Doug writes:
Is the Old Testament Obsolete? Jesus said that Christians are to live “by every word of God” (Luke 4:4). The Apostle Paul wrote, “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God” (2 Timothy 3:16–17). When these words were spoken and written, the primary Scriptures in existence were the books of the Old Testament. Today, many have been told that the Old Testament has been superseded by the New Covenant and the New Testament. Yet, when Paul cited Old Testament passages to Christians in Corinth, he said, “Now all these things happened to them as examples, and they were written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the ages have come” (1 Corinthians 10:1–11). When Jesus and the Apostles quoted Scripture, they quoted from the Old Testament. King David wrote in Psalm 119:160 “The entirety of Your word is truth.” The Old Testament is not obsolete. The truth of God contained in the Scriptures will eventually fill the earth (Isaiah 11:9)—which is why we study the whole Bible today.
Have a profitable Sabbath,
Douglas S. Winnail
One needs to remember that the words "Old Testament" and "'New Testament" were added by Bible publishers and were never any part of the canon. If you really want to be accurate then it should be Old Covenant and New Covenant.
The old covenant is a covenant made with the children of Israel as a people and a nation. It involved no one else - other than those who wished to be part of the system who then had to take on that identity through circumcision and other rules. It never involved anyone else outside Israel nor anyone hundreds or thousands of years later. That covenant is found in Exodus 19-22. Those writings are still intact and never passed away. They are still there, but the covenant is a totally different story.
The Old Covenant was contingent upon the people's obedience to the Law of Moses, not for salvation, but upon blessings and cursing depending upon performance.
Prior to the delivery of the law to Moses, God made a covenant with Abraham:
Galatians 3:16-18 NRSVUE
16 Now the promises were made to Abraham and to his offspring;[a] it does not say, “And to offsprings,”[b] as of many, but it says, “And to your offspring,”[c] that is, to one person, who is Christ. 17 My point is this: the law, which came four hundred thirty years later, does not annul a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to nullify the promise. 18 For if the inheritance comes from the law, it no longer comes from the promise, but God granted it to Abraham through the promise.
God never changed his mind about his promises to Abraham but made a new covenant which was needed, and which was the plan all along. The law was added because people no longer trusted in God. Their transgressions needed to be pointed out to them through blessings and cursings.
And yet, old covenant writings, as a freshman in seminary learns, portray a shadow of something to come. Something bigger and better. That old covenant was completed and replaced by something NEW. What had lost its glory took on a new glory.
2 Corinthians 3:10-15. NRSVUE
10 Indeed, what once had glory has in this respect lost its glory because of the greater glory,
11 for if what was set aside came through glory, much more has the permanent come in glory!
12 Since, then, we have such a hope, we act with complete frankness, 13 not like Moses, who put a veil over his face to keep the people of Israel from gazing at the end of the glory that[a] was being set aside. 14 But their minds were hardened. Indeed, to this very day, when they hear the reading of the old covenant, the same veil is still there; it is not unveiled since in Christ it is set aside. 15 Indeed, to this very day whenever Moses is read, a veil lies over their minds,[b]
Hebrews 8:7-9. NRSVUE
7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no need to look for a second one.
8 God[a] finds fault with them when he says:
The days are surely coming, says the Lord, when I will establish a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah,
9 not like the covenant that I made with their ancestors on the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt,for they did not continue in my covenant, and so I had no concern for them, says the Lord.
Jeremiah 31:31-32. NRSVUE
A New Covenant
31 The days are surely coming, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah. 32 It will not be like the covenant that I made with their ancestors when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt—a covenant that they broke, though I was their husband, says the Lord.
Hebrews 10:9-10 NRSVUE
9 then he added, “See, I have come to do your will.” He abolishes the first in order to establish the second. 10 And it is by God’s will[a] that we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.
Galatians 4:30. NRSVUE
30 But what does the scripture say? “Drive out the enslaved woman and her child, for the child of the enslaved woman will not share the inheritance with the child of the free woman.”
2 Corinthians 3. NRSVUE
Ministers of the New Covenant
3 Are we beginning to commend ourselves again? Surely we do not need, as some do, letters of recommendation to you or from you, do we? 2 You yourselves are our letter, written on our hearts, known and read by all, 3 and you show that you are a letter of Christ, prepared by us, written not with ink but with the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone but on tablets that are human hearts.[a]
4 Such is the confidence that we have through Christ toward God. 5 Not that we are qualified of ourselves to claim anything as coming from us; our qualification is from God, 6 who has made us qualified to be ministers of a new covenant, not of letter but of spirit, for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.
7 Now if the ministry of death, chiseled in letters on stone tablets,[b] came in glory so that the people of Israel could not gaze at Moses’s face because of the glory of his face, a glory now set aside, 8 how much more will the ministry of the Spirit come in glory? 9 For if there was glory in the ministry of condemnation,[c]much more does the ministry of justification abound in glory! 10 Indeed, what once had glory has in this respect lost its glory because of the greater glory, 11 for if what was set aside came through glory, much more has the permanent come in glory!
12 Since, then, we have such a hope, we act with complete frankness, 13 not like Moses, who put a veil over his face to keep the people of Israel from gazing at the end of the glory that[d] was being set aside. 14 But their minds were hardened. Indeed, to this very day, when they hear the reading of the old covenant, the same veil is still there; it is not unveiled since in Christ it is set aside. 15 Indeed, to this very day whenever Moses is read, a veil lies over their minds,[e] 16 but when one turns to the Lord, the veil is removed. 17 Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom. 18 And all of us, with unveiled faces, seeing the glory of the Lord as though reflected in a mirror, are being transformed into the same image from one degree of glory to another, for this comes from the Lord, the Spirit.
It is amazing to watch as LCG still tries to cling to something that is no longer in effect. The thing whose glory was long ago tarnished. The thing that killed and could never give life. The thing that was old, worn out, and obsolete.
No scripture can be more effective in stating that than this:
Hebrews 8:13 NRSVUE
13 In speaking of a new covenant, he has made the first one obsolete, and what is obsolete and growing old will soon disappear.
Stating it is obsolete does not mean what is written there, its historical narrative, and its wisdom are no longer useful, but that it points to something bigger and better to come, who Jesus is and God's story with us. Again, basic Christian understanding.
The Old Covenant made exclusively with Israel was laid to rest and made obsolete with the crucifixion and resurrection.
Hebrews 8:10-13. NRSVUE
10 This is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord:
I will put my laws in their mindsand write them on their hearts,and I will be their God,and they shall be my people.11 And they shall not teach one anotheror say to each other,[a] ‘Know the Lord,’for they shall all know me,from the least of them to the greatest.12 For I will be merciful toward their iniquities,and I will remember their sins[b] no more.”
13 In speaking of a new covenant, he has made the first one obsolete, and what is obsolete and growing old will soon disappear.
What Doug and most in LCG fail to understand is that the covenant was made obsolete, not a collection of books. The writings prior to Jesus are NOT the Old Testament. Even Jesus referred to these writings of the prophets and the law.
The law of Moses was part of the Old Covenant and we today are not part of that covenant. We have been invited into a New Covenant. Something bigger, better, and more glorious where condemnation and cursings no longer have power. It is time to break those shackles and be free.
61 comments:
What the hell is the NRSVUE? You morons will use anything to invalidate the word of God.
A simple Google search on the same device you are reading this post with will tell you it is the New Revised Standard Version, Updated Edition. Taking the five seconds to look up abbreviations that you do not understand keeps you from being the moron asking moronic questions.
There are laws-Heb 8:10-associated with a second agreement, a covenant between 2 or more parties, but they are not those laws that came-Heb 7:11-and went-Heb 7:12-with the Levitical Priesthood, which included laws of tithing. Uh-oh. That's why Doug refers to the old covenant, gotta have the money. The change of the law-Heb 7:12- was its removal; Greek word for "change" in latter part of verse 12 is the same word for "removing" in KJV Heb 12:27 but LCG/UCG/CCOG/ad nauseam won't tell you that but rather tell you the word means "transfer" or reverted or something like that, such as the tithing law reverted to its original state. Huh? Was the law rewritten? The churches will point out that tithing was done before the old covenant-Ex 24-but the churches do not have the conclusive proof that tithing back then was a law. Tithe today all you want but it's not commanded today.
Perfect meme on this post! Armstrongism is all about picking and choosing what they want to do
I prefer to use the terms COVENANT 1.0 and Covenant 2.0 ! :-)
Hey Doug, does either covenant old-or-new, or either testament old/new, grant liberal permission to the pious LCG, to make their embarrassing "Wall Of Shame" in the corporate mailroom from reader's emails & prayer requests?
Or did y'all stomp it out by now? If ya did, then why not bear public witness on some forum to announce things are a little bit more safe now (or are y'all still laugh'n it up over folks' troubles & prayers)
This has to be one of the finest, if not best posting on this site! Wish I had the ability to put this down on paper! Succinct and to the point, relevant, and obvious based on scripture! The destructor Lonnie, and the atheist Dennis, must be holding their heads wishing they could somehow come up with so something even close! LOL Teasing, (kinda). ;-)
This posting, whether intended or not, preaches the actual gospel more than any I can recall!
If Doug is so big on the Old Testament, how does he explain his choice to IGNORE the Old Testament law that says that if a woman marries another man after you divorce her, then she divorces and wants to remarry you, you are forbidden from remarrying her?
Doug, you could be a shining example of New Covenant Christianity. Instead, you show yourself as a hypocrite, praising the same Old Testament law that you choose to ignore.
Doug argues that the Old Testament is still relevant. NO2HWA responds that the Old Covenant is obsolete. There is some equivocation happening here.
Thank goodness we dont have to slaughter goats and lambs anymore, oh but wait that stuff is still so inspiring we shall go back to doing that.
The only one with an issue is Doug who says the Old Covenant is still valid.
Christ answered the young rich man in Matthew 19:17 "If you want to enter life, keep the commandments.”
It's there in black and white. Doug is right.
Come judgment day, people will be asked: "what part of "keep the commandments" didn't you understand?"
"Doug is right."
It's amazing how blind people want to remain. Instead of being Christ's followers, they desire to remain law keepers which is the ministry of death. The law brought death. Christ brought righteousness.
Hebrews 8:13
13 In speaking of a new covenant, he has made the first one obsolete, and what is obsolete and growing old will soon disappear.
In Timothy, Paul states,
“But we know that the law is good if a man uses it lawfully; knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient…” (1 Timothy 1:8, 9).
Notice that the law is not for the righteous man, and you and I are the righteousness of God in Christ (2 Corinthians 5:21).
According to St. James, Noahide law was the guiding "covenant" for Gentile Christians. It is vital for those of us who are Anglo Saxon gentiles to realize this!
There's another very relevant fact! Jesus' Bible (if they even called it a "bible" back then), was the Septuagint. As a general rule, that's a pretty much forgotten fact. I recall a blog discussion years ago in which a blogger accused Jesus of misquoting scripture. But He had in fact accurately quoted the Septuagint.
Anything we read from Doug Winnail is simply a repetition of HWA's opinions. Many of them are half-baked, and insultingly overly simplistic garbage used to control the members. ACOG members need to work on developing the muscles of their middle fingers.
It is incorrect to write that none outside of Israelites were part of the old covenant.
Old Covenant: physical blessing for physical obedience(obeying the letter of the law), and yes it still happens.
New Covenant: spiritual blessing (eternal life) for spiritual obedience (obeying the spirit of the law).
So yes, the old covenant is still in effect, but there is a new and better covenant, for those called of God right now, and eventually for everyone.
"According to St. James, Noahide law was the guiding "covenant" for Gentile Christians. It is vital for those of us who are Anglo Saxon gentiles to realize this!"
Obviously St. James is wrong.
And by the way, do you know your lineage? How do you know for certain that you are not descended from Israel? Your position that the law varies depending on who you are means you had better know if you are actually a gentile.
Maybe saying "I identify as gentile" is enough for God? /s
Right-e-oh, 10:54. Strangers were allowed to opt in if they so desired. They didn't have full privileges that the tribal members enjoyed, but it was better than being complete outsiders.
This is a well-constructed, Bible based analysis of the Old Covenant/New Covenant issue. Among commenters that expressed counterpoints, I did not see anything that rose to the level of this argument. Sound bites from the Armstrongist pulpit don’t bring it.
I would like to look a little closer at the scripture 2 Timothy 3:16-17. This is cited as a support for the idea that the Torah is still in force (At least, I think. As one commenter pointed out, there is also some confusion between the Old Testament and the Old Covenant in the preacher’s statement). But this passage does not assert that. It says that sacred scripture (referring to the Law, Prophets and Writings) is valuable in the following ways:
1. For teaching
2. For reproof
3. For correction
4. For training in righteousness
Paul does not invoke any kind of covenantal relationship. Paul does not say the scripture is required because it expresses the binding terms of a still existing covenant. In fact, his language is very unlike the legislative language of a covenant. Paul says that the scripture is “profitable,” for instance. The word in Greek is ophelimos which means beneficial, profitable or useful. We do not find in this easygoing statement the rigorous requirements of a covenant. We find something instead that is more of a recommendation concerning ethics. In the prior verse, Paul says that the sacred scriptures can “give you wisdom leading to salvation through faith in Jesus Christ.” The scripture has instructive value.
As a counterpoint, Moses says of the Torah, when it was binding, “You shall therefore keep my statutes and my rules; if a person does them, he shall live by them: I am the LORD.” The Torah was then the pathway to life not, as now, a useful source of ethics and object lessons.
This kiss of death is to coast along at the glib, sound-bite level and never go deep. The pulpit-masters are not a replacement for your own research in the Bible though they want to usurp that role like the Roman Catholic priesthood of the Middle Ages.
Scout
"But their minds were hardened ..."
The Old Testament is the New Testament concealed.
LCG is obsolete. The folks that are interested in growing spiritually there will hit a wall with that growth and then have a choice to make. No, you won’t grow simply by kowtowing to the “authority” of headquarters. That’s one of the biggest lies in LCG.
My covenant with Verizon is between me and them.
Those who do business with AT&T are not under any obligation to adhere to the requirements of Verizon.
The Old Covenant was made between God and Israel, not God and the Bolivians or Chinese.
The covenant consists of approx. 613 laws. Israel couldn't choose which ones were to be obeyed, it was a package deal.
This covenant was temporary, until the Messiah comes (Galatians). Jews still adhere to the Law of Moses because they deny that Jesus was the Messiah.
The apostle Paul didn't impose the Law of Moses onto the Gentiles. He never referred to Mal. 3 when encouraging people to give money. He never told the church to meet on a specific day.
There is a difference between being able to learn from a covenant and being obligated to live under its' terms. Our founding fathers could learn from the obsolete Articles of Confederation while under a NEW covenant, the Constitution.
A first year Bible college student learns how to properly interpret the Bible. HWA never was able to do that. He took passages out of context, read into passages what wasn't there, ignored passages that didn't align with hie biases and didn't ask who the passage was directed to.
If the Old Covenant is still in effect, then LCG and all the splinters are condemned rebels.
While Doug and the other splinter leaders con their members into believing that they are keeping the Law of the Old Covenant, they are in reality, only attempting to keep the law as redesigned by HWA.
In their blind following of HWA, the Armstrongites don't understand the terms of the New Covenant and reject its laws.
9:56
Solid, logical analysis.
Another influence on HWA was G.G. Rupert. HWA got an extensive package of theology from Rupert. This likely resulted in HWA not really researching various areas of doctrine.
Scout
Mark Wolfe wrote, "The Old Testament is the New Testament concealed."
That is a view that is compatible with the Armstrongist view of the Law but it is not true. The Torah and the Law of Christ, so to speak the terms of the covenants, are both derived from God's eternal moral character. They are instantiations for certain peoples at certain times. There may be another context sensitive instantiation for angels, for instance. You are seeing the similarity and thinking that they are really the same thing but they are not.
The author of Hebrews did not think that the Old and New Covenants were the same. He wrote:
"But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises."
If you have a further interest, have a look at:
https://armstrongismlibrary.blogspot.com/2023/01/a-meditation-on-god-law-and.html
Scout
"Obviously St. James is wrong."
I belueve "St. James" refers to Acts 15.
I dont mean to.go off on too wild a tangent, but can you imagine what Armstrongism would have looked like if circumcision and animal sacrifices were not discontinued as having value for salvation by the NT?
Adult converts would be getting asked about dicks and calculated "offerings" based on animal market values would have been demanded. Sheesh.
Anon, Tuesday, January 23, 2024 at 9:14:00 PM PST, said:
[["...Christ answered the young rich man in Matthew 19:17 "If you want to enter life, keep the commandments.”
It's there in black and white. Doug is right.
Come judgment day, people will be asked: "what part of "keep the commandments" didn't you understand?"]]
******
Anon, what sort of a "judgment day" do you have in mind. And why would people be asked some question about the Commandments? God knows why people do, and don't, keep His Commandments.
If Doug thinks that he is keeping those commandments, he would be mistaken, because the law is against/contrary to (Colossians 2:14) human beings.
Those thinking they are keeping God's law, like Doug, are self-righteous, and probably think they are earning their salvation by doing law-keeping.
Philippians 3:9 "And be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith:"
That young man, who confronted Jesus Christ, did not impress Jesus. Jesus Christ knew that He was the only One on the entire earth that was, thanks to His God by His Spirit doing works in Jesus, perfectly keeping God's law.
One needs God's Spirit, and even with that Spirit, one still sins. Jesus was, so far, the only exception, but God only needed One to do that: Christ our Passover sacrificed for us.
What's against human beings who have God's Spirit? James 4:5; I John 3:8; 2 Tim 2:26, Eph 2:2 and 6:12, etc. You are probably familiar with such scriptures. Paul could add the following verses: Romans 7:17-20, 21; Romans 8:7, Galatians 5:17, etc.
Now, God's Plan of Salvation is designed so that those who come up in the first resurrection will, by the power of God's Spirit, perfectly keep God's Commandments, but that's in the future. A Doug Winnail is not doing any such thing at this time, and he is deceived if he thinks he is. Again, Jesus Christ knew He was the only One perfectly keeping God's Commandments.
And God's Plan of Salvation is designed so that those human beings who come up in the second resurrection will, by God's Spirit, keep God's Commandments, but that is a long way off...way beyond Doug Winnail's Mickey Mouse Millennium...to a time after Satan exits the pit and again messes up this entire world...to the time of that second resurrection when God's Kingdom is established at last on earth, and wars will no longer ever be something to learn about.
Hey, strive to keep the Commandments the best that you can, but your life will be filled with blessings and cursings, because you cannot, and will not, perfect keep. We are learning to hate evil: just like Adam and Eve were destined to do.
That young man may have been deceived and think he was keeping God's Commandments. Was he self-righteous? I don't know, but he will live again, have eternal life and keep the Commandments. How do we know that?
Well, one more thought comes to mind. Paul told us this:
"To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them;..." 2 Cor 5:19
God's Church may not be of the world, but it is in the world (which includes you and me).
Did Paul lie to us, or will God, in Christ, reconcile the world unto Himself, while not imputing our (your, my, Doug's) trespasses unto them/us?
Time will tell...
John
Old Covenant: physical blessing for physical obedience(obeying the letter of the law), and yes it still happens.
New Covenant: spiritual blessing (eternal life) for spiritual obedience (obeying the spirit of the law).
The above is simply not true. It's a teaching of the the old WCG, but defies the way the human mind naturally works. First, people think a certain thought, then they act upon it. The two are not separate. Obeying the spirit of the law leads to its physical obedience. This is stated in Isaiah 55,
Isaiah 55:7 "Let the wicked forsake their ways and the unrighteous their thoughts,.."
Hey Anonymous at 9:16 and Mark Wolf: do you keep the same law Jesus kept, the same commandments that were in effect when Jesus was speaking with the rich, young ruler?
Regarding Matthew 19, Armstrongite thinking can only focus on a portion of this chapter; I'm hoping you can read the entire chapter and tell us how you sold all your possessions to give to the poor.
7.49, In Matthew 19:21 Christ was addressing the rich young man. Christ did not tell all his followers to give away their property as you imply. This young man would have probably lost all his possessions had he followed Christ anyway.
N02HWA's post hit the nail on the head, and the commentary here supporting his thesis has been outstanding. The ACOGs simply do NOT understand that the New Covenant has superseded the old. They cannot see that the collection of writings which we refer to as the Old Testament (Torah, Prophets, and Writings), the Hebrew Bible, was regarded by Christ and his apostles as pointing to Jesus and as having found its fulfillment in HIM. For Christians (Christ's disciples), the Hebrew Bible MUST be interpreted through the event of Jesus Christ.
As Paul wrote to the saints at Colossae, the provisions of Torah which the ACOG's are preoccupied with trying to observe (clean/unclean, Sabbaths, New Moons, Holy Days, etc.) "are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ." They effectively throw out the reality and embrace the shadows! One more thing, what the Romans did in 70 CE to Jerusalem and the Temple made it physically impossible to observe all of the tenets of God's covenant with Israel as specified by Torah (and if you think what happened that year was just a coincidence, I have some ocean front property to sell you in Wyoming).
How does one know that everything around us didn't begin at our birth and is just a strange illusion of our own consciousness? What do we care about things that allegedly happened thousands of years before our birth, things that we did not see, and cannot fathom? Without having experienced them ourselves, how can we even argue about such events and what they mean? If it's really so important, why don't the hypothetical beings who supposedly know regularly communicate with us? Why do humans have to suffer so much angst over the deep philosophical questions which afflict us, and are distorted and complicated by the emotions which enslave us? Is the answer really "I left you a book"?
“The new is in the old concealed; the old is in the new revealed” - Augustine
or, “The old testament is Jesus concealed, the new testament is Jesus revealed”
Lk 24:25 Then he said unto them, O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken:
Lk 24:26 Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into his glory?
Lk 24:27 And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.
Lk 24:32 And they said one to another, Did not our heart burn within us, while he talked with us by the way, and while he opened to us the scriptures?
“Beginning at Moses, etc. - What a sermon this must have been, where all the prophecies relative to the incarnation, birth, teaching, miracles, sufferings, death, and resurrection of the blessed Jesus were all adduced, illustrated, and applied to himself, by an appeal to the well known facts which had taken place during his life! We are almost irresistibly impelled to exclaim, What a pity this discourse had not been preserved! No wonder their hearts burned within them, while hearing such a sermon, from such a preacher. The law and the prophets had all borne testimony, either directly or indirectly, to Christ; and we may naturally suppose that these prophecies and references were those which our Lord at this time explained and applied to himself. See Luke 24:32" (Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible).
“Certainly some Old Testament prophecies were fulfilled literally in the New Testament. Some of those Old Testament prophecies were equally clearly understood in a literal manner prior to their fulfillment. Thus Herod could be advised by the chief priests and teachers of the law where to go looking for the Christ child on the basis of Micah 5:2 (Matt 2:1-5). However, other prophecies from the Old Testament were fulfilled in ways that would have been completely unexpected to preceding generations though they were fulfilled in a literal way. What first-century Bible prophecy conference would have been clearly predicting the birth of Messiah from a virgin basis of Isaiah 7:14? Or his crucifixion on the basis of Psalm 22? Or his physical resurrection on the basis of Psalm 16? These texts were clearly viewed by the New Testament as messianic prophecies that were literally fulfilled, yet they were only seen to be such with the benefit of 20-20 hindsight after their fulfilment in Christ, not before...” (Iain M. Duguid, Ezekiel, NIVAC, p.29).
9:09: thanks for addressing Matthew 19; however, you provided a display of how Armstrongites typically treat Holy Scripture.
Armstrongites cherry pick what they want to be binding on all and reject what they find to be inconvenient.
In Matthew 19, Jesus was talking to the rich ruler and told him to keep the commandments and give all he had to the poor. You are saying one part of Jesus' instructions are for all and the other part is just for one person. While being giddy over finding something that they feel supports their position on the law, Armstrongites miss the context of the passage.
Jesus spoke these words before the New Covenant existed but he was foreshadowing the New Covenant. The point Jesus was making is that it is impossible for man to keep the law and thereby save themselves. However, with God, salvation is possible.
While Jesus was living perfectly under the Old Covenant, he spoke of the law that existed at that time, while showing that there is something bigger that God wanted. The Ten Commandments are obsolete under this Nee Covenant - now, it's not good enough to refrain from stealing and murdering. Under the New Covenant, if you don't help the poor, you are stealing from God and your disregard for your neighbor is a hatred akin to murder.
Armstrongites reject justification by the righteousness of Jesus, a righteous that they cannot obtain by keeping any law.
Do you keep the law that Jesus kept when he spoke the words in Matthew 19?
Lonnie writes:
“One more thing, what the Romans did in 70 CE to Jerusalem and the Temple made it physically impossible to observe all of the tenets of God's covenant with Israel as specified by Torah...”
The same thing happened with the neo-Babylonians.
But when the Jews returned from the captivity sacrifices were reintroduced and a temple built.
Jer 30:10 Therefore fear thou not, O my servant Jacob, saith the LORD; neither be dismayed, O Israel: for, lo, I will save thee from afar, and thy seed from the land of their captivity; and Jacob shall return, and shall be in rest, and be quiet, and none shall make him afraid.
Isa 14:1 For the LORD will have mercy on Jacob, and will yet choose Israel, and set them in their own land: and the strangers shall be joined [lavah] with them, and they shall cleave to the house of Jacob.
In the future when God restores Jacob/Israel in their own land a temple will be built and sacrifices reintroduced - see Ezekiel 40-46.
Why? For the forgiveness of sin, cleansing from ritual impurity - for the purifying of the flesh not purifying the conscience - and fellowship.
Zec 2:10 Sing and rejoice, O daughter of Zion: for, lo, I come, and I will dwell in the midst of thee, saith the LORD.
Zec 2:11a And many nations shall be joined to the LORD in that day, and shall be my people: and I will dwell in the midst of thee
“Sacrifice is the appointed means whereby peaceful coexistence between a holy God and sinful man becomes a possibility" (Gordon J. Wenham, The Book of Leviticus, NICOT, p.56).
God will once again dwell with Israel and sacrifices will be required to maintain God presence, through Jesus, in the Millennial Temple. Sacrifices will also be a means to fellowship with God:
Eze 46:21 He then brought me to the outer court and led me around to its four corners, and I saw in each corner another court.
Eze 46:23 Around the inside of each of the four courts was a ledge of stone, with places for fire built all around under the ledge.
Eze 46:24 He said to me, “These are the kitchens where those who minister at the temple will cook the sacrifices [zebach] of the people.”
Lev 3:1 If his offering [qorban] is sacrifice [zebah] of peace offering [selamim]...
"The main function of the peace offering is to express friendship, fellowship, and peace with God..." (Walter C. Kaiser, Jr., The Book of Leviticus, NIB, Vol.1, p.1024).
Three participants:
“The well-being offerings of the populace are slaughtered at the inner gate houses, down at the tables astride the gatehouse steps (see 40:40) - see also members.optusnet.com.au/futurewatch/3a31cea0.jpg for a graphic...
“Different parts move out from the [cosmic] threshold in opposite directions. The blood and fatty parts go through the inner gatehouses into the hands of the Zadokite priests who alone have charge of the central altar. God soon delights in the food offering and its pleasing aroma (see 1 Sam 2:15-16; Lev 3:2-17; 9:18-21; Num 18:17)” (Stephen L. Cook, Ezekiel 38-48, AB, pp.259-60).
The breast and right thigh go to the priests who cook them in the priest kitchens and eat them in the three-tiered priest buildings; see also 42:14 for another function of these rooms.
“The [other] sacrificial meats, however, revert to their owners for cooking in the outer court kitchens (Eze 46:21-24) and for eating in the worshippers’ chambers (40:17..)” (Stephen L. Cook, Ezekiel 38-48, AB, p.260).
" Anonymous Anonymous said...
Old Covenant: physical blessing for physical obedience(obeying the letter of the law), and yes it still happens.
New Covenant: spiritual blessing (eternal life) for spiritual obedience (obeying the spirit of the law).
The above is simply not true. It's a teaching of the the old WCG, but defies the way the human mind naturally works. First, people think a certain thought, then they act upon it. The two are not separate. Obeying the spirit of the law leads to its physical obedience. This is stated in Isaiah 55,
Isaiah 55:7 "Let the wicked forsake their ways and the unrighteous their thoughts,.."
Wednesday, January 24, 2024 at 6:29:00 PM PST"
It is true, and that is a fact. There is nothing in the old covenant about eternal life. The new covenant has a much better reward, a spiritual blessing (eternal life) for keeping the law in spirit.
It is possible to keep the letter yet violate the spirit of the law (the pharisees were good at that) , but one cannot obey the spirit of the law without keeping the letter.
" Anonymous Anonymous said...
"Obviously St. James is wrong."
I belueve "St. James" refers to Acts 15.
Wednesday, January 24, 2024 at 2:05:00 PM PST"
If the poster is referring to James, then the poster obviously doesn't understand the point James was making. Using the term "St. James" makes me think of a RCC "church father".
So who divided the Bible into Old and New? The early Christians had the OT alone until the gospels came along and the various apostles letters and John’s last book. But, they didn’t separate the Bible into Old and New did they? I’ve heard the heretic Marcion I think it was that divided the Bible into OT and NT.
This is a continuation of my comment at 7:08
An important part of exegeting 2 Timothy 3:16-17 is to understand what Paul meant by the term “sacred scripture.” If this is the scripture that is to be written on the heart, as Armstrongists maintain, and is the pathway to salvation, then this body of writing must be precisely defined. What if Armstrongists, following one of the Protestant canons, were to fall short of keeping the actual canon required for salvation? HWA and Hoeh seem to have dealt only in the KJV – but have no doctrine to support its salvific efficacy.
One might naively assume that all Hebrews use a single canon – perhaps, the Septuagint. But this is what Wikipedia states in the topic “Hebrew Bible”:
“Different branches of Judaism and Samaritanism have maintained different versions of the canon, including the 3rd-century BCE Septuagint text used in Second Temple Judaism, the Syriac Peshitta, the Samaritan Pentateuch, the Dead Sea Scrolls, and most recently the 10th-century medieval Masoretic Text compiled by the Masoretes, currently used in Rabbinic Judaism.”
Some may argue that the Septuagint is the “Bible of Jesus” but it contained a Deuterocanon that is not now recognized in the canonical Hebrew Bible. And what of the Book of Enoch – popular during the Second Temple Period? A prophecy of Enoch is cited in the Book of Jude, possibly written by Jude the Apostle and brother of Jesus. Does this mean that the Book of Enoch should have been included in the canon as recognized scripture? Do we know what really comprises the sacred scripture that Paul spoke of? No, we do not.
What then is the efficient set of Biblical words written on the hearts a minds of Armstrongists as their one and only ticket to salvation? Would not Paul in 2 Timothy 3:16-17 have left us a strict, engineering-level specification of what words he was talking about. He would have to, if the Armstrongist view is right. Otherwise, what he says is subject to multiple interpretations and the pathway to salvation is unclear. This is not an issue for Christians. Christianity recognizes that Jesus came, knew what scriptures had validity in the Hebrew canon, down to the precise jot and tittle, and fulfilled them all in his exemplary life as a Incarnate God on earth.
At this point, Armstrongists break for cover. They fall into an antinomian rant and attack how grace is profanely mishandled by the Christian denominations. All of it a smoke-screen. Jesus replaced the Torah with the Law of Christ (Sermon on the Mount, and principles contained throughout the NT), and the Law of Christ is just as forensic as the Torah. The problem is that it does not contain physical Sabbath and Holy Day observance or tithing. It asserts these as mere shadows of Christ and in some cases transformed in him. And Christians, non-nominal Christians, do regard the New Testament as a standard of behavior, contrary to what the Sound-bite Pulpit says.
Scout
Addendum
I forgot to mention what "sacred scripture" Paul was referring to in 2 Timothy 3:16-17? I don't know. Neither do you. One could theorize that he meant the Septuagint. That is a flawed theory. The most we can say is that they were a collection of scriptures that Timothy had learned as a child. Maybe a synagogic collection. Let us call it a Collection. Vague, but we must admit we do not know what it is in particular.
Paul is not confining Timothy to the Hebrew Collection. Paul mentions to him in verse 14, "But, as for you, continue in the things you have learned and been persuaded of." This is a much broader scope than that later mentioned Hebrew Collection. After all, why would Paul exclude the Christian texts of the church from his instruction to Timothy? Would Paul blithely step over the Sermon on the Mount and wade into the Hebrew Collection? So Paul is not proposing the Hebrew Collection as the monolithic word of God. In fact, Jesus is the Word of God not the Septuagint or some other Hebrew Collection and Paul and Timothy knew Jesus as such - Jesus who is the inspiration of the NT through the Spirit.
The point is that nobody knows precisely what collection of scripture Paul was talking about. So for Armstrongists to include in their soteriology the requirement that the scripture be written on the heart is an idea that needs some work. They have an error term of unkown chacteristics in their equation that they have never examined. They are always looking at New Moons and stuff like that to see who can be the most righteous. What about looking at something really basic like a poorly defined requirement for salvation? Maybe somebody needs to have a look. Or they could just be Christian and look to Jesus who is the living enactment of the Word of God. For us today. All that we need.
Scout
Note: Some will leap to the floor and state there are also varying NT canons. Yes, there are. Those objectors are adherents of the Printed Word Theory. Armstrongists have a penchant for the physical. One of the salient themes of Armstrongism. It goes like: the spiritual must always include the physical or it doesn't count. For instance, Jesus cannot be your Sabbath. You must also include the physical day. Spiritual leaven cannot be repented of, you must also throw away all your cookies. The simple reply is that Christians not only have the printed word to ponder an peruse, they also have Jesus, The Word of God, living within them. I am standing back lest the wind from all the cynical guffaws knock me down.
Col 2:17: after checking the Greek: things are yet to come, and the body of Christ, the church - Col 1:24 - is to do the judging, not outsiders. There is no Greek word for "reality" or "is" or "found" in the latter part of Col 2:17. But, to use the word "reality": when Jesus returns, the reality of clean/unclean laws, new moons, sabbaths weekly and annual, the three festivals, will be with Him - Jer 31:33; Heb 8:10. These laws did not come and go with the Levitical Priesthood (LP). The moon was made in the beginning for fixed/set times ("seasons" in Ps 104:19 should be "fixed or set times). Clean and unclean animals were existing long before the LP. The weekly sabbath, God's calendar based on lunar calculations which now the Jews have, the three annual festivals - Ex 23:14-16 - were existing long before the LP, and still are. But laws of tithing came and went with the LP.
So no judgment then John. Figures with all the deceit that rages amongst the do called 'ministers of God'
Anonymous Thursday, January 25, 2024 at 11:29:00 AM PST,
The English translation of the Greek does somewhat obscure the sense of the original - the body - soma - Christ casts a shadow - skia - clean/unclean, new moons, Sabbaths. Hence, Jesus does embody the reality of what the shadow only outlines - Jesus is the fulfillment of these provisions of Torah.
The existence of circumcision, clean/unclean, Sabbaths before Sinai does NOT negate the fact that they were incorporated into the terms of God's covenant with Israel. Insisting that the OLD coexists with the NEW defies the entire logic of the collection of writings which we refer to as the New Testament. Christ's blood sealed the New Covenant between God and those who accept his sacrifice on their behalf. What does the Eucharist symbolize? The sacrificial system and other precepts of Torah were rendered unnecessary by the life and work of Jesus of Nazareth!
The New Testament translation by David Bentley Hart - an expert in classical languages.
"Therefore, let no one judge you for eating and drinking, or for taking part in a festival or in a new moon celebration or in the Sabbaths; These are shadow of things to come, but the solid body thereof is that of the Anointed."
I am not trained in Greek so I am not sure what the first clause means. I cannot tell if Paul is saying you should let know one judge because you are eating and drinking or because you are not eating and drinking. It uses that delicate Greek word “en” which means something like “in the sphere of”. I am inclined to say that the phrase likely means “in the sphere of your eating and drinking, it’s nobody’s business.”
What I do know is that the second clause, as Hart has translated it, has the great weight of broad consensus behind it. The idea that it refers to the church doing the judging is novel and would require a very convincing exegesis. One of the salient issues is that the church has no right to judge in regard to the Holy Days if they are understood from the Armstrongist perspective - as inviolable laws. What's left for the church to judge? Just does not fit. I think the traditional Armstrongist interpretation is a standalone eisegesis.
This is a difficult passage and does not lend itself to a non-contextual, targeted verse interpretation. There is a larger context to this and involves the Colossian Heresy – a Judaic rendition of Gnosticism – and I believe it is clarifying. These Jewish Gnostics are promoting the idea that Jesus should be diminished, the Torah retained, asceticism practiced and angelic mediators.
Scout
Note: I have read these passages many times and it is challenging. I always come up with the idea that Paul is classing Judaism with the Gnostic philosphy of the Colossian Heresy. I don't think he would do that. I think maybe Paul was objecting to the blend of Judaism and Gnosticism. It wasn't real Judaism or real Gnosticism or real Christianity but some custom blend used to target the Colossian church. From Paul's wording, some Colossian brothers sadly bought into the blend.
He's saying to let no one (outside the Church) judge you for keeping the appointed times of the Lord, but the body of Christ (the Church).
In other words, don't listen to those on the outside, listen to those on the inside, those in the Church.
Anon, Thursday, January 25, 2024 at 1:14:00 PM PST, said:
"...So no judgment then John. Figures with all the deceit that rages amongst the do called 'ministers of God'..."
******
Anon, what do you mean by the phrase "no judgment?" what judgment are you looking for? What do you have in mind?
Of course, there's judgment. Didn't you believe the inspired words of the Apostle Paul?
"To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them;..." 2 Cor 5:19
Did Paul lie to us? That is part of God's judgment for this world. It sounds pretty nice. Would you prefer to change that judgment? Are you planning on earning something, somehow qualifying for something?
What's the judgment for Satan and his angels?
Here it is from Jesus Christ's inspired words:
Matthew 25:41 "Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:"
John
"So who divided the Bible into Old and New?"
Melito of Sardis is the first known writer to categorize the works in those terms. Marcion wrote out a NT "canon" earlier, but it doesnt include some works we do today.
Some observations:
Col 2:17 which are a shadow (skia) the things coming. But the body (soma) [is] of Christ.
Heb 8:5 They serve at a sanctuary that is a copy and shadow [skia] of what is in heaven. (NIV).
Heb 10:1 The law is only a shadow [skia] of the good things that are coming—not the realities themselves (NIV).
“These are a shadow of things that are coming, meaning the good things that will happen when Yeshua returns; or, alternatively, “These are a shadow of things that were yet to come,” meaning the good things that happened when Yeshua came the first time but were still in the future when kashrut and the festivals were commanded...
“The festivals do indeed have value; since God commanded Jewish people to observe them, they remind Jews of God and of what he has done.
“... of even greater importance and value than a shadow is the body which casts the shadow, the reality behind it, because it is of the Messiah. See MJ [Messianic Jews = Hebrews] 8:5; 9:23-24. 10:1 for a similar metaphorical comparison of shadow and substance, also MJ 10:1-18N. Lenski’s commentary agrees with my point about the shadow, although his emphasis locates its value in the past:
“ “We should not think slightingly of the shadow. It was no less than the divine promise of all the heavenly realities about to arrive. The shadow proved the actual and even the nearness of the realities, for only an actual body and one that is not far away casts a shadow...” [R.C. Lenski, The Interpretation of St. Paul’s Epistles to the Colossians, to the Thessalonians, to Timothy, to Titus and to Philemon, p.126]”(David H. Stern, Jewish New testament Commentary, p.611).
“On the basis of the rendering, “But the body is Christ,” some are of the opinion that the meaning is, “But it is the body of Christ (the church) that must pass judgment in such matters.” However the words skia (shadow) and soma (body or object) clearly belong together, and to introduce the church at this point is wholly arbitrary...
“The translation, “But the substance — or the reality is Christ” is very popular. It may not be missing the truth by much. Nevertheless, it seems to me that because of the close relation between skia and soma, which are counterparts. Paul was thinking of a shadow and an object casting the shadow...”
“To be sure, for the time being a shadow that is cast by an approaching person may prove to be of some real value. For example, it is possible that one is eagerly expecting this person but happened to be situated that, at his approach, for a moment his shadow alone is seen. However, that shadow only guarantees the imminent arrival of the visitor but even provides a dim outline, describing him. Thus, too, the Old Testament regulations had served a real purpose...” (William Hendriksen, Colossians, NTC, p.124).
Col 2:8 See to it that no one takes you captive through HOLLOW AND DECEPTIVE PHILOSOPHY, which depends on HUMAN TRADITION AND THE BASIC PRINCIPLES OF THIS WORLD rather than on Christ.
Col 2:16 Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:
Col 2:18 Let no man beguile you of your reward in a voluntary humility and WORSHIPPING OF ANGELS, intruding into those things which he hath not seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind,
Col 2:22 These are all destined to perish with use, because they are based on human commands and teachings.
Col 2:23 Such regulations indeed have an appearance of wisdom, with their self-imposed worship, their false humility and their harsh treatment of the body, but they lack any value in restraining sensual indulgence.
"Until this point in the epistle, Paul has spoken of the "philosophy" in rather general and polemical terms (1:23; 2:4, 8). Here, however, the reader is belatedly given concrete clues concerning the commitments of the movement against which Paul is reacting...
Part 2
"Certain unnamed people were apparently advocating dutiful observance of certain days, including religious festivals, New moons, and Sabbaths... Presumably the "philosophy" was prescribing certain religious activities in conjunction with these special days, perhaps with a promise that these observances would enhance congregants' purity and spirituality. It is now impossible to know precisely who were seeking to pass judgment on the Colossians ... and exactly what motivated them to act as self-appointed arbitrators [Jewish regulations and/or theosophical asceticism?]. The paucity of textual particulars results in interpretative uncertainties. While such ambiguity does not sate our curiosities, "biblical studies are not helped by being certain about the uncertain" (Brown, 596)" (Todd D. Still, Colossians, EBC, Revised, Vol.12, p.311, 316-17).
"Yet it is too simple to think that Paul's opponents were Jewish teachers, as we shall see from verse 18. The Greek term for "law" (nomos) is strikingly absent from the entire letter, a fact that makes it very unlikely that Paul's problems are the same as at Galatia where he takes on the Judaizers" (Ralph P. Martin, Ephesians, Colossians, and Philemon, INT, p.119).
"... the writer can now exhort the readers not to allow anyone to judge them negatively for failing to comply with the philosophy's regulation. The regulations singled out are requirements about food and drink and calendar observance. These are clearly parts of the philosophy taken over from Judaism, but now apparently they are put to use in its proponents' program for dealing with cosmic powers. The issue of food and drink, however, is likely not to be not so much one of purity laws as of absence as part of a strict asceticism. In the OT, there are prohibitions against certain foods, but stipulations about drink are found only in regard to particular cases of priests ministering in the tabernacle (Lev 10:9) and those under Nazarite vows (see Num 6:3), though Jews in the diaspora were also cautious about wine in case if had been offered to idols. But there is no indication here that the motivation for abstinence from food and drink were due to observance of Torah. Rather, the requirement of abstinence should be linked with the mention of fasting in preparation for visions in v.18, of ascetic regulations in vv. 21-22, and of severity of the body in v.23.
"The writer describes the calendar observance required by the philosophy in terms of feasts or festivals, new moons, and sabbaths. These three calendrical features are listed together in the OT (see LXX 1 Chr 23:31; 2 Chr 2:3; 31:3; Ezek 45:17; Hos 2:13), where they were days on which special sacrifices were to be made to God. Again there is no hint that such special days are being observed because of the desire to obey Torah as such or because keeping them was a special mark of Jewish identity. Instead, it is probable that in the philosophy they were linked to a desire to please cosmic powers, the "elemental spirits of the universe" (vv. 8, 20), held to be associated with the heavenly bodies and, therefore, in control of the calendar..." (Andrew T. Lincoln, The Letter to the Colossians, NIB, Vol. 11, p.631).
Part 3
"In particular he brings the following charges of indictment against the philosophers and cultists.
"1. They are mistaken in their bid to gain access to the divine by dreamlike visions, since they turn away from Christ, the true image of the invisible God (1:5). They are thereby severed from him (2:19).
"There veneration of the angelic powers overlooks the role of these being as created (1:16) and subservient to God who has revealed himself finally in his son as preeminent mediator for the church (1:18).
"3. Since Christ is the victorious head and the spirit world is under his dominion, any bid to live be regarding the angels as intercessors is to put the clock back -or, to use Paul's own expression , to remain in the shadows when the sun is a high noon (v.17).
Col 2:20 Wherefore if ye be dead with Christ from the rudiments of the world, why, as though living in the world, are ye subject to ordinances,
Col 2:21 (Touch not; taste not; handle not;
Col 2:22 Which all are to perish with the using;) after THE COMMANDMENTS AND DOCTRINES OF MEN?
"4. Negative religion never satisfies whatever it may claim to do (v.21). It leaves unchecked our passions and untouched our real problem which is not with our instinctual drives but with our motives. These latter are prey to our selfish desires, the Pauline "flesh," (v.23), and can be reorientated to noble ends only by a radial transformation from within, not by an external code or prohibitions (the "regulations" of v.20).
Col 2:23 Which things have indeed a show of wisdom in will-worship, and humility, and neglecting of the body; not in any honour to the satisfying of the flesh.
"5. Finally, from Paul's perspective is the exposing of human pride. The so-called "abasement" (vv.18, 23) lamentably fails in its objective simply because if it were to succeed in producing what it promises, the result would be only to make men and women proud of their attainment. Their "sensuous mind" (v.18; lit., "mind of the flesh:) yields only a desire to be on a religious pedestal and is a form of one-upmanship, that is, I am better than the rest and have a pinnacle by my own effort. The next step is to despise others less favored..." (Ralph P. Martin, Ephesians, Colossians, and Philemon, Int, pp.120-21).
5:23 ~ How do you define "the church"? An ACOG, or any church which has dedicated itself to Jesus Christ? People tend to read themselves into that scripture.
was that posted by J. Tkach Jr.
Nah, Stan. Joe Jr. privately emails Dennis, but never comments here.
Part 1:
Winnail was simply referring to the OT Scriptures, not the OT covenant, which is obsolete.
1:21 keeps deceiving you about Heb 7:12 where he argues that "change" doesn't mean "transferral" but "removal", citing 12:27. Folks, metatithemi is translated into 3 words in the NT: "change", "translation" and "removal", so the questions are: Which word is best and what does each word mean? Do you want to play the translator? If I change a diaper, did I change it or remove it? When Enoch was translated, was he changed, transferred or removed? 1:21 seems to think he was removed but was he not transferred to another place? See, any change is like a removal or transferral? (Bear with me as 1:21 has made this an argument over words) Even in 12:27 the removal of things in heaven and earth doesn't mean that everything will disappear but rather that some objects will change, disintegrate or be transferred from one place to another, as Peter described in 2 Pet 3:10.
You can define "removal" as a complete taking away in the modern sense but that is your definition and not the Greek. 1:21 WANTS it to be "complete removal" so that he can take away the Levitical priesthood and the tithing law in Heb 7, forgetting that Ezekiel prophesies that the Levitical priesthood is coming back (ch 40-48) and that the law was upheld by Paul (Rom 2:13, 3:31) James (2:8, 4:11), John (1 Jn 3:4) and the Lord (Mt 5:17-19). Now the law isn't a figment of your imagination, some bouquet of flowers in cyberspace, some ethereal notion, some cloudy, foggy legal system that eliminates letters or philanthropic philosophy subjectively assembled from parts of both testaments.
Read Heb 7. It teaches that the Levite paid the tithe in Abraham to the high priest who was of the order of Melchizedek, the king of righteousness, which is Christ. This tells you that the tithing law didn't come with the Levitical priesthood and that it is righteous to give the tithe to Christ, represented by the high priest. Yet 1:21 tries to deceive you by saying that the other laws existed before the Levitical except for tithing.
Scout also deceives you when he denies that "the OT is the NT concealed". Thankfully 1:14 and 5:23 responded by quoting from Augustine who wrote that "the new is in the old concealed and the old is in the new revealed". Yet he insults the COGs for believing this as if it only came from us, when he writes that this theory "is compatible with the Armstrongist view". Moron, if you would dig deeper you would find many good Christian historians and preachers today teach this very same thing.
Another ignoramus quoted 1 Tim 1:9 to suggest that because the Christian has been made righteous through faith, the law is for the unrighteous. Fool, did you read v7-8 before this? Paul says that the law is good (v8) and James said we will be judged by it (2:12). Haven't you read Romans where Paul said that the law gives you a knowledge of your sin? (7:7)
Part 2:
Some of you posters also like to criticize Armstrongists for picking and choosing, cherry-picking through the law of things to keep or not keep. Hypocrites! Don't you do the same? Offer when you feel like it, attend church when you feel like it, pray when you feel like it, keep certain days when you feel like it, sabbath-rest when you feel like it, quit a church when you feel like it, marry anyone when you feel like it, disagree with your brother when you feel like it, believe a doctrine when you feel like it, give to the needy when you feel like it, repeat a false word when you feel like it, study Scripture when you feel like it? Sounds like it is your righteousness and not God's righteousness.
1:49, the decalogue is obsolete? The decalogue will make you obsolete. You question someone for not keeping the "law of Christ" yet you call the law of God, the decalogue, obsolete. What? The faith is about "do's" only and not "don'ts" as well?
Lastly, all these posters and only one gets Col 2:17 right? Pity on your contrived attempts at a good translation. As one posted above, the matters in v17 are for the church to judge, not the outsider. And the word "shadow" isn't a derogatory term though traditional Christianity has made it out to be. You still need to observe the shadow (baptism) that illustrates the reality (death of the old carnal man).
Why do you insist on quoting from the Bible, 8:00, 8:02?
Can't you make your points from the Mahabharata, or the Quran? Come on! Broaden your horizons a bit. Why pick and choose just one book?
Cinnamon, surely you jest. I was under the impression this was a Bible based site, so I fail to understand how the Quran would add to the discussion. 802 makes several good points (from the Bible) that I agree with.
I also don't have any issues with Doug's post AS IT IS PRESENTED HERE. He may say or practice something different behind closed doors but I can't comment on that.
The idea that the average person can't understand simple Biblical statements or the Biblical viewpoint on certain controversial topics, without the help of this world's psychologists or seminary expertise, is beyond me. True, we all need help at times, but that would depend on one's maturity in Christ.
Axially, and probably also radially, BP8, this is an Armstrong-repudiation site. And the Armstrongites frequently recall their eisegesis (carefully selective scriptures) and quote them at us. I personally have no use or need to hear all those things again, having put them to bed decades ago, so leave it to others to read and contest them.
Splintermeister Wade Cox does mix the Quran into his Armstrongism, so it'd be nice for the people leaving his cult to quote Quran scriptures at us so we can see how he misuses them. I just threw in the Mahabharata, another ancient holy manuscript, for good measure, but the Tibetan Book of the Dead might also enrich discussion. We had a guy years ago who would quote the Urantia Book, and I bought myself a copy. No nuggets in that one, but there weren't any in Armstrongism, either.
Metatithemi,Strong's 3346, is in Hebrews 7:12a but metathesis, Strong's 3331, is in Hebrews 7:12b. Interesting that the writer writes different words.
Abraham gave 10% of spoils. Jacob vowed to give 10%. But there is no conclusive proof that tithing was a law before Moses, no evidence that tithing of spoils was a law.
Post a Comment