|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: Keep The Law? - One Stop Thread - 9/27/2008 3:54:26 PM
|
|
|
Odeliya
Posts: 2314
Joined: 8/10/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: SpongeBlog
If you think my posts are long now, if I posted all the scriptures that my arguments are based on, all the time...well...I don't think even you would read them. When you get serious about challenging what I'm saying, that's when I get serious about posting scriptual support.
Great idea, its obvious people dont even have time to read all the posts as is, let alone if we start copy-pasting tons of Scripture into it ! Quoting is good only in moderation.
I already addressed this as well in the post to BT ;last paragraph.
I presume all of us -people who participate in debate at such deep theological level- have read the entire Scripture many times, so posting a verse thinking the other party has never considered it and we thus would prove our point is, for the lack of better word, naive.
_____________________________
Proverbs XI:14 Where no counsel is, the people fall: but in the multitude of counselors there is safety.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Keep The Law? - One Stop Thread - 9/27/2008 4:03:25 PM
|
|
|
Odeliya
Posts: 2314
Joined: 8/10/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
If one can physically receive communion by the letter or by the Spirit, can't one observe Pesach by faith also. If an infant can be physically baptised by the letter or with the Spirit, can't a circumcision be performed in the same manner?
Why must Pesach and physical circumcision be seen as acts of pride and self-rightiousness, while communion and baptism are seen as acts of humility and rightiousness
Only when it is  It is entirely possible to celebrate Pesach, do circums-n, etc. or do communion and bapism and be prideful and self-rightiousness.
It is entirely possible to celebrate Pesach, do circums-n, etc. or do communion and bapism and act in humility in love.
This is what the whole point non lit T camp tries to convey - it is not the physical manner that counts. One can be physical torah laws observant and still be a pagan! I know messianic that are pagans and you probably do , too. I know chistians that are nonbelievers. Physical doesnt determine the spiritual. You seem to be putting the cart before the horse.
_____________________________
Proverbs XI:14 Where no counsel is, the people fall: but in the multitude of counselors there is safety.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Keep The Law? - One Stop Thread - 9/27/2008 6:32:41 PM
|
|
|
SpongeBlog
Posts: 1005
Joined: 12/9/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Odeliya
...Mcleod, darling, you speak English only, ok. I won’t survive another lover of hebrenglish texts, i am all but a weak woman. Even though i do appreciate Bluethread’s shtick, for i am confident he means well.
Trust me ,I am just as guilty in loving style –only unlike BT's "bling", mine is not making others life hard by putting Hebrew/English words into text , but buying crazy sandals  .
This whole matter always reminds me of what Paul said...
"Unless you speak intelligible words with your tongue, how will anyone know what you are saying? You will just be speaking into the air. 10Undoubtedly there are all sorts of languages in the world, yet none of them is without meaning. 11If then I do not grasp the meaning of what someone is saying, I am a foreigner to the speaker, and he is a foreigner to me." (1 Cor. 14:9-10)
I can't help but to see this use of Hebrew words as another way of showing us christians how much messianics know far and above the reformed church--IOW, the pride of knowledge. Sorry, but that's how it comes across to me.
_____________________________
"For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking, but of righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit, because anyone who serves Christ in this way is pleasing to God and approved by men." (Romans 14:17,18)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Keep The Law? - One Stop Thread - 9/27/2008 6:36:37 PM
|
|
|
SpongeBlog
Posts: 1005
Joined: 12/9/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Odeliya
...I presume all of us -people who participate in debate at such deep theological level- have read the entire Scripture many times, so posting a verse thinking the other party has never considered it and we thus would prove our point is, for the lack of better word, naive.
Bingo! That's exactly why I don't bother many times to post scripture. I know our dear messianic brethren are more than familiar with the scriptures and most of the time don't need chapter and verse.
Now how they understand that chapter and verse...well, that's another matter.
_____________________________
"For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking, but of righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit, because anyone who serves Christ in this way is pleasing to God and approved by men." (Romans 14:17,18)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Keep The Law? - One Stop Thread - 9/27/2008 7:13:59 PM
|
|
|
SpongeBlog
Posts: 1005
Joined: 12/9/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bluethread
Ro 14:23 "...everything that does not come from faith is sin." Therefore, anyone who has ever kept Torah without faith did not keep Torah at all. As I stated before, the gracious gift of faith always comes first. As you state, only he who acts with perfect faith can not be known to be truly saved. However, that does not mean that those who show a measure of faith are not saved. Our salvation is perfectly established in the heavenlies, even if it is not perfectly proven here on earth.
You and I both know this (not the Romans 14:23 part. You're misusing that verse). What we are discussing is "what does God say in the New Covenant that we do that shows us to have been justified by faith and in covenant with him?" The NT really does tell us what that is very plainly. And it also says what counts for nothing in that regard. This ought to be hitting home to any person who belongs to a community of believers who thinks things like circumcision, and sabbath observance, and the keeping of various festivals are the proof of one's faith and relationship with God. You're being mislead if you have been taught that--possibly away from what really does prove your faith and relationship with God. That's the danger of the messianic movement.
By nature we gravitate towards the works of the flesh, and as a result put so much emphasis on external worship techiniques (and of course they were in fact emphasised in the old covenant). The error of the Israelites was to put their confidence in the keeping of the worship laws of the old covenant, and relying on those things for the false sense of comfort they produce (Doing that is so comforting to our propensity to walk in the works of our own efforts). But all the while they were neglecting the far more weighter matters of being just and merciful--the things that really do show a person as righteous. It's no different today. The only thing that varies is the external, denominational activity from which any one group relies on and derives the confirmation of their faith. For some it's what day of the week you meet. For others it's if you've been baptised or not. Still others rely on witnessing as the required work of a saving faith. God says it is none of these.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bluethread
As stated before, it is only through Adonai's gracious gift of faith, the we can keep His commandments. You have stated this before with regard to the commandments you choose to accept. I have acknowledged that one of the purposes of Ha Torah is to show us that it is impossible to be declared righteous by the written law without faith. However, once we are declared righteous by Adonai, we are to no longer (Ro 12:2) " ...conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God's will is--his good, pleasing and perfect will." Now, we see this is a goal and not a finished work. So, even if one does not live a perfect Torah observant life, that does not negate the value of Ha Torah as our standard.
I agree. But the law as a complete entity is no longer the hard and fast standard in regard to things like how, when, and where we do church, and the measure of one's faith. That's what this whole discussion is about.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bluethread
Good, you acknowledge that a select few were saved in the time of the Tanach(old testiment). However, there are a couple of problems here. First, it might be a typo, but, you said they were saved by faith through grace. Is faith not a gift or a work? If it is a gift, then it first must have been gifted. Therefore, grace must have come first. If it is a work, then it is no different than any other work, for as you say, "it's impossible to be saved by your works."
Now, grace is unmerited favor and works constitute merit. If one must have both grace and works to be saved, then one has earned ones salvation to some extent, even though that extent be exceedingly small. Such salvation would not be unmerited. So, no one could have been saved by faith plus works. Therefore, those few you refer to must have been saved by grace alone and that grace was proven by their faithfulness, just as ours is today.
We both know this, but the measure of their faithfulness was different than ours today. For instance, we know Abraham had faith because he underwent literal circumcision as commanded by God. He was told it would be the confirmation, or the sign of his covenant with God. But for us living in the privelege of New Covenant revelation, we know that literal circumcision counts for nothing at confirming one's faith. We don't have the same obligation as Abraham did.
We know Abraham's faith was the saving reality behind his literal circumcision. But for him to not be circumcised would have been nothing short of unbelief. He didn't have the New Covenant revelation and teaching we now have that would bring him to the conclusion, "it's all about believing. I don't really need to be circumcised to prove anything."
Even though it's always been true that it's all about faith alone, what revelation at that time is available to Abraham that would allow him to forego circumcision, and yet preserve his faith as being genuine? But we do have that revelation. That's why circumcision, that used to be so essential and required in the old covenant (under penalty of being cutoff--no casual matter at all), is nothing to us in the New Covenant and no longer required.
You know very well if Paul thought the Galatians had to be circumcised or else be cutoff from God in accordance with the law, that he would not have told them to not be circumcised. You know this. He's hardly defending the requirements of a law you are convinced he thinks still applies. As believers, he would be saying to them that they should be circumcised in accordance with the law if he thought, as you say he says, that the literal law is still completely in effect in the New Covenant.
Romans 14:23 is not a good defense for why Paul tells them not to be circumcised (that they're doing wrong because they don't have complete faith). Paul says that when you do something that you are not completely convinced is lawful for you to do, then that is sin. He's not saying doing acceptable things without faith makes those things wrong for you. Complete nonsense. Read the passage over again and test what each of us says about it.
_____________________________
"For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking, but of righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit, because anyone who serves Christ in this way is pleasing to God and approved by men." (Romans 14:17,18)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Keep The Law? - One Stop Thread - 9/27/2008 9:16:11 PM
|
|
|
Bluethread
Posts: 1413
Joined: 11/8/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: SpongeBlog
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bluethread
Yes, once Adonai Justifies(establishes), graciously imparts faith. Then, faithfulness justifies(proves), is counted as righteousness. This is how it has always been. Noach found grace in the eyes of Adonai, then he built the ark. Adonai called Abram, then Abram left Ur.
And the whole point of this discussion is that the NT teaches us that works of the law, like circumcision, are not the works that prove a person has been imparted with righteousness.
That is your point, not "the whole point". You are not the high priest here. Even he was not permitted to stop discussion of a matter, apart from blasphemy. Believe it or not, other people have discussed other aspects of The Word of The Creator as compiled by Moses on this thread. In fact the OP states that, "This thread is devoted to discussing the issues surrounding the commandments to keep the Law and how it applies to us today." So, there is more to this thread than your pet issue.
quote:
Turns out they were only symbols of the circumcision, and the sabbath, etc. , that really do prove a person believes God. Works produced as a direct result of being a new creation is what 'justifies' us before men and God as being righteous. Circumcision is not among those works. "Neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything; what counts is a new creation" (Galatians 6:15).
I agree that circumcision does not impart faith and The Creator's gracious imparting of faith is what matters. Nothing we do counts for anything if we do not have this faith. Now, once we are saved, our faithfulness to The Creator's ways is an indication of The Creator's righteuosness in us.
quote:
It is this teaching that shows us plainly that keeping the OT worship laws do not establish or prove one's relationship with God. But, like animal sacrifice for sin, they were required under the old covenant until the time that the spiritual realities they represented would be fully unveiled. And now that they are fully unveiled, it is the spiritual realities that we nurture within us and present as the required evidence of our righteousness.
The idea of the circumcised heart originates in The Word of The Creator. I will not insult you by quoting it, since you are familiar with the Scriptures So, we have always kept The Word of The Creator as compiled by Moses with circumcised heart. Even if one interprets this as prophetic, we see in this passage, even after our heart are circumcised, we receive blessings from Adonai by keeping His commands.
quote:
This being true, what should we be devoting our meetings to--perfecting the meaningless works of the old covenant laws of worship, or perfecting the works of a new creation? They are not the same as messianics think. Paul makes the clear distinction between the two, contrary to messianic belief.
It is interesting how you bias your statements with depricating adjectives(meaningless, old covenant) and self-defined terms(laws of worship) when talking about those things you do not approve of and generalize regarding the views of those who differ from you, as if they are all "mind-numbed robots." To answer your question, I believe, in our convocations, we should devote ourselves to doing what is good and focus on the public reading of Scripture, to preaching and to teaching as Paul advises Titus and Timothy. By focusing on The Word of The Creator and doing good deeds, hopefully, we can avoid foolish controversies and genealogies and arguments and quarrels about The Word of The Creator as compiled by Moses and respect one anothers viewpoints.
quote:
(Instead of holding on to all these responses and making long threads, I'll throw each out as I have time to address it)
The reasons these get long is because sermonizing and flitting from point to point. If we try to focus our statements and consolidate points when possible, we might be able to avoid such long posts. If we breakup these posts we will probably only end up with multiple long threads or lose track of the discussion. The following is a perfect example. This is responded to above.
quote:
The NT teaches that there is only one part of the law that proves that you really believe God and have been declared righteous. And it ain't the part about being circumcised, or what day of the week you go to church on, even though God said in the first covenant those were the 'signs' of someone in covenant with God. He was hinting to the true circumcision and the true rest that show we belong to God. The literal counts for nothing.
And that part in the law that genuinely does show your righteousness isn't even fulfilled in the way of a written code, but by the Spirit.
quote:
If you think my posts are long now, if I posted all the scriptures that my arguments are based on, all the time...well...I don't think even you would read them. When you get serious about challenging what I'm saying, that's when I get serious about posting scriptual support.
One need not provide extensive lists to support ones points. However, again we are wasting time and space with foolish arguments regarding the seriousness of ones points, rather than dealing with the substance. I personally take all points seriously no matter how foolish they may appear, unless the writer makes it clear they are not serious. I also do not expect others to take me seriously. After all, who am I that I should be followed blindly. That is why I try to support what I say with Scripture whenever possible. But, if you insist, I will wait to be asked.
quote:
But all the while they were neglecting the far more weighter matters of being just and merciful--the things that really do show a person as righteous. It's no different today.
This kind of generalization, leads to great misunderstanding. To denegrate everything else for the purpose of the weighter matters is not proper either.
To keep things short, I will quote only the significant points in your posts, since you know what you wrote.
quote:
I agree. But the law as a complete entity is no longer the hard and fast standard in regard to things like how, when, and where we do church, and the measure of one's faith. That's what this whole discussion is about.
I have never said The Word is a "hard and fast standard". Those are your words and it is you who insist on everyone using your definiton of that phrase. You also insist on defining the focus of the discussion.
quote:
We know Abraham's faith was the saving reality behind his literal circumcision. But for him to not be circumcised would have been nothing short of unbelief. He didn't have the New Covenant revelation and teaching we now have that would bring him to the conclusion, "it's all about believing. I don't really need to be circumcised to prove anything."
There are two places in Paul's writings that say just the opposite. I will not insult you by quoting them.
quote:
Paul says that when you do something that you are not completely convinced is lawful for you to do, then that is sin. He's not saying doing acceptable things without faith makes those things wrong for you. Complete nonsense.
Then why is it wrong to keep The Word of The Creator as compliled by Moses? Paul tells us that doing so is not sin.
< Message edited by Bluethread -- 9/27/2008 10:23:33 PM >
_____________________________
"Show me wherein I have errored and I will hold my tongue." Iyov(Job)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Keep The Law? - One Stop Thread - 9/27/2008 9:29:03 PM
|
|
|
Bluethread
Posts: 1413
Joined: 11/8/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Odeliya
quote:
If one can physically receive communion by the letter or by the Spirit, can't one observe Pesach by faith also. If an infant can be physically baptised by the letter or with the Spirit, can't a circumcision be performed in the same manner?
Why must Pesach and physical circumcision be seen as acts of pride and self-rightiousness, while communion and baptism are seen as acts of humility and rightiousness
Only when it is It is entirely possible to celebrate Pesach, do circums-n, etc. or do communion and bapism and be prideful and self-rightiousness.
It is entirely possible to celebrate Pesach, do circums-n, etc. or do communion and bapism and act in humility in love.
This is what the whole point non lit T camp tries to convey - it is not the physical manner that counts. One can be physical torah laws observant and still be a pagan! I know messianic that are pagans and you probably do , too. I know chistians that are nonbelievers. Physical doesnt determine the spiritual. You seem to be putting the cart before the horse.
No, I am just explaining why I have a cart and not just a horse. Though, in this case, others have carts also. I'm just told mine is not acceptable because it was constructed in attempt to follow a craftsman's diagram and not just put together on the fly.
_____________________________
"Show me wherein I have errored and I will hold my tongue." Iyov(Job)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Keep The Law? - One Stop Thread - 9/27/2008 10:31:18 PM
|
|
|
Bluethread
Posts: 1413
Joined: 11/8/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: SpongeBlog
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bluethread
Yes, once Adonai Justifies(establishes), graciously imparts faith. Then, faithfulness justifies(proves), is counted as righteousness. This is how it has always been. Noach found grace in the eyes of Adonai, then he built the ark. Adonai called Abram, then Abram left Ur.
And the whole point of this discussion is that the NT teaches us that works of the law, like circumcision, are not the works that prove a person has been imparted with righteousness.
That is your point, not "the whole point". You are not the high priest here. Even he was not permitted to stop discussion of a matter, apart from blasphemy. Believe it or not, other people have discussed other aspects of The Word of The Creator as compiled by Moses on this thread. In fact the OP states that, "This thread is devoted to discussing the issues surrounding the commandments to keep the Law and how it applies to us today." So, there is more to this thread than your pet issue.
quote:
Turns out they were only symbols of the circumcision, and the sabbath, etc. , that really do prove a person believes God. Works produced as a direct result of being a new creation is what 'justifies' us before men and God as being righteous. Circumcision is not among those works. "Neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything; what counts is a new creation" (Galatians 6:15).
I agree that circumcision does not impart faith and The Creator's gracious imparting of faith is what matters. Nothing we do counts for anything if we do not have this faith. Now, once we are saved, our faithfulness to The Creator's ways is an indication of The Creator's righteuosness in us.
quote:
It is this teaching that shows us plainly that keeping the OT worship laws do not establish or prove one's relationship with God. But, like animal sacrifice for sin, they were required under the old covenant until the time that the spiritual realities they represented would be fully unveiled. And now that they are fully unveiled, it is the spiritual realities that we nurture within us and present as the required evidence of our righteousness.
The idea of the circumcised heart originates in The Word of The Creator as compiled by Moses. I will not insult you by quoting it, since you are familiar with the Scriptures. So, we have always kept The Word of The Creator as compiled by Moses with circumcised hearts. Even if one interprets this as prophetic, we see in this passage, even after our heart are circumcised, we receive blessings from Adonai by keeping His commands.
quote:
This being true, what should we be devoting our meetings to--perfecting the meaningless works of the old covenant laws of worship, or perfecting the works of a new creation? They are not the same as messianics think. Paul makes the clear distinction between the two, contrary to messianic belief.
It is interesting how you bias your statements with depricating adjectives(meaningless, old covenant) and self-defined terms(laws of worship) when talking about those things you do not approve of and generalize regarding the views of those who differ from you, as if they are all "mind-numbed robots." To answer your question, I believe, in our convocations, we should devote ourselves to doing what is good and focus on the public reading of Scripture, to preaching and to teaching as Paul advises Titus and Timothy. By focusing on The Word of The Creator and doing good deeds, hopefully, we can avoid foolish controversies and genealogies and arguments and quarrels about The Word of The Creator as compiled by Moses and respect one anothers viewpoints.
quote:
(Instead of holding on to all these responses and making long threads, I'll throw each out as I have time to address it)
The reasons these get long is because sermonizing and flitting from point to point. If we try to focus our statements and consolidate points when possible, we might be able to avoid such long posts. If we breakup these posts we will probably only end up with multiple long threads or lose track of the discussion. The following is a perfect example. This is responded to above.
quote:
The NT teaches that there is only one part of the law that proves that you really believe God and have been declared righteous. And it ain't the part about being circumcised, or what day of the week you go to church on, even though God said in the first covenant those were the 'signs' of someone in covenant with God. He was hinting to the true circumcision and the true rest that show we belong to God. The literal counts for nothing.
And that part in the law that genuinely does show your righteousness isn't even fulfilled in the way of a written code, but by the Spirit.
quote:
If you think my posts are long now, if I posted all the scriptures that my arguments are based on, all the time...well...I don't think even you would read them. When you get serious about challenging what I'm saying, that's when I get serious about posting scriptual support.
One need not provide extensive lists to support ones points. However, again we are wasting time and space with foolish arguments regarding the seriousness of ones points, rather than dealing with the substance. I personally take all points seriously no matter how foolish they may appear, unless the writer makes it clear they are not serious. I also do not expect others to take me seriously. After all, who am I that I should be followed blindly. That is why I try to support what I say with Scripture whenever possible. But, if you insist, I will wait to be asked.
quote:
But all the while they were neglecting the far more weighter matters of being just and merciful--the things that really do show a person as righteous. It's no different today.
This kind of generalization, leads to great misunderstanding. To denegrate everything else for the purpose of the weighter matters is not proper either.
To keep things short, I will quote only the significant points in your posts, since you know what you wrote.
quote:
I agree. But the law as a complete entity is no longer the hard and fast standard in regard to things like how, when, and where we do church, and the measure of one's faith. That's what this whole discussion is about.
I have never said The Word is a "hard and fast standard". Those are your words and it is you who insist on everyone using your definiton of that phrase. You also insist on defining the focus of the discussion.
quote:
We know Abraham's faith was the saving reality behind his literal circumcision. But for him to not be circumcised would have been nothing short of unbelief. He didn't have the New Covenant revelation and teaching we now have that would bring him to the conclusion, "it's all about believing. I don't really need to be circumcised to prove anything."
There are two places in Paul's writings that say just the opposite. I will not insult you by quoting them.
quote:
Paul says that when you do something that you are not completely convinced is lawful for you to do, then that is sin. He's not saying doing acceptable things without faith makes those things wrong for you. Complete nonsense.
Then why is it wrong to keep The Word of The Creator as compliled by Moses? Paul tells us that doing so is not sin.
_____________________________
"Show me wherein I have errored and I will hold my tongue." Iyov(Job)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Keep The Law? - One Stop Thread - 9/28/2008 8:13:12 PM
|
|
|
LoyalGypsy
Posts: 2433
Joined: 4/12/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: SpongeBlog
quote:
ORIGINAL: Odeliya
...Mcleod, darling, you speak English only, ok. I won’t survive another lover of hebrenglish texts, i am all but a weak woman. Even though i do appreciate Bluethread’s shtick, for i am confident he means well.
Trust me ,I am just as guilty in loving style –only unlike BT's "bling", mine is not making others life hard by putting Hebrew/English words into text , but buying crazy sandals .
This whole matter always reminds me of what Paul said...
"Unless you speak intelligible words with your tongue, how will anyone know what you are saying? You will just be speaking into the air. 10Undoubtedly there are all sorts of languages in the world, yet none of them is without meaning. 11If then I do not grasp the meaning of what someone is saying, I am a foreigner to the speaker, and he is a foreigner to me." (1 Cor. 14:9-10)
I can't help but to see this use of Hebrew words as another way of showing us christians how much messianic know far and above the reformed church--IOW, the pride of knowledge. Sorry, but that's how it comes across to me.
Greetings.
May I.... shed some light…
quote:
This whole matter always reminds me of what Paul said...
"Unless you speak intelligible words with your tongue, how will anyone know what you are saying? You will just be speaking into the air. 10Undoubtedly there are all sorts of languages in the world, yet none of them is without meaning. 11If then I do not grasp the meaning of what someone is saying, I am a foreigner to the speaker, and he is a foreigner to me." (1 Cor. 14:9-10)
quote:
Unless you speak intelligible words with your tongue, how will anyone know what you are saying? You will just be speaking into the air.
There is a flip side of the key in Paul’s relationship to being zealous for spiritual gifts; in general is; if one does not understand then one should ask, but the real question is who.. should we ask?
And in the hypothetic if misunderstood words are being spoken into the air, then how can misunderstood words be spoken into ones own hearing; being it was not understood in the first place?
For example; I understood totally what Mc was speaking of; and as with many of us that understanding of what was written comes manly by pre-suppositions which comes by listening to others opinions’ about any particular of person or subject.
For example;
quote:
I presume all of us -people who participate in debate at such deep theological level- have read the entire Scripture many times, so posting a verse thinking the other party has never considered it and we thus would prove our point is, for the lack of better word, naive. Are we supposed to stop posting verses….because of this suggestion?
the Lord is concerning with such a deep theological levels as mentioned in this simple context in v11.. of Luke 12
Luke 12:11 Now when they bring you to the synagogues and magistrates and authorities,
….do not worry about how or what you should answer, or what you should say.
12 For the Holy Spirit will teach you in that very hour what you ought to say."
It’s broken down like this
….11 Now when they bring you to the
synagogues = (is where they search the scriptures)
and magistrates = (is the imposition of a will from what was found when they searched the scriptures)
And authorities = (this generally represents the 2 above; that which was found in the scripture, imposing “that will” upon someone; which is in opposition of the will of God… as it is mentioned in verse 12)
These 3 points here; (1) synagogues and (2) magistrates and (3) authorities; in principal are these 3 points defined ....Luke 12 ; the 3 points here are principalities, powers, and rulers
Eph 6:12
For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, ….but…. against (1) principalities, (2) against powers, (3) against the rulers of the darkness of this age,
And all 3 are called “the” spiritual “hosts”>>>>
..against spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places.
To break that down it reads
....For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, ….but (we wrestle ) …. against (1) searching the scripture (2) to impose our own spiritual will (3) to be rulers and Authorities of the darkness of this age……
Which is in direct oppositions to verse 12 ....For the Holy Spirit will teach you in that very hour what you ought to say."
It seems to be teaching in principal... as Jesus taught it...that we are not to get wrapped in deep theological levels…. because it ends up being opposed to verse 12.
So since I have always consider my Sonship to be the only doctrine I keep; I guess my O will remain natural, and according to the scripture.
quote:
I can't help but to see this use of Hebrew words as another way of showing us christians how much messianic know far and above the reformed church I am sure that it also works the other around too. What do ya think?
By the way...to be consistent according to the law of God….you neglected to capitalize the “m” in messianic…
LG
_____________________________
Ex 19:5 Now therefore, if you will indeed obey My voice
...So the Persians ask that the 300 drop their arms. Leonidas responds; "Persians! Come and get them!"
300 The Movie
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Keep The Law? - One Stop Thread - 9/28/2008 8:16:53 PM
|
|
|
LoyalGypsy
Posts: 2433
Joined: 4/12/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bluethread
quote:
ORIGINAL: Odeliya
quote:
If one can physically receive communion by the letter or by the Spirit, can't one observe Pesach by faith also. If an infant can be physically baptised by the letter or with the Spirit, can't a circumcision be performed in the same manner?
Why must Pesach and physical circumcision be seen as acts of pride and self-rightiousness, while communion and baptism are seen as acts of humility and rightiousness
Only when it is It is entirely possible to celebrate Pesach, do circums-n, etc. or do communion and bapism and be prideful and self-rightiousness.
It is entirely possible to celebrate Pesach, do circums-n, etc. or do communion and bapism and act in humility in love.
This is what the whole point non lit T camp tries to convey - it is not the physical manner that counts. One can be physical torah laws observant and still be a pagan! I know messianic that are pagans and you probably do , too. I know chistians that are nonbelievers. Physical doesnt determine the spiritual. You seem to be putting the cart before the horse.
No, I am just explaining why I have a cart and not just a horse. Though, in this case, others have carts also. I'm just told mine is not acceptable because it was constructed in attempt to follow a craftsman's diagram and not just put together on the fly.
I think what they are trying to get across.. in not so many words is... that a fly has common ground with a horse. 
LG
_____________________________
Ex 19:5 Now therefore, if you will indeed obey My voice
...So the Persians ask that the 300 drop their arms. Leonidas responds; "Persians! Come and get them!"
300 The Movie
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Keep The Law? - One Stop Thread - 9/29/2008 11:07:39 AM
|
|
|
mcleod
Posts: 1051
Joined: 4/4/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bluethread
quote:
ORIGINAL: mcleod
Oh my God you did, you just wrote that the pattern of the tabernacle was the same as the law?
Who are you talking to? I thought you were talking to LoyalGypsy. Is that now your god? You might want to be more careful, especially on a thread regarding keeping the Law.
Yes I was refering to Loyal on that post. Again has the tabernacle got to do with how one is to act towards another?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Keep The Law? - One Stop Thread - 9/29/2008 11:19:50 AM
|
|
|
Lapidoth
Posts: 3557
Joined: 4/13/2005
From: OKLAHOMA
Status: offline
|
quote:
that a fly has common ground with a horse.
LOL. Pretty good quip.
_____________________________
Why does He keep quoting Torah? Doesn't He know He's about to abolish it?
http://www.tedpearce.com/Videos/TheForgottenpeople.html
BARUCH HABA BASHEM YAHUAH
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Keep The Law? - One Stop Thread - 9/29/2008 11:24:11 AM
|
|
|
mcleod
Posts: 1051
Joined: 4/4/2006
Status: offline
|
For this, please! Oh please! You have got to give us the verse you are thinking of for this to have come on the scene. 
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Keep The Law? - One Stop Thread - 9/29/2008 1:41:17 PM
|
|
|
SpongeBlog
Posts: 1005
Joined: 12/9/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bluethread
quote:
And the whole point of this discussion is that the NT teaches us that works of the law, like circumcision, are not the works that prove a person has been imparted with righteousness.
That is your point, not "the whole point". You are not the high priest here. Even he was not permitted to stop discussion of a matter, apart from blasphemy. Believe it or not, other people have discussed other aspects of The Word of The Creator as compiled by Moses on this thread. In fact the OP states that, "This thread is devoted to discussing the issues surrounding the commandments to keep the Law and how it applies to us today." So, there is more to this thread than your pet issue.
You are free to discuss whatever you want with whomever you want to discuss it with. I know what I want to discuss here, and that I'm entitled to limit that discussion to just that. Enough of your childish accustations. I leveled some very direct arguments to the messianic argument that keeping all the laws of the OT are how we are to respond in faith as New Covenant believers. You have a lot of explaining to do if that is not the argument that you are going to bat for in this thread.
Contrary to what you think, you do not have to respond to everything I say, but I do kind of expect some kind of answer to the questions I ask. That's been the problem in the past. I asked questions, but nobody from Torah camp was acknowledging them, but seemed insistant on defending their point of view elsewhere.
Now, back up and address, if you want, what I just said in what you've quoted from me. Do you want to say anything about what I have pointed out--that the NT teaches us that circumcision is not how we show ourselves to have been justified by faith? The messianic argument defends OT things like circumcision as being required to show one as believing God and being in covenant with God. Paul says it's a big nothing in that regard. Who are we to believe? The messianic argument, or Paul? Explain.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bluethread
quote:
Turns out they were only symbols of the circumcision, and the sabbath, etc. , that really do prove a person believes God. Works produced as a direct result of being a new creation is what 'justifies' us before men and God as being righteous. Circumcision is not among those works. "Neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything; what counts is a new creation" (Galatians 6:15).
I agree that circumcision does not impart faith and The Creator's gracious imparting of faith is what matters. Nothing we do counts for anything if we do not have this faith. Now, once we are saved, our faithfulness to The Creator's ways is an indication of The Creator's righteuosness in us.
Why are you being evasive? We don't need to talk about the imparting faith part. Paul says being a new creation is what shows the 'gracious imparting of faith', not whether you are circumcised or not. His point is not that circumcision is nothing because of a lack of faith (where does he say that?), but rather that it proves nothing (counts for nothing) in the matter of it being a display of faith. Godly love, not circumcision, is how we display our faith. The whole matter of circumcision (yeah or nay) is nothing altogether. Being a new creation (uncircumcised or not) is what it's all about. This punches huge holes in the messianic argument of the importance of the old covenant's commanded outward evidences of faith.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bluethread
quote:
It is this teaching that shows us plainly that keeping the OT worship laws do not establish or prove one's relationship with God. But, like animal sacrifice for sin, they were required under the old covenant until the time that the spiritual realities they represented would be fully unveiled. And now that they are fully unveiled, it is the spiritual realities that we nurture within us and present as the required evidence of our righteousness.
The idea of the circumcised heart originates in The Word of The Creator. I will not insult you by quoting it, since you are familiar with the Scriptures So, we have always kept The Word of The Creator as compiled by Moses with circumcised heart. Even if one interprets this as prophetic, we see in this passage, even after our heart are circumcised, we receive blessings from Adonai by keeping His commands.
You are completely free to prove your argument with scripture anytime you see fit to do so. Frankly, I'm sick of you twisting both what I say, and the scriptures, to be evasive and frustrate our discussion instead of actually addressing in a polite and scholarly way the topic of this thread. It's clear you completely misunderstood, and took personally, the reason I posted for not using scripture everytime I could. And now because of that, you are derailing the discussion. Am I wrong, but are you purposely creating and using that occasion to mask your failure to respond with a good argument? It seems that way to me. Prove me wrong by simply addressing the arguments from now on, and leave the pettiness out of your posts.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bluethread
quote:
This being true, what should we be devoting our meetings to--perfecting the meaningless works of the old covenant laws of worship, or perfecting the works of a new creation? They are not the same as messianics think. Paul makes the clear distinction between the two, contrary to messianic belief.
It is interesting how you bias your statements with depricating adjectives(meaningless, old covenant) and self-defined terms(laws of worship) when talking about those things you do not approve of and generalize regarding the views of those who differ from you, as if they are all "mind-numbed robots." To answer your question, I believe, in our convocations, we should devote ourselves to doing what is good and focus on the public reading of Scripture, to preaching and to teaching as Paul advises Titus and Timothy. By focusing on The Word of The Creator and doing good deeds, hopefully, we can avoid foolish controversies and genealogies and arguments and quarrels about The Word of The Creator as compiled by Moses and respect one anothers viewpoints.
And this means what in regard to defending your argument? How does all this defend your position? I leveled honest and thoughtful arguments. Can you not respond likewise? You pick the term you want to use to identify the laws that governed worship in the old covenant so we don't get them confused with the whole law.
And you provided another evasive rebuttal to my post. I have no clue what parts of the scriptures you say you preach and teach in your meetings. How could you not be specific in light of my pointed argument? And I'm not disrepecting your viewpoints about the law (aka 'The Word of the Creator as compiled by Moses'), but I am developing a disrespect for you and how you are handling yourself lately.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bluethread
quote:
(Instead of holding on to all these responses and making long threads, I'll throw each out as I have time to address it)
The reasons these get long is because sermonizing and flitting from point to point. If we try to focus our statements and consolidate points when possible, we might be able to avoid such long posts. If we breakup these posts we will probably only end up with multiple long threads or lose track of the discussion. The following is a perfect example. This is responded to above.
Do you promise not to understand my pointedness and straightforwardness as an attempt to control this discussion? It seems I can't win either way with you, Blue.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bluethread
quote:
If you think my posts are long now, if I posted all the scriptures that my arguments are based on, all the time...well...I don't think even you would read them. When you get serious about challenging what I'm saying, that's when I get serious about posting scriptual support.
One need not provide extensive lists to support ones points. However, again we are wasting time and space with foolish arguments regarding the seriousness of ones points, rather than dealing with the substance. I personally take all points seriously no matter how foolish they may appear, unless the writer makes it clear they are not serious. I also do not expect others to take me seriously. After all, who am I that I should be followed blindly. That is why I try to support what I say with Scripture whenever possible. But, if you insist, I will wait to be asked.
Promise me you'll stop twisting what I say the way you have here. All I said was I reserve the bulk of my scriptural support to the times you seem intent about addressing it. What I said had nothing to do with the foolishness or seriousness of your points.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bluethread
quote:
But all the while they were neglecting the far more weighter matters of being just and merciful--the things that really do show a person as righteous. It's no different today.
This kind of generalization, leads to great misunderstanding. To denegrate everything else for the purpose of the weighter matters is not proper either.
This is very central to the law keeping argument. I've been saying all along that the OT worship requirements are now optional and that they do not hold the status and significance that they did in the old covenant. I'm entitled to my opinion based on my understanding of NT scripture that this is the central and core point of contention in the messianic/ reformist argument. I think it's very easy to see that's what this is all about, no matter what rabbit trail we go down.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bluethread
I have never said The Word is a "hard and fast standard". Those are your words and it is you who insist on everyone using your definiton of that phrase.
That's what law is my friend. And why don't you afford reformists the same liberty of not being bound by hard and fast? This is exactly why I call this whole thing a denominational issue. Messianics bend the letter of the law to suit themselves but deny anyone else's privelege to do the same when they feel it's not acceptable. If that is not a denominational matter, then what is? If you want to defend literal law keeping you must defend it as it was given. Anything else is a personal interpretation. Messianics seem to have a hard time waking up to, and accepting this truth.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bluethread
You also insist on defining the focus of the discussion.
My part of the discussion that I'm entitled to. I don't think I've completey brushed off and ignored anything you've introduced.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bluethread
quote:
We know Abraham's faith was the saving reality behind his literal circumcision. But for him to not be circumcised would have been nothing short of unbelief. He didn't have the New Covenant revelation and teaching we now have that would bring him to the conclusion, "it's all about believing. I don't really need to be circumcised to prove anything."
There are two places in Paul's writings that say just the opposite. I will not insult you by quoting them.
Here's your chance. Show me where Abraham knew he did not have to be circumcised in obedience to God's direct command (a command Paul says the Galatians do not have to obey). Paul says his circumcision was a sign of the righteousness he had when he believed prior to being circumcised. What if Abraham had not followed through with circumcision? We would have no choice but to conclude that Abraham did not have the faith that would have led him in obedience to be circumcised. How can you argue with that? You've essentially been saying the same thing all along, but denying it when I suggest his uncircumcision would have been a display of non-faith/righteousness. And with that being true, why does Paul boldly tell the Galatians who have indeed been declared righteous by believing just as Abraham was, to not be circumcised? Wouldn't he have rather had them be circumcised in obedience to the law and then instruct them about it's true meaning. But no, he tells them not to do it! It just doesn't fit the messianic arguement of the continuation of the old covenant worship requirements. It wasn't optional, being conditional on having true faith first. Nonsense. You were cutoff for not doing it-period. No condition of faith first is attached. But of course we both know it didn't guarantee that a person had faith to begin with. That's not not the argument.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bluethread
quote:
Paul says that when you do something that you are not completely convinced is lawful for you to do, then that is sin. He's not saying doing acceptable things without faith makes those things wrong for you. Complete nonsense.
Then why is it wrong to keep The Word of The Creator as compliled by Moses? Paul tells us that doing so is not sin.
Nobody is saying it's wrong to do those things. What is wrong is relying on those things as a way to establish righteousness (as we both agree), and also relying on them as confirmation of ones faith. That is what the messianics don't understand. You still believe they are the required works of one who has a saving faith. Paul says, no, they are not. Acting like Christ in the attitude of godly love is the required and expected work of someone who has saving faith. The clear and undisputable and direct message of the NT. No interpretation needed.
I had little time to proof read this, so please excuse any obvious grammatical errors.
_____________________________
"For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking, but of righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit, because anyone who serves Christ in this way is pleasing to God and approved by men." (Romans 14:17,18)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Keep The Law? - One Stop Thread - 9/30/2008 10:23:07 AM
|
|
|
mcleod
Posts: 1051
Joined: 4/4/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
The idea of the circumcised heart originates in The Word of The Creator as compiled by Moses. I will not insult you by quoting it, since you are familiar with the Scriptures. So, we have always kept The Word of The Creator as compiled by Moses with circumcised hearts. Even if one interprets this as prophetic, we see in this passage, even after our heart are circumcised, we receive blessings from Adonai by keeping His commands.
Please don't take me wrong on this but I could not notice that you wrote blessing" if we obey the commands."
I just want you to listen to story which has happen in just recent history. Which if I am not be mistaken was in 1980's. A gentleman reading the passage in the bible where Abraham was told by God to go and walk the ground over their in Canaan and where he walked would be Abraham's land. When this gentleman whom I would believe that he was consider a christian. Went and started to walk off a bunch of land in southern Califorian. Then went to the bank to borrow off the idea in which he heard those promises from God through that passage. Well to make a long story short he went belly up. Because those words were not intended for him or us. Because God in a audibile vioce did not speak it to him. When we closely consider that just because we keep the laws and statues we are going to have a bed of roses.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Keep The Law? - One Stop Thread - 9/30/2008 12:36:33 PM
|
|
|
Lapidoth
Posts: 3557
Joined: 4/13/2005
From: OKLAHOMA
Status: offline
|
quote:
If anyone believes the Old Testament and only the Old Testament,
then we along with the vast flood of humanity that has peopled the
globe for the last two thousand years, and that which peoples it
today, have been and are in a desparate state of hopelessness.
According to the Old Testament, no one of us could ever come
under the grace of God unless we abandoned our Gentile position,
accepted circumcision and were adopted into one of the Jewish
tribes.
Only then, according to the Old Testament, would we be permitted
to approach the tribe of Levi by whom a lamb might be killed so that
we might have an atonement. For "almost all things are by the law
purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission"
(Heb. 9:22).
But the bud of the Old Testament turned into the flower of the New
Testament. The old "brith" which was narrow and racial has turned
into the new "brith" which lifts the whole of the human race to a
place of hope and makes it possible for all to approach the God of
holiness.
ROMANS Vol. I; Donald Grey Barnhouse EERDMANS
Just thought I'd throw this into the mix.
_____________________________
Why does He keep quoting Torah? Doesn't He know He's about to abolish it?
http://www.tedpearce.com/Videos/TheForgottenpeople.html
BARUCH HABA BASHEM YAHUAH
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Keep The Law? - One Stop Thread - 10/1/2008 11:01:05 AM
|
|
|
mcleod
Posts: 1051
Joined: 4/4/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Lapidoth
quote:
If anyone believes the Old Testament and only the Old Testament,
then we along with the vast flood of humanity that has peopled the
globe for the last two thousand years, and that which peoples it
today, have been and are in a desparate state of hopelessness.
According to the Old Testament, no one of us could ever come
under the grace of God unless we abandoned our Gentile position,
accepted circumcision and were adopted into one of the Jewish
tribes.
Only then, according to the Old Testament, would we be permitted
to approach the tribe of Levi by whom a lamb might be killed so that
we might | | |
Forum Tools
Printable Version
for beating me to the thread. And not some random thought. Which I have been known to have done here just recently.