← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Walter Yannis

Why Sola Scriptura Still Matters — Part One

Thread ID: 16888 | Posts: 53 | Started: 2005-02-22

Wayback Archive

Walter Yannis [OP]

2005-02-22 09:36 | User Profile

[URL=http://www.catholicexchange.com/vm/index.asp?vm_id=2&art_id=27235]Why Sola Scriptura Still Matters — Part One[/URL]

02/01/05

If you are not the sort of person who celebrates divorce anniversaries or sends congratulatory notes to pals for holding onto grudges, it may not have occurred to you that 2017 is going to be a big party year for some of our friends.

The Banner of the “Reformation” Still Flies

That year, October 31 to be precise, marks the 500th anniversary of Martin Luther’s posting of his ninety-five theses on the door of the Castle Church in Wittenberg Germany, the spark that lit the fire of what many Protestants still proudly call the "Reformation.”

What can we Catholics expect, given the climate of cooperation and dialogue that has thawed relations between ourselves and our Protestant brethren during the past 50 years? I believe we can expect a renewed emphasis on the oldest Reformation issues and a strong reassertion of Protestant polemics. Not because the thaw has not been real, but because it has led to so many Protestants recognizing Catholics as fellow Christians and opening themselves to our witness, that it worries many Protestant leaders and teachers.

The banner of the Reformation is sola scriptura (scripture alone). There are several other Reformation slogans: “Christ alone," “faith alone,” and “grace alone.” But sola scriptura is the key to the rest. Cutting as it does straight to the heart of the real issue between ourselves and our separated brethren — authority — it remains the key subject that we have to know how to talk about with Protestants.

Oh, Please, Let’s Talk!

This is a subject we should welcome. Catholics have the advantage here, because we already agree with so much of what Protestants bring forth. This might not feel like much an advantage in a debate scenario — like we are giving a great deal ground to our opponents at the outset — but the purpose of our argument with them is not the winning of debates, it is the winning of hearts. To that end we should never lose a chance to say to a Protestant, “Look how very wide a swath of common ground we have here; let’s see if we can expand it.”

It is all to the good then, that Protestants often begin to approach this subject with us by discussing the authority and power of Scripture. To much of what they assert, a Catholic can respond, “Amen. Agreed!” If you as a Catholic are not clear on what the Church teaches about the authority and power of Scripture, a good place to begin is with Dei Verbum, the document on Scripture from the fathers of the Second Vatican Counsel. Its full title is Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation and our columnist Dr. Marcellino D'Ambrosio provided a four-part introduction to it on Catholic Exchange last year. (If you would like to review his series, click on the links for Part One, Part Two, Part Three, and Part Four.)

What specific use do I have in mind for these documents when you are talking to a Protestant? It is important for you to be able to express what the Catholic view of Scripture is. Many of our separated brethren consider Catholics to have a diminished view of Scripture, discounting the Bible. If we express ourselves regarding Scripture according to the words of this document, the high view that the Church has of Scripture will be evident in our conversation.

Are You Credible?

“Scripture alone” Protestants want to know that you love the Bible, believe in the Bible, and accept the inspiration of the Bible. Remember, they do not have all of the Sacraments that we have to bring us close to Christ. They rely much more heavily on Bible reading to sustain them spiritually. They will not consider you credible unless you demonstrate love for and familiarity with the Scriptures. Studying Dei Verbum will not only give you the correct language for expressing the Catholic view of Scripture, it will also convince you of your need to be a student of Scripture.

If then, the Catholic Church has a “high view” of Scripture, how do we differ from Protestants? What we Catholics deny is the Protestant view that the Scripture is the only infallible authority in the Christian life, the only deposit of “God’s Word” and that it must be so because Church councils and Traditions are not infallible. (This is what is known as the formal sufficiency of Scripture as a rule of faith.) We do believe however, that every true Christian doctrine is found in Scripture, either implicitly or explicitly. (This is called the material sufficiency of Scripture).

In the final analysis is does not matter whether we call a particular view of Scripture the “high view” or the “low view,” what matters is that our view of Scripture be scriptural! If sola scriptura is the key Reformation doctrine, then the key question is whether the doctrine of sola scriptura is in the Bible. This is what has to be answered because the very issue is framed so that the argument for it has to come from the Bible itself and from the Bible alone. To put it in a nutshell our apologetical task is to demonstrate that sola scriptura fails logically as a principle drawn from Scripture. And since it makes (and can make) no appeal other than to Scripture, it therefore fails completely.

Next week we will consider the key Bible text that Protestants use to make a “scriptural” defense of sola scriptura.

[URL=http://www.catholicexchange.com/vm/index.asp?vm_id=2&art_id=27236]“All Scripture Is Inspired”[/URL]

The Bible verses that demand the most attention and have the longest history of being used in the Protestant defense of sola scriptura are 2 Timothy 3:16 and 17. Let’s take a look at them in context beginning at verse 10:

10 Now you have observed my teaching, my conduct, my aim in life, my faith, my patience, my love, my steadfastness, 11 my persecutions, my sufferings, what befell me at Antioch, at Ico'nium, and at Lystra, what persecutions I endured; yet from them all the Lord rescued me. 12 Indeed all who desire to live a godly life in Christ Jesus will be persecuted, 13 while evil men and impostors will go on from bad to worse, deceivers and deceived. 14 But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it 15 and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings which are able to instruct you for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. 16 All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work. — (RSV, Catholic Ed., Scepter) Although the argument has gone on longer, we can exhaust the various lines by taking it up at the point where John Henry Cardinal Newman entered the discussion. Protestants look at the words of verses 16 and 17 and reason that since Scripture can make a man of God “complete, equipped for every good work,” Scripture alone is the sole rule for faith. Cardinal Newman pointed out that Protestants prove too much by this argument since the New Testament (NT) writings were not what St. Paul was referring to — he meant the Old Testament (OT). So if these verses were an expression of the principle of sola scriptura, they would have ruled out reception of the NT.

Newman was laying out the historical Catholic understanding. For instance, Chrysostom commented on this question in Homily IX: “All what Scripture? All that sacred writing, he means, of which I was speaking. This is said of what he was discoursing of; about which he said, 'From a child thou hast known the holy Scriptures.'" Chrysostom is here pointing out that since the only Scripture Timothy had access to as a child was the Old Testament, St. Paul could hardly have been including in “all Scripture” the still-unfinished and not-yet-collected writings of the NT.

Protestants counter that the NT is certainly included in Paul’s “all Scripture” or at least that portion of it that was already written at the time he wrote to Timothy. That would be the letters of St. Paul and possibly one of the Gospels. We do know from St. Paul’s words at 2 Timothy 4: 6 that this letter was written very near the end of his life.

Although the Catholic understanding is more coherent with the text, we Catholics certainly are not denying that, in principle, what St. Paul says about the usefulness of “all Scripture” does apply to both the OT and the NT. So it is to what he said on that score that we ought to direct our attention and that of our Protestant friends, because it is here that the real burden of the Protestant argument lies. To reiterate: they reason that since Scripture can make a man of God “complete, equipped for every good work,” Scripture is the sole rule for faith.

It’s All Greek to Me, Too!

Now, one line of Catholic argument against this has been to look at the word “complete” and notice that other things are also said in the Bible to make one complete, such as endurance, mentioned in James 1:4.

Protestants in turn have pointed out that other instances of the English word “complete” or “perfect” are not truly parallel with 2 Timothy 3: 17, because the Greek word used there is different from the Greek word used in the other passages. Since most of us, and the Protestants with whom we dialogue, are unlikely to be conversant in Greek, it is most helpful to focus on a point that will make these ancient language vocabulary discussions irrelevant.

Regardless of the Greek word used in 2 Timothy 3: 17, Catholics and Protestants agree: the Christian could never be more adequate, more complete, more equipped for every good work than Jesus. Jesus is precisely what Pilate called Him when he said, “Behold the Man!” He is “the Man,” the human person par excellence. To be conformed unto Him is the goal of all true spirituality, of all Bible study for that matter.

Formulating Our Scriptural Response

Ask your Protestant friend to hold onto that thought while you read together Ephesians 4:11-16:

11 And his gifts were that some should be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some pastors and teachers, 12 to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, 13 until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ; 14 so that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the cunning of men, by their craftiness in deceitful wiles. 15 Rather, speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ, 16 from whom the whole body, joined and knit together by every joint with which it is supplied, when each part is working properly, makes bodily growth and upbuilds itself in love. Now all that is needed to defeat the argument of sola scriptura is to demonstrate from Scripture that something else accomplishes in Christians what Protestants claim Scripture accomplishes — and these verses in Ephesians do that.

But we can draw out the logic here a little further. Let’s ask this question: Could I use this scripture in Ephesians to make a case for sola ecclesia — to say that all we need are the various ministries of the Church; we don’t need the Bible? Of course not! Indeed that would be an absurd claim to make, wouldn’t it? Here I am using a scripture from the Bible! Obviously I can’t use this scripture to claim that we don’t need the Bible. To attempt to do so would be self-refuting.

Well, the Catholic case here is that the Protestant use of 2 Timothy 3:16, 17 is equally self-refuting, although not quite as obvious on the surface. Let’s use an illustration to demonstrate it: Imagine that a group of Christians have gone to hear St. Paul preach while he is under house arrest. After hearing him speak, one of them pipes up and says, “Look here, Brother Paul, we do not really need to listen to you. I’ve been to visit Timothy and he has a letter from you that says that the Scriptures are the sole rule of faith.”

Why would this be absurd? Obviously, because the authority one finds in the letter to Timothy is the authority of St. Paul himself. The words he wrote to Timothy had authority for Timothy because they are the words of an Apostle. The Protestant mistake is to divorce the authority of Scripture from the apostolic authority that produced, collected and canonized the Scriptures.

Next week we will find out exactly what that apostolic authority was saying to Timothy and to us about the Scriptures.

[URL=http://www.catholicexchange.com/vm/index.asp?art_id=27237]Scriptures Can Be Misused[/URL]

Was St. Paul saying that “the Bible” would make the man of God “complete, equipped for every good work”?

No. Let’s look at the text again, just verses 16 and 17, “All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.”

Is it the Scripture that accomplishes this? No, it is teaching, reproof, correction, and training in righteousness that makes the man of God complete, equipped for every good work. Those who do the teaching, reproving, correcting and training will find that the Scriptures are “profitable” for this endeavor. But note: profitable does not mean sufficient. This work depends upon the ministries of the Church mentioned in Ephesians 4:11-16, as we observed last week. And why?

Because the scriptures can be misused. Even during the Apostles’ day scriptures were misused and misinterpreted. People could be tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, even by people who were quoting Scripture, as St. Peter said of those who twisted the meaning of St. Paul’s letters (2 Pt 3:15,16). What was the protection against this? Not Scripture, but the apostolic Church. United to the Church which has Jesus as its head, one is protected from cunning and deceitful use of Scripture. In addition, one is protected from being deceived as to what Scripture is because the apostolic Church both witnesses to us that Scripture exists and tells us what constitutes Scripture.

Authority Is Still the Issue

Let’s look again at what St. Paul said to Timothy in verses 14 and 15 of the passage we have been discussing: “But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings which are able to instruct you for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.” From whom had Timothy learned? Well, certainly from St. Paul, who tells Timothy in verses 10 and 11 that Timothy had been a long observer of the Apostle’s life and the conduct of his ministry.

In fact in this same letter (2 Tm 1: 13), St. Paul admonishes: “Follow the pattern of the sound words which you have heard from me, in the faith and love which are in Christ Jesus”; and then in chapter 2 verses 1, 2 he tells Timothy to entrust what he had heard to faithful men who will be able to teach others also.

But it wasn’t from St. Paul that Timothy had come to know from childhood the sacred writings to which Paul referred. It was from his mother and grandmother (2 Tm 1:5). And where did they get these sacred writings?

From Jewish tradition. It was Jewish tradition that told them what their sacred writings were. It was because Timothy could trust his mother and grandmother and the Jewish tradition in which they were steeped that he had become acquainted with Scripture to begin with.

Begin at the Beginning

Let’s begin at square one: What does a Protestant have before he is a Christian? He has what we all have — natural revelation. And what can we learn from natural revelation? We can learn that “Someone” is there. That is about as far as natural revelation takes us. This is the point of the first chapter of Romans. Now the heart of the epistemological problem — the problem of how we know — is this: How do you get from “Someone is there” to the very interesting idea that this “Someone” has inspired the writing of a book? Is the existence of a book which can be called the “Word of God” a conclusion of natural revelation? No, it is not. So, then how do we get from the natural revelation to the book? We get there because somebody tells us about the book.

Before the Scripture can witness to us, there must be a witness to us about the Scripture and that witness to the Scripture is always living human beings who deliver, not only the Scripture itself, but the testimony to the existence of the Scripture and the Scripture’s God. That is why we must insist that when Protestants quote 2 Timothy 3:16-17, they read also verse 14: “But as for you continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it.” The “whom” came for Timothy before the sacred writings and so it is with all of us. So it is with Protestants too, and the “whom” for them is the Roman Catholic Church.

Not only does sola scriptura fail to answer the question about what constitutes Scripture, the very concept “Scripture” (i.e. the idea that God has a book for us) cannot find its epistemological basis in sola scriptura. This means the existence of the Bible is not known from the Bible; it is a presupposition (something that has to be known beforehand). That would be a bad enough blow to sola scriptura, but there is more: The Bible itself actually witnesses to the fact that a Sacred Tradition belonging to a people has to exist prior to Scripture and is the thing that produces Scripture and then transmits that Scripture.

Does this seem a bit complex? Maybe it is. But as a convert, I can tell you that it is the central issue converts from Protestantism must grapple with. If we have had to wrap our heads around this argument in order to become Catholic, is it too much to ask cradle Catholics to give it a shot for the sake of our dear friends still living apart from the sacraments? Besides, you’ve got until 2017 to get it down pat and lots of Protestants around to practice on in the meantime.

© Copyright 2005 Catholic Exchange

Mary Kochan, Senior Editor of Catholic Exchange, was raised as a third-generation Jehovah’s Witness. She is a member of St. Theresa parish in Douglasville, GA and she is homeschooling four of her grandchildren. Her tapes are available from Saint Joseph Communications.

SCRIPTURESEZ

2005-02-23 01:32 | User Profile

What Scriptures were the New Covenant writers talking about?

Jack Cassidy

2005-02-23 03:42 | User Profile

First off, it should be noted that denominational issues are really now out of place at most academic theological schools, except for classes in historical theology. The reading lists and bibliographies for most courses will pretty much look the same whether it's Catholic University of America or Princeton Theological (especially true in biblical studies).

The writer of this article referred to knowledge of NT Greek in order to fully understand the NT. Alot of the top NT scholars have their academic training in Near Eastern languages, suggesting that without a thorough knowledge of Semitic languages, especially Aramaic and Hebrew, any NT exegetical work is flawed, whether it is reading the English text without reference to the Greek, or Greek without reference to the Aramaic. But actually, it is easier to be mislead reading the NT in Greek versus a good English translation. Most of the translators of various biblical versions-- NEB, NIV, NRSV, NAB, NJB, et al.-- have the extensive theological and linguistic background and it is used in the arduous task of direct translation from the ancient texts. And these translations are done by groups of scholars, mitigating any flaws due to idosyncrasies from one scholar to another. With an individual reading directly from the Greek New Testament there is not an understanding or eye toward the underlying Semiticisms (Hebraisms) that you who have in a decent English translation (assuming the Greek NT reader is not a biblical scholar with decades of Hebrew and Aramaic exegesis under his or her belt). Biblical studies also requires extensive knowledge of culture and history--- social and religious-- of Ancient Israel. In many ways this knowledge is more important than the mastering of the original languages. Imagine someone a few thousand years in the future trying understand our letter writings who only has studied the English language. How will he or she make sense of the fact that sometimes we use grammatically incorrect sentences more often that the correct form, e.g., the standard reply, "It's me." "Who's there?" "It's me." "Hello?" "Yeah, it's me." Someone who has perfectly mastered English grammar in the same way one studies and masters an ancient languages, will be thrown.

All that said I think sola scriptura is illogical. Even if the Bible said in it's opening sentence, "This is the infallible and inerrant word of God," one would have to already accept this statement in order to accept it. "Why do you believe the Bible is the infallible word of God?" "Because the Bible says it's so." "But why do you believe the Bible?" "Because it's the infallible word of God."

SCRIPTURESEZ

2005-02-23 05:56 | User Profile

The fact remains that the use of the word Scripture in the New Covenant writings are referring to the Tanach, the Old Testament/or Old Covenant. One can academically study this writing, but never understand the simplest statement in any translation without the spiritual guidance of Yeshua.

Ezekial 36:25 And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statues, and ye shall keep my judgements and do them.

If one does not believe in the spiritual aspects, one does not understand.

Not one jot or tittle of the law has passed away, nor miracles, nor healings, nor tongues.

The word does not change.

Jack Cassidy

2005-02-23 07:47 | User Profile

[QUOTE=SCRIPTURESEZ]The fact remains that the use of the word Scripture in the New Covenant writings are referring to the Tanach, the Old Testament/or Old Covenant. One can academically study this writing, but never understand the simplest statement in any translation without the spiritual guidance of Yeshua.

[/QUOTE] What's the starting point for this claim? How should a complete neophyte approach the Scriptures? With this advice from you, which you will claim comes from the Scriptures? Is so, then they are beginning with you and not the Scriptures. Your hints, suggestions, guides are extra-biblical and therefore run counter to your position.

Petr

2005-02-23 12:43 | User Profile

Here's a nice essay on "Sola Scriptura" - in a form of imaginary debate - from a Presbyterian point of view:

[url]http://aomin.org/Morrow.html[/url]

...[COLOR=DarkRed]

Let’s cut to the quick, then” Paul decided, moving to the “big gun” that would surely demonstrate the need of the Roman Catholic position.

“Praise be” Bill finally muttered. “Yes, let’s” Susan added.

Paul prepared to deliver what he himself had believed to be an unanswerable argument. “[B]The simple reason sola scriptura doesn’t work is because without the Catholic Church’s decision regarding the canon you don’t have a reliable Bible[/B].”

“Really?” John asked, sitting back. “And when exactly did that take place?

“Well, you have the councils of Hippo and Carthage….”

“Those were not ecumenical councils, correct?”

“Well, no, they are not reckoned as such” Paul replied.

“And you are saying we must have an infallible decision to have a reliable Bible, so, are local councils infallible?”

“No, they are not.”

“OK, so the first infallible reckoning of the canon was when?”

“Well, that would be Trent, 1556.”

“1546, actually, April.”

“No, 1556, it’s right here in the November, 2000 issue of This Rock magazine.”

“There were no meetings of the Council of Trent between 1552 and 1562, Paul. It was April, 1546. This Rock just needs a better copy editor, that’s all.”

“Oh, well, whatever.”

“So,” John continued, “no one had a reliable Bible until April of 1546?”

“Well, they had Apostolic tradition” Paul replied uncertainly.

“[B]I repeat. It is your position that in April of 1546 the world, for the first time, had a reliable Bible? The greatest theological battles had already been fought against Arianism and the like without a reliable Bible? Of what use, then, really is the Bible, if, in fact, the Church got along without a ‘reliable’ Bible for three-fourths of its existence[/B]?”

“That sounds really strange, Paul” Susan added.

“Well, at least we have a reliable canon of the Bible!” Paul replied, getting a bit desperate. “That’s more than you can say!”

“Actually, Paul, you don’t” John said, leaning forward in his chair. “All you have done is move the canon question back one step and hidden your action by covering the track with a little dust and obfuscation. You say you know the canon, and we don’t, because a group of men representing Roman Catholicism met at Trent in 1546. You submit yourself to their decisions. Yet, I have to ask, why do you believe they have the authority to determine the canon? Why are they the only true holders of the title ‘Christ’s true Church’?”

“I’m glad you asked” Paul replied. “You are right that I know the Bible is the Word of God because the Church tells me so. And I know the Church can tell me because when we study history we find the Bible trustworthy. We can know what Jesus did and said. He told his apostles he would send them the Spirit to lead them into all truth. Jesus’ Resurrection, which is the only adequate explanation for his empty tomb, proved his divinity. So we can trust what he told his disciples. Jesus hands Peter the keys of the kingdom of Heaven, a symbol of not only authority but of dynastic succession. So the Holy Spirit leads the offices of the apostles and their successors, the bishops, into all truth. The Church, as 1 Timothy 3:15 informs us, is the pillar and bulwark of the truth.’ So when the episcopal successors of the apostles of the apostles were exercising their offices in the form of ecumenical councils, the Holy Spirit kept them free from error. This goes for not only when they determined which books belonged in Scripture, but also when they determined Jesus was fully man and fully God, as well as the Real Presence in the Eucharist, and all of the other Catholic dogmas.”

John smiled. “I’m glad all the cards are now on the table, for this will help everyone to see the true nature of the claims of Roman Catholicism. I would like to note two major things. First, the argument you present is challengeable at many levels. You say Jesus gave Peter the keys, yet, in Matthew 16, the original Greek text uses the future tense, and the only other place in Scripture that could show us this happening is Matthew 18:18, yet there, Peter receives this authority alongside the other Apostles. The idea of “dynastic succession” is easily challenged, especially if you are using Isaiah 22:22 as your basis. Yes, the Church is the pillar and foundation of the truth, but that doesn’t make her infallible, nor does it make her the truth itself. A pillar and foundation support something else: in this case, the truth. So the argument you present is by no means itself certain, hence, how can an uncertain, easily challengeable argument provide you with the certainty you say we do not have?

        “[B]But secondly, and more importantly, is the obvious inconsistency in  your entire position.  You say that we Protestants must have an infallible definition of the canon by some ecclesiastical body or the Bible cannot ‘function’ for us, it becomes ‘unreliable.’  Yet, when we ask you about your ultimate authority, the Church, you ‘prove’ its authority by an extended and questionable historical argument. [/B]  When Protestants point to the historical development of the canon, you say that is insufficient ground.  Yet, you point to a much less clear, far more arguable historical presentation to substantiate your own ultimate authority.  How can it be ‘OK’ for you to appeal to such an argument in defense of the Church, when it is not for me when I point to the passive, historical development of the canon over time?  An argument that is so obviously self-contradictory cannot possibly be true.”

Now at this point I could present a number of responses that have been offered by Roman Catholic controversialists, but they all share the same circularity: the decision to embrace Rome as the final authority in all things is [I]a fallible decision[/I]. It can produce no more certainty than any other human decision. [B]The use of the argument that we must have Rome to have a Bible is internally self-contradictory and hence utterly illogical, no matter how often it is presented. [/B] [B]It is the classic “shell game,” where the real question is hidden from view in the hopes that the person who is being scammed will not notice. [/B] [/COLOR]

[url]http://aomin.org/Morrow.html[/url]

Petr

Quantrill

2005-02-23 12:56 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Petr][color=DarkRed] Now at this point I could present a number of responses that have been offered by Roman Catholic controversialists, but they all share the same circularity: the decision to embrace Rome as the final authority in all things is a fallible decision. It can produce no more certainty than any other human decision. The use of the argument that we must have Rome to have a Bible is internally self-contradictory and hence utterly illogical, no matter how often it is presented. ** It is the classic “shell game,” where the real question is hidden from view in the hopes that the person who is being scammed will not notice. **[/color][/QUOTE] Petr, this quote could easily be rephrased as follows --

[color=black] Now at this point I could present a number of responses that have been offered by Protestant controversialists, but they all share the same circularity: the decision to embrace the Bible as the final authority in all things is a fallible decision. It can produce no more certainty than any other human decision. The use of the argument that we must have the Bible to have the Church is internally self-contradictory and hence utterly illogical, no matter how often it is presented. ** It is the classic “shell game,” where the real question is hidden from view in the hopes that the person who is being scammed will not notice.**[/color]

Petr

2005-02-23 13:48 | User Profile

• for the sake of argument, I won't question your logic here:

Whereas Protestants can practice independent judgment (guided by the Holy Spirit and the self-evident testimony of genuine Scriptures themselves, like Bereans did), Catholics can not.

Petr

Walter Yannis

2005-02-23 14:06 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Petr]- for the sake of argument, I won't question your logic here:

Whereas Protestants can practice independent judgment (guided by the Holy Spirit and the self-evident testimony of genuine Scriptures themselves, like Bereans did), Catholics can not.

Petr[/QUOTE]

Which is why we have, at last count, 28,000 Protestant denominations.

Whatever happened to all being one in Him?

Petr

2005-02-23 14:31 | User Profile

[I][B] - "Which is why we have, at last count, 28,000 Protestant denominations."[/B][/I]

All Catholic apologists seem to spout this number - I wonder what's its source?

After Vatican II, Roman Catholics can hardly talk about being "[I]une et indivisible[/I]", if they ever were.

(Not even mentioning the schism between Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox)

Petr

Quantrill

2005-02-23 15:10 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Petr] - "Which is why we have, at last count, 28,000 Protestant denominations."

All Catholic apologists seem to spout this number - I wonder what's its source?[/QUOTE] Would it be better if we just said, 'at last count, a sh**load of Protestant denominations'? :wink:

Walter Yannis

2005-02-23 15:27 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Quantrill]Would it be better if we just said, 'at last count, a sh**load of Protestant denominations'? :wink:[/QUOTE]

I'll go with that.

Texas Dissident

2005-02-23 15:37 | User Profile

[QUOTE=SCRIPTURESEZ]The fact remains that the use of the word Scripture in the New Covenant writings are referring to the Tanach, the Old Testament/or Old Covenant.[/QUOTE]

So then, dear friends, since you are looking forward to this, make every effort to be found spotless, blameless and at peace with him. Bear in mind that our Lord's patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His (Paul's) letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.**

• 2 Peter 3:14-16

Be gone, judaizer! :caiphas: :furious:

You have no credibility here.

Walter Yannis

2005-02-23 15:44 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Texas Dissident]So then, dear friends, since you are looking forward to this, make every effort to be found spotless, blameless and at peace with him. Bear in mind that our Lord's patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His (Paul's) letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.**

• 2 Peter 3:14-16

Be gone, judaizer! :caiphas: :furious:

You have no credibility here.[/QUOTE]

Is Sez Raina's latest incarnation?

Texas Dissident

2005-02-23 15:49 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Walter Yannis]Is Sez Raina's latest incarnation?[/QUOTE]

Maybe, Brother. It hasn't struck me as that, but I don't know, definitely possible. Starting to get a bit irritating.

Quantrill

2005-02-23 16:06 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Texas Dissident]Maybe, Brother. It hasn't struck me as that, but I don't know, definitely possible. Starting to get a bit irritating.[/QUOTE] (S)he seems incapable of doing anything but repeating the same assertions over and over, and then claiming that 'Jesus didn't abolish the law.'

PS -- Tex, that Son Volt album is a good 'un.

Texas Dissident

2005-02-23 16:15 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Quantrill]PS -- Tex, that Son Volt album is a good 'un.[/QUOTE]

Yes it is, Q. Believe it or not I just got turned on to them from a new acquaintance of mine from the mid-west. I had heard of and remembered Uncle Tupelo from way back in the late 80s, but never kept following what they did after their breakup. Wilco's good, but Jay's stuff is more to my taste and that Trace album is great, beginning to end.

Texas Dissident

2005-02-23 17:59 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Jack Cassidy]In many ways this knowledge is more important than the mastering of the original languages. Imagine someone a few thousand years in the future trying understand our letter writings who only has studied the English language. How will he or she make sense of the fact that sometimes we use grammatically incorrect sentences more often that the correct form, e.g., the standard reply, "It's me." "Who's there?" "It's me." "Hello?" "Yeah, it's me." Someone who has perfectly mastered English grammar in the same way one studies and masters an ancient languages, will be thrown.

Jack,

With all due respect you almost sound like a gnostic here, qualifying a 'true understanding' of the Scripture to some kind of elite only, denying the perspicuity and corresponding suffiency of the Holy Scriptures themselves. I think that's venturing into dangerous territory.

All that said I think sola scriptura is illogical. Even if the Bible said in it's opening sentence, "This is the infallible and inerrant word of God," one would have to already accept this statement in order to accept it.

Pray tell from whence the authority of Scripture originates in your view.

SCRIPTURESEZ

2005-02-23 18:22 | User Profile

The point is if you really believe that God does not change, you would be wary of any teaching that is not Scriptural.

Think about it what the word forever means. It means forever.

Example: We are told that the Feasts are forever to the congretaion of Israel, meaning:

Exodus 12:1 ¶And the LORD spake unto Moses and Aaron in the land of Egypt, saying, 2 This month shall be unto you the beginning of months: it shall be the first month of the year to you. 3 Speak ye unto all the congregation of Israel, saying, In the tenth day of this month they shall take to them every man a lamb, according to the house of their fathers, a lamb for an house:

and down to Exodus 17: 17 And ye shall observe the feast of unleavened bread; for in this selfsame day have I brought your armies out of the land of Egypt: therefore shall ye observe this day in your generations by an ordinance [color=darkred]for ever[/color].

and for seven days

8 In the first month, on the fourteenth day of the month at even, ye shall eat unleavened bread, until the one and twentieth day of the month at even. 19 Seven days shall there be no leaven found in your houses: for whosoever eateth that which is leavened, even that soul shall be cut off from the congregation of Israel, whether he be a stranger, or born in the land. 20 Ye shall eat nothing leavened; in all your habitations shall ye eat unleavened bread.

Genesis 14: 14 ¶And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:

the word seasons there in the hebrew is moedim meaning appointments.

The feasts and festivals of the Lord are His appointments that must be kept forever on the day He states and for How long He states. Not incorporate into what you want.

This is the commands that were given to us as the church in the wilderness.

You do know the church started in the wilderness? Correct? That Jesus came for the lost sheep of the House of Israel?

Again, where is the scripture changing or incorporating or redoing or missing or inserting pagan ideas into the Feasts and Festivals of the Lord?

Texas Dissident

2005-02-23 18:41 | User Profile

[QUOTE=SCRIPTURESEZ]Again, where is the scripture changing or incorporating or redoing or missing or inserting pagan ideas into the Feasts and Festivals of the Lord?[/QUOTE]

One more time for the stiff-necked pharisees:

For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form, and you have been given fullness in Christ, who is the head over every power and authority. In him you were also circumcised, in the putting off of the sinful nature, not with a circumcision done by the hands of men but with the circumcision done by Christ, having been buried with him in baptism and raised with him through your faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead.

When you were dead in your sins and in the uncircumcision of your sinful nature, God made you alive with Christ. He forgave us all our sins, having canceled the written code, with its regulations, that was against us and that stood opposed to us; he took it away, nailing it to the cross. And having disarmed the powers and authorities, he made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them by the cross.

Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day. These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ. Do not let anyone who delights in false humility and the worship of angels disqualify you for the prize. Such a person goes into great detail about what he has seen, and his unspiritual mind puffs him up with idle notions. He has lost connection with the Head, from whom the whole body, supported and held together by its ligaments and sinews, grows as God causes it to grow.

Since you died with Christ to the basic principles of this world, why, as though you still belonged to it, do you submit to its rules: “Do not handle! Do not taste! Do not touch!”? These are all destined to perish with use, because they are based on human commands and teachings. Such regulations indeed have an appearance of wisdom, with their selfimposed worship, their false humility and their harsh treatment of the body, but they lack any value in restraining sensual indulgence.

• Colossians 2:9-23

His intent was that now, through the church, the manifold wisdom of God should be made known to the rulers and authorities in the heavenly realms, according to his eternal purpose which he accomplished in Christ Jesus our Lord. In him and through faith in him we may approach God with freedom and confidence.

• Ephesians 3:10-12

It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery.

Mark my words! I, Paul, tell you that if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no value to you at all. Again I declare to every man who lets himself be circumcised that he is obligated to obey the whole law. You who are trying to be justified by law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace. But by faith we eagerly await through the Spirit the righteousness for which we hope. For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any value. The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love.

• Galatians 5:1-6

Christ alone is sufficient, so be gone, judaizer! :caiphas: You have no credibility here. :angry:

SCRIPTURESEZ

2005-02-23 22:47 | User Profile

In Galatians Paul was speaking to Gentile beleivers brand new Jesus beleivers, they were former pagan worshippers, some were in the cult that would cut themselves to appease their pagan gods. Paul says to have faith in Jesus and then do the commands because you believe, like Abraham first beleived in God and then was circumscised. Not to please people or to gain salvation, but to show obediance.

For modern day peoples, who are not in the land of Israel, and there is no Temple, circumscsion is for health, and for keeping the commands. But gentiles would not need to be circumscised unless they want to say go up to the Feast of Tabernacles when the temple will be restored when they are in Israel etc.

[color=black]Food means clean food as in Leviticus etc.[/color]

The same with the food laws, Paul was talking about gentile believers, who were being persecuted for keeping the Festivals of the Lord, New Moon Sabbath day. Remember to Paul food only means clean food and in Leviticus etc. So other food that is being talked about is food that was sacrificed to idols (don't eat it) food from ceremoniously washing of hands, (not just dirty hands, the Pharisees were demanding a great big ritual there that is not correct) and food being either meat or should everyone be a vegegtarian? But food in every case means clean food to these people. Why wouldn't it? But we don't read the Scriptures.

A good example is Peter and Cornelius. Peter wonders what the vision of the animals is about. He says he has never eaten unclean food! It is a vision and then he finds that Jesus means do not call any many unclean that I have called clean. That scripture is not about food at all.

So why did God say Pork was unclean? Did Yeshua die just to "change" that Scripture? Certainly not. Or to make you free to eat pork? No, pork is unhealthy from that day to this. God is Smart.

Now I know this is difficult, but think for one minute why many Jewish believers especially if they are orthodox just think this pork eating makes Jesus look like a greek, and why would they want to follow that? Three persons in a trinity? Since when is God a person? Do you see the difficulty?

Take off you Egyptian Greek Romans coverings and like Joseph show your brothers who you are!

I found this wonderful translation for you. If you love Jesus, you will read it carefully: [center]Chapter 1 [/center] {1} "Shaul, a sent-one --sent neither by human commission nor from human authorities, but through Yeshua the Messiah and Elohim the Father, who raised Him from the dead--

{2} and all the members of Elohim's family who are with me, to the Called Out Groups of Galatia:

{3} Enablement to you and peace from Elohim our Father and Adonai Yeshua the Messiah,

{4} who gave Himself for our sins to [u]set us free from the present evil age[/u]¹, according to the will of our Elohim and Father,

[¹ Israel was a mess at this time. There was war against the Romans, but the rebels were losing every skirmish and about to be defeated, unlike the Maccabean revolt against the Greeks 200 years earlier.]

{5} to whom be the glory forever and ever. Omeyn.

***PROBLEM EXPLAINED ***

{6} I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the One who called you in the enablement of the Messiah and are turning to [u]a different joyful report[/u] ²--

{7} not that there is another joyful report, but there are some who are confusing you and want to pervert the joyful report of the Messiah.

{8} But even if we or a messenger from heaven should proclaim to you a joyful report contrary to what we proclaimed to you, let that one be accursed!

{9} As we have said before, so now I repeat, if anyone proclaims to you a joyful report contrary to what you received, let that one be accursed!

[² From later context we can discern that this joyful report was "be circumcised and you will be securely saved so you can then do as you please". This heresy had to be treated with great harshness, because the implication of it was to dethrone Messiah from His pre-eminent place.]

{10} Am I now seeking human approval, or Elohim's approval? Or am I trying to please people? If I were still pleasing people, I would not be a servant of the Messiah.

{11} For I want you to know, brothers and sisters, that the joyful report that was proclaimed by me is not of human origin;

{12} for I did not receive it from a human source, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Yeshua the Messiah.

***SOME HISTORY ***

{13} You have heard, no doubt, of my earlier life in Judaism. I was [u]violently persecuting[/u] ³ the Called Out Group of Elohim and was trying to destroy it.

{14} I advanced in Judaism beyond many among my people of the same age, for I was far more zealous for the traditions of my ancestors.

[³ Shaul points out how easy it is to break the Torah while fighting for Torah.]

{15} But when Elohim, who had set me apart before I was born and called me with His enablement, was pleased

{16} to reveal His Son to me, so that I might proclaim Him among the Gentiles, I did not confer with any human being,

{17} nor did I go up to Yerushalayim to those who were already sent-ones before me, but I went away at once into Arabia, and afterwards I returned to Damascus.

{18} Then after three years I did go up to Yerushalayim to visit Kefa and stayed with him fifteen days;

{19} but I did not see any other sent-one except Ya'akov, Adonai's brother.

{20} In what I am writing to you, before Elohim, I do not lie!

{21} Then I went into the regions of Syria and Cilicia,

{22} and I was still unknown by sight to the Called Out Groups of Yehudah that are in the Messiah;

{23} they only heard it said, "The one who formerly was persecuting us is now proclaiming the trust he once tried to destroy."

{24} And they glorified Elohim because of me.

[center]Chapter 2 [/center] {1} Then after fourteen years I went up again to Yerushalayim with Barnaba, taking Titus along with me.

{2} I went up in response to a revelation. Then I laid before them (though only in a private meeting with the acknowledged leaders) the joyful report that I proclaim among the Gentiles, in order to make sure that I was not running, or had not run, in vain.

{3} Titus, who was with me, [u]was not compelled to be circumcised[/u], ⁴ though he was a Greek.

[⁴ This did not mean that Titus was not eventually circumcised, but only not compelled to be. Shaul was not adverse to one being circumcised because he made it possible for Timothy to be circumcised (Acts 16:3).]

{4} But because of false believers secretly brought in, who slipped in to spy on the freedom we have in the Messiah Yeshua, so that they might enslave us--

{5} we did not submit to them even for a moment, so that the truth of the joyful report might always remain with you.

{6} And from those who were supposed to be acknowledged leaders (what they actually were makes no difference to me; Elohim shows no partiality) --those leaders contributed nothing to me.

{7} On the contrary, when they saw that I had been entrusted with the joyful report for the uncircumcised, just as Kefa had been entrusted with the joyful report for the circumcised

{8} (for he who worked through Kefa making him a sent-one to the circumcised also worked through me in sending me to the Gentiles),

{9} and when Ya'akov and Kefa and Yochanan, who were acknowledged pillars, recognized the enablement that had been given to me, they gave to Barnaba and me the right hand of fellowship, agreeing that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised.

{10} They asked only one thing, that we remember the poor, which was actually what I was eager to do.

{11} But when Kefa came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because [u]he stood self-condemned[/u] ⁵;

{12} for until certain people came from Ya'akov, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But after they came, he drew back and kept himself separate for fear of the circumcision faction.

{13} And the other Yehudim joined him in this hypocrisy, so that even Barnaba was led astray by their hypocrisy.

{14} But when I saw that they were not acting consistently with the truth of the joyful report, I said to Kefa before them all, "If you, though a Yehudah, live like a Gentile and not like a Yehudah, how can you [u]compel[/u] ⁵ the Gentiles to live like Yehudim?"

[⁵ Kefa, however, supported Shaul on the issue of not forcing Gentiles to be circumcised in Acts 15:7-11.]

***NECESSITY OF TRUST IN MESSIAH ***

{15} We ourselves are Yehudim by birth and not Gentile sinners;

{16} yet we know that a person is justified not by the works of the Torah but through trust in Yeshua the Messiah. And we have come to believe in the Messiah Yeshua, so that we might be justified by trust in the Messiah, and not by doing the works of the Torah, because [u]no one will be justified by the works of the Torah[/u] ⁶.

[⁶ The entire sacrificial system in Torah is based on this truth. The Torah provides for sacrifices for sin because keeping the Torah is impossible for sinful mankind.]

{17} But if, in our effort to be [u]justified in the Messiah[/u] ⁷, we ourselves have been found to be sinners, is the Messiah then a servant of sin? Certainly not!

[⁷ Messiah is the sacrifice now.]

{18} [u]But if I build up again the very things that I once tore down, then I demonstrate that I am a breaker of Torah[/u] ⁸.

[⁸ Shaul makes sure to notify them he is not preaching to promote the breaking of Torah.]

{19} For through the Torah I died to the Torah, so that I might live to Elohim. I have been [u]executed with the Messiah[/u] ⁹;

{20} and it is no longer I who live, but it is the Messiah who lives in me. And the life I now live in the flesh I live by trust in the Son of Elohim, who loved me and gave Himself for me. {21} I do not nullify the enablement of Elohim; for if justification comes through the Torah, then the Messiah died for nothing."

[⁹ The Messiah's death was for us, therefore it is us who die with him in a picture. In our obedience to Torah, by dying with Messiah, we die to our futile attempt to obey the Torah without Messiah living in us. Thus, we now live for Elohim in a strength we could not before. If we do not need this new life through trust in Messiah, but rather we can yet be saved through keeping Torah, then He died in vain.]

***REBUKE OF GALATIANS ***

[center]Chapter 3 [/center] {1} You foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? It was before your eyes that Yeshua the Messiah was publicly exhibited as executed on a stake!

{2} The only thing I want to learn from you is this: Did you receive the Ruach by doing the works of the Torah or by trusting what you heard?

{3} Are you so foolish? Having started with the Ruach, [u]are you now ending with the flesh[/u] ¹⁰?

{4} Did you experience so much for nothing?--if it really was for nothing.

[¹⁰ The Galatians, through believing circumcision was for justification, had gone back to their fleshly pagan ways. In their hearts they thought they could gain favor with Elohim the same way they used to with their evil gods.]

***RELATIONSHIP TO AVRAHAM ***

{5} Well then, does Elohim supply you with the Ruach and work miracles among you by your doing the works of the Torah, or by you trusting in what you heard?

{6} Just as Avraham "trusted Elohim, and it was accounted to him as righteousness,"

{7} so, you see, those who trust are the descendants of Avraham.

{8} And the scripture, foreseeing that Elohim would justify the Gentiles by trust, declared the joyful report beforehand to Avraham, saying, "All the Gentiles shall be blessed in you."

{9} For this reason, [u]those who trust are blessed with Avraham[/u] ¹¹ who trusted.

[¹¹ Of course Avraham showed his trust by obedience, but Shaul wants them to know that trust must precede obedience, rather than the works proceeding without trust. Even though trust without works is dead, it is equally true that works without trust is useless for salvation.]

RELATIONSHIP TO TORAH

{10} For all [u]who rely on the works of the Torah[/u] ¹² are under a curse; for it is written, "Cursed is everyone who does not observe and obey all the things written in the book of the Torah."

[¹² It is reliance on ones works that results in the curse, for then one would have to equal the perfection of Elohim to be saved, which is impossible. This is another reason that those in Messiah must trust in His deity, as the Perfect One. If He was not deity then He would not be any better sacrifice in substitution for us than anyone else.]

{11} Now it is evident that no one is justified before Elohim by the Torah; for "The one who is righteous will live by trusting."

{12} But [u]the Torah is not based on trust[/u]; ¹³ on the contrary, "Whoever does the works of the Torah will live by them."

[¹³ However, Shaul did say, "Do we then overthrow the Torah by this trust? By no means! On the contrary, we uphold the Torah." (Romans 3:31). What he is saying is that the Torah stands regardless of one's trust. The Word is the Word, whether one believes it or not.]

{13} The Messiah redeemed us from [u]the curse of the Torah[/u] ¹⁴ by becoming a curse for us--for it is written, "Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree"--

{14} in order that in the Messiah Yeshua the blessing of Avraham might come to the Gentiles, so that we might receive the promise of the Ruach through trusting.

[¹⁴ The curse of the Torah is not that the Torah is evil, but that we are inept in the face of it, and if we trust in our ability to do it, then punishment is due us for our inability. Therefore we trust in Elohim's ability to save us through Messiah Yeshua. This fulfills the promise to Avraham that his Offspring would bring blessing to all nations.]

***RELATIONSHIP TO COVENANTS ***

{15} Brothers and sisters, I give an example from daily life: once a person's will has been ratified, no one adds to it or annuls it.

{16} Now the promises were made to Avraham and to his offspring; it does not say, "And to offsprings," as of many; but it says, "And to your offspring," that is, to One person, who is the Messiah.

{17} My point is this: the part of Torah, which came four hundred thirty years later, does not annul a covenant previously ratified by Elohim, so as to nullify the promise.

{18} For if the inheritance comes from the Torah, it no longer comes from the promise; but Elohim granted it to Avraham through the promise.

{19} Why then the Torah? [u]It was given because of transgressions[/u] ¹⁵, until the offspring would come to whom the promise had been made; and it was ordained through messengers by a mediator.

[¹⁵ The Torah is the notification of what is a transgression. So it was given for that distinct purpose, which does continue to notify us of sin. Shaul said elsewhere, "I would not have known what covetousness is if the Torah had not said, 'You shall not covet' " (Romans 7:7).]

{20} Now a mediator involves more than one party; but [u]Elohim is One[/u]¹⁶.

[¹⁶ A curious aside, but could allude to the fact that Elohim is the mediator, thus more than one party, yet One at the same time. It also affirms Shaul's continued association to biblical Judaism: "the L-RD is One."]

***RELATIONSHIP TO TORAH AND TRUST ***

{21} Is the Torah then opposed to the promises of Elohim? Certainly not! For if a teaching had been given that could make alive, then righteousness would indeed come through the Torah.

{22} But the scripture has imprisoned all things under the power of sin, so that what was promised through trust in Yeshua the Messiah might be given to those who have trusted.

{23} Now before trusting came, we were imprisoned and guarded under the Torah until trusting would be revealed.

{24} Therefore the Torah was our disciplinarian until the Messiah came, so that we might be justified by trusting.

{25} But now that trusting has come, we are no longer subject to a disciplinarian,

{26} for in the Messiah Yeshua you are all children of Elohim through trusting.

***RELATIONSHIP TO MESSIAH ***

{27} As many of you as were [u]immersed[/u] ¹⁷ into the Messiah have clothed yourselves with the Messiah.

[¹⁷ This is the mikveh bath as commanded in principle in the Torah and completed in Messiah. So, trusting is confirmed by obedience. It is ironic that this immersion is the symbol used for female circumcision in Torah. Thus, male and female are given the same circumcision symbol of trusting in Messiah Yeshua, affirming that the blessing of salvation is upon them equally.]

{28} [u]There is no longer Yehudah or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in the Messiah Yeshua[/u] ¹⁸.

[¹⁸ One of the most misunderstood and misapplied texts in the B'rit Chadashah. Since we know Yeshua and Shaul both made an organizational distinction between male and female in the assembly, we can easily determine by context that this verse speaks only concerning the eternal promise of salvation.]

{29} And if you belong to the Messiah, then you are Avraham's offspring, inheritors according to the promise.

***RELATIONSHIP TO ELOHIM ***

[center]Galatians 4 [/center] {1} "My point is this: inheritors, as long as they are minors, are no better than slaves, though they are the owners of all the property;

{2} but they remain under guardians and trustees until the date set by the father.

{3} So with us; while we were minors, we were [u]enslaved to the elemental spirits[/u] ¹⁹ of the world.

{4} But when the fullness of time had come, Elohim sent his Son, born of a woman, born under the Torah,

{5} in order [u]to redeem those who were under the Torah[/u], ²⁰ so that we might receive adoption as children.

[²⁰ Here Shaul recognizes all people to have had the same responsibility to Torah. But since all have sinned, both Yehudah and non-Yehudah, then all need the same salvation.]

{6} And because you are children, Elohim has sent the Ruach of His Son into our hearts, crying, "Abba! Father!"

{7} So you are no longer a slave but a child, and if a child then also an inheritor, through Elohim.

***RELATIONSHIP TO DEMONIC POWERS ***

{8} Formerly, when you did not know Elohim, you were [u]enslaved to beings[/u] ¹⁹ that by nature are not gods.

[¹⁹ Plain references to the Galatians' former estate as pagan worshipers of demons.]

{9} Now, however, that you have come to know Elohim, or rather to be known by Elohim, how can you turn back again to the weak and beggarly elemental spirits? How can you want to be enslaved to them again?

{10} [u]You are observing special days, and months, and seasons, and years[/u] ²¹.

[²¹ The context is clearly about returning to their pagan life. The Galatians, thinking to have secured salvation by circumcision, felt completely free to go back to many pagan ways of observance. They turned back to demonic activity. Since they did not know Torah, or come from keeping Torah, this cannot refer to the holy appointed feast days. Also, Shaul would never associate the holy, good and righteous things of Elohim as belonging "to the weak and beggarly elemental spirits."]

{11} I am afraid that my work for you may have been wasted.

{12} Friends, I beg you, become as I am, for I also have become as you are. You have done me no wrong.

***RELATIONSHIP TO SHAUL ***

{13} You know that it was because of a physical infirmity that I first announced the joyful report to you;

{14} though my condition put you to the test, you did not scorn or despise me, but welcomed me as a messenger of Elohim, even as the Messiah Yeshua.

{15} What has become of the goodwill you felt? For I testify that, had it been possible, you would have torn out your eyes and given them to me.

{16} Have I now become your enemy by telling you the truth?

{17} They make much of you, but for no good purpose; they want to exclude you, so that you may make much of them.

{18} It is good to be made much of for a good purpose at all times, and not only when I am present with you.

{19} My little children, for whom I am again in the pain of childbirth until [u]the Messiah is formed in you[/u],²²

[²² So, we are saved by trusting in Messiah's substitution for us, yet He is still to be formed in us. The account of the Messiah we have, that we are to be formed into, is that of a biblically Torah observant Yehudah. We are not formed into that by force or coercion, certainly not to be saved, but because that is what He was.]

{20} I wish I were present with you now and could change my tone, for I am perplexed about you.

***EXAMPLE OF THE TWO WOMEN/SONS ***

{21} Tell me, you who desire to be [u]subject to the Torah[/u] ²³, will you not listen to the Torah?

[²³ Subject to Torah and "under the Law" are the same thing. It means to be under external force of the Torah, in fear of death. Through Messiah Yeshua we have been saved from that position! The Torah is in us in another form, through the Ruach working Elohim's will out in good works (which mirror Torah) in our lives. The attitude is not one of subjection, but of partnership, with freedom to learn and grow in the way of Elohim.]

{22} For it is written that Avraham had two sons, one by a slave woman and the other by a free woman.

{23} One, the child of the slave, was born according to the flesh; the other, the child of the free woman, was born through the promise.

{24} Now this is an allegory: these women are two covenants. One woman, in fact, is Hagar, from Mount Sinai, bearing children for slavery.

{25} Now Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia and corresponds to the present Yerushalayim, for she is in slavery with her children.

{26} But the other woman corresponds to the Yerushalayim above; she is free, and she is our mother.

{27} For it is written, "Rejoice, you childless one, you who bear no children, burst into song and shout, you who endure no birth pangs; for the children of the desolate woman are more numerous than the children of the one who is married."

{28} Now you, my friends, are children of the promise, like Yitzhak.

{29} But just as at that time the child who was born according to the flesh persecuted the child who was born according to the Ruach, so it is now also.

{30} But what does the scripture say? "Drive out the slave and her child; for the child of the slave will not share the inheritance with the child of the free woman."

{31} So then, friends, we are children, not of the slave but of the free woman.

[center]Chapter 5 [/center] {1} "For freedom the Messiah has set us free. Stand firm, therefore, and do not [u]submit again to a yoke of slavery[/u].²⁴

[²⁴ Yeshua said that he who is a slave of sin is not free. He came to provide freedom from sin, and sin is transgression of the Torah. Since the attempt to obey the Torah is futile without Yeshua, we cannot trust in anything but Him to give us the power over sin.]

***NO FORCED CIRCUMCISION ***

{2} Listen! I, Shaul, am telling you that if you let yourselves be circumcised[ for their purpose], the Messiah will be of no benefit to you.

{3} Once again I testify to every man who lets himself be circumcised [ for their purpose] that he is obliged to obey the entire Torah [in order to be saved]*. *

{4} You who want to be justified by the Torah have cut yourselves off from the Messiah; you have fallen away from His enablement.

{5} For through the Ruach, by trusting, we eagerly wait for the hope of [perfect] righteousness.

{6} For in the Messiah Yeshua neither [u]circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything[/u] ²⁵; the only thing that counts is trust working through love.

[²⁵ The doing or not doing of these things will not assure your salvation, but trust which works from the motivation of love does. If you are circumcised from this motivation, it is good. Shaul had Timothy circumcised for this reason.]

{7} You were running well; who prevented you from obeying the truth?

{8} Such persuasion does not come from the One who calls you.

{9} A little yeast leavens the whole batch of dough.

{10} I am confident about you in YHVH that you will not think otherwise. But whoever it is that is confusing you will pay the penalty.

{11} But my friends, why am I still being persecuted if I am still preaching circumcision [must be done for salvation]? In that case the offense of the execution stake has been removed.

{12} I wish those who unsettle you would castrate themselves!

LIVING BY THE RUACH

{13} For you were called to freedom, brothers and sisters; only do not use your freedom as an opportunity for self-indulgence, but through love serve one another.

{14} For the whole Torah is summed up in a single commandment, "You shall love your neighbor as yourself."

{15} If, however, you bite and devour one another, [u]take care that you are not consumed by one another[/u].²⁶

[²⁶ Shaul knew from his past experience that no one sees Torah exactly as anyone else. If we do not allow for this in the assembly, then there will be no assembly anywhere that will not eventually destroy itself through dispute.]

{16} Live by the Ruach, I say, and do not gratify the desires of the flesh.

{17} For what the flesh desires is opposed to the Ruach, and what the Ruach desires is opposed to the flesh; for these are opposed to each other, to prevent you from doing what you want.

{18} [u]But if [[/u][u]and only if[/u][u]] you are led by the Ruach, you are not subject to the Torah[/u].²⁷

[²⁷ The Torah stands as the standard. It is only if we allow the Ruach HaKodesh to lead us that we have freedom to grow and become evermore free from sin. Otherwise, the Torah will stand against us. Those people who do not walk after the Ruach, but walk after the flesh, should fear the effects of Torah. Also, if we knowingly sin, we must seek Elohim's forgiveness or else we will not enter the Eternal Kingdom.]

{19} Now the works of the flesh are obvious: fornication, impurity, licentiousness [lawlessness/having no Torah],

{20} idolatry, sorcery, enmities, strife, jealousy, anger, quarrels, dissensions, factions,

{21} envy, drunkenness, carousing, and things like these. I am warning you, as I warned you before: those who do such things will not inherit the Kingdom of Elohim.

{22} By contrast, the fruit of the Ruach is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, generosity, trustfulness,

{23} gentleness, and self-control. There is no Torah against such things.

{24} And those who belong to the Messiah Yeshua have executed the flesh with its passions and desires.

{25} If we live by the Ruach, let us also be guided by the Ruach.

{26} Let us not become conceited, competing against one another, envying one another.

***PROPER RESTORATION ***

[center]Chapter 6 [/center] {1} "My friends, if anyone is detected to be [u]breaking the Torah[/u] ²⁸, you who have received the Ruach should restore such a one in an attitude of gentleness. Take care that you yourselves are not tempted.

[²⁸ So those who are breaking the Torah should be gently instructed that they are breaking it. Once again Shaul shows he is not against the Torah, but against any litmus test for salvation, except trust in Yeshua the Messiah. Shaul has already pointed out that if anyone lives a lifestyle well known to be against Torah they will not enter the Kingdom of Elohim.]

{2} Bear one another's burdens, and in this way you will fulfill [u]the Torah of the Messiah[/u].²⁹

[²⁹ If the whole Torah is summed up in "you shall love your neighbor," then this is a clear instruction by Shaul that the Torah is Messiah's Torah, not just Moses' Torah.]

{3} For if those who are nothing think they are something, they deceive themselves.

{4} [u]All must test their own work; then that work, rather than their neighbor's work, will become a cause for pride[/u].³⁰

[³⁰ Meaning: only judge yourself concerning Torah. Help your neighbors with Torah because of genuine love, but never stand as their judge. Never gain pride through making your neighbor obey Torah.]

{5} For all must carry their own loads.

{6} Those who are taught the Word must share in all good things with their teacher.

{7} Do not be deceived; Elohim is not mocked, for you reap whatever you sow.

{8} If you sow to your own flesh, you will reap corruption from the flesh; but if you sow to the Ruach, you will reap eternal life from the Ruach.

{9} So let us not grow weary in doing what is right, for we will reap at harvest time, if we do not give up.

{10} So then, whenever we have an opportunity, let us work for the good of all, and especially for those of the family of trust.

***CLOSING ***

[size=3]{11} See what large letters I make when I am writing in my own hand![/size]

[size=3]{12} It is those who want to make a good showing in the flesh that try to compel you to be circumcised --only so they may not be persecuted for the execution stake of the Messiah.[/size]

[size=3]{13} Even the faction of circumcision do not themselves obey the Torah, but they want you to be circumcised so that they may boast about your flesh. [/size]

[size=3]{14} May I never boast of anything except the execution stake of Adonai Yeshua the Messiah, by which the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world.[/size]

[size=3]{15} For neither circumcision nor uncircumcision is anything; but a new creation is everything![/size]

[size=3]{16} As for those who will follow this rule may shalom be upon them, and mercy, and upon the Israel of Elohim. [/size]

[size=3]{17} From now on, let no one make trouble for me; for I carry the marks of Yeshua branded on my body.[/size]

[size=3]{18} May the enablement of Adonai Yeshua the Messiah, be with your spirit, brothers and sisters. Omeyn. [/size]

Petr

2005-02-23 22:56 | User Profile

Where have you cutted and pasted this stuff from?

Petr

Texas Dissident

2005-02-23 23:10 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Petr]Where have you cutted and pasted this stuff from?

Petr[/QUOTE]

Thanks to google, I found it, Petr:

[url]http://www.messianic.com/scripts/gal.htm&e=9813[/url]

SCRIPTURESEZ

2005-02-23 23:22 | User Profile

I just proved to you Gods Laws have not changed. It is man that has twisted them to mean what men with itching ears wanted to hear.

You know Petr, it just depends on if you want to know the truth about Jesus or not.

Do you want to research for yourself, or float on what the some man tells you?

Don't believe me but research for yourself.

Look up the translations for yourself.

For instance, did anyone tell that the church started in the wilderness?

That Paul could not have possibly been eating pork?

That the cock that crowed 3 times was a man on the Temple wall not a rooster?

We have had such bad translations and bad teachings!

However, the Bible tells us that in these last days we will be called out of the nations of where we would be scattered, leaving the lies of our forefathers, not having anything to do with idols, with a new spirit put in us to keep the commands and have the knowledge of the Messiah. I gave you many scriptures pointing this out.

But we are majoring in the minors, what I think is most important is to keep the Feasts and Festivals and the Sabbath on the exact time and day and for length of time as stated in Scripture, and all the laws as the apply.

Not because I am forced to, but because I want to. My heart is prostrate before Yeshua Ha Mashiach Ben David. Love the Lord with all your heart and strength and mind and love your neighbor as yourself.

Again, think for yourself, read, study, go out of your way to find out the truth.

Ground yourself solidly in the fact that Jesus is God. He has not changed.

Do you see? If Jesus said it was okey dokey for you and me to make up any old time to celebrate His ressurection, when for centuries the Levitical priesthood were celebrating the Festival of Firstfruits as a rehearsal of the actual day, what good was Firstfruits? What good was Passover to be replaced with Easter. Do you see?

I see Jesus in every story, every Festival in Scripture.

When I read now about the Temple sacrifices and the Tabernacle decorations or the stories, it is not dull and boring but exciting. Each bit tells something about the Messiah, the Tree of Life, The Vinedresser.

Imagine Him as he stood in the Temple during the Water Pouring Ceremony!

I just remembered, do you know the reason why there had to be money changers in the Temple? Because no Roman coins could enter the temple because they had images on them. They had to be exchanged for shekels that had no images.

We are commanded not to make images of God.

This is why in the book of Revelations we see and image of the lawless one to come is set up in the temple and many are fooled and will fall down and worship it. Do you see the danger?

The bulk of Christianity is looking at images and thinking thats Jesus and Mary when we don't know who that is? The Lawless one to come, the Antichrist.

In these last days we just can't afford this kind of teaching anymore, when miracles and healing and tongues have passed away! Its dangerous.

I am hoping you will at least think about it! Be reasonable!

Esoterist

2005-02-24 02:29 | User Profile

John 4:22 [size=5]"Salvation is of the Jews"[/size]

Matt. 10:5 [size=3]"Go not into the way of the Gentiles"[/size]

Matthew 15:22-26. 22 And, behold, a woman of Canaan came out of the same coasts, and cried unto him, saying, Have mercy on me, O Lord, [thou] Son of David; my daughter is grievously vexed with a devil. 23 But he answered her not a word. And his disciples came and besought him, saying, Send her away; for she crieth after us. 24 But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel. 25 Then came she and worshipped him, saying, Lord, help me. 26 But he answered and said, It is not meet to take the children's bread, and to cast [it] to dogs.

[size=3][color=#000066]Romans 1:16 "It is the power of God unto salvation to the Jew first, then to the Gentile."[/color][/size]

Esoterist

2005-02-24 18:13 | User Profile

....The relations that subsist between the Bedoueen race that under the name of Jews is found in every country of Europe, and the Teutonic, Sclavonian, and Celtic races which have appropriated that division of the globe, will form hereafter one of the most remarkable chapters in the philosophical history of man.

[size=3]The Saxon, the Sclave, and the Celt have adopted most of the laws and many of the customs of these Arabian tribes, all their literature and all their religion.[/size] They are therefore indebted to them for much that regulates, much that charms, and much that solaces existence. The toiling multitude rest every seventh day by virtue of a Jewish law; they are perpetually reading, 'for their example', the records of Jewish history and singing the odes and elegies of Jewish poets; and they daily acknowledge on their knees, with reverent gratitude, that [size=3]the only medium of communication between the Creator and themselves is the Jewish race.[/size] Yet they treat that race as the vilest of generations; and instead of logically looking upon them as the human family that has contributed most to human happiness, they extend to them every form of obloquy and every form of persecution.

Let us endeavour to penetrate this social anomaly that has harassed and perplexed centuries.

It is alleged that the dispersion of the Jewish race is a penalty incurred for the commission of a great crime: namely, the crucifixion of our blessed Lord in the form of a Jewish prince, by the Romans, at Jerusalem, and at the instigation of some Jews, in the reign of Augustus Caesar. Upon this, it may be observed, that the allegation is neither historically true nor dogmatically sound.

...1. Not historically true. It is not historically true, because at the time of the advent of our Lord, the Jewish race was as much dispersed throughout the world as at this present time, and had been so for many centuries. Europe, with the exception of those shores which are bathed by the midland sea, was then a primaeval forest, but in every city of the great Eastern monarchies and in every province of the Roman empire, the Jews had been long settled. We have not precise authority for saying that at the advent there were more Jews established in Egypt than in Palestine, but it may unquestionably be asserted that at that period there were many more Jews living , and that too in great prosperity and honour, at Alexandria than at Jerusalem. It is evident from various Roman authors that the Jewish race formed no inconsiderable portion of the multitude that filled Rome itself, and that the Mosaic religion, undisturbed by the state, even made proselytes. But it is unnecessary to enter into any curious researches on this head, though the authorities are neither scant nor uninteresting. We are furnished with evidence the most complete and unanswerable of the pre-dispersion by the sacred writings themselves. Not two months after the crucifixion, when the Third Person of the Holy Trinity first descended on Jerusalem, it being the time of the great festivals, when the Jews according to the custom of the Arabian tribes, pursued to this day in the pilgrimage to Mecca, repaired from all quarters to the sacred place, the holy writings inform us that there were gathered together in Jerusalem 'Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven'. And that this expression, so general but so precise, should not be mistaken, we are shortly afterwards, though incidentally, informed, that there were Parthians, Medes, and Persians at Jerusalem, professing the Mosaic faith; Jews from Mesopotamia and Syria; from the countries of the lesser and the greater Asia; Egyptian, Libyan, Greek, and Arabian Jews; and especially Jews from Rome itself, some of which latter are particularly mentioned as Roman proselytes.

Nor is it indeed historically true that the small section of the Jewish race which dwelt in Palestine rejected Christ. The reverse is the truth. Had it not been for the Jews of Palestine the good tidings of our Lord would have been unknown for ever to the northern and western races. [size=3]The first preachers of the gospel were Jews, and none else; the historians of the gospel were Jews, and none else. No one has ever been permitted to write under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit except a Jew.[/size] For nearly a century no one believed in the good tidings except Jews. They nursed the sacred flame of which they were the consecrated and hereditary depositories. And when the time was right to diffuse the truth among the ethnicks, it was not a senator of Rome or a philosopher of Athens who was personally appointed by our Lord for that office, but a Jew of Tarsus, who founded the seven churches of Asia. And that greater church, great even amid its terrible corruptions, that has avenged the victory of Titus by subjugating the capital of the Caesars and has changed every one of the Olympian temples into altars of the God of Sinai and of Calvary, was founded by another Jew, a Jew of Galilee.

From all which it appears that the dispersion of the Jewish race, preceding as it did for countless ages the advent of our Lord, could not be for conduct which occurred subsequently to the advent, and that they are also guiltless of that subsequent conduct which has been imputed to them as a crime, since for Him and His blessed name they preached, and wrote, and shed their blood 'as witnesses'....

Petr

2005-02-24 19:16 | User Profile

Disraeli was full of crap, you are quoting his [I]fictional novels [/I] as if they were actual historical sources.

Reality check: during the era of pagan emperors, Jews had a very privileged position, and their religion was offcially recognized whereas Christianity was not. Even after Jews had rebelled against them, Romans repeatedly gave them their old position back soon afterwards.

• from Jewish Encyclopedia:

[url]http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=9&letter=C[/url]

[COLOR=DarkRed][B]"The Jews were destined to play no insignificant part in the new state of Cæsar," says Mommsen (ib.). Even later, when by a decree of Cæsar all religious or political associations (collegia) were forbidden, except those which had existed from very remote times, the same decree permitted the Jews, "[I]our friends and confederates . . . to gather themselves together according to the customs and laws of their forefathers, to bring in their contributions, and to make their common suppers[/I]" (Josephus, "Ant." xiv. 10, § 8; Suetonius, "Cæsar," 42).

By these and other edicts of Cæsar the Jewish religion was recognized in the Roman empire as "[I]religio licita[/I]" (Tertullian, "Apologia," xxi.; Schürer, "Gesch." 3d ed., iii. 69).[/B][/COLOR]

• from Julian the Apostate's "[I]Against the Galileans[/I]," frag. 72:

[COLOR=Purple][B]"The Jews behave like the Gentiles ([I]tois ethnesin[/I]), except that they acknowledge only one god. This is something distinctive to them, but alien to us. As for everything else, though, we share common ground - temples, sanctuaries, altars, rituals of purification, certain injunctions where we do not diverge from one another at all, or only in insignificant ways."[/B][/COLOR]

Things changed immediately after Christians got power:

[COLOR=Navy][B]"After his victory over Licinius, Constantine inaugurated a more and more hostile policy toward the Jews. It is true that as early as 321 a law was promulgated which made it obligatory for Jews to fill onerous, expensive municipal offices; while on the other hand such Jews as had devoted themselves to the service of their own religion were exempted in 330 from all public services, and those who were already "curiales" were freed from the levying of taxes. In 329, however, the Jews were forbidden to perform the rite of circumcision on slaves or to own Christian slaves; the death penalty was ordained for those who embraced the Jewish faith, as well as for Jews versed in the Law who aided them. On the other hand, Jewish converts to Christianity were protected against the fanaticism of their former coreligionists.

Simultaneously with this an edict was issued forbidding marriages between Jews and Christians, and imposing the death penalty upon any Jew who should transgress this law. Some of these enactments were affirmed in 335. Noteworthy is the hostile language of several of these laws, in which Judaism is spoken of as an ignominious or as a bestial sect ("[I]secta nefaria[/I]" or "feralis")."[/B][/COLOR]

[url]http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=743&letter=C&search=constantine[/url]

"secta nefaria"... not quite like the pagan Roman classification of Judaism as "religio licita," huh?

Petr

Petr

2005-02-24 19:29 | User Profile

[B][I] - "For nearly a century no one believed in the good tidings except Jews." [/I] [/B]

This statement alone shows what kind of nonsense Disraeli is spouting: the New Testament alone is full of examples of Gentile conversions, beginning with the Roman centurion, and already during the Passover week, some Greeks came to meet Jesus:

[COLOR=Indigo] [B]John 12:20-21:

"Now there were certain Greeks among those who came up to worship at the feast. Then they came to Philip, who was from Bethsaida of Galilee, and asked him, saying, "Sir, we wish to see Jesus." [/B] [/COLOR]

[B][I]- "No one has ever been permitted to write under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit except a Jew." [/I] [/B]

Who does Disraeli think that Luke (author of both one of the Gospels and the Acts of Apostles) was?

Petr

Texas Dissident

2005-02-24 19:30 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Esoterist]Had it not been for the Jews of Palestine the good tidings of our Lord would have been unknown for ever to the northern and western races. The first preachers of the gospel were Jews, and none else; the historians of the gospel were Jews, and none else. No one has ever been permitted to write under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit except a Jew.[/QUOTE]

Uhhh...St. Luke, Slick.

Petr

2005-02-24 19:41 | User Profile

[B][I]Romans 1:16 "It is the power of God unto salvation to the Jew first, then to the Gentile."[/I][/B]

This simply means that Jews will get a chance to get saved first, and if they reject it, [I]all the worse for them [/I] - what do you think that the famous saying of Jesus, "[I]the first shall be last, and the last first[/I]" means?

And here's the story of Roman centurion and his servant:

Matthew 7:5-13:

[COLOR=Navy][B]Now when Jesus had entered Capernaum, a centurion came to Him, pleading with Him, Saying, "Lord, my servant is lying at home paralyzed, dreadfully tormented." And Jesus said to him, "I will come and heal him." The centurion answered and said, "Lord, I am not worthy that You should come under my roof. But only speak a word, and my servant will be healed. For I also am a man under authority, having soldiers under me. And I say to this one, 'Go,' and he goes; and to another, 'Come,' and he comes; and to my servant, 'Do this,' and he does it." [U]When Jesus heard it, He marveled, and said to those who followed, "Assuredly, I say to you, I have not found such great faith, not even in Israel! And I say to you that many will come from east and west, and sit down with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven. But the sons of the kingdom will be cast out into outer darkness. There will be weeping and gnashing of teeth." [/U] Then Jesus said to the centurion, "Go your way; and as you have believed, so let it be done for you." And his servant was healed that same hour. [/B] [/COLOR]

Petr

SCRIPTURESEZ

2005-02-24 20:29 | User Profile

No one is forcing anyone to "do" the Torah. But you now Get To you of the nations who did not have the Torah the knowledge and teaching instruction before.

Not just with all sorts of traditions and suchlike, but with praising and singing and dancing, worshipping the Lord on His Festival Days, Not doing work on the Sabbath. That sure does not look like bondage to me!

Keeping the Sabbath, The food laws, the Festivals is a sign that the Holy Spirit has come upon you.

The important thing is to change your character. Stop looking at nudes, stop hating your neighbor, quit running to the writings of mere men and women and ask Jesus.

Anyway, here is a simple example for those of you who are afraid of the food laws. How many of you eat rats bats and cats?

See what I mean, most of us are already doing righ already for our own health by not eating those animals.

That's wht the Torah is all about, for you to be blessed and be prosperous.

Walter Yannis

2005-02-25 06:55 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Petr]Things changed immediately after Christians got power:

"After his victory over Licinius, Constantine inaugurated a more and more hostile policy toward the Jews. It is true that as early as 321 a law was promulgated which made it obligatory for Jews to fill onerous, expensive municipal offices; while on the other hand such Jews as had devoted themselves to the service of their own religion were exempted in 330 from all public services, and those who were already "curiales" were freed from the levying of taxes. In 329, however, the Jews were forbidden to perform the rite of circumcision on slaves or to own Christian slaves; the death penalty was ordained for those who embraced the Jewish faith, as well as for Jews versed in the Law who aided them. On the other hand, Jewish converts to Christianity were protected against the fanaticism of their former coreligionists.

Simultaneously with this an edict was issued forbidding marriages between Jews and Christians, and imposing the death penalty upon any Jew who should transgress this law. Some of these enactments were affirmed in 335. Noteworthy is the hostile language of several of these laws, in which Judaism is spoken of as an ignominious or as a bestial sect ("secta nefaria" or "feralis")." Petr[/QUOTE]

Constatine the Great!

That's basically how Islam deals with foreign religious elements, no? I wonder how directly Constantine's law affected Mohammed.

Great stuff, Petr. Truly inspiring.

SCRIPTURESEZ

2005-02-25 18:21 | User Profile

Constantine was not a Christian. He was a pagan and a murderer. These things are well documented.

Jesus did not do away with one Jot or Tittle. Not a yud or a vav of the Law.

But it was wicked men like Constantine who did so by the sword.

For example regarding the Feasts of the Lord:

Paul writes to the new beleivers from the nations the goy : Colossians 2

¹⁶Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day. ¹⁷These are a [color=darkred]shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ.[/color] ¹⁸Do not let anyone who delights in false humility and the worship of angels disqualify you for the prize. Such a person goes into great detail about what he has seen, and his unspiritual mind puffs him up with idle notions. ¹⁹He has lost connection with the Head, from whom the whole body, supported and held together by its ligaments and sinews, grows as God causes it to grow.

There is a great effort on the part of the adversary for us not to know what the correct Feasts and Festivals of the Lord are, because they are shadows and predictors of that which was and [color=darkred]that which is to come and since the reality is found in Christ, how can these be pagan festivals? No, they are the Feasts and Festivals of the Lord![/color]

I really don't see how you can ignore it.

There never was any authority found anywhere in Scripture to "change" or incorporate The Feasts and Festivals of the Lord. Paul tells us to keep the Feast of Unleavend Bread.

How can this be any clearer?

This backwards teaching was not from Constantine alone, but had already infiltrated the ekkleisa from the First Century.

You do know that the actual "church" or called out ones did not originiate in the first century, do you not?

What does celebrating Passover and so on have to do with legalism or bondage?

Texas Dissident

2005-02-25 18:43 | User Profile

[QUOTE=SCRIPTURESEZ]What does celebrating Passover and so on have to do with legalism or bondage?[/QUOTE]

As long as you don't make it a requirement for 'true' salvation or righteous living in Christ, nothing. When you continuously harp on it, like you have done from your first post here, then ultimately it denies the freedom of a Christian that St. Paul goes to great lengths to explain throughout his epistles to the early churches. It's simply another "Christ and..." doctrine. Works based doctrine or more Pelegian heresy, if you will, that denies the once and for all time sufficiency of Christ's atonement.

Blond Knight

2005-02-25 23:37 | User Profile

From Luther's 95 Thesis, #62: "The true treasure of the church is the most holy gospel of the glory and grace of God."

[url]http://www.luther.de/en/95thesen.html[/url]

Petr

2005-02-28 12:26 | User Profile

[COLOR=Indigo][I][B] - "That's basically how Islam deals with foreign religious elements, no? I wonder how directly Constantine's law affected Mohammed."[/B][/I][/COLOR]

Muhammad himself was probably not influenced, but his followers borrowed all kinds of stuff from empires they conquered (Persia, Byzantines), and adopted them within their own system.

These harsh measures against, say, illegal proselytizing were still harsh even in "un-enlightened" Christian countries quite recently:

[COLOR=DarkRed][B]1738 July 15, ST. PETERSBURG (Russia) [/B]

Baruch Laibov and Alexander Voznitzin were burned alive with the consent of Empress Anna Johanova. [B][U]Voznitzin, a naval captain, was guilty of the crime of converting to Judaism. Laibov was guilty of helping him[/U]. [/COLOR] [/B]

[url]http://www.jewishhistory.org.il/[/url]

Petr

Walter Yannis

2005-02-28 13:43 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Petr][COLOR=Indigo][I][B] - "That's basically how Islam deals with foreign religious elements, no? I wonder how directly Constantine's law affected Mohammed."[/B][/I][/COLOR]

Muhammad himself was probably not influenced, but his followers borrowed all kinds of stuff from empires they conquered (Persia, Byzantines), and adopted them within their own system.

These harsh measures against, say, illegal proselytizing were still harsh even in "un-enlightened" Christian countries quite recently:

[COLOR=DarkRed][B]1738 July 15, ST. PETERSBURG (Russia) [/B]

Baruch Laibov and Alexander Voznitzin were burned alive with the consent of Empress Anna Johanova. [B][U]Voznitzin, a naval captain, was guilty of the crime of converting to Judaism. Laibov was guilty of helping him[/U]. [/COLOR] [/B]

[url]http://www.jewishhistory.org.il/[/url]

Petr[/QUOTE]

Great stuff, Petr.

Where do you come up with this stuff?!

Petr

2005-02-28 15:32 | User Profile

[I][B] -"Where do you come up with this stuff?!"[/B][/I]

I simply search stuff from Internet - you'd be surprised what all you can find there with little patient surfing...

Petr

SCRIPTURESEZ

2005-03-03 23:34 | User Profile

Jesus is the Goal of the Torah, he did not do away with it.

Nor the commands to keep the Sabbath is still Saturday.

Nor was there permission anywhere in scripture to hate anybody.

Love your neighbor as yourself.

Patrick

2005-03-04 16:26 | User Profile

"Nor was there permission anywhere in scripture to hate anybody."

.....Try Psalm, 139, SS; also, Ecclesiastes, three...

SCRIPTURESEZ

2005-03-06 17:45 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Patrick]"Nor was there permission anywhere in scripture to hate anybody."

.....Try Psalm, 139, SS; also, Ecclesiastes, three...[/QUOTE]

You are mistaken, you are taken verses out of context and calling Jews (you don't really know who they all are) and saying they are God's enemies.

It is those who do not do the words of the commands of the written law that are God's enemies. If you are not keeping the written Torah you are God's enemies. [size=3][color=#008080][size=1]Exo 23:22[/size][/color][/size][size=1] But if thou shalt diligently [u]hearken unto his voice[/u], and do all that I shall say, then I will be an enemy to [color=black]thine enemies[/color], and an adversary to thine adversaries.[/size][size=3] [/size] [size=3][/size] [size=3][/size] [size=3] [/size]

Patrick

2005-03-07 14:07 | User Profile

“Nor was there permission anywhere in scripture to hate anybody.”

.....Try Psalm, 139, SS; also, Ecclesiastes, three...
”You are mistaken, you are taken verses out of context and calling Jews (you don’t really know who they all are) and saying they are God’s enemies.“

Out of context?

.....Don’t be silly; David knew what he was up against, and 2Chronicles, 19:2 provides a second witness to this context... “Shouldest thou help the unGodly and love them that hate YHVH? Therefore is wrath upon thee from before YHVH”; further, Our Christ tells us exactly who the “jews” are in John, 8:44... “ye are of your father, the devil, and the lusts of your father will ye do; he was a murderer from the beginning and he abode not in the truth; when he speaketh a lie, he speaketh from his own, for he is a liar, and the father of it”; the pharisees of that day are today’s antiChrist communist khazar “jews”, and there is no question in that regard... the fact that you have yet to learn it is of no consequence to the reality of the matter...

SCRIPTURESEZ

2005-03-07 23:04 | User Profile

Love your enemies, That's what God said.

[QUOTE=Patrick]“Nor was there permission anywhere in scripture to hate anybody.”

.....Try Psalm, 139, SS; also, Ecclesiastes, three...
”You are mistaken, you are taken verses out of context and calling Jews (you don’t really know who they all are) and saying they are God’s enemies.“

Out of context?

.....Don’t be silly; David knew what he was up against, and 2Chronicles, 19:2 provides a second witness to this context... “Shouldest thou help the unGodly and love them that hate YHVH? Therefore is wrath upon thee from before YHVH”; further, Our Christ tells us exactly who the “jews” are in John, 8:44... “ye are of your father, the devil, and the lusts of your father will ye do; he was a murderer from the beginning and he abode not in the truth; when he speaketh a lie, he speaketh from his own, for he is a liar, and the father of it”; the pharisees of that day are today’s antiChrist communist khazar “jews”, and there is no question in that regard... the fact that you have yet to learn it is of no consequence to the reality of the matter...[/QUOTE]

Patrick

2005-03-08 13:22 | User Profile

"Love your enemies, That's what God said."

.....And He was speaking of "brethren to brethren" in the NT; weren't you the one saying "context"?

SCRIPTURESEZ

2005-03-08 18:39 | User Profile

No. Love your enemies. Love people. Hate the Adversary.
Our fight, after all, is not with flesh and blood etc.

God has not changed, but it was man that changed God's word and the application thereof.

Do you know we are to be like Yeshua: 1John 2:6

Was Yeshua going to Xmas celebrations? No? Why not?

Do you know who the Judiazers are, according to Paul?

He tells us that Judiaizers are those who tells us not to do the written Torah.

Do you know where that is found?

I just want to be fair about this, I want to see people wake up from their sleep of captivity into a false belief system.

Besides, it no accident that you and I are on this board together. God is Good above all man's understanding.

Patrick

2005-03-08 19:41 | User Profile

”No. Love your enemies. Love people. Hate the Adversary. Our fight, after all, is not with flesh and blood etc.”

.....I have no personal enemies, as I live by the golden rule; I hate the enemies of YHVH, as any child of YHVH should do... you, on the other hand, accord His enemies the status of His chosen, which is profoundly in error; if you do not properly identify the players on the world stage, you will be, as you obviously are, hopelessly addled by Scripture...

”Do you know we are to be like Yeshua:”

.....Yes, and how did He deal with the viper race? He fashioned a scourge and threw them from the Temple; you invite them in to teach your their satanic ways, then regurgitate said nonsense as though Gospel...

”Was Yeshua going to Xmas celebrations? No? Why not?”

.....I don’t see anyone advocating Christmas right now; why do you bring this up? Why do you “X” out His Name?

”Do you know who the Judiazers are, according to Paul?”

.....Yes; the selfsame that He said were antiChrist...

”I just want to be fair about this, I want to see people wake up from their sleep of captivity into a false belief system.”

.....Fair? I’m a take-no-prisoners Christ man, and I believe you are a judaized hack, presuming to teach that which you know not...

SCRIPTURESEZ

2005-03-08 22:50 | User Profile

Patrick, Do you know who Judiazers are? Those that tell us not to do the written commands of the Torah, but to keep the traditions of men and make them law.

See Acts 15, Matthew 23 and Matthew 15.

This is why I bring up Christmas because it is a pagan based festival and is not in the Scriptures. (Old Testament or the Tanach) We are commanded to keep the festivals of the Lord as his Sabbaths. So why don't you? Because you do not know it.

And speaking of viper race, Romans 11 tells you clearly that we are not boast ourselves above the natural branches, as we can be grafted out quickly as we were grafted in.

Ephesians 6:12 tells us our fight is not with flesh and blood, but with spiritual wickedness in high places.

At these end times, we can no longer afford teachings like yours.

You know I am wondering if you understand that in order for the Messiah to return Judah and Ephraim must be as one stick or branch? (Read Ezekial 37) You must know that Judah and Ephraim and all their companions are the whole house of Israel? and then in Romans 11:26 we are told:

26 And so [u]all Israel shall be saved[/u]: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob: 27 For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins.

But first the pagans have to come in (stop doing Christmas and do the Feasts and Festivals): Romans 11:25 For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the [u]Gentiles[/u] (or goy or pagans) be come in.

Come in to what? Into the whole house of Israel, in the the written Torah!

And we see this right now! This is happening all around you!

Like Fish who were multiplying in the water unseen!!

And here are Jews and Gentiles, that are one new man in Messiah Yeshua. Have you not seen many Jewish people (those that id themselves as such) and gentiles (goyim) worshipping as one and keeping the written Torah? That is exactly what is happening in the books of Acts? That is the greater exodus. The Church that began in the wilderness was brought out of paganism of the Egyptians and given the Holy Land.

And then Yeshua came and the exodus began again, out the paganism again!

And now after 18 centuries, we're back!

These are the last days and the return of Messiah is imminent because you now see before you the phrophecy being fullfilled right in front of your eyes.

( [QUOTE=Patrick]”No. Love your enemies. Love people. Hate the Adversary. * Our fight, after all, is not with flesh and blood etc.”*

.....I have no personal enemies, as I live by the golden rule; I hate the enemies of YHVH, as any child of YHVH should do... you, on the other hand, accord His enemies the status of His chosen, which is profoundly in error; if you do not properly identify the players on the world stage, you will be, as you obviously are, hopelessly addled by Scripture...

”Do you know we are to be like Yeshua:”

.....Yes, and how did He deal with the viper race? He fashioned a scourge and threw them from the Temple; you invite them in to teach your their satanic ways, then regurgitate said nonsense as though Gospel...

”Was Yeshua going to Xmas celebrations? No? Why not?”

.....I don’t see anyone advocating Christmas right now; why do you bring this up? Why do you “X” out His Name?

”Do you know who the Judiazers are, according to Paul?”

.....Yes; the selfsame that He said were antiChrist...

”I just want to be fair about this, I want to see people wake up from their sleep of captivity into a false belief system.”

.....Fair? I’m a take-no-prisoners Christ man, and I believe you are a judaized hack, presuming to teach that which you know not...[/QUOTE]

Patrick

2005-03-09 03:39 | User Profile

"This is why I bring up Christmas because it is a pagan based festival and is not in the Scriptures. (Old Testament or the Tanach) We are commanded to keep the festivals of the Lord as his Sabbaths. So why don't you? Because you do not know it."

.....Son, you haven't the foggiest idea of that which I keep, or not, nor why; from whence comes such irresponsible presumption?

"And speaking of viper race, Romans 11 tells you clearly that we are not boast ourselves above the natural branches, as we can be grafted out quickly as we were grafted in."

.....In proper context, (again!), this has nothing to do with your dealings outside the brethren; have you not read, who is thy brethren?

"Ephesians 6:12 tells us our fight is not with flesh and blood, but with spiritual wickedness in high places."

.....Forgive me for disallowing such nonsense; "evil" is not an intangible... behind every evil act, there is an hand of an evil man... be not so lost in the spiritual aspect of Scripture, (that which comes second), that you lose sight of the first level, physical application; those who so do are gnostic in nature, becoming so Heavenly minded they are no longer of earthly good...

"hese end times, we can no longer afford teachings like yours."

.....Hehehe; you have yet to begin to understand that which I teach, youngster... ye be on milk, whilst the meat knocks upon your door...

"know I am wondering if you understand that in order for the Messiah to return Judah and Ephraim must be as one stick or branch? (Read Ezekial 37)"

.....Which happened on July the fourth, seventeen hundred and seventy six...

*"You must know that Judah and Ephraim and all their companions are the whole house of Israel? and then in Romans 11:26 we are told:

26 And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob: 27 For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins.

But first the pagans have to come in (stop doing Christmas and do the Feasts and Festivals): Romans 11:25 For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles (or goy or pagans) be come in."*

.....This mystery is far larger than that which you bemoan; are you aware that neither of the two terms "jew" and "gentile" are Scripturally valid?

*"Come in to what? Into the whole house of Israel, in the the written Torah!

And we see this right now! This is happening all around you!

Like Fish who were multiplying in the water unseen!!

And here are Jews and Gentiles, that are one new man in Messiah Yeshua. Have you not seen many Jewish people (those that id themselves as such) and gentiles (goyim) worshipping as one and keeping the written Torah? That is exactly what is happening in the books of Acts? That is the greater exodus. The Church that began in the wilderness was brought out of paganism of the Egyptians and given the Holy Land.

And then Yeshua came and the exodus began again, out the paganism again!

And now after 18 centuries, we're back!"*

.....Did you go to seminary, (read: cemetary), to learn this nonsense, or did it come naturally?

"These are the last days and the return of Messiah is imminent because you now see before you the phrophecy being fullfilled right in front of your eyes."

.....If I had a nickel for every time one of you fundies laid this hog waddle before me, I could have been an hermit; you are but a babe in The word, yet presume to teach your elder...

.....How's that working out for you?

SCRIPTURESEZ

2005-03-09 19:10 | User Profile

I am telling you what Scriputre says. It is up to you whom you will serve. God or the little god of this age.

I am interested in your reply based on what The Scripture says and how you will refute, by Scripture what I am saying.

So what is that you are teaching?

[QUOTE=Patrick]"This is why I bring up Christmas because it is a pagan based festival and is not in the Scriptures. (Old Testament or the Tanach) We are commanded to keep the festivals of the Lord as his Sabbaths. So why don't you? Because you do not know it."

.....Son, you haven't the foggiest idea of that which I keep, or not, nor why; from whence comes such irresponsible presumption?

"And speaking of viper race, Romans 11 tells you clearly that we are not boast ourselves above the natural branches, as we can be grafted out quickly as we were grafted in."

.....In proper context, (again!), this has nothing to do with your dealings outside the brethren; have you not read, who is thy brethren?

"Ephesians 6:12 tells us our fight is not with flesh and blood, but with spiritual wickedness in high places."

.....Forgive me for disallowing such nonsense; "evil" is not an intangible... behind every evil act, there is an hand of an evil man... be not so lost in the spiritual aspect of Scripture, (that which comes second), that you lose sight of the first level, physical application; those who so do are gnostic in nature, becoming so Heavenly minded they are no longer of earthly good...

"hese end times, we can no longer afford teachings like yours."

.....Hehehe; you have yet to begin to understand that which I teach, youngster... ye be on milk, whilst the meat knocks upon your door...

"know I am wondering if you understand that in order for the Messiah to return Judah and Ephraim must be as one stick or branch? (Read Ezekial 37)"

.....Which happened on July the fourth, seventeen hundred and seventy six...

*"You must know that Judah and Ephraim and all their companions are the whole house of Israel? and then in Romans 11:26 we are told: *

26 And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob: 27 For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins.

But first the pagans have to come in (stop doing Christmas and do the Feasts and Festivals): Romans 11:25 For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles (or goy or pagans) be come in."

.....This mystery is far larger than that which you bemoan; are you aware that neither of the two terms "jew" and "gentile" are Scripturally valid?

"Come in to what? Into the whole house of Israel, in the the written Torah!

And we see this right now! This is happening all around you!

*Like Fish who were multiplying in the water unseen!! *

And here are Jews and Gentiles, that are one new man in Messiah Yeshua. Have you not seen many Jewish people (those that id themselves as such) and gentiles (goyim) worshipping as one and keeping the written Torah? That is exactly what is happening in the books of Acts? That is the greater exodus. *The Church that began in the wilderness was brought out of paganism of the Egyptians and given the Holy Land. *

And then Yeshua came and the exodus began again, out the paganism again!

And now after 18 centuries, we're back!"

.....Did you go to seminary, (read: cemetary), to learn this nonsense, or did it come naturally?

"These are the last days and the return of Messiah is imminent because you now see before you the phrophecy being fullfilled right in front of your eyes."

.....If I had a nickel for every time one of you fundies laid this hog waddle before me, I could have been an hermit; you are but a babe in The word, yet presume to teach your elder...

.....How's that working out for you?[/QUOTE]

Patrick

2005-03-09 19:42 | User Profile

"I am telling you what Scriputre says."

Actually...

.....You're telling me what you think it says; the term "jew" is invalid in our Scripture... likewise "gentiles"; why would a term have to be translated into Latin, then to English, as opposed straight from the Hebrew/Phoenician? To create confusion; to top it off, they used it selectively, and used "nations" in other areas...

Ponce

2005-03-09 22:36 | User Profile

"No more love has he who gives his life for his enemy" who said that?.

SCRIPTURESEZ

2005-03-09 23:10 | User Profile

No, I am telling you that we, meaning this world, cannot [u]afford the teachings of men to rule over the instructions of God.[/u]

I am not telling you anything else.

By the way, in Yeshua's day, the most common language was aramaic. They would have reading the Tanach (Torah, Phrophets and Writings) in the Synagogue in Hebrew and then in Aramaic. They were not reading the new testament. They do not know anything about what Christianity looks like today. So, these are torah observant Jews living in Israel, going to the Temple, keeping the Sabbaths. God does not change. But look what has happened to His Commands! They have been made no effect by the tradtions of men. There is, again I repeat, absolutley no basis to change Passover to Easter and so on or Saturday Shabbos to Sunday. None!
In fact we are warned to be careful of those who want to change the times and seasons.

Also, we know for a certainty that some translators did not understand the hebraic idioms of the day and translated incorrectly. It has never been taught anywhere in the churches, until now.

That is why Paul's writings do not make sense and appear to contradict each other. If you take a moment to understand what I am saying. If you think that Paul is telling you to ignore the Old Testament, you are calling him a heretic. He is not.

He is telling you that you are to understand enough to do the [u]written [/u]torah but not the oral torah (do not touch do not handle and so on) if it adds or takes away from any written word of the Book. Correct? Don't do any of the oral torah that goes against the written Torah. This is what he is saying.

By the way, there is no word gentile in hebrew. It is most likely that Paul was talking about the galut or galuta of israel those scattered in the diaspora. Remember Jesus said I have come for the [u]Lost sheep of Israel[/u]. Again, that would be Judah and Ephraim and their companions. Ezekial tells us the definition of who the whole house or the lost sheep of Israel are.

I am just saying what sort of God tells you He does not change, gives you a command and then takes it back. I don't think so, do you? There is no Scripture to support such a thing! You are then saying there was something wrong with the Lawgiver, Jesus. Do you see?

[QUOTE=Patrick]"I am telling you what Scriputre says."

Actually...

.....You're telling me what you think it says; the term "jew" is invalid in our Scripture... likewise "gentiles"; why would a term have to be translated into Latin, then to English, as opposed straight from the Hebrew/Phoenician? To create confusion; to top it off, they used it selectively, and used "nations" in other areas...[/QUOTE]

Patrick

2005-03-10 04:27 | User Profile

"They would have reading the Tanach (Torah, Phrophets and Writings) in the Synagogue in Hebrew and then in Aramaic."

Nonsense...

.....They used the Septuagint, (LXX), which was the OT in Greek, and based upon MSS from 250 B.C., which are the oldest of those in existence; how old are you, SS?