Tuesday, July 17, 2018

Galatians: The Book of the Bible That Infuriates Church of God Leaders and Wanna-be Prophets


Anonymous said...

What would have happened if HWA and the WCG existed in Paul's generation?

HWA would have blasted Paul.

HWA would have said Paul did not get it.

HWA would have said Paul was dead wrong, that Jesus never came to do anything that Paul said he came to do.

HWA would have been one who would have demanded enforcement of the Law right to Paul's face.

HWA would have gathered up a huge rally of his followers to come up against Paul and proclaim Paul as a heretic.

HWA would have said Jesus never came to Paul, that Paul was delusional.

HWA would have turned hundreds of thousands away from Paul's vision and movement.

HWA would have said Paul never knew the Gospel of Christ, and that only he had the Gospel.

HWA would never have believed that God would extend his grace to multi-ethnic people.

HWA would have been one of the chief persecutors of Paul and what Paul was saying.

HWA would have turned thousands away from Paul's message because of HWA's siding with the Judaism movement.

And this is exactly what HWA intended to do - 1900 years later. And did.

Anonymous said...

And, interestingly enough, Galatians is one of the "authentic" Pauline epistles.

This just means scholars agree that only seven of the epistles that internally claim "Paul" as their author were written by the same hand. It does not, of course, mean that the author of those seven epistles was remotely the fictitious bible-Paul character who appears in the NT texts. For starters, he wasn't a pharisee, and had no training in Torah, only was literate in Greek, and not in Hebrew, and thus had to quote the Greek Septuagint.

If there was an historical Paul that Luke was basing his Acts character on, he isn't necessarily the one who wrote the seven, and he might not have written any of epistles in the NT at all.

All we do know is that the "gentile" branch of the early christian movement disagreed pretty strongly with the Jewish branch in a number of areas, became dominant, and eventually won everything when Constantine came along.

That "authentic" 1st century Jewish christianity that HWA told us he was restoring, if it ever did exist, would have rejected the non-Jewish branch along with half the NT texts. And during it's short life, if we could know what that Jewish christianity was really like, COG people would probably reject it as heresy. Christians are in denial about how all the biblical texts were heavily redacted and sanitized. There was a 200-300 year period of darkness, from when the NT texts were first written to when our first complete manuscript versions of them appear in the late 4th and early 5th centuries, and nobody really knows what development and redaction those text went through during that period by people who had axes to grind and agendas to advance. If the OT texts are anything to go by, the final versions we have today bear little resemblance to the original autographs.

Anonymous said...

I do not agree with this specific cartoon but i am a big fan of The Bible project.
You need to look at the context, this movement is run by Torah observing and sunday keeping Christians. I believe Ron Dart taught the best about apostle Paul and the book of Galations.

Anonymous said...

842: Well thank you ! Finally someone who understands the "Problem with Paul" and his impossible claims to being a "Pharisee of the Pharisees". Scholars don't see such a man in his reasonings about Torah as used by him in the NT.

I personally found Paul The Mythmaker by Hyam Jaccoby to be very helpful in understanding this problem and the conflict between Paul and everyone else in the Jerusalem Church found in Galatians.

Thanks for your comment on this "Never Before or Yet Understood" by the COG's Book of Galatians and Paul in general.

DennisCDiehl said...

Sorry, I hit "anonymous" accidently. Dennis Diehl here.

Anonymous said...

I think the video does a decent job of summarizing what Galatians is about, which is about how early on, Paul came along, decided that the existing Jewish mystery of the Christ cult didn't serve non-Jews very well, and so, came up with a new and different mystery (way to achieve salvation) that served non-Jews better and the tensions that caused at the time. But he was successful enough at spreading the new mystery that the early church fathers wound up canonizing books that included both mysteries (law AND grace). Which is part of the reason why christianity is not internally consistent. So nobody knows how to work out their salvation, because these two mysteries work together in a way but also work against one another. The more one tries to work it out via one mystery only sets the believer up for accusations, either from himself or from others, that he or she is endangering his or her salvation via the other mystery. So trying to work out one's salvation only sets up the believer for this tug of war with himself which cannot be won.

And this, I think, is part of the reason for the success of christianity. Because adherents either go the shallower and relatively unexamined route (grace) and they never bother with trying to follow the law and so never notice the inconsistency because they're not particularly interested and don't spend much time thinking about god or religion, or else, they do go deep, try to do both law AND grace, and wind up falling down the rabbit hole of trying to reconcile both mysteries, assume the problem is with them when things never seem to work out suitably, and are thus kept enthralled in that way, going around in circles for the rest of their lives, without ever realizing that the religion itself is the problem. Had there only been one mystery, people would have an easier time evaluating the religion itself. Having dual mysteries, however, tends to deflect the attention of those who are inclined to pay attention, away from the religion itself, and onto their own insecurities. So very few adherents are ever going to wind up evaluating christianity, and thus, not so many will wind up leaving it. And maybe that's why it didn't die out like the rest of the mystery cults.

On the one hand, I feel stupid that it took me as long as it did to realize how christianity had my chasing my own tail. On the other, I feel thankful that I live in a rational and informed enough age that it only took me half my life to evaluate christianity, instead of all of it.

Hoss said...

1104 - Yes, the theology of Paul as derived from his letters conflicts with his theology based on how he is represented in Acts.

While HWA was wrong about Galatians - beginning with what the "other Gospel" was - the video presented the other extreme. Neither really took account of the historic and cultural context in which the letter was written.
With Paul's letters, as Ron Dart would say, we're reading other people's mail. In some cases, we've got the answers, but don't know the questions - like Jeopardy!

Anonymous said...

Love this video. Try bringing the book of Galatians or Romans up with any die-hard Armstrongite and they short circuit. They prefer to pretend they don't exist or try to twist their words.

Anonymous said...

Matthew 5 v 17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.
Christ magnified the law, not do away with it.

The law against murder was magnified by Christ by stating that if you hate your brother, it is like murder.

Where there is no law, there is no sin. Without sin, there is no need for Grace of Jesus's sacrifice. Law and Grace go together. It's not that complicated.

Anonymous said...

4:50 -

Whenever you bring up Galatians the die-hard legalistic person will immediately go to Matthew 5:17. It's an instinctive reaction which has been programmed in. They'll say "of COURSE I go there, that's the point! Because...." and then the explanations of what they think it means.

Barne's Bible Commentary:

Think not that I am come ... - Our Saviour was just entering on his work. It was important for him to state what he came to do. By his setting up to be a teacher in opposition to the scribes and Pharisees, some might charge him with an intention to destroy their law, and to abolish the customs of the nation. He therefore told them that he did not come for that end, but really to fulfill or accomplish what was in the law and the prophets.

To destroy - To abrogate; to deny their divine authority; to set people free from the obligation to obey them. "The law." The five books of Moses called the law. See the notes at Luke 24:44.

The Prophets - The books which the prophets wrote. These two divisions here seem to comprehend the Old Testament, and Jesus says that he came not to do away or destroy the authority of the Old Testament.

But to fulfill - To complete the design; to fill up what was predicted; to accomplish what was intended in them. The word "fulfill" also means sometimes "to teach" or "to inculcate," Colossians 1:25. The law of Moses contained many sacrifices and rites which were designed to shadow forth the Messiah. See the notes at Hebrews 9. These were fulfilled when he came and offered himself a sacrifice to God

Hebrews 9:15: 15 For this reason Christ is the mediator of a new covenant, that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance—now that he has died as a ransom to set them free from the sins committed under the first covenant.

29-27: But he has appeared once for all at the culmination of the ages to do away with sin by the sacrifice of himself. 27 Just as people are destined to die once, and after that to face judgment, 28 so Christ was sacrificed once to take away the sins of many.

Byker Bob said...

My own research has pointed up that there were always differences in the standards that Gentiles and Jews/Israelites were held to. (Law of Moses vs Noahide law) I believe Paul understood this theme, and was largely continuing it in his work amongst the Gentiles, and that he had James and the Jerusalem Council’s blessing on it.

I’ve often wondered if HWA wasn’t attempting an end run around this through his insistence on reckoning us as genetic Israelites, making us accountable for abiding in the entire national culture of the Jews before we could become Christians, as opposed to Christians simply being counted as spiritual Jews regardless of their genetics. God would have to know in advance that entropy and randomness would continue to have an effect on distinct racial groups. The assimilation of the tribes of Israel into the tribe of Judah and Samaria was already well under way at the time of Jesus. As of 2015, the most recent for complete statistics, 17% of all new marriages in the USA were interracial. This does not take into account the casual cohabitation patterns prevalent in our society.

Any time in human history that there is the introduction of a major code (Hammurabi, Law of Moses, Magna Carta, US Constitution) learned ones tasked with governing begin the process of interpretation, and practical applications. In any of these cases, it would not be possible today to replicate and observe the exact conditions which existed during the first day or week that these had come into play. HWA’s claims to have been able to reveal and reproduce these are both impossible and preposterous. And, the very idea that any of the splinter groups could be taking that to the next level of accuracy is even more absurd.


Anonymous said...

To believe that human obedience to dietary laws and OT holy days can EARN one's salvation or in someway get them a "higher seat in the kingdom" is to deny that Christ died as a sacrifice for our sins.

Further, these Armstrong legalists can never explain why they keep SOME of the OT laws but not others.

It's like a law buffet. They get to pick and choose what they want to keep/ be self-righteous about whilst ignoring others. Also, they are all about keeping the Feast of Tabernacles, etc but don't keep them as they are specifically outlined in the Torah.

To add to that, even IF the law was still in effect (then what's the point of Christ's sacrifice?) it was given to the Israelites as a punishment. If you aren't an Israelite, you aren't under that covenant/punishment.

Eph 2:8 For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith--and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God--

Just like if your neighbor entered into a contract 50 years ago

Anonymous said...

Funny how legalists will gladly quote Mt. 5:17-18, but then they won't:
Travel 3 times a year for holy day observance;
Live in a tabernacle during the Feast of Tabernacles;
Blow a shofar on the Feast of Trumpets;
Give the prescribed offerings for the holy days.

God's word is enough to compel them to "keep the holy days", but not enough to compel them to keep them the WAY God says. For that, they turn to the Book of Herbert.

Even the things they "keep", they don't really keep. There's a lot more to the food laws than just not eating pork and shellfish. What about all those other jots and tittles? Why do the legalists ignore them?

Also funny how they'll insist that the "ceremonial" parts of the law ARE actually done away. Can't find anything in the Bible that says so, or anything that suggests that we should even be making a distinction between ceremonial and moral laws. It's all one body of law.

Anyone who claims there is a distinction between the Law of God and the Law of Moses should read Nehemiah 8, where one book is referred to as, "the Book of the Law of Moses, which the Lord had commanded Israel", "the Book of the Law", " the Law", "the Law of God", "the Law, which the Lord had commanded by Moses", and "the Book of the Law of God".

It's enough to make your head spin, unless you accept that it's all one law.

Anonymous said...

Also funny how they'll insist that the "ceremonial" parts of the law ARE actually done away. Can't find anything in the Bible that says so, or anything that suggests that we should even be making a distinction between ceremonial and moral laws. It's all one body of law.

Herman Hoeh was the man drafted to make the scriptures conform to the already pre-concieved idea that the Law was a divided law where some parts were invalid, and the other parts were commanded. Then, cherry-picking the more vague verses using "binding and non-binding" ministerial authority for the rest.

They already knew how it was all going to play. The only task was to get the members to believe it. That's where scriptural and spiritual manipulative propaganda came in.

Mix a tablespoon of truth with a cup of error. Blend it with a good dose of charisma and a couple shakes of theology. Blend well. Add five teaspoons of Authority. Then drink deep. Repeat if necessary.

Anonymous said...

HWA would double-speak constantly.

In one breath he'd say something like:

"I NEVER, EVER preached you have to EARN SALVATION! SALVATION is a FREE GIFT! You can not EARN it in any way shape or form! YOU KNOW BETTER!"

and then in the next breath he would say something like:

"MAKEUP can keep you OUT of the KINGDOM! You have to QUALIFY! Could the way you DRESS keep you OUT of the KINGDOM?!!"

and then he'd say something like:


but that is never what he said. He laundry-listed EVERYTHING that you could do to fail. To not qualify.

And THEN he'd laundry-list every single way you could possibly be cast into the lake of fire.

Don't be fooled. Despite what Herbert said, he taught that Salvation is EARNED by QUALIFYING for the Kingdom of God by works of law, and that grace makes up for failing, but ONLY IF YOU WORK YOUR BUTT OFF AS HARD AS YOU CAN TO KEEP THE LAW AS PERFECTLY AS YOU CAN. If you slack just a little bit?

It's the Lake of Fire for you, he'd teach.

This is how he kept the church in line, and the pocketbooks full.

Tom Mahon said...

If I ever offender anyone I apologize. I have seen the light and joined the Jehovah's Witnesses.

Anonymous said...

HWAs claim that Satan was using makeup to get the church off the track, was embarrassingly ridiculous. It's a good example of how dishonest and manipulative he could be. It's also him pushing Pharisaic morality.
So makeup is important but the church culture of robbing members of their natural rights is not.

RSK said...

I could be recalling this incorrectly, but it seems to me that the first writer to break OT law down into "ceremonial" and "moral" workarounds was actually a Seventh Day Adventist. In younger days I used to like pointing that out when hardcore Baptist bitches wanted to openly beat other people with excerpts from the law (but of course not themselves). They wouldn't want SDAs in their own church, so why rely on a SDA writer to provide your excuse?

Of course, those same hardcore Baptist bitches aren't really known for being particularly literate, much less well-read, so typically they didn't know what a Seventh Day Adventist was in the first place. :)

Hoss said...

I could be recalling this incorrectly...

Perhaps an SDA did that, but he was preceded by the Ante-Nicene fathers. I believe the first to categorize commands was Origen, who I think was the first to consider some of the laws to be allegories - for example, "don't eat pork" meant "don't be like a pig".
Of course HWA considered dietary laws to be "health rules", and documented how he berated a CG7 leader about it.

Lake of Fire Church of God said...

I see troll Tom Mahon has surfaced on Banned. About 10 years ago he insulted Dennis's haircut on Gavin's Ambassador Watch website. Enough of us came to Dennis's defense and badgered him to produce a picture of himself since he was so critical of something stupid like Dennis's hairstyle in an old picture. It appears from his post that Mahon has gone off the deep end jumping from the frying pan of Armstrongism into the fire of Jehovah Witness. A Jehovah Witness? Really Tom???


Anonymous said...

Ho ho ho. Stop lying people!

Anonymous said...

Ho ho ho. No, we're not lying!

Anonymous said...

Galatians is not a problem for the COG...

that poor fellow making the video doesn't understand it....his presentation is pure protestantism...his lack of understanding is so obvious...he's twisting the scriptures to make them say that he doesn't have to obey God, but still has salvation...

he, and people like him are what the second resurrection is all about.

Byker Bob said...

I can understand a churchofgoddian becoming an SDA, COG-7, or even a Messianic Jew. But, I’ll never understand how one could become a Jehovah’s Witness. That would be one of the stranger of the Millerite clubs.


Miller Jones said...

As has been underscored by the comments here, the debate over the proper role of law and grace within Christianity is an old one (it goes all the way back to the beginning), and I suspect that it will not be resolved by this discussion. However, there is another way that the book of Galatians clearly challenges the ACOG leadership and prophets.
With regard to the teaching of British Israelism, this passage is devastating:
"For you are all children of God through faith in Christ Jesus. And all who have been united with Christ in baptism have put on Christ, like putting on new clothes. There is no longer Jew or Gentile, slave or free, male and female. For you are all one in Christ Jesus. And now that you belong to Christ, YOU ARE THE TRUE CHILDREN OF ABRAHAM. YOU ARE HIS HEIRS, AND GOD'S PROMISE TO ABRAHAM BELONGS TO YOU." (Galatians 3:26-29, NLT)

Anonymous said...

HWA, the Pope of the WCG, couldn't change a doctrine without undermining his infallibility. Once he acknowledged one error the floodgates open wide. At least the Pope makes a distinction between dogma and doctrine. Celibacy of the priesthood is a doctrine, a practice, that can be changed so that priests can once again be married. Dogma is something that doesn't change. For HWA, make up could have been presented as a doctrine, but in the mind of HWA, everything seemed to be dogma. This reflects is desire for total control of all things and his overwhelming arrogance. Usually well educated people are more at risk for being arrogant, not high school dropouts.

DennisCDiehl said...

Anonymous said...
Galatians is not a problem for the COG...

that poor fellow making the video doesn't understand it....his presentation is pure protestantism...his lack of understanding is so obvious...he's twisting the scriptures to make them say that he doesn't have to obey God, but still has salvation...

he, and people like him are what the second resurrection is all about."


Byker Bob said...
I can understand a churchofgoddian becoming an SDA, COG-7, or even a Messianic Jew. But, I’ll never understand how one could become a Jehovah’s Witness. That would be one of the stranger of the Millerite clubs.

I was trying to be kind to Tom but did have the thought that he may have found A light but not seen THE light. I had forgotten about Tom and it was a warm memory recalling his raging rants against me as the classic "hireling". I always felt sorry for his family living under such control. But each to their own.

RSK said...

I mean by that particular categorization.

Anonymous said...

11:26 Galatians is not a problem for the COG...

that poor fellow making the video doesn't understand it....his presentation is pure protestantism...his lack of understanding is so obvious...he's twisting the scriptures to make them say that he doesn't have to obey God, but still has salvation...

Please enlighten me. How/what scripture was twisted???

And please, use a Bible not a booklet to explain. But I'm guessing you won't reply...

Anonymous said...

Calling the video "pure protestantism" isn't an argument, much less a good one.
Explain chapter 4, where Paul directly compares the mothers of Abraham's two sons to the two covenants:

23 But he who was of the bondwoman was born according to the flesh, and he of the freewoman through promise, 24 which things are symbolic. For these are [g]the two covenants: the one from Mount Sinai which gives birth to bondage, which is Hagar...

And Paul's conclusion in verses 30-31:
30 Nevertheless what does the Scripture say? “Cast out the bondwoman and her son, for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman.” 31 So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman but of the free.

Is casting out a covenant the same as keeping selected bits of it? In all my years in LCG, they never touched this passage. Just pretended it wasn't there.

Dennis Diehl said...

As a former hurling I can assure Galatians was ALWAYS a problem for WCG and rarely read save for hwa's quote of " if anyone brings you a gospel other than the one I received..."etc. Paul was raging against Peter, James and John... If one reads the entire context of chapters 1 and 2

Lake of Fire Church of God said...

I know this post is off topic. But then, so was Tom Mahon's post on this thread.

Gavin Rumney's Ambassador Watch is still online since his passing in 2016. His final post, "A Farewell to Arms" has 237 comments to date. What was supposed to be a tribute to Gavin somehow got hijacked by Tom Mahon with his condescending comments. His ridicule of Dennis and others can be found among the 237 comments. Here is one example from Ambassador Watch of Tom Mahon's judgmental posts which we should all ask after reading, "would a true Christian say such words?":

"I don't need Byker Bob's prayers, as Jesus has already prayed for me. And if Gavin is relying on Byker Bob prayers for healing, his family may as well plan his funeral". - Tom Mahon

9 December 2016 at 09:10

I will point out that Gavin was still alive when Mahon uttered those classless and insensitive words.


Anonymous said...

That can be a pity because when youngsters get older they may change their minds due to their friends from faculty that are enjoying these sports or
from every other cause.

NO2HWA said...

I deliberately put through Tom's post because he is no more a JW than he is a Christian. Tom is just like Malm and Thiel. He despises grace. You can see more of his asinine stuff here: http://againsthirelings.blogspot.com

Anonymous said...

The COG has rightly pointed out that the bible is a manual, much like a washing machine manual. If the washing machine manual is not clear on a certain point, the obvious solution is to observe the workings of the machine. Likewise, introspection and observation of others should make clear the grace versus law debate.
Which of the two viewpoints is in alignment with ones experience?

Byker Bob said...

When I first read those words of Tom’s Richard, they struck me as not being of a Christian spirit. People have spoken extensively of dissident bitterness, but how would we accurately describe these words of Tom’s? I believe it’s an example of the Armstrongite bitterness which is directed towards Protestants, Catholics, and any others who do not hold to Armstrongite beliefs. On the other hand, most Christians whom I’ve known over the years would be elated to know that someone was praying. It’s something Christians want to encourage in others.

Honestly, though, until you’d requoted it, I’d totally forgotten Tom had ever posted it, because Tom had made so many other comments that had to have been hurtful for Gavin’s surviving family to read. Hopefully, if they didn’t already realize this, they were made to appreciate from the ugliness of the attitude why Gavin created such a blog in the first place, and continued to devote so much time to it.


Byker Bob said...

How do you tell if a 20 year old Bible is owned by an Armstrongite? The gilding on the sections which include Romans and Galatians has never been separated, and is still holding most of the pages together. Also, the gilding on the Old Testament pages is nearly nonexistent, and the paper actually has ragged edges in the book of Revelation.


Dennis Diehl said...

Hireling! Not hurling. That came later

Byker Bob said...

By definition, any time you translate written material from one language to another, at best, the resulting product is a paraphrase. This becomes abundantly clear when you study the history behind the translation of the various texts of the Bible into English.

Many of the machines that I work with in the present are manufactured in Japan. For the most part, we have good manuals and other support documents. However, as good as these are, they are written in “Japanese English”, and as a result, they are very nuanced.

Taking this into consideration, you cannot obtain the degree of accuracy with which Armstrongism claims to establish the level of legalism that HWA and his heirs teach. Hebrew was a dead language for hundreds of years, and was not even fully understood by the linguists of the day who compiled the English translations. Living languages such as Greek change over hundreds of years, and translating ancient texts from Greek to English can also present problems, although to a lesser extent.

The bottom line is that you will never get what Miller Jones (Lonnie) calls mathematic precision from these translations. There will always be leaps, opinions, and guesses, all of which produce inaccuracies in understanding. Truly, this is what has led to there being so many different churches, and why some were even able to be persuaded to follow the teachings of an incestuous tyrant and false prophet.

I’ve come to believe that God intended to make it impossible to keep the Old Covenant, or to mix elements from the Old Covenant with the New. At some point, grace would of necessity come into the picture. The only argument is one of the degee or extent of grace. That’s the only understanding that makes any sense.


nck said...

Hello Miller.

Why would it be devastating?
Would you consider that Armstrongism had the perspective of "physical fulfillment" and "spritual fulfillment" of "prophecies". In Armstrongism the fulfillment of the latter did not negate the earlier promise. "As on the earth so in the heavens" etc etc etc.

I think anti Armstrongists completely overlook this aspect of the armstrongist synthesis of law and grace. NEO speaks about the "code word" balance versus unbalance. I remember that well. To me it meant a person was either "unpractical" or too strict on the law (pharaseeic another such code word), therefore unbearable to associate with or too liberal, like Dennis Diehl who liked too swim on friday nights. (No offence Dennis, you know I love you like a brother like non on this blog) "unbalanced" NEO that brought back a lot of nemories. But yes.......to be balanced between law and grace AND be a reasonable practical person still was the epithomisation of the armstrongist ubermensch. When I was young Aaron Dean was in my opinion someone I deemed in that class. When I got older I professionally started to like sly foxes like Rader or Helge. Now looking back at the experience I loved the humane intellectualizers most.


Hoss said...

An answer that covers the events of Acts and the letter of Galatians involves the Greek noun nomous, the 18 measures, ritual conversion and circumcision.
As I've brought up these points before, here it is in a nutshell:
nomous, meaning law, can refer to the written (Torah) law, the oral law (traditions), civil law, natural law, etc.
The 18 measures were rules enacted in the 1st century BCE on how Jews were to treat (or mistreat) Gentiles.
Ritual conversion was a method devised by Jews as to convert a Gentile proselyte into a Jew - as if the Gentile could be "reborn" as an ethnic Jew.
Circumcision can mean the actual act, a reference to being Jewish, or ritual conversion (which includes physical circumcision).
When anyone uses the Greek word nomous, it must be determined by context which "law" they are writing about. Context is also important with the word circumcision.
Because of the 18 measures, some Jews who accepted Jesus as Jewish Messiah couldn't accept that Gentiles were included, and insisted they must also go through ritual conversion. If a Gentile "became a Jew" then they were fully accepted and the 18 measures no longer applied to them. That was the "other" "Good News".
To go through ritual conversion, a Gentile must agree to keep "the whole law" - the written (Torah) law, and the oral law (traditions).
As one Jewish sage wrote "all Jews will inherit the World to Come" (the "Kingdom", not Dave Pack's TV program). So a Gentile who becomes a Jew would be "in the Kingdom". Paul's gripe was that if this worked (and he insisted it didn't) then "why do you need Messiah?"
So, the main messages in Galatians would appear to be ritual conversion doesn't work and you've accepted Jesus as Messiah, that's all you need.

Anonymous said...

The old covenant and new covenant can still have similarities. It's not like you are picking and choosing to keep parts. The bond woman was different from the free woman but they both had boobs right? Abraham didn't cast out Hagar but keep her boobs. Tithing is old covenant but the 10 commandments are both. We're not under the law but under grace. But grace isn't license to sin. We keep the law because of Gods grace. You shouldn't obey the rules because you're scared of the punishment, but rather because you want to please your father. You can have works without faith, but you can't have fath without performing works to prove it. James doesn't contradict Paul, he clarifies it. As Peter says, Pauls writings (which he acknowledges as scripture) are sometimes hard to understand.

Anonymous said...

Uh, you mean Paul’s writings are hard to understand because they’re supposed to prove Armstrongism but seem to prove the exact opposite?

Yes and No to HWA said...

Jdg 13:22 And Manoah said unto his wife, We shall surely die, because we have seen God.
Dt 5:26 For who is there of all flesh, that hath heard the voice of the living God speaking out of the midst of the fire, as we have, and lived?

If there was a disadvantage in Jesus Christ coming in the flesh, where one could see, hear and even touch him, it could be an under-appreciation of His holiness.

Eze 43:7a And he said unto me, Son of man, the place of my throne, and the place of the soles of my feet, where I will dwell in the midst of the children of Israel for ever...

Jesus Christ will have a dwelling presence in Ezekiel’s Temple during the New Covenant with the Houses of Israel and Judah.

Eze 43:12 This is the law of the house; Upon the top of the mountain the whole limit thereof round about shall be most holy [qodes qodsim]...

“The expression qodes qodsim, “distinctively holy,” not to be confused with qodes haqqodasim, “the holy of holies” (41:4), speaks of the separation of the entire area from profane and secular touch. Even though God’s people and his land were declared to be holy, that is set apart for him, it was impossible to keep them in a perpetual state of sanctity corresponding to the holiness of Yahweh himself. Elevated above the realm of the common and surrounded by massive walls, the absolute holiness of this area, established by the residence of the deity himself, was to be strictly guarded... While Yahweh may have condescended to dwell among his people, extreme measures will be prescribed to prevent the contagion of impurity inside and the contagion of holiness outside” (Daniel I. Block, Ezekiel 25-48, NICOT, p.592).

Ps 26:8 I love the house where you live, O LORD,
the place where your glory dwells. (NIV)

Christ having a dwelling presence - His “glory” [Heb. ‘Kabod’] - in the holy of holies, while being in heaven, is the main reason that the blood of animal sacrifices will be needed to maintain the new Covenant. It is suggested, with a higher standard of purification required, it will be more important under the New than under the Old Covenant.

Eze 44:19 ... they shall put off their garments wherein they ministered, and lay them in the holy chambers, and they shall put on other garments; and they shall not sanctify the people with their garments.
Nu 19:13 Whosoever toucheth the dead body of any man that is dead, and purifieth not himself, defileth the tabernacle of the LORD;

“... the cultic offences of Molek worship (20:3) and wanton neglect to be purified from corpse contamination (Num 19:13-20) ... short-circuit the ritual system by defiling the sanctuary automatically from a distance when they are committed... by what could be called a metaphorical/conceptual miasma or ray that is not subject to physical constraints (Lev 20;13; Num 19:13, 20; cf. Lev 15:31)” (Roy Gane, Cult and Character, pp.296, 162; in the chapter entitled: Pollution of the Sanctuary: Aerial or Only by Direct Contact?).

Eze 45:19 And the priest shall take of the blood of the sin offering, and put it upon the posts of the house, and upon the four corners of the settle of the altar, and upon the posts of the gate of the inner court.

Christ’s sacrifice does not put an end to the dynamic aspect of sin, that may be attached to the Temple by aerial and direct contact through out the year. Therefore the temple must be cleansed once a year; or else thee can be enduring new covenant.

Miller Jones said...

Incidentally, the above video is a great summary of the 11 part series that I did regarding the Law on my blog (and you get it all in nine minutes!). It is interesting to note that the First Century solution to the debate between the supporters of Grace and Law was to allow both sides to believe and practice what they wanted to believe (Jewish Christians continued to observe the Law and Gentile Christians weren't required to). Of course, human nature being what it is, neither side could leave it alone (you have to see it the way I see it).

Anonymous said...

The king James translation is about 80% the result of the very gifted William Tyndale who translated directed from the Greek and Hebrew. So there are few "leaps, opinions and guesses." William did come up with some unique paraphrases such as the famous "eye for a eye, and tooth for a tooth."

Anonymous said...

11:37, Paul's writing disprove some of armstrongism, but not all of it.

Anonymous said...

Liberalism is an excuse for self-indulgence and destructive irresponsible behavior.

Hoss said...

One thing I omitted in my points about the letter to the Galatians is that I do not consider it contained an argument of Law versus Grace. Grace was not something that suddenly appeared in the NT nor was it a major issue.
There was no offering ("sacrifice") that took away willful sin - the most one could receive was temporary atonement to be allowed to enter the Temple. Only by grace could one ever have sin taken away.

Yes and No to HWA said...

Just to clarify the relationship between ‘atonement’ and ‘forgiveness’ in God’s sacrificial system:

Lev 4:20a And he shall do with the bullock as he did with the bullock for a sin offering, so shall he do with this:

Lev 4:20b (1) and the priest shall make an atonement for them,
(2) and it shall be forgiven them.

Lev 4:26b (1) and the priest shall make an atonement for him as concerning his sin,
(2) and it shall be forgiven him.

“The repeated purification formula (4:20, 26, 31, 35) has two parts. (1) What the priest accomplishes by officiating the ritual is that he makes “expiation” (Heb. kipper...) on behalf of the offerer with regard to the offerer’s sin. Since expiation refers to removal of evil, the ritual removes the sin.

(2) The offerer “will be forgiven.” This passive expression does not say the priest grants forgiveness. Since the sinner has violated one of God’s commandments (4:2, 3, 13, 22, 27), the one who forgives must be the Lord himself (cf. Ex. 34:6-7). As his representative, the priest makes expiation by performing the ritual, but he has no authority to forgive. This agrees with the use of the same verb slb (“forgive”) elsewhere. It is never performed by a human being, but always refers to a kind of pardon granted by God, which only he can give” (Roy Gane Leviticus, NIVAC, pp.102-103).

Compare also the ‘parts’ in the ‘reparation’ offering:

Lev 6:2 If a soul sin, and commit a trespass against the LORD...
Lev 6:4 Then it shall be, because he hath sinned, and is guilty, that he shall restore that which he took violently away, or the thing which he hath deceitfully gotten, or that which was delivered him to keep, or the lost thing which he found,
Lev 6:5 Or all that about which he hath sworn falsely; he shall even restore it in the principal, and shall add the fifth part more thereto, and give it unto him to whom it appertaineth, in the day of his trespass offering.
Lev 6:6 And he shall bring his trespass offering unto the LORD, a ram without blemish out of the flock, with thy estimation, for a trespass offering, unto the priest:
Lev 6:7 (1) And the priest shall make an atonement for him before the LORD:
(2) and it shall be forgiven him for any thing of all that he hath done in
trespassing therein.

Miller Jones said...

Anonymous 7/20 @ 3:27,
Liberalism is a justification for progress and strives to correct the mistakes of the past. Conservatism is a justification for past bad behaviors and an excuse for maintaining or returning to them.

Anonymous said...

@ 3:27 PM,

Conservatism is an excuse for self-righteousness and destructive irresponsible behavior. Jesus criticized the conservatives of his day, just as He criticized the liberals. We should never forget that by Christ's standard, covetousness is idolatry, and hatred is murder. These sins are just as prevalent among conservatives as among liberals, though both sides will deny it.

Hoss said...

Yes and No to HWA - Well, yes and no; for one thing, the first example is about unintentional sin. Also, there are various nuances with the Hebrew language and thought process. Like the expression, forgive and forget, there is forgive and take away.
Apart from the connection with Galatians, I recently heard a Protestant minister claim that when someone in ancient Israel wanted a sin forgiven they had to go to Jerusalem "and sacrifice an animal". Not so.
And Bob Thiel casually referred to Hebrews 10:4, For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins and claimed that "proved" the "sacrifices" were abolished. Actually, the verse is about Yom Kippur, which is an annual day of atonement for the nation of Israel. The purpose was not forgiveness, it was atonement, and one isolated, misunderstood verse seems typical of a COG "proof".

RSK said...

I thought the header was hyperbolic, but the infuriation is right in this thread. :)

Yes and No to HWA said...

A couple of points:

Whether sins are intentional or unintentional they are debts to God and need forgiveness to be put right with Him. Non-high handed intentional sins can be forgiven but not high-handed intentional sins:

“In Pentateuchal ritual law, confession before sacrifice is required only in cases that involve deliberate sin (Lev 5:5; Num 5:7). So it appears that verbal confession, demonstrating repentance and loyalty to the Lord by humbly acknowledging accountability to him, is needed to affirm that a deliberate sin is not defiant. With an inadvertent fault there would no question of defiance because the sinner would not even know that he or she was violating a divine command” (Roy Gane, Leviticus, p.125).

Confession converts deliberate sin into inadvertent sin so the sinner can be forgiven.

2Sa 12:13 And David said unto Nathan, I have sinned against the LORD. And Nathan said unto David, The LORD also hath put away thy sin; thou shalt not die.
“The ancient Israelite sacrificial system did not provide for forgiveness in all cases of sin even when the sinners repented. For example, when David committed adultery with Bathsheba, and then arranged for the destruction of her husband, God’s law condemned him to death (Deut 22:22; Num 35:31). There was no animal sacrifice that could free him from this condemnation, as he himself recognized (Ps 51:16). When Manasseh sacrificed his son (2 Ki 21:6; 2 Chron 33:6), God’s law condemned him to death plus the divine penalty of being “cut off” (Lev 20:2-3). No animal sacrifice could remedy his situation. Christ’s better sacrifice, on the other hand, is available to all who truly and humbly accept it, no matter what they have done. So when God forgave Old Testament people like David and Manasseh (2 Sam 12:13; 2 Chron 33:13), He must have done it directly on the basis of the sacrifice of Christ that was to come, without animal sacrifices functioning as the means by which they received Christ’s sacrifice” (Roy Gane, Altar Call, p.42).

Heb 10:2 For then would they not have ceased to be offered? because that the worshippers once purged should have had no more conscience of sins.
Heb 10:3 But in those sacrifices there is a remembrance again made of sins every year.

The above verses provide the context for the second part of atonement.

“The two stages of atonement are clear:

“1. Forgiveness through individual sacrifice during the year: “Thus shall the priest make atonement on his behalf for his sin, and he shall be forgiven” (Lev 4:26).

“2. Cleansing through the cleansing of the sanctuary on the Day of Atonement: “For on this day atonement shall be made for you, to cleanse you; from all your sins you shall be clean before the Lord (Lev 16:30).

“The first stage of atonement for sin is forgiveness. The second stage is cleansing.

“The two stages of atonement corresponds to a promise in the New Testament: “If we confess our sins, He is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness” (1 Jn 1:9; NASB)... through Christ’s sacrifice He not only forgives us, He cleanses us as well” (Roy Gane, Altar Call, pp.186-87).