Hey BigD, I got the book a few nights ago, and I am on chapter 3.  I just wanted to let you know.

I'll wait till I'm done and start a new thread on this subject.

Thanks for the book.

-oneBook

[3 He said to Me, " You are My Servant, Israel, In Whom I will show My glory."]

The confusion I think comes because Paul talks of 2 Israels-
Believing Israel (aka the Church, of which I am a part), and unbelieving Israel (physical unbelieving Israel).  The Messiah is referred to as Israel
Isaiah 49:1-6
1 Listen to Me, O islands, And pay attention, you peoples from afar. The LORD called Me from the womb; From the body of My mother He named Me. 2 He has made My mouth like a sharp sword, In the shadow of His hand He has concealed Me; And He has also made Me a select arrow, He has hidden Me in His quiver. 3 He said to Me, " You are My Servant, Israel, In Whom I will show My glory." 4 But I said, "I have toiled in vain, I have spent My strength for nothing and vanity; Yet surely the justice {due} to Me is with the LORD, And My reward with My God." 5 And now says the LORD, who formed Me from the womb to be His Servant, To bring Jacob back to Him, so that Israel might be gathered to Him (For I am honored in the sight of the LORD, And My God is My strength), 6 He says, "It is too small a thing that You should be My Servant To raise up the tribes of Jacob and to restore the preserved ones of Israel; I will also make You a light of the nations So that My salvation may reach to the end of the earth."

Note in verse 3 particularly, that Messiah is referred to as "Israel".  He is the vine and/or tree, and in Romans, that is what we are grafted into.

Additionally, Paul uses the remnant concept to show this, that in every age, physical Israel consisted of those who were God's people and those who weren't.  The ones who were were called the remnant.  Remember that those who left Egypt, many were idolaters (Ps. ) and/or rebellious (Ps. ) and almost everyone died in the desert.  Paul invokes the remnant terminology in
Rom. 11:1-7
1 I say then, God has not rejected His people, has He? May it never be! For I too am an Israelite, a descendant of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin. 2 God has not rejected His people whom He foreknew. Or do you not know what the Scripture says in the passage about Elijah, how he pleads with God against Israel? 3 "Lord, THEY HAVE KILLED YOUR PROPHETS, THEY HAVE TORN DOWN YOUR ALTARS, AND I ALONE AM LEFT, AND THEY ARE SEEKING MY LIFE." 4 But what is the divine response to him? "I HAVE KEPT for Myself SEVEN THOUSAND MEN WHO HAVE NOT BOWED THE KNEE TO BAAL." 5 In the same way then, there has also come to be at the present time a remnant according to God's gracious choice. 6 But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works, otherwise grace is no longer grace. 7 What then? What Israel is seeking, it has not obtained, but those who were chosen obtained it, and the rest were hardened;

So if you are part of His (Jesus) body, you are part of the remnant of Israel that was chosen by grace.

Did you know that the 2 that survived of the Exodus generation (Joshua and Caleb), were a Hebrew (Jew) and a Gentile? Josh. 14:14 tells us that Caleb was a Kennizite.
Did you know that Jacob adopted two Gentiles into his own family when he blessed Ephraim and Manasseh? (Joseph's wife was a Gentile).  Reading that passage, it states that Ephraim would become a multitude of Gentiles!!  The rabbi's had problems with this passage as in many passages where Gentiles are included without explanation (so the rabbi's labored to explain why God didn't seem to make a distinction between Gentiles and Jews).


Jesus also referred to this-
John 10:16 -
"I have other sheep, which are not of this fold; I must bring them also, and they will hear My voice; and they will become one flock with one shepherd."

(and NO, he is not talking about the Mormons )
This is the same thing Paul is talking about in Romans 10-
Rom. 11:16-26
16 If the first piece of dough is holy, the lump is also; and if the root is holy, the branches are too. 17 But if some of the branches were broken off, and you, being a wild olive, were grafted in among them and became partaker with them of the rich root of the olive tree, 18 do not be arrogant toward the branches; but if you are arrogant, remember that it is not you who supports the root, but the root supports you. 19 You will say then, "Branches were broken off so that I might be grafted in." 20 Quite right, they were broken off for their unbelief, but you stand by your faith. Do not be conceited, but fear; 21 for if God did not spare the natural branches, He will not spare you, either. 22 Behold then the kindness and severity of God; to those who fell, severity, but to you, God's kindness, if you continue in His kindness; otherwise you also will be cut off. 23 And they also, if they do not continue in their unbelief, will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again. 24 For if you were cut off from what is by nature a wild olive tree, and were grafted contrary to nature into a cultivated olive tree, how much more will these who are the natural branches be grafted into their own olive tree? 25 For I do not want you, brethren, to be uninformed of this mystery--so that you will not be wise in your own estimation--that a partial hardening has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in; 26 and so all Israel will be saved; just as it is written, "THE DELIVERER WILL COME FROM ZION, HE WILL REMOVE UNGODLINESS FROM JACOB."

Note in verse 25 he says that the the Gentiles that come in are part of 'all Israel' - "and so all Israel will be saved".

If they are separate, why does Jesus say they will be one flock?  BEP, this is not a salvation issue (it doesn't make you saved or unsaved), but it is about the nature of our salvation.  I know what I am saying is different than what you are taught, but that doesn't make me wrong and you right, or vice versa.  I think this is what the forum is for, as iron sharpens iron, and we compare our understanding with each other, and with the Scripture text.  I would like to see clear scripture references that state that there are two bodies, and one is Israel, and one is the Church.  Remember, the word church was a term used to refer to Israel (as in Stephen's speech before he was stoned in Acts 7).  In my reading, everywhere that Paul talks about the body, the next thing me uses is an Israelism (in the list in my post to MalkyEL).

I have a book coming from BigD on the subject, so I hope to better understand the position that he is taking, although I don't know if it is the same one you endorse.

Peace and blessings
-oneBook

I think most people will here will have a hard time calling you YHWH, since that is God's name.  You are in effect using it as your name.....

If you want to keep it holy, then you shouldn't use it as your name.

I think that is what BEP was saying.

In regards to voting, Scripture tells us to pray for our government, so I would think voting is in a sense a form of prayer.  The Bible is silent on a lot of issues such as breathing, but I am sure you do. In the Torah, God told his people to appoint judges for themselves (), and the apostles selected a few to replace Judas  who were Godly, and then drew lots to select from that chosen pool (), Paul says that we need to appoint leaders in the church ().

I agree these are talking about leadership in the body, but I think if we can effect the country in a positive moral way by voting, and our government allows us to, then we should.

My 2 cents, for what it's worth.

-oneBook

MalkyEl,

Romans 9, 10, and 11 demonstrate that Gentiles have been graphted into Israel.  The verse you quoted is
Gal. 3:27-29
27 For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.  29 And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's descendants, heirs according to promise.

So, when we are part of Messiah (the King of Israel), we become part of Israel.  This is emphasized by Paul's statement that we become Abraham's descendants, heirs according to the promise.  This language was normally reserved for Israelites, but Paul was showing that family line is not what makes you part of Israel (aka, the Church), but whether or not the King of Israel is your king.  Being clothed in Messiah means doing the deeds He spoke of (deeds in Jewish culture are a symbol of one's works) by the Spirit.
Note that while there is no male of female in Messiah, most churches still have a men's bathroom and a woman's bathroom. It doesn't mean there is no difference at all, it means there is no difference in regards to membership in God's people.  Paul even gives different advice to women than to men in Titus (and 1 Cor 11) as well as other places.

Show me a verse where people are included in the covenant that are not called any of these terms by Paul-
children of Abraham
fellow citizens
fellow heirs
Israel
saints (lit. the holy ones)
the circumcision (or circumcised)
God's household
adopted sons

These are all terms that refer to Israel.
Paul never makes a distinction between "Church" and Israel. The word translated "Church" is a Greek word that was used to refer to Israel - ekklesia. It was used to refer to different groups (or "Churches") that met in the Temple, so of course, those that followed the Messiah were their own church as well. It could best be viewed as "assembly".  The word church was a latin word later used to translate the Greek ekklesia.

-oneBook

Nana, here is the passage sulfurdolphin was talking about (Egypt being saved)-
Isaiah 19:23-
23 In that day there will be a highway from Egypt to Assyria, and the Assyrians will come into Egypt and the Egyptians into Assyria, and the Egyptians will worship with the Assyrians. 24 In that day Israel will be the third {party} with Egypt and Assyria, a blessing in the midst of the earth, 25 whom the LORD of hosts has blessed, saying, "Blessed is Egypt My people, and Assyria the work of My hands, and Israel My inheritance."

The new covenant (not NT covenant), is made with Israel (as in Heb. 10:16 which is a quote of Jer. 31:31).

-oneBook

Nana wrote:
Matt 5:18 For truly I say to you, Till the heaven and the earth pass away, not one jot or one tittle shall in any way pass from the law until all is fulfilled.

I do not believe that is what Jesus said. He said, heaven and earth would not pass away UNTIL all is fulfilled.  It was fulfilled on the cross.  Jesus said:  It is finished.

oneBook:
The verse you just quoted says the opposite. It states that until heaven and earth pass away, the Torah will not change, and then it goes on to say that the greatest in God's kingdom will keep the least commandment and teach others to do the same. Besides, not everything in the OT has been fulfilled, and what Jesus finished on the cross was the payment for our souls. It also is the end of Ps. 22 (slight translation difference due to Greek/Hebrew "He has done it" in most Eng. translations), which starts out with the phrase "my God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" which is what Jesus said earlier on the cross.


Nana:
I agree with you. This is why Torah is not abolished.  It stands as God's Word forever - it's function is different, however; it is now *established* as pointing to Messiah.

oneBook:
It always pointed to Messiah, and all the ceremonies were given so we would be able to learn how God sanctifies us, and the need for attonement.  If we observe them today with the Messiah's teaching by the Spirit, then we learn the same things.

Nana wrote:
  I do believe that Isra'el knew that Messiah would fulfill Torah.  So we DO need to study it for a good perspective of His Sacrifice.

oneBook:
Romans 2:13 - for it is not the hearers of the Law who are just before God, but the doers of the Law will be justified.

It is also not those who study the Law, but those who are doers.  One who is not fulfilling the law does not have the Spirit, for the Spirit causes them to live out God's rightousness.  That is Paul's point here. Also in

Romans 2:25-29
25 For indeed circumcision is of value if you practice the Law; but if you are a transgressor of the Law, your circumcision has become uncircumcision. 26 So if the uncircumcised man keeps the requirements of the Law, will not his uncircumcision be regarded as circumcision?  27 And he who is physically uncircumcised, if he keeps the Law, will he not judge you who though having the letter of the Law and circumcision are a transgressor of the Law? 28 For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh. 29 But he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that which is of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter; and his praise is not from men, but from God.

Paul's point is that Gentiles are keeping the Torah, and some Jews are not, and that the Gentiles will be considered as God's people (aka part of Israel) and the Jews who violate it will be considered cut off (uncircumcised). Paul is highlighting his point that circumcision is not required by God's law to be part of Israel.

Nana:
A law based lifestyle is causing many people to deny the Deity of Jesus Christ, and to convert into Rabbinic Judaism.

oneBook wrote:
No, I have known some who have gone that route, and they didn't have faith.  They put themselves "under the law" as Paul puts it, looking to rabbinic authority for their acceptance into the kingdom.  Note Paul's problem was with the rabbinic, man made circumcision ceremony, not found in the Torah.  He still asked us to keep the Passover, and he went to synagogues, as well as offered sacrifieces (Acts 21) to prove that the Torah was still valid, and that the rumors that Paul discarded it was untrue.  Not to mention, Peter would have accused Paul of this in Galations if it had been a problem.  They would have known that Paul did not observe the Torah!!  This makes those whose words we are reading appear false and contradictory, however that is not the case.

Nana:
I do not see, nor have I ever seen that Paul's teachings are contrary to Jesus'.  In fact, Paul was directly taught by Jesus. This is why Paul's teachings completely confirm what Jesus taught.  

oneBook:
I agree they are not, but if you look on the "Satanic Holy Days" thread, BigD is saying that Jesus gospel included the law, and Paul's didn't (2 gospels).  This view is I believe the majority view in Evangelical Christianity (of which I am a minority).

Nana wrote:
The reason Paul's teachings are hard to understand is because God's Word is pried apart, sliced and diced instead of read as a whole.  The Holy Spirit leads and guides into ALL truth - even Paul's writings.  

oneBook:
I agree, but I would say that teaching to disregard God's law is what does this, as well as dispensationalism (I don't know where you stand on that subject), and that is where this tradition of Jesus doing away with God's law by fulfilling it so we don't have to obey God's Word any more, or we don't have to obey God's Word that Jesus didn't repeat.

Nana wrote:
Paul wrote to Timothy that ALL Scripture was good for reproof, correction and instruction - he was referring to the NT as well.  

oneBook:
the NT didn't exist at this time.  It was compiled around 200 CE with some councils (Nicea and others). Some of the letters existed and were given weight based on the authority of the author, but they were not referred to as cannon, the Greek word translated Scriptures just means writtings, so it could be used to refer to letters etc. where in some contexts, it means the Scriptures.

Nana wrote:
Paul quoted the other books in the NT.  And Jesus said in John 17 that the world would believe what He said through the words and writings of the disciples/apostles.

oneBook:
show me one place where Paul quotes from the NT?
Yes, Jesus knew they would write down the testemony, and they would come to be considered canon, but they weren't at that time.  It was done by word of mouth mostly at first, and was later written down.

BTW, I am not Chesed.


Nana:
I do not recall saying that Jesus did not teach from Torah.  It was the foundation of His teachings.  Jesus redefined and reinstituted the Law into a Spiritual premise, rather than the works of the flesh.  No one can keep Torah.  No one ever has, no one ever will.

oneBook:
yes, we can keep Torah although not perfectly.  The Torah however doesn't expect those who keep it in faith to be perfect which is why the sacrifices were given as a tool to teach Israel (God's people) that there had to be a payment for sin, and the mikvah (baptism) to wash away uncleaness, and the water for the baptism had to be from a natural source (to signify that it was from God). Besides, if you say that God's law is not possible to keep, then you inadvertantly call God a liar for it is written-

Deuteronomy 30:11-14
"For this commandment which I command you today is not too difficult for you, nor is it out of reach.  12 "It is not in heaven, that you should say, ' Who will go up to heaven for us to get it for us and make us hear it, that we may observe it?' 13 "Nor is it beyond the sea, that you should say, 'Who will cross the sea for us to get it for us and make us hear it, that we may observe it?' 14 "But the word is very near you, in your mouth and in your heart, that you may observe it.


Nana quoted:
Zech 4:6 Then he answered and spoke to me, saying, This is the Word of the LORD to Zerubbabel, saying, Not by might, nor by power, but by My Spirit, says the LORD of hosts.

oneBook:
This verse you quoted in context was referring to the physical re-building of the Temple. God was saying the Temple will be rebuilt physically by His Spirit.  Not that the Temple would be an invisible "spiritual" temple.  God's Torah is spiritual, holy, and good.  He enables us to keep it as He designed it to be kept.

Nana wrote:
I do not keep the law, no one can, so it is not a sign of my faith. My faith comes from and is in God [Heb 12:6]  I do not consider myself to be a "christian" as it is coined today - I am a believer in and a follower of Jesus Christ. I don't consider my actions as a duty to God. I consider it a privilege that He allows me and has given me the ability to do His will.

oneBook:
His will is the Torah, and if you obey anything Jesus said to do, then you obey His Torah.  You might not follow all of it, but you do some of it.  As far as not being able to, God said you can, Jesus said you can, and Paul said you can
Romans 10:6-8
 6 and the righteousness based on faith speaks as follows: "DO NOT SAY IN YOUR HEART, `WHO WILL ASCEND INTO HEAVEN?' (that is, to bring Christ down),  7 or `WHO WILL DESCEND INTO THE ABYSS ?' (that is, to bring Christ up from the dead)." 8 But what does it say? "THE WORD IS NEAR YOU, IN YOUR MOUTH AND IN YOUR HEART"--that is, the word of faith which we are preaching.

Paul's point is that the Messiah is the expounder of the Torah.  The Messiah became the authority on interpreting the Torah, but he never dismissed the physical aspect in favor of a spiritual principle.  That was platonic thought that was projected onto the Scriptures by the early Greek christians that were young in the faith but well studied in Greek liturature (myths and philosophy).

Jesus tells us that we should consider it our duty-
Luke 17:10
"So you too, when you do all the things which are commanded you, say, `We are unworthy slaves; we have done only that which we ought to have done.' "

So you can read my background in the "satanic holy days" thread (also in the debate forum) on my last post to BigD, what is your background?

Shalom u'vrecha
-oneBook

Nana wrote:
So you are saying that God did not preserve His Word as He promised?  or are you saying that the Scriptures are not the inspired and infallible Word of God?

oneBook:
Not at all, the text was preserved by the Jews who persisted in their traditions of preserving the Word of God, which God appointed them to do. I would like to say here that when I say Word of God, or God's law, they are the same in my book.

Nana wrote:
That is simply an example of having no foundation in the Word of God.  Jesus said, if you continue in My Word, the truth shall set you free.

oneBook:
yes, exactly, no foundation in the Word of God (the Law of God).  When Jesus talks about His Word, he is talking about His interperatation of the Torah. Where is this in Scripture?

John 14:10
10 Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father is in Me? The words that I say to you I do not speak on My own initiative, but the Father abiding in Me does His works.

Also, Duet. 13 clearly states that "The Prophet" God would send would not lead people from God's Law's as revealed through Moses, but you seem to be saying that Jesus scrapped that law and gave us a new one.  Matthew 5 clearly states that the law wasn't done away with, and goes on to state that the person who keeps the least of the commandments of God (Torah) and teaches others to do the same will be greatest in God's kingdom, and the one who breaks the least of them and teaches others to do the same would be least.
Jesus was one who kept the least and taught them as well, as He is the greatest in the kingdom.
Would you have me break the commandment of wearing fringes, or keeping kosher?

Nana wrote:
It is also an example of a loss of contending for the faith.  Christians are often misled into thinking that going to church is all they need to walk a godly path of righteousness.  In fact, it is a discipline - running the race with our eyes fixed on Jesus - casting aside all hinderances.

This is not taught today - the attitude of what can I do and still remain a Christian is predominate.  Secular activities - ie music, movies, lifestyle makes one a friend of the world and not a friend of God.  It is no wonder these kids have no clue what it means to be a follower of Jesus Christ, to take up your cross daily and follow Him.

oneBook:
I agree 100%, however, all those things are taught in the Torah, and setting it aside for a subset called "the Law of Christ" I believe is not bennificial.  If Jesus said the Torah would not pass away till heaven and earth do, then I will believe him, and observe the Torah as He did. The teaching that Jesus put the Torah aside is a tradition of man, and cannot be found in the Bible.  I agree that we are not to be "under the law", but I disagree that that particular phrase had that meaning to Paul.  He was referring to the Rabbinic administration of the Torah, and makes a distinction between that and the Messiah's administration of the Torah (the "under the law" vs. "under God's law" contrast is clear in 1 Cor. 9:19-22).

Nana wrote:
The law does not convict people of sin.  The Holy Spirit convicts.  This is why a Law based life style causes so many to fall away.

oneBook:
You are correct, God's Law doesn't convict people of sin, but we cannot know what sin is without it. The Word (Law) is preached, and the Spirit convicts.

I have never seen a Law based life style cause people to fall away.  If people are keeping the Torah, then they all "love God with all their hearts" per Deut 6:4, and they all "love their neighbor as themselves" per Lev. 19:18.  The Torah also teaches us that we can't obtain these goals apart from faith in God and the working of the Spirit.  I have seen people who fell away because they didn't have faith (or the Spirit).
God gave us His law in His great lovingkindness as He revealed to Moses when He gave us His law:

Ex 34:6
Then the LORD passed by in front of him and proclaimed, "The LORD, the LORD God, compassionate and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in lovingkindness and truth;

This was the second attempt of God at giving us His law, and the first time, we broke it right away (the golden calf). The second time, God said to build an ark to put the law into (which also was part of the Tabernacle) and Moses asked God's presence to go with them.  This is a picture of how the spirit enables us to live out the Word, and puts it within us.

I think that most Christians have a negative view of the Torah, I once did as well. Even though I was taught that the first half of God's Word was bondage, I was still interested in learning more of it. As I studied it, I found myself surprised at the fact that in it, we have a great revelation of God's grace, love, and it also teaches that we are saved only by faith.  It proclaims throughout the Torah and prophets that the Messiah would come and die for our sins, and that He would bring the Gentiles (like me) into His kingdom of Israel.

Remember that Paul's scripture was what the Church now calls the Old Testament, and that is what he used as a foundation for all his teaching.  If that was the foundation of Paul's work, and the Old Testament is set aside, then Paul's work falls too.  The epistle of Peter warns that Paul's writing is hard to understand, and apparently it is, because most of the Church today believes that Paul's gospel is different from Jesus', and some believe that they are even contradictory.

Whether or not you like it, you are also keeping Torah as a sign of your faith, the parts of Torah that the Messiah re-iterated.  As a Christian you view it as your duty, and I am glad that you do.  You are living out Messiah's command's, to a large degree, and the Spirit of God has enabled you to do so.

Peace and blessing to you sister.
-oneBook

[5 "Or have you not read in the Law, that on the Sabbath the priests in the temple break the Sabbath and are innocent?"]

Hey MalkyEl,

a few points I would like to add to this thread-

1. There were believing rabbis that existed before Jesus was born whose Scriptural beliefs are recorded in the Talmud.  Believing because one of the major beliefs of the religious Jews of the 1st century was that God would send a savior Messiah per the promises made to Abraham and the fathers in Scripture (who happens to be Jesus).

2. If we were to reject all books that mix truth and error, then I wouldn't be able to read any commentaries.  If we have to reject leadership that has imperfections, then we will have no earthly leadership (though Paul gives us guidelines on how to appoint leaders).  Jesus put off his perfection and put on imperfection order to perfect us.  That means that he became a man, and used the language of man.  Language also is composed of units of thought, or concepts.  The basic concepts of a subject may be inaccurate, but to correct the person in error, you need to be able to discuss the concept and be familiar with it.  Jesus was aware of the oral tradition, and even used it to argue His point about His disciples being able to eat in the field-

Matt. 12:1-5
1 At that time Jesus went through the grainfields on the Sabbath, and His disciples became hungry and began to pick the heads of grain and eat. 2 But when the Pharisees saw this, they said to Him, "Look, Your disciples do what is not lawful to do on a Sabbath." 3 But He said to them, "Have you not read what David did when he became hungry, he and his companions, 4 how he entered the house of God, and they ate the consecrated bread, which was not lawful for him to eat nor for those with him, but for the priests alone? 5 "Or have you not read in the Law, that on the Sabbath the priests in the temple break the Sabbath and are innocent?"

Note that while the Scriptures tell us that the priest still perform their duty on the Sabbath, it nowhere states that they break the Sabbath, that was an oral traditional understanding of the text that was generally accepted in Jesus day.  Jesus then used that to demonstrate His point.

Yes, Paul was saying that those who were keeping the law were mixing leaven into the Gospel message, that faith is worked in love.  Gal 5

Actually, here Paul was using leven as a symbol of their erroneous teaching.  When you say they were keeping the law, you must mean oral law since Paul's main point is that they are not keeping the Torah

Gal 5:10
10 I have confidence in you in the Lord that you will adopt no other view; but the one who is disturbing you will bear his judgment, whoever he is.

Why would they be judged unless they broke God's law?  They wouldn't.

Also remember it was Paul who said-
Rom. 2:12-16
12 For all who have sinned without the Law will also perish without the Law, and all who have sinned under the Law will be judged by the Law; 13 for it is not the hearers of the Law who are just before God, but the doers of the Law will be justified. 14 For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves, 15 in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them, 16 on the day when, according to my gospel, God will judge the secrets of men through Christ Jesus.

This portion of Romans shows several things,
1. that those condemned are condemned by the law as in my point above.
2. those who are justified do the law (of God).
3. Gentiles who have the law written on their hearts fulfill it's requirements since the Spirit empowers them to do so.

Note in point 2 above, Paul is not saying that they are justified by keeping the law, but that the Spirit causes them to keep the requirements of the law because they love God who spoke the law to his beloved.

Paul also said in Romans 16:25-27

25 Now to Him who is able to establish you according to my gospel and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery which has been kept secret for long ages past, 26 but now is manifested, and by the Scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the eternal God, has been made known to all the nations, leading to obedience of faith; 27 to the only wise God, through Jesus Christ, be the glory forever. Amen.

The law is not opposed to grace-
"5 Now I ask you, lady, not as though I were writing to you a new commandment, but the one which we have had from the beginning, that we love one another. 6 And this is love, that we walk according to His commandments. This is the commandment, just as you have heard from the beginning, that you should walk in it. "

a command is obviously a law, but it is an expression of love when obeyed in faith. In fact the only acceptable display of love ("to obey is better than sacrifice...", or singing, or meetings, etc.).  

Paul was concerned about the "circumcision group's" policy of teaching new believers that they have to be circumcised to be a part of God's people.  The Torah was not in question, I think this fact can be seen since Paul's letters were not considered Scripture by Paul, or the apostles of his day, but viewed as Godly guidence.  Where does Paul appeal to for support for his arguments?  The Torah, and the Prophets.  If he then turns and says that the Torah is invalid, then all his arguments self destruct (a house divided against itself).  All of Pauls points come from the Law and Prophets, and all the proof of Jesus Messiahship were from the same source.  Can you prove from the Law and the Prophets that Jesus is the Messiah?

Lastly, the Bible even records bad and evil things along with the good since it is a historical record.  Do we throw it out? The Talmud is a historical log of teachings of Jews through the ages, in which is preserved a saying of one of the early followers of Jesus who had a debate with rabbi Eliazer.  It was a great saying, and rabbi Eliazer even liked it (it was about what can be done with money that is gotten by dishonest/immoral means).  Eliazer by the way was ex-communicated later as a heratic, and it may have been because his education in the law had led him to the feet of the Nazarene we call Lord.  I hope so.  So yes, be careful when you read it, but also be careful when you watch movies, read any commontaries, etc.  Any non-biblical source is not inspired, but they can illuminate history for us that gives us a better insight to what was happening around the time it was written.

Without historical context of a text, we are left to our imaginations to fill in the blanks, and I don't think that is what God intended.  I also don't think that we should look at the text with western eyes and assume that we can fully understand the text without delving into some history and language studies as well.  When you read your Bible, someone made those assumptions (or educated guesses) for you, and you are trusting the interpreter to know how things should be translated. So you also are trusting in that persons knowledge of history and language and ancient culture to inform the translation you are reading.  Some of what we have is the result of Talmudic study.

With all that said, I believe that the Gospel is simple enough to understand, but with 1600 years (or so) of time to have some of the teaching obscured, I believe Satan has caused great damage to the body by obscuring God's clear words.  I for one saw the effects in my high school/college group at church growing up.  I was amazed at the spirit of rebellion I saw in so many of the youth who were even involved in leadership.  They lived for the flesh and most of the leaders were blind to it.  The sexual promiscuity of the youth groups was higher than the national secular surveys.  This was troubling indeed, and the response was - God doesn't really want you to do that.  This is a safe place to come worship(sic).  It wasn't a safe place, and it was because they let the kids do whatever in the name of the freedom of the Gospel.  I saw right away that the law was needed, the leader should have said- God said not to do xyz, and then backed it up with scripture, and told them that you can't serve God and have it your own way too.  That is applying God's law.  

I hope you have a peaceful Sabbath,

-oneBook

[but now is manifested, and by the Scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the eternal God, has been made known to all the nations]

Hey BigD,

I'll try to keep this shorter, it appears we are in sync on some of the lingo and thinking now, and understand each other better.

I have a few questions I would like to focus on.

BigD responds:
It is apparent to me that your dispensational teachings came from the doctrine of some man. In my study of the Bible, I have never seen that God had 2 brides, but one, and that is Israel.

If God has only one bride, then how are Gentiles included in that bride?  Bride implies that there is a covenant.  Without a covenant, you cannot be in right relationship with God, so if He has another covenant, then he must have another bride....
Please comment on this, and elaborate on the scriptural basis for your covenant.

When Jesus gave the 12 the "so called" great commission, It was to go to all the world with the gospel of the kingdom. That gospel included the observance of the Law. Also, when that gospel is again preached after the rapture of the Church, the Body of Christ, the Law will again be in effect. The Gentile during that time will again also have to place themselves under the Law in the kingdom that Jesus will establish upon the earth.

What law then did Paul mean that we should judge within the body with in 1 Cor. 6:1-7 (written to Gentiles)-

1 Does any one of you, when he has a case against his neighbor, dare to go to law before the unrighteous and not before the saints? 2 Or do you not know that the saints will judge the world? If the world is judged by you, are you not competent to constitute the smallest law courts? 3 Do you not know that we will judge angels? How much more matters of this life? 4 So if you have law courts dealing with matters of this life, do you appoint them as judges who are of no account in the church? 5 I say this to your shame. Is it so, that there is not among you one wise man who will be able to decide between his brethren, 6 but brother goes to law with brother, and that before unbelievers?

The Gentile no longer has to become a Jew (proselyte), and place themselves under the Law to serve the true and living God.

They never did.  This idea only can be traced back to Hasmonean times (the intra-biblical period where the story of Hannukah took place).  It is clear in the Torah that if someone came to live among them, they had to follow the laws of Israel, (there is to be one law for the native and stranger) but they didn't become "Jews" by doing so.  They could even worship in the Temple/Tabernacle although they could not take of certain sacrifices (like the Passover).

After God set Israel aside, He MADE the "one new man" of Epehsians 2:15, known today as "the Body of Christ." There is no longer a distinction between the Jew and Gentile. They are both in the same "set aside boat." A graceous God raised up the self proclaimed "chief of sinners" to bring a new message of God's grace to a lost and dying world. That message was not the "good news" of the Law, but the "good news" of Grace. Not salvation by doing the deeds/works of the Law by FAITH, but by one placing their FAITH and trust in the Cross work of Christ.

Note that in Eph. 2, the body they are joined to is the commonwealth of Israel.  Paul states that Gentiles are now no longer "strangers" and "aliens", but fellow citizens.  These terms parallel the Torah's usage of "stranger" (Hebrew "ger") and "alien" (Hebrew- "nocher").  A ger was one who lived and resided in Israel and was expected to keep the laws of Israel.  A nocher was a forigner who was just passing through.
Paul was saying that we are to be viewed as fellow citizens.

All those that are saved under the dispensation of the Law will inherit the kingdom here upon the earth. All believers saved during this dispensation of grace, in which we now live, will inherit a heavenly home. This dispensation of grace is a (parenthetical) period during the dispensation of the Law. It cannot be found in prophesy and "was kept secret since the world began" until revealed to the Apostle Paul.

How can it be not found in prophesy when Paul says the prophets and scripture lay it out in Rom. 16:25-27

25 Now to Him who is able to establish you according to my gospel and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery which has been kept secret for long ages past, 26 but now is manifested, and by the Scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the eternal God, has been made known to all the nations, leading to obedience of faith; 27 to the only wise God, through Jesus Christ, be the glory forever. Amen.

Additionally, those eternal commands lead to an obedience of faith to God through Messiah Jesus.  Is this Paul's gospel or Jesus'?

As one that is classified as a dispensationalist, there is one rule I attempt to never violate. That is NEVER read future revelation into past events. One should never read Paul's Epistles into the Gospels. That is like reading the Laws of Moses into the Garden of Eden.

I didn't read Paul into Jesus, but I read Paul's writings in light of the revelation that God already set down (namely, the Torah, prophets, and the message of Messiah). Here is a hermenutic I think is key- read the epistles assuming they are in line with God's word revealed in the OT or Messiah. In other words, always look at new revelation in the light of the already revealed (the Mormons and Muslims blew this hermenutic), would you agree?

You quote Mattew 23:4 above but there is no doubt in my mind that you do not observe Matthew 23:3. You are mixing apples and oranges and not worthy of comment, other then to say you should not do that.

I do think in context Matt. 23:3, Jesus is talking to those who are born under the administration of the Pharasies, and is instructing them to respect their position and rulings in regards to the Torah, but not to act like them (since they were hipocrytical). The Torah gave them that authority (they were sitting in the seat of Moses).

However, I was not born under the law- I am a Gentile.  I have now come under the law of God (aka law of Messiah, Torah), but I am not "under the law" (the government of pysical Israel) as Paul refers to it. (1 Cor. 9:19) I am under the King of Israel.  I would not go and get circumcised to place myself "under the law" because the apostles in Acts 15:7-11 advised against it-

7 After there had been much debate, Peter stood up and said to them, "Brethren, you know that in the early days God made a choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles would hear the word of the gospel and believe. 8 "And God, who knows the heart, testified to them giving them the Holy Spirit, just as He also did to us; 9 and He made no distinction between us and them, cleansing their hearts by faith. 10 "Now therefore why do you put God to the test by placing upon the neck of the disciples a yoke which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear? 11 "But we believe that we are saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, in the same way as they also are."

circumcision was the issue to be sure, but what "yolk" (or "burden" in some translations) did circumcision put on the necks of Gentile believers?  It placed them under the authorities of the Pharisee's that Jesus told the disciples they needed to submit to (though carefully since their actions didn't line up with the Torah they were teaching).

In Acts 15:19-21, it is apparent that the Gentiles in question were already associated with the Jewish community per the last statement (in v. 21)-
19 "Therefore it is my judgment that we do not trouble those who are turning to God from among the Gentiles, 20 but that we write to them that they abstain from things contaminated by idols and from fornication and from what is strangled and from blood. 21 "For Moses from ancient generations has in every city those who preach him, since he is read in the synagogues every Sabbath."


This letter that the disciples wrote was the one that Paul delivered when he was traveling around.

So BigD, I know you aren't into denominations etc, and neither am I, but I think in conversation it helps to know loosely where the other person is coming from.  I was raised in an evangelical non-denom. (I think non-denominational is a denomination ) which was pastored by a Baptist seminary grad with a doctorate of something (theology I think).  I aslo attended a Christian School (dutch reform) growing up till 8th grade. In high-school I got caught up into the Messianic thing and have moved around in that circle for some time (boy there are alot of whaky things in this circle).  I initially went that direction because all the answers I got for the discrepencies between the OT and NT didn't seem to jive, and all the leaders I asked seemed to have a memorized answer and could not explain it in their own words. I also wanted to study Hebrew, and messianic congregations are a good place to do that.

My position has changed over the years as I study and pray and read.  I like to talk over the scriptures because that is how I come across new information. It has been a pleasure discussing.

Peace and blessings-

-oneBook

[Russia tied to Iraq's missing arms]

Russia tied to Iraq's missing arms


By Bill Gertz
THE WASHINGTON TIMES

Russian special forces troops moved many of Saddam Hussein's weapons and related goods out of Iraq and into Syria in the weeks before the March 2003 U.S. military operation, The Washington Times has learned.
    John A. Shaw, the deputy undersecretary of defense for international technology security, said in an interview that he believes the Russian troops, working with Iraqi intelligence, "almost certainly" removed the high-explosive material that went missing from the Al-Qaqaa facility, south of Baghdad.
 
    "The Russians brought in, just before the war got started, a whole series of military units," Mr. Shaw said. "Their main job was to shred all evidence of any of the contractual arrangements they had with the Iraqis. The others were transportation units."
    Mr. Shaw, who was in charge of cataloging the tons of conventional arms provided to Iraq by foreign suppliers, said he recently obtained reliable information on the arms-dispersal program from two European intelligence services that have detailed knowledge of the Russian-Iraqi weapons collaboration.
    Most of Saddam's most powerful arms were systematically separated from other arms like mortars, bombs and rockets, and sent to Syria and Lebanon, and possibly to Iran, he said.
    The Russian involvement in helping disperse Saddam's weapons, including some 380 tons of RDX and HMX, is still being investigated, Mr. Shaw said.
    The RDX and HMX, which are used to manufacture high-explosive and nuclear weapons, are probably of Russian origin, he said.
    Pentagon spokesman Larry DiRita could not be reached for comment.
    The disappearance of the material was reported in a letter Oct. 10 from the Iraqi government to the International Atomic Energy Agency.
    Disclosure of the missing explosives Monday in a New York Times story was used by the Democratic presidential campaign of Sen. John Kerry, who accused the Bush administration of failing to secure the material.
    Al-Qaqaa, a known Iraqi weapons site, was monitored closely, Mr. Shaw said.
    "That was such a pivotal location, Number 1, that the mere fact of [special explosives] disappearing was impossible," Mr. Shaw said. "And Number 2, if the stuff disappeared, it had to have gone before we got there."
    The Pentagon disclosed yesterday that the Al-Qaqaa facility was defended by Fedayeen Saddam, Special Republican Guard and other Iraqi military units during the conflict. U.S. forces defeated the defenders around April 3 and found the gates to the facility open, the Pentagon said in a statement yesterday.
    A military unit in charge of searching for weapons, the Army's 75th Exploitation Task Force, then inspected Al-Qaqaa on May 8, May 11 and May 27, 2003, and found no high explosives that had been monitored in the past by the IAEA.
    The Pentagon said there was no evidence of large-scale movement of explosives from the facility after April 6.
    "The movement of 377 tons of heavy ordnance would have required dozens of heavy trucks and equipment moving along the same roadways as U.S. combat divisions occupied continually for weeks prior to and subsequent to the 3rd Infantry Division's arrival at the facility," the statement said.
    The statement also said that the material may have been removed from the site by Saddam's regime.
    According to the Pentagon, U.N. arms inspectors sealed the explosives at Al-Qaqaa in January 2003 and revisited the site in March and noted that the seals were not broken.
    It is not known whether the inspectors saw the explosives in March. The U.N. team left the country before the U.S.-led invasion began March 20, 2003.
    A second defense official said documents on the Russian support to Iraq reveal that Saddam's government paid the Kremlin for the special forces to provide security for Iraq's Russian arms and to conduct counterintelligence activities designed to prevent U.S. and Western intelligence services from learning about the arms pipeline through Syria.
    The Russian arms-removal program was initiated after Yevgeny Primakov, the former Russian intelligence chief, could not persuade Saddam to give in to U.S. and Western demands, this official said.
    A small portion of Iraq's 650,000 tons to 1 million tons of conventional arms that were found after the war were looted after the U.S.-led invasion, Mr. Shaw said. Russia was Iraq's largest foreign supplier of weaponry, he said.
    However, the most important and useful arms and explosives appear to have been separated and moved out as part of carefully designed program. "The organized effort was done in advance of the conflict," Mr. Shaw said.
    The Russian forces were tasked with moving special arms out of the country.
    Mr. Shaw said foreign intelligence officials believe the Russians worked with Saddam's Mukhabarat intelligence service to separate out special weapons, including high explosives and other arms and related technology, from standard conventional arms spread out in some 200 arms depots.
    The Russian weapons were then sent out of the country to Syria, and possibly Lebanon in Russian trucks, Mr. Shaw said.
    Mr. Shaw said he believes that the withdrawal of Russian-made weapons and explosives from Iraq was part of plan by Saddam to set up a "redoubt" in Syria that could be used as a base for launching pro-Saddam insurgency operations in Iraq.
    The Russian units were dispatched beginning in January 2003 and by March had destroyed hundreds of pages of documents on Russian arms supplies to Iraq while dispersing arms to Syria, the second official said.
    Besides their own weapons, the Russians were supplying Saddam with arms made in Ukraine, Belarus, Bulgaria and other Eastern European nations, he said.
    "Whatever was not buried was put on lorries and sent to the Syrian border," the defense official said.
    Documents reviewed by the official included itineraries of military units involved in the truck shipments to Syria. The materials outlined in the documents included missile components, MiG jet parts, tank parts and chemicals used to make chemical weapons, the official said.
    The director of the Iraqi government front company known as the Al Bashair Trading Co. fled to Syria, where he is in charge of monitoring arms holdings and funding Iraqi insurgent activities, the official said.
    Also, an Arabic-language report obtained by U.S. intelligence disclosed the extent of Russian armaments. The 26-page report was written by Abdul Tawab Mullah al Huwaysh, Saddam's minister of military industrialization, who was captured by U.S. forces May 2, 2003.
    The Russian "spetsnaz" or special-operations forces were under the GRU military intelligence service and organized large commercial truck convoys for the weapons removal, the official said.
    Regarding the explosives, the new Iraqi government reported that 194.7 metric tons of HMX, or high-melting-point explosive, and 141.2 metric tons of RDX, or rapid-detonation explosive, and 5.8 metric tons of PETN, or pentaerythritol tetranitrate, were missing.
    The material is used in nuclear weapons and also in making military "plastic" high explosive.
    Defense officials said the Russians can provide information on what happened to the Iraqi weapons and explosives that were transported out of the country. Officials believe the Russians also can explain what happened to Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20041028-122637-6257r.htm

[To the Jews I became as a Jew]

BigD,

in the article in question, the author doesn't ever say that dispensationalism is a doctrine, rather, he labels it as a hermenutic.  A hermenutic is a way of looking at the Bible, glasses one could say.  If you formulate your doctrine from the Bible, and you view the Bible from dispensational glasses, then your doctrine is dispensationally derived doctrine.

That was why the author refered to dispensational doctrine, doctrine that was arrived at using the dispensational hermanutic.

Also, you said that you didn't agree with the "first pillar" of dispensationalism that was outlined in his article-

"1) that God requires different standards of righteousness for different dispensations
or eras"

You don't believe that?  Then you keep the law?
The law is a revelation of God's righteousness, and if you don't observe it now, then you must believe that God requires different standards of righteousness for different dispensations or eras.  Here is the litmus test-
Was violating the Sabbath a sin for Moses?
How about for Isaiah?
Nehemiah?
Jesus??
His disciples (post resurection)
Yourself?

If you answer some yes, and some no, then you must believe in differing standards.

From the blurb you posted on your Calvinist adventures  , the hermenutic of spiritualization is what they used to arrive at their doctinal stands.  Of course, some dispensationalists use spiritualization as a hermenutic as well as dispensationalism.

The Timothy in 2:15 verse is used as a support verse for the dispensational hermanutic, but in context, Paul is exorting Timothy to handle the word correctly-
15 Be diligent to present yourself approved to God as a workman who does not need to be ashamed, accurately handling the word of truth. 16 But avoid worldly and empty chatter, for it will lead to further ungodliness, 17 and their talk will spread like gangrene.

Most people who are serious and sincere in their relationship with God as I believe both you and I are, try to handle the Word correctly (rightly divide, or rightly measure).  So I don't think that verse promotes a dispensational hermenutic.  It definately doesn't spell out that eternal commands that God told Israel not to stray from, even if someone working miracles comes and tells them too (Deut. 13), are now no longer essential and you don't have to do them.

I was raised in dispensationalism, (a general belief that there are different eras where God's requirements change in regards to the Law of Moses, and that God has 2 brides- Israel and the Church).  I studied the Bible and didn't see how that was possible without much of God's Word being rendered false (as in the example from Deut. above). If Jesus preached the message to the disciples that included the law, and then told them to teach it to all the Gentiles, then how can Paul come along and say that Gentiles don't need the law.
Of course, I would not say that Paul's and Jesus' message conflicted, but that they preached the same gospel.
The thing that causes the most confusion in regards to the law is that when we read "law" (as Christians) we generally view it as a monolithic representation of the Torah.  In other words, every time we see that word, we assume Paul is talking about the Torah.  This is not the case.  In fact Paul's most used term- "under the law" is not referring to the Torah, but to a state of erroneous belief that by being circumsized, you become part of Israel.  Indeed, you do become subject to rabbinic law, but both Paul and Jesus rebuke rabbinic law where it oversteps God's law (the Torah), and where the rabbinic law was a burden that hurt people instead of helped to keep God's law as in-

Mat. 23:4
4 "They tie up heavy burdens and lay them on men's shoulders, but they themselves are unwilling to move them with so much as a finger."

Paul makes all his points using God's law to prove that God's law teaches that it can't impart rightousness.  God's law points to the death and resurection of the Messiah as a means to pay for Israel's and the Gentiles sins.  

To prove that the term "under the law" is not equivalent with "Torah" (God's law) lets look at the following verse:

1 Cor. 9:19
19 For though I am free from all men, I have made myself a slave to all, so that I may win more. 20 To the Jews I became as a Jew, so that I might win Jews; to those who are under the Law, as under the Law though not being myself under the Law, so that I might win those who are under the Law; 21 to those who are without law, as without law, though not being without the law of God but under the law of Christ, so that I might win those who are without law. 22 To the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak; I have become all things to all men, so that I may by all means save some. 23 I do all things for the sake of the gospel, so that I may become a fellow partaker of it.

This is interesting that Paul states that he "became as a Jew" seing that Paul is a Jew by birth!  Second, he states clearly that he is not under the law even though he became as one who is under the law.  This no doubt is a reference to the fact that Paul submitted to the whip of the synagogue when they punished him for his proclaiming Yeshua.  From historical records, we can see that lashes were given in many cases instead of a death penalty.  The thinking was that if the person submitted to lashes, then they were not rebellious in intent. Next he came to those "without law" though Paul was not without the law of God (Torah), but was under the law of Messiah (Christ).  In that statement he equates the 2 laws, e.g. the law of God = the law of Messiah.

Here again we find talk of the "burden" of Messiah-

28 "Come to Me, all who are weary and heavy-laden, and I will give you rest. 29 "Take My yoke upon you and learn from Me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and YOU WILL FIND REST FOR YOUR SOULS. 30 "For My yoke is easy and My burden is light."

The word for burden referred to the obligation of a person to the leaders interperetation of God's law.  Jesus said the teachers of that day were placing a heavy burden on the people, and we can easily see that by reading a little of the Talmud.  The laws were multiplied and taken beyond the reasonable understanding of God's law.  Jesus was saying that His obligation was light in the way he interpereted God's law.

Well, I'll call it a night now.

Peace and blessings upon you and yours.

-oneBook

I guess I got confused and thought this was on the debate forum, that is why I was 'debating' Sabbath.  I don't blame y'all for being tired of talking about resting in the Sabbath

I'll try to keep debates in the debate forum from now on.

Just a parting thought on the Sabbath-
I used to have the same view point, that we have Jesus and focusing on the physical commands was a waste of time because we have the spiritual rest.  Then while reading, praying, and fasting, God called me to enter His Sabbath rest.  At first I resisted, after all, I liked being master of my schedule, I could worship God on the day that suited MY schedule.  I wanted to buy things and travel when it was convinient for me.  The Sabbath rest (in the physical world) distilled in me the meaning of our spiritual rest, and the two testify to the different aspects of our existance.  If we were just spiritual beings, I would agree all we need is the spiritual Sabbath, but since God made our bodies too (and said they are good), He also has physical laws.  What I found was that I learned to have to give up my schedule for His, and work my calendar around God's.  Later He persisted and conquered different areas of my life- what I eat, how I dress, what I say, and what I think.  He asks 10 % of our money, why not ~1/7th of our time?

To clarify so that no one accuses me of relying on my works, I don't do the Sabbath to be saved.  God finished the work of saving me through His Son on the cross.  I do it because it is the least I could do to listen to His voice and live in the footsteps of the Messiah.

-oneBook

[You are My Servant, Israel]

here is another prophecy of the Gentiles being brought in.  It apparently is a conversation between the Messiah and the Father in which, the Messiah is called "Israel" even though part if His mission is to save Israel-

Isaiah 49: 1 - 26 - Study This Chapter
 
1 Listen to Me, O islands, And pay attention, you peoples from afar. The LORD called Me from the womb; From the body of My mother He named Me. 2 He has made My mouth like a sharp sword, In the shadow of His hand He has concealed Me; And He has also made Me a select arrow, He has hidden Me in His quiver. 3 He said to Me, " You are My Servant, Israel, In Whom I will show My glory." 4 But I said, "I have toiled in vain, I have spent My strength for nothing and vanity; Yet surely the justice {due} to Me is with the LORD, And My reward with My God." 5 And now says the LORD, who formed Me from the womb to be His Servant, To bring Jacob back to Him, so that Israel might be gathered to Him (For I am honored in the sight of the LORD, And My God is My strength), 6 He says, "It is too small a thing that You should be My Servant To raise up the tribes of Jacob and to restore the preserved ones of Israel; I will also make You a light of the nations So that My salvation may reach to the end of the earth."
7 Thus says the LORD, the Redeemer of Israel {and} its Holy One, To the despised One, To the One abhorred by the nation, To the Servant of rulers, " Kings will see and arise, Princes will also bow down, Because of the LORD who is faithful, the Holy One of Israel who has chosen You." 8 Thus says the LORD, "In a favorable time I have answered You, And in a day of salvation I have helped You; And I will keep You and give You for a covenant of the people, To restore the land, to make {them} inherit the desolate heritages; 9 Saying to those who are bound, 'Go forth,' To those who are in darkness, 'Show yourselves.' Along the roads they will feed, And their pasture {will be} on all bare heights. 10 "They will not hunger or thirst, Nor will the scorching heat or sun strike them down; For He who has compassion on them will lead them And will guide them to springs of water. 11 "I will make all My mountains a road, And My highways will be raised up. 12 "Behold, these will come from afar; And lo, these {will come} from the north and from the west, And these from the land of Sinim."
 
"Israel" is given as a light to the nations, and a covenant to the people.

Also, I couldn't help but notice that the gentile who joins himself to God is assigned Israel's covenental sign- the Sabbath.

-oneBook

You are mistaken Tim,

never would one or two days occur between the 1st and second day of Nissan.  They count the days of the month the same as us, the second day is always the second day, etc.

If you are referring to the practice of waiting till the spotting of the new moon, if the moon was spotted on the day they expected it, then that was declared the 1st day of the month, and all counting went on from there.  If they didn't see the new moon on the day it was expected, then that day became the 30th of the month they were currently in, and the next day was declared a new moon (the 1st of the next month).  No days were ever lost.
We can't necessarily backtrack and find out how many days were in a given month unless we have records on the calendars from that time that recorded when they declared the new moon in a given month, but that doesn't have any affect on the Sabbath, since every week was kept at 7 days.

I don't expect you to take my word as gospel or anything, just find a Jewish forum and ask a rabbi how the calendar works, and how we can be sure that the Sabbath today is the same as it was back then.

-onebook

Hey Robert,

You need to remember that the enemy wants you to think that God will not take you back, and that is how he seduces people farther into sin.  You do have to accept God's forgiveness and realize that all those other people in the body of Messiah that you consider more pure than yourself are only pure by the same way, Messiah's blood.  Everyone cleansed by His blood is pure and clean.

That is the reality of it from God's point of view.  That doesn't mean that there aren't other things that you can do....
Stop watching movies, TV, or listening to music that speaks of any impure relationships, or uses sexual language.  Garbage in, garbage out.  This also applies to porn if that is involved, keep it far from you.

I have found that in my life, if I read or see movies that have sexual scenes, then my mind tends to naturally follow those images, and it takes concious effort to battle those thoughts and prayer.  It is much better if we keep the temple of our minds clear from such things.

If you have friends and family that spend a lot of time watching such things, then you may need to change friends, or limit time with them to conversation and other activities.  Drastic?  Yes, but you are talking about your marriage and more importantly, your relationship with your Creator.

If pornography is an issue, then you should find another strong Christian friend that can hold you accountable and allow him to randomly check your computer history for pornography often.

Prayer is also important, and you have mine.

I went through a problem in my past with the same thing as well as pornography, and I know exactly how you feel.  Just remember that the lies the enemy is pusing on you now are-
1. God doesn't want you back (but Jesus left the 99 sheep for the 1)
2. It isn't "really" a sin since you aren't doing anything physically. (comiting adultry in your heart)
3. Everyone else in Messiah's body is a perfect saint and doesn't have the same temptations. (King David, a man after God's own heart had the same problem, and he had a few wives already)
4. That someone else will satisfy your desire, other than the one God gave you. (as if God doesn't know what you need, or doesn't want you to enjoy the wife of your youth)

If you have spare time where these thoughts come up, do something that involves more participation so that you can't think those thoughts, preferrably where there aren't women around.  Sports with other men, men's bible studies, etc.
Spare time is the devil's playground as the saying goes... so is an idle mind.

Lastly, ground yourself (baptize yourself) in the Word.  Don't stop at reading it, take it in smaller chunks and study it.  If a piece of scripture is not exciting to you, that only means that you don't understand it yet.  Seek the meaning of God's Word, hunger and thirst after it.  This is a healthy addiction that will help counter the unhealthy one you are working to escape.

1Co 10:13 - No temptation has overtaken you but such as is common to man; and God is faithful, who will not allow you to be tempted beyond what you are able, but with the temptation will provide the way of escape also, so that you will be able to endure it.

For me, I remember my escape was that I would go out camping by myself, or with one other brother and dedicate my time to reading the scriptures, and praying, and admiring our Father's creation.  
This did help, but most of the bad influences I had were still there when I got back, so I  had to work at nutralizing those (friends, media, TV, music, Internet, etc.). Just think of these things as alters to idols, and nutralizing them as turning over the alters, unafraid at the consequences.  God will see your change of heart and stregnthen you beyond what you can imagine.  For more inspiration, read what Elijiah did at mount Carmel, or what Josiah or Gideon did. What they did was not popular with others in Israel, but God used them because they were willing to do whatever it took to be holy to God.

Peace, blessings, and prayers
-Onebook