Monday, August 10, 2009
Back in the good "Old Age," we enjoyed home delivery of our beloved Detroit News and /or Detroit Free Press newspapers. That, regrettably, is no longer the case. If we want it we must pick up copies at the dwindling news stand suppliers. Today, I managed to get the last copy before the local IHOP (International House of Pancakes) in my law practice neighborhood. It was the dual ugly headline that caught my eye. The headline convergences may have been accidental, or it may have been from a page arranging employee who wished to send a broader message. These were the side by side headlines that proved to be for two separate stories:
"The Transportation Security Administration wants to know more about who's boarding commercial flights in the United States."Beginning Saturday [August 15], the federal agency will begin collecting additional data from airline passengers at booking time, including [not limited to?] full name, date of birth and gender."That data must match whatever is on the form of government-issued identification . . ."The new requirement will affect all airline bookings made beginning Aug. 15 and is just the first phase of a larger program called Secure Flight.""That program's goal is to vet 100 percent of airline passengers through the TSA's watch lists by next year . . ."
His personality can be a bit much and I know it is strong, however, his personality is probably the very reason he is still standing and fighting the nwo, most men would have quit long ago.
The agenda appears to be every bit as dark, insidious and real as he has been proclaiming from the mountain tops.
I have heard him say more than once, he isn't a prophet or smarter than anyone else, he just knows how to read and has bothered to do so, he understands what we're up against like few people.
Political Uproar Expected Over New EU Secrecy Code
This was from the year 2000 not all that long after Javier Solana had introduced Recommendation 666. Herb Peters and I had many long conversations about it. It is included material on my CD presentation which is now available for downloading from "Presentations for Downloading" to the right of my blog articles.
I am very happy to have the link to the New York Times article. I had not previously seen that. My material that was on my disk was from Statewatch, the European civil rights watching agency located in England.
"By using inkjet and other types of printers, the company plans to make radio frequency identification devices — so called RFID tags."
"In Giberson's view, the magesteria of science and religion should and do overlap. Along with Falk and Francis Collins, former director of the National Human Genome Research Institute, Giberson believes that the study of nature is the study of God's handiwork.
“We are calling on Christians to reject intelligent design and creationism,” Giberson said.
The trio hopes that a new Web site, biologos.org, will spread that word. The site's test version includes a photo of Collins and strikingly similar photos of a stained-glass window and a long axis of DNA."
We visited a local Nazarene church for a while about 3+ years ago. The pastor was actually a professor over at the Nazarene University. Over the summer he did a Q &A series. On the most asked questions.
The title of the first one was, "Adam and Eve real or just a story"
The way he presented the information he painted anyone who believes in a literal six day creation as stupid. Part of his presentation to do this was to say that the six day creation was something he believed before, when he was young. Then he learned better.
In another part of his sermon, he said, "let me give those who are over here (meaning six day believers) promission to come over here (Theositic Evolution -- which isn't a far reach to Evolution itself)."
Then he also said that part of his charge was to help bring the church together on things and not to divide the church.
If you look at the Nazarene Church by laws, it says something about having room for everyone.
I presented you with some verses from Scripture. What I'm suggesting is that yes, there are groups that have misused the verses from Ezekiel, Jeremiah, Isaiah, etc. nonetheless, these verses in the Bible have a meaning.
I have not heard anyone offer a viable interpretation to these verses, other than the one I have provided. My interpretation doesn't correspond with any British identity groups. I've never mentioned the British in any of my interpretation. Scripture interprets Scripture and this is what I've presented.
Here are the facts:
1. the Northern and Southern Kingdoms were divided after Solomon's death.
2.The Northern Kingdom went into Assyrian exile and didn't return
3. Southern kingdom several hundred years later went into Babylonian exile and did return partially.
4. God says that at some future time these two kingdoms will be reunited.
5. There is no time in history, where corporately, these two kingdoms have be reunited, but Ezekiel says they will be united and live in peace once more under a davidic king.. I'll leave all of you to decide who this davidic king is...
There are more facets to this, but I will keep it simple right now.
The Orthodox Jews believe the 10 tribes will come back and even have people who go and try to find them.
Some believe they will never come back, but don't have an explanations for the numerous verses that say they will.
British Israelism, a racist theory says that the David's line is continued in the European monarchies. This is FALSE in my opinion. I believe that the "sceptre not departing from Judah" Gen 39 was fulfilled in Yeshua. They have some long convoluted legend about Jeremiah going to Ireland and anointing Jacob's stone. I DO NOT, I emphasize, DO NOT believe this, nor have I ever said anything about the British. That is more likely to be part of a deception that could give rise to a false messiah from European monarchy... ( at least a possibility) .
Here are several more verses in addition to those I have provided which confirm Ezekiel 37.
Zech. 10:6-9 “I will astrengthen the house of Judah,
And I will save the house of Joseph,
And I will bring them back,
Because I have had compassion on them;
And they will be as though I had enot rejected them,
For I am the LORD their God and I will answer them.
“Ephraim will be like a mighty man,
And their heart will be glad as if from wine;
Indeed, their children will see it and be glad,
Their heart will rejoice in the LORD.
“I will whistle for them to gather them together,
For I have redeemed them;
And they will be as numerous as they 1cwere before. “When I scatter them among the peoples,
They will remember Me in far countries,
And they with their children will live and come back.
I especially like this verse in light of all the arguments about land in the Land of Israel:
Zech. 10:10 “I will bring them back from the land of Egypt And gather them from Assyria;
And I will bring them into the land of Gilead and Lebanon Until no room can be found for them.
Either God will accomplish His Word or He won't. I just take His Word in faith and believe what He says even if it runs contrary to human logic.. He's God, and He's able.
Rev. 16:2 So the first angel went and poured out his bowl on the earth; and it became a loathsome and malignant bsore on the 2people cwho had the mark of the beast and who worshiped his image.
Rev. 19:20 And the beast was seized, and with him the false prophet who bperformed the signs in his presence, by which he deceived those who had received the mark of the beast and those who worshiped his image; these two were thrown alive into the lake of hfire which burns with brimstone.
This is a good reason to have the "seal of God":
Rev. 12:17 So the dragon was enraged with the woman, and went off to make war with the rest of her children, who ckeep the commandments of God and hold to the testimony of Jesus.
There are 2 elements to this "seal" the testimony of Yeshua, and the keeping of His Commandments which are from Torah.. Some might lose their life for following Him:
Rev. 20:4 Then I saw thrones, and bthey sat on them, and cjudgment was given to them. And I saw dthe souls of those who had been beheaded because of their testimony of Jesus and because of the word of God, and those who had not fworshiped the beast or his image, and had not received the mark on their forehead and on their hand; and they came to life and reigned with Christ for a thousand years.
Rev. 9:4 They were told not to ahurt the grass of the earth, nor any green thing, nor any tree, but only the men who do not have the seal of God on their foreheads.
Now look at what Isaiah said:
Is. 8:13 “It is the LORD of hosts whom you should regard as holy.
And He shall be your fear,
And He shall be your dread.
Is. 8:14 “Then He shall become a sanctuary;
But to both the houses of Israel, a stone to strike and a rock to stumble over,
And a snare and a trap for the inhabitants of Jerusalem.
Is. 8:15 “Many will stumble over them,
Then they will fall and be broken;
They will even be snared and caught.”
Is. 8:16 Bind up the testimony, seal the law among my disciples.
1Pet. 2:7 This precious value, then, is for you who believe; but for those who disbelieve,
“THE STONE WHICH THE BUILDERS REJECTED,
THIS BECAME THE VERY CORNER stone,”
1Pet. 2:8 and,
“A STONE OF STUMBLING AND A ROCK OF OFFENSE”;
for they stumble because they are disobedient to the word, and to this doom they were also appointed.
Yeshua, the Living Torah, and His commandments is our seal..which will protect us from the "mark of the beast" but it might get rough out there..
Retired Army Chaplain James Linzey will join me tonight. He has taken some accusations, which I having known him over the past 10 years consider most unfair. We will discuss those and clear the air on them tonight. He was a chaplain in the military and has taken real vilification from those seeking to stifle all Christian religious expression in the military.
I agree with you.
There's no debate ( I don't think ), about your
basic historical sequence of events.
What's the problem, I wonder ?
Is there some debate that all the Northern tribes went into Assyrian exile ? No.
Is there some debate that the southern tribes of Judah and Benjamin,( known as the Jews, as on the sign over Jesus' head when they crucified him, which said "King of the Jews" ) went into exile under the Babylonians ? What's the problem ?
God has said through his Prophets that he's going to reunite them and I believe he will too.
Joyce did you notice that the tribe of Dan is not there in the list of tribes in Revelations 7 ?
In Genesis 49 Jacob is giving each of his sons their respective blessing. Here's what Jacob said about Dan, his seventh son:
"16. Dan shall judge his people, as one of the tribes of Israel.
17 Dan shall be a serpent by the way, an adder in the path, that bites the horses heels, so that his rider shall fall backward.
18 I have waited for thy salvation, O Lord.
Dan originally inherited a substantial portion of the the seacoast land along the Med. But Dan chafed under the bounderies that he was given. His tribe became a seafaring tribe. They migrated up to the north, beyond Naphtali, where the tribes of Israel were originally settled. Dan took land from the Syrians.
Some people believe that Dan also launched out to the north as far as the British Isles and beyond, and that Dan is the tribe that settled in Ireland and England and gave place-names all over Europe to Denmark and the Danube river and many other places.
If that's true, then it might explain this British Israelism, which you are falsely accused of. Because there is indeed a British/ Israel connection in the family of the Rothschilds, if nowhere else.
I don't accuse you of that, though. I know I'm not a British Israelist, either. Everything you've written, it seems to me, is basic Bible and basic well known history.
I'm not trying to "blend" anything.
Christians should really consider that to "Love the Lord AND keep his commandments" is all through the New Testamant too. Christians should consider that it was the Roman emporer Constantine, not God, who declared Sunday the new Sabbath. God never changed his law. I am trying to observe the Sabbath now that I've considered these things. It turns out to be an incredible blessing.
But I'm not trying to blend anything.
I'm an adopted child of Abraham according to the Word of God.
That's what really peeves some people.
_Oh Danny Boy, The pipes, the pipes are calling,
From glen to glen and down the mountainside...
In the book Ulyssees, by James Joyce,
Bloom is talking with a man who informs him that "Ireland has never had a problem with the Jews,
because they have never let them in."
Not to break ranks here but I believe Harry and/ or William may be a better fit for the coming A.C.
They're both steeped in the occult beliefs of their father and their dynasty.
Dan doesn't receive any real blessing from Jacob.
He's a userper and an anti-Christ.
We must bear in mind that as a Prophet, Ezekiel's style was symbolic, apocalyptic and often obscure.
This is especially true when he was describing the heavenly things of his vision in earthly terms which would have certainly been crude in comparison to the wondrous splendors he actually saw in his prophetic vision.
Moreover,( and I am speaking as a Christian here, and not as a follower of Judaism ) as Christians, we cannot consider Ezekiel's prophecies or any other prophecies apart from Jesus Christ.
When Pontius Pilate asked Jesus "Are you the king of the Jews?" before handing Jesus over to be crucified Jesus not only admitted to Pilate that He was, but also declared "My kingdom is not of this world."
Therefore, it is not unreasonable to infer that the kingdom of Israel referred to by Ezekiel is not likely to have been the earthly kingdom of Israel, but rather the final heavenly kingdom of Israel with its "new Jerusalem" under the rule of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ who is a Davidic King.
The Northern and Southern kingdoms will certainly be reunited there in peace.
To my knowledge, there is nowhere in the Bible where an exclusively literal interpretation of any of the prophetic Old Testament - or even New Testament - Books of the Bible is mandated.
This is where a lot of dangerous, un-Biblical misinterpretations of Holy Writ originate.
I know I said I would not post again, and so I lied, and I did trash you in the last post, which of course, still stands.
However, I thought it was very nice of you to mention and commend Eunice Shriver and her creation of the Special Olympics.
You get 10 bonus points with me for that.
She was a very kind and compassionate woman who I had the pleasure of meeting once. She was a great and understated presence in a room.
I will give you one God Bless You for that.
Bloom is talking with a man who informs him that "Ireland has never had a problem with the Jews,
because they have never let them in."
The insufferable Mr Deasy was talking to Stephen, not to Bloom:
Mr Deasy halted, breathing hard and swallowing his breath.
--I just wanted to say, he said. Ireland, they say, has the honour of being the only country which never persectued the jews. Do you know that? No. And do you know why?
He frowned sternly on the bright air.
--Why, sir? Stephen asked, beginning to smile.
--Because she never let them in, Mr Deasy said solemnly.
Ulysses is a great novel, perhaps the greatest in the English language.
You should read it sometime.
4-5 August 2009, Tehran
”Thema: Society and government which prepare the ground of the appearance:
Missions and strategies”
“Peace be upon the spring of creation and the delight of era.”
1. Preparing the ground for the appearance of the savior; the main responsibility for those who await him.
2. The Savior and preparing the ground for his appearance (the savior’s management in age of occultation and his role in controlling the world's affairs )
3. Forms of preparing the ground in different eras and periods
4. Society and preparing the ground for the appearance (analysis of the world's current situation)
5. Governments and preparation the ground (evaluation of governments in occultation age)
6. The Islamic Republic and preparing the ground
Missions and strategies
1. Cultural missions and strategies
2. Social missions and strategies
3. Political missions and strategies
4. Economic missions and strategies
Opportunities and threats
1. The waiting society, its challenges and crises
2. Information and technology: threat or opportunity
3. The waiting society, the oppressed people of the world, and justice seeking movements
4. The waiting society and globalization
5. Unjust governments and international systems: threat or opportunity
6. Confrontation with world arrogance
Of particular interest to me is a paper entitled:
“Belial, Antichrist, and Dajjal: Personification of Lawlessness in Abrahamic Eschatology; Signs to the Rightly Guided World”
by H.R Wright
Source : scientific committee of the international Mahdism doctrine conference
This paper lays out a comparison of the Jewish, Christian, and Moslem perspectives re the appearance or, reappearance, of the Mahdi, Messiah (messiah), Christ (christ), World Savior (server). It’s worth a look even though obviously slanted towards the Islamic perspective. The paper concludes with the following statement:
“Our participation becomes a bright and shining sign of the preparation of the rightly guided world.”
“~Wa’Llahu a’lam: And Allah knows best.”
Some religious organizations (Seventh-Day Adventists, Seventh-Day Baptists, and certain others) claim that Christians must not worship on Sunday but on Saturday, the Jewish Sabbath.
They claim that, at some unnamed time after the apostolic age, the Church "changed" the day of worship from Saturday to Sunday.
However, passages of Scripture such as Acts 20:7, 1 Corinthians 16:2, Colossians 2:16-17, and Revelation 1:10 indicate that, even during New Testament times, the Sabbath is no longer binding and that Christians are to worship on the Lord’s day, Sunday, instead.
The early Church Fathers compared the observance of the Sabbath to the observance of the rite of circumcision, and from that they demonstrated that if the apostles abolished circumcision (Gal. 5:1-6), so also the observance of the Sabbath must have been abolished. The following quotations show that the first Christians understood this principle and gathered for worship on Sunday.
"But every Lord’s day . . . gather yourselves together and break bread, and give thanksgiving after having confessed your transgressions, that your sacrifice may be pure. But let no one that is at variance with his fellow come together with you, until they be reconciled, that your sacrifice may not be profaned" (Didache 14 [A.D. 70]).
The Letter of Barnabas
"We keep the eighth day [Sunday] with joyfulness, the day also on which Jesus rose again from the dead" (Letter of Barnabas 15:6–8 [A.D. 74]).
Ignatius of Antioch
"[T]hose who were brought up in the ancient order of things [i.e. Jews] have come to the possession of a new hope, no longer observing the Sabbath, but living in the observance of the Lord’s day, on which also our life has sprung up again by him and by his death" (Letter to the Magnesians 8 [A.D. 110]).
"[W]e too would observe the fleshly circumcision, and the Sabbaths, and in short all the feasts, if we did not know for what reason they were enjoined [on] you—namely, on account of your transgressions and the hardness of your heart. . . . [H]ow is it, Trypho, that we would not observe those rites which do not harm us—I speak of fleshly circumcision and Sabbaths and feasts? . . . God enjoined you to keep the Sabbath, and imposed on you other precepts for a sign, as I have already said, on account of your unrighteousness and that of your fathers . . ." (Dialogue with Trypho the Jew 18, 21 [A.D. 155]).
"But Sunday is the day on which we all hold our common assembly, because it is the first day on which God, having wrought a change in the darkness and matter, made the world; and Jesus Christ our Savior on the same day rose from the dead" (First Apology 67 [A.D. 155]).
"[L]et him who contends that the Sabbath is still to be observed as a balm of salvation, and circumcision on the eighth day . . . teach us that, for the time past, righteous men kept the Sabbath or practiced circumcision, and were thus rendered ‘friends of God.’ For if circumcision purges a man, since God made Adam uncircumcised, why did he not circumcise him, even after his sinning, if circumcision purges? . . . Therefore, since God originated Adam uncircumcised and unobservant of the Sabbath, consequently his offspring also, Abel, offering him sacrifices, uncircumcised and unobservant of the Sabbath, was by him [God] commended [Gen. 4:1–7, Heb. 11:4]. . . . Noah also, uncircumcised—yes, and unobservant of the Sabbath—God freed from the deluge. For Enoch too, most righteous man, uncircumcised and unobservant of the Sabbath, he translated from this world, who did not first taste death in order that, being a candidate for eternal life, he might show us that we also may, without the burden of the law of Moses, please God" (An Answer to the Jews 2 [A.D. 203]).
"The apostles further appointed: On the first day of the week let there be service, and the reading of the holy scriptures, and the oblation [sacrifice of the Mass], because on the first day of the week [i.e., Sunday] our Lord rose from the place of the dead, and on the first day of the week he arose upon the world, and on the first day of the week he ascended up to heaven, and on the first day of the week he will appear at last with the angels of heaven" (Didascalia 2 [A.D. 225]).
"Hence it is not possible that the [day of] rest after the Sabbath should have come into existence from the seventh [day] of our God. On the contrary, it is our Savior who, after the pattern of his own rest, caused us to be made in the likeness of his death, and hence also of his resurrection" (Commentary on John 2:28 [A.D. 229]).
"The sixth day [Friday] is called parasceve, that is to say, the preparation of the kingdom. . . . On this day also, on account of the passion of the Lord Jesus Christ, we make either a station to God or a fast. On the seventh day he rested from all his works, and blessed it, and sanctified it. On the former day we are accustomed to fast rigorously, that on the Lord’s day we may go forth to our bread with giving of thanks. And let the parasceve become a rigorous fast, lest we should appear to observe any Sabbath with the Jews . . . which Sabbath he [Christ] in his body abolished" (The Creation of the World [A.D. 300]).
Eusebius of Caesarea
"They [the early saints of the Old Testament] did not care about circumcision of the body, neither do we [Christians]. They did not care about observing Sabbaths, nor do we. They did not avoid certain kinds of food, neither did they regard the other distinctions which Moses first delivered to their posterity to be observed as symbols; nor do Christians of the present day do such things" (Church History 1:4:8 [A.D. 312]).
"[T]he day of his [Christ’s] light . . . was the day of his resurrection from the dead, which they say, as being the one and only truly holy day and the Lord’s day, is better than any number of days as we ordinarily understand them, and better than the days set apart by the Mosaic law for feasts, new moons, and Sabbaths, which the apostle [Paul] teaches are the shadow of days and not days in reality" (Proof of the Gospel 4:16:186 [A.D. 319]).
"The Sabbath was the end of the first creation, the Lord’s day was the beginning of the second, in which he renewed and restored the old in the same way as he prescribed that they should formerly observe the Sabbath as a memorial of the end of the first things, so we honor the Lord’s day as being the memorial of the new creation" (On Sabbath and Circumcision 3 [A.D. 345]).
Cyril of Jerusalem
"Fall not away either into the sect of the Samaritans or into Judaism, for Jesus Christ has henceforth ransomed you. Stand aloof from all observance of Sabbaths and from calling any indifferent meats common or unclean" (Catechetical Lectures 4:37 [A.D. 350]).
Council of Laodicea
"Christians should not Judaize and should not be idle on the Sabbath, but should work on that day; they should, however, particularly reverence the Lord’s day and, if possible, not work on it, because they were Christians" (Canon 29 [A.D. 360]).
"[W]hen he [God] said, ‘You shall not kill’ . . . he did not add, ‘because murder is a wicked thing.’ The reason was that conscience had taught this beforehand, and he speaks thus, as to those who know and understand the point. Wherefore when he speaks to us of another commandment, not known to us by the dictate of conscience, he not only prohibits, but adds the reason. When, for instance, he gave commandment concerning the Sabbath— ‘On the seventh day you shall do no work’—he subjoined also the reason for this cessation. What was this? ‘Because on the seventh day God rested from all his works which he had begun to make’ [Ex. 20:10-11]. . . . For what purpose then, I ask, did he add a reason respecting the Sabbath, but did no such thing in regard to murder? Because this commandment was not one of the leading ones. It was not one of those which were accurately defined of our conscience, but a kind of partial and temporary one, and for this reason it was abolished afterward. But those which are necessary and uphold our life are the following: ‘You shall not kill. . . . You shall not commit adultery. . . . You shall not steal.’ On this account he adds no reason in this case, nor enters into any instruction on the matter, but is content with the bare prohibition" (Homilies on the Statutes 12:9 [A.D. 387]).
"You have put on Christ, you have become a member of the Lord and been enrolled in the heavenly city, and you still grovel in the law [of Moses]? How is it possible for you to obtain the kingdom? Listen to Paul’s words, that the observance of the law overthrows the gospel, and learn, if you will, how this comes to pass, and tremble, and shun this pitfall. Why do you keep the Sabbath and fast with the Jews?" (Homilies on Galatians 2:17 [A.D. 395]).
"The rite of circumcision was venerable in the Jews’ account, forasmuch as the law itself gave way thereto, and the Sabbath was less esteemed than circumcision. For that circumcision might be performed, the Sabbath was broken; but that the Sabbath might be kept, circumcision was never broken; and mark, I pray, the dispensation of God. This is found to be even more solemn than the Sabbath, as not being omitted at certain times. When then it is done away, much more is the Sabbath" (Homilies on Philippians 10 [A.D. 402]).
This is true. I once had the great pleasure of seeing manuscript pages of Finnegan's Wake in the British Museum, with scribbles, lines and pen scrawled changes by Joyce, and then proceeding up the street to to the pub "Finnegan's Wake" to become besotted.
Ulyssees is a great parody (in the sense of following the format of and alluding to, the Mass). In and of itself, studying it in this context can help one become familiar with the intrinsic Christian ceremony of the Mass.
The Apostolic Constitutions
"And on the day of our Lord’s resurrection, which is the Lord’s day, meet more diligently, sending praise to God that made the universe by Jesus, and sent him to us, and condescended to let him suffer, and raised him from the dead. Otherwise what apology will he make to God who does not assemble on that day . . . in which is performed the reading of the prophets, the preaching of the gospel, the oblation of the sacrifice, the gift of the holy food" (Apostolic Constitutions 2:7:60 [A.D. 400]).
"Well, now, I should like to be told what there is in these ten commandments, except the observance of the Sabbath, which ought not to be kept by a Christian. . . . Which of these commandments would anyone say that the Christian ought not to keep? It is possible to contend that it is not the law which was written on those two tables that the apostle [Paul] describes as ‘the letter that kills’ [2 Cor. 3:6], but the law of circumcision and the other sacred rites which are now abolished" (The Spirit and the Letter 24 [A.D. 412]).
So if anyone wants to worship the Lord on Saturday instead of Sunday, fine and dandy. I don't think the roof of the church will cave in on whoever does so.
But you might want to think about ditching the "Constantine changed the sabbath" justification because there is too much documentary evidence to show that Christians worshipped on sunday from Apostolic times.
Like many apostates, you have good instincts about literature.
'Tis a pity these do not extend to religion.
Horn of a bull, hoof of a horse, smile of a Pagan.
Susanna used several messages to prove that Christians observed the first day of the week as their holy day, instead of the seventh, even in New Testament times.
It was very interesting and informative though a much simpler justification is in the Jewish Bible; the Tanakh itself.
When folks talk of the God-given accuracy of the bible, one of the things that impresses me is the verse:
The Lord spoke to Moses, saying, "Speak to the children of Israel, and say: 'Nevertheless you shall keep My sabbaths, for this is a sign *between Me and you* forever, that you may know that I, the Lord, have consecrated you (Ex. 31:12-13)."
So the seventh-day commandment is seen to be exclusively for Jews. The Exodus verses are not only a commandment but also prophecy since Christians chose the first day, and Muslims the sixth, as their holy days.
The New Agers hate Constantine, just about all Protestant denominations have expressed at one time or another dislike for Constantine, yet this we should and must consider:
Up until Constantine, it was perfectly legal to crucify and otherwise kill and injure Christians. After Constantine, they no longer needed to hide out in catacombs.
For that reason and considering his devout mother, if no other, I do not join in the bashing of Constantine!
Constance (notice the similarity to "Constantine")
What I just wrote about the Sabbath applies also to circumcision. Circumcision is also a commandment just for Jews. (The New Testameent alludes to this by its sstatement that being circumcised obligates the person to obey the entire Torah.) Here are the verses:
Gen. 17:9 And God said to Abraham, "And you shall keep My covenant, you and your seed after you throughout their generations. 10 This is My covenant, which you shall observe between Me and between you and between your seed after you, that every male among you be circumcised. 11 And you shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin, and it shall be as the sign of a covenant between Me and between you. 12 And at the age of eight days, every male shall be circumcised to you throughout your generations, one that is born in the house, or one that is purchased with money, from any foreigner, who is not of your seed. 13 Those born in the house and those purchased for money shall be circumcised, and My covenant shall be in your flesh as an everlasting covenant. 14 And an uncircumcised male, who will not circumcise the flesh of his foreskin-that soul will be cut off from its people; he has broken My covenant."
That this commandment is eternal is confirmed by Ezekiel's discourse on the Third Temple:
"So said the Lord God: No alien of uncircumcised heart or of uncircumcised flesh may enter My Sanctuary, of any alien who is in the midst of the Children of Israel." (Ezek. 44:9)
Susanne wrote: "the kingdom of Israel referred to by Ezekiel is not likely to have been the earthly kingdom of Israel, but rather the final heavenly kingdom of Israel with its "new Jerusalem" under the rule of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ who is a Davidic King."
As Susanne said, she is writing as a Christian. This view brings to mind two discussions of Cristianity vis a vis Judaism: one by Rabbi Irving Greenberg and the other by the great Roman Catholic historian, Paul Johnson (in that order).
From "The Jewish Way," Pg.37, by Rabbi Irving Greenberg
"As the Exodus occurred in history, so will the Messianic age remain in history. This idea is in contrast to the development of Christian messianism. The early Christians experienced Jesus as the redeemer in their midst. Having experienced the Messiah's 'actual presence,' the Christians were tormented by the contradictions between his coming, which should have brought the Exodus for all, and the reality of a world still unredeemed. one way to resolve this was by denying --- . But for some the experience of his coming was too strong to deny. Another interpretation was then explored. --- the true messiah was not in the external physical world but in the internal spiritual world.--- Christians ended up changing the very notion of messianism. They translated the concept --- into a state of personal salvation, thus removing it from the realm of history. they were acting on the Jewish Exodus model but resolving its tensions in a manner that eventually turned them away from Judaism."
From: "History of the Jews," by Paul Johnson (Pg 144-5)
Writing of the original schism, Johnson said: "What [Jews] could not accept was the removal of the absolute distinction they had always drawn between God and man, because that was the essence of Jewish theology, the belief that above all others separated them from the pagans. By removing that distinction, the Christians took themselves irrevocably out of the Jewish faith.
"Moreover, they did so in a way that made antagonism ... inevitable, irreconcilable and bitter. The Jews could not concede the divinity of Jesus as God-made-man without repudiating the central tenet of their belief. The Christians could not concede that Jesus was anything less than God without repudiating the essence and purpose of their movement. If [Jesus] was not God, Christianity was nothing. If [Jesus] was God then Judaism was false. Their could be absolutely no compromise ... Each faith was thus a threat to the other.
"The quarrel was all the more bitter because ... the two faiths agreed on virtually everything else. The Christians took from Judaism the Pentateuch, the prophets and the wisdom books, ... the liturgy, for even the eucharist had Jewish roots, the notion of the Sabbath day and feast days, incense and burning lamps, psalms, hymns and choral music, vestments and prayers, priests and martyrs, the reading of the sacred books and the institution of the synagogue. ... There was nothing in the early church, other than its Christology, that was not adumbrated in Judaism."
Rabbi Greenberg has also written, “The [Jewish] covenant is potentially a model for an absolute commitment that does not deny the validity of other commitments and religions. It is a model of tremendous importance in this age when the growth of communication and power has created a unitary world in which one has to reconcile absolutes through pluralism or risk all-out collision and destruction.” (The Jewish Way, Pg. 71, Summit Books Div., Simon and Schuster, 1988)
And from Rabbi David Hartman: "I do not argue against the viability of secular humanism. Nor do I claim that a system of ethics must be founded on the authority of divine revelation. Nor is the viability of Judaism established through a critique of other faith postures. The discussion of Judaism is always internal to the Jewish experience and in no way pretends to show how Judaism or the Jewish people are unique or superior to other faith communities.
"I argue strongly for the significance of Jewish particularity, not for its uniqueness. The covenantal election of Israel at Sinai ... should not be understood as implying a metaphysical claim regarding the ontological uniqueness of the Jewish people. I do not subscribe to the view that a serious commitment to the God of Israel and Torah requires one to believe that the Jewish people mediate the only authentic way for the worship of God... I only explicate a way in which the tradition can encourage a spiritual direction through its emphasis on the covenantal relationships of Israel with God." ("A Living Covenant -- The Innovative Spirit of Traditional Judaism," Pgs. 3-4, The Free Press, a division of Macmillan, 1985)
Ms. Cumbey wrote: "Well, Len, I should think the 10 Commandments and Isaiah 42:8 should trump Rabbi Greenberg!"
In your comment above (9:10 AM) you mention an article you read in yesterdays August 10, 2009 USA Today. The corresponding very eye-opening link you provided was to a “cached” San Diego Union Tribune 2/2/09 article by Peter Rowe “Where Faith Meets Fact”
I believe the article you were referring to from the USA Today article written by Karl Giberson and Darrel Falk is found here:
The common dark threads between both articles are Karl Gilberson and Darrel Falk. As Oldmanoftheski brought to our attention in his earlier comment, Dr. Francis Collins is head of not only the NIH but also Founder and President of The BioLogos Foundation. Karl Giberson and Darrel Falk are the Co-Presidents of The BioLogos Foundation.
The BioLogos Foundation lists many organizations which "share their goals" and “complement those on our site”. Included among those listed is one which by now is becoming familiar.
The Metanexus Institute
The Metanexus Institute itself includes the Institute of Noetic Sciences as part of its Global Network Group. July 18-21, 2009 The Metanexus Institute had their “Cosmos, Nature, Culture A Transdisciplinary Conference". Details about this Conference is found on The Metanexus Institute website link above. Karl Giberson was very comfortable sharing the stage and presenting his complimentary view as a featured speaker alongside of Aubrey de Grey - biogerontologist, Chairman and Chief Science Officer of the Methuselah Foundation and Co-Founder and Chief Science Officer of SENS:"Strategies for Engineered Negligible Senescence".
From the SENS site:
“It is best defined as an integrated set of medical techniques designed to restore youthful molecular and cellular structure to aged tissues and organs.” Some might interpret this to mean Aubrey de Grey is “pro-life” and therefore poses no threat despite the fact that “genetic manipulation” is a huge aspect of the field of biogerontology and “transhumanist/immortality" research. Keep in mind however, one major course of research in biogerontology relies on stem cells; both embryonic and adult stem cells. Dr. Grey is “pro-imortality”. He believes except for accidental death immortality is possible in the future. I’m seeing the collaboration of researchers who spoke at this conference as another not so well disguised networking between recognized new age/occult/esoteric organizations and organizations and individuals many now accept as “religious/science/intelligent design i.e. the “good-guys”. The high profile public debates between “religious evolutionists” and Richard Dawkins appear to me to be no more than a dialectic designed to bring about a change/shift of public opinion. An enlightened worldview becomes the norm as it takes shape in the minds of the next generation. There are blatant warning signs over this entire area of the blending and bridging of Religion/Evolution/Science.
Either the creation account in the Bible is true as written or it’s not. God either created it as He said He did or He didn’t. God is either Holy or He’s not. The Bible is either the Word of God and True or it’s not. You either believe it or you don’t. - Rudi
Have you seen this one?
Given the fact that Oregon has already crossed the line into peddling assisted suicide as a viable "healthcare option" the following ought to give us all pause - especially since it is primarily going to be operating on the taxpayers' dime!
VGTI Invited to Join Some of the World's Most Respected Research Institutions by Forming a Florida-Funded Infectious Disease Research Institute
PORTLAND, Ore. – Vaccine & Gene Therapy Institute is one of a select group of internationally regarded institutions that have been invited to build and operate satellite research facilities entirely funded by, and based in, the state of Florida. The Scripps Research Institute, the Burnham Institute for Medical Research, the Stanford Research Institute and the Torrey Pines Research Institute have all received funds from Florida to build similar institutes in the state. The Max Planck Institute in Germany has decided to participate as well.
VGTI is the only public institution to be invited to join this elite group of research institutes.
Research at the new facility will focus on vaccine development. OHSU’s Vaccine and Gene Therapy Institute in Beaverton, Ore., which served as the inspiration for the new institute, has rapidly gained national attention for its groundbreaking research in this and other areas.
"OHSU was incredibly honored to be invited to take part in this highly collaborative research opportunity along with some of the most outstanding institutes in the world," said Dan Dorsa, Ph.D., OHSU’s vice president for research. "Studies at the institute, conducted collaboratively with Oregon scientists, would benefit Oregon residents in the form of new treatments and breakthroughs that will help improve the health of our population....read entire article....
Given the recent incident in which the Oregon Health Plan offered assisted suicide in lieu of cancer treatments, one has to wonder just who this research is going to benefit.
One more thing. The Stanford Research Institute and the Max Planck Society have ties to IONS.
Willis Harman, late President of IONS was also a "Big Kahuna"(Senior social Scientist) at the Stanford Research Institute.
WHATEVER THE INFLUENCE OF BILDERBERG GROUP, THE QUESTION IS: WHY SO SECRET?
While it is true that Daniel Estulin is associated with Alex Jones, I don't think that either of these gentlemen should be uncritically dismissed out of hand.
How is your uncle doing? How are you holding up?
I have been keeping you and your uncle in my prayers. I hope my prayers are being answered and that your beloved uncle is getting better.
From today's lead story in The Jerusalem Post:
"Mary Robinson, who presided over the UN's notorious Durban conference in 2001, and participated in many anti-Israel sessions during her tenure as High Commissioner for Human Rights (1997-2002), is slated to receive the Presidential Medal of Freedom at the White House on Wednesday."
While it is nice to see some criticism of Robinson linked to Obama's increasingly anti-Israel stance coming out in print, the other recipients could just as easily be criticized for their humanist, anti –God, globalist, or New Age supporting views... recipients like Dr. Stephan Hawking for example.
But one Medal of Freedom recipient caught my attention more than all the others...
Dr. Joe Medicine Crow's personal life story, military service and contributions to the cultural preservation of his tribe, certainly provides a resume worthy of honor and respect.
However, I couldn’t help but find it ironic that Medicine Crow is the step grandson of one of the scouts who fought alongside General Custer. It is a fact of history that many Crow warriors willingly joined forces with the US Army in order to fight against their traditional foes, the Sioux and Blackfeet. (The old, "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" scenario.)
Dr. Medicine Crow's grandfather was named, "White Man Runs Him".
According to the wiki entry for "White Man Runs Him", he joined with ALL the other Crow scouts in advising General Custer to wait for reinforcements before attacking Sitting Bull's encampment. Custer of course, being so full of himself and assured of victory, ignored the warnings.
"Convinced they were about to die in battle, the scouts took off their uniforms and donned Crow war clothing. When Custer demanded to know why, they responded that they wished to die as warriors rather than soldiers. Custer was angered by what he perceived as fatalism and relieved them from further service about an hour before engaging in the final battle."
And so "White Man Runs Him" survived to provide his version of the Battle of the Little Big Horn.
I'm off on the run today, but as to how the 10 Commandments and Isaiah 42:8 trump Rabbi Greenberg, this is how I see it:
A. 10 Commandments: THOU SHALT HAVE NO OTHER GODS BEFORE ME.
Rabbi Greenberg: Go ahead, that's okay.
B. Isaiah 42:8. I AM THE LORD, THAT IS MY NAME. MY GLORY I WILL NOT SHARE WITH ANOTHER, NEITHER WILL I GIVE MY PRAISE TO GRAVEN IMAGES.
Rabbi Greenberg: That's ok, just another way to God.
I do not accept the authority of any "church fathers" any more than I accept the authority of rabbis. In both cases we many find information that is informative and even true, but not authoritative. Here is where the problem lies. The Catholics and the Jews who practice Judaism on the blog are using source materials which I would classify as "adding to Scripture".
In both cases, we have the addition of traditions and interpretations which were based on a particular historical context. There is no proof that the "church fathers" or the rabbis who wrote Talmud, Mishnah etc were receiving revelation from God. Using either set of writings to prove a point is not of interest to me.
I think that Len and Susanna have just illustrated for all of us on the blog, the very problem I've been trying to address for over a year on this blog.
Both Len and Susanna are relying heavily on extra-Biblical interpretation of the texts.. i.e. Judaism and Catholicism. Protestantism arose in "protest" to Catholicism and in that regard is a reaction rather a return to the source, although there is a claim of "sola scriptura" from some branches of Prostestantism, much of Protestantism unwittingly takes quite a bit from Catholicism..
Now I know that I've really started a controversy... but go ahead and study the history of Christ's Mass.. i.e. Christmas and you will see that I am telling the truth.
King David did not practice Judaism and there isn't one verse in all of Tanakh that Len can give me to prove that he did. He obeyed Torah and Torah alone. By the time we get to the return from Babylon and the period between Tanakh and the Newer Covenant.. the historical context has changed greatly.
Israel is not an independent kingdom ever again, there is no ark of the covenant, there is a hellenization of many Jews in who had been scattered in the diaspora and the 10 tribes are mixed in with the nations, and quite assimilated to the point where the tribal identifications seem to have disappeared and only the house of Judah is keeping Torah and being readily recognizable...thus we come up with Judaism..
To say that Judaism existed before Babylon is just patently false. Abraham was a "hebrew" meaning that he crossed over. Jacob became Israel who wrestled with man and God and persevered. Israel had 12 sons who became the nation of ISRAEL not the nation of Jews. The nation split in two and the House of Judah which was composed of Judah, Benjamin and some of Levy ( with some possible mixing of the other tribes) and became the visible remnant of Israel. The House of Israel, sometimes called Ephraim, sometimes called the House of Israel or Joseph or the Northern Kingdom was scattered at Assyrian exile and DID NOT corporately come back. Several hundred years later the House of Judah went to Babylon, but was exiled for 70 years and came back in part.
From Babylon Judaism begins to develop. Judaism was an attempt to build fences around Torah so that Judah would not break God's laws. In their attempt to codify the Torah they added traditions. The Talmud was not written down until several hundred years after Yeshua died in response to the development of "Christianity" which did not develop until well after the first century.
We had a people, a nation, Israel called by God that was to teach the nations about the God of Israel or the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.
Yeshua and Paul did not invent a religion called Christianity. They were both Torah observant Jews, and Yeshua was the Torah who became flesh and the Messiah who came as a suffering servant and will come again as a victorious King. As some of the Jews believe, He was Messiah ben Joseph and Messiah ben David.
The problem has been now for a good 1900 years that many Jews don't recognize Yeshua because of the way He has been presented and many Christians don't understand that He did not annul the Torah, but He did not agree with all of the rabbinic traditions that had developed in His day, specifically the Second Temple period. He did not come the first time to set up His Millenial reign on earth but the second time He will.
Susanna, I would caution you against spiritualizing the Millennial reign. The problem with interpreting literally passages of Scripture the way that you do, is that you interpret away the promise of a literal reign on planet earth, when their are prophets that speak of this reign in very clear physical terms, such as the opening of the Dead Sea and the Millennial Temple found in Ezekiel.
These interpretations arose out of hellenistic thinking. The influence of Greek philosophy on Augustine is well known and documented...and herein lies the problem of the "church fathers".
God did not establish a church, but a called out assembly called Israel. The qahal and the ekklesia are one and the same and it is only because the translators decided to translate ekklesia "church" instead of assembly that we don't see the connection to passages about the called out assembly in Torah.
The Jews of Second Temple who followed Yeshua continued to worship as before and the issues that Paul is discussing in his leaders are often being discussed with errant groups such as mystics and gnostics.
Circumcision was not "cancelled". It was not a requirement for salvation. Israel was brought out of Egypt without being circumcised. Abraham was not circumcised prior to being justified by his righteous faith. Christianity has accepted passed down translations of the texts of Paul based on "church fathers" some like Chrysanthemum who were some of the biggest anti-semites in creation. Marcion wanted to cancel Tanakh all together, and even though he was branded a heretic his thinking impacted greatly the development of "the church".
People love to attach themselves to traditions that are old, but Buddhism is old too and that doesn't make it true.
The subjects I bring up on the blog are to cause people to question simple things like why don't believers in Yeshua honor all of God's Word? Who said the feasts of God ( not Jewish feasts ) are cancelled or only relevant for Jews.
Your rebuttal of my post is much better presented than mine. It's more comprehensive and coherent,
which isn't really saying much compared to my disjointed rambling sentences.
You are a sincere Christian and a scholar.
It's just that despite all the references to great saints of the Roman Catholic tradition, the words of Jesus keep ringing in my ears:
"Why do you follow the traditions of men and not the Commandments of God ?"
in Matthew 5:19, Jesus says:
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 whomsoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the Kingdom of heaven.
in Matthew 19:17, Jesus says:
And he said unto him,"Why callest thou me good ?
There is none good but one, that is God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.
in John 14:15, Jesus says:
" If you love me, keep my commandments"
in John 15:10, Jesus says:
If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love: even as I have kept my Father's commandments, and abide in his love."
I John 2:3 says
And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments.
I John 5:3 says
For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievious.
Rev. 12:17 says
And the dragon was wroth with the woman and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.
Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they might have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.
_This is only 9 of the 32 references to keeping the commandments of God in the New Testament.
All that just to say that I understand that we are NOT saved by the Law which we could never really truly keep.
My motivation for attempting to follow the Commandments is love. I love the Lord who saved me from a world of sin and now I want to thank him in the most sincere way that I can. Please don't come accusing me of wanting to, or of advocating a return to the Law for salvation. Not at all.
Only faith can please God. Only then, we add virtue to faith.
I was hardly bashing Constantine. I was just pointing out that he wasn't God. God obviously used him in a mighty way to end the slaughter of the early Christians and usher in the Age of Grace.
I don't expect to "convert" any, but if a few of you question the assumptions that you were raised with then I feel like what I have shared is worthwhile.
By the way, this is the process that I myself have gone through over the past number of years. I had the same assumptions as many of you. I started out thinking Catholic was the one "true" religion as a kid, although I knew the Jews were "God's chosen people"...Then I was born again, and discovered what it meant to be in relationship with Yeshua who I called Jesus at the time, then I discovered my Jewish origins which led me to ask as serious of questions about how and why we got to where we are historically and spiritually.
Now I don't expect any of you to take my word for it, but I prayed and fasted and studied Scripture. There is no conspiracy on my part to "destroy the religions" as I am not foolish enough to think that that would ever happen
If someone questions why they have ignored the eternal instruction to honor Shabbat, I consider my efforts worthwhile. There will come a day when God will restore ALL Israel and His Torah. Torah, when understood through the eyes of a believer in Yeshua is not a punishment as some people have come to think of "the Law" but it is a Tree of LIfe for those who take hold as the Psalmist says.
One of my fiercest critics on the blog, whose name I will not mention has left her religion to join another religion. I want to suggest that it is not religion that saves us, but God Himself by His strong right hand. I don't like religion but I love God and want to see Him represented as accurately as possible.
Obeying Torah which has the root yarah which means target in it is all about "hitting the mark". When we interpret God's Word as accurately as possible we have understood the definition of Torah. In hebraic thought, unlike Greek thought, "hear O Yisrael" has implicit in it the idea of "hear and obey" or "hear and do".
IN God there is no separation, so when we understand who He is, He has not authored confusion and all the religions of the world have created confusion, not God. There was NO religion in the Garden, there was only relationship.
God wants to restore us to relationship with Himself and He has done this through Yeshua the Messiah. In the Kingdom, there will not be Judaism, Catholicism, Protestantism, Messianic Judaism, Hebraic Christianity, Baptists, Episcopalians, Methodists, Emergents, etc. There will be One called out assembly, Israel, the olive tree of God which will consist of the House of Judah, the House of Israel and all the nations have joined themselves to this olive tree and to the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. I've been accused of wanting to start a new religion to which I say nonsense.
Religion is man's attempt to make themselves acceptable to God, and Yeshua has cleansed us and made us acceptable to Him already, now all we have to do is walk with Him.
Constantine was first and foremost a politician. There are question marks about whether he really trusted in Yeshua/Jesus. Putting aside this history, he was not entrusted with the Scriptures, Yeshua said His assembly was built on the foundation of the Prophets and Apostles, of which Constantine, the Church fathers, the rabbis and even the reformers like Calvin were not.
All of these folks might have had elements of truth, but if their words contradict Scripture, then one must begin to ask questions and you are quite accurate in quoting Matthew 5:17-19. Anyone who cancels the Torah has already opposed God and Paul said lawlessness was at work already in his day.
2Th. 2:7 For athe mystery of lawlessness is already at work; only bhe who now restrains will do so until he is taken out of the way.
WE can translate this word "absence of Torah".
Yeshua speaks about "lawlessness" too:
Matt. 7:23 “And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; DEPART FROM ME, YOU WHO PRACTICE LAWLESSNESS.’
Matt. 13:41 “The Son of Man will send forth His angels, and they will gather out of His kingdom all stumbling blocks, and those who commit lawlessness,
Matt. 23:28 “So you, too, outwardly appear righteous to men, but inwardly you are full of hypocrisy and lawlessness.
Matt. 24:12 “Because lawlessness is increased, most people’s love will grow cold.
What "law" was Yeshua talking about? People try to make an erroneous distinction between the moral law and the other parts of the law, but where do they get that from?
Much of Torah is for the Priests, and much applies to the Land of Israel and to the Temple, so all that applies to the Temple cannot be performed with a Temple. Yeshua's sacrifice paid for our sins, but there are other korban ( which means drawing near) which will be practiced in the Millennial Kingdom. See Ezekiel 46 for an explanation. Not all offerings were a sacrifice for sin, there are several different kinds of offerings.
Yeshua's priesthood was not the same as the Levites, so it's a different priesthood but does not cancel the Levitical priesthood. Their function will exist in the Millennial Kingdom.
Gregg Davis wrote: "Ezekiel 37 is a wonderful promise of the restoration of the tribes of Jacob. --- This could not refer to the return of the Jews from Babylon because they had since been disposessed, disqualifying it from being forever. The time of this Ezekiel 37 refers to the conversion of many Jews to Christ where they and their Gentile brothers are able to possess their true holy land forever."
You are still my brother but, with all due respect, the Bible shows you to be totally wrong in your conclusion. I am sorry to see you joining Joyce in her nonsense.
Jer. 31:33 And no longer shall one teach his neighbor or [shall] one [teach] his brother, saying, "Know the Lord," for they shall all know Me from their smallest to their greatest, says the Lord, for I will forgive their iniquity and their sin I will no longer remember. 34 So said the Lord, Who gives the sun to illuminate by day, the laws of the moon and the stars to illuminate at night, Who stirs up the sea and its waves roar, the Lord of Hosts is His name. 35 If these laws depart from before Me, says the Lord, only then will the seed of Israel cease being a nation before Me for all time. 36 So said the Lord: If the heavens above will be measured and the foundations of the earth below will be fathomed, only then will I reject all the seed of Israel because of all they did, says the Lord.
Is. 54:4 Fear not, for you shall not be ashamed, and be not embarrassed for you shall not be put to shame, for the shame of your youth you shall forget, and the disgrace of your widowhood you shall no longer remember. 5 For your Master is your Maker, the Lord of Hosts is His name, and your Redeemer, the Holy One of Israel, shall be called the God of all the earth. 6 For, like a wife who is deserted and distressed in spirit has the Lord called you, and a wife of one's youth who was rejected, said your God. 7 "For a small moment have I forsaken you, and with great mercy will I gather you. 8 With a little wrath did I hide My countenance for a moment from you, and with everlasting kindness will I have compassion on you," said your Redeemer, the Lord. 9 "For this is to Me [as] the waters of Noah, as I swore that the waters of Noah shall never again pass over the earth, so have I sworn neither to be wroth with you nor to rebuke you. 10 For the mountains shall depart and the hills totter, but My kindness shall not depart from you, neither shall the covenant of My peace totter," says the Lord, Who has compassion on you. --- 17 Any weapon whetted against you (including verbal weapons) shall not succeed, and any tongue that contends with you in judgment, you shall condemn; this is the heritage of the servants of the Lord and their due reward from Me, says the Lord.
I believe you are a sincere Christian and I like you.
Therefore, I am not going to engage in religious polemics with you except to simply say that we will have to agree to disagree on what constitutes the "traditions of men."
This is because our Rules of Faith are different.
Apparently Joyce only acknowledges her own private opinions as the ultimate authority and thinks that if she repeats them often enough they will cease to be private opinions and become religious dogma.......trumping even the Creeds of Nicaea and Chalcedon.
However, her whole religious edifice - and that of her Messianic religious confreres - stands or falls on whether the Bible Only (Sola Scriptura) is the Christian Rule of Faith. And the Bible only rule is nowhere clearly mandated in the Bible.
I am not in any way trying to - God forbid - belittle the authority of Sacred Scriptures. I am simply saying that they are not the only authoritative rule of the Christian faith.
Even critical Protestant thinkers are beginning to question the self contradiction inherent in Sola Scriptura.
This is because Sola Scriptura itself disproves Sola Scriptura.
What is Rahm Emmanuel, if not an "anti-jew jew"?
I do not accept the authority of any "church fathers" any more than I accept the authority of rabbis.
In both cases we many find information that is informative and even true, but not authoritative.
Here is where the problem lies. The Catholics and the Jews who practice Judaism on the blog are using source materials which I would classify as "adding to Scripture".
In this particular instance, I wasn't citing the writings of the Church Fathers as "religious authorities."
I was citing the writings of the Church Fathers as historical documents to show that Christians were worshipping on Sunday long before Constantine came to power - from Apostolic times!
Protestant Christians like Joyce frequently claim they "just believe the Bible," but a number of questions arise when one examines their actual use of the Bible.
For instance, why do Protestants write so many books on doctrine and the Christian life in general, if indeed all that is necessary is the Bible?
Why do we need Joyce to explain it all for us if the Bible alone is sufficient? Aren't her explanations "adding to Scripture???"
Moreover, since there are as many interpretations of Holy Writ as people have faces, why should we believe that any interpretation of Holy Writ proposed by Joyce & Co. is more correct than anyone else's?
If the Bible by itself were sufficient for one to understand it, then why don't Protestants stop writing their gazillions of books and preaching at their church services and simply hand out Bibles without any further ado?
You bring up a really important point. Joyce keeps talking about how there is no true authority except scripture.
The problem is, who has the "final say" about how scripture should be interpreted?
Joyce seems to think that, inspired by the Holy Spirit, she can accurately interpret all scripture. Many other people, however, make the same claim--and the various interpretations of scripture that result are far from uniform.
By what authority does Joyce prove that her interpretations are any more valid than say, John Calvin's, or Joel Osteen's, or Anne Hutchinson's, or Billy Graham's, or Rick Warren's, or Paul Tillich's, or Martin Luther's, or John Shelby Spong's, or Dwight Moody's, or Joyce Meier's, or Dave Hunt's, or (fill-in-the-blank-with-theologian-of-choice)?
These people have all claimed to rely on "scripture only", but their interpretations of the very same book--the Bible-- cannot be reconciled!
That's the problem I have in a nutshell. Joyce can claim that it is not her but "Yeshua speaking through" her, but she has absolutely no Biblical proof of this.
This is the main reason she has very little credibility in my eyes.
It sounds like things are improving.
I am so very happy if this is true. Praise God!
Nevertheless, my prayers for you and your uncle will certainly continue.
God Bless You,
Joyce wrote: “Both Len and Susanna are relying heavily on extra-Biblical interpretation of the texts..”
Where did I do that? Certainly not on the Sabbath, circumcision or Daniel.
More Joyce nonsense: “King David did not practice Judaism and there isn't one verse in all of Tanakh that Len can give me to prove that he did. He obeyed Torah and Torah alone. “
Can you show me any good thing David did that contradicts Jewish law?
By an admixture of facts with nonsense you keep perpetuating the hoax that, because Jews are a remnant of Israel, they are not Israel.
Once and for all here is the deal about Israel and Jews. Jacob was named Israel by God’s angel and he was succeeded by 12 tribes ALL who are part of Israel; INCLUDING Judah, Benjamin and Levi. Why are you denying that Judah is Israel??? Judah, Benjamin, Levi, and any Jew including converts, are all Israel as were the rabbis who set down the Oral Law.
“And they said, "(There must be) an inheritance for the remnant of Benjamin, so that a tribe not be blotted out from Israel. (Jud. 21:17 – Not the rabbis)
Are you going to tell us that the US Supreme Court is not of the USA
Because George Washington did not follow the Supreme Court Decisions of the last 200 years??? Because “the historical context has changed greatly???”
You are maliciously wasting your own time as well as everyone else’s so please stop your deceptions forthwith.
Here are some more (biblical) quotes for you to ponder:
Isaiah 10: 20 And it shall come to pass that on that day the remnant of Israel and the survivors of the house of Jacob shall not continue to lean on him that smote them; but he shall lean on the Lord, the Holy One of Israel, in truth. 21 The remnant shall return, the remnant of Jacob (Israel), to the mighty God. 22 For if your people Israel shall be like the sand of the sea, the remnant of them that shall return, shall wash away with righteousness the decreed destruction. (Isaiah; not the rabbis)
“And there shall be a highway for the remnant of His people who remain from Assyria, as there was for Israel on the day they went up from the land of Egypt.” (Isaiah 11:16 not the rabbis)
“And the remaining survivors of the house of Judah shall continue to take root below and they shall produce fruit above. 32 For from Jerusalem shall come forth a remnant , and survivors from Mt. Zion; the zeal of the Lord of Hosts shall do this.” (Isaiah 37:31-32, not the rabbis)
“Hearken to Me, the house of Jacob, and all the remnant of the house of Israel, who are borne from birth, carried from the womb. And until old age I am the same, and until you turn gray I will carry; I have made and I will bear and I will carry and deliver. (Isaiah 46:3-4, not the rabbis)
“So said the Lord: As surely as I have established My covenant with day and night -- the statutes of heaven and earth – 26 so will I never reject the seed of Jacob and David, My servant. I will never fail to take from his seed rulers for the seed of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, when I bring back their captivity and have mercy upon them. (Jer. 33:25-26, not the rabbis)
“And on Mount Zion there shall be a remnant, and it shall be holy, and the house of Jacob shall inherit those who inherited them.” (Obadiah 1:17, not the rabbis)
And it shall be a lot for the remnant of the house of Judah, whereupon they shall pasture. In the houses of Ashkelon they shall lie down in the evening, for the Lord their God shall visit upon them and return their captivity. (Zeph 2:7, not the rabbis)
Joyce wrote: "To say that Judaism existed before Babylon is just patently false. "
To say that Israel did not exist after Babylon is more patently false.
Joyce said... "Circumcision --- was not a requirement for salvation. Israel was brought out of Egypt without being circumcised. Abraham was not circumcised prior to being justified by his righteous faith."
Joyce, are you having a sale of nonsense and lies today? Or don’t you know how to read? You are revealing your biblical ignorance for all to see.
"A little learning is a dangerous thing; drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring: there shallow draughts intoxicate the brain, and drinking largely sobers us again." (Alexnder Pope)
Here is what the Bible says -- not the rabbis:
“And an uncircumcised male, who will not circumcise the flesh of his foreskin-that soul will be cut off from its people; he has broken My covenant." (Gen. 7:14)
That does not sound like salvation to me. Does it to you???
Did you ever read the Book of Joshua?
Josh 5:2 At that time the Lord said to Joshua, Make for yourself sharp knives, and circumcise again the children of Israel the second time. 3 And Joshua made for himself sharp knives, and circumcised the children of Israel at the hill of the foreskins. 4 And this is the reason why Joshua did circumcise: All the people that came out of Egypt, that were males, all the men of war, had died in the desert by the way after they came out of Egypt. 5 For all the people that came out were circumcised, but all the people that were born in the wilderness by the way as they came forth out of Egypt, they had not circumcised. 6 For the children of Israel walked forty years in the wilderness, until all the people, the men of war, that came out of Egypt, were consumed, those who did not listen to the voice of the Lord, to whom the Lord had sworn that He would not show them the land, which the Lord had sworn to their forefathers that He would give us, a land that flows with milk and honey. 7 And their children, whom he raised up in their stead, them Joshua circumcised, for they had not circumcised them by the way. 8 And it was, when all the people were finished being circumcised, that they remained in their places in the camp, until they recovered.
As far as Abraham is concerned, the law of circumcision was given to him and he did it to himself, painfully, at the age of 99 (Gen. 17:1ff) If he was “justified” before circumcision why did he need it afterwards??? It was not justification but the Covenant that required, and still requires, circumcision. The Hebrew word for circumcision is “milah,” and that for covenant is “brit.” A gentile who is circumcised undergoes milah but not brit. A Jewish circumcision (Israeli also, and King David had one) is called “brit milah,”: the covenant of circumcision.
You issue a diarrhea of words but have a constipation of thought. You ought to heed the words of Proverbs:
“He who watches his mouth guards his soul; for one who opens his lips wide there is ruin.” (Prov. 13:3)
“In a fool's mouth is a staff of haughtiness but the lips of the wise guard them. --- The scorner seeks wisdom, in vain; but knowledge for the understanding one is easy. (Prov. 14:3, 6)
27 A knowledgeable person keeps back his words; a man of understanding is reticent. 28 Even a fool, if he keeps silent, is considered wise; one who shuts his lips, a man of understanding.
In some cases - it is simply vanity - in my opinion - in some cases - the love of money - and in others, the thought that expounding on what God has written may help people - ultimately all personal opinions on top of what God has already finished writing.
In both cases, we have the addition of traditions and interpretations which were based on a particular historical context.
There is no proof that the "church fathers" or the rabbis who wrote Talmud, Mishnah etc were receiving revelation from God. Using either set of writings to prove a point is not of interest to me.
The rule of Faith for Catholics is similar to that of our Jewish brethren.....written and oral Tradition.
We Catholics are taught that the objective body of public divine revelation that was ORALLY transmitted by Christ directly to Peter and the Apostles - who in turn preserved this public divine revelation intact and handed it on to their successors in a concrete historical Apostolic succession that continues to this very day - ended with the death of the last Apostle.
The Apostolic Fathers were not receiving divine revelation directly from Christ. They were receiving it from the Apostles who had received it directly from Christ.
This is what Catholics refer to as Sacred Tradition, and because it has its origins with Christ it is anything but "manmade."
Moreover, the essentials of this public divine Revelation given directly to Peter and the Apostles by Christ are embodied in the Creeds of Chalcedon and Nicaea.
I've tried to read it. I've really really tried.
I do like James Joyce, but
All that, about just one day in Dublin ?
This is how Obamacare will look like. Exactly what is already is EXCEPT insurance companies won't bar you from coverage because of a preexisting condition. Insurance companies can't just cut you off because your illness or injury has become too costly. If you don't want the public option, you don't have to take it. If you are a small business owner and can't afford to give your employees adequate health insurance, the public option would be there to tap into.
Only one thing is fuzzy...how to pay for it all without driving up the deficit. I can see taxes going up somewhere which is the biggest downside to this legislation.
You see, no death panels, no euthanasia, no universal health care. Although, the government will have a bigger reach in terms of making sure insurance companies comply and offer governmental insurance more than what they do already for Medicare and Medicaid.
So, you've read through HR3200 and were able to reach your conclusions? Or, is it that you believe what you're told on the left wing news channels run by the elites. I've got this REALLY good deal on this bridge in Brooklyn - ya know, with the economy the way it is and all. Just have your assistant call my assistant. We'll do lunch.
Gregg wrote, in a classic exposition of replacement theology: "The promises of God only apply to His people--the Jews. But... WHO IS A JEW?
The Bible clarifies this for us in Romans 2:28-29 which says: "A man is not a Jew if he is only one outwardly, nor is circumcision merely outward and physical. No, a man is a Jew if he is one inwardly; and circumcision is circumcision of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the written code. Such a man's praise is not from men, but from God."
Well, Gregg, I know you are not Craig. You may have some Jewish background yourself with your chutzpah of pretending to define who is a Jew. How would you like Jews to definne who is a Christian?
Romans is not in God's Bible which defines who is a Jew (or Israelite with a bow to Joyce). The following is probably above your head but here goes:
Judaism is a family as much as a religion. A Jew is the child of a Jewish mother or someone who has converted in accordance with Jewish law.
The principle of matrilineal descent is traceable to Deut. 7:3,4, and was in operation by Ezra’s time; the fifth century, B.C.E. (Ezra 9:2;10:2,3,11;Neh. 10:31;13:23,24).
Deut. 7: 3 You shall not intermarry with them; you shall not give your daughter to his son, and you shall not take his daughter for your son. 4 For he will turn away your son from following Me, and they will worship the gods of others, and the wrath of the Lord will be kindled against you, and He will quickly destroy you.
At first glance this appears balanced. But Rashi explains otherwise.
Rashi’s interpretation of Deut. 7:4: “For he will turn away your son from following Me i.e., the heathen’s son, if he marries your daughter, will turn away your [grand]son whom your daughter will bear to him, from following Me. This teaches us that your daughter’s son, born of a heathen man, is called “your son,” but your son’s son, born of a heathen woman, is not called “your son,” but “her son.” For Scripture [first says, “Do not give your daughter to his son, and do not take his daughter for your son.” Then it follows with “For he will turn away your son....” However], referring to “do not take his daughter,” it does not say “For she will turn away your son...” [because he is considered her son, not yours (Kid. 68b).”
At the beginning of Christianity Jesus and virtually all the apostles were Jewish, albeit possibly heretics.
The split that began Christianity did not come till later, when Paul relaxed the requirements for entering the [Jewish] family, and pagans in huge numbers began to join without following the Jewish legal requirements for conversion; namely circumcision, immersion, and accepting the yoke of the Commandments.
In his book on the subject, “Who Was a Jew, (Ktav Publishers).” Prof. Lawrence Shiffman concludes:
“In retrospect, [the laws of matrilineal descent and conversion] maintained the identity of the Jewish people. Had the rabbis relaxed these standards, accepting either semi-proselytes or the earliest Christians into the Jewish people, Christians would quickly have become the majority within the expanded community of “Israel.” Judaism as we know it would have ceased to exist even before reaching its codification in the Mishna and the other great compilations of the [rabbinic] tradition. --- The ultimate parting of the ways for Judaism and Christianity took place when the adherents to Christianity no longer conformed to the legal definitions of a Jew.”
The legal requirements result in some paradoxical situations, as liberal Jews are quick to note. A Jewishly born apostate is still considered Jewish (as in Jesus’ time), whereas an observant child of a non-Jewish mother is not. Such a child, understanding Jewish law and wishing to preserve unity in Judaism, can always undergo formal conversion. (For application of the Law of Return, Israel does not recognize apostates as Jews except in special circumstances.)
Greg wrote: Abraham did not have the Law, but he still pleased God by faith.
The Bible says otherwise:
Abraham hearkened to My voice, and kept My charge, My commandments, My statutes, and My instructions." (Gen . 26:5)
You are not exhibiting a humble Torah-like attitude but I forgive you.. Abraham was justified by faith and not by circumcision. Circumcision does not save anyone. It is an outward sign of the covenant, but not the MEANS BY WHICH ONE IS SAVED:
Rom. 4:1 ¶ What then shall we say that Abraham, 1our forefather aaccording to the flesh, has found?
Rom. 4:2 For if Abraham was justified 1by works, he has something to boast about, but anot 2before God.
Rom. 4:3 For what does the Scripture say? “ABRAHAM BELIEVED GOD, AND IT WAS CREDITED TO HIM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS.”
Rom. 4:4 Now to the one who works, his wage is not credited as a favor, but as what is due.
Rom. 4:5 But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness,
Rom. 3:29 Or ais God the God of Jews only? Is He not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also,
Rom. 3:30 since indeed God bwho will justify the circumcised by faith and the 3uncircumcised through faith is one.
I am not against circumcision and neither was Paul but it doesn't save you. Yeshua saves you.
You and I have already been down this path before, and I don't think it is a worthwhile use of my time or yours to debate Catholicism.
Clearly, I reject Catholicism as a viable spiritual path after being raised in it, and you cling to it, so there is not much room for discussion and I am not interested in normal unpleasantness on this blog that will come from such a discussion and I can't imagine that you are interested in that either. The folks on the blog don't really need to go through this, so I will decline further comment on this discussion.
I will bless you in the name of Yeshua and pray that Abba reveals whatever He so choses in your life and that your days be filled with His genuine shalom which is my prayer for everyone on the blog.
Of course I have read Joshua and am aware that the generation that went into the Land was circumcised.. Circumcision of the foreskin was an outward sign of the covenant that followed faith. Faith was the means of justification, not the act of circumcision. . I hope you agree with this subtile but important distinction.
Paul was not against circumcision, he was against the way that it was being used by a particular group of people who were telling Gentile that they could not be saved unless they were circumcised, when they had already come to repentance and put their faith in Yeshua.. This is actually a rather large debate among Christian scholars, where what Paul is saying is being reevaluated because of some of the findings of the Dead Sea Scrolls for example.
Paul has been greatly misunderstood, so we need to look at him in context.
Jer. 9:25 “Behold, the days are coming,” declares the LORD, “that I will punish all who are circumcised and yet uncircumcised —
Someone can remove their foreskin, but have a mind that is not circumcised. This by the way is what happens to those who put their faith in Yeshua's atonement. I won't be able to explain this to you because you have to first believe..
Israel did not disappear after Babylon.. The Northern Kingdom, sometimes referred to as the House of Israel, as opposed to the House of Judah. the House of Judah was part of ALL Israel, but not part of the Northern Kingdom, which you are well aware of. We can call Jews Israel, but we cannot call the Northern Kingdom Jews, unless they attached themselves to Judah and consider themselves as part of Judah.
I do understand that the modern terminology for ALL Israel is Jews, but this is modern terminology and not Biblical terminology. Since most people miss that fact that Judah is only 2 1/2 tribes of Israel using the correct terminology helps to clarify a sometimes overlooked Biblical fact.
The Torah is not the Jewish law. It is God's teachings and commands, and limiting to the Jews is a way of keeping superiority over other people. I believe Jews, as part of Israel are called to share God's Torah with others and not claim exclusivity over it. Torah is good and holy for everyone who belongs to the God of Israel.
Is. 56:3-5 Let not the foreigner who has joined himself to the LORD say, “The LORD will surely separate me from His people.” Nor let the eunuch say, “Behold, I am a dry tree.”
For thus says the LORD, “To the eunuchs who keep My sabbaths, And choose what pleases Me,
And hold fast My covenant, To them I will give in My house and within My walls a memorial,
And a name better than that of sons and daughters;
I will give them an everlasting name which will not be cut off.
"You and I have already been down this path before, and I don't think it is a worthwhile use of my time or yours to debate Catholicism."
Finally Joyce and I can agree on something. Many of us reject Messianic Judaism so it is not a worthwhile use of our time to debate it.
So we just must continue as we've become. We really have become an ecumenical blog. How many different religions are preached here these days. Everything is here from Orthodox Judaism, Catholicism, and Protestantism to paganism with Messianic Judaism on a blank page right in between.
We still need a Buddhist, a Hindu, and maybe a Zoroastrian. Who knew that a blog against the New Age movement would become a religious shopping mall. What religion do they teach in France? Islam? Maybe we can get someone from there.
If you have finally decided that it is such a "waste of time," to get into arguments with me about Catholicism, I think that is great!
All you have to do is to keep your anti-Catholic and anti-Semitic comments to yourself and you won't hear a peep out of me.
Indeed, we HAVE already been down this path before - many times - but I am prepared to go down this path as many times as it takes in order to set the record straight in the face of your misrepresentations.
You are absolutely right in saying that the "folks on this blog don't really need to go through this."
But I am not the one who started the debates. Nor am I the one who has been trying to hijack this blog in order to use it for predatory proselytizing.
As I asked before, if the "Bible only" is the "last word," then why do we need you or anyone else to explain it all to us?
If I were going to ditch the Pope as a religious authority, I certainly wouldn't be stupid enough to settle for a "change of masters."
You can bet your boots I would become my own "pope." Isn't that what you did?
When all is said and done, I don't have a problem with the idea of you or anyone else disagreeing with Catholicism. What I have a problem with is your not being truthful about what Catholics really believe. Especially in light of the fact that as a self confessed former Catholic, you should know better.
I will certainly also pray for you - albeit in the name of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.
I'm just curious. What is Obamacare and how does it apply to the New Age Movement? This is how Obamacare will look like. Exactly what is already is EXCEPT insurance companies won't bar you from coverage because of a preexisting condition. Insurance companies can't just cut you off because your illness or injury has become too costly. --- You see, no death panels, no euthanasia, no universal health care.
You obviously do not knnow very much about the 1107-page HR 3200 draft bill. Here is a link to the pdf version:
Someone highlighted some of the unbelievable and outrageous details. I took the trouble to check them out and can vouch for thir accuracy and your inaccuracy.
How it compares to New Age is in its taking over your personal, financial and even physical life.
Here are some highlights. Check them out:
Peter Fleckstein (aka Fleckman) has been reading the 1000+ page house bill and has been posting his findings on Twitter.
This is from his postings (Note: All comments are Fleckman's)
Len note: I verified most of them.
Pg 22 of the HC Bill MANDATES the Govt will audit books of ALL EMPLOYERS that self insure!!
Pg 30 Sec 123 of HC bill - THERE WILL BE A GOVT COMMITTEE that decides what treatments and benefits you get
Pg 29 lines 4-16 in the HC bill - YOUR HEALTHCARE IS RATIONED!!!
Pg 42 of HC Bill - The Health Choices Commissioner will choose your HC benefits for you. You have no choice!
PG 50 Section 152 in HC bill - HC will be provided to ALL non US citizens, illegal or otherwise
Pg 58HC Bill - Govt will have real-time access to individuals' finances and a National ID Healthcard will be issued!
Pg 59 HC Bill lines 21-24 Govt will have direct access to your banks' accounts for election funds transfer
PG 65 Sec 164 is a payoff subsidized plan for retirees and their families in unions & community orgs (ACORN).
Pg 72 Lines 8-14 Govt is creating a HC Exchange to bring private HC plans under Govt control.
PG 84 Sec 203 HC bill - Govt mandates ALL benefit pkgs for private HC plans in the Exchange
PG 85 Line 7 HC Bill - Specs for Benefit Levels for Plans = The Govt will ration your Healthcare!
PG 91 Lines 4-7 HC Bill - Govt mandates linguistic-appropriate services. Example: Translation for illegal aliens
Pg 145 Line 15-17 An Employer MUST automatically enroll employees into public option plan. NO CHOICE
Pg 126 Lines 22-25 Employers MUST pay for health care for part-time employees AND their families.
Pg 149 Lines 16-24 ANY employer with a payroll of $400k and above who does not provide pub opt. pays 8% tax on all payroll
Pg 167 Lines 18-23 ANY individual who doesn't have acceptable HC according to Govt will be taxed 2.5% of income
Pg 170 Lines 1-3 HC Bill Any NONRESIDENT Alien is exempt from individual taxes. (Americans will pay)
Pg 195 HC Bill - Officers and employees of HC Admin (GOVT) will have access to ALL Americans' financial and personal records.
PG 203 Line 14-15 HC - "The tax imposed under this section shall NOT be treated as tax" Yes, it says that.
Pg 239 Line 14-24 HC Bill Govt will reduce physician services for Medicaid. Seniors, low income, poor affected
Pg 241 Line 6-8 HC Bill - Doctors will all be paid the same, regardless of what specialty you have.
PG 253 Line 10-18 Govt sets value of doctor's time, professional judgment, etc. Literally value of humans.
PG 272 SEC. 1145. Treatment of certain cancer hospitals. Cancer patients: welcome to rationing!
Pg 298 Lines 9-11 Doctors who treat a patient during initial admission that results in a readmission will be penalized.
Pg 317-318 lines 21-25,1-3 PROHIBITION on expansion- Govt is mandating hospitals cannot expand
pg 321 2-13 Hospitals have opportunity to apply for exception BUT community input required. Can you say ACORN?!!
Pg 341 Lines 3-9 Govt has authority to disqualify Medicare Adv Plans, HMOs, etc. Forcing peeps into Govt plan
Pg 354 Sec 1177 - Govt will RESTRICT enrollment of special needs people.! WTF. My sis has down syndrome!!
PG 425 Lines 4-12 Govt mandates Advance Care Planning Consult. Think Senior Citizens end of life!
Pg 425 Lines 17-19 Govt will instruct and consult regarding living wills, durable powers of atty. Mandatory!
PG 425 Lines 22-25, 426 Lines 1-3 Govt provides approved list of end of life resources, guiding you in death. Excuse me???!?!?!?
PG 427 Lines 15-24 Govt mandates program for orders for end of life. The Govt has a say in how your life ends.
Pg 429 Lines 1-9 An "advance care planning consult" will be used frequently as patient's health deteriorates.
PG 429 Lines 10-12 "Advance care consultation" may include an ORDER for end of life plans. AN ORDER from GOVT!!!
Pg 429 Lines 13-25 - The govt will specify which Doctors can write an end of life ORDER.
PG 430 Lines 11-15 The Govt will decide what level of treatment you will have at end of life. (Len comment -- Imagine a Democrat deciding for a Republican or vice versa)
Page 472 Lines 14-17 PAYMENT TO COMMUNITY-BASED ORG. Monthly payments to a community-based org. Like ACORN?
PG 489 Sec 1308 The Govt will cover Marriage & Family therapy. Which means they will insert Govt into your marriage
Pg 494-498 Govt will cover Mental Health Services including defining, creating, rationing those same services
Joyce wrote: “You are not exhibiting a humble Torah-like attitude but I forgive you..”
Thanks for forgiving me but when you complain about not being humble you should look in the mirror. Compare the way you assert the superiority of your faith stance with almost everyone else on the blog. Without a contest you win the gold ring for arrogance and presumptuousness.
If you asked me questions, even difficult ones, about my views I would be delighted to respond politely. Craig, for example, questioned me on several challenging points and I had nothing but praise for him. Doug and I don’t agree on theology but I had no problem with him either. Contrast their style with your heavy-handed one.
Joyce said: “Abraham was justified by faith and not by circumcision. Circumcision does not save anyone. It is an outward sign of the covenant, but not the MEANS BY WHICH ONE IS SAVED:”
Are you God that you know with certainty why God raised Abraham to such high esteem? I showed you what the Bible said. Here it is again, in context, in case you missed it. When God instructs Isaac He says to Isaac:
I will multiply your seed like the stars of the heavens, and I will give your seed all these lands, and all the nations of the earth will bless themselves by your seed, because Abraham hearkened to My voice, and kept My charge, My commandments, My statutes, and My instructions." (Gen. 26:4-5)
God did NOT say: “--- all the nations of the earth will bless themselves by your seed, because Abraham had faith." If you want to believe Paul in “Romans” instead of God in Genesis go right ahead and take the consequences.
Your spin does not hide your error in saying: “Israel was brought out of Egypt without being circumcised.” The least you could have done is graciously admit your factual error instead of sneakily deflecting my outing you. This behavior is symptomatic of your consistently arrogant approach. You dig in your heels and do not concede anything at all even when your errors are plain to see.
Joyce said: “Circumcision of the foreskin was an outward sign of the covenant that followed faith. Faith was the means of justification, not the act of circumcision. . I hope you agree with this subtile but important distinction.”
You are so far off the mark that I cannot believe you have the audacity to ask my agreement. You evidently really think that Jews have been circumcising their 8-day-old infants, for thousands of years even while being persecuted, and yet lacked faith. How much more absurd can you get???
Joyce wrote: “Paul was not against circumcision, he was against the way that it was being used by a particular group of people who were telling Gentile that they could not be saved unless they were circumcised”
Jews are “saved” by following all the commandments; circumcision being just one of them. Circumcision alone will not save anyone but not being circumcised will result in his being spiritually cut off by God.
It is our strong faith that has kept Jews from succumbing to historic Christian persecution and missionary blandishments for thousands of years: that plus the conviction that God has faith in us.
When we say the Sh’ma (Listen—Israel) prayer privately we begin with the three words, “Ayl Melekh Ne’eman” meaning “God is a faithful King.” Notice also that the word “Amen” (AMN in Hebrew) is an acronym of that expression.
“And I will betroth you to Me forever, and I will betroth you to Me with righteousness and with justice and with loving-kindness and with mercy. And I will betroth you to Me with faith, and you shall know the Lord.” (Hos. 2:21-22)
“For the word of the Lord is upright, and all his deeds are with faith.” (Ps. 33:4)
“It is good to give thanks to the Lord, and to sing to Your name, O Most High. To declare in the morning Your kindness and Your faith at night. (Ps. 92:2-3)
Another bit of Joycian “wisdom!”
>>It is God's teachings and commands, and limiting to the Jews is a way of keeping superiority over other people.
Wrong again! The Torah is THE MOST universal document; far more so than the New Testament
The Torah tells us of three covenants made by God. The first, made after the flood, was with all humanity; Jews didn't exist yet (Gen. 9:1-17). In exchange for man's observance of the Noahite covenant God would never flood the entire world again
In the second covenant, made with Abraham, God promised, "to make you a great nation ... to bless them that bless you and curse them that curse you; and in you *ALL* the families of the earth shall be blessed." This blessing incorporates the principle that the Lord of Israel is also the Lord of the world. The covenant with Abraham, like that with Noah, is also for the benefit of ALL humanity.
The third covenant was with Israel. This covenant involved the giving of the Torah on Mt. Sinai (Exod. 19:1-8) At this time God told Moses to say to Israel, "You have seen what I did to Egypt, how I bore you on eagles' wings and brought you to Me. Now then, if you hearken to My voice indeed and keep My covenant, you shall be My treasured possession among all peoples. Indeed, ALL THE EARTH IS MINE, but you shall be to Me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation." (Exod. 19:4-6)
God selected and delivered the Jews, and gave us the Torah to educate us. But while He did all this for our benefit it was NOT ONLY for our benefit. "... all the earth is Mine, but you shall be to Me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation." Like the other covenants this one has a strong UNIVERSALISTIC component. We were chosen NOT for privilege but for DUTY; to set an example. "It is not because you are the most numerous of peoples ... indeed you are least of the nations ... (Deut. 7:7)."
The Revelation at Sinai is the historic midpoint between creation and redemption. The Torah is our road map; a guide to facilitate the constructive outcome of this journey.
God, in His wisdom, has assigned roles to different entities just as, in a family, each member has a different role. The husband is not any better than the wife just because he may work outside full time while she works inside full time and a half. I do not call Judaism a family because, if it were, it would be closed to outsiders; yet the Covenant is open. While we do not proselytize, anyone is welcome to join, if they are willing to assume the yoke of Torah. A convert and a born Jew are exactly on the same level.
Christians, Muslims and others should know that, “The Lord is close to *all* who call Him, to all who call Him sincerely. He fulfills the wishes of those who fear Him; He hears their cry and delivers them. The Lord watches over *all* who love him, but all the wicked He will destroy. My mouth shall utter the praise of The Lord, and all creatures shall bless His holy Name forever and ever.” (Ps. 145:18-21) In contrast to the Torah’s universality the New Testament limits salvation only to “Jew and Greek” believers in Jesus.
We do share it. But by Christianizing it you are using it as a spade to dig with. The rabbis of the Talmud have said that:
“The righteous of all nations have a share in the world to come.”
“A Gentile who occupies himself with Torah is equal to the high priest."
"Whether you are Gentile or Jew the Divine Presence rests on you according to your deeds."
The Jewish New Year, Rosh Hashanah, is the birthday of the world. This holiday season is the most universal of the year’s holy days. “Why did God begin humanity with only Adam and Eve?” a Midrash asks. It responds, “So no one can claim that his ancestors are better than any other’s.” The prophetic reading for Yom Kippur is “The Book of Jonah.” In this book God forgives the sins of the people of Ninevah, and recants His earlier decision to destroy the city, simply because the Gentile people of that city sincerely repented.
Joyce wrote: “Is. 56:3-5 Let not the foreigner who has joined himself to the LORD say, “The LORD will surely separate me from His people.” Nor let the eunuch say, “Behold, I am a dry tree.”
For thus says the LORD, “To the eunuchs who keep My sabbaths, And choose what pleases Me,
And hold fast My covenant, To them I will give in My house and within My walls a memorial,
And a name better than that of sons and daughters;
I will give them an everlasting name which will not be cut off. “
Now you are playing MY song
But holding fast to God’s covenant and believing in Jesus are mutually exclusive.
You posted "I am not in any way trying to - God forbid - belittle the authority of Sacred Scriptures. I am simply saying that they are not the only authoritative rule of the Christian faith. "
This patently absurd statement proves the truism that "if you mix an ounce of poision in a gallon of baby water, you no longer have baby water..."
The quote of yours above takes cognitive dissonance to an art form.
Greg said: "It is not I who use Scripture to define true Jew; it is God."
But after saying that you go right ahead and define a "true Jew," in contradiction to God's Torah definition, as one wwho believes in Jesus.
While such belief is OK for a gentile it is idolatry, plain and simple, for a Jew.
>>Do you not remember Korah and his company? Did they not fall into God’s awesome judgment after challenging Moses in the wilderness? They were Jews, but God smote them by allowing the earth to swallow them up. They were blood-Jews but were not acting Jewish.
I am fully aware of that story. Here is the rabbinic take on it and you can take it or leave it:
Korah challenged Moses by contending that things should be more democratic; where his opinion should count as much as the establishment -- Moses and the Sanhedrin. It sounded logical but it was wrong nevertheless, as the Bible tells us.
"You have gone too far! for all the community are holy, all of them, and The Lord is in their midst (Num.16:3)," said the rebellious leaders to Moses and Aaron. "Why then do you raise yourselves above The Lord's congregation?" The Midrash
(homiletic exegesis) provides a sermonic interpretation, by parable, of what was going on here. The nature of the issue is the authority of Moses to interpret the law and the validity of his interpretations. According to the rebels, it can be interpreted by anyone using common sense. The great exegete Rashi discusses the following clever ploy of Korah (Rashi, Num. 16:1):
Korah assembled 250 men and women dressed in robes of pure blue wool. They asked Moses, "Does an entirely blue garment still require fringes?" (This refers to Numbers 15:38, which requires fringes on the corners of garments, and a blue thread to be attached.) Moses affirmed that it did. "Is that logical?" they jeered. A robe of any other color fulfills the fringes requirement merely with a single blue thread. Surely a completely blue garment should not require yet an additional blue thread!
The midrash provides another example: "Does a house full of Torahs still require a mezuzah on the doorpost (Deut. 6:9, 11:20)?" Korah asked. "Yes," replied Moses. "If a brief section of scripture, placed in the mezuzah, satisfies the requirement, surely a room full of Torahs, containing the same portions should! Such halakhic (legal) decisions are not from the Torah but are your own conceptions." Korah insisted that Moses' logic violated common sense.
Then Korah used a parable to demagogically show that Moses' laws were beyond endurance: 'A poor widow had a field. When she came to plow it, Moses forbade her to plow with an ox and an ass together. When she began to sow, Moses forbade her to use mingled seeds. At harvest time Moses ordered her not to reap the corners of the field, or gather the gleanings, but to leave them for the poor. He also demanded the heave offering for the priests, and the tithe for the Levites. The woman sold the field and bought ewes, hoping that she might remain undisturbed. But when the sheep's firstling arrived, Aaron demanded it as his due. At shearing time Aaron demanded the first of the fleece. Eventually the frustrated woman slaughtered the sheep and, in her anger, consecrated it to the sanctuary, whereupon it all fell to Aaron. 'Such men,' Korah concluded, 'are Moses and Aaron.'"
You wouldn't be descended from Korah, would you Greg:-?
I responded to most of your other points in my messages to Joyce just above. But your above comment begs for further discussion.
Your observation is very biblical isn't it? Consider:
"[Israel] is a nation that will dwell alone, and will not be reckoned among the nations. " (Num. 23:9)
OTOH, we are supposed to be a "light to the nations." How to resolve this apparent contradiction?
The Fall, 1990 issue of the Orthodox Union publication, Jewish Action, was devoted to a symposium, "Israel and the Nations." I will briefly excerpt some quotes from it on both sides of the issue.
Rabbi Emmanuel Feldman:
Can the vision of the prophets -- that the truths of Torah will ultimately be recognized by the nations -- be fulfilled if Israel remains a people apart? If we do not even talk to them, how can we guide them? ... Is the Messianic vision to come about through a cosmic miracle, with no effort on [our] part, so that at the end of days God presses a Divine button and Israel’s light suddenly shines on a darkened world? The question ... is vexing and paradoxical. On the one hand we are separated .... ‘I have separated you from the Nations to be Mine’ (Lev. 20:26), to be a kingdom of priests (Ex. 19:6); ... and we are described as ‘a people dwelling alone which does not reckon among the nations,’ (Num. 23:9), with an entire Halakha (Jewish law) designed to keep us apart, including warnings about ... intermingling ... and ... intermarriage. On the other hand, we are told that we will be a “light unto the nations,’ and that they will ultimately join Israel in acceptance of the truths of the One God and His teachings (Is. 2:2-4); and as we read the Rosh Hashanah liturgy, ‘My house shall be a house of prayer for all the peoples.”
“These opposing tendencies are not contradictions. They underscore the concept that it is precisely its apartness that enables Israel to bring its influence to bear on the world. Apartness has as its purpose the preservation of Israel, so that it can remain the kingdom of priests which brings sanctity to an unsacred world. Through our separateness -- one of the meanings of the word, "kadosh" -- we are able to teach mankind. This is the great paradox of Jewish existence.
“All this is clearly adumbrated in the Alaynu prayer that we recite thrice daily, and that is the centerpiece of the High Holy Day Musaf service. It refers to tikun olam, the “correcting” or “mending” of the world; it expresses hope for the time when mankind will bow before God as they concede the truths of His teachings; and it is climaxed by the famous prophecy of Zechariah 14:9 that, “in that day God will be One and His Name will be One.” But a careful reader will note an apparent contradiction: all this seems to fly in the face of the preceding section of the Alaynu, in which we praise God for not having “made us like the Nations of the earth, and not having made our portion like theirs.” Clearly the Alaynu is an expression of this paradox: the tikun olam can only come about when Israel realizes and maintains its separateness. The task of becoming a kingdom of priests *precedes* the task of becoming a light unto the Nations.
“Nor do I think that the prophetic ‘light unto the Nations’ was ever meant to be an overt, direct-action concept in which we were directed to go forth and teach the nations about holiness. [It] was meant as a prophecy, not as a “thou-shalt” commandment. The day will yet come when Torah will become the light for all mankind, for they will have perceived the truths of Torah. The idols -- i.e., any thing other than God [the Father] to which a person gives ultimate allegiance -- will have been destroyed by the living model of Jewish sacred living.”
As I understand it from comparative theology, the text of what you Christian folk, as well as you Messianic Jews (another name for Christian folk) consider to be the "Bible" is not the sole constituent of authority in Judaism and never has been.
Our hero and intrepid sojourner Jesus of Nazareth did not spend his youth in Temple arguing with older men over the meaning of scripture for no reason. The meaning of scripture was, in fact, open to study, consideration, and argument, and the ancient traditions and rabbinic study also constituted authority for consultation on matters spiritual.
It is by no means certain that "scripture" trumps interpretation, or rabbinic tradition. In fact, as I understood it way back when, it was a package to be considered In Toto.
So, quoting scripture to refute tradition, while refusing to acknowledge tradition, is a bit like shouting louder in English at a store clerk who only speaks Spanish in the hopes that you will get your point across.
In other words, stupid.
This is a slap to every person who claims the name of Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior -
Re: your comment:
You posted "I am not in any way trying to - God forbid - belittle the authority of Sacred Scriptures. I am simply saying that they are not the only authoritative rule of the Christian faith. "
This patently absurd statement proves the truism that "if you mix an ounce of poision in a gallon of baby water, you no longer have baby water..."
The quote of yours above takes cognitive dissonance to an art form."
Are you saying that Jesus Christ is "poison?"
Now THAT's "cognitive dissonance" in terms of the "tail wagging the dog" theology you are implying.
Given the fact that the written tradition (Sacred Scriptures) derives from the oral tradition which originates from Jesus Christ Himself - and the fact that the written and oral tradition are inseparable - you are showing yourself to be far more of an "artiste" than I am in so far as you are impicitly "adding to" the Scriptures something that simply isn't there - namely a clear mandate for the "Bible Only" Rule.
The contradiction is on your part, not mine.
Because as the Scriptures stand,
SOLA SCRIPTURA REFUTES SOLA SCRIPTURA!!!
P.S. Apology accepted for misspelling my name. :-)
10Proving what is acceptable unto the Lord.
11And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them.
12For it is a shame even to speak of those things which are done of them in secret.
Stop playing with Baal
The question becomes - what are you using for distinction - the quote says "on some........"
It also says "but others save with fear,"
I detect no fear of God or His judgement in Ball - only ridicule - do not cast your pearls before swine becomes a more apt quote.
But I digress - understanding it is up to your own discernment.
To quote a very great 20th century mind:
"There is however another consideration more important. There are some men who possess the understanding of the City of God, and know not the keys; or, if they possess them, have not force to turn them in the wards. Such men often seek to win heaven by forged credentials. Just so a youth who desires love is too often deceived by simulacra, embraces Lydia thinking her to be Lalage.
But the greatest men of all suffer neither the limitations of the former class nor the illusions of the latter. Yet we find them equally given to what is apparently indulgence. Lombroso has foolishly sought to find the source of this in madness — as if insanity could scale the peaks of Progress while Reason recoiled from the bergschrund. The explanation is far otherwise. Imagine to yourself the mental state of him who inherits or attains the full consciousness of the artist, that is to say, the divine consciousness.
He finds himself unutterably lonely, and he must steel himself to endure it. All his peers are dead long since! Even if he find an equal upon earth, there can scarcely be companionship, hardly more than the far courtesy of king to king. There are no twin souls in genius."
There is the Godhead in each and every human being who has lived, lives and will live. But unless the individual is truly an initiate prepared for the consequences of the greatness within, it can crush him. Thus, we see that before one can be Illumined, one must be properly prepared.
To quote Rudolph Steiner:
"...Spiritual science should be for us a path to the higher development of our humanity, of all that is human in us.
Thus we set up a life aim, which in a certain way is self understood for every thinking and feeling person, a life aim that includes the achieving of the highest ideals and also includes the unfolding of the deepest and most significant forces in our souls."
Isis offers us a path to unfolding the divine within us.
More to come...
One of your concluding statements:
"...you are impicitly "adding to" the Scriptures something that simply isn't there - namely a clear mandate for the "Bible Only" Rule.""
If that be your position you have some historical support from three very influential women:
Helena Petrovna Blavatsky (1831-1931)
Annie Besant (1847-1933)
Alice A. Bailey (1880-1949)
They too were articulate as are you, they too hold the same view of the Scripture as do you, however, they were more forthright in their view of the scriptures than the convoluted trinary logic you employ to create some sort of verifiable epistomological substance to some "etheral individual behavior" you would term "Church Tradition" which is , over the coarse of 1900+ years, impossible to verify to have any substance, or basis in, or contain, truth, in any valid consideration.
Your lofty pontifications may contain style, but in truth, are devoid of substance.
I had a list of scripture verses that I started in order to post in a reply to your statements against the sola scriptura postiton, however after geting through Chapter 9 of the Gospel of John with intent to just list the most prominent, and not even having gotton to any of the epistles of Paul, Peter, John, etc, I had about 57 verses, so the space here really can't accomodate a proper refutation of your untenable position.
Considering how much you like to copy and paste the "early church fathers" If I could post the probably 100's of verses that teach the importance of the scriptures only, plus nothing for a correct, accurate knowledge of God and ones faith in Him you probably wouldn't consider them of value unless they were "verified" by some "tradition" or "commentary" by someone marinated in at least 200 years of "traditions".
Your "Religionist" overtones, should be quite palatable at any AoC convention. They don't like an objective, verifiable, concrete, standard either.
Sola Scriptura, Sola Fide,
Hey, rave on!
The ad hominem attack simply showcases the weakness of your argument - or lack thereof.
Moreover, it is your rant that is devoid of substance insofar as you are unable to prove Sola Scriptura from Sola Scriptura!
Even if you copy-pasted the whole Bible here there would still not be a single passage which clearly states that "Sola Scriptura" is the Christian rule of faith.
When you ditched the Pope, all you did was to settle for a "change of masters" in the person Martin Luther who invented Sola Scriptura.
Sola Scriptura is a man made rule.
But if, for the sake of argument, I am willing to concede that Sola Scriptura is the Rule of Faith....in that case why would I need you or anyone else to tell me what I need to do in order to measure up to what God expects of me? Why would I need to attend church services and listen to any preachers "explain" the Bible to me or tell me how to be a "good Christian?" Why would I need to attend "Bible Study?"
All I would have to do is to open up the Good Book and the Holy Spirit would teach me whatever I needed to know....and if my "Holy Spirit guided" interpretation contradicted yours, well... why should I believe that your "Holy Spirit guided" interpretation is any more correct than mine?
Speaking of " lofty pontifications," I was going to let this slide before, but your declasse attitude compels me to inform you that I was quite surprised that a person who uses such big scary words like "cognitive dissonance" doesn't know how to spell the word "apology."
Oh, and by the way, since the Rosicrucian Fraternity strongly supported both Martin Luther and Calvin your position is far more redolent of Blavatsky, Besant and Bailey than mine is. Like you, they hated the Pope!
YOU GO GIRL!!!!
NA doesn't like organized religion like the Orthodox Jews and the Catholics because they can't crack their cohesion easily. They can crack the Protestant community with its myriad interpretations of the Bible as long as they put some key ministers in place. See the history of religion in Nazi Germany.
Greg Davis said... “It is such a pleasure conversing with you, because you are so passionate about your beliefs, much more than most of my Christian brothers.”
Thank you Greg. If I succeed in getting across only that there is a lot more to Judaism than stereotypical “legalism” it will have been worthwhile.
Greg said: “In no way do I want to insult you, so if I do, it is completely unintentional, and please let me know, for I do understand that God is faithful to His promise to the Jews and He will certainly curse anyone who curses a Jew.”
I don’t get insulted easily but I get concerned about ignorance of Judaism and missionary triumphalism.
Greg said: “I must apologize because I brought up the question of Jewishness to our senior pastor during Wednesday Bible study an hour ago, and he informed me that I have no right to tell a Jewish person that Christians are Jews. So I admit that I am wrong--but I did give our senior pastor a pretty good fight.”
Give your pastor my compliments.
Greg said: “The bottom line is this: there is no Jew or Gentile or male of female or any other distinction in Christ. All of us who have faith in the Messiah are one. (ref. Gal 3:26-27) --- My only point is that if they want to be eternally blessed, spiritually, they must believe in the One God sent--Jesus Christ.”
While you are giving with one hand you are taking away with the other. Your view lacks the universality of Judaism as well as being a not very implicit condemnation of Judaism. Psalm 145:18 says that God is near to ALL who call on Him but your view contradicts the psalm. While we have no objection to Christianity for gentiles you are condemning Judaism for Jews.
Greg said: “All my Jewish friends have been the smartest, happiest, most wealthy, most confident friends I have ever had. It is abundantly clear that the Jews are physically blessed by God.”
Physical blessing is the least of it. We would not want that if we thought it devoid of spiritual blessing which you are evidently purposely omitting in contradiction of the Bible – of God’s revelation.
As King David prayed to God:
“23 And who is like Your people, like Israel, one nation in the world, whom God went to redeem for Himself as a people, and to make Him a name, also to accomplish for you the greatness and fearful things for Your land, [in driving out] from before Your people, whom You did redeem for Yourself out of Egypt, [the] nations and their gods? 24 And You did establish to Yourself Your people Israel to be a people unto You forever; and You, Lord, became their God. 25 And now, O' Lord God, the word that You have spoken concerning Your servant and concerning his house, confirm it forever, and do as You have spoken. 26 And let Your name be magnified forever, that it may be said: 'The Lord of Hosts is God over Israel; and the house of Your servant David shall be established before You. 27 For You, O' Lord of Hosts, the God of Israel have revealed to Your servant's ear saying: 'A house I will build you'; therefore has your servant found in his heart to pray unto you this prayer. 28 And now, O Lord God, You [alone] are God, and Your words are truth, and You have spoken unto Your servant this good thing. 29 And now let it please You to bless the house of Your servant, that it may continue forever before You; for You, O' Lord God, has spoken it, and through Your blessing let be blessed the house of Your servant forever."
These blessings are not merely physical.
Greg said: “Disobedience to God is far worse than Korah's disobedience to Moses, my friend.”
You are the one who raised the topic. The Bible makes clear that Korah’s disobedience was to God; not just to Moses.
“--- the congregation who incited against Moses and Aaron in the assembly of Korah, when they incited against the Lord. And the earth opened its mouth and swallowed them and Korah, when that assembly died, and when fire destroyed two hundred and fifty men, and they became a sign. (Num. 26:9-10)
Greg Davis said... “Your 11:32 comment was beautifully stated. Your love for your faith "shines" through brilliantly."
Thanks again Greg. You also said: --- “There are many people, non Jews, who equally love, or even excel your love for the Torah and the rest of the Old Testament. These people are called Christians, many of whom have died because of their faith in what the prophets have recorded--the teachings of YHWH.””
I am not comparing who loves the Torah more. Again I point out that the rabbis of the Talmud said:
“The righteous of all nations have a share in the world to come.”
“A Gentile who occupies himself with Torah is equal to the high priest."
"Whether you are Gentile or Jew the Divine Presence rests on you according to your deeds."
Greg said: “Therefore, the light of the world is not that everyone in the world will come to accept the nation of Israel as the spiritual "teaching center" of the modern world, but the Light of the world is Jesus Christ and faith in Him, that He it the Messiah, crucified and raised from the dead(according to Isaiah)to establish His eternal kingdom. Jews will not inherit the Kingdom of God apart from their Messiah.”
Unfortunately your backhanded compliments above are no better than your earlier straightforward condemnations. Perhaps you need to again have a talk with your pastor. Tomorrow’s Torah portion begins as follows:
“Behold, I set before you today a blessing and a curse. The blessing, that you will heed the commandments of the Lord your God, which I command you today; and the curse, if you will not heed the commandments of the Lord your God, but turn away from the way I command you this day, to follow other gods, which you did not know.” (Deut. 11:26-28)
In other words, the Bible equates not heeding all the commandments in the Torah with a single infraction; “follow[ing] other gods, which you did not know.”
But that is exactly what you are advising: that Jews follow a god we did not know. Thank you but we will stick to the God we have ALWAYS known; “the Lord, [our] God, Who took [us] out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.” (Exod. 20:2)
Please think about this.
Greg said: “However, I respect your rabbi and every other Jewish person, because without you there would be no me and no us. I am eternally indebted to your race to give me the opportunity to have a share in the blessings and promises of Abraham, by faith.
1. Judaism is not a race. Just last week my synagogue celebrated the marriage of an Ashkenazi and an ethnic Chinese bride who converted to Judaism 3 ½ years ago. There are Jews of all races.
2. The promises to Abraham were by a lot more than faith.
“And I will multiply your seed like the stars of the heavens, and I will give your seed all these lands, and all the nations of the earth will bless themselves by your seed, Because Abraham hearkened to My voice, and kept My charge, My commandments, My statutes, and My instructions." (Gen. 26:4-5)
I hasten to add that Abraham had faith only in the Father. He did not dilute it by having faith in anyone else; "faith" which would have represented a lack of faith.
Have a great weeekend,
Greg Davis said...
The above quote is Hosea 4.
Show me where Hosea mentioned Jesus. I know -- you just meant the beginning of the quote. But why quote only Hosea 4? He wrote 14chapters. Here are some verses that you left out in your prejudicial rant:
"I am the Lord your God from the land of Egypt, and gods besides Me you should not know, and there is no savior but Me." (Hos. 13:3)
Hos. 14:5 I will heal [Israel's] backsliding; I will love them freely, for My wrath has turned away from them. 6 I will be like dew to Israel, they shall blossom like a rose, and it shall strike its roots like the Lebanon. 7 Its branches shall go forth, and its beauty shall be like the olive tree, and its fragrance like the Lebanon. 8 Those who dwelt in its shade shall return; they shall revive [like] corn and blossom like the vine; its fragrance shall be like the wine of Lebanon. 9 Ephraim shall; What more do I need idols? I will answer him and I will look upon him: I am like a leafy cypress tree; from Me your fruit is found. 10 Whoever is wise let him understand these things: whoever is discerning let him know them; for the ways of the Lord are right, and the just shall walk in them, but the rebellious shall stumble in them.
Greg Davis said... "The spiritual man makes judgments about all things, but he himself is not subject to any man's judgment:"
You need to explain such a platitude. What do you mean by "spiritual man?" What judgments?
Greg added: "'For who has known the mind of the Lord that he may instruct him? 'But we have the mind of Christ.'"
The Torah tells us what is on the Lord's Mind.
Deut. 30:11 For this commandment which I command you this day, is not concealed from you, nor is it far away. 12 It is not in heaven, that you should say, "Who will go up to heaven for us and fetch it for us, to tell [it] to us, so that we can fulfill it?" 13 Nor is it beyond the sea, that you should say, "Who will cross to the other side of the sea for us and fetch it for us, to tell [it] to us, so that we can fulfill it?" 14 Rather,[this] thing is very close to you; it is in your mouth and in your heart, so that you can fulfill it.
For a while I thoiught I had gotten through and witnessed a blessing of repentance in you but, evidently, I was mistaken.
I will take the Lord God, the Father. You can have Jesus.
"And David said to Gad; 'I am greatly oppressed; let us fall now into the hand of the Lord; for His mercies are great; but let me not fall into the hand of man.'" (2 Sam. 24:14)
If it is your desire to convert Len to whatever it is your religion is, and it seems extremely militant about wresting others faith away from them, then here is a tip:
Don't forward them videos from "Jews for Jesus".
But just in case I am mistaken (and it has yet to happen" here is a video just for your from a Wiccan explaining why a Christian can be a Wiccan and Wicca is compatible with Christianity:
And she is quite correct.
Before anyone decides to engage with Baal, please remember the kind of person he is. This is an excerpt from what he wrote on a recent thread to Constance
You are a fraud. You prey on people who are completely dependent on their faith just to get through the day....
You collect rot sources and string them together to form the wildest theories about how peoples religious freedom is going to be striped away....
And you carry on with this nonsense, preying on people who are frightened out of their minds. And you make money off of it.
You are also a filthy and disgusting bigot....
You edit your own Wikipedia page to make yourself seem sane.
You are a liar, and a mentally ill fraud.
Here is hoping the "pagan's" destroy both your work and your religion.
This is the kind of abuse he has posted publicly on this blog. Regardless of his religious affiliation, do you really want to engage on any level with someone who acts in such a way?
I know that I don't.
I am going to post this on the other thread as a reminder to those of you who may not realize what you are actually dealing with.
He can be "charming" but he has nailed his true colors to the mast. By all means pray for him and especially his children, but please ask yourself if you want to engage with someone who acts in such a blatantly abusive manner.
It appears that the abuse you hurled at Susanna without provocation is the product of intellectual jealousy. I can understand this a little bit since I am rather in awe myself of the intellectual gifts she so generously shares here at this blog.
Susanna's IQ is higher than mine, and from what I know of you from your posts, it is certainly higher than yours. When I start feeling a little "down on myself" or inferior by comparison, I remind myself that as St. Paul tells us in the end it isn't knowledge that matters -- it is love. You should try to keep this verse in mind the next time you read one of Susanna's posts and your head starts to explode with rage.
Please post one or two verses from the 57 in the Bible that you feel prove "Sola Scriptura."
I am thrilled to have come to your attention. But if you really consider Truth to be abuse, seek help now.
Why don't you try posting something about the New Age movement and take your anti-Jewish and anti-Catholic rhetoricelsewhere?
There are numerous websites that cater especially and exclusively for people of your particularly religious persuasion (such as the Berean Call, Fulfilled Prophecy, Rapture Ready). This isn't one of them.
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
Links to this post:
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]