Saturday is Sabbath day...

[williemac]

Putiing it simple, satan loves division, and christians make it s easy for him.

If you keep just one law, you must keep all the rest, this annuls the work Jesus did on the cross. The law that was given to the Jews, not the gentiles ( us ) was finished at the cross, Jesus fullfilled it all as He promised He would. To keep the law is to put ones self into bonadge to it, undoing the freedom given to us in Christ, Are you going to be the one to tell Jesus His work was not enough for you. Do you think you can keep all the laws as Jesus did, are you perfect as HE is to think that keeping the law can save you. You are under grace , till you choose the law, then it becomes the works of the flesh and you will fail.

So argue all you like , your reasoning may be sound to the human mind but it is by the spirit that we walk, not in bondage to the flesh.


In all His abundant love

In fairness to certain members, they claim that they keep the law, not to be justified by it, but simply to honor God with it. And they claim that the fourth commandment is not bondage but a wonderful blessing. I will apologize to my brother above (James) that I jumped in without reading the many posts on this thread, but there are a lot of them. I suppose many points have already been repeated, as well as this one of yours.

However to avoid the space it takes to quote and reply, I will comment on the 'wonderful blessing'.

The assumption is that others are missing out on a wonderful blessing by not keeping the sabbath. This actually vindicates my observation that the law is/was kept for one's own benefit. Thus it is one's own work. Words such as obligation and responsibility are used by the post-er above. These all speak of motive. However, as I shared, love's motive is not for the benefit of the person loving, but rather the person being loved. The wonderful blessing we have is that which we have recieved by faith...including the fruit of the spirit: love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self control...."against such there is no law" . And it is called fruit because it goes out from us and provides a wonderful blessing for others.

The biggest change I have seen between the covenants from our perspective of works, is the motive for what we do. We no longer need to do anything to "get" anything from God. All things that come to us from Him are freely given ( Rom.8:32, 1Cor.2:12). We love Him because He first loved us. But the thing that He gave us that pertains to this thread....is REST. Unlike the old covenant where this rest must be taken, in the new it is given. It is something we enter into. And the author of Hebrews called it His rest.
So, my point was and is that I am not missing out on a wonderful blessing. I am appropriating the blessing that is promised, not the one I must gain through my own works. I have ceased from my own works. (sorry, couldn't figure out how to get rid of the bold text feature). blessings to all, Howie

Greetings, James. I have a little time and would like to answer the following quote:
There is a real danger in basing a major doctrine or asking “true or false?” on ONE PASSAGE OF SCRIPTURE. And you’ve already majorly contradicted yourself in the above paragraph by saying, Paul says all the law is fulfilled in ONE word (or commandment) and then saying that “Jesus gave TWO commandments. So which is, Howie it one or two commandments? Or is it TEN? Maybe, 640 as the Jews believe?
I really don't see "danger" in asking if a passage is true or false. However, in relation to the apparent contradiction, May I just reply by clarifying the difference between the two passages? In the new covenant, we come to Jesus by faith. Therefore it stands to reason that this is a command from Him. However, why do we suddenly regard a command as a law?

Paul said that all the law is fulfilled in one word; love your neighbour. This is one of the commandments mentioned by John. These are two different texts by two different people. John made no mention of any fulfillment of law in the passage at hand. But if a person has 'law on the brain', then I can see how John's statement can be construed as law. What he said is what he said. What Paul said is what Paul said. If there is contradiction, (which there isn't), why point the finger at me? They said what they said. Paul did not say that Jesus gave only one commandment. He merely stated how the law is fulfilled.

As well, how in the world can we accept that John (1John 3:23) was merely summarizing or generalizing the ten commandments? Is faith in Jesus one of those commandments? NO! This is something new. In regards to Gal.5:14, Paul did not say he was summarizing or generalizing the law. His wording was clear. Love is the fulfillment of the law.

But this brings about the argument that we are not loving God properly if we are not obeying the first four of the 'ten'. However...Why are we bringing this rule of thumb into the new covenant? I suppose if one has already concluded that the ten are part of the new covenant, then the rule of thumb becomes an automaitc reasoning. This is an example of what we call circular reasoning. In a debate about determining whether or not the ten commandments have a part in the new covenant, one cannot use the ten commandments themselves as part of their argument. How we show love for God in the new covenant is not a matter of opinion. It is clearly stated in the new testament, that we show love for Him through our treatment and love of others. eg: " inasmuch as you did it to the least of these, you did it to Me".

In John 13:34, Jesus gave a new commandment to them; that they love one another. So tell me, how is this new? What is new about it? And in John 15:10-12, this is what we find..." 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 thngs I have spoken to you, that My joy may remain in you and that your joy may be full. This is My commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you".

One thing that is sure, the word commandment is used often. It in simple words, simply means a command, or an order from authority. Jesus gave orders, or instructions. His Father did the same to Him. Do you really think His Father's commandments to Jesus were those that were written on the tablets? There is no guessing as to what Jesus commanded them/us. It is written down. But show me a new testament example of a command to keep the Sabbath day (Saturday) holy.

Just because our marching orders are called commandments, as was Jesus' from His Father, how do we move from that into the assumption that it speaks of that which came down from Mount Sinai? Paul told the Galatians that the covenant that came down from that mountain gives birth to bondage (4:24). As well you know, and no doubt have answered..that the ministry of death and condemnation was that which was written and engraved on stones. Paul referred to that as the 'letter' which kills (2Cor.3 5-9). Keep in mind that he knew full well and even no doubt previously taught that the law itself when it was given and administered, was considered a potential blessing, which is the present argument still being used as a motive for keeping the law.

There was an obvious change in his thinking.

All the blessing of the law now comes to us through faith in Christ, and all of the curse of the law is removed from us through faith in Christ. For...

" Christ is the end of the law for righteousness for all who believe" (Rom.10:4). The truth is that all the joy and peace offered up by God into our hearts can come to us and has come to us through His promise of the Holy Spirit. I can testify that this is my testimony. To me, it is going backwards to think that any further blessing can come into my heart by fulfilling an obligation to keep a law.
But I will reiterate. I fully believe that the fourth commandment is fulfilled in me at this very moment. To each his own.
grace and peace, Howie

 

[James Forthwright]

I told you previously that I will not exchange diatribes with you or anyone else. Whenever you are ready to begin responding on a point-by-point basis, i.e., quoting various sections of my posts and then specifically addressing each point and question I raise, (just as I have answered your posts) I'll continue conversing with you. Till then. . .

Peace be with you,

J.F.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hello mjrhealth,

I appreciate your interest in this thread. Sorry it’s taken a while for me to respond to your posts. Hope you don’t mind that have I combined the two.

Honestly who cares. if you choose to keep this along with the rest of them, that is your choice, but we are not under the law, we are under grace, us gentiles where never under the law.

So as a Gentile under grace, are you now free to worship idols, murder, steal, bear false witness, commit adultery? Are you free to fornicate, etc?

As for keeping it,
Mat 12:1 At that time Jesus went on the sabbath day through the corn; and his disciples were an hungred, and began to pluck the ears of corn, and to eat.
Mat 12:2 But when the Pharisees saw it, they said unto him, Behold, thy disciples do that which is not lawful to do upon the sabbath day.
Mat 12:3 But he said unto them, Have ye not read what David did, when he was an hungred, and they that were with him;
Mat 12:4 How he entered into the house of God, and did eat the shewbread, which was not lawful for him to eat, neither for them which were with him, but only for the priests?
Mat 12:5 Or have ye not read in the law, how that on the sabbath days the priests in the temple profane the sabbath, and are blameless?
Mat 12:6 But I say unto you, That in this place is one greater than the temple.
Mat 12:7 But if ye had known what this meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice, ye would not have condemned the guiltless.
Mat 12:8 For the Son of man is Lord even of the sabbath day. Im free in Christ

Jesus is merely demonstrating to the hypocritical Pharisees that there are exceptions to the hard fast rules. Not reprimanding His disciples for picking a few ears of corn as they strolled through a corn field is hardly “working on the Sabbath”. Jesus is, indeed, Lord of the Sabbath day. Does that one scripture mean Christ is Lord over a day that His faithful believers are to now free to totally ignore?

Putiing it simple, satan loves division, and christians make it s easy for him.

This is a Christian DEBATE forum, mjrhealth. Division sort of comes with the territory. IMO, it is better to be divided over certain doctrinal issues than completely united in falsehood. During what period and duration of Biblical history was God generally pleased with His servants behavior? What makes you think the modern Christianity is on the right course?

If you keep just one law, you must keep all the rest, this annuls the work Jesus did on the cross.

I repeat: Are you now free to ignore God’s Laws regarding the worship of idols, murder, stealing, bear false witness, committing adultery, are you free to fornicate, etc? If not, your position regarding the Law is not consistent.

The law that was given to the Jews, not the gentiles ( us ) was finished at the cross, Jesus fullfilled it all as He promised He would. To keep the law is to put ones self into bonadge to it, undoing the freedom given to us in Christ, Are you going to be the one to tell Jesus His work was not enough for you.

I repeat: Are you now free to ignore God’s Laws regarding the worship of idols, murder, stealing, bear false witness, committing adultery, are you free to fornicate, etc? If not, your position regarding the Law is not consistent.

Do you think you can keep all the laws as Jesus did, are you perfect as HE is to think that keeping the law can save you. You are under grace , till you choose the law, then it becomes the works of the flesh and you will fail.

There is nothing impossible about obeying the Ten Commandments and there are many other laws of God that are still in our best interest to observe. Obedience should come natural to all born-again Christian believers. Following Christ’s perfect observance of the Law should really be our goal. Not to attain salvation or righteousness but because the Laws of God are now written upon our rejuvenated hearts. Now admittedly, we all do sometimes fall short of perfection and THAT is where we can rely upon the grace and mercy of God.

When we occasionally sin, we go down on our knees, and humbly ask God for forgiveness and then continue to follow the direction of the Holy Spirit and continue to be the serve God to the best of our born-again abilities. In spite of what you’ve been led to believe, Grace is not a ‘get out of all obedience to God’s Law card’. Jesus reply to the adulterous woman was “Go and sin no more”. That’s still good advice for all Christians.

So argue all you like , your reasoning may be sound to the human mind but it is by the spirit that we walk, not in bondage to the flesh.

I’ll take that as a backward compliment, mjrhealth!

One question for you to consider: Will the Spirit of God ever direct you to walk contrary to the other nine Commandments?

 

[JLB]

...so why do so many worship on Sunday, the first day of the week?

Because Saturday is the day of rest!


Thanks, JLB

 

[jiggyfly]

Can the ten commandments lead anyone to walking by the Spirit?

 

[James Forthwright]

Can the ten commandments lead anyone to walking by the Spirit?

Well, well, huckleberry is back! Where you been, Jiggyfly?

To answer your question, when you walk in the Spirit, you will naturally obey the Ten Commandments and not look for convenient excuses to ignore any one of them.

1Jn 5:2 By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God, and keep his commandments.
1Jn 5:3 For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous.
--

P.S. Congratulations on you tarheels voting against same sex marriage.

 

[williemac]

Can the ten commandments lead anyone to walking by the Spirit?

The fruit of the spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentlenss, self control. Against such there is no law. If we walk by the Spirit we wil not fulfill the lusts of the flesh. There is a list of those. Going to church on Sunday didn't make it there.

 

[jiggyfly]

Well, well, huckleberry is back! Where you been, Jiggyfly?

To answer your question, when you walk in the Spirit, you will naturally obey the Ten Commandments and not look for convenient excuses to ignore any one of them.

1Jn 5:2 By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God, and keep his commandments.
1Jn 5:3 For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous.
--

P.S. Congratulations on you tarheels voting against same sex marriage.

Well, well, huckleberry is back! Where you been, Jiggyfly?

To answer your question, when you walk in the Spirit, you will naturally obey the Ten Commandments and not look for convenient excuses to ignore any one of them.

1Jn 5:2 By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God, and keep his commandments.
1Jn 5:3 For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous.
--

P.S. Congratulations on you tarheels voting against same sex marriage.

But thats not what I asked John, I asked can the ten commandments lead anyone to walking by the Spirit?

 

[James Forthwright]

But thats not what I asked John, I asked can the ten commandments lead anyone to walking by the Spirit?

First of all, MY NAME IS NOT JOHN. And where have you been Jiggyfly? I thought you challenged me to a formal debate?

Secondly, No, the Ten Commandments, of and by themselves, will not lead anyone to walking by the Spirit. But that doesn't mean they are not without great merit for sinners, as well as saints.

An even wiser man than I put it this way:

Ecc. 12:13 Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this [is] the whole [duty] of man.

 

[jiggyfly]

Sorry about calling you John, my bad. As for "formal debate" I don't recall such a challenge. This thread has gotten very redundant with the same arguments being made time and again.

See that your still using scripture from old covenant context to make your arguments and ignoring the many new covenant scriptures that challenge your paradigm. Tis why I only respond to errant statements for the benefit of other readers. Good day James.

 

[mjrhealth]

Mat 22:36 Master, which is the great commandment in the law?
Mat 22:37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
Mat 22:38 This is the first and great commandment.
Mat 22:39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
Mat 22:40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

1Jn 4:7 Beloved, let us love one another: for love is of God; and every one that loveth is born of God, and knoweth God.
1Jn 4:8 He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love.
1Jn 4:9 In this was manifested the love of God toward us, because that God sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him.
1Jn 4:10 Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins.
1Jn 4:11 Beloved, if God so loved us, we ought also to love one another.

You see, this is our commandment to Love, for God is Love, in this we should be able to keep the rest, not because it was given to us ( it was given to the Jews), but becasue Love would not let us sin gainst God, not out of duty, or the Law, but because our desire is to please the father, and Loving Him gives Him the greatest pleasure, especially in times of trial and tribulation.

In all His love

 

[James Forthwright]

Sorry about calling you John, my bad.

OK, Jiggyfly, apology accepted.

As for "formal debate" I don't recall such a challenge.

Way back on post #224 & 225 you twice insinuated that I might be “afraid” to answer your 2 Cor. 3:7-15 scriptures. So I agreed to take your challenge and specified some specific ground rules if we were to continue with the discussion. You agreed by stating, “I’m your huckleberry.” (whatever that’s supposed to mean?) I took that response as an agreement to a debate.
I answered every verse in question and we had a brief exchange for a few days then you suddenly dropped off the radar screen for 18 days.

This thread has gotten very redundant with the same arguments being made time and again.

One of my stipulations to the debate was that we answer on a point-by-point basis and make sure to answer every question posed so that the arguments would NOT get too repetitive, nor would crucial information be ignored. As a basic courtesy, I’ve also asked other responders to take the time and read at least a few pages of prior posts for the same reason. I can’t help if many of them are too lazy or too “busy” to do so. If there has been an exorbitant share of redundancy in this thread, it is not my fault.

See that your still using scripture from old covenant context to make your arguments and ignoring the many new covenant scriptures that challenge your paradigm.

Please point to a single new covenant scripture that I’ve avoided discussing? I’ve only asked certain posters to kindly cease from posting in diatribes.

As to using OT scriptures, they are just as much a part of the Word of God as the New Testament and I can support my views with passages from either testament, whereas your side can only rely on a mere handful of verses primarily written by a single NT author, i.e. the Apostle Paul.

When Paul wrote:

2Ti 3:15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
2Ti 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
2Ti 3:17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

Or

2Ti 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. (emphasis mine)

. . .that the apostle was only referring to having the Christian Churches study his own writings? No Jigglyfly, the NT wasn’t even compiled nor had many of Paul’s letters or the other gospels been in wide circulation in the First Century. Paul was specifically telling his readers to study the Old Testament and he also knew that such study would/could verify his writings (if they were properly interpreted). Everyone of the Ten Commandments were restated in the New Testament, including keeping the Sabbath holy.

Tis why I only respond to errant statements for the benefit of other readers. Good day James.

If you look at the cross-section of the Holy Bible, the New Testament makes up only about 1/5 of the entirety of the Word of God (and there is quite of bit of “redundancy” , as you put it, in the four gospels). It is my assertion that those who can not fortify their theology with the ENTIRE Word of God are the ones which are most often“errant” in their doctrinal beliefs.

Are you "afraid" of a formal debate? <_< If not, feel free (and take your time) in answering Post #259 to continue our previous discussion.

 

[jiggyfly]

I've already made my points and debunk your argument, and see no fruit coming from continuing the discussion. I think it would be highly unlikely that my reposting new covenant scriptures concerning the topic would cause you to change your religious paradigm.

But as a mod here I will continue to look in on what is posted and if someone makes what I believe to be errant statements I may challenge them with a question or a scripture for the benefit of all who read the thread, tis one of the responsibilities of a Moderator.

 

[williemac]

Just an FYI in regards to Paul's letters to Timothy.
It happens that the word 'doctrine' is found more times in those two letters than all the rest of the Bilble put together. It happens that Timothy was urged by Paul to do the work of an Evangelist. But many of his exhortations to Timothy were to study the word and teach it, correcting those in oppostion. Therefore, it has come to my attention that the work of an evangelist is to teach doctrine to the church. It is part of the five-fold minstry given to the church to equip the saints for ministry.

Paul, in telling Timothy that all scripture is profitable for teaching, reproof, and correction, was not in the same breath telling all Christians to study the old testament (not that there's anything wrong with that). Its just that not everyone is called to understand and teach doctrine. God has called certain ministers for this duty.

Paul knew the old testament inside out. He understood doctrine as well as any teacher and perhaps better than the rest, as he also recieved insight through supernatural revelation from God.

The point is that if a person could actually study the old testament to the degree of understanding that Paul had of it, then one would assume they would come to the same conclusions that Paul did. But this is not the case. Many of his disputes were with the legalistic mind set of his fellow countrymen. The same disputes exist today. There is a reason for that.
Paul's special revelation from God came to him with a price. He was highly persecuted ( understanding that we do not wrestle with flesh and blood) and eventually martyred for his faith, along with his fellow Apostles. I study and have studied Paul's letters largely because I want to understand what he saw and understood.
I will try to make approriate time for this debate soon. My life has gotten suddenly busy and I apologize (to whom it may concern) for jumping in without being able to give appropriate time to this debate.

 

[lawrance]

Jesus Christ is the Lord of the sabbath day.
So when he came that is it, a new day as he said, is man made for the sabbath or sabbath mad for man.
Is not Sunday the day of the Lord, a new day, the start of Christ coming fulfillment.
So i would think that anyone other trying to reject Sunday is rejecting the Lord Jesus or they do not fathom who he really is.

 

[James Forthwright]

Just an FYI in regards to Paul's letters to Timothy.

It happens that the word 'doctrine' is found more times in those two letters than all the rest of the Bilble put together. It happens that Timothy was urged by Paul to do the work of an Evangelist. But many of his exhortations to Timothy were to study the word and teach it, It happens that the word 'doctrine' is found more times in those two letters than all the rest of the Bilble put together. It happens that Timothy was urged by Paul to do the work of an Evangelist. But many of his exhortations to Timothy were to study the word and teach it, correcting those in oppostion. Therefore, it has come to my attention that the work of an evangelist is to teach doctrine to the church. It is part of the five-fold minstry given to the church to equip the saints for ministry.
Therefore, it has come to my attention that the work of an evangelist is to teach doctrine to the church. It is part of the five-fold minstry given to the church to equip the saints for ministry.

Some good points there, Howie. And as you pointed out, an important part of equipping the saints is “correcting those in oppostion” (sic). I sincerely hope that you’ll realize that I’m not trying to be condescending or pedantic but you’ve misspelled THREE WORDS in your first paragraph alone. If you desire to be taken seriously by your opposition on Internet forums, it would behoove you to, at least, take a few extra minutes to use the spell-check feature in the editor before you hit the POST button. In case you don’t know, those squiggly red lines under certain words in the editor window are (likely) misspelled (or simply words not recognized by the spell-check feature). If you right-click on those words alternate spellings should be listed then click on the correct word for replacement.

For the benefit of the readers of this thread, these are the Strong’s Dictionary definitions for the Hebrew and Greek words most often used in the Bible for “doctrine”:

H3948
לקח
leqach
leh'-kakh
From H3947; properly something received, that is, (mentally) instruction (whether on the part of the teacher or hearer); also (in an active and sinister sense) inveiglement: - doctrine, learning, fair speech.

H8052
שׁמוּעה
sh[sup]e[/sup]mû‛âh
shem-oo-aw'
Feminine passive participle of H8074; something heard, that is, an announcement: - bruit, doctrine, fame, mentioned, news, report, rumor, tidings.

H4148
מוּסר
mûsâr
moo-sawr'

From H3256; properly chastisement; figuratively reproof, warning or instruction; also restraint: - bond, chastening ([-eth]), chastisement, check, correction, discipline, doctrine, instruction, rebuke.

G1319
διδασκαλία
didaskalia
did-as-kal-ee'-ah
From G1320; instruction (the function or the information): - doctrine, learning, teaching.

Paul, in telling Timothy that all scripture is profitable for teaching, reproof, and correction, was not in the same breath telling all Christians to study the old testament (not that there's anything wrong with that). Its just that not everyone is called to understand and teach doctrine. God has called certain ministers for this duty.

It’s commendable that you recognize the importance of recognizing to whom a certain letter is addressed (as a previous poster couldn’t seem to grasp that basic concept). However, it’s not necessary to be teacher, evangelist or minister for a Christian to benefit greatly from the study of the Old Testament. And likewise, from my experience, there are many folks who claim to be “teachers, evangelists or ministers” that are severely deceived on any number of doctrinal issues. Therefore, it IMO is in each Christian’s best interest to read and study the Word of God for themselves and allow the Holy Spirit within them to verify that what they’ve been taught completely conforms with the full context of the sacred scriptures.

Paul knew the old testament inside out. He understood doctrine as well as any teacher and perhaps better than the rest, as he also recieved insight through supernatural revelation from God.

The Pharisees also were extremely knowledgeable concerning the OT, but they couldn’t recognize the incarnate Son of God when He was standing right in their midst. As you mentioned, it is imperative that we, like the apostle Paul, remain open to similar “supernatural revelations from God” concerning honing our personal discernment abilities and not be too dependent or only reliant on certain noted Bible expositor’s opinions (no matter how popular their views may be). Giving believers supernatural gifts of wisdom and knowledge is one of the primary roles of the Holy Spirit in order to enlighten the saints in our understanding the Truth (1Cor. 12:8). Unquestionably, the Apostle Paul was an exceptional minister to the Gentiles and NT writer, but even this great apostle did not understand the fullness of the mysteries contained in the Word of God (1Cor. 13:12).

John 14:26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you. –Jesus Christ

1Jn 2:27 But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.

The point is that if a person could actually study the old testament to the degree of understanding that Paul had of it, then one would assume they would come to the same conclusions that Paul did. But this is not the case. Many of his disputes were with the legalistic mind set of his fellow countrymen. The same disputes exist today. There is a reason for that.

Are you open to consider the possibility that you might be capable, through that very same Holy Spirit guidance that Paul witnessed of coming to even a greater understanding than a First Century apostle on certain doctrinal issues?

Consider that every believer today has access to the Word of God (it was not so for the First sixteen centuries or so of Christian Church history). For example, through my free downloaded e-Sword program http://www.e-sword.net/ I have over a dozen different Bible versions instantly available at my fingertips. As well as, scores of Hebrew and Greek Bible dictionaries, many studious commentaries from top notch biblical scholars, and access to many other extremely informative scriptural resources like Bullinger’s Companion Bible notes & appendixes and W.E. Vine’s Expository of the Bible, etc., that the Apostle Paul couldn’t envision in his wildest dreams in 60 A.D. We also have the unique advantage of the ability to study and observe two thousand years of Christian Church history where the apostles Peter, Paul and James & co. were largely “wingin’ it” on a day to day basis.

Why should it strike you as peculiar that someone in the 21[sup]st[/sup] Century with these kinds of scriptural resources might have a difference of opinion on a particular doctrinal issue with a solitary First Century scholar like Saul of Tarsus? Do you actually believe that there were absolutely no differences in doctrinal opinion in the various Pauline founded Churches or with those founded by Apollos, Barnabas, etc., or the Christian Israelite Church in Jerusalem?

Paul's special revelation from God came to him with a price. He was highly persecuted ( understanding that we do not wrestle with flesh and blood) and eventually martyred for his faith, along with his fellow Apostles. I study and have studied Paul's letters largely because I want to understand what he saw and understood.

That’s fine, Howie. The Apostle Paul was a certainly a titan of scriptural knowledge, (it is not my intention to belittle his astounding achievements) but Saul/Paul put his pants on one leg at a time, just like we do, and he was NOT without his own personal faults and foibles. Don’t worship or follow only Paul's teachings (1Cor. 1:12), fear God and follow Christ Jesus!

1Cor. 3:5 Who then is Paul, and who is Apollos, but ministers by whom ye believed, even as the Lord gave to every man?

I will try to make approriate time for this debate soon. My life has gotten suddenly busy and I apologize (to whom it may concern) for jumping in without being able to give appropriate time to this debate.

Apology accepted. I just want you to understand that no matter how busy you are, you owe it to your audience (and especially your opposition) to put forth the best possible exposition of your viewpoints. I’m not asking for a doctrinal thesis here, just try not to be in such a fever to respond quickly. Read, pause, reflect, scripturally meditate, ponder. . . then post! Is that too much to ask?

I’d also like to (once again) humbly request that you PLEASE learn to respond, to at least my posts, in a point-by-point manner.

Learn to use the quote features!

It’s certainly easier and much faster to just ramble on in a quick response during a coffee break but it largely comes across on this end that you are speaking at someone in a rant/diatribe rather than having a reasoned discussion with someone.

Peace be with you, brother!

J.F.

 

[williemac]

Thanks for your reply, James. Well spoken. I am leaving the house shortly and will try to respond later as you wish, although I have had some previous negative experiences in point by point discussions, as they sometimes get a little long winded. Not to mention that as you will agree, many replies are made as a whole thought. As well, it is ironic that I had 'typo's', as I also have a pet peeve concerning spelling. I must not have noticed the 'squiggly' lines. Thanks for the heads up. I normally use spell check 'religiously'.
You are not asking too much. later, Howie

 

[James Forthwright]

Thanks for your reply, James. Well spoken. I am leaving the house shortly and will try to respond later as you wish, although I have had some previous negative experiences in point by point discussions, as they sometimes get a little long winded. Not to mention that as you will agree, many replies are made as a whole thought. As well, it is ironic that I had 'typo's', as I also have a pet peeve concerning spelling. I must not have noticed the 'squiggly' lines. Thanks for the heads up. I normally use spell check 'religiously'.
You are not asking too much. later, Howie

I greatly appreciate your understanding! I'll await your response and I'm not saying you have to reply to each and every statement I make or totally refrain from longer multiple paragraphs to explain your views if it best suits your explanations. Use your judgment to trim prior correspondence if they get long-winded and just answer the pertinent points and the questions that are raised.
Thanks again, J.F.

 

[mjrhealth]

Rejecting sunday is rejecting Jesus, where do people come up with these statements. God forbid that man might stop trying to complicate it all and Just let Jesus be Jesus with out all the overheads added by man. Open you eyes and look and that maybe tou will be able to see what you cant see, but not if you eyes have being blinded by mans religion.

In His Love

 

[James Forthwright]

Howie, it occurred to me that I was being more than a little too curt in not replying to this earlier post of yours (forgive my testiness, God isn’t finished working with me, just yet). You raised some very good questions and amply supported your views with appropriate scriptures. It deserves a more adequate response.

In fairness to certain members, they claim that they keep the law, not to be justified by it, but simply to honor God with it. And they claim that the fourth commandment is not bondage but a wonderful blessing
. . .I will comment on the 'wonderful blessing'.

The assumption is that others are missing out on a wonderful blessing by not keeping the sabbath. This actually vindicates my observation that the law is/was kept for one's own benefit. Thus it is one's own work. Words such as obligation and responsibility are used by the post-er above. These all speak of motive. However, as I shared, love's motive is not for the benefit of the person loving, but rather the person being loved. The wonderful blessing we have is that which we have received by faith...including the fruit of the spirit: love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self control...."against such there is no law". And it is called fruit because it goes out from us and provides a wonderful blessing for others.

Sorry, but you’ve totally misinterpreted my statements and have over-stepped your bounds by attempting to judge the thoughts and intent in my heart (Rom. 14:4) regarding my decision to honor God’s Law re keeping the Sabbath holy.
The “blessing” I receive of God through my obedience is merely an ancillary benefit, NOT the prime or even secondary personal consideration. As in the obedience of another commandment, e.g., “Thou shalt not bear false witness.” One may certainly receive the “blessing” of a clear conscience by telling the truth in a court of law but it is hardly the principal motivating factor in why we choose to tell the truth. We obey this (and all commands of God) simply, because we believe in our hearts that it is ‘the right and just thing to do’.

The biggest change I have seen between the covenants from our perspective of works, is the motive for what we do. We no longer need to do anything to "get" anything from God. All things that come to us from Him are freely given ( Rom.8:32, 1Cor.2:12). We love Him because He first loved us. But the thing that He gave us that pertains to this thread....is REST. Unlike the old covenant where this rest must be taken, in the new it is given. It is something we enter into. And the author of Hebrews called it His rest.

One truth that non-Sabbath keepers habitually fail to recognize is, that though REST is, without a doubt, a key component of the fourth commandment the Sabbath has a number of other important facets.

1. Abstention from work
2. Abstain from buying or selling
3. Refrainment from our own pleasures
4. Attention to the worship & service of God
5. Aspiration of spiritual pursuits instead of carnal preoccupations
6. A weekly test of our faithfulness & obedience
7. A sign to unbelievers, etc.

So, my point was and is that I am not missing out on a wonderful blessing. I am appropriating the blessing that is promised, not the one I must gain through my own works. I have ceased from my own works.

It is also true that all believers ‘in Christ’ can receive gifts and blessings from God, however, the measure or degree of blessing/reward is solely at the Father’s administrative discretion. (Luke 19:13-25) (Mat. 25:28) (1Cor. 15:42) Each believer’s fruit also varies considerably. (Mat.13:23) You can claim all you want but God does not bound to jump at our commands. The ‘say it and claim it’ Word of Faith ministers have sadly put the cart before the horse. It is the servants duty to obey the Master, NOT the other way ‘round.

Greetings, James. I have a little time and would like to answer James F. prior quote:

“There is a real danger in basing a major doctrine or asking “true or false?” on ONE PASSAGE OF SCRIPTURE. And you’ve already majorly contradicted yourself in the above paragraph by saying, Paul says all the law is fulfilled in ONE word (or commandment) and then saying that “Jesus gave TWO commandments. So which is it , Howie, ONE or TWO commandments? Or is it TEN? Maybe, 640 as the Jews believe? “

I really don't see "danger" in asking if a passage is true or false.

Notice that I didn’t say the danger was in simply asking a T/F question but “basing a major doctrine or asking someone to say “true or false?” on ONE PASSAGE OF SCRIPTURE” alone. Can you see the not so subtle distinction I’m making here? Major doctrines, such as, whether or not one of the Ten Commandments are still relative to modern Christians, should be based on more substantial scriptural evidence than one verse, from one apostle speaking primarily to biblically illiterate pagans or derived by asking someone a simple T/F inquiry.

However, in relation to the apparent contradiction, May I just reply by clarifying the difference between the two passages? In the new covenant, we come to Jesus by faith. Therefore it stands to reason that this is a command from Him. However, why do we suddenly regard a command as a law?

If you put the suffix “ment” after the word “command” you get the word “commandment” which is a de facto definition of LAW. And IMO, it would behoove all Christians to pay close attention to every one of Jesus’ “commands”especially those which are oft-repeated in the NT.

Paul said that all the law is fulfilled in one word; love your neighbour. This is one of the commandments mentioned by John. These are two different texts by two different people. John made no mention of any fulfillment of law in the passage at hand. But if a person has 'law on the brain', then I can see how John's statement can be construed as law. What he said is what he said. What Paul said is what Paul said. If there is contradiction, (which there isn't), why point the finger at me? They said what they said. Paul did not say that Jesus gave only one commandment. He merely stated how the law is fulfilled.

OK, but you also needn’t label your opposition as legalists or judaizers simply because their understanding of God’s law differs from your's or your interpretation of what the Apostle Paul is popularly believe to state re law.

As well, how in the world can we accept that John (1John 3:23) was merely summarizing or generalizing the ten commandments? Is faith in Jesus one of those commandments? NO! This is something new. In regards to Gal.5:14, Paul did not say he was summarizing or generalizing the law. His wording was clear. Love is the fulfillment of the law.

We are really not that far from agreement on this point. I think it is largely a matter of differing personal perceptions on the same concept. It is my understanding (which I’ve already stated in several previous posts – apologies to more thorough readers) that the Ten Commandments CAN be separated into TWO major categories. Commandments #1-4 state our primary obligation to God while #5-10 deal with our relations with our fellow man. Hence why Jesus, John and Paul were correct in stating that Love toward God and love to our fellow man can codify our complete legal obligations.

But this brings about the argument that we are not loving God properly if we are not obeying the first four of the 'ten'. However...Why are we bringing this rule of thumb into the new covenant? I suppose if one has already concluded that the ten are part of the new covenant, then the rule of thumb becomes an automaitc (sic) reasoning. This is an example of what we call circular reasoning. In a debate about determining whether or not the ten commandments have a part in the new covenant, one cannot use the ten commandments themselves as part of their argument. How we show love for God in the new covenant is not a matter of opinion. It is clearly stated in the new testament, that we show love for Him through our treatment and love of others. eg: " inasmuch as you did it to the least of these, you did it to Me".

One important aspect your argument lacks is missing is the fact that EVERY ONE of the Ten Commandments are RESTATED in the New Testament which verifies their eternal nature. And you are also flagrantly forgetting to mention a multitude other “commandments” that are mentioned in the NT that have little or no relation to ‘love of our neighbors’ (Acts 15:20-24) (Acts 15:28-29) (Acts 21:25) (1Cor. 14:34) (1Tim 2:11-12) (1Cor. 11:5-6), etc. So it seems I’m not the only one guilty of “generalizing” about God’s Law.

In John 13:34, Jesus gave a new commandment to them; that they love one another. So tell me, how is this new? What is new about it? And in John 15:10-12, this is what we find..." 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 thngs (sic) I have spoken to you, that My joy may remain in you and that your joy may be full. This is My commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you".

Because Jesus gives a “new” commandment why would you assume that that would nullify all of His Father’s previous commandments? Especially, when the same Jesus said in various versions that:

Mat 5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. –KJV

(MSG) God's Law is more real and lasting than the stars in the sky and the ground at your feet. Long after stars burn out and earth wears out, God's Law will be alive and working.

(NAS77) "For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass away from the Law, until all is accomplished."

(NASB) "For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished."

(NIVUK) I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.

One thing that is sure, the word commandment is used often. It in simple words, simply means a command, or an order from authority. Jesus gave orders, or instructions. His Father did the same to Him. Do you really think His Father's commandments to Jesus were those that were written on the tablets? There is no guessing as to what Jesus commanded them/us. It is written down. But show me a new testament example of a command to keep the Sabbath day (Saturday) holy.

I’ll do you even better. Here are ALL Ten Commandments restated in the NT

THE TEN COMMANDMENTS IN THE NT
1st. - Eph_4:6; Mat_4:10
2nd. Rom_1:25 1Co_10:14 1Jo_5:21
3rd. - Jam_5:12 Mat_5:34-35
4th. - Luk_23:56 Mar_2:28 Heb_3:11-19 - Heb_4:1-11
5th. - Eph_6:1-2 Col_3:20
6th. - 1Jo_3:15 Mat_5:21
7th. - Heb_13:4 Mat_5:27-28
8th. - Rom_2:21 Eph_4:28
9th. - Col_3:9 Eph_4:25 2Ti_3:3
10th. - Eph_5:3 Col_3:5.

The real onus of responsibility resides with YOU and your anti-nomianists friends to prove that any of the above commandments have been annulled. So far you’ve only supplied a few ambiguous Pauline references and some sweeping generalizations regarding “love”. Not very substantial evidence IMO to scrap a commandment etched in stone by the finger of God and which Jesus prophesied would be in effect and applicable to His disciples some 30+ years AFTER His death and resurrection. (Mat. 24:20)

Just because our marching orders are called commandments, as was Jesus' from His Father, how do we move from that into the assumption that it speaks of that which came down from Mount Sinai? Paul told the Galatians that the covenant that came down from that mountain gives birth to bondage (4:24). As well you know, and no doubt have answered..that the ministry of death and condemnation was that which was written and engraved on stones. Paul referred to that as the 'letter' which kills (2Cor.3 5-9). Keep in mind that he knew full well and even no doubt previously taught that the law itself when it was given and administered, was considered a potential blessing, which is the present argument still being used as a motive for keeping the law.

And Jesus also gave His disciples some stern warning about breaking and teaching against any one of His Father’s commandments:

Mat 5:19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

So the choice is yours. Do you pick the broad defined by Paul and the “love crowd” or walk the narrow road obediently following in Jesus’ footsteps?

There was an obvious change in his thinking.

Or, the apostle Paul suddenly came to the realization that his message was more suited to biblically illiterate Romans, Galatians and Corinthian, etc., Gentiles instead of Israelite Christian believers fully knowledgeable in God’s Law.

All the blessing of the law now comes to us through faith in Christ, and all of the curse of the law is removed from us through faith in Christ. For...

"Christ is the end of the law for righteousness for all who believe" (Rom.10:4). The truth is that all the joy and peace offered up by God into our hearts can come to us and has come to us through His promise of the Holy Spirit. I can testify that this is my testimony. To me, it is going backwards to think that any further blessing can come into my heart by fulfilling an obligation to keep a law.

The “curse” of the Sabbath law has, indeed, been removed. No one is going to stone you to death for breaking the Sabbath. However, we still are not given license to make or bow before idols, blaspheme, murder, steal, commit adultery, bear false witness, covet or any of the other original Ten Commandments. Neither are we now permitted to fornicate, eat things strangled, drink blood or eat food dedicated to idols (read additional NT laws Acts 15:20 and elsewhere) which pertain even to Gentiles and were NOT written in stone tablets by the finger of God.

But I will reiterate. I fully believe that the fourth commandment is fulfilled in me at this very moment. To each his own.
grace and peace, Howie

That’s right, Howie, you are completely free to continue to follow the dictates of your heart in this matter. I’d just like you to realize that your scriptural proof texts are relatively weak for such a major doctrinal position and you are largely following Catholic tradition. There is also a continual stream of faithful Christian believers throughout history who honored BOTH the Saturday Sabbath as well as reverencing “the Lord’s day”.

The primitive Christians did keep the Sabbath of the Jews;...therefore the Christians, for a long time together, did keep their conventions upon the Sabbath, in which some portions of the law were read: and this continued till the time of the Laodicean council. [364 A.D.]" --"The Whole Works" of Jeremy Taylor, Vol. IX, p. 416 (R. Heber's Edition, Vol XII, p. 416).

"In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat thy bread."[15] But let every one of you keep the Sabbath after a spiritual manner, rejoicing in meditation on the law, not in relaxation of the body, admiring the work-manship of God, and not eating things prepared the day before, nor using lukewarm drinks, and walking within a prescribed space, nor finding delight in dancing and plaudits which have no sense in them.[1] And after the observance of the Sabbath, let every friend of Christ keep the Lord's Day as a festival, the resurrection-day, the queen and chief of all the days [of the week]." --Ignatius, Bishop of Syria circa 119AD

And many more early Christian instances of Sabbath observance throughout recorded Church history that I could list, if you’re interested. . .

There is also a prophecy of Isaiah that states that the Sabbath will also be observed in the world to come:

Isa 66:22-23 For as the new heavens and the new earth, which I will make, shall remain before me, saith the LORD, so shall your seed and your name remain. (23) And it shall come to pass, that from one new moon to another, and from one sabbath to another, shall all flesh come to worship before me, saith the LORD.

Peace be unto you, brother,

J.F.

 

[mark s]

Hi James,

I have some time this evening, I thought to reply to some things you've written.

While I appreciate that you did not intend to rile me, there is something I would like to clarify.

If we are to discuss/debate this, I want to have your agreement to not use ad hominem arguments. They do not advance your case, and they distract from the true discussion.

Statements such as that I am in rebellion, or am making excuses, or that I am wilfully ignoring Scripture, or these sorts of things, are arguments against the person (namely, myself) instead of the view.

Generally speaking, they often indicate that a speaker has forwarded assertions that are not able to be answered, so their opponent falls back on these sorts of logical fallacies, hoping that this will sufficiently distract from the validity of the assertions that were made.

I'm not saying this is what you were doing, I suspect it to have been innocent. But I would like your agreement on this point.

OK, that being said . . .

mark s, on 28 April 2012 - 11:52 AM, said:

Be it carpentry, stone masonry (as some say), of whatever, I expect that Jesus worked, but not on the Sabbath.

See, Mark, we can agree on some things! (though I've never heard of the stone masonry bit)

So then as you state we should follow Jesus' example, Jesus did not, we think, make the exception you state is OK as part of keeping the Sabbath.

mark s, on 28 April 2012 - 11:52 AM, said:

As we have liberty in Christ, I completely agree with you. We can decide for ourselves to keep a day of rest, and that can be any day we want. I simply say, if you are going to keep the Law, then it should be the Law that you keep. If you want to make changes, then recognize that you've changed it.

OK, no real argument here either. Just want to point out that God is also free to change His Laws especially those concerning the priesthood and sacrifice.

If God changes His Laws, that's one thing. But when you change His Laws, it means you are no longer following His Law, you follow your own.

You claim I pick and choose which laws to obey yet, I just don’t see sufficient ‘changes’ in the NT regarding the Sabbath to segregate its observance from the other nine commandments. Jesus certainly gave no indication that ANY of the Ten Commandments were to be rescinded.

This is non sequitor. You state that you don't see where the Sabbath can be severed from the rest of the 10 commandments. I'm saying that you can't make changes to God's Law and still call it God's Law.

I'm saying that there is more to the Law then the 10 commandments. Scripture doesn't sever the 10 commandments from the rest of the Law. The entire Law was the covenant between God and Israel. If they kept the 10 commandments, and did not keep the other parts of the Law, then they have broken the covenant, and were lawbreakers.

No, this was taking a year off from farming.

Then, I humbly stand corrected. Even the great and noble James Forthwright makes mistakes. We’re ALL learning through this discussion and I hope it’s been mutually beneficial to all the readers as well. I’ll do some further study on this but as far I can see this sabbatical year was directed only at farmers. Carpenters or stone masons, merchants, fishermen etc., would still work in the seventh year. Since neither of us are farmers, it appears that you’re looking for convenient solutions/excuses for not observing the seventh day Sabbath. Try it sometime, you just might enjoy it as much as I do.

While you may attempt to turn this to the accusation that I am "looking for convenient solutions/excuses", let's go back to what has actually transpired here.

Your assertion was that sometimes we had to work on the Sabbath if our job required it.

I refuted your assertion, citing that God gave extra harvests before the Sabbath year, just as He gave double manna before the Sabbath day. Certainly He could provide His people with work that enabled them to keep His Law, just as He had provided for them in ancient times.

You then argued that this commandment had only to do with proper agriculture, specifically land rotation. Your implication was that this should not be used as an example of God supernaturally providing for a complete cessation of work.

I offered as additional support the Scriptures that stated the entire idea of "what shall we eat when we aren't working our land?", and God's answer, that He would give a three year's harvest.

James, I'm not looking for excuses, that's a poor reply, and beneath us both. Let's have no more of that. I'm interested in the truth, that is all.

You said sometimes we have to work. I said no we don't. God will supply to enable to keep His Law. And I supported it with Scripture.

As for "trying a day of rest", you can trust me on this . . . I take days of rest from time to time. I make my wife join me, though she's a willing participant. We take a day, and we rest. No problem! But it's not some sort of "keeping the Sabbath".

mark s, on 28 April 2012 - 11:52 AM, said:

James, Casually Disregard is not a fair characterization here.

I don't mean to be harsh but just how does one properly characterize a Christian who doesn’t feel obligated to obey one of God’s commands? Why should a NT Christian bother to read the Old Testament if none of it pertains to them?

James, how should I characterize you? (Or even, should I?)

You accept that you do not tithe to the Levites, yet the Law requires it. The Law doesn't ask you if you think you should or should not give tithes to Levy. It says that if you do, God will bless you, make you rich rich rich, and if you don't, you will be poor.

Yet I don't consider that you "casually disregard" tithing to Levy.

James, are you building an ark? I don't mean to sound flippant. This is a serious question. Of course, the answer is No. You seem like a reasonable fellow, I'm sure you are not building an ark.

Why bother reading the story of the flood? I'll let you answer that question, and that will be my answer to your question.

mark s, on 28 April 2012 - 11:52 AM, said:

Do I not want to follow Jesus example? Of course not! Not in this regard! Jesus was attaining human righteousness by the perfect observance of God's covenant law with Israel. No way, my friend, that is not what I want to attempt. While of course Jesus was righteous from birth, it was by living a righteous human life that He established the righteousness that He would then impute to me.

Once again, I’m not talking about attaining righteousness through Sabbath observance, just obeying the Fourth Commandment in the same manner as we instinctively do the other nine and as did the First Century disciples.

You were talking about following Jesus' example. That was Jesus example. To keep the whole Law - not just the 10 commandments - to attain human righteousness under the Law. If you want to follow Jesus' example, that's what it was.

And again, your presupposition is that we "instictively obey the rest of the 10 commandments". Again, I reply, you cannot, with Scriptural authority, sever part of the Law from the rest of it. Furthermore, not murdering, and keeping the commandment to not murder, while looking similar, are not in fact the same thing.

For the New Covenant child of God, what you would call "not murdering", is in fact, "loving others", and has nothing to do with the commandment prohibiting murder. In fact, you need not tell me whether there is or is not a commandment prohibiting murder. I'm not going to kill regardless.

And even if I do - God forbid - I am wrong not because I've violated a commandment prohibiting murder, I'm wrong because I did not live love.

So your presupposition that we are all "Law-Keepers" anyway is false, fails to correctly present the life of the New Covenant child of God.

mark s, on 28 April 2012 - 11:52 AM, said:


But even so, and as I've prevously written, the 10 commandments, as well as the rest of the Mosaic Law, were a covenant made between God and Israel. I am a gentile. Even were I a Jew, that covenant was fulfilled on my behalf by Christ. I am under a New Covenant.

All of the tenets of the Old Covenant were NOT made null and void by crucifixion and resurrection of Christ especially the Ten Commandments. Jesus affirmed the Ten Commandments and never hinted at their removal til heaven and earth are passed away.

Mat 5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

Yes - the Law still exists, and the wicked will be judged by it.

However, we have died to the Law. It does not govern us. See Romans 6&7, among others, already listed.

James earlier posted:

Fine then, follow the dictates of your heart. I’m not commanding you to do anything. However, if ever in your Biblical studies you come to the realization of exactly whom constitutes “Israel” you may find yourself making some changes to your spiritual walk, just as I did.

mark s, on 28 April 2012 - 11:52 AM, said:

Ah, Spiritual Israel. "the Israel of God."

Whether spiritual or genetic in origin, Israel’s true identity is a very profound revelation and I don’t expect anyone to grasp it on the first hearing. There are other threads that delve into this teaching. Seek and ye shall find. . .

Yes, the hidden mysteries! Too deep for someone like me, who's only given the Bible a quick glance, eh?

How many years have I studied these things, my friend? How many years have I been a Christian? How many hours and days and months have I spent searching the Scriptures, studying the culture, the language, the various interpretations?

Do you know?

A very profound revelation . . . the identity of Israel? A mystery black box that says your are right and I am wrong because you've received such profound revelation? If I understood this, I'd swing right around to your point of view. Hmmmm.

mark s, on 28 April 2012 - 11:52 AM, said:

There's a whole 'nother discussion! But as for the fruits, I'm not sure why we're suddenly talking about false prophets.

Fruit can either be bad or good. Why do you selectively associate bearing fruit with false prophets? Could it be that you’ve been psychologically programmed from the pulpit to correlate the two?

Mat 7:17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.
Mat 7:18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.

This is another of those ad hominem arguments. Claiming "selective association" in this way is pretty much the same as saying "intellectually dishonest". "Psychologically programmed"? Or perhaps just remembering the passage you are referencing.

Who did Jesus teach that you would know by their fruits? Let's look:

Matthew 7:15-20 NKJV
(15) "Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves.
(16) You will know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes from thornbushes or figs from thistles?
(17) Even so, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit.
(18) A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit.
(19) Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.
(20) Therefore by their fruits you will know them.


OK . . . that's about all I can do right now, perhaps I'll continue my reply later, as time permits.

Love in Christ,
Mark

PS . . . Actually, after this part of your post, you pretty much wrap it up with your thoughts on Paul's writings.

I accept Paul's letters as inspired Scripture - the Word of God. Do you?

Answer this question with a simply Yes or No, please, and we can procede.