If there is one subject that the COG's have absolutely failed to teach their congregants properly is the great reconciliation that shocked the Church in the New Testament in the book of Acts.
Of course, it was the Church's beliefs on the differences between Jew vs. Gentile and who compromised "Spiritual Jews" or "Spiritual Israelites" that literally muddied the waters when it came to just how huge of a big deal it was back in the days of the beginning of the Christian Church at and shortly after Pentecost.
In the Worldwide Church of God's alternative facts, the story-line was completely different. Jesus came not for the world, but for a select few called "the Church". The "Gentile" line went off the deep end, ignored the "true" Gospel, which, according to Armstrongism, laid dormant and powerless for centuries - save for an infinitesimally small group of observant Christians who kept the Jewish Law throughout six different eras - up to the "Philadelphia" era which, of course, was started, and ended, with Herbert Armstrong.
What this different chronology does is shocking to the standards of orthodox Christianity, the work of the Spirit, the inclusion of the Gentiles, the lessons of Acts, the epistles of Paul, and actually, the entire framework and network of the New Testament. That framework being the freedom in Christ with the inclusion of the Gentiles into the Church that came with the outpouring of the Holy Spirit on Pentecost.
We pick up the story at Acts 15: (NIV) (emphasis in bold mine) (my inserted comment in brown)
Of course, it was the Church's beliefs on the differences between Jew vs. Gentile and who compromised "Spiritual Jews" or "Spiritual Israelites" that literally muddied the waters when it came to just how huge of a big deal it was back in the days of the beginning of the Christian Church at and shortly after Pentecost.
In the Worldwide Church of God's alternative facts, the story-line was completely different. Jesus came not for the world, but for a select few called "the Church". The "Gentile" line went off the deep end, ignored the "true" Gospel, which, according to Armstrongism, laid dormant and powerless for centuries - save for an infinitesimally small group of observant Christians who kept the Jewish Law throughout six different eras - up to the "Philadelphia" era which, of course, was started, and ended, with Herbert Armstrong.
What this different chronology does is shocking to the standards of orthodox Christianity, the work of the Spirit, the inclusion of the Gentiles, the lessons of Acts, the epistles of Paul, and actually, the entire framework and network of the New Testament. That framework being the freedom in Christ with the inclusion of the Gentiles into the Church that came with the outpouring of the Holy Spirit on Pentecost.
We pick up the story at Acts 15: (NIV) (emphasis in bold mine) (my inserted comment in brown)
15 Certain people came down from Judea to Antioch and were teaching the believers: “Unless you are circumcised, according to the custom taught by Moses, you cannot be saved.” 2This brought Paul and Barnabas into sharp dispute (AHA! Well, this wasn't expected at all, was it?) and debate with them. So Paul and Barnabas were appointed, along with some other believers, to go up to Jerusalem to see the apostles and elders about this question.
Let me interject here what it must have been like at this point. Paul and Barnabas were at "Sharp Dispute". I bet you hands were flying and spit was being spat, and they obviously did not come to a solution or a conclusion - both held their ground. The only thing to do was for them both to be sent up to Jerusalem to see the apostles and the elders to talk about what to do. I can imagine that both were absolutely and completely set in their ways (What else is new?? This was a prospect of huge change, great for Paul, nightmarish for Barnabas!) BUT - they both could not deny the fact that the Gentiles had been converted. And for them, this was a Game-Changer - a Very Big Deal.
3 The church sent them on their way, and as they traveled through Phoenicia and Samaria, they told how the Gentiles had been converted. This news made all the believers very glad. 4 When they came to Jerusalem, they were welcomed by the church and the apostles and elders, to whom they reported everything God had done through them.
Until a section of believers felt that the Gentiles must now become Jews in practice:
5 Then some of the believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees stood up and said, “The Gentiles must be circumcised and required to keep the law of Moses.”6 The apostles and elders met to consider this question. 7After much discussion, (something tells me that this was a major understatement!!) Peter (NOT Paul, NOT Barnabas, but Peter!!!) got up and addressed them: “Brothers, you know that some time ago God made a choice among you that the Gentiles might hear from my lips the message of the gospel and believe. 8 God, who knows the heart, showed that he accepted them by giving the Holy Spirit to them, just as he did to us. 9 He did not discriminate between us and them, for he purified their hearts by faith. 10 Now then, why do you try to test God by putting on the necks of Gentiles a yoke that neither we nor our ancestors have been able to bear? 11 No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are.”
Shocking words!! Just look at the first four words in the next verse:
12 The whole assembly became silent as they listened to Barnabas and Paul telling about the signs and wonders God had done among the Gentiles through them. 13 When they finished, James spoke up. “Brothers,” he said, “listen to me. 14 Simon] has described to us how God first intervened to choose a people for his name from the Gentiles. 15 The words of the prophets are in agreement with this, as it is written:19“It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. 20 Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood. 21 For the law of Moses has been preached in every city from the earliest times and is read in the synagogues on every Sabbath.”
I think it's good to point out here that you can definitely see the difference of opinions that are existing within the different personalities at this point. We have Paul, who is championing Grace and Freedom for the Gentiles. We have Peter, who is adamant that placing the Law of the Gentiles would be too much for them to bear and that salvation is by Grace through Faith. We have Barnabas, who is championing the Law of Moses and Circumcision for the Gentiles. We also have James, who seems to be thinking that eventually, they'll come around to the law of Moses. Oh no, it's a split decision! It's sometimes difficult to see the human reasoning within scripture, but we have to remember, these were humans - men - just like us - with thought and reason and rationale just like what happens when a group of us get together. What then was the end result? We read it in verse 22.
The Council’s Letter to Gentile Believers
22 Then the apostles and elders, with the whole church, decided to choose some of their own men and send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas. They chose Judas (called Barsabbas) and Silas, men who were leaders among the believers. 23 With them they sent the following letter:The apostles and elders, your brothers,To the Gentile believers in Antioch, Syria and Cilicia:Greetings.24 We have heard that some went out from us without our authorization and disturbed you, troubling your minds by what they said. 25 So we all agreed to choose some men and send them to you with our dear friends Barnabas and Paul (THIS IS SIGNIFICANT, since both had very divergent opinions!!) — 26 men who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. 27 Therefore we are sending Judas and Silas to confirm by word of mouth what we are writing. 28 It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements: 29 You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things.Farewell.30 So the men were sent off and went down to Antioch, where they gathered the church together and delivered the letter. 31 The people read it and were glad for its encouraging message. 32 Judas and Silas, who themselves were prophets, said much to encourage and strengthen the believers. 33 After spending some time there, they were sent off by the believers with the blessing of peace to return to those who had sent them. [34] d]" data-mce-style="line-height: 0;">[d] 35 But Paul and Barnabas remained in Antioch, where they and many others taught and preached the word of the Lord.
That wasn't the end of the disagreements between Paul and Barnabas - two totally different opinions on Law and Grace and Church Administration, the Law of Moses and the Gentiles. Look what happened in verse 36:
Disagreement Between Paul and Barnabas
36 Some time later Paul said to Barnabas, “Let us go back and visit the believers in all the towns where we preached the word of the Lord and see how they are doing.” 37 Barnabas wanted to take John, also called Mark, with them, 38 but Paul did not think it wise to take him, because he had deserted them in Pamphylia and had not continued with them in the work. 39 They had such a sharp disagreement that they parted company. Barnabas took Mark and sailed for Cyprus, 40 but Paul chose Silas and left, commended by the believers to the grace of the Lord. 41 He went through Syria and Cilicia, strengthening the churches.
It doesn't take a lot to see that there were hard feelings between the two who had completely different opinions on the path that they thought the two were supposed to take. Doesn't this all sound familiar? A huge shift had just happened within the Church. The Gentiles were included as believers without the inclusions of circumcision and the observances of the Law of Moses.
It is with this perspective that one must read the Pauline Epistles, as Paul went from church to church writing the congregations trying to explain to those who sided with Barnabas' opinion about Law about why the Law existed, what it was for, what it did, and the new way of faith in Christ and Christ in you in such books as Galatians. It is with this background that one can understand why Paul wrote exactly what he wrote, and went into such lengths and details about such issues - because he was dealing with people who could not accept the decisions of the Jerusalem Council, and that the Gentiles were not subject to the same yoke that they spent their whole lives observing. This did not change the fact that the decision was done and the Gentile Church WAS the Church - even though they did things and observed things differently.
And here is where Herbert Armstrong could not reconcile that the Gentile Church was as much a part of the Church as the Jewish Christians were, 1900 and some years later. Instead, Herbert Armstrong condemned the Gentile Church as a wayward, backwards, pagan people who did not operate on faith but had become absorbed in apostasy. His mindframe was that the Gentile Church must act as the Jewish Church acted in the first Century - as the earliest Christians had to act. His mindframe was that the Gentile Church had to be subject to the Law of Moses. In short, Herbert Armstrong defied the authority and judgement of the Jerusalem Council of Acts 15 and made the unilateral decision that the Gentile Church WAS bound to observe the Law of Moses and even circumcision. Herbert Armstrong was in rebellion to Paul, to Peter, and to the entire Jerusalem Council. Herbert Armstrong sided with Barnabas, and put a yoke on Gentile Christians that was too hard of a yoke to bear and distracted them from grace and faith in Christ. THIS is the reality of what happened, and this is the reality of where Herbert stood in relation to the authority of which the Council's decision was made.
In fact, Herbert Armstrong was rebellious to anybody who made a decision that was different than he thought. It didn't matter if it was Peter, or Paul, or Herb's own ministers, or Herb's church before he started his own. Herb had no respect for the Church, for the Decisions of the Council, for the Gentiles, and the list goes on and on. The reality is that what was in Herb's mind was a methodology to use religion - specifically taking the position of Barnabas - to attempt to revive the inclusions that had been outlawed by the council upon the Gentiles for his own personal benefit and gain. Such actions were mutinous, disrespectful, and against the very Spirit who inspired the decisions of the council in the first place.
Just because the Gentiles did things differently did not eliminate, and does not eliminate their faith and their belief in Jesus Christ and does not eliminate their prospects for salvation nor their inclusion into the Church of God. This is the hardest pill for the Churches of God to swallow - and it all stems from the great reconciliation and acceptance of the Gentiles by God in the Spirit at the day of Pentecost.
Will the Church of God recognize the decisions of the Church of God made at the Jerusalem Council? Will the Church of God accept the decisions of Peter, Paul, and all the Apostles? Will the Church of God stop trying to imposing yokes and burdens on the Gentiles that are too hard and cumbersome for them? Will Thiel and Malm and others take the decisions of the Jerusalem council and humble themselves and obey their spiritual authorities and stop imposing Jewish Law on Gentile Christians and creating more hardship than they can bear distracting them from CHRIST?
It is with this perspective that one must read the Pauline Epistles, as Paul went from church to church writing the congregations trying to explain to those who sided with Barnabas' opinion about Law about why the Law existed, what it was for, what it did, and the new way of faith in Christ and Christ in you in such books as Galatians. It is with this background that one can understand why Paul wrote exactly what he wrote, and went into such lengths and details about such issues - because he was dealing with people who could not accept the decisions of the Jerusalem Council, and that the Gentiles were not subject to the same yoke that they spent their whole lives observing. This did not change the fact that the decision was done and the Gentile Church WAS the Church - even though they did things and observed things differently.
And here is where Herbert Armstrong could not reconcile that the Gentile Church was as much a part of the Church as the Jewish Christians were, 1900 and some years later. Instead, Herbert Armstrong condemned the Gentile Church as a wayward, backwards, pagan people who did not operate on faith but had become absorbed in apostasy. His mindframe was that the Gentile Church must act as the Jewish Church acted in the first Century - as the earliest Christians had to act. His mindframe was that the Gentile Church had to be subject to the Law of Moses. In short, Herbert Armstrong defied the authority and judgement of the Jerusalem Council of Acts 15 and made the unilateral decision that the Gentile Church WAS bound to observe the Law of Moses and even circumcision. Herbert Armstrong was in rebellion to Paul, to Peter, and to the entire Jerusalem Council. Herbert Armstrong sided with Barnabas, and put a yoke on Gentile Christians that was too hard of a yoke to bear and distracted them from grace and faith in Christ. THIS is the reality of what happened, and this is the reality of where Herbert stood in relation to the authority of which the Council's decision was made.
In fact, Herbert Armstrong was rebellious to anybody who made a decision that was different than he thought. It didn't matter if it was Peter, or Paul, or Herb's own ministers, or Herb's church before he started his own. Herb had no respect for the Church, for the Decisions of the Council, for the Gentiles, and the list goes on and on. The reality is that what was in Herb's mind was a methodology to use religion - specifically taking the position of Barnabas - to attempt to revive the inclusions that had been outlawed by the council upon the Gentiles for his own personal benefit and gain. Such actions were mutinous, disrespectful, and against the very Spirit who inspired the decisions of the council in the first place.
Just because the Gentiles did things differently did not eliminate, and does not eliminate their faith and their belief in Jesus Christ and does not eliminate their prospects for salvation nor their inclusion into the Church of God. This is the hardest pill for the Churches of God to swallow - and it all stems from the great reconciliation and acceptance of the Gentiles by God in the Spirit at the day of Pentecost.
Will the Church of God recognize the decisions of the Church of God made at the Jerusalem Council? Will the Church of God accept the decisions of Peter, Paul, and all the Apostles? Will the Church of God stop trying to imposing yokes and burdens on the Gentiles that are too hard and cumbersome for them? Will Thiel and Malm and others take the decisions of the Jerusalem council and humble themselves and obey their spiritual authorities and stop imposing Jewish Law on Gentile Christians and creating more hardship than they can bear distracting them from CHRIST?
23 comments:
frankly, from the beginning the biggest obstacle to the spreading of the Gospel has been the arrogance and superiority complex of the children of israel, but such sentiments of the flesh cannot possibly overcome the simplicity of the Message Christ...
c f ben yochanan
Thanks very nice blog!
"15 Certain people came down from Judea to Antioch and were teaching the believers: “Unless you are circumcised, according to the custom taught by Moses, you cannot be saved.”
It's only of late that I've finally learned more about the history of the ritual of circumcision. For instance, I learned that at the time of Christ till around the 2nd century CE circumcision involved the removal of a small fraction of the foreskin that hang beyond the glans penis (brit milah). After the 2nd century another two procedures were instituted (brit peri'ah and a brit mezizah), which resulted in the complete removal of the foreskin from the glans. I can now better understand why the early Christian Church discouraged the ritual of circumcision since there was really no need for it since the difference between circumcised Christians and uncircumcised Christians was a small bit of flesh. I also now understand why Paul instructed "Is any man called being circumcised? let him not become uncircumcised. Is any called in uncircumcision? let him not be circumcised" (1 Cor. 7:18) as I'd always wondered how could a man go to being uncut if he was already cut and there's very little, if any foreskin left behind after getting cut? Well, if the original Abrahamic ritual was for only a fraction of the foreskin to be removed it makes better sense to me now how a circumcised Judean could transition back to being uncircumcised (like some Judean men did during the Hellenistic period). Further, I've learned that the predominant reason for its introduction in modern times to non-Judaics like in America in the nineteenth century was to prevent masturbation, which was a complete failure (as I can attest to in my own personal experience lol). Other claims regarding modern-day circumcision (as opposed to the original Brit Milah) that are promoted by health "experts" today are at best, debatable and, at worst, false factual assertions.
Ac 15:20 But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.
“These four prohibitions, in fact, became widely known in Judaism as the Noachian precepts (cf. B. Sanhedrin 56b, based on Lev 17:1-18:30) and were viewed by some rabbis as the essential requirement for Gentiles in the eschatological age (cf. Gen R. 98.9)” (Richard N. Longenecker, Acts, EBC, Vol.9, p.449).
Lev 17:10 And whatsoever man there be of the house of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn among you, that eateth any manner of blood; I will even set my face against that soul that eateth blood, and will cut him off from among his people.
“The biblical context for understanding the importance of these injunctions against pagan religious practices is Leviticus 17-18, a text from Moses that is “read aloud every sabbath in the synagogues” (Acts 15:21). This text legislates the behaviour of “resident aliens” living in the holy land among Jews and sounds a cautionary note about possible effects of “aliens who sojourn in your midst” whose practices may defile and subvert the people’s covenant relationship with God. The exhortation to avoid “the practices of the nations” is deeply rooted in the prophet’s keen awareness that Israel’s single-minded loyalty to God (and so its future) can be imperiled by the manner of a people’s worship in a heterogeneous culture. This same concern is here adapted by James to guide the behaviours of converted Gentiles who share Christian fellowship with repentant Jews in the urban synagogues of the diaspora (cf. 15:21). In effect, James implies that Jews should treat uncircumcised Gentiles who otherwise share the same sacred space as “resident aliens.” James offer guidelines to ensure that Christian fellowship in the mixed congregations of Paul’s urban mission will nurture faith rather than contaminate. The lack of sensitivity to the church’s Jewish legacy would surely have an adverse effect on a congregation’s Jewish membership (cf. Rom 14, 1 Cor 8-10)...
Am 9:11 In that day I will raise up the tabernacle of David that is fallen...
Am 9:12 ... and all the Gentiles upon whom my name is called, may earnestly seek me, saith the Lord... (LXX)
“Upon an initial reading, the interpreter may wonder how James’s interest in table fellowship within the Christian synagogues of the disapora relates to the biblical prophecy just cited. Is it part of his midrash on this Scripture or a pastoral exhortation detached from Scripture? If the Gentile believers in the church are the Gentiles of the prophecy, whose salvation is then confirmed by prophecy (Amos), then this exhortation for them to remain pure according to Moses (Leviticus 17-18) should not be viewed as odd. The same Scripture that claims them for God also obligates their civility...
“The thematic interplay between this prophecy from Amos concerning the salvation of the nations and the Levitical injunctions against their “abominations” among Jews (cf. Lev 18:24-30) provides the biblical context for Paul’s subsequent narrative of Paul’s mission... (Robert W. Wall, “The Acts of the Apostles,” NIB, Vol.10, pp. 219).
NC ordinance:
Eze 44:9 Thus saith the Lord GOD; No stranger, uncircumcised in heart, nor uncircumcised in flesh, shall enter into my sanctuary, of any stranger that is among the children of Israel.
“After the opening citation formula reminding the audience (and readers) of the divine source of the following ordinances [9-14], Yahweh takes the first step to safeguard the holiness of the temple and its cult: he bars all who are outside the covenant community from the sacred precinct (v.9). Obviously answering to the offences described in vv.7-8, Ezekiel reaffirms the Mosaic restrictions (Exod. 12:43-51) on access to the sanctuary. Resident foreigners who had not identified with Israel physically and spiritually prohibited entry” (Daniel I. Block, The Bookof Ezekiel Chapters 25-48, NICOT,p.626).
Galatians has been my favorite book for understanding for many years. This was always a tough book for wcg preachers to teach from because of the necessity of bending and twisting what was written in order to fit church doctrine. WCG attempted to be an old testament church ---- attempting to put that new wine into the old wineskin.
WCG took this verse in Acts 15 "21 For the law of Moses has been preached in every city from the earliest times and is read in the synagogues on every Sabbath.”, to mean they should go back and learn the law of Moses pretty much disregarding the instruction sent by letter and person to those Gentiles. My take on that verse was that James was telling them that they *could* learn those things and practice *if* they chose too, because nothing was wrong with it. Paul himself tried to make it back to Jerusalem to keep various festivals ….'if he could'. It always stood out to me, as WCG emphasized that Paul trying to observe those days to be a command, yet Paul missed out on the opportunity to demand the Gentiles should observe those days, nor did he seem to teach them of their importance. WCG and the splinters all teach that salvation comes through Jesus Christ -- that one can't be saved by works, but then also claim that all must observe these days, tithe, and keep other parts of the law that they deem necessary or salvation cannot be achieved. Emphasis always goes back to keeping of the Mosaic Law, usually with barely a mention of the grace and truth Jesus brought, as well as that sacrifice o His life.
I note that the COG7 holds most of the doctrinal beliefs and teachings as these groups, (HWA seems to have gotten many of his teachings from them), yet they see no reason to observe those OT festivals given to Israel. They don't condemn others who choose to observe those days as some in their organization do observe in some form. That seems to me to be more what the Apostle James was alluding to when he mentioned Moses being taught in the synagogues every Sabbath. When I have attended with them, the focus is most certainly on Jesus the Christ and how people should live. In almost any of the splinters I listen to on occasion, it seems that 3 out of 4 scriptures are read from the OT. Nothing wrong with the Law, but sometimes 'at the reading of Moses, there remains a veil', thereby deemphasizing the saving work of the Son of God. Scripture says that if one wants to keep a day, he should 'do it to the Lord'. If one wants to treat every day the same, then he should do that to the Lord. Paul spoke of not eating meat if it would cause offense to another, with the point being that physical things are not as important as faith in Jesus.
Ron Dart taught about it all the time.
Great article but 2 disagreements:
I read that Paul AND Barnabus (together) disagreed with the others - Pharisees.
The Church of God has no disagreement with Acts 15 - only those who falsely call themselves the church of God, but are really the synagogue of Satan - Revelation 3:9
Nice write up and I agree. One point though: "This brought Paul and Barnabas into sharp dispute and debate with them." I think, SHT, you've misread this as Paul and Barnabas being in dispute with each other, but I think it's pretty clear it means that the two of them were in debate, together, with the Judaizers.
C f Ben yochanan
If it wasn't for the Anglo Saxon Israelity nations tipping scale intervention during WW1 and WW2, the world would be a German slave own. So yeah, the Israelities are superior, and you should kiss whities shoes in appreciation rather than smearing him.
As a Comanche, Im glad that unlike others of my tribe, that I am circumcised!
Downright looks better too... more aerodynamic and better "style lines".
Ask most women, and they will say that they prefer the look of a circumcised penis better as well!
3:20
I think you are a great asset and should take more time to read your postings.
I wonder. Did wcg teach the ot feasts in order to "attain" salvation, or was it a or "the" means to understand the creators "plan" as stipulated?
On a side note.
I once read the songs of Streisands movie "Yentl" in its original sequence.
The lyrics in sequence EXACTLY mirror Gods plan with mankind. To me it is an example of even if the jees dont understand much of christian theology, they still hold the oracles or keys to the message of a mysterious being who has some difficulty in interacting with his creation that has rejected him for that reason. Kind of a hyper intelligent force that by todays science could be labelled with an autistic malfunction.
Then he sent Streisand to explain it one more time.
Nck
well, there wont be but 10% left by the time Christ Returns, and only 144000 made Gods for the Millennium, whereas the will be 100s of millions of gentiles made Gods...
all cuz israelis never admit to being wrong, put all their emphasis on the physical, are constantly dictating to others, thinking themselves greater even than God, and are notoriously (and demonstrably) self righteous and unrepentant, not to mention rather boorish...
c f ben yochanan
Great article. Thanks.
Nck, interesting. Though, I see how the holy days of old can illustrate God’s plan, but does it reveal it? Christians recognize the need for Christ dying for our sins (Passover). They recognize the need for humility and the Bread of life living in us (unleavened bread - they probably get this better than the COGs). They get the need for the Holy Spirit (Pentecost — again probably better understood than the COGs).
Many Christians believe Christ will return (Trumpets). And that satan will be put away (atonement, but I believe the COGs have this wrong as it is about Christ atoning for and also carrying away our sins — which other Christians get better than the COGs).
Many Christians believe in the millennial reign (Tabernacles) and judgment (last great day).
I think many bible based non-holy day keeping Christians understand God’s actions in our lives and humanity’s better than the COGs ever did.
Hi nck,
"3:20
I think you are a great asset and should take more time to read your postings.
I wonder. Did wcg teach the ot feasts in order to "attain" salvation, or was it a or "the" means to understand the creators "plan" as stipulated?"
Kinda both isn't it? If, in the old days of WCG one failed to observe these days correctly, on the right day, could they remain in the one true church? Of course not! Did they actually 'teach' it was it was required for salvation? No, but in practice one could not remain in good standing based on the gov't of god and the rulings. I mean refuse to change Pentecost observance from Monday to Sunday, and what happened then?
Rom. 3:1 refers to the 'Jews' having an "advantage" because of the OT knowledge they had and what it pictured … as far as understanding (perhaps) the play God had laid out. But faith did not come by the law. Frankly, I don't think the cog's have a true understanding of what may be pictured by the holy days or festivals. Somewhat about Passover and DUB, maybe some about Pentecost, but I am convinced that none really have a clue beyond that. It just turns into doctrinally guesses by the 'rulers' who benefit from whatever their corporation has them teach. Faith?? Well that really has to do with one's group or accepted leader. ;-)
Thank you both for understanding my question. I was reminded of one of our long time members who as a teacher would be fired on the spot if attending the FOT for 8 days certain years. He was "allowed" to teach school for a couple of days those years. (without losing salvation) (I guess they were not the 2 High Days of the 8 day Feast.)
I know, this is just a superficial remark after you already expounded on a deeper level.
Nck
Tonto June 5, 2019 at 9:43 AM said... “As a Comanche, Im glad that unlike others of my tribe, that I am circumcised! Downright looks better too... more aerodynamic and better "style lines". Ask most women, and they will say that they prefer the look of a circumcised penis better as well!”
I'm circumcised too Tonto, but it wasn't for any religious, cosmetic or pseudo-health purpose. The reason for my getting cut was for medical reasons. I had phimosis. A friend of mine who was cut as a baby by a Judaic mohel—no less!—since his mother supposedly was unsuccessful in convincing the hospital to perform it at that time, knows about 4 other men (like me) who had to get circumcised as well in their adult years due to medical reasons.
Personally, I'm not against circumcision. It’s your body. Your choice. But, a lot of men who aren’t even of the Judaic religion and as newborns went under the knife now regret the decision foisted upon them by their parents. So if I were to have sons I'd prefer them to remain intact and they choose when older whether they want the procedure done. If I were to get them circumcised, however, I'd probably do as I wished I had've done myself—knowing what I know now—and that is to request the surgeon to remove only the excess foreskin—that imo case was the cause of my problem—and thus leave a healthy amount of foreskin intact rather than crop off the entire foreskin.
I know “most women” might like the appearance of a circumcised penis to an uncircumcised penis, but that’s mute to me TBH since a lot of what we are conditioned to like in society is predominantly due to the influence of the media and dominant culture IMO. For instance, a lot of women prefer their men to be hairless, but it’s not exactly natural. Watching "American Circumcision on Netflix and various YT videos online about the procedure, its risks and the differences between a circumcised penis and uncircumcised penis I'm aware of all the arguments both pro and con re circumcision. And TBH babies are born perfect so why surgically remove a perfectly normal part of a baby boy’s body for cosmetic or cultural reasons? If it’s not for a medical reason to rectify a health issue why mess with Mother Nature?
C f Ben Yochanan
The whole world has morally declined, not just the Israelis. It's a worldwide phenomenon.
Rev says 144,000 plus a great multitude. It doesn't say that there will only be a total of 144,000 Isaelis in the millenium kingdom. Where do you get your 100s of millions of gentiles in the kingdom? Which church do all these gentiles presently attend?
9:59 and Tonto
re: "most women"
You are giving away the locks to the minds of American women.
I mean there are about 6 billion uncircumcised men, so your discussion sounds like a discussion on the "World Series." Unless you posess other (carnal) knowledge, please share.
I might give away the locks to other cultures in return.........although the easiest one is "be yourself."
@10:16: On this blog I see a lot of mistaking the Millenium for "the Kingdom of God".
Two entirely seperate things.
nck
"Saying, Hurt not the earth, neither the sea, nor the trees, till we have sealed the servants of our God in their foreheads.
And I heard the number of them which were sealed: and there were sealed an hundred and forty and four thousand of all the tribes of the children of Israel." Revelation 7:3-4
the rest of the chapter alludes to the gentiles...
and i never said there would be a total of 144000 israelis in the Millenial Kingdom; the mere fact that you misquoted me speaks volumes of ur reading comprehension skills in general, which means you likely have also misunderstood what youve read in the bible too...
c f ben yochanan
C f yochanan
" only 144,000 made Gods for the millenium..all cuz Israelis never admit.."
I've read and re read your 1.25 PM post and you do claim only 144,000 of Israelis will be in the millenium kingdom.
It's a stretch and intellectually dishonest to accuse others of misunderstanding their Bibles because of your sloppy grammar. Did you finish high school?
Actually, we are living in the millennium. Of course, it’s not the one that prophecy nuts refer to, but nonetheless, it is the millennium!
BB
Ouch.
I'm afraid my perspective is starting to taint BB's perspective.
"We are in the Millenium" is my line........(as in 4th Industrial revolution, 40 years away from technological Singularity, when Man will be AS gods aided by AI (angels) all knowing, predictive, all encompassing, settling planets.
The Great crisis or Tribulation before and to trigger that Millenium would indeed be the entire 20th century.
On the radio I heard that the next crises after climate change might be "biodiversity of the ecosystem".............so I can still see some sort of "racially segregated" dominions designated within "the world tomorrow" world system in an effort to preserve life.
I'm not advocating that. I'm just extrapolating the Chinese "scientific" way of governance in combination with Silicon Valley philosophy.
Nck
yup, ur decent into the use of petty, personal comments justifies the Scriptures and proves my point; not to mention the fact that it demonstrates that ur pov on this matter was simply wrongheaded and rooted in simple carnal mindedness...
indeed the Millennium will not be missing you self proclaimed superior asses...
c f ben yochanan
Post a Comment