The Sabbath

[Guest]

oops I read 1 of this sabbath post.

[Guest]

Dear Damon,
Please calm down or you may stroke out. I have made no straw man, nor does it matter if you are a sabbath keeper to me. My point is valid. As for Acts 15, the verse you cite refers to the Mosaic Code and forcing Gentiles to observe the Sinaitic Covenant codes and regulations....not the decalogue. The issue was not Sabbath observance or whether or not any of the 10 Commandments are in effect for Jew and Gentile...you have imposed this notion upon the text. The Jerusalem council states that the Noahic Covenant stipulations (15:19-20) shall be expected of the Gentile Nazaraeans. As for the rest of the Mosaic regulations, those are not binding upon them at all. This is the point of Paul's letter to the Galatians. He never stated that the Decalogue was no longer in effect for the Church...again you have used isogetics. It is about circumcision, kosher regulations and orla traditions of Jewry that no one could bear.
The New Covenant is the promised New Contract with the House of Israel and Judah. It was given to fulfill the Promises of God to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob...not to mention Adam and Eve.
You insist that I am causing a disturbance about this issue.....that is nonsense and you know it quite well Damon. I am simply stating my perspective on a forum..or is that forbidden in your eyes? I did not start this forum, nor this topic.....but I do participate in it from time to time when my Church and Family duties allow.
I am not sure I follow your synopsis of Galations...yet it is tied to Acts 15. And as I have stated it deals with Gentiles being included into the New Covenant Israel without subjection to the Old Covenant codes of Circumcision, Diet etc. The Decalogue is not the issue as you imply. Sabbath existed before the Fall and was established for mankind, therefore it is universal in scope....not Hebrew.
Sin is the misuse of human free will in contradiction to Divine mandate...this is the same in every covenant, yet the mandates may differ.
Do you think that the Decalogue or the Mosaic code that is derived from it was enacted to save Israel from sinning? That was never it's purpose. Nor was it given to enable Israelites to save themselves.
What Paul is talking about is the Pharasaic notion that we can earn our righteous state before God by not only perfectly obeying the Decalogue and all the stipulations of the Mosaic code, but buy protecting them by adding and obeying all the multitudes of Oral Laws of Tradition (Mishnas & Talmuds). The context is clear. Messiah himself condemned this false belief and their vain traditions that nullified the very Torah and Mosaic Covenant they sought to protect.
As for Romans 1:12....Did I ever say that obedience results in salvation? Nor did Paul. Love produces the obedience of Faith. Like the woman forgiven of Adultery, we are all forgiven as told by Messiah: Go now and no longer sin. Just because the Decalogue does not redeem us in no way means we are henceforth released from obedience. For if you Love God you will keep His Commandments....but as a Sabbath Keeper you already know this right?
Paul observed the Commandments out of Love and Obedience, as his Epistles reveal. As for your assumptions that he did so as to not offend his fellow Jews contradicts his own Letters...He did not seek any man's approval. And did offend the Jews. He wished the Pharasaic "false brethren" in the Church would go all the way and "cut the whole thing off." Does that sound like someone who seeks to maintain the good will of those who oppose him? And it was James the Brother of the Lord who concluded the Jerusalem Council with:"For since antiquity, Moses has had his preachers in every {Gentile} city, since he is readin their synagogues on every Sabbath." Again, sabbath observance is not the issue in this Council or in the dispute between Paul and the Pharasaic "Legalist" faction. As you well know the Gentiles who first became Nazaraeans were "God Fearers" who attended Sabbath services. Sabbath Keeping was not an issue among Gentiles until well after the last Jewish Revolt in 135 A.D. This is fact...so obviously their understanding of Paul was different that todays.
I am glad you know about the Irish Church (Culdaeans), and that until the Roman See imposed their will upon them they continued in the Eastern Way and Faith. Glad to here it. But that it is Legalistic to say that "we either observe all 10 Commandments or none at all" is absurd. To say less is unbiblical. Tell me where the fourth or any of the Ten Commandments were singled out by Messiah or the Apostles and were declared rescinded or that we could in Christian Liberty pick and choose which one God actually meant? Please do so Damon. I am not legalistic, just blunt. If you can prove this to me from scripture, then like Luther I too will recant...until then here I stand. Sorry if that bothers you. At least I am not demanding you get circumsized and keep the Modaic codes. Now that would be Judaizing and legalistic.
Now How does Deuteronomy's code against adultery (22:22) have any bearing on Hosea? "If a man is found having sexual relations with another man's wife, then both of them shall surely die, the man who slept with her, and the woman also; so shall you remove evil from Israel." Excuse me, but YHVH did not tell Hosea to sleep with someone's wife. So there is your first error. God said to him:" Go, and marry a prostitute and the offspring of prostitution,,,because the Nation will commit great whoredoms in departing from YHVH." I am sorry you failed Hebrew idioms 101, but "a wife of a whore" means " a woman of prostitution" i.e. a whore. She was not married prior to Hosea....good grief! His marriage was to be a living parable to Israel concerning Her failed relationship with God. Damon, please do not say God commands his elect to do evil so that good may come of it...that is so wrong in so many ways. Ezekiel also was making a poopy parable for sinful Israel...Jeremiah became a nudist too...so what is your point? Sabbath promotes adultery, fecalphilia and nudity? LOL! I do not follow you at all. God did not cause these Prophets to sin, nor was their divinely appointed action contrary to the Mosaic Covenat or Decalogue. Well, that is unless you too see things the way the Pharasee's did. I think it is you who have failed to get Hosea 1:2 and my points...and I admit I find your arguments a bit out there...so i guess you may be right that I don't get it...if it is you.
When you say "Law", do you mean the Decalogue or the Mosaic Covenant...as "Nomos" in Pauline and Judaic literature can mean one or the other according to context. When one is lead by the Holy Spirit he will affirm the Decalogue (Law of God), but since he is under the New Covenant he is no longer under the Mosaic Covenant (Law of Moses). But I am sure you already know this. Paul also uses "pnuemos" for spirit (human spirit) and Spirit (Holy Spirit)...and it is the usage and context that determines which is meant. But it seems you think Law means Decalague written by God and the Old Covenant written by Moses on parchment. But if you do that then you will misconstrue Paul as did Marcion...but it seems you may well be doing so. Jeremiah distinguished between the Torah of God written on Tablets and Hearts and the Old Mosaic Covenant broken by Israel...why can't you? Paul clearly does.
Being lead by God does not mean God no longer leads us in the path of obedience to His Holy Commandments...which do not save mind you. Did Hosea and Ezekiel ever break the letter of the Law? I do not see how their actions did as you claim. But you seem to say we are permitted to break the 4th Commandment for a higher purpose, or any Commandment at all. This does show your basic principle and how you may be colored in your viewing of Scripture. Please tell me where Messiah or any Apostle taught this principle...I know that the world teacheds that the ends justifies the means, but Scripture? NO! Now if you mean that we should follow the spirit (intent) of the Commandments rather than mere outward performance..well I agree. But this does not exempt us from following the intent of the 4th Commandment...halting our labors and experiencing the refreshing liberty and salvation we have in God on the 7th Day. That is the whole point of Hebrews 4. The Spirit of the Law does not release us from fulfilling it. You seem to assume that at the present time the Decalogue and Love are in conflict here, but in the Kingdom they will be in complete unity.....that is your estimation based upon your present expperiences maybe? That is not a Scriptural position Damon, and it is a weak argument at best.
Obviously you have not read my prior posts, but as to the Hebraism,"King's Torah" or as it is in your translation, "Royal Law" you are incorrect. James wrote in clear terms well known and in use among Jewry. That term refers to the Decalogue, as God is it's author and He is Melek haOlam..King of the Universe. All those verses you cite where not used to create this letter, and they are not the issue. Your argument that it cannot mean so because no one in Heaven can commit adultery is foolish Damon and you know it. There is no Law where there is no sin, and there is no sin in Heaven.....so then there must be no royal law at all! stop with such unreasonable arguments and get a lexicon and study second temple Hebraism and Judaic Greek. The Royal Law is the Law of the King of the Universe and Israel: God.
Let's cite James ok? "If you observe the Torah of the King by this, as it is written,'You shall love your neighbor as yourself', you will do well. But if you show bigotry among your fellow man, you commit sin and you will be condemned by the Torah as a Torah breaker. For whoever shall observe the Torah completely, yet fail to fulfill one precept, he then is guilty of transgressing the whole Torah. For the One who said,'You shall not commit adultery', also said,'You shall not murder.' Now if you do not commit adultery but murder someone instead, you have become a transgressor of the Torah. So speak and act as people who are to be judged by the Torah of Liberation."
Now the Aramaic New Testament has "Torah of God" where the Greek has "Torah of the King" Your argument falls flat in light of this and the passage itself, as James not only cites the principle of the Decalogue (i.e. the Torah of God the King verse 8), but goes on to cite several commandments from this Royal Law as you prefer it (verse 11). James cites His Messiah's synopsis of the Torah's final 6 commandments which are man's duties to one's fellow man (Matt. 23:37-40), and then cites several of them in his argument. Now Messiah said that the first principle of complete Love for God (Commandments 1-4) is the greatest priciple, and that the second is akin to it as it is the principle of neighborly love (Commandments 5-10). And on these two principles both the Law of Moses (Pentatuech) and the Scroll of the Prophets depend.
Now Damon, how can you say James is not discussing the Decalogue after all this? Or do you ignore the plain text. And what has Ephesians 3:14-15 have to do with this text or the Sabbath Commandment? Or I Cor. 15:24-28? I do agree that we must worship God, because the witness of Jesus is the Prophetic Spirit...but what has this to do with James or the Sabbath? Well the Seventh Day Adventist's do espouse Ellen G. White as the final fulfillment of Rev. 19:20, but that nutty idea is a weird as the Watchtower's claim that their original 144,000 members are mentioned in that same book. So what?
You have failed to show linguistically that the Hebraism "the King's Torah" is not a Judaic reference to the Decalogue....or why James would then cite from it as proof. To James the Torah of God the King is a Torah of Liberation.....yet you seem to say it is a harsh and unbearable load. This is your position, but where is the Scriptural datum? I do not hold that this Torah is impossible to observe, nor would God demand what He knows is impossible for us to do..as the YHVH God said to Moses this very thing. He has not given us a burden we cannot bear, nor is He a God who is cruel and capricious. It is the rebelliousness of Israel and the vain oral traditions their Jewish Rabbis that nullified the Mosaic Covenant and made the precepts, regulations and stipulations of the Covenant too hard for israel to bear (Act 15:10).
The issue is the Decalogue and it's continuation in the New Covenant, not the Old Covenant rules and regulations which are long dead and nailed onto the Cross. Sabbath is part and parcel of the Decalogue, as James himself states. If we cannot be bigots, thus breaking the second principle of the 6 Commandments (i.e. Love of one's Neighbor), then how can we justify neglecting the Sabbath Commandment and thereby not break the first and greatest principle? It is a simple and logical question.

Paul states that this Law is Holy and Love is the motivation which will cause the obedience of Faith. Stubborn and Faithless Israelites were without the power of Grace to conform to that moral standard. The Law made them fully aware of their sinfulness (Rom. 7:7,13) and condemned them as unjust (Rom. 7:9-11; Gal. 3:13; James 2:9) and, having proven there is no hope of redemption through one's own self righteous efforts, brought them like a school master brought them to a place where they would cast themselves upon the mercy of God that they might trust only in the merits and righteousness of their Messiah and His Atonement (Gal. 3:24). Therefore? the goal of the servants of God in Christ is conformity to the moral image of God as manifested in Christ Jesus (Eph. 4:13). So it is that the Christian is under the obligation to observe the Moral Torah of God the King (i.e. the Decalogue: Mat. 5:19ff; Eph. 4:28, 5:3, 6:2; Col. 3:9; I Pet. 4:15), not as a condition of our salvation, but that we might become more and more like His Father in Heaven (Rom. 8:1-9; Eph. 4:13), and this because of Love for the One who redeemed us (Rom. 13:8-10; I John 5:5:2-3). As for the Sabbath Commandment, well it was our Heavenly Father who rested on the 7th Day and established it for mankind also..so if we wish to be like Messiah and His Father why not keep the Sabbath that they established and observe it? The rebellious and disobedient Israelites never did keep the Sabbath properly, for it was not observed in a Trusting and Loving Faith. The Prophets declared that one day all Israel would properly observe the Sabbath and enter into God's day of Rest, and they also said that from Sabbath to Sabbath even Gentiles would worship God! Paul affirms this and said,"Sabbath observance remains for the People of God. For whoever participates in God's day of rest himself has ceased from his labors, just as God Himself did. So let us do our utmost to participate in this day of rest, so that not a single one of us may fall through the same sort of disobedience." Hebrews 4:9-11 Paul is so clear in Hebrews 4 that I am shocked you cannot see it....well many do and explain the plain sense away through allegorical hermanuetics they term "spiritualizing". But one can spiritualize away almost anything, like the deity of Christ, the virgin birth, the resurrection, the ascension and the second advent. Protestant liberalism has been doing this since the 19th century.

I hope I have answered your various points, or at least honestly replied to each one. I hope you are not offended, as I am not offended by your blunt posting. Maybe you misunderstood me and I you...or amybe you understand me too well and I you? O well, that is the way of dialogue. Go in Peace and with God.

In Messiah,
+Ken

P.S. I am sorry if you feel I have not answered Steve..I have tried in my own way. By forcefully laying out my position and citing this and that..as well as making arguments from Scriptural passages and concepts. Forgive me if I cite from ancient Church sources, Apologists and Church Fathers.....as I believe in the validity and use of Church teaching which has been held by all, everywhere and at all times. I guess that makes me Catholic in an Ancient sense.

[Guest]

Hi Ken,

I know you are physically quite ill, so I tend to cut you more slack than I might otherwise. Nonetheless, I must say that your spirit is far too combative to win many converts to the Eastern Christianity that you present as so superior to every other variety. You tell Damon to calm down, then you fly into a rant that made his post seem as amiable as a golden retriever.

I, for one, am interested in reading your insights, however much I may disagree with many of them. I may be the only reader at this forum who has this problem, but your neglect of breaking your article-length treatises into managable segments (like paragraphs) actually discourages me from reading it all.

The format of this forum does not recognize paragraph indentions, so it is necessary to hit the return and add a space to distinguish between paragraphs. I have actually gone into some of your earlier posts and added these spaces for you, just so people won't be too discouraged about reading your posts. They are long, and often informative, but very wearying when they appear to be several hundred uninterrupted lines of text.

I obviously have more points of agreement with Damon than with you on this subject, though he and I lock horns on a number of other topics. I think, however, that you were unjustifiably rude to him in your answer. I know you are passionate about your beliefs, but if you are "speaking the truth in love," it is not as obvious to me as it may seem to you.

One thing I agree with Damon about is that you have consistently failed to give exegetical answers to the scriptures I present in favor of my views in my original post at the beginning of this thread. You repeat, in your most recent posts, arguments that I believe I adequately refuted in that original post. In all of your answers to me, you dispute my points, but do not refute them. I, for one, would be interested in your doing so.

You also mentioned my "replacement theology." I hear this label bandied about by critics of amillennialism, but I would very much like to hear what the actual views are to which you are giving this label. You would do me (and all of us, I think) a service if you would start another thread in which you explain what the beliefs are that you refer to as "replacement theology" and what it is that you find objectionable about it.

Try to keep the temper down, if possible, so that we can all enjoy hearing your opinions.

[jaiotu]

Please calm down or you may stroke out.

Thank you for your concerns about my health. I assure you that I'm fine.

I have made no straw man, nor does it matter if you are a sabbath keeper to me. My point is valid.

Well, unless you've brought something new to the table, then we still disagree. *shrugs*

As for Acts 15, the verse you cite refers to the Mosaic Code and forcing Gentiles to observe the Sinaitic Covenant codes and regulations....not the decalogue. The issue was not Sabbath observance or whether or not any of the 10 Commandments are in effect for Jew and Gentile...you have imposed this notion upon the text. The Jerusalem council states that the Noahic Covenant stipulations (15:19-20) shall be expected of the Gentile Nazaraeans. As for the rest of the Mosaic regulations, those are not binding upon them at all. This is the point of Paul's letter to the Galatians. He never stated that the Decalogue was no longer in effect for the Church...again you have used isogetics. It is about circumcision, kosher regulations and orla traditions of Jewry that no one could bear.

Let's pursue your line of reasoning, here. Am I correct in stating that even according to the traditional Jewish view, the Noahide regulations which applied to Gentiles didn't include the decalogue?

If that's so, then why are you acting as if they should?

The New Covenant is the promised New Contract with the House of Israel and Judah. It was given to fulfill the Promises of God to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob...not to mention Adam and Eve.

I don't disagree.

You insist that I am causing a disturbance about this issue.....that is nonsense and you know it quite well Damon. I am simply stating my perspective on a forum..or is that forbidden in your eyes? I did not start this forum, nor this topic.....but I do participate in it from time to time when my Church and Family duties allow.

What I meant is, why are you acting as though there's a problem with Gentiles not keeping the Sabbath? That's the kind of disturbance that I took the passage in Colossians to mean. Or did you interpret it some other way?

Sabbath existed before the Fall and was established for mankind, therefore it is universal in scope....not Hebrew.

But is Sabbath keeping legislated prior to Moses? We both agree that the Sabbath existed but that's not what the discussion revolves around.

Sin is the misuse of human free will in contradiction to Divine mandate...this is the same in every covenant, yet the mandates may differ.

Well, try applying the definition I gave and see if it agrees with yours, then. I think you'll find that the two definitions agree perfectly.

Do you think that the Decalogue or the Mosaic code that is derived from it was enacted to save Israel from sinning? That was never it's purpose. Nor was it given to enable Israelites to save themselves.

Right. But that's also precisely why it was imperfect. It was designed to point the Israelites to Christ, but it failed to do so.

I've posted this in other sections of this forum, but I'll briefly repeat myself here. The text of the bible is often structured in the form of a chiasmus. (See "The Regathering of Israel in the Light of Isaiah 11" in the Eschatology section for more details.) Deuteronomy 6:1-9 is an inverted chiasmus with "Hear O Israel: the Lord our God, the Lord is one" as the central point of emphasis, with the verses summarized as follows:

1 These are the LAWS which you must do in the LAND.

2 Keep the LAW, both you and your CHILDREN.

3 Hear the LAW and OBEY it.

4 The Lord is ONE.

5-6 LOVE the Lord! OBEY from the HEART!

7a Teach the LAW to your CHILDREN.

7b-9 Speak of, bind, or write the LAW in all respects having to do with your inheritance in the LAND.

The structure here goes from outer observance in verses 1-3 to observance from the heart in verses 5-9. It centers around the statement that "the Lord is one" in verse 4. Far from being a commentary on the number of Beings in the Godhead, it has to do with God's marital union with Israel! That's why their response - verses 5-9 - should be love and obedience from the heart!

And that was the original purpose of the Law. It was meant to guide the Israelites from rebellion to obedience through discipline to eventually arrive at obedience from the heart. The problem is, most of them never got there, and that's why a New Covenant was necessary. The New Covenant basically consists of the GOAL of the Old Covenant: living according to the Royal Law of love! That's all it is. Once that is achieved, then the crutch - the "training wheels" if you will - which helped the Israelites to arrive there is no longer necessary.

Just because the Decalogue does not redeem us in no way means we are henceforth released from obedience. For if you Love God you will keep His Commandments....but as a Sabbath Keeper you already know this right?

But obedience to what? That's the crux of what this whole discussion revolves around. Why do you think Paul spent time admonishing the Galatians not to go back to being "under the Law"? Obviously there was something different that God wanted, right?

Paul observed the Commandments out of Love and Obedience, as his Epistles reveal. As for your assumptions that he did so as to not offend his fellow Jews contradicts his own Letters...

What about 1 Cor. 9:19-23? That's what I was referring to.

Now How does Deuteronomy's code against adultery (22:22) have any bearing on Hosea? "If a man is found having sexual relations with another man's wife, then both of them shall surely die, the man who slept with her, and the woman also; so shall you remove evil from Israel." Excuse me, but YHVH did not tell Hosea to sleep with someone's wife. So there is your first error.

No, you completely misunderstood me. Hosea's wife Gomer continued to have adulterous relationships with other men after Hosea married her, and Hosea obviously knew about it or he wouldn't have written about it. Look at Hosea 2:1-5.

Ezekiel also was making a poopy parable for sinful Israel...Jeremiah became a nudist too...so what is your point? Sabbath promotes adultery, fecalphilia and nudity? LOL! I do not follow you at all. God did not cause these Prophets to sin, nor was their divinely appointed action contrary to the Mosaic Covenat or Decalogue.

My contention is that God did cause these prophets to 'sin' according to the Mosaic Law! That's exactly what I'm saying! But it was for a greater purpose.

But it seems you think Law means Decalague written by God and the Old Covenant written by Moses on parchment.

Not exactly. I'm referring to the Mosaic Law as the means by which we are led to love God, as I explained above concerning the chiasmus in Deuteronomy 6. That was done away with and replaced by the Spirit of love within us. For the most part, the Spirit of love and the decalogue go hand in hand and don't contradict one another. However, we disagree as concerning whether the Gentiles were obligated to keep the Sabbath. Yes, many of them did keep it and I'm not disputing that! But were they obligated to keep it? That's the crux of the matter.

Obviously you have not read my prior posts, but as to the Hebraism,"King's Torah" or as it is in your translation, "Royal Law" you are incorrect.

No, I did read them. The Jews were incorrect in how they viewed the term, the "royal law." Unfortunately, they viewed everything from the perspective of strict adherence to the Mosaic Law, so they couldn't fully understand this concept. I explained it very clearly as the Law governing the Kingdom of heaven.

Your argument that it cannot mean so because no one in Heaven can commit adultery is foolish Damon and you know it. There is no Law where there is no sin, and there is no sin in Heaven.....so then there must be no royal law at all!

Now I know you don't get it. When we are perfectly led by the Spirit, we can do no sin! In this life, none of us are perfectly led by the Spirit, but that is the Law governing the Kingdom of heaven. Your accusation that my reasoning is foolish just goes to show that you either don't understand me or are more interested in defending your position than in listening with an open mind.

[snip citation of James]

The problem with your reasoning concerning these verses is that "You shall love your neighbor as yourself" isn't part of the decalogue. Yes, one can explain it as a summary of the last six commandments (or seven, depending on how one counts), but that's not the point. Why didn't James refer to commandments found in the decalogue as part of the royal law, but instead refer to loving one's neighbor as oneself as part of it? Because the decalogue wasn't part of it.

What James was saying is that if we abide by loving one's neighbor as oneself, we'll do well. But if, instead, we have respect of persons, we are convicted of the MOSAIC LAW as transgressors. Why? Because this precept of not respecting persons is found, not in the decalogue itself, but in the MOSAIC LAW! (Lev. 19:15) Notice that loving one's neighbor as oneself is found but a few verses away (Lev. 19:18 ).

If we are led by the Spirit, we are not bound by the Law. But if we're not led by the Spirit, we can certainly be convicted as transgressors by the Law. That's what James was saying.

Well the Seventh Day Adventist's do espouse Ellen G. White as the final fulfillment of Rev. 19:20, but that nutty idea is a weird as the Watchtower's claim that their original 144,000 members are mentioned in that same book. So what?

I'm not SDA, so where did this come from?

To James the Torah of God the King is a Torah of Liberation.....yet you seem to say it is a harsh and unbearable load.

No, the Royal Law is a law of liberation because there are no restrictions on it. Coming from a Hebraistic background, I'm sure you know about the restricted Law versus the unrestricted Law, right?

There is a Jewish commentary on the Law which says that even though the Law itself is constant, its effect on us in our journey towards the goal (which is inward obedience based on love) changes over time. How so? By virtue of the restricted Law versus the unrestricted or expansive Law. Over time, we move from being disciplined by the restricted Law towards living according to the unrestricted or expansive Law.

For instance, the animal sacrifices are part of the restricted Law. In other words, there are restrictions on how to offer sacrifices, when to offer them, etc. But there are no restrictions on, say, not respecting persons. Are we only to not respect persons in the courtroom, or are we to not respect persons in every situation?

Here's a link to an article on this, from a Jewish perspective:

http://www.chiefrabbi.org/thoughts/tzav5764.htm

The Law of Liberty that James is referring to is the unrestricted Law! It's all summed up by the Royal Law of love.

P.S. I am sorry if you feel I have not answered Steve..I have tried in my own way. By forcefully laying out my position and citing this and that..as well as making arguments from Scriptural passages and concepts. Forgive me if I cite from ancient Church sources, Apologists and Church Fathers.....as I believe in the validity and use of Church teaching which has been held by all, everywhere and at all times. I guess that makes me Catholic in an Ancient sense.

That's not what I meant. I meant that you gave your own reasons for your position instead of examining the points Steve made and discussing them one by one. You even reiterated parts of your position that the points he made discussed, without addressing what he'd said. Unless you can do that, what point would there be in me addressing what Steve had already commented on, regarding your position?

[Guest]

I do not understand the insistance that Israel and the church are the same thing. If this is so, why did Jesus inform Nicodemus, a ruler and teacher of Israel, that he was unfit to be a member of the church? After all, Nicodemus believed in God and was in high standing in the "church of Israel" yet he needed to be born of the water and the spirit to enter into Christ's church.

Every single principle in the Ten Commandments is also taught in the New Covenent in a literal sense except one - sabbath keeping. You could keep all of the Ten and not be a good Christian. Taking revenge was not forbidden for example and numerous other examples come easily to mind.

Should we be Patriarchs, Jews, and Christians at the same time?

God buried Moses in a secret place, why do we keep trying to dig him up?

[jaiotu]

Hi Homer.

Israel and the Church are the same because they're both the people of God, and loved by God regardless of anything else. Christians are grafted onto Israel according to Romans 11, and Christians are part of the body of Christ which is the Church, so they're the same.

But why are there differences in the covenants that Israel and the Church were given? Because God is working with His people through time, and not everyone spiritually "matures" at the same rate. To use an analogy, when one plants a tree, one can't immediately expect to see fruit appear. One has to wait until the tree matures. In the exact same way, those who are bearing the "fruits of the Spirit" now represent the firstfruits of the people of God. Those who are further behind - as many of the Israelites were - are simply not mature yet.

Make sense?

As far as being baptized, that was in order to enter the Kingdom, not the Church. Read what the text says without putting any of your own ideas into it.

Since you brought up the comment about the decalogue minus the Sabbath being literally taught in the New Testament, that tells me that you didn't even understand my argument on why the Royal Law is the Law of love and nothing more. Otherwise, you would have addressed the points I made instead of going back to this one. Since you didn't even understand my argument, I can't carry the discussion any further. We'll just have to agree to disagree.

Damon

[Guest]

Shalom Steve & Damon,
Though I have a chronic illness, I do not require any extra slack. I am sorry for my lack of spacing, and I shall try and correct that. I am not trying to convert anyone to anything, I am just expressing myself, and I gather that my style of discussion has been seen as offensive...for that I am sorry. It has nothing to do with my disease I can assure you both.

I will go back and read your questions Steve, as I have obviously by passed them in this string....mia culpa. I did try to reply item by item to Damon though...and I did try to be silly, but I guess I failed in my pokes. Even so, I have only tried to answer whatever comes across my email as best as my time allows.

Damon, Steve knows me personally and knows I am not the striking viper my last reply to you may seem to show....I assure you I am not trying kill any Golden retrievers.

Steve, I do espouse my Faith and try to show how it does differ and is also similar to other Eastern and Oriental Orthodox Churches....but I do not hold an elitist position that My Church is the end all and be all. Do I believe that many of the theological positions are superior to others? Yes. Or else I would hold other convictions. Even so, this in no way infers another Church is less in God's eyes. You hold adamantly to your own convictions and I know you hold them to be superior to those of your differing brethren. I have never thought that you felt yourself to be superior because of this, just a bold exponent of your view points. We may differ as to style and form.....but I too do not feel I am superior in any way.

I am sorry If my jesting at Damon's Hosea gaff was too searing.....but I am not sorry of the assertions I made in regards to it and other. If I am bothersome or you feel I am too corse then just say so and I will gracefully bow out of this forum.

I have enjoyed all the postings I have read here and have never sought to cause irritation, but sometimes stones tumbling in grit will get scuffed about and feel irritated by the whole process. I am sorry if you or any have felt scuffed about or scratched by tumbling with me in this forum.

God's Peace to You Steve and most certainly to Damon,
+Ken

[jaiotu]

Damon, Steve knows me personally and knows I am not the striking viper my last reply to you may seem to show....I assure you I am not trying kill any Golden retrievers.

No offense taken on my end. I'm actually interested to know that there are churches out there like the one you hail from. I never knew that they had survived to modern times.

Damon

[Guest]

Hi Ken,

Even though you have sometimes responded to me in the same manner as you did to Damon, I have never been offended. I like a scuffle (and so does Damon, I presume). I more easily get offended on behalf of others. Not everybody here knows you as well as I do, and knows how lovable you are! ;-)

[Actually, for those who don't know Ken, he and I have been acquainted for many years. We first met when a mutual friend arranged for him and me to debate on the millennium. It went about like our debates here on the forum go...nowhere! However, I have had him on the radio program a few times to debate on such matters as preterism and the ordination of women, and, before we had this forum, he used to send me long emails about things I said on the radio that he wished to correct. One of our graduates from the Great Commission School actually defected and married him! :-) Since those early days, Ken has become a priest in the Eastern Church (he has contributed a lot of posts on that subject on this forum as well).

In personal conversation, I have found Ken to be one of the most entertaining people to visit with that I know. He has me in stitches from the moment he starts talking (His sarcastic wit comes off somewhat more humorous, and less abrasive, in verbal conversation than in writing). He disagrees with me on a ton of issues, but we both resonate on our mutual disagreements with things like Calvinism, dispensationalism (Ken is historic premillennial), Word of Faith, and certain other things. We tend to speak very directly to each other, because of our relationship, but we get along famously whenever we get together. ]

Ken, you are abrasive, but I certainly don't want you to go away. You bring wealth of interesting historical information...but I am still looking for your exegetical rebuttals.

[Guest]

Peace Brothers!
Damon, it is only by the Grace of God that My Church even exists! With Parthian, Persian, Hindu, Mongol, Burmese, Islamic and European colonial persecutions I am amazed we have any members left....but at least in Syria, Israel, India, Sri Lanka, Ceylon,Nepal, Burma, Nettara and Thailand we have over 3 million souls...then there are we Euro-Americans..LOL.

I guess you both can call me Sandy! He he he Cause I am 80 grain Nazarani Orthodox! ROFL. I do perform better in face to face goofing. And Amy (my wife) wants to know what makes her so defective? Marrying Me or your School...Hahahahahahaha! Gotcha! Bam! Boof! couldn't help it Steve.....hehahahahahaha.

Ok maybe my disease has goofed my wit up a bit, but If I don't see humor in everything sometimes illness can make you want to cry. I'd rather laugh than wine, so if I poke fun in serious matters or seem to be sarcastic I may have seen something terribly funny in what has been posted...it is just my nature. I never said I was fully sane, just a Nazarani Orthodox Jezus Freak!

Steve and I share a lot in common, but come from to different perspectives. Mine is Eastern Orthodox Semitic Christianity and his is Occidental Eclectic Counterculture Anti-establishmentarianistic Jesus Movement Charismatic Christianity (i.e. O.E.C.A.J.M.C.C). LOL! I say Tomato he says Rutabaga, but we both like Calvinists well done..rofl.

Actually if my Wife had never come to GCS I would never have met her, and if she had not been so fixated on Scriptural Study which she received from Steve and his School, she would have never really understood me at all....as I am just as much a Bible fanatic as Steve is. I know that on the essentials (Nicaean Creed) Steve and I are One, and that is all that matters. It isn't Steve or My Convictions that saves us, but Grace and our Loving, Trusting and Obedient Fidelity to God in Christ...we only can walk in this darkness according to the Light we each are given, and we are not here to point fingers at who has the bigger or brighter flame. Even though Steve uses a bic Lighter at times..He he he.




In messiah,
+Ken