Do you wear a tallit in church?

[Steve Petersen]

That's what happens to frogs when you put them on a hot skillet. They hop around a lot.

 

[lismore]

So, where do you stand on all this?

Hi Frogster

Telling people they should not wear the item is a mirror image of telling them that they should wear it. Making gentiles into Jews is legalism, but the opposite is also true, preventing those who wish to explore the Jewish roots of the faith is legalism. Freedom means that people should wear the tallit, if indeed they find it helpful for their faith.

 

[Source Scripture]

That's what happens to frogs when you put them on a hot skillet. They hop around a lot.

No doubt frogster has a good sense of humor, and he will enjoy your post. Source.

 

[Source Scripture]

Hi Frogster

Telling people they should not wear the item is a mirror image of telling them that they should wear it. Making gentiles into Jews is legalism, but the opposite is also true, preventing those who wish to explore the Jewish roots of the faith is legalism. Freedom means that people should wear the tallit, if indeed they find it helpful for their faith.

I believe he left provision for that in his opening statement, people are free to wear what they wish to wear. The gospel given to Abraham was before Judaism, so therefore our roots are not of Judaism. The greater glory of Christ was manifest through the Gospel. Thanks, Source Scripture.

2 Corinthians 4:4 In their case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.

 

[Source Scripture]

I also wish to add, that indeed the Jews need to explore their Gentile roots, that of Abraham, the Gentiles came in the way of Abrahamic faith, not by Judaism or laws. The gospel of Galatians 3:8.

Romans 9:30 What shall we say, then? That Gentiles who did not pursue righteousness have attained it, that is, a righteousness that is by faith;

And even the Jews must walk the way of Abraham pre-circumcision. So we need to rethink about our "roots" here a bit.


Romans 4:12 and to make him the father of the circumcised who are not merely circumcised but who also walk in the footsteps of the faith that our father Abraham had before he was circumcised.


Thanks again, be blessed, Source.

 

[lismore]

I believe he left provision for that in his opening statement, people are free to wear what they wish to wear.

Well then the opening statement said it all

 

[Frogster]

Hi Frogster

Telling people they should not wear the item is a mirror image of telling them that they should wear it. Making gentiles into Jews is legalism, but the opposite is also true, preventing those who wish to explore the Jewish roots of the faith is legalism. Freedom means that people should wear the tallit, if indeed they find it helpful for their faith.

hi lismore.

I mean I understand what u r saying and all, circumcision means nothing etc, but why is this being taught, tallits, food stuff etc? paul knew the external rites did nothing, but he sure fought this all off, because of the internal ramifications, that's why for him to say one new man in eph 2;15, it came without the jewish laws, that separated jew from gentile, so yeah, it's a deep issue, but in the end, the principle is really at stake, getting under externals, is a sign of falling from grace into bondage, gal 5, so it is also pretty hard to separate the internal from the external.

 

[Yahu]

What type of comment is this? We're more than happy to discuss the issue in depth, but demagoguery will get us nowhere. If you wish to have a sound theological scriptural discussion, that's fine, but we won't be pulled down to a base level, answering personal attacks in the future, so if that's your modus operandi, then please don't bother with this issue, thanks. Source Scripture.

There is no point. I have been over the law with Frogster many times. He just has a severe opposition to the law or for anyone that holds to any aspect of Old Testament law. This tread is an example of that to bash anyone that has/uses a talit.

We will be celebrating the Feast of Yah during the millenium for example. They are not the feast of Israel but His appointed times. There are curses even then on those that fail to send a representative.

 

[Yitzchak]

I believe he left provision for that in his opening statement, people are free to wear what they wish to wear. The gospel given to Abraham was before Judaism, so therefore our roots are not of Judaism. The greater glory of Christ was manifest through the Gospel. Thanks, Source Scripture.

2 Corinthians 4:4 In their case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.

Here is the opening statement...

People can wear whatever they want, none of my business, but my problem with it, is that those who are infusing Messianic Judaism in our charismatic churches, say that if we do wear it, we will "get the anointing".

So that means that those who don't wear the garment are not getting the ???

This is a works teaching. And personally, sorry, with all due respect, but in my opinion they look silly huddled under it, and it can be a distraction. Go huddle at home.

Needless to say, a little leaven leavens the whole lump, these are also folks who say we should do Shabbat to get peace, yet he alone is our peace according to scripture, we don't need external rituals to get peace.

These same people say God hears us better if we say the OT scriptures in Hebrew. Need I say more?

These are folks who say it is a sin to eat a shrimp scampi, after all, it is against the Mosaic code.

So, where do you stand on all this?

In the opening statement , the word but is used....from wikipedia on Grammer concerning the word but.

Coordinating conjunctions, also called coordinators, are conjunctions that join two or more items of equal syntactic importance, such as words, main clauses, or sentences

But presents a contrast or exception

In other words , he joined two things together with a conjunction word which presents a contrast or exception. Those two things would be the phrase or concept " he has no problem with what people wear " contrasted with " he has this problem with what people wear in this respect or instance. ". An exception to his general principle of not judging what people wear.

I would take that as, in general he subscribes to the idea of letting people dress how they please but with this exception.


A similar thing could be said of keeping the Sabbath. He has no problem with some people keeping it , provided those who do it do not attach any spiritual meaning or blessing to it.

The fact is that the scripture teaches that God does place his anointing upon specific objects , times , places and people. The contrast is made in the scripture between some instances where God anoints something and other instances where God does not.

The fact is that the Bible records blessings being attached to the practice of Sabbath keeping and blessings being attached to coming into contact with an anointed object.

Taking it from the general teaching to the specific is another matter. But we cannot even get past the general Biblical teaching into more specifics because the more general doctrine is skewed. Unless I am somehow totally misunderstanding what is being said. Frogster is saying that it is impossible and wrong to suggest that Sabbath keeping would ever have a blessing attached or that a tallit would ever have an anointing upon it. Since the scripture provides specific examples of both of those, I am insisting that frogster is wrong and that he is not basing what he is saying upon scripture.

Where are the scriptures which support this idea that a tallit cannot carry an anointing ? or to support the idea that sabbath keeping has no blessing attached to it.


With regards to the Gospel tying in with the blessing of faith before the circumcision. That is certainly true since the Bible teaches it. But one weak point that has often emerged in the presentation of that point has been what is the Gospel of faith which Abraham believed. The book of James says that Abraham's faith led him into works of obedience. One of those works of obedience included circumcision, by the way. Clearly he was justified before circumcision , but his faith was made perfect through circumcision. Look it up in the book of James. if we want to be connected to the faith of Abraham , we need to accept the package deal and that includes the works of faith too.

If we share the faith of Abraham , then we should also share the works of faith done by Abraham. Not that I am saying we should all have our wives change their names to Sarah , move to Canaan and get circumcised. That is a little bit too literal.

Where I have a problem though is when people teach that the faith of Abraham means that we should be absolved from works of faith and actually condemn some of the very works done by Abraham in true faith as legalism and works of the flesh. If Abraham was able to get circumcised and still be walking in the true Gospel of faith , then saying that if we do the same , we are not in faith just does not make much sense. Clearly , it depends upon our heart condition when we do the works and not simply upon the outward works.

This false teaching that following God in works somehow subverts the true Gospel does not hold up when the Gospel is connected with Abraham's faith since Abraham was able to do works and still be walking in true faith. A true and through consistent study of what the scripture teaches suggest that the places where works are condemned in the Bible are within the context of a wrong attitude and not against the works in and of themselves. The same scripture applauds good works in other places. Placing good works as a substitute for faith is condemned. But replacing good works with faith alone is also condemned ( see James ). We are told that true faith begins with an attitude of the heart towards God apart from works , but is is completed by works of faith.

 

[lismore]

hi lismore.

I mean I understand what u r saying and all, circumcision means nothing etc, but why is this being taught, tallits, food stuff etc? paul knew the external rites did nothing, but he sure fought this all off, because of the internal ramifications, that's why for him to say one new man in eph 2;15, it came without the jewish laws, that separated jew from gentile, so yeah, it's a deep issue, but in the end, the principle is really at stake, getting under externals, is a sign of falling from grace into bondage, gal 5, so it is also pretty hard to separate the internal from the external.

It's only a problem if the teacher says that it must be done for salvation. Otherwise some of the things, freely partaken in, may have great value for the person.

By the same token the Law of Moses cannot save, that is not to say that it is valueless. Far from it.

You have to find a balanced approach, one extreme is just as harmful as the other.

 

[Yitzchak]

There is no point. I have been over the law with Frogster many times. He just has a severe opposition to the law or for anyone that holds to any aspect of Old Testament law. This tread is an example of that to bash anyone that has/uses a talit.

We will be celebrating the Feast of Yah during the millenium for example. They are not the feast of Israel but His appointed times. There are curses even then on those that fail to send a representative.

Last days prophecy. This is quite the shocking text for those who believe that the feasts of The Lord were only for the Jews during a certain dispensation. Clearly even Gentiles will be celebrating Sukkot in Israel. God even pronounces a punishment for those who refuse.

Zec 14:16 And it shall come to pass, that every one that is left of all the nations which came against Jerusalem shall even go up from year to year to worship the King, the LORD of hosts, and to keep the feast of tabernacles.
Zec 14:17 And it shall be, that whoso will not come up of all the families of the earth unto Jerusalem to worship the King, the LORD of hosts, even upon them shall be no rain.
Zec 14:18 And if the family of Egypt go not up, and come not, that have no rain; there shall be the plague, wherewith the LORD will smite the heathen that come not up to keep the feast of tabernacles.
Zec 14:19 This shall be the punishment of Egypt, and the punishment of all nations that come not up to keep the feast of tabernacles.

 

[Frogster]

Last days prophecy. This is quite the shocking text for those who believe that the feasts of The Lord were only for the Jews during a certain dispensation. Clearly even Gentiles will be celebrating Sukkot in Israel. God even pronounces a punishment for those who refuse.

The only thing is, that prophecy has to fit in with a certain eschatalogical interp, that many don't hold.

you might also note it speaks of judgment and plaques if not kept, so lets not press the celebration word too much, and that goes againts NT theology having Judaism forced on the church. So that is how u should govern your interps. Read the words, no rain, punishment.

17 And if any of the families of the earth do not go up to Jerusalem to worship the King, the Lord of hosts, there will be no rain on them. 18 And if the family of Egypt does not go up and present themselves, then on them there shall be no rain;[f] there shall be the plague with which the Lord afflicts the nations that do not go up to keep the Feast of Booths. 19 This shall be the punishment to Egypt and the punishment to all the nations that do not go up to keep the Feast of Booths.

Was it the passover of the Jews or gentiles here? Ask John.


1.John 2:13
The Passover of the Jews was at hand, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem.

2.John 6:4
Now the Passover, the feast of the Jews, was at hand.

3.John 11:55
Now the Passover of the Jews was at hand, and many went up from the country to Jerusalem before the Passover to purify themselves.

Who got the festivals?


.2 Chron 2: 4 Behold, I am about to build a house for the name of the Lord my God and dedicate it to him for the burning of incense of sweet spices before him, and for the regular arrangement of the showbread, and for burnt offerings morning and evening, on the Sabbaths and the new moons and the appointed feasts of the Lord our God, as ordained forever for Israel.

read the psalms, to israel, no other nation, so u might want to slow down a bit.



Psalm 147:19 He declares his word to Jacob,his statutes and rules to Israel.20 He has not dealt thus with any other nation;they do not know his rules.
Praise the LORD!

 

[Yitzchak]

Just because Paul's cloth healed, does not mean that we need a tallit to get the anointing. Why didn't paul teach the church to get a cloth?

Lets not stress the garment of Jesus too much in that story.
Would the woman be healed even if she did not touch the hem? Why very little mention, to no mention of the hem in all the other miracles? He did countless mircales without a mention of the tallit. You're over pressing a text.


Why were the galatians doing fine, with miracles without judaism, or tallits?

So lets go by the whole of Paul's theolgy, and not fish around the bible trying to bind the church under tallits, shofars, shabaat, etc, thanks.

I have always enjoyed this story. The Bible teaches that we can receive directly from him by faith. Jesus called his faith uncommon. If we had this kind of faith we would see it more often.

Mat 8:5 And when Jesus was entered into Capernaum, there came unto him a centurion, beseeching him,
Mat 8:6 And saying, Lord, my servant lieth at home sick of the palsy, grievously tormented.
Mat 8:7 And Jesus saith unto him, I will come and heal him.
Mat 8:8 The centurion answered and said, Lord, I am not worthy that thou shouldest come under my roof: but speak the word only, and my servant shall be healed.
Mat 8:9 For I am a man under authority, having soldiers under me: and I say to this man, Go, and he goeth; and to another, Come, and he cometh; and to my servant, Do this, and he doeth it.
Mat 8:10 When Jesus heard it, he marvelled, and said to them that followed, Verily I say unto you, I have not found so great faith, no, not in Israel.
Mat 8:11 And I say unto you, That many shall come from the east and west, and shall sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven.
Mat 8:12 But the children of the kingdom shall be cast out into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
Mat 8:13 And Jesus said unto the centurion, Go thy way; and as thou hast believed, so be it done unto thee. And his servant was healed in the selfsame hour.

But with that said. This is not the norm. The norm was for Jesus to lay hands upon someone and to actually be there as a point of contact. Paul could have said that he would just pray for everyone everywhere to be healed , but that is not the norm of how God works and has worked according to scripture. The norm is for God to work through specific times , places , people , objects , etc.

Take for example the subject of church attendance. People can have faith and study the Bible and worship in their own home by themselves. But the Bible instructs to assemble together and to have Pastors and teachers who help equip the saints.It does not mean that people are doing something wrong because they receive from a pastor. Neither are people wrong to receive from rituals or anointed objects. There are many testimonies of those who have received healing while taking communion.




With regards to the woman and her healing when touching Jesus tallit. A short lesson here on the back round of the tallit.

Start by looking up the command for a tallit.This verse gives the command to Israel to wear a prayer shawl with tzit tzit on the corners. That is why Jesus wore one.The word borders here is kanaph.

Num 15:38 Speak unto the children of Israel, and bid them that they make them fringes in the borders of their garments throughout their generations, and that they put upon the fringe of the borders a ribband of blue:

The reason for the command...

Num 15:39 And it shall be unto you for a fringe, that ye may look upon it, and remember all the commandments of the LORD, and do them; and that ye seek not after your own heart and your own eyes, after which ye use to go a whoring:
Num 15:40 That ye may remember, and do all my commandments, and be holy unto your God.

Now the word kanaph comes up again. This time in a messianic prophecy in Malachi. The word wings here is the same hebrew word. The wings being spoken of here is the tallit of the messiah.

Mal 4:2 But unto you that fear my name shall the Sun of righteousness arise with healing in his wings; and ye shall go forth, and grow up as calves of the stall.

The word skirt here is kanaph.

Rth 3:9 And he said, Who art thou? And she answered, I am Ruth thine handmaid: spread therefore thy skirt over thine handmaid; for thou art a near kinsman.

Back to our passage. This Jewish woman familar with the prophecy from Malachi about the messiah believed Jesus was the messiah and wanted to touch his " wings "( kanaph )

Mat 9:20 And, behold, a woman, which was diseased with an issue of blood twelve years, came behind him, and touched the hem of his garment:
Mat 9:21 For she said within herself, If I may but touch his garment, I shall be whole.
Mat 9:22 But Jesus turned him about, and when he saw her, he said, Daughter, be of good comfort; thy faith hath made thee whole. And the woman was made whole from that hour.

This happens a second time. The hem of his garment is another way of saying they believed he was Messiah and wanted to find healing by touching his kanaph ( prayer shawl )

Mat 14:34 And when they were gone over, they came into the land of Gennesaret.
Mat 14:35 And when the men of that place had knowledge of him, they sent out into all that country round about, and brought unto him all that were diseased;
Mat 14:36 And besought him that they might only touch the hem of his garment: and as many as touched were made perfectly whole.

Here is a third passage about it. Notice that it is made very clear that she wanted to touch his clothes and even Jesus responds to the touch which caused healing virtue to go out of him.

Mar 5:25 And a certain woman, which had an issue of blood twelve years,
Mar 5:26 And had suffered many things of many physicians, and had spent all that she had, and was nothing bettered, but rather grew worse,
Mar 5:27 When she had heard of Jesus, came in the press behind, and touched his garment.
Mar 5:28 For she said, If I may touch but his clothes, I shall be whole.
Mar 5:29 And straightway the fountain of her blood was dried up; and she felt in her body that she was healed of that plague.
Mar 5:30 And Jesus, immediately knowing in himself that virtue had gone out of him, turned him about in the press, and said, Who touched my clothes?

Here is another passage about it. Again , one of the key components of the story is the touching of his kanaph which to a well instructed Jew suggests that Jesus is the Messiah.

Luk 8:43 And a woman having an issue of blood twelve years, which had spent all her living upon physicians, neither could be healed of any,
Luk 8:44 Came behind him, and touched the border of his garment: and immediately her issue of blood stanched.
Luk 8:45 And Jesus said, Who touched me? When all denied, Peter and they that were with him said, Master, the multitude throng thee and press thee, and sayest thou, Who touched me?
Luk 8:46 And Jesus said, Somebody hath touched me: for I perceive that virtue is gone out of me.
Luk 8:47 And when the woman saw that she was not hid, she came trembling, and falling down before him, she declared unto him before all the people for what cause she had touched him, and how she was healed immediately.
Luk 8:48 And he said unto her, Daughter, be of good comfort: thy faith hath made thee whole; go in peace.

I am hardly over pressing a text. I am disproving your statement in which you said no where in the scripture does it suggest that the anointing would come through an object such as a tallit. When in fact the scripture gives specific examples where it did indeed happen. The fact that people touching the hem of someone's garment is not mentioned in many places is because God used different means to heal.Peter's shadow , the laying on of hands , mud on the eyes of the blind man , anointing oil, handkerchiefs and aprons from Paul. The norm is for God to use some point of contact for the anointing. Whether a person through laying on of hands , an altar call at a church service meaning a specific location where the anointing is flowing at that time , or through an anointed cloth. When one puts all of that together , people saying that an object such as a prayer shawl might be anointed by God with some sort of virtue is at least possible and within biblical precedent. In light of that , your statement that the scripture teaches the opposite is quite troubling.

To say would the woman have gotten her healing without touching the kanaph is dubious at best since she was not healed in all the years that she was sick. If all that was required was for her to want healing, she would have been healed years earlier. She was healed when her faith was aroused by seeing the messiah healing others reached out to touch the kanaph.

Now of course , we understand that it is God who anoints the tallit. Without the anointing it is just a piece of cloth. It is God who heals. But in these instances he healed through the anointing on the tallit and through the people's faith that healing virtue would be in the Messiah's kanaph.

Also worth mentioning , the scripture says in one place that all of the miracles that Jesus did were not recorded. We get a sampling. I believe we get the sampling that God intended us to have in the scripture. The fact that these stories made the eternal scriptures and include the details that they do makes it relevant to us.




As a by the way , afterword...this prophetic scripture which speaks of things yet to come speaks about grabbing the kanaph of a Jew. The word skirt highlighted here is that same Hebrew word kanaph. or in other words their tallit.

Zec 8:21 And the inhabitants of one city shall go to another, saying, Let us go speedily to pray before the LORD, and to seek the LORD of hosts: I will go also.
Zec 8:22 Yea, many people and strong nations shall come to seek the LORD of hosts in Jerusalem, and to pray before the LORD.
Zec 8:23 Thus saith the LORD of hosts; In those days it shall come to pass, that ten men shall take hold out of all languages of the nations, even shall take hold of the skirt of him that is a Jew, saying, We will go with you: for we have heard that God is with you.

 

[Frogster]

It's only a problem if the teacher says that it must be done for salvation. Otherwise some of the things, freely partaken in, may have great value for the person.

By the same token the Law of Moses cannot save, that is not to say that it is valueless. Far from it.

You have to find a balanced approach, one extreme is just as harmful as the other.

I understand, but it can be forced by saying it's needed, it was also going on in Colossae, all that stuff they were trying to add to their sanctification in chapter 2, just like galatians, but Paul said to walk in Christ, as you received him (faith, the just shall live by faith)in Col 2:6, by faith, as he did not want them under those additions.

Everyone is always trying to add on, instead of pointing to the Spirit. Paul reminded them in chapter 1 of Col, this was not the gospel to add on things.

2:6 Therefore, as you received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk in him,

Check out the list in chapter 2, you can put tallits right in there, it already has feasts in 2:16.

 

[Frogster]

There is no point. I have been over the law with Frogster many times. He just has a severe opposition to the law or for anyone that holds to any aspect of Old Testament law. This tread is an example of that to bash anyone that has/uses a talit.

We will be celebrating the Feast of Yah during the millenium for example. They are not the feast of Israel but His appointed times. There are curses even then on those that fail to send a representative.

many times? (red above).

 

[Yitzchak]

The only thing is, that prophecy has to fit in with a certain eschatalogical interp, that many don't hold.

you might also note it speaks of judgment and plaques if not kept, so lets not press the celebration word too much, and that goes againts NT theology having Judaism forced on the church. So that is how u should govern your interps. Read the words, no rain, punishment.

17 And if any of the families of the earth do not go up to Jerusalem to worship the King, the Lord of hosts, there will be no rain on them. 18 And if the family of Egypt does not go up and present themselves, then on them there shall be no rain;[f] there shall be the plague with which the Lord afflicts the nations that do not go up to keep the Feast of Booths. 19 This shall be the punishment to Egypt and the punishment to all the nations that do not go up to keep the Feast of Booths.

Was it the passover of the Jews or gentiles here? Ask John.


1.John 2:13
The Passover of the Jews was at hand, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem.

2.John 6:4
Now the Passover, the feast of the Jews, was at hand.

3.John 11:55
Now the Passover of the Jews was at hand, and many went up from the country to Jerusalem before the Passover to purify themselves.

Who got the festivals?


.2 Chron 2: 4 Behold, I am about to build a house for the name of the Lord my God and dedicate it to him for the burning of incense of sweet spices before him, and for the regular arrangement of the showbread, and for burnt offerings morning and evening, on the Sabbaths and the new moons and the appointed feasts of the Lord our God, as ordained forever for Israel.

read the psalms, to israel, no other nation, so u might want to slow down a bit.



Psalm 147:19 He declares his word to Jacob,his statutes and rules to Israel.20 He has not dealt thus with any other nation;they do not know his rules.
Praise the LORD!

Regardless of whether it fits into our end times understanding, it is scripture and thus true.

Also , Sukkot mentioned here is a different holiday than the Passover , by the way. One of the blessings that comes with the Sukkot holiday season is the rain.

 

[Frogster]

Here is the opening statement...






In the opening statement , the word but is used....from wikipedia on Grammer concerning the word but.






In other words , he joined two things together with a conjunction word which presents a contrast or exception. Those two things would be the phrase or concept " he has no problem with what people wear " contrasted with " he has this problem with what people wear in this respect or instance. ". An exception to his general principle of not judging what people wear.

I would take that as, in general he subscribes to the idea of letting people dress how they please but with this exception.


A similar thing could be said of keeping the Sabbath. He has no problem with some people keeping it , provided those who do it do not attach any spiritual meaning or blessing to it.

The fact is that the scripture teaches that God does place his anointing upon specific objects , times , places and people. The contrast is made in the scripture between some instances where God anoints something and other instances where God does not.

The fact is that the Bible records blessings being attached to the practice of Sabbath keeping and blessings being attached to coming into contact with an anointed object.

Taking it from the general teaching to the specific is another matter. But we cannot even get past the general Biblical teaching into more specifics because the more general doctrine is skewed. Unless I am somehow totally misunderstanding what is being said. Frogster is saying that it is impossible and wrong to suggest that Sabbath keeping would ever have a blessing attached or that a tallit would ever have an anointing upon it. Since the scripture provides specific examples of both of those, I am insisting that frogster is wrong and that he is not basing what he is saying upon scripture.

Where are the scriptures which support this idea that a tallit cannot carry an anointing ? or to support the idea that sabbath keeping has no blessing attached to it.


With regards to the Gospel tying in with the blessing of faith before the circumcision. That is certainly true since the Bible teaches it. But one weak point that has often emerged in the presentation of that point has been what is the Gospel of faith which Abraham believed. The book of James says that Abraham's faith led him into works of obedience. One of those works of obedience included circumcision, by the way. Clearly he was justified before circumcision , but his faith was made perfect through circumcision. Look it up in the book of James. if we want to be connected to the faith of Abraham , we need to accept the package deal and that includes the works of faith too.

If we share the faith of Abraham , then we should also share the works of faith done by Abraham. Not that I am saying we should all have our wives change their names to Sarah , move to Canaan and get circumcised. That is a little bit too literal.

Where I have a problem though is when people teach that the faith of Abraham means that we should be absolved from works of faith and actually condemn some of the very works done by Abraham in true faith as legalism and works of the flesh. If Abraham was able to get circumcised and still be walking in the true Gospel of faith , then saying that if we do the same , we are not in faith just does not make much sense. Clearly , it depends upon our heart condition when we do the works and not simply upon the outward works.

This false teaching that following God in works somehow subverts the true Gospel does not hold up when the Gospel is connected with Abraham's faith since Abraham was able to do works and still be walking in true faith. A true and through consistent study of what the scripture teaches suggest that the places where works are condemned in the Bible are within the context of a wrong attitude and not against the works in and of themselves. The same scripture applauds good works in other places. Placing good works as a substitute for faith is condemned. But replacing good works with faith alone is also condemned ( see James ). We are told that true faith begins with an attitude of the heart towards God apart from works , but is is completed by works of faith.

you are really misusing Abraham..ok, go ahead, rom 4, rom 9, gal 3, gal 4 show me in any of Paul where he is not using Abraham to ward off law.

lol..you quote james, yet he said no law for the churches in Acts 15, and said not to burden the church.

now lets have a thought for thought, with all due respect, coherent conversation please, post text where Paul is not using Abraham to ward off law, circumcision, judaism, nationalism, race etc..

give me 1..1..1 verse where he is not warding off one or more of those things, just 1... please.

 

[Frogster]

Regardless of whether it fits into our end times understanding, it is scripture and thus true.

Also , Sukkot mentioned here is a different holiday than the Passover , by the way. One of the blessings that comes with the Sukkot holiday season is the rain.

who do the verses say it was for, jews or gentiles?

i await.

 

[Steve Petersen]

Regardless of whether it fits into our end times understanding, it is scripture and thus true.

Also , Sukkot mentioned here is a different holiday than the Passover , by the way. One of the blessings that comes with the Sukkot holiday season is the rain.

'Latter rain' in Hebrew is 'moreh tzedek.' It can be translated as 'teacher of righteousness.'

 

[Frogster]

Here is the opening statement...






In the opening statement , the word but is used....from wikipedia on Grammer concerning the word but.






In other words , he joined two things together with a conjunction word which presents a contrast or exception. Those two things would be the phrase or concept " he has no problem with what people wear " contrasted with " he has this problem with what people wear in this respect or instance. ". An exception to his general principle of not judging what people wear.

I would take that as, in general he subscribes to the idea of letting people dress how they please but with this exception.


A similar thing could be said of keeping the Sabbath. He has no problem with some people keeping it , provided those who do it do not attach any spiritual meaning or blessing to it.

The fact is that the scripture teaches that God does place his anointing upon specific objects , times , places and people. The contrast is made in the scripture between some instances where God anoints something and other instances where God does not.

The fact is that the Bible records blessings being attached to the practice of Sabbath keeping and blessings being attached to coming into contact with an anointed object.

Taking it from the general teaching to the specific is another matter. But we cannot even get past the general Biblical teaching into more specifics because the more general doctrine is skewed. Unless I am somehow totally misunderstanding what is being said. Frogster is saying that it is impossible and wrong to suggest that Sabbath keeping would ever have a blessing attached or that a tallit would ever have an anointing upon it. Since the scripture provides specific examples of both of those, I am insisting that frogster is wrong and that he is not basing what he is saying upon scripture.

Where are the scriptures which support this idea that a tallit cannot carry an anointing ? or to support the idea that sabbath keeping has no blessing attached to it.


With regards to the Gospel tying in with the blessing of faith before the circumcision. That is certainly true since the Bible teaches it. But one weak point that has often emerged in the presentation of that point has been what is the Gospel of faith which Abraham believed. The book of James says that Abraham's faith led him into works of obedience. One of those works of obedience included circumcision, by the way. Clearly he was justified before circumcision , but his faith was made perfect through circumcision. Look it up in the book of James. if we want to be connected to the faith of Abraham , we need to accept the package deal and that includes the works of faith too.

If we share the faith of Abraham , then we should also share the works of faith done by Abraham. Not that I am saying we should all have our wives change their names to Sarah , move to Canaan and get circumcised. That is a little bit too literal.

Where I have a problem though is when people teach that the faith of Abraham means that we should be absolved from works of faith and actually condemn some of the very works done by Abraham in true faith as legalism and works of the flesh. If Abraham was able to get circumcised and still be walking in the true Gospel of faith , then saying that if we do the same , we are not in faith just does not make much sense. Clearly , it depends upon our heart condition when we do the works and not simply upon the outward works.

This false teaching that following God in works somehow subverts the true Gospel does not hold up when the Gospel is connected with Abraham's faith since Abraham was able to do works and still be walking in true faith. A true and through consistent study of what the scripture teaches suggest that the places where works are condemned in the Bible are within the context of a wrong attitude and not against the works in and of themselves. The same scripture applauds good works in other places. Placing good works as a substitute for faith is condemned. But replacing good works with faith alone is also condemned ( see James ). We are told that true faith begins with an attitude of the heart towards God apart from works , but is is completed by works of faith.

as i scanned all this, i saw the sabbath word, paul said he wasted his time on them, they were observing the jewish calendar. Why?

Gal 4:10-11 You observe days and months and seasons and years! 11 I am afraid I may have labored over you in vain.

and believe me they were justified already in galatia, the judaizers were pushing law sanctification, easlily proved if u so desire.