The Different Iterations of God's Law
Unfortunately, among the ministry and laity of traditional Christianity and the Armstrong Churches of God, their understanding of what constitutes the Law of God (and which commandments God expects Christians to obey) has been superficial, confused, and irregular. Why? I believe that the founding error of this misunderstanding is to be found in the fact that most of these folks are completely unaware/ignorant of the fact that Scripture reveals that there have been several different iterations/versions/incarnations of God's Law. For instance, many of them ignore the Divine commandments revealed in the book of Genesis. Indeed, some of them seem to think that God's commandments are found in the other four books of the Pentateuch (Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy). Other Christians immediately think of the Ten Commandments when God's Law is mentioned. Let's take a closer look (what follows is not intended to be a comprehensive account of the various iterations of God's Law - the examples offered are only intended to demonstrate the premise that they exist in Scripture).
In the first revelation of Divine Law to humankind, we read that God commanded Adam and Eve to "Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth." And God said, "Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the face of all the earth, and every tree with seed in its fruit. You shall have them for food." (Genesis 1:28-29, ESV) Then, a little later, we read that God planted a garden, and that he "took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to work it and keep it." (Genesis 2:15, ESV) Next, we read that "the Lord God commanded the man, saying, 'You may surely eat of every tree of the garden, but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.'" (Genesis 2:16-17, ESV) Of course, we all know the story about how well our primordial parents fared in obeying those first Divine commands.
In the sixth chapter of that same book of beginnings, we read that God commanded Noah to build an ark and gave him specific instructions regarding how it was to be constructed (verses 13-16). Next, God commanded him: "you shall come into the ark, you, your sons, your wife, and your sons' wives with you." (Genesis 6:18, ESV) Continuing, we read that God further instructed Noah that "you shall bring two of every sort into the ark to keep them alive with you. They shall be male and female. Of the birds according to their kinds, and of the animals according to their kinds, of every creeping thing of the ground, according to its kind, two of every sort shall come in to you to keep them alive. Also take with you every sort of food that is eaten, and store it up. It shall serve as food for you and for them." (Genesis 6:19-21, ESV) Next, we are informed that "Noah did this; he did all that God commanded him. (Genesis 6:22, ESV) Moreover, we are informed that God later gave Noah additional instructions: "Then the Lord said to Noah, 'Go into the ark, you and all your household, for I have seen that you are righteous before me in this generation. Take with you seven pairs of all clean animals, the male and his mate, and a pair of the animals that are not clean, the male and his mate, and seven pairs of the birds of the heavens also, male and female, to keep their offspring alive on the face of all the earth. For in seven days I will send rain on the earth forty days and forty nights, and every living thing that I have made I will blot out from the face of the ground.' And Noah did all that the Lord had commanded him." (Genesis 7:1-5, ESV)
Finally, after the flood, we are informed that God commanded Noah to leave the ark with his family and all of the animals that had accompanied them on the ark (Genesis 8:15-17). A little later, we read: "And God blessed Noah and his sons and said to them, 'Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth. The fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the earth and upon every bird of the heavens, upon everything that creeps on the ground and all the fish of the sea. Into your hand they are delivered. Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you. And as I gave you the green plants, I give you everything. But you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood. And for your lifeblood I will require a reckoning: from every beast I will require it and from man. From his fellow man I will require a reckoning for the life of man." (Genesis 9:1-6, ESV) I don't know about you, but that sounds like a whole bunch of Divine commandments to me!
Even so, there were a number of other iterations of God's Law recorded in the book of Genesis. In the twelfth chapter, we are informed that God commanded Abraham to leave his homeland and his father's household and travel to a land that God would show him (verse 1). Later, God commanded him to look over the land which he intended to give him (Genesis 13:14-17). In the seventeenth chapter of Genesis, we read: "And God said to Abraham, 'As for you, you shall keep my covenant, you and your offspring after you throughout their generations. This is my covenant, which you shall keep, between me and you and your offspring after you: Every male among you shall be circumcised. You shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskins, and it shall be a sign of the covenant between me and you. He who is eight days old among you shall be circumcised. Every male throughout your generations, whether born in your house or bought with your money from any foreigner who is not of your offspring, both he who is born in your house and he who is bought with your money, shall surely be circumcised. So shall my covenant be in your flesh an everlasting covenant. Any uncircumcised male who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin shall be cut off from his people; he has broken my covenant." (Verses 9-14, ESV)
Then, many years after Abraham's son Isaac was born, we are informed that God commanded him to sacrifice the boy (Genesis 22:1-2). However, before Abraham actually carried out the commandment to sacrifice the boy, God intervened and ordered him not to do it (Genesis 22:12). Later still, God commanded Isaac not to go to Egypt and to abide in the place where he instructed him to stay (Genesis 26:1-4). Moreover, in this same passage, we are also informed that God reiterated the promises he had made to Isaac's father, "because Abraham obeyed my voice and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws." (Genesis 26:5, ESV). In other words, God would bless Isaac because his father had obeyed God's Laws!
And, while the children of Israel were still in bondage to Egypt, we are informed in the book of Exodus that God commanded Moses to free his people from Egypt (3:7-10). Most of the remainder of the third chapter and the first half of the fourth is taken up with Moses trying to get out of the task that God had given him! Even so, as any serious student of the Hebrew Bible knows, Moses eventually obeyed God and led the Israelites out of Egypt. Moreover, just before they made their exit, and as God was preparing to strike down Egypt's firstborn sons, God commanded the Israelites to observe their first Passover (Exodus 12:1-20). We should also note that this commandment was given to them prior to the formal ratification of God's covenant with the children of Israel at Mount Sinai. Finally, as the Israelites traveled out of Egypt, the author of Exodus informs us that God gave both Moses and the Israelites a series of instructions/commandments regarding their journey (see Exodus 14-17). Thus, according to the account, Moses and the Israelites came at last to the foot of Mount Sinai, and God gave to them his "Ten Commandments" (see Exodus 19-20).
Of course, all of the commandments which followed the ten which are listed and reiterated throughout the remainder of Torah were addressed to the children of Israel and were considered to be the foundation of God's covenant with them. In this connection, we should also note that this iteration of God's Law was intended for a primitive, agrarian people who (for the most part) did NOT have access to God's Holy Spirit. Moreover, we must never forget that this iteration of God's Law was designed to accommodate a paternalistic society in which slavery and violence were the norm. Likewise, it is incumbent upon us to remember that these people were highly superstitious and had very little awareness or understanding of things like the workings of the human body, effective medical treatments, mental health, and sexual orientations. Hence, as this iteration was so obviously designed to address the needs and circumstances of a particular people in a particular place and time, it stretches credulity to suggest that all of the hundreds of commandments which make up the Torah are universal or eternal in their application. For instance, as we now understand that slavery is morally wrong, most of us would consider all of the commandments associated with that practice to be superfluous or obsolete.
We should also point out that NO ONE within the ACOGs or the more traditional sects of Christianity have suggested that all of the various iterations of God's Law which we have examined in this post have been carried forward into the New Covenant. In other words, ALL of the people who have suggested that Christians should include commandments contained in these former versions of God's Law advocate some form of cherry picking. Indeed, in our world, it is currently IMPOSSIBLE to scrupulously obey all of the individual commandments contained in these previous iterations of God's Law (currently, there is NO Holy of Holies, ephod, or altar on earth). Moreover, most students of the New Testament are willing to acknowledge that Jesus Christ presented yet another version/iteration of God's Law!
Indeed, as I have stated here repeatedly over the last few years, Jesus said that God's entire Law was comprehended by just two commandments which were drawn from Torah! In the Gospel of Matthew, we read that one of the Pharisees (who was an expert in Torah) asked Jesus which of the commandments was the greatest. We are informed there that Jesus replied: "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the great and first commandment. And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets." (22:37-40, ESV) In other words, ALL of the 613 commandments of Torah are based on those two principles! So, we see that Jesus Christ identified these two commandments as having universal and eternal application. Moreover, for a people who would have access to God's Holy Spirit, this iteration of God's Law would cover any and all circumstances which might arise in someone's life.
In short, Jesus Christ didn't do away with God's Law. On the contrary, not only did he FULFILL the iteration of God's Law found in Torah (the one designed for the children of Israel), he also identified a version of God's Law/commandments which would apply to all people, places and times! Jesus Christ and his apostles also provided numerous examples of how these principles could be applied in every day life. In this iteration of God's Law, there would NOT be hundreds of commandments which addressed many of the different aspects of this physical life which we are currently experiencing. In this version of God's Law, the disciples of Christ (with the Holy Spirit to guide them) would apply those two commandments and other teachings and examples provided by Christ and his apostles to their lives in the here and now and, later, in God's Kingdom. For Christians, it is THIS iteration of God's Law which defines sin and identifies God's expectations regarding the behavior of his people.
52 comments:
Stop worming your way out of the law. Just keep it like Jesus did. He showed how. The Sabbath was good enough for him, so it's good enough for all Christians. Of course, pagans infiltrators do not like it.
Well, I think that sums it up.
Now it's time for the ACOG bobbleheads to launch their protests- and you know they're coming with a vengeance. Break out the popcorn.
"Stop worming your way out of the law. Just keep it like Jesus did. He showed how."
Good luck with that since there's no temple or Levitical priesthood in Jerusalem.
People always have issues with the law. Look at all the people "reinterpreting" the constitution because they want to get around it. Dishonest people are ungovernable.
The belief in the old Radio or Worldwide Church of God was that the Sinai Covenant was simply a reiteration of what God had originally taught Adam and Eve in the garden, that it would prevail throughout all eternity, and was the law that would be written in the hearts of man when indwelled by the Holy Spirit.
Clearly, these iterations were neither taught, nor understood by our former captors. They did not even recognize James's edict following the first Jerusalem Council as being Noahide Law.
It's a heck of a lot more complicated to determine how to act in love than to rigidly live by memorized rituals in ways that fail to value people, consider their often individual needs, and care for them as we would hope to be cared for ourselves. Scripture tells us that God rains on the just and the unjust alike.
Loonie Lonnie will never change his basic narrative. Religion is politics. Herbert taught him well. He is the most Armstrongist of all: a mind controller with a fixed posture.
John 13:34
“A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another.
One of the saddest legacies of the Armstrong movement is the rejection of this command as the requirement for Christians.
I believe Armstrongism is not motivated to write booklets, produce television shows, or preach sermons on this great commandment because they fail to understand Jesus as Savior, how Jesus fulfilled the law of the Torah, and how Christians obtain perfect righteousness by being justified by Jesus.
As abusive and heretical Armstrongism is, among its people, there are numerous examples of true Christians who display a beautiful testimony of loving their neighbor.
This testimony of love among some Armstrongites occurs despite the lack of attention to, and barriers produced, to living this command within the confines of official Armstrongism.
Ultimately, this love, when observed among Armstrongites, is a testimony to the redemptive power of Jesus - even in the midst of a church that doesn't teach about redemption!
On this Sabbath day, I give thanks for the true Christians among Armstrongism and pray that they encounter more freedom in Jesus. I pray for those Armstrongite's who have not yet encountered and have been moved by the love of Jesus. May we all observe the law of love together!
Insightful discussion of an important topic.
A point that I would raise is that not every utterance of God is a Law. Law originates with God – it is a reflection of his character – but is adapted to the receiving population. It is generalized and has applicability over a duration. For instance, the commands that God gave Noah about the building of the Ark are design specifications and not laws for the general population. The Ark design specifications have divine gravitas behind them but they are not broad behavioral prescriptions.
Nevertheless, there are many iterations of law found in the OT, just as Jones asserts. These are not tidy groupings. We have historical information about when they started but we nothing about their covenantal nature or when they end. What happens, back in the days of Genesis, if you were to eat something that does not fall in the approved category of food? These iterations are fined-tuned to the receiving populations. The laws have relevancy. They exist in context.
The Armstrongist view of the law has been confusing to me in the past. But I believe that their position is that the Ten Commandments are God’s eternal law. But this does not mean The Ten have always existed. The Ten were inaugurated at the Creation. But since their beginning at the Creation, they will exist forever into the future (Based on Hoeh, Kuhn) and written on the heart in the New Covenant.
This means that The Ten have the characteristics of an iteration of the law among other iterations. We can see this by tracing one of the laws, say, “thou shalt not commit adultery”. The law had no applicability from the time of its creation at the foundation of the Cosmos until the creation of humankind – a span of billions of years. There were no human beings over that span. It is now relevant but it will not be in the future. Marriage as an institution will pass away, hence, adultery will become irrelevant. The law against adultery also lacks universality – it means nothing in regard to angels who do not marry. There would be no need to write this law on the heart permanently – something that Armstrongism asserts - because of its limited relevancy.
It is easy to understand why Jesus collapsed The Ten into two laws, that Jones refers to, of universal and enduring application. Because Armstrongism does not recognize the Mosaic legislation was for a certain people at a certain time in a certain place, it erroneously carries forward the entire Mosaic legislation into the NT.
Scout
The Armstrongist view of law tends to focus on the broad application of sometimes very narrow commandments. As the scriptures cited in this post indicate, God's commandments can be very precise at times - addressed to one person, a specific task, or a particular circumstance. Christ revealed the foundation and intent of Divine Law and expanded its application - narrow to broad, parochial to universal. Trooisto correctly pointed out that LOVE is what truly identifies Christ's disciples. As both the Gospel of John and John's epistles make clear, we demonstrate our love for God best when we are actively loving each other. Herbert and GTA used to make fun of love - a mushy, meaningless sentiment to them.
Loonie Lonnie! Using his BIG WORDS like "laity". CROWN STEALING! EVILUTION! LICENSE TO SIN! GAY SEX!
There, I think I covered a lot of responses there...
Any time someone uses the phrase "true Christian" there is incredible ego behind the usage of that phrase. What that person is saying is that they themselves are so wise, so intelligent, so spiritual and discerning that they are actually the arbiters who can define who and what a true Christian is! Granted, it's very easy to recognize that certain individuals are not even attempting to be Christian. Anyone would rule out thieves, murderers, rapists, party til you puke types, and others whose lifestyle is diametrically opposite to the examples Jesus set. Ditto, practitioners of religions not based on God and Jesus.
The truth is that Christians are not monolithic. There is a wide variety of people who are committed to following the teachings and examples of Jesus Christ. They are sincere, and the expression of their Christianity manifests itself in many forms, based on their own understandings, personalities, and filters. This is what people do when they embrace and make Christianity their own. Herbert W. Armstrong always began one of his teaching lessons with "Just what do you mean", (supply label)? He then established parameters, often strictly redefining long established norms, This is a construct used in "proving" that you alone are right. Try adding "the Bible says" but failing to point out that what you say next is what you believe the Bible means by what it says, or make it appear to say. If you get to establish the standards, or define the criteria, it is easy to make yourself appear to be right, or to have won.
Add to this the propensity of certain types of people to "need" everything rigidly defined for them. These people are unwittingly the followers of the person whom they have allowed to do the defining. It is why we have a descriptive term such as "Armstrongite". An Armstrongite is a person who has allowed Herbert W. Armstrong to define and decree what is correct and relevant, and to invalidate and repudiate those who do not happen to permit that. HWA did not have the prescience or authority that his followers believe qualifies him to parse and define what Jesus taught and what makes people "true", or "falsely so-called". Armstrongites are noted for saying, "But, Mr. Armstrong said....." more frequently than they say "Jesus said......" It's a whole new level of arrogance.
"CROWN STEALING! EVILUTION! LICENSE TO SIN! GAY SEX!"
Is that you, Spanky?
10:19 wrote:
""CROWN STEALING! EVILUTION! LICENSE TO SIN! GAY SEX!"
Is that you, Spanky?"
More likely Bob Thiel. He has his own "thorn in the flesh" issues he is dealing with.
Excuses, excuses. Passed off as scholarship. People have all sorts of excuses for living a different life than Jesus did. He kept the Sabbath. If you can't handle that, just be honest and give up the bible completely.
Jesus could have made things clear. He could have said "I keep the Sabbath only because I'm a Jew." I guess he wanted his followers to be confused so they would have to rely on "scholars" to invent complicated arguments which tell them what to think.
No excuses here. I want to follow Christ's example and to always be within God's will. This treatise used Scripture to demonstrate that the Armstrongist definition of those things is inaccurate! Jesus kept the Sabbath because it was his mission to FULFILL the Law/Torah, which he did. Jesus Christ also represents the fulfillment of the Sabbath, Festivals, sacrificial system and rituals of Torah. HE IS THE REALITY which they pointed to!
Loonie Lonnie lost his credibility a long time ago so there is nothing to gain from him.
Those of you who think that there is only love to keep are in reality breaking the law of love, while those who are keeping the law today have little to no love themselves (because it's about more than just tithing, feasts and church attendance).
Trooisto a while ago referred to HWA's version of the law as a "proprietary blend", as if only HWA was the only one guilty of this "sin", whereas he received it from Christ just as Paul did. (Gal 1:16) The problems over the years have been with its practice and application, which has embittered some of you who post on this blog.
Everyone (of the catholic, protestant, COG trees) has his own version of the law but if it won't stand up under pressure (to love someone you hate), you will be found a lawbreaker.
Serious Anonymous Expert,
The genuineness of your own love is apparent. You are clearly righteous. I apologize for my own loss of credibility so long ago, and my inability to be of any benefit to you.
-Loony Lonnie
A life dedicated to researching the bible is a wasted life. More good can be accomplished by pushing up wheat for the hungry.
We all know that "spanky" does not read this blog. Ad hominum and straw man argument.
Well yeah, Spanky's dead. It's clearly a joke.
Colossians 1:27
To whom God would make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles; which is Christ in you, the hope of glory:
Is Christ in you? If so you're observing/keeping the sabbath.
"We all know that "spanky" does not read this blog. Ad hominum and straw man argument."
Well now, I think that enlightened comment deserves a prize.
2:04PM,
There are two groups of Christians. One group upholds the law but neglects Jesus. Another group talks of Jesus but breaks the Sabbath. The twain shall never meet.
"Ad hominum"(sic) and straw man argument."
When you want to use an intellectual sounding word that might not be part of your everyday vocabulary, you might want to enable spell check!😎
Well said, 7:02. I might add that one group talks about faith yet breaks the law while the other group talks about the law yet does not walk by faith. I put UCG in the former and LCG in the latter group.
The twain shall never meet, you say?
Oh, yes, they will, in the great tribulation, where they will be forced to iron out their differences.
The truth-seekers (LCG) will finally learn to show mercy while the faith-seekers (UCG) will finally learn the way of peace (Ps 85:10), when they throw away their idols of self, corporate office and image, money, socio-economic status, reputation, respect of persons, evil-speaking, love of power and authority, and their ido (imperious, domineering and overbearing practices) nicolaitan ethos.
There are two types of Christians.
The delusional type believes that they are keeping "the Law" and the righteous type who look to Jesus to justify them.
Acts 13:39
Through him everyone who believes is set free from every sin, a justification you were not able to obtain under the law of Moses.
Long response in multiple posts.
When the Messiah gave the 2 things upon which all of the other laws including the ten Words hang, He did not mean they are hung as in killed or dead. He meant that they are all ways that believers abide by the 2 items.
For example, proper observance relating to intimacy is abiding by both.
The author is an interesting example of reaction to Herbie's influence over the years. There are mainly 2 types of former Herbsters that are prevalent.
One type is like the author of the original post. In rejection of the law of Herbster (wonder why the author stuck with it so long), it is ok to go with the typical (often protestant and usually conservative) so called christian belief that the Messiah did away with all of that old law stuff. However, while the author's submission supports ignoring all other laws, many protestant types do have a number of laws given by scripture that they believe must be followed. Anyone who was or is in a group like the conservative (or not) protestants agree with this attitude even if they do not agree which laws require observance. The less conservative still have some of those laws which they support, but the post writer continues to adhere to the "I love god and my neighbor" theme, but that "love" means that whatever one then wants to do is ok because (again), "I love god" and my neighbor no matter what I do.
The author spends a good bit time defending the belief, but in reality, his words say that he can love the Creator, but ignore commandments such as those in Leviticus (Vayikra) 18 including the commands in verses 22-23 for example. That is the case no matter what he may argue regardless of whether he acts in those ways and / or supports them. If the author indeed believes that those 2 verses are still true, then he wasted a lot of time writing a post about something that he himself does not believe because he added to the two commandments at the top.
The other type of former Herbies are those who refuse to give up on the fact that the lovebug himself was a pervert (not once disputed or overturned in 2 court actions which very well could have cost a couple of people a large chunk of change), a false teacher, and while stating he was not a prophet (correct) taught that things would happen (I have a youtube link where he is recorded saying that he is not what he claims to be if what he says in that instance does not happen) which it did not and which is one example of hundreds of times he said things would happen that did not.
He also taught other false things such as tithing as required to his organization by scripture, incorrect observance of a number of feasts days either by observing on the wrong day or if on the correct day, with wrong understanding, or both. In fact, that would include Passover, Pentecost, Day of Atonement, and the last great day. One example follows below.
Some are convinced by the reading of the gospels that the Jews had been observing the timing of the Passover wrongly and that the Messiah did it correctly. It is interesting in that the Messiah would sharply condemn the beliefs of some who required ceremonial hand washing if one is to eat properly while cutting aid to parents who needed it in the effort to offer to the temple (most importantly to show other's their own holiness). Mark 7:1-23
Yet, the Messiah never said a word about the scribes and Pharisees, who certainly had issues, and their supposedly incorrect feast observance days according to Herb and the Herbies. The same goes with Pentecost. The other feasts mentioned above would also be included.
Basically, Herb and the Herbies knew / know the feasts of the Messiah's time better than the Jews of the time, yet the Messiah never called those ancients on their improper observance of feast on the wrong days, etc. and in fact told His followers that they are to observe what the scribes and Pharisees teach regarding actual Torah (e.g. observance of feast days) while avoiding their works (i.e. traditions that they wrongly submit are laws which require observance) like ceremonial handwashing. Matthew 23:1-3
Note: To submit that He did condemn them specifically, but in a general is rejected. The observance of feasts incorrectly is on a level greater in error than requiring ceremonial hand washing, although requiring that is still obviously wrong.
Note: Regarding Passover, some simply submit that he had to do that early in the crucifixion year because of His death which means all this other observance stuff must be added per the law of Herb. However, He had been resurrected and was on earth the next month when Passover Sheni or the second Passover was observed. He could have taught them then as they were still learning about His plan which is founded on and is the way of the Creator.
In a short and sweet summary, Matthew 5:16-20 (where he adds more to observance of Torah in the verses following) shows the stupidity of the belief that "all you need is love."
How to make an Armstrongite squirm:
1. Ask them to say that they love the law.
2, Then ask them to say that they love Jesus.
As Lonnie mentioned, HWA and his ministry scoffed at mushy Protestants who spoke of loving Jesus.
I have one Armstrongite associate who squirmed horribly, but was eventually able to say he loved Jesus.
Recently, I think it has become more common for individual Armstrongites (though the term individual Armstrongites may still be an oxymoron) to be able to say that they love Jesus.
Yet they abide in an idolatrous church that sings about loving the law, but not about loving Jesus.
At least there is progress noted in some people.
As evidence by some of the comments above, Armstrongites are sold out to Herbie's proprietary law blend while rejecting the reality that observing the Ten Commandments is not good enough for New Covenant Christians and resisting delving into the two greatest commands, as uttered by Jesus, not as reframed by HWA.
I'm afraid that the anonymous commentator in four posts has created a straw man to argue against. He/she appears to still hold to Herbie's belief that love is only a mushy sentiment that may make folks feel good about themselves but really isn't good for much else. A person who truly loves another person will be patient, kind, forgiving, merciful, respectful and supportive to that person. He/she will NOT do anything to hurt or harm another person (e.g. lie to them, be unfaithful to them, steal from them, exploit them, murder them, or beat, rape, or molest them, etc.). Hence, the assertion that I advocate free rein to engage in any kind of behavior is specious and deceitful. In reality, living in the spirit and intent of God's Law is much more rigorous and comprehensive than trying to scrupulously follow a list of written out dos and don'ts. Once again, Christ didn't destroy the Law - he fulfilled it and focused his followers' attention on the principles which underpinned EVERY other iteration of God's Law (including Torah and the Ten Commandments in particular).
There was no assignment of mushy to love in the 4 posts. Good try though with your own straw man there and attempt to assign it to the long response. It is like democrats as there is an accusing of others what one does himself. Note: repubs are nowhere near perfect themselves.
The description of love is basically correct. The Messiah fulfilled His role on this Earth by being perfect and taught how to love (i.e. observe those 2 commandments). Believers do the same thing and it is out of faith as opposed to being a binding upon them which is a huge difference from the laws of Herbie who had a number of laws which were incorrect even if he said they are the way to observe something, such as say Pentecost. The Messiah explained how to love by providing a commandment and then showing His disciples that there is even more to this love. cf- Matthew 5:16 and onward as was noted.
The comments about love, patience, etc. while correct with regard to things like not murdering, etc. are again an intent to push the "He did it all so we don't have to" agenda. Any sane person knows that we do not murder, molest, etc. That being said, those are commandments from the Torah of the Creator. Period. There is no denying that.
The author in his reply above has done what was described in the 4 part response. He believes some of the Torah of God is still in effect besides those 2 main commandments. He just does not like the stuff about feast observance, etc. which as described previously, Herbie had wrong in many cases anyway. The continuing effort to separate those 2 main laws from the rest is again unsuccessful as the Torah of the Creator is totally connected.
He does not believe what he says he believes regarding the 2 main commandments as described in that 4 part response. You cannot say "I will work on the sabbath and / or go shopping or to the game" and love the Creator or people who you hire to work for example in your business on the seventh day of the week. You can spend the rest of your life saying that and it will still never be true. He is trying to separate faith and works. James tells us about that in his book and James who was the earthly brother of the Messiah knew what Torah is and how it is entirely connected with faith.
Matthew 5 says that one will be least in the kingdom of heaven if his righteousness does not exceed that of the scribes and Pharisees who were evidently good at understanding the law given to Israel through Moshe. There is no denying that unless the Messiah is a liar. Choosing to obey the Torah commands that one likes and dumping the others is not a way to do that. We know that because the Messiah (aside from Matthew 5) is shown in the gospels as telling some people that they were effectively choosing to follow what they want or the in the way they want to follow and not what the Creator says to do. Thus, they were breaking the Torah (direction, instruction) of the Creator and not showing faith.
In conclusion, it is obvious that MJ/LCH does not have much faith.
So, you think Jesus meant you need to out-Pharisee the Pharisees?
Monday, January 8, 2024 at 11:34:00 AM PST,
Thankfully God is the judge of my faith and faithfulness, NOT you. You are still misrepresenting what I have taught and believe. I believe that Christians are responsible for obeying Christ's commandments (which comprehend the essence of Torah), but we are NOT responsible for the iteration of God's Law intended for Israel (the commandments of Torah). LOVE is the hallmark of a real Christian. Even so, I do agree with you that many Armstrongites do NOT understand what the festivals mean/point to. Also, I agree that they are NOT keeping those festivals in accordance with the instructions outlined in Torah.
To address 12:08, that's a big no and interesting that you submit it that way. What the Messiah means is for believers to know the instruction of the Creator like the scribes and Pharisees do, but to act better than that which goes with "be holy as I am holy" as the Creator says (Leviticus 19:2) and "be ye perfect as your Father in heaven is perfect" (Matthew 5:48). His statement clearly means that you have to know the way of the Creator and you need to observe it on a higher level.
As for mj/lch claiming he is being judged, nice diversion attempt, but like previously, wrong again (straw man). There was no statement ever made saying anything about what his future will be. As a side note, it's confusing why people want to be the one to ultimately assign reward or punishment to others like they are some god being. Scripture clearly shows that that is for the Creator to decide and no one else. However, the scriptures show that a believer can understand that actions or lack thereof either show faith or lack thereof. That is what was noted and nothing more and a believer can recognize that.
Additionally, it is interesting that the iteration of the law according to his belief that is for Israel is not for him while scripture says all believers are children of Abraham (including the Ethiopian eunuch and all the gentiles that Paul never told to quit attending synagogue, etc.) and that Abraham is the patriarch of Israel and children of the promise.
Note: Believing what Herbie taught is no better than interpreting scripture to mean something different from what it really means because that is what Herbie did. Believing and thus, doing what the Creator says is where it's at and it is love according to the Messiah. That's the deal. The Messiah says if you love me, keep my commandments (John 14:15). Also, if you do not believe Moshe, you do not believe the Messiah (John 5:46-47). See also Isaiah 46:12-13.
Paul says that the being who went with Israel in the wilderness is the Messiah (I Corinthians 10:1-4) so whatever that being said in the Torah is what the Messiah said and says and he summarized it in Matthew 5 as noted several times now.
How is that known? Scripture says of the Creator, "I change not" - Malachi 3:6 and the "same yesterday, today, forever" Hebrews 13:8.
The beliefs that the religion of the scriptures is based on pagan stuff (dd) or that we do not have to follow old Israel stuff because that is / was for them (mj/lch) is not correct and while it is understandable that it must be frustrating to go from belief in Herbie (huge waste of time and severely destructive) to belief that love is all you need (out of the frying pan and into the fire), the Creator has a plan that is clearly laid out as it is not far away, but near for His chosen people - (Deuteronomy 30, note vs 11 onward and that in the previous chapters, the Creator told Israel and those who went with them (not physically born into the family of Abraham) what they were to do. There is one plan of the Creator regardless of one's physical birth family and one who is faithful follows the instruction given by the Creator.
"In conclusion, it is obvious that MJ/LCH does not have much faith." Followed by, "As for mj/lch claiming he is being judged, nice diversion attempt..." Believer - (in this context) someone who believes that Jesus of Nazareth is the Messiah/Savior.
"we do not have to follow old Israel stuff because that is/was for them (mj/lch) is not correct"
To whom are the commandments in Torah addressed?
And the Lord spoke to Moses and Aaron, saying to them, 'Speak to the people of Israel, saying, These are the living things that you may eat among all the animals that are on the earth.' (Leviticus 11:1-2, ESV)
The Lord spoke to Moses, saying, 'Speak to the people of Israel and say to them, These are the appointed feasts of the Lord that you shall proclaim as holy convocations; they are my appointed feasts.' (Leviticus 23:1-2, ESV)
And Moses summoned all Israel and said to them, 'Hear, O Israel, the statutes and the rules that I speak in your hearing today, and you shall learn them and be careful to do them. The Lord our God made a covenant with us in Horeb. Not with our fathers did the Lord make this covenant, but with us, who are all of us here alive today.' (Deuteronomy 5:1-3, ESV)
Paul wrote that "if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's offspring, heirs according to promise." He did NOT say that that obligated us to keep the commandments given to his physical descendants - Israel.
Believing there is a Creator does not mean one believes in that Creator. Demons believe there is one and fear, but do not believe in that Creator. Some humans believe there is a Creator, but that does not mean they believe in the Creator as in following / loving because they do not work to do what the Messiah said is to be done and did Himself. Your definition is rejected because believing a Creator exists versus believing in that Creator which means doing what is instructed are 2 different things.
Where is the information that tells people in this day and age who believe in the Creator that they need to find out if they are born from an ancestor all the way back to ancient times who is actually of the tribes? That is evidently a very important thing to know from the viewpoint being presented because if one is, he needs to get to doing what Israel is told. There is nothing in this belief that says its ok to go with the gentile way for those of Israel. Why is the new testament spending a lot of time saying there is no difference between Jews and gentiles when the requirements are different for each group? Of note, there are even people today that have found out that they are Jewish that had no idea.
Why did Paul not tell gentiles to leave the synagogue and all those rules. He warned Galatian gentiles not to try to become Jews because they did not need that. I am confident that Paul agreed with James in the Acts 15 council who said gentiles learned each week in the synagogue. James did point out 4 things for them to avoid, but those are all from Torah and there was much more to learn (i.e. all the things they were evidently to continue to learn in continued attendance in synagogues which would have assemblies on the seventh day of the week). James and that council were idiots if all that information in the synagogues was nice to know, but unnecessary for implementing in life.
Why did the synagogues not go ahead and split the believing gentiles from the Jews and move their assemblies to the first day of the week? Where were the apostles, etc. on this? Why did the world have to wait until the Roman religious system set all of that up?
The Jews and actually all of Israel would have to keep following the Torah stuff which is a huge separation in the supposedly one body.
Also, why did Ruth go into the religion of Israel when she was not of Israel? Why does she have to go do that stuff when she is a gentile? Is that because it was before the Messiah lived on earth or something and where is the answer to this in scripture?
Paul did believe in the Messiah who instructed everyone who believes in Him to be like Him and it has already been explained what he directed and how He was / is / and always will be.
In summary, the way presented by the "all you need is love" attitude results in acceptance of behavior as ok that is not what the Messiah did as a human. He went to assembly on the 7th day of the week, observed feasts that are given in the Torah, did not eat foods that the Torah said are not food for humans, etc., but one can do what ever he wants (that is, what he still thinks is necessary thus, adding to those 2 main commandments) because he loves Him.
This thread has been one side saying the same things over and over with proof from the scriptures which are only met with the other side not disproving that proof, but coming up with something new each time to throw out to justify a belief in "all you need is love," but which never gives scriptural references for the belief except to point out the 2 great commandments which scripture actually says all the other commandments are based on.
What is being thrown against the wall from that side is not sticking.
A few passages from the Gospel of John will suffice as an answer 5:54 -
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God. (John 3:16-18, ESV)
Then they said to him, 'What must we do, to be doing the works of God?' Jesus answered them, 'This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he has sent.' So they said to him, 'Then what sign do you do, that we may see and believe you? What work do you perform? Our fathers ate the manna in the wilderness; as it is written, ‘He gave them bread from heaven to eat.' Jesus then said to them, 'Truly, truly, I say to you, it was not Moses who gave you the bread from heaven, but my Father gives you the true bread from heaven. For the bread of God is he who comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.' They said to him, 'Sir, give us this bread always.' Jesus said to them, 'I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me shall not hunger, and whoever believes in me shall never thirst. But I said to you that you have seen me and yet do not believe. All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out. For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will but the will of him who sent me. And this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up on the last day. For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.' (John 6:28-40, ESV)
Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; but these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name. (John 20:30-31, ESV)
You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness about me, yet you refuse to come to me that you may have life. I do not receive glory from people. But I know that you do not have the love of God within you. I have come in my Father's name, and you do not receive me. If another comes in his own name, you will receive him. How can you believe, when you receive glory from one another and do not seek the glory that comes from the only God? Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father. There is one who accuses you: Moses, on whom you have set your hope. For if you believed Moses, you would believe me; for he wrote of me. But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe my words?' (John 5:39-47, ESV)
As the Father has loved me, so have I loved you. Abide in my love. If you keep my commandments, you will abide in my love, just as I have kept my Father's commandments and abide in his love. These things I have spoken to you, that my joy may be in you, and that your joy may be full. This is my commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you. Greater love has no one than this, that someone lay down his life for his friends. You are my friends if you do what I command you. No longer do I call you servants, for the servant does not know what his master is doing; but I have called you friends, for all that I have heard from my Father I have made known to you. You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you that you should go and bear fruit and that your fruit should abide, so that whatever you ask the Father in my name, he may give it to you. These things I command you, so that you will love one another.' (John 15:9-17, ESV)
And so when Jesus was here on earth the torah was in full force. But now with the writings of Paul and others the challenge is to put the scriptures together and determine the present day truths: pretty much a life long exercise and it helps of course to ask God for understanding b/c by yourself you won't determine.
It seemed long ago that laws written after Exodus 23 and given under/with the Levitical Priesthood are gone. They are but not all laws written after Exodus 23 are gone. It's not that simple. Sex laws still apply, for example. But tassels, tithing, killing animals, washings, physical ordinances, and maybe, just maybe, "Trumpets" and "Atonement", the two annual sabbaths, are now gone. They are not mentioned before Exodus 24. But the three feasts are, in Ex 23:14-16: DUB with Passover the 14th as the first day of seven days, Pentecost, FOT, and of course the weekly sabbath. It seems one who loves God the Father and Jesus Christ the Son will at least observe the weekly sabbath, DUB, Pentecost, FOT.
Keep at it. Continue posting in this thread and demonstrating lack of knowledge of truth like you received from the Herbster, albeit from a new direction now. You will still be wrong, just like dd with his silliness from yet another direction. I might check back and see what silliness has been added as time goes on.
In your post above, you quote where the Messiah says :"Keep my commandments and you will abide in My love" which is obviously correct. His commandments and where and what they are for were already described in this thread. You say that love would never involve murder which is correct and was noted, but you act like all the other stuff is not necessary as that has been absorbed in the understanding of the big 2 (which you added more to anyway as it turns out) even though observance of instructions of the Creator from the beginning and continuously ongoing demonstrates and is love.
You just choose not to associate things like 7th day sabbath (which is love for oneself and those who may work for him, for example) and yearly feast observance with that love so people don't have to do that and hey, can go with the majority and do other stuff. It certainly is easier.
It is interesting that a believer in the Messiah would not observe feasts which point to exactly what He did and will do which is a great way to learn about the Creator and go with something else. It's like practicing for ballet to get ready for an American football game.
Sorry, you are dead in the water.
You got caught in the Herbie trap, got fleeced, and jumped out into another pit. Just like was explained previously with 2 of the more prevalent results for the Herbies once the wizard was gone.
Forgot to add one thing.
Evidently, I missed the part of your last response that explained why Paul did not get the gentiles moving out of the synagogues and why the Acts 15 council wanted them in the synagogue learning all the Jewish things.
Go ahead and post that here with actual source proof that can be reviewed and not opinion or scriptures that you think show that, but real information that actually shows why Paul, James, etc. did or did not separate gentiles into their non-Jewish way of loving while the Jews and Israel work practicing love a different way.
To give one example of what is not needed, I had communications with a lunar sabbath observer who used a scripture which says the Creator would take their sabbaths from them which happened with the Babylonian captivity as proof that they were observing weekly sabbaths on the wrong day. I informed that person that the verse had nowhere near enough information in it to be a proof for the assertion.
In other words, there is no need for ignoring points and questions and using verses to mean something that they do not while ignoring tons of other information which you have done through the entirety of this thread and actually basically all of the other ones to which you have contributed on this site.
In my answer, I posted a number of passages from the Gospel of John without commentary, and it still provoked a condescending response from you. I have offered here and on my own blog numerous posts over the years explaining the actual history of how the Church moved away from the observance of Jewish traditions (and, unlike the COG7th Day, Seventh Day Adventists, Worldwide and company narratives about what happened in the First and Second Centuries mine is documented with numerous sources, including a comprehensive examination of the Scriptural evidence). In summary, the available evidence demonstrates that Gentile Christians NEVER observed the various tenets of Torah, and the small group of Jewish Christians who remained after the events of 70 CE had virtually disappeared by the close of the First Century. So, I'm sorry, but it's your own narrative that is actually "dead in the water."
Just checked back to make sure my posts had made it and saw yours so I’ll go ahead and get one more reply, but maybe come back and check some.
Thank you for the history lesson which I’ve already been over a bit over the last about 30 years. That’s one thing that’s cool about the Internet. While I have been to the library of a large university from which I graduated, used its resources, and even can continue to do so and have, it is great to have access to early church writings on the Internet.
Going with what a bunch of people did / do versus what the scripture says and recalling that scripture talks about a small flock (not Bwana Bob’s) and what we clearly know gentiles and Jews were doing if we can read the New Testament where even Paul says keep the Passover and teaches gentiles how to do it and not only if they’re going do it as you say can be done is different from what you claim is the way to do things correctly. The Jewish Paul, did not tell the Corinthian gentiles to keep the feast of unleavened bread with sincerity and truth IF they were going to do it. During the period of that feast, when a believer eats bread, he eats it unleavened.
Just because a bunch of people decided to do something means absolutely nothing with regard to being correct according to what the Creator says. In fact, there’s nothing I can find in scripture that indicates that those who are in that small flock of believers are going along with the majority in the past, present, or future.
Even today, what are considered conservative protestant organizations are are changing their beliefs and actions.
I am not saying they are accepting same sex marriages yet like other once more conservative protestant groups at this point. They are moving the other way from scriptures and even the head of the catholic church is into blessing same-sex relationships, although they cannot be sanctified like other things, whatever that means, from what I have read.
Speaking of the catholic church, it is the largest so-called christian organization and the protestants are catholic junior and moving toward it so you may as well go ahead and just turn into a catholic.
As for condescending, your original post in this thread and comments as with those of yours in previous threads are that way. You have an attitude that is similar to a typical conservative type protestant or catholic attitude which I experienced before I came into this belief system.
Information provided from scripture and/or history is basically ignored because they don’t deal with that silliness even if they don’t say it that way. This results in the “I’m gonna do it anyway” attitude because they know they can’t answer clear information or questions and as we have seen here, they pretend that they have.
The catholic goes with the head of his church because that’s all that matters in reality even if they do if that is not admitted.
Sometimes, the protestant or catholic acts as if he has experienced condescension, likely in attempt to get his “abuser” to cease-and-desist from continually showing the error of the belief.
It is also like Ron Dart with whom another and I once had an encounter where we experienced his condescension, but interestingly, no actual addressing of the question presented. Despite what many people here seem to think, he was just as bad as the Armstrongs, Pack, Fleurry, etc.
When someone replies in a way that looks measured to others, but who ignores points, will not answer questions, gives scriptures as answers when they do not address the matter fully such as the two big Commandments include all the other ones so we don’t need to say that one must follow the others unless there’s something that I really want you to follow which means there’s more than two, etc., that is condescension.
You seem to think that a true believer might very well observe some feast days by choice while Israel does it because, we can clearly see, they were told to do it and it is clear that the Messiah expected them to continue doing it. Wonder why one would think that he does not need to observe Yom Kippur (I.e. it is optional,) which shows that the future will bring the sinful to be perfect and shows how? It’s one of the most important teachings in the scriptures.
Yet, it is optional? The scripture says that the children of Israel are to do it throughout the generations and believers are the children Israel no matter where they originated. That’s what the Acts 15 council determined.
Anonymous Wednesday, January 10, 2024 at 12:40:00 PM PST,
Your interpretation of what happened at the Jerusalem Council is just about the exact opposite of what actually happened there according to Scripture. In the 15th chapter of Acts, we read: "some believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees rose up and said, 'It is necessary to circumcise them and to order them to keep the law of Moses.'"
After a lengthy debate, we are told that Peter stood up and reminded everyone that it was God who had decided to allow Gentiles to come to Jesus. Hence, the thought of imposing the demands of Torah on Gentiles seemed incongruous to him. He said: "Now, therefore, why are you putting God to the test by placing a yoke on the neck of the disciples that neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear? But we believe that we will be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, just as they will." In other words, both Jews and Gentiles are saved by grace - as a consequence of what Jesus had done for them (and us).
Then, we are informed that James stood up and said: " Therefore my judgment is that we should not trouble those of the Gentiles who turn to God, but should write to them to abstain from the things polluted by idols, and from sexual immorality, and from what has been strangled, and from blood." James then told them that Moses already had plenty of folks who were proclaiming his teachings in the synagogues every Sabbath. In other words, Christians don't need to be teaching folks to observe Torah!
After all of this, the entire council composed a letter and sent it to the Gentile believers which stated: "Since we have heard that some persons have gone out from us and troubled you with words, unsettling your minds, although we gave them no instructions, it has seemed good to us, having come to one accord, to choose men and send them to you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, men who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. We have therefore sent Judas and Silas, who themselves will tell you the same things by word of mouth. For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay on you no greater burden than these requirements: that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from what has been strangled, and from sexual immorality. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well. Farewell.”
Clearly, the Jewish mother Church determined that Gentiles would NOT be required to keep/observe all of the dos and don'ts of Torah. Moreover, the Christian writings which immediately followed the apostles (epistle of Barnabas, Didache, epistles of Ignatius, Justin Martyr's apologetics, etc.) demonstrate that Gentile Christians were NOT observing the commandments of Torah. Also, what we recognize as the Catholic Church did NOT come into existence for another three or four HUNDRED years. Rome's authority to decide matters of doctrinal import was NOT recognized by other churches until much later and was NEVER universally accepted by all Christians. The notion that modern Christians are all following Roman Catholic traditions is a false narrative.
Torah 2 ways
More silliness from the one who believes he has found the true knowledge. Resting on the submission that Herbie's laws are wrong (and many are and Herbster was never in any position to be any kind of authority on what the Creator says), we now are told the Jewish assembly did not enforce the torah on gentiles.
Instead of using scripture, he moves to history which clearly shows us that the assemblies certainly were going off in another direction. I think it is interesting that they went off in similar directions even though they were sometimes quite far apart regarding location. Paul was actually dealing with that much earlier as the scriptures show.
However, it has been pointed out that the Jerusalem conference did not do give only 4 things for gentiles (Acts 15). It noted 4 particular things for gentiles to avoid, but pointed out that they would be instructed each sabbath in the synagogue.
According to MJ/LCH, the belief system he knows is true allows same sex intimacy, intimacy before marriage, and all sorts of other things because all we need is love and love God with all our heart whether he wants to admit that or not.
In a previous thread response here, you seemed to associate things like murder as not being love your neighbor as yourself. That is understandable and true. However, someone who is in a same sex relationship would certainly say that it is indeed loving one's neighbor as himself. Should we not then understand that you are ok with such relationships? After all, the Jerusalem council only gave 4 things or are we adding to those 4 items again like has already been done in your comments?
Moving on, why would gentiles be observing with Jews on the seventh day sabbath unless of course the Jewish assembly had already switched to a first day observance in the synagogues (Wow, when did that happen? Can I visit one now?). They have different laws and their own sabbath day or more accurately, sabbath couple of hours. Note: the MJ/LCHuses "Jewish". The torah is for all of Israel which includes more than Jews. Also, believing gentiles are sons of Abraham who is the earthly father of Israel. See Paul.
part 2
If a gentile does not have to obey these "Jewish" things, why would one want to attend an assembly that teaches him about those things on a day that is not his sabbath?
Additionally, since one does not have to do these "Jewish" things, how is loving one's neighbor as oneself, but making a gentile employee work on the seventh day of the week while accepting that a Jewish employee should not be forced to work? Why does the gentile need to be available 7 days per week? If you are going to love them as yourself, should you not work on the seventh day of the week most every week instead of taking time off to enjoy your earnings from your business?
Why is what they do something you do not have to do unless you want to do it? I mean, they are making money for you and you are out enjoying it. It is understood that people can take a day off, but have you noticed that many times, the owner or higher up takes time off at the times much of the western world has already been doing for years, employees be damned as they can be made to do it. This point was made previously in forum posts, but notice how the article author never addresses it and never in the original article mentions that Jews just might need to be following torah?
What a great way of observing this wonderful way of love your neighbor for gentiles! They do not have to do all the "Jewish" stuff, but they need to work on the seventh day of the week or even on those "Jewish" feast days if scheduled.
This article started with love your neighbor as yourself and love God with all your heart. Now we have well maybe Jews would need to do their thing and gentiles their thing. From the stupidness of Herbie to the stupidness of "christian."
Oh well, stupid is as stupid does. First it was stupid one way and now it is stupid another way.
Anonymous February 3, 2024 in two parts,
If what I posted is silliness and stupid, why bother to comment on it? In fact, I quoted quite extensively from Scripture in the original post and in the subsequent commentary thread regarding it.
At the Jerusalem Council, we are informed that James said: "For from ancient generations Moses has had in every city those who proclaim him, for he is read every Sabbath in the synagogues." (verse 21) He did NOT say that "they would be instructed each sabbath in the synagogue." He told them that what Moses wrote (Torah) already had plenty of folks preaching/teaching/advocating on his behalf. In other words, the sense is that Torah already had a place where it was proclaimed once a week (in the synagogue on the Sabbath).
As for my position on same-sex behaviors, I have written a number of posts which deal specifically with my views of that subject. In summary, I believe that homosexuals are subject to the SAME standards which apply to heterosexuals. I believe that God condemns ANY behavior which causes hurt or harm to ANYONE! I hope that is clear enough.
You asked: "why would gentiles be observing with Jews on the seventh day sabbath unless of course the Jewish assembly had already switched to a first day observance in the synagogues?" Jewish Christians continued to meet in synagogues and the temple area until the catastrophic events of 70 CE. Moreover, in those early years (First Century), Scripture reveals that the Jewish and Gentile wings of the Church were never completely/wholly segregated from each other. In other words, Jewish Christians sometimes joined Gentile Christians in worship on the first day of the week and vice versa. Even so, like circumcision, the Sabbath was a sign of the covenant which God had made with the Israelites. Hence, I believe that renders your questions about Gentile Sabbath observance irrelevant. If a Jewish Christian employed a Gentile Christian, I would think that he probably would NOT have forced his brother to work for him on the Sabbath - right? Am I missing something?
You keep on doing the same thing over and over. There is no way to explain it away. That is what it is.
The believing Jews and gentiles were together because they knew like you have been told previously in the comments here that the Messiah said it is not going away in Matthew 5:16-20. Sometimes believing Jews and gentiles attended synagogues that were not convinced that the Messiah was indeed true. Some of those assemblies chose not to believe and others did.
If Jews met with gentiles on the first day of the week, then they were converted to (fake) christianity unless they were being ecumenical which is nowhere in the scriptures. That happens even today and is in no way what believers do. Keep believing it and soothe yourself with your great knowledge. You beliefs are fake and are nowhere in scripture.
You still have not answered why a gentile would not require the seventh day as a rest day for himself and those who work for him while saying a Jew might do that. If the "2 and you're cool" is all you need, why are you adding a Jew might do it and where again is the gentile with gentile employee commentary. C'mon, make something up for us.
Keep up your protestant way of life. I was in it for years and know what it is about. You have been questioned time after time and you come up with either additions to your "2 laws and all is good" or make comments such as "a Jew might". Jews and the rest of Israel have to do it. The Creator who never changes says so and they know that whether they believe in the Messiah as he was and is or not. Gentiles become sons of Abraham and Jews inwardly like Paul says. There is no other way. You do not even believe your new testament and pick and choose what you like just like Herbie did on a number of things.
It is unfortunate that you had to deal with the word of Herbie. However, your "new" way is old as the hills. I was even in it before you were and it is as fake as the wcg and some of them are even as cruel as the wcg.
Go ahead and soothe yourself regarding your kind, wise way. You are wrong simply because scripture shows it and you are trying to lead others into it. You are guilty of breaking all of the law as James says, because while you accept part of it, you do not accept other parts. So you do not jump on the legalist bs, James tells us you do not have faith and a we can understand from scripture that faith is defined as scripture defines it and not the way you do which is worthless. James wrote that and it is in your new testament and written by the brother of the Messiah.
He knew that a believer showed faith by his works and that faith is the correct following of torah because that way of being is exactly like God is, was, and will be.
Your way of life is no better than a Herbite. You reject the way the Messiah lived as a human being. The excuse that He did it so I do not have to is a perfect example of "stupid is as stupid does."
Anonymous Sunday, February 4, 2024 at 5:17:00 PM PST,
You hypocritical, self-righteous, little snit! You don't have a clue about my "way of life," or whether it's superior to Herb's. You are right about one thing - there is NO way to explain this to you. You simply do not have the ability to entertain any outlook which differs from your own. Moreover, although you don't thinks so, if your comments here accurately reflect your views, I don't see very much difference from Herb's views (or my former understanding of these things).
You seem to like the book of James. He wrote: "If anyone thinks he is religious and does not bridle his tongue but deceives his heart, this person's religion is worthless. Religion that is pure and undefiled before God the Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unstained from the world." Are you following that? How do you handle politics and the culture wars? Do you help those in need?
James also wrote: "What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him? If a brother or sister is poorly clothed and lacking in daily food, and one of you says to them, 'Go in peace, be warmed and filled,' without giving them the things needed for the body, what good is that? So also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead." You do get that James is talking about loving your neighbor as yourself here - don't you? We demonstrate our faith by demonstrating our love - with tangible deeds of service to others. Are you doing that?
Finally, I am NOT a Protestant (or Catholic, Orthodox, etc.)! I am a Christian. I understand that ALL of these manmade denominations have problems, and NONE of them is synonymous with the ekklesia (though I believe that there are Christians in all of them). God's Law didn't go away, but Jesus Christ did transform it (if you look real hard, you'll find that in that same passage from the Gospel of Matthew that you love to cite as a prooftext).
By the way, if you are going to REPEAT the same stuff over again, don't bother - I will not be responding any further to you unless you present some new and persuasive evidence to defend your legalism.
Post a Comment