the NT.
    Just surround yourself with sacred cows and you will never move toward the knowledge of truth. You need to learn to use verses that pertain to the subject at hand also.

  97. on 05 Jul 2010 at 11:39 pmXavier

    robert

    Scripture states that YHWH has made known not only to us [who believe] those things pertaining to the salvation of our person in the age to come but to “all the nations of the earth” [Ps 98.2; Isa 52.10].

    Yes, there are many other things we are yet to come to a full understanding of. But I’d like to think, if words have any meaning, that YHWH God has clearly made known the faith that truly justifies in order for us to have access into His coming Kingdom on earth.

    Several days later Felix [a Gentile] came with his wife Drusilla, who was Jewish. He sent for Paul and listened to him as he spoke about faith in Christ Jesus. As Paul talked about righteousness, self-control and the judgment to come, Felix was afraid and said, “That’s enough for now! You may leave. When I find it convenient, I will send for you.” Acts 24.24

  98. on 05 Jul 2010 at 11:40 pmrobert

    Xavier
    If you read on in chapter 4 you will find i am doing exactly what was instructed. You cant just pull verses out of context to use to your own liken. You do understand these verses below?

    2 Timothy 4
    3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; 4 And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables. 5 But watch thou in all things, endure afflictions, do the work of an evangelist, make full proof of thy ministry.

  99. on 05 Jul 2010 at 11:45 pmDoubting Thomas

    Xavier
    I think it’s a wonderful thing to always be learning. And the truth is relative to many different things including life experiences. Something you believe to be true today, you might not believe to be true in 10 or 20 years from now. God will guide us toward the truth but we have humble and open minded like a child.

    In Mathew 18:4 Jesus says, “Whoever humbles himself like this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven.”

    And in Mark 10:15 Jesus says, “Truly, I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child shall not enter it.”

    And in Issiah 11:6, “The wolf shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the young goat, and the calf and the lion and the fattened calf together; and a little child shall lead them.”

    Let us not act arrogant or judgmental toward one another, but love one another. Just as we love our father in heaven, we should love our fellow man. At least that’s the way I see it anywaze…

  100. on 05 Jul 2010 at 11:47 pmXavier

    robert

    You do understand these verses below?

    Sounds like the NT writers did know the truth for sure, as opposed to being able to know anything “for sure because of tradition and corruption within the copies of the NT.” [as you said]

  101. on 05 Jul 2010 at 11:47 pmRay

    Robert, you say you are 47 years old and have been a Christian for 47 years. What was your life like before you came to Christ? Did you know you were a sinner and needed salvation?

  102. on 05 Jul 2010 at 11:47 pmrobert

    “Yes, there are many other things we are yet to come to a full understanding of. But I’d like to think, if words have any meaning, that YHWH God has clearly made known the faith that truly justifies in order for us to have access into His coming Kingdom on earth.”

    Yes it is written that he will call his elect and THEY would increase in knowledge but by what signs do you claim to be the elect. I think other groups claim this too. but neither they or you possess the signs of the elect. You do qualify by Grace as i also do because i think i may of fell short of the calling of the elect.
    Just accept salvation as the gift it is or try to possess the signs of the elect to partake of that Separate promise of Gods sabbath rest.

  103. on 05 Jul 2010 at 11:48 pmXavier

    Doubting

    I think it’s a wonderful thing to always be learning. And the truth is relative to many different things including life experiences.

    Is it just me or is this statement a contradiction in terms? 🙂

  104. on 05 Jul 2010 at 11:52 pmXavier

    robert

    I think other groups claim this too. but neither they or you possess the signs of the elect.

    How can you make such explicit statements if by your own word you claim not to know anything for sure? 😛

  105. on 05 Jul 2010 at 11:53 pmrobert

    “Sounds like the NT writers did know the truth for sure, as opposed to being able to know anything “for sure because of tradition and corruption within the copies of the NT.” [as you said]”

    Xavier
    The original writtings of NT authors are the only thing inspired, what we have is the best we can have and even you claim there corrupted when it suits your purpose. I use the WHOLE BIBLE and history to make sure it fits Gods Plan.

  106. on 06 Jul 2010 at 12:09 amrobert

    “How can you make such explicit statements if by your own word you claim not to know anything for sure?”

    Xavier
    Oh i know what the promise was to the elect and the signs they possess. I aslo know my salvation is not relying on doctrine and neither is the elects because salvation is a gift from God which comes after the sabbath rest for the elect in which All Nations will be blessed. My drive for the truth has no bearing on my salvation , but the truth will help me be acceptable to God by not being one of those that can not enter the New Heaven and Earth.
    BTW
    continually seeking the truth isnt saying that i dont know anything for sure. It just says i wont rest till i am 100% sure its the truth which if someone says they do have they are probably a liar

  

Leave a Reply