Satanic Holy Days

[Chesed]

BEP -

Thank you for not deleting my post that you had disagreements with. I'm sorry that I didn't switch my responses to the debate forum earlier.

I do want to make it clear that I don't believe any law keeping will accomplish one's salvation. I've been working hard to show from scripture that the Lord never gave the Law as a means for Israel to accomplish their own salvation. The Law was given for sanctification, not salvation.

I believe that the only way one is saved is by grace through faith, and that the only way we can be acceptable to God is by the shed blood of Messiah.

I'm sure you and I both agree that God wants those who belong to Him to behave a certain way. You would say that a Christian should keep the Law of Messiah. I believe the Law of Messiah and the Law God gave to Moses is the same. The Messiah kept the Law perfectly, and showed us by example how the Law was intended to be kept.

Take care BEP,
Chesed

[Chesed]

This is from a previous post of mine about the meaning of the word fulfill:

It all hinges upon how one defines the word fulfill in this context. The greek word used in 17, plerosai, means literally to fill; the word fulfilled in verse 18 is actually a different Greek word. Some possible meanings for fulfill in 17 could be: "to accomplish, to carry into effect, bring to realisation, to perform." Here is how the verse would read with fulfill being understood this way: "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to accomplish, to carry into effect, bring to realisation, to perform." It makes perfect sense.

Some interpret the word fulfill in Matt. 5:17 as "to put an end to." Here is what verse 17 would read according to this understanding: " Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to put an end to (the law)." This sounds contradictory.

The same Greek word for fulfill used in Matt. 5:17, is also used in Matt. 3:15 (the baptism of Jesus) "But Jesus answering said to him, "Permit it at this time; for in this way it is fitting for us to fulfill all righteousness."

This verse is evidence that the first interpretation I gave of the word fulfill for Matt. 5:17 is the correct one. To believe the contrary, would lead one to come to the same conclusions as 5:17 applied to 3:15 would mean that Jesus did away with baptism by becoming baptised, or that He "put an end to righteousness." Of course we know this is not true. I think we can all agree this is correct way to understand 3:15: "for in this way it is fitting for us to fulfill (accomplish, to carry into effect, bring to realisation, to perform) all righteousness."

The same Greek word used in Matt. 5:17, Matt. 3:15 is also used in the Gospels when Jesus fulfills a Prophecy about Him in the Prophets: Matt. "That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Esaias the prophet..."

[Chesed]

BigD -

Thank you for taking the time to respond to Tim Heggs article. I will take the time responding to you this evening.

Take care,
Chesed

[tb]

 I think you do have this in prophesy                           [quote It consists of Jew and Gentile on equal footing and without distinction. This "new creation cannot be found in prophesy,

actualy you can find it in Isaiah 56:3 Neither let the son of the stranger that hath joined himself to the Lord, speak saying the Lord hath utterly separated me from his people neither let the eunuch say I am a dry tree 4 for thus saith the Lord unto the eunuchs that keep My Sabbaths and choose the things that please Me and take hold of My covenant even unto them will I give in My house and within My walls a place and a name better than sons and daughters I will give them an everlasting name that shall not me cut off. Also the sons of the stranger that join themselves to the Lord, to serve Him and tolove the name of the Lord to be his servants every one that keepeth the Sabbath from poluting it and taketh hold of My covenant even them will I bring to My holy mountain and make them joyful in my house of prayer their burnt offerings and their sacrifices shall be accepted upon Mine alter for Mine house shall ve called an house of prayer for all people.
also Ezekiel 47:21-23
So shall you divivde this land unto you according to the tribes of Israel. 22 and it shall come to pass that ye shall divide it by lot for an inheritance unto you and to the strangers that sojourn among you and they shall beget children among you and they shall be unto you as born in the contry among the children of Israel they shall have inheritance with you among the tribes of Israel.23 and it shall come to pass that in what tribe the stranger sogurneth there shall ye give him his inheritance saith the Lord G-D

[oneBook]

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

[BigD]

If you no longer sacrifice animals to cover your sins, you are a dispensationalists. If you do not adhere to the Sabbath Day Laws of the Old Testament, then you are a dispensationalists. If you do not believe that circumcision is required today, then you are a dispensationalist

You dilute the mean of the word into nothingness. Dispensationalism is a modern heresy that has infected the church, especially here in the US. That's all that it is.

Tim:
How can dispensationalism be a heresy when it is not a denomination or doctrine? IT IS A MANNER IN WHICH ONE STUDIES THE SCRIPTURES.

It is quite possible that there are those who teach the Bible from a dispensational viewpoint do teach heresy. However, there are MANY denominational preachers that also teach what I consider heresy. They do not all agree with eachother.

Dispensationalists, and denominational preachers/teachers do not all preach/teach the same message.

God Bless.
Live Well, Laugh Often and Love the Lord.

[Tim Vaughan]

Tim:
How can dispensationalism be a heresy when it is not a denomination or doctrine? IT IS A MANNER IN WHICH ONE STUDIES THE SCRIPTURES.

Which makes in a doctrine, right?

[BigD]

Tim:
How can dispensationalism be a heresy when it is not a denomination or doctrine? IT IS A MANNER IN WHICH ONE STUDIES THE SCRIPTURES.

Which makes in a doctrine, right?

BigD responds:
Not in my opinion. My doctrine is what I derived from my study of the Bible. If dispensationalism was a doctrine, then all dispensationalists would believe, teach and preach the same thing.

Further, I am not a denominationalist. Denominationalists normally follow their own Church denominational doctrine. There is no church hiearchy over me to tell me what I should believe.

When I was a Calvinist, I believed the doctrine as taught by the Calvinist church leaders, not from my study of the Bible. They taught me to study the Bible daily, which I did.

My study of the Bible has taken me from the Calvinist doctrine.

From my study of the Bible, I found that it did not jive with what I was being taught and that for their doctrine to fit into the Bible, they had to "spiritualize" the Scriptures to make them fit.

My doctrine came from my study of the Bible. My dispensationalism came about from my study of the Bible, as a means in which the Bible became much more understandable. I believe that Timothy in 2:15 calls it "rightly dividing."

Even Paul was a dispensationalist. You will find in Galatians 2 alone that Paul speaks of 3 dispensations. In verses 11 & 12 he speaks of TIMES PAST. In verse 13 he speaks of BUT NOW, and in verse 7 he speaks of THE AGES TO COME.

God Bless.
Live Well, Laugh Often and Love the Lord.

[MalkyEL]

Chesed wrote:
I do want to make it clear that I don't believe any law keeping will accomplish one's salvation. I've been working hard to show from scripture that the Lord never gave the Law as a means for Israel to accomplish their own salvation. The Law was given for sanctification, not salvation.

Nana:
Sanctification is done by God only, not by works.  Keeping the law does not sanctify a person.

Jhn 10:36 Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?

Jhn 17:19 And for their sakes I sanctify myself, that they also might be sanctified through the truth.

Act 26:18 To open their eyes, [and] to turn [them] from darkness to light, and [from] the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them which are sanctified by faith that is in me.

Rom 15:16 That I should be the minister of Jesus Christ to the Gentiles, ministering the gospel of God, that the offering up of the Gentiles might be acceptable, being sanctified by the Holy Ghost.

1Cr 1:2 Unto the church of God which is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called [to be] saints, with all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both theirs and ours:

1Cr 6:11 And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.

Heb 10:7 ¶ Then I said, Lo, I come ( in the volume of the Book it is written of Me) to do Your will, O God."
8 Above, when He said, "Sacrifice and offering, and burnt offerings and offering for sin You did not desire, neither did You have pleasure in them" (which are offered according to the Law),
9 then He said, "Lo, I come to do Your will, O God." He takes away the first so that He may establish the second.
10 By this will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

Jud 1:1 Jude, the servant of Jesus Christ, and brother of James, to them that are sanctified by God the Father, and preserved in Jesus Christ, [and] called:

Shalom, MalkyEL

PS: Isn't this set of verses fantastic?   - I noticed while gathering them that they prove Jesus is God, once again, as they point to the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as Sanctifier - COOL  

[MalkyEL]

I noticed Michael Rood was brought up a few times, so I thought I would share some information, as I am extremely familiar with him.

Michael Rood is a false prophet and a false teacher.

Quote:
"Michael Rood and his associates appear to have been busy trying to reinvent some of his website to make it appear more "Christian'', "Church" and "Y'Shua" friendly, since the Sky Angel appearances. However, the truth is, Michael Rood rejects the name of Jesus, calling it and "Christians" pagan and deceived. He uses the name "YAHshua", which is not the Hebrew name of Jesus. It was in fact a word made up by the sacred name movement, which is defined by many researchers as a cult. The correct Hebrew Name that Jesus was derived from is Yehoshua shortened to Yeshua. (Strong's # 3091)  Although he has tried to tone down his anti-christ rhetoric, Mr. Rood is using the same teaching videos and tapes that hold those same beliefs. He claims to have left "the Baptist cult", but never has renounced The Way International cult, which denies the divinity of Christ, and which he was actively a leader in for over twenty years. That is where he obtained his Biblical understandings and 'prophecy' leanings."

"In Light of  Israel, among the many anti-Christ, anti-New Testament, anti-Christian articles,  is an article that explains the Karaite belief about Jesus, which is interesting in light of the fact that Michael Rood is promoted as a "messianic karaite rabbi," and works and walks side by side with Nehemiah Gordon who holds these beliefs:

"Jews Should Not Believe in Jesus because:

"1. He was to have saved them from their enemies (Luke 1:69-71), which he DIDN'T!

2. He was to have saved them from their sins (Matthew 1:21), which he DIDN'T!

3. He was to have returned as the reigning King Messiah in that same generation (Matthew 16:27-28), which he DIDN'T!

4. He was to have come at that time, without tarrying (Hebrews 10:37), which he DIDN'T!

5. The true Messiah was to be "David's Son", and Jesus WASN'T!

6. The Servant described in Isaiah 53 (which Christians claim was Jesus) was to have lived a long life and have many children (verse 10), and to have had his share of wealth, (verse 12), which Jesus DIDN'T! (He died poor and childless at the age of 33.) ....

Jews should definitely NOT believe in Jesus, nor should ANYONE for that matter! The general picture obtained from an impartial reading of the so-called New Testament (not to be confused with the New Covenant described in Jeremiah 31:31-34) is one of a self-deluded, would-be prophet who failed to actualize his claims.

WHY PIN YOUR SALVATION ON A FAIRY-TALE? COME TO YHVH, THE ONLY TRUE SAVIOUR AND KING, TODAY, AND FIND REST FOR YOUR SOULS! ..." end excerpts.

Michael Rood stated in a promotion for one of his tours to Israel that, "You are coming to Israel so that I can convert you from a pagan Christian into a Torah loving follower of the Jewish Messiah. " He was in fact stating the wish to convert followers to Jewish and Karaite religious beliefs about Messiah, with the full rejection of the divinity of Jesus Christ. For a full treatment of current Jewish views of Jesus, Messiah and the New Testament, please see Jesus Christ and The Talmud.

Clearly, Michael Rood wishes to convert "pagan Christians" to "true Karaite Judaism" which rejects Jesus Christ and the New Testament."

http://www.seekgod.ca/roodskyangel.htm

http://www.seekgod.ca/topichrministries.htm#michael

Shalom, MalkyEL

[nChrist]

Malky EL,

Sister Nana, I'll simply say AMEN and Thanks!! I'm far too tired to do any more research today. I want some quiet time with Jesus and try to go to sleep.

I do enjoy copying much of what you write and putting it on my study list. Thank you Sister.

Love In Christ,
Tom

[Chesed]

BigD -

I would like to first thank you for taking the time to read the article and respond to it. I know that takes a lot of time to do, and now I will take the time to respond to you.

As a dispensationalist, I do not believe "that God required different standards of obedience in different eras or
dispensations." I know of no dispensationalists that do. As a dispensationalist I do believe that salvation/justification has
ALWAYS been by FAITH. FAITH in believing and/or doing what God required at that point in time of human history.

If you believe that salvation/justification has always been by grace through faith, then you and I agree.

I'm confused by what you say above and how that disagrees with Tim Hegg's article when it reads "that God required different standards of obedience in different eras or dispensations."

BigD responds:
2Timothy2:15 "Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed,  RIGHTLY DIVIDING THE WORD OF TRUTH."

The above, in my humble opinion, strongly indicates that there are divisions in the Bible. Did the atributes of God change over the ages? NO, they are the same today as they were yesterday, and will still be the same tomarrow. However, has God dealt differently with mankind throughout the ages? Yes.

I would like to take a closer look at this this phrase in 2 Tim. 2:15b "RIGHTLY DIVIDING THE WORD OF TRUTH."

Understanding this verse correctly is depends on how one understands the Greek word "orthotomeo," which is translated here "rightly dividing." This word occurs only here in the NT, and is a word for a (tent making) tool or measurer. A long time ago a measurer was also called a "divider." Here is the interpretation of the word in the concordance

(http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/words/3/1098841860-6567.html)--

1) to cut straight, to cut straight ways

a) to proceed on straight paths, hold a straight course, equiv. to doing right

2) to make straight and smooth, to handle aright, to teach the truth directly and correctly

Here is the same verse in another translation: "Be diligent to present yourself approved to God as a workman who does not
need to be ashamed, accurately handling the word of truth.(NAS)

So I compared the different popular translations to see which ones said, "rightly handling..." versus "rightly dividing..."

Here's what I came up with:

The tranlsations that rendered 2 Tim. 2:15 as "... rightly handling..." (or something to this affect) are as follows:
New/American Standard Version, The Holman Christian Standard Bible, New Living Translation, New/Revised Standard Version, Good News Translation, The Douay-Rheims Bible, New Century Version, God's Word Translation, World English Bible, The Bible in Basic English, Weymouth New Testament, New International Version. A total of 12 translations.

The translations that rendered 2 Tim. 2:15 as "... rightly dividing..." are as follows: New/King James Version, Third Millenium, Young's Literal Translation. A total of 3.

So statistically speaking: 4 out of 5 bible translators translate "orthotomeo" as "rightly handling." 9 out of 10 dentists prefer Crest toothpaste... jk.  

I believe that dividing between the Church and Israel wrongly handles the Word of Truth.
 

I have never read were Adam and Eve, by faith, were saved/justified by offering a sacrifice to God. I have never read were  Able, by faith, had to believe God and build an ark in order to be saved/justified. I have never read where Noah had to, by faith, believe God and count the stars in heaven to be saved/justified. I have never read where Abram/Abraham, by faith, had to do the deeds/works of the Laws of Moses, to be saved/justified.

Yes, Abraham wasn't saved/justified by doing the works of the Law, but God said that Abraham did obey them: Ge 26:5 "...because Abraham obeyed Me and kept My charge, My commandments, My statutes and My laws." Yet, Abraham was saved by His faith.  

Paul, when he was illustrating the salvation we have through faith refers to the OT:

"1 What then shall we say that Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh, has found? 2 For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. 3 For what does the Scripture say? "ABRAHAM BELIEVED GOD, AND IT WAS CREDITED TO HIM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS." 4 Now to the one who works, his wage is not credited as a favor, but as what is due. ... Is this blessing then on the circumcised, or on the uncircumcised also? For we say, "FAITH WAS CREDITED TO ABRAHAM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS." 10 How then was it credited? While he was circumcised, or uncircumcised? Not while circumcised, but while uncircumcised; 11 and he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had while uncircumcised, so that he might be the father of all who believe without being circumcised, that righteousness might be credited to them,"(Romans 4).

Abraham was justified -- declared righteous -- by faith and his works (i.e. circumcision) were a seal of that righteousness.
I believe that salvation in relationship to works is the same today:

"For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; 9 not as a result of works, so that no one may boast. 10 For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand so that we would walk in them." (Eph. 2:8-11)

Titus 2:11-14
11For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation to all men, 12 instructing us to deny ungodliness and worldly
desires and to live sensibly, righteously and godly in the present age, 13 looking for the blessed hope and the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Christ Jesus, 14 who gave Himself for us to redeem us from every lawless deed, and to purify for Himself a people for His own possession, zealous for good deeds.

The pattern is the same regarding the quote Paul uses in Romans 4 from the OT, and the verses I quoted here from the NT: salvation comes first by grace through faith, and good works happen as a result of one's salvation, the Torah contains the good works that were prepared beforehand (Eph. 2:11).

I have never read where the children of Israel, in the Old Testament, Gospels and first part of Acts, had to, by faith, place their faith and trust in the Cross work of Christ for their salvation/justification.

Deut. 18:15 " The LORD your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among you, from your countrymen, you shall listen to him. 16 "This is according to all that you asked of the LORD your God in Horeb on the day of the assembly, saying, 'Let me not hear again the voice of the LORD my God, let me not see this great fire anymore, or I will die.' 17 " The LORD said to me, 'They have spoken well. 18 'I will raise up a prophet from among their countrymen like you, and I will put My words in his mouth, and he shall speak to them all that I command him. 19 ' It shall come about that whoever will not listen to My words which he shall speak in My name, I Myself will require {it} of him."

Peter in Acts references this passage while speaking of Jesus the Messiah to the Jewish People: "22 "Moses said, "THE LORD
GOD WILL RAISE UP FOR YOU A PROPHET LIKE ME FROM YOUR BRETHREN; TO HIM YOU SHALL GIVE HEED to everything He says to you. 23 `And it will be that every soul that does not heed that prophet shall be utterly destroyed from among the people." (Acts 3:22-23)

Tim Hegg continues:
A bi-product of such dispensational theology is the erroneous pillar which marks separation and distinction between Israel
and the Church. Fuller writes:

. . . the basic premise of Dispensationalism is two purposes of God expressed in the formation of two peoples who maintain their distinction throughout eternity.3

BigD responds:
As I have stated previoulsy, dispensationalsim is not a denomination or doctrine. It is by "rightly dividing the word of
thuth"  that leads one to know that there is a marked distinction between Israel and the Chruch, the Body of Christ.

I don't think that Tim Hegg is saying that dispensationalism is a denomination or doctrine, but a hermeneutic. Even you said
that it is the way in which you interpret the Scriptures. You and Tim in this case are saying the same thing.

[Chesed]

To Big D, (part II)

Prior to God setting the Gentiles aside at the Tower of Babel in Genesis 11...

Setting aside Gentiles? Don't you know that a mixed multitude of Gentiles left Egypt with Israel and received the Law with
them?

Ex 12:49 " The same law shall apply to the native as to the stranger who sojourns among you."

Le 18:26 'But as for you, you are to keep My statutes and My judgments and shall not do any of these abominations, {neither} the native, nor the alien who sojourns among you

Le 24:22 'There shall be one standard for you; it shall be for the stranger as well as the native, for I am the LORD your
God.' "

Nu 15:29 'You shall have one law for him who does {anything} unintentionally, for him who is native among the sons of Israel and for the alien who sojourns among them.

Nu 15:30 'But the person who does {anything} defiantly, whether he is native or an alien, that one is blaspheming the LORD; and that person shall be cut off from among his people.

God's later added a condition to that covenant in that Abram, and all those males that followed him, had to be
circumcised or be "cut off from his people" (see Gen 17:9-14.) That circumcision made a distinction between a Jew and
Gentile. That distinction was made by God.

Circumcision wasn't a condition it was a seal or sign of the covenant, as Paul states in the verse I quoted above in
Romans 4. I have heard circumcision and Sabbath as signs of the covenants being compared to a wedding ring one wears to signify the covenant of Marriage.

Circumcision as a distinction between Jew and Gentile? Ex 12:48 "But if a stranger sojourns with you, and celebrates the
Passover to the LORD, let all his males be circumcised, and then let him come near to celebrate it; and he shall be like a
native of the land. But no uncircumcised person may eat of it.

After the Law was given to Moses, that Gentile, and all others, had to become a Jew (proselyte) and place themselves under the Civil, Moral and Ceremonial Laws of Moses.

God raised up Moses and gave to him  His instructions in righteousness for the children of Israel. Those instruction can be found in the Civil, Moral and Ceremonial Laws of Moses. The Gentiles were never under the Law unless the wanted to serve the true and living God. Then they had to become Jews (proselytes) and place themselves under those Laws.

Wrong. See the verses from the Law of Moses above about the same commandment given to Israel is the same for the sojourner.

The practice of a ritual conversion for a gentile to become a Jew is not found in Torah at all, but came about through
Rabbinic Law. The following passage says nothing about a gentile who has to become a Jew to worship God:

Isaiah 56:3 3 Let not the foreigner who has joined himself to the LORD say, "The LORD will surely separate me from His
people... 6 Also the foreigners who join themselves to the LORD, To minister to Him, and to love the name of the LORD, To be His servants, every one who keeps from profaning the sabbath And holds fast My covenant; 7 Even those I will bring to My holy mountain And make them joyful in My house of prayer. Their burnt offerings and their sacrifices will be acceptable on My altar; For My house will be called a house of prayer for all the peoples." 8 The Lord GOD, who gathers the dispersed of Israel, declares, "Yet {others} I will gather to them, to those {already} gathered."

If Gentiles who wanted to serve God had to become Jews, then why does this passage say that God's house will be called a House of Prayer for all the nations/peoples (Hebrew:goyim = gentiles)? If that was the case wouldn't it more correctly read, "... a House of prayer for (only) the nation of Israel"?

I don't think it is at all coincidental that God mentions gathering the dispersed of Israel in the Isaiah 56 passage just
after He talks about Gentiles choosing to join themselves to Him, and says that He will gather them to those already
gathered. It's a really beautiful picture and I feel so honored and blessed to be a part of this picture through Messiah's shed blood!

I wonder if Messiah had Is. 56:8 in mind when He said, "(Joh 10:16) There are other sheep which belong to me that are not in this sheep pen. I must bring them, too; they will listen to my voice, and they will become one flock with one shepherd."

God had set the nation of Israel aside (Romans 11:7-12), temporarily (vs 25)

I object to your wording here, BigD. I don't believe God set Israel aside:

(Romans 11)"1 I ask, then, has God rejected His people? Absolutely not! For I too am an Israelite, a descendant of Abraham, from the tribe of Benjamin."

Paul uses himself as an example that God has not rejected Israel. Do you consider Paul part of Israel or the Church?

Obviously Paul considered himself part of Israel.  
 
Paul continues in Romans 11: "17 Now if some of the branches were broken off, and you, though a wild olive branch, were grafted in among them, and have come to share in the rich root of the cultivated olive tree, 18 do not brag that you are better than those branches. But if you do brag--you do not sustain the root, but the root sustains you. 19 Then you will say, "Branches were broken off so that I might be grafted in." 20 True enough; they were broken off by unbelief, but you stand by faith. Do not be arrogant, but be afraid. 21 For if God did not spare the natural branches, He will not spare you either. 22 Therefore, consider God's kindness and severity: severity toward those who have fallen, but God's kindness toward you--if you remain in His kindness. Otherwise you too will be cut off. 23 And even they, if they do not remain in unbelief, will be grafted in, because God has the power to graft them in again. 24 For if you were cut off from your native wild olive, and against nature were grafted into a cultivated olive tree, how much more will these--the natural branches--be grafted into their own olive tree? 25 So that you will not be conceited, brothers, I do not want you to be unaware of this secret: a partial hardening has come to Israel until the full number of the Gentiles has come in."

Some of the branches were broken off and we gentiles (the wild olive branches) are grafted in among them. Israel is
experiencing a "partial hardening." This doesn't sound like they were set aside to me.

Also, "Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances (LAW) that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to His cross; And having spoiled principalities and powers,

So here you reference Eph. 2:14-16:
14 "For He Himself is our peace, who made both groups into one and broke down the barrier of the dividing wall, 15 by
abolishing in His flesh the enmity, which is the Law of commandments contained in ordinances, so that in Himself He might make the two into one new man, thus establishing peace, 16 and might reconcile them both in one body to God through the cross, by it having put to death the enmity."

If you are saying that this verse shows Messiah destroyed and broke down the Law (of Moses), then how do you explain what

Jesus says in Matt. 5:17 that He did not come to abolish the Law? If it is not the Law of Moses that this verse is referring
to, then what is Paul talking about here in Ephesians?

The Greek word for "dividing wall" in this passage is "fragmos." This word was used in the 1st century to identify the oral
Torah (Rabbinic Law) as a wall or fence around the written Torah (Law of Moses) and Pharisees as "builders of the Wall." (The "Dividing Wall" in Ephesians 2:14 by Tim Hegg).

Rabbinic Law was very strict in separating Jews and Gentiles. This was mainly as an attempt to keep the Jewish people from
eating non-kosher foods and from partaking in pagan idol worship. Consider how Peter says that it was against the law for a Jew to associate with a gentile (Acts 10:28) but there is no such prohibition in the Law of Moses.

It makes sense and does not contradict scripture to interpret Ephesians 2:14, that the Law/commandments/ordinances described are those in Rabbinic Law regarding Jews not associating with Gentiles. We see this issue many times in NT scripture.
**********************************************

Well BigD, I'm sure I have given you enough to keep you busy for a little while. I know that I probably overwhelmed you with
much to respond to -- with both my posts and Tim's article -- it was easy to miss this question, but I would still like to know:

If all the covenants are made with ONLY Israel, then what covenant are you a part of?

Thank you,
Chesed

[oneBook]

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

[BigD]

oneBook posted:
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.

BigD responds:
I stand corrected. THANKS for pointing that out to me.

When I consider the word "doctrine", I consider that my doctrine comes from my study of the Bible. I do not consider my doctrine in the same light that I view Calvinist, Pentecostal, Methodists and other denominational doctrines. They are doctrines of men that they follow. It is man that has labeled dispensationalism as a doctrine and I follow no man's teachings. However, there are individuals Bible teachers who's Biblical views I might agree with, and even learn from.

By efinition, dispensations have to do with "stewardship" and "house Laws." I find that God has been dispensing "house Laws" since the creation of Adam, and Adam was a steward of God. Therefore, I follow the doctrine of God.
-------------------------------------
oneBook continues:
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.

BigD responds:
It was the author that stated that dispensationalists believe "that God required different standards of righteousness for different dispensations or eras"

Since the fall of Adam, salvation/justification was ONLY on the basis of FAITH. However, God did require different means to deomonstrate one's faith. Able demonstrated his faith by bring the proper offering, Noah demonstrated his faith by building the arch. Abram demonstrated his faith by just believing God. Abraham demonstrated his faith by offerin up his son. Therefore, I conclude that FAITH was the only standard in which one was saved/justified.

I have stated many time that salvation/justification has always been based on FAITH. Faith in believing in what God said/and or required at that point in time of human history.
------------------------------------
oneBook goes on:
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.

BigD responds:
I agree toatally. That is what I reject. I know many Baptist and Pentecostals that claim to be dispensationalists and then have to spiritualize the Scriptures in order to make them fit their denominational doctrine.
--------------------------------
one Book goes on:
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.

BigD responds:
My preference for the meaning "rightly dividing" comes from the Greek word "orthotomego" (Strong's 3718) "to make a straight cut." Being Paul was a tentmaker, I believe that is why he used that phrase. As a tentmaker, the materials had to be "cut straight" in order for them to fit properly. IMHO, those who have to "spiritualize" scriptures, are not cutting on a staright line. They are cutting to fit the doctrine that they want to believe. Some cut the Scriptures to fit "infant baptism", others cut the Scriptures to fit "total emersion." Others cut the Scriptures to fit "in the name of Jesus." Still others cut the Scriptures to fit "in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost." In the protestant churches there isn't a majority  view ('cut") as to when, why or how one is to be baptized. The "doctrine of God" that I adhere to says in Ephesians 4:5 that there is only one baptism in force today, and that, I do believe is found in 1Cor12:13.
-----------------------------
oneBook continues:
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.

BigD responds:
There is no doubt in my mind that you and I are both sincere in our relationship with God. It is our relationship with God that is what matters in our salvation/justification. If we both have the proper relationship with God, then our salvation is secure, but if we disagree in some areas of doctrine, it does not effect our salvation, but it could effect our relationship with Him and possible loss of rewards at the Judgment Seat of Christ.

From my study of the Bible, I see a distinct difference between the Jewish Church and the Church for today, the Body of Christ. God gave to Moses His instructions in righteousness for the Children of Israel in The Civil, Moral and Ceremonial Laws, known as the Laws of Moses. God gave to Paul the instructions in righteousness for members of the Body of Christ, through the preaching of the Cross according to the revelation of the mytery the, the gospel of the grace of God. Moses, John the Baptist, Jesus and the 12 taught/preached the Law. Paul taught/preached Grace. Grace and Law are two entirely different doctrines. When they are mixed they only bring about confusion and denominations.