What do Messianics consider themselves a sect of?

ContraMundum · Jun 25, 2015

Lulav said:
Well like I said before, since none of the gospels match up you can take choice as to what fits your theology.

Matthew 1 In the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre. 2 And, behold, there was a great earthquake: for the angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the door, and sat upon it. 3 His countenance was like lightning, and his raiment white as snow: 4 And for fear of him the keepers did shake, and became as dead men. 5And the angel answered and said unto the women, Fear not ye: for I know that ye seek Jesus, which was crucified. 6 He is not here: for he is risen, as he said.

ἐπιφωσκούσῃ εἰς μίαν σαββάτων

Luke: But on the first day of the week, at early dawn, they came to the tomb bringing the spices which they had prepared. 2 And they found the stone rolled away from the tomb,… 3 but when they entered, they did not find the body of the Lord Jesus.…

John : 1 The first day of the week cometh Mary Magdalene early, when it was yet dark, unto the sepulchre, and seeth the stone taken away from the sepulchre. 2Then she runneth, and cometh to Simon Peter, and to the other disciple, whom Jesus loved, and saith unto them, They have taken away the Lord out of the sepulchre, and we know not where they have laid him.

How do these present a problem to your way of thinking, Lulav?

To my mind, these are all saying the same basic thing- sometime after the Sabbath, when it was the first day of the week, probably around dawn when there was still darkness around, Mary M and co. went to the tomb. They don't actually contradict each other at all. John doesn't say exactly how dark it was, Luke says it's early dawn, and Matthew in his typical Hebraic way seems to saying "as it began to dawn toward the first of the week" in the same manner as the Mishna says "on the light, (or night) of day x" to mean "dawn" (and that portion is better translated as "at the dawning into the first of the sabbaths")

All saying the same thing, really. Just in different ways and they appear to me to be complimentary, not contradictory.

Ken Rank · Jun 25, 2015

I remember reading somewhere, but I can't promise I can find this, that "as it began to dawn" could mean the coming of sunrise, the break in light, but also could be used as the point where what is left of the time of darkness is less then more... meaning, beyond the halfway point. I have personally taken the collection of accounts to mean as the dawn began but before light.

ContraMundum · Jun 25, 2015

Lulav said:
Reaching out to someone at the place of their understanding is one thing, comparing the One True G-d to false gods is another, not to mention that he supposedly put these words into the mouth of the son of G-d.

You didn't mention his reference to Euripides play

"And when we had all fallen to the ground, I heard a voice saying to me in the Hebrew dialect, 'Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting Me? It is hard for you to kick against the goads.'…

Uta Ranke-Heinemann, in Putting Away Childish Things, page 163-9, claims there is a parallel in the Bacchae, which is approximately five hundred years older than Acts. Here, Dionysus, the persecuted god, says to King Pentheus, his persecutor: "You disregard my words of warning... and kick against the goads [pros kentra laktizein]” (line 794). Luke retains the plural form of the noun 'kentra' which, while maintaining the meter in the Bacchae, seems out of place in Acts. Not only are these words surprisingly similar, but Acts says Jesus that Jesus quoted a Greek proverb to Paul while speaking Aramaic ("in the Hebrew language"). Even the situations are similar, with Jesus as the persecuted God in Acts and Dionysus the persecuted god in the Bacchae.

Further proof that God isn't all that fussed about appearing to be hyper-Jewish. Hyper-Jewing each other is more of a modern thing, really.

pat34lee · Jun 25, 2015

Ken Rank said:
Of "Biblical accuracy?" Yes... however... that takes us into two realms, interpretation and textual criticism.

Let me clarify. I'm not talking about changes or questionable translations here. I'm talking about areas where there is no doubt what was said: IOW, facts.

Every person named in the Scriptures lived. Every place named existed. The flood happened.

When it said that Jonah was swallowed by a fish, not a whale, that means it was a fish. Anything inconsistent is in our understanding, not in the Scriptures.

pat34lee · Jun 25, 2015

Ken Rank said:
1 Samuel 30.12:

That is a proper use of three days. 72 hours or 3 days / 3 nights.

Ken Rank said:
Gen 42.16: "And he put them all in custody for three days. 18 On the third day,

Again not proving anything. No 3 days / 3 nights. There are times for specificity, times for generalities. The same for the rest. You could use the verse that a day is as a thousand years, but that doesn't mean he was in the tomb for three thousand years.

pat34lee · Jun 25, 2015

Ken Rank said:
There is a month or two during the year where the new moon is high enough that it can be seen before the sun is completely gone or any evidence of evening (as in stars or planets) can be seen. That means the new MONTH began before the end of the last day of the previous month?

It's either/or. The old month stops when the new one starts. There is no choice.

Ken Rank said:
If I am 6' and my friend is 7' and God told us both to EACH make a building, "10 cubits by 10 cubits" then when we both completed our tasks, his would be bigger than mine because his cubit was bigger than mine. Yet, we will both have done what we were told to do.

Today a foot is exactly 12" whereas not all that long ago it was the size of a man's foot... ANY man. A yard was the height from the ground to the hip, now it is exactly 36". We have standardized time and measurement but the Scripture is not exact like that. In this case, Jonah was in the belly of the fish for 3 days.... that is only 72 hours to the Westerner who needs to be exact. But to the Hebrew who in that day and time used that phrase idiomatically, it meant any part of 3 consecutive days.

There were standards then too. Most tools in the US are checked to standards traceable back to the national standard. Back then, the Egyptians had standards for the measures they used. The Hebrews would have used these until they created their own standards in their own land.

pat34lee · Jun 25, 2015

Ken Rank said:
I remember reading somewhere, but I can't promise I can find this, that "as it began to dawn" could mean the coming of sunrise, the break in light, but also could be used as the point where what is left of the time of darkness is less then more... meaning, beyond the halfway point. I have personally taken the collection of accounts to mean as the dawn began but before light.

I have no problem when they arrived at the tomb. It doesn't say, "as they got there, Jesus rose." He was gone already.

Ken Rank · Jun 25, 2015

pat34lee said:
Let me clarify. I'm not talking about changes or questionable translations here. I'm talking about areas where there is no doubt what was said: IOW, facts.

Every person named in the Scriptures lived. Every place named existed. The flood happened.

When it said that Jonah was swallowed by a fish, not a whale, that means it was a fish. Anything inconsistent is in our understanding, not in the Scriptures.

I understand but let me share a thought. In our culture we would classify a whale as a mammal, the same group to which we belong. However, the bible would classify it as a fish because it falls into the category that includes all sea creatures, not land animals. So it can be BOTH a fish and a whale and be correct thus the debate is a moot point. So whose "facts" do we adhere to? If we adhere to the "fact" that 3 days and nights are 72 hours, do we apply that to Yeshua's statement or do we allow in the "fact" that in that day and in that area of the world, it was a cultural idiom that 3 days and nights could be any part of three consecutive days and nights and didn't need to come anywhere near 72 hours?

This is where "rightly dividing the word" really comes in. But that is a topic I don't have time for right now. Blessings!

Ken Rank · Jun 25, 2015

pat34lee said:
I have no problem when they arrived at the tomb. It doesn't say, "as they got there, Jesus rose." He was gone already.

It does say, it was beginning to dawn, the light was a mix and the tomb was already empty.

Ken Rank · Jun 25, 2015

pat34lee said:
It's either/or. The old month stops when the new one starts. There is no choice.

There were standards then too. Most tools in the US are checked to standards traceable back to the national standard. Back then, the Egyptians had standards for the measures they used. The Hebrews would have used these until they created their own standards in their own land.

No, sorry... you are making an assumption without a fact to back it. I am not trying to cause strife, I just know they were not exact like that, didn't have those standards in place, and I gave examples to show Scripture is not as exact which is all that matters here. WE can want this or that but Scripture is not as exact. The Hebrew did not use Egyptians measurement standards until they created their own. In fact, when they got into the land they didn't use standards. We didn't divide the foot into inches until a few hundreds years ago.

Ken Rank · Jun 25, 2015

pat34lee said:
It's either/or. The old month stops when the new one starts. There is no choice.

You're being stubborn, friend. We all have a bias but to grow we have to reach a point where out bias can take a back seat and we can allow the chips to fall where they may. Sundown is the end of the day... nobody debates that. And the new moon can be high enough and thick enough once or twice a year to be seen before the sun is gone. Now, I don't have an issue with this... NO ISSUE at all... I am just using this as an example that we need to move away from teachings like, "Yeshua had to be dead 72 hours to the second or he isn't messiah" which is a teaching I have heard by a guy with a fairly large following. That is nonsense... it isn't scholarship and it isn't biblical. It is Greek influences Western thought forced into a Hebraism.

pat34lee said:
There were standards then too. Most tools in the US are checked to standards traceable back to the national standard. Back then, the Egyptians had standards for the measures they used. The Hebrews would have used these until they created their own standards in their own land.

Again... just to reiterate, you cannot supply a time period source of information that shows the Israelites taking Egyptians units of measurement out of Egypt. You are just trying to justify your belief without any factual backing. Sorry... just calling it like it is. Blessings to you!

jerry kelso · Jun 25, 2015

pat34lee said:
The main reason for that rift is that they are both following man-made religions instead of the bible. Protestant Christians may believe that they are no longer part of the Roman Catholic Church, but most of their beliefs come straight from the RCC.

pat34lee,

1. While I believe the Catholic church had much truth of doctrine they mixed their traditions of men with them.

2. Just because the Catholic church had some truth has nothing to do with being a part of the Roman Catholic Church just because Catholic means universal or that they say Peter was the pope of Rome and that is their claim to Apostolic succession. Many Catholic belief don't agree with the jewish teachings of bible so I guess they are no longer a part of Judaism or the bible beliefs at all across the board.

3. Paul said the jewish nation were blinded and Jesus said the cross was the stumbling block to them. The Catholics stumbling block is men's traditions just like the scribes and the pharisees in Jesus day and he called them hypocrites and white washed sepulchers.

4. The jews have the veil over their head as Paul stated in Corinthians because they could not stand to see the glory of the law of Moses go away.

5. Your assessment does not square with scripture or logic scriptural or otherwise. Jerry Kelso

jerry kelso · Jun 25, 2015

Ken Rank said:
Yes, context is everything. I wrote this 6 years ago and quite frankly I have learned much since then both in the way of supporting facts but also my writing has gotten better. So bear with it, the facts remain intact and add a depth to the context of what was really happening in Acts 15.

So there is this dispute, and the leaders of the faith come together, talk it out, and write a letter to the Gentiles. The letter gives a few commands, nothing new as all had been previously recorded in scripture, and that should be about the end of it, right? Well, like so much when it comes to scripture, something that seems simple gets touched by man and turned into a mass of confusion. I hope in the next few minutes, to shed some light on the contents of the Acts 15 letter.

The first thing we need to understand is what started the debate to begin with?

Acts 15:1 and certain men came down from Judea and taught the brethren, "Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved." (NKJV)

* In this case, "the custom of Moses" is a reference to Torah(God's law or instruction).

Pretty simple, unless you have been circumcised on the 8th day of your life, you can't be saved. What is wrong here? Well, for starters, YOU weren't commanded to be circumcised on the 8th day of your life. That command was given to your father; obviously, an 8 day old baby isn't performing his own bris. Second, when did physical circumcision save us to begin with? The answer to that is it didn't. Like many aspects of the Tanach (OT), circumcisions, the feasts, the sacrifices...these things were pointing to something to come. They were a type, and we need to determine what the anti-type or shadow is. But that is another note.

What we have here are men from Judea, Jews, and as we see throughout the Apostles Writings, Yehoshua (Jesus) and Paul to an extent, spend a great deal of time rebuking those things which add to Torah or change it. Not every Pharisee was rebuked, and not every tradition external of scripture is rebuked. For example, in John 10:22-39 it appears that to some degree, Yehoshua took part in Hanukkah, the feast or festival of lights. Hanukkah is not a commanded holy day, but it isn't based on pagan origins either. So, we see no rebuke of this extra biblical holiday. No, the rebukes were clearly tied to that which stood against the teachings of scripture. Circumcision unto salvation is not scripture, but we do know where it comes from.

What must I do to be saved a proselyte?

About 50 years before the council of Jerusalem, not too long before the time Yehoshua was born, there was a great debate between the two leading teachers of that day, Hillel and Shamai. Beit Hillel (Beit means house but can also be used as school) taught the spirit of the law and his teachings are pretty well aligned to what Yehoshua taught when he was here. It should be noted that Paul was taught by Gamaliel (Acts 22:3) who was the grandson of Hillel. Beit Shamai on the other hand, taught the letter of the law, a much stricter interpretation of Torah than what Hillel taught.

So, one day these two heavyweights engage in debate about what should be expected of a proselyte. (A convert to Judaism) Hillel took the softer position, saying that a person must abstain from idols, from fornication, from blood and food offered to idols. (Does that all sound familiar?) He also added that a person must know the two great commands, because as Yehoshua said in Matthew 22:40, "all Torah and the Prophets hang on knowing we are to love God and neighbor." (Paraphrased)

Shamai however was more of a hardliner. He also took the same positions Hillel took but he added the need to know ALL 613 commands rather than just the "big two," AND that a proselyte would need to be circumcised in order to become a Jew. In the end, Shamai's position became hallacha or "Jewish law."

*It should be noted that both men agreed that these were what was expected for the new convert and that the new convert would learn more as they grow.

From this you should be able to see that the men from Judea that confronted Paul and Barnabas were of the school of Shamai or were at least adhering to this 50 year old Jewish law and were applying it to those non-Jews who were following Yehoshua. As a quick side note, we must understand that the first 30-40 years of the faith had gentiles or non-Jews going into the synagogues on Sabbath to hear Torah read. In practice, there was no difference between an orthodox Jew and a Yehoshua following Jew OR gentile. So because the non-Jews were going to the synagogues, many of what we would now call orthodox Jews placed their expectations on these gentiles... and one of those expectations was "get circumcised to be saved."

Are there more than these four?

When the cases had been made before the council, a ruling was handed down and a letter was drafted. It was to be sent to the gentiles/nations, and the main point was:

Act 15:29 that you abstain from things offered to idols, from blood, from things strangled, and from sexual immorality. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well. Farewell. (NKJV)

Many today, especially in the church, teach that the above was all that was expected of the gentile believer in Yehoshua. Well, as you would expect, I don't agree. Where do we see not to serve another god? Where does it say not to steal? Is it ok to bear false witness now? Obviously, when just a little reason it applied, we can clearly see that there is more that is expected of us than what is written in the Acts 15 letter. I submit that this council convened to right an old wrong! I submit that the same argument that occurred 50 years before this council came together, was argued one more time and reversed. The pagans in this time period fornicated with pagan temple prostitutes, made offerings to idols and ate things sacrificed to idols, etc. By asking that a new gentile believer in Yehoshua to abstain from these things, you were "setting them apart" from their pagan brethren. They clearly were then to be taught what was expected of them, they were to "STUDY to show themselves approved as workman unto God."

I conclude then, that the letter in Acts 15 was the starting point, not the finish line.

Peace to you.
Ken

ken,

1. I agree that because of gradual revelation many jews didn't understand of what Calvary was about. Even Peter didn't understand the vision of the clean and unclean and many things that Paul revealed later.
People have to understand the mechanics of the covenant of the Mosaic law and the better promises of the new covenant and how they differ and then they will begin to see the reason for the law of Moses being until the seed should come.

2. The law couldn't save nobody within itself for only Jesus could save and this is why they were perfected when we were because of Calvary.

3. The spiritual and morality of the law is always in effect just like murder. But murder had no written judgement in the antediluvian period but murder was still wrong in their conscience. Adultery was wrong under the law and they were to be stoned but today there is no stoning as a mandatory judgement. It is still wrong but we are not to be subdued as a new creation to the civil law for Timothy said that was now for the disobedient and unlawful. It doesn't do away with the spiritual or moral aspect but the mechanics change.
4. We are not under a blessing and cursing system as the old covenant.

5. The apostles understood the law and Peter said it was a yoke to them and they could not expect the gentiles to be under that even though they still were a jew living like a jew culturally. I have to go but until next time when I have more time I wanted to let you know I enjoy your posting and we'll converse some more. God bless! Jerry kelso

jerry kelso · Jun 25, 2015

Ken Rank said:
You just made the same mistake many make, you assume that the Jews are all of Israel. The nation of Israel divided into two nations, a Southern Kingdom Judah (the Jews) and the Northern Kingdom, Israel... who went into Assyria in 722BC (Judah did NOT) and never came back. There are records of 20,000+ coming back but over a million went in. They assimilated into that culture, God gave them up to their idols... and thus they "lost" their identity. With their minds and hearts on the lusts of the world, and with God giving them up, they ceased to retain God in their knowledge. So they became known throughout Jewish history as "the lost sheep of Israel." Yeshua said, "I have not been sent BUT to the lost sheep of the House of Israel." Not Judah, salvation is certainly for them, too... but the weight was on going into the nations where Israel was scattered and calling them back. This is first prophesied in Deut. 30:1-6 and repeated often throughout the Prophets to include the first chapter of Hosea. A people driven into the nations and called, "Not my people," would have God call to them where they were scattered (nations) and called back and called "Sons of the Living God." Romans 9 covers this, Romans 11, and more. And incidentally, the Jews didn't reject him as a nation... over 20,000 of the 80,000 inhabitants of Jerusalem in that day accepted Yeshua as Messiah and continued to keep Torah... or so says Acts 21:20.

The word "righteous" means "to conform to divine law." In means that in Hebrew, Greek, in the 1828 Websters, and in the modern online Websters. We are to seek righteousness, walk in righteousness... not unto salvation, but those that are His are to do this. And... "fulfill" does NOT mean "bring an end to," because if it did then Matt 5:17 would be contradicting itself like this:

"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to abolish them."

A better and more balanced and reasonable definition as weighed against the rest of Scripture comes from Thayer:

2c3) to fulfil, i.e. to cause God’s will (as made known in the law) to be obeyed as it should be, and God’s promises (given through the prophets) to receive fulfilment.

In other words, his walk, his actions, his words... were to be the model we follow. His walk and our faith in it (and God's grace) release us from sin, from death, from decay... but not from the commandments which are eternal.

You see change, I see a God that does not change. I also see a Hebrew word, teshuvah, that we translate as repent and treat as if it means "to turn from" when it has a deeper meaning in the Hebraic culture of the day. It is RETURN, as in to the Torah you forsook for idols to get sent into the nations to begin with. To the land that is your inheritance. To Israel, the community to which we belong. And to God as Lord, one who rules with authority over our lives. Teshuvah, repent... means to turn away from sin and worldly things that stand in contrast to the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob and TO those things I mentioned. Teshuvah cries for a destination to turn TO, repent does not.

I do not advocate joining Judaism at all. The Torah belongs to God... He called the Feasts, "My Feasts" and in the same verse it says, "The feasts of the LORD." That doesn't make them for only the Jews, that makes them for all who are His. A gentile, Jerry, is a pagan. You go back and you look at how that word is defined in early English dictionaries and you will see it meant "pagan, heathen, one who is neither Jew nor Christian." We retained that word in our bibles over time but the meaning changed. Not a gentile is a believer who is not Jewish. But the Hebrew is clear, while a Israelite can be in the goyim, the nations, he is not goyim he is Israel. That is why Paul said, "you WERE gentiles in the flesh" and "WERE aliens of the Commonwealth of Israel" and "NOW you are fellow citizens." A "gentile believer" or a "gentile Christian" is an oxy-moron.

There is not one rule from some and another rule for others. The Law, my friend... ON STONE was temporary until the seed should come AND THEN it would begin the process of being moved "from stone to the heart." Same God, same Torah, just a different location for the text of the covenant. This is mentioned in placed like Ezk. 11:19 and of course in Jer. 31:34/Heb. 8:8-11. The law (on stone) testified of Messiah so we would recognize him when he came and it led us to him as a Schoolmaster AND THEN through him it moves to the heart. By the way, the Acts 15 letter also contains this line... often ignored by most who hold your position:

Act 15:20 But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.
Act 15:21 For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day.

The letter was to act as a starting point, not the finish line. "Do these few things and that will set you apart from your pagan ex-brethren and you will learn the rest as you go." And that is the point of verse 21.... do the things in 20 and then follow the prescription in 21 to learn the rest.

What you also lack here Jerry, is the historical context of what is even going on in relation to this letter. I will post something I wrote on it, should you care to investigate it and weigh it out.

I want you to think about something. God... the perfect all knowing Creator of the Universe... that God.... He is the author of each and every command you just called weak. I can explain the "better promises" to you but I think you need to focus on your paradigm a little first. I am not trying to sound condescending in anything I am writing here... I just know exactly where you are based on the things you have said. And one of them had a perfect God making mistakes with a weak series of commands that could never really do anything. That says you don't understand what He was doing and should probably, and I say this respectfully, remain silent on the issue until HE shows you His intent here.

Proverbs 10:19 Too much talking leads to sin. Be sensible and keep your mouth shut.

No it wasn't... it is included in it but I repeat His mission...

1. Matt 4:17 From that time Yeshua began to preach, and to say, Repent*: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.
* Repent - teshuvah.. a turning from one thing but TO ANOTHER. See my answer for #3 above
2. Matt 15:24 But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.
3. Matt 10:5b Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not6) But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

So he preached teshuvah, RETURN (to all that was forsaken to get driven into the nations to begin with as per the Prophets) and he said he was only sent to the lost sheep and only sent his disciples to the lost sheep. And brother... go look at Paul's commission in Greek:

Acts 9:15 But the Lord said unto him, Go thy way: for he is a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel:

Two times we see "and" and they are two different words. One is kai which is the word for "and" and the other is te, the word for "both" or "also." And, since ethnos is more often translated as NATIONS and not GENTILES, let's re-translate:

Acts 9:15 But the Lord said unto him, Go thy way: for he is a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my name before the Nations, and kings, BOTH the children of Israel:

Look familiar? How about Jacob's/Israel's blessing?

Gen 35:11 And God said unto him, I am God Almighty: be fruitful and multiply; a nation and a company of nations shall be of thee, and kings shall come out of thy loins;

So Paul is sent to bear his name before the nations and kings who were the children of Israel. He was going for the same lost sheep as Yeshua, as the other disciples... and since we are told to GO (by the way, it is a participle so it is "going") then the Great Commission is a continuation of the same mission... not something new.

Yes, and that is why we follow the spirit behind the letter. That doesn't abrogate the letter, it means we find the spirit behind it. The letter says not to commit adultery, the spirit says to even look in lust at another is adultery. That is HARDER, it RAISES THE BAR... but doesn't abrogate the letter... we still don't have sex with somebody who is married or otherwise would count as adultery.

I appreciate the information you shared... I pray you take the time to read through my answers as I did yours.

Peace.
Ken

Ken,

1. Not every jew is a jew said Paul because they were not saved.

2. The lost sheep of Israel were those who were not saved.
There is no record that this was to the message of lost tribes or scattered tribes. James spoke to the scattered tribes years later.

3. Israel did reject Christ as a whole nation. Jeremiah 31:31-32 and Hebrews 8:7-13 specify that Israel had to all accept Christ. This is why Paul said the gifts and callings are without repentance and Zechariah said 2/3 will be cutoff and 1/3 will left who will believe and when they believe God will forgive their sins and Isaiah said he will make them a nation born in one day when Zion travails and brings forth her children.

4. Because of the weakness of the commandment the law was abolished. This is due to the letter of the law because they had to do something to attain something. The law of sin and death took advantage of the law that was holy and good and made them live to the frailty of man in sin Romans 7. There was nothing wrong with the morals of the law or thou shalt not but it couldn't save a person or help a person achieve doing the commandment. The commandment also had the curse of judgement or a blessing system and we do not. The civil law was done away with because it is now for the lawful and disobedient and christians of the new creation are not to be subdued for they are to be controlled by the Spirit. The ceremonial had to be done away with because the blood of bulls and goats was not sufficient to save.
The law was one whole unit and James said if you broke one you have broken all. So the morality of the law doesn't change for sin is always wrong in every age though the mechanics are different. Also, Jesus fulfilled the law but the law was abolished because of it's weakness so their is no violation or contradiction.

5. God told Israel plenty of times to repent and that is why they were always in trouble and that is why the land is referred to as sinning. In a backslidden state Israel could only make destination through repentance and repentance, forgiveness and returning is at the heart of the Torah and harmonizes together.

6. A gentile was a pagan and had no covenant and this is true but so is a jew who does not serve God but it doesn't mean he is not a jew as a race of people or a class of people and this holds true for gentiles. I am not against the feasts either. There is much to be learned and understood from them.

7. The law was forever for the jews but not under the Mosaic ethic for it was just until the seed should come. This doesn't mean when Christ was born that the law ceased for he had to fulfill it first and then it was abolished because of the new covenant had to replace it.

8. The law was the schoolmaster and now is no longer a schoolmaster for the Spirit is to teach us all things.

9. I respectfully disagree about your assessment of what is meant by weakness for the law was holy and good. The reason God has dealt with men in the different ages is for men to understand redemption's plan fully and completely. It is deeper than this but I am running out of time for I have to go to work.
The letter as an acting point was because of the judaizers trying to always get them into judaism customs as a means of salvation. Verse 20 was more about the Noahic laws and the law of Moses was preached in the synagogues is about the gentiles not having to be jews culturally or otherwise.

10. I am sorry you misunderstand about being weak but the scripture says that and that was why it was changed. I have already explained that it is not the moral and spiritual aspect that was changed but it was the mechanics of the covenant and the judgements and the system itself of a blessing and cursing that gentiles were never under. Paul stated this and Peter said why put a yoke on them that they could not bear.
I forgive you for saying to keep my mouth shut when it is your misunderstanding of what I meant by weakness of the commandment.

11. I believe we are blessed as being Abraham's seed and because we are set in heavenly and high places. Blessings of Abraham and Isaac and Jacob I have no problem with. The law came because of transgressions and was only till the seed should come.

12. The great commission was a mission for the lost sheep of Israel as recorded in the Kingdom of Heaven message but it was also for the gentiles as well. But it was a different message which was the death, burial, and resurrection message and not the kingdom message for that was left up to the father. It didn't mean they didn't have the mindset of the kingdom because of the signs like on the Day of Pentecost etc. but, it was not the same.

13. We follow the law of the Spirit because of Calvary and the law of the Spirit did away with the law of sin and death that took advantage of the Mosaic law and made them live to the frailty of sin. Read Romans 7 and 8.

14. Lusting wasn't raising the bar, but it did show their sin from the root of their heart to begin with and Jesus wanted them to understand how serious a sin it was. Jesus said if the salt had lost its savor it is no good but to be trodden down under the foot of men. This is not talking about the church of today for the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. So the great commission was about the kingdom and not the death,burial, and resurrection for Peter said he wouldn't let anyone kill Christ and Jesus said, get behind me Satan for you don't savor the things of God and this was after Israel had rejected him and the message of the kingdom.

I would encourage you not to jump the gun until you know the true history of what was going on. Food for thought. God bless. Jerry kelso

pat34lee · Jun 25, 2015

Ken Rank said:
No, sorry... you are making an assumption without a fact to back it. I am not trying to cause strife, I just know they were not exact like that, didn't have those standards in place, and I gave examples to show Scripture is not as exact which is all that matters here. WE can want this or that but Scripture is not as exact.

Moses was taught in the house of the Pharaoh. He knew everything that any educated Egyptian would know, including their standards of weights and measures. The Hebrews knew Egyptian measurements too, having lived there for several generations.

The scriptures are as exact as they need to be. One of the supposed errors in the bible proves this.
http://creation.com/does-the-bible-say-pi-equals-3

Gxg (G²) · Jun 25, 2015

ContraMundum said:
Further proof that God isn't all that fussed about appearing to be hyper-Jewish. Hyper-Jewing each other is more of a modern thing, really.

True...

Meowzltov · Jun 26, 2015

pat34lee said:
When it said that Jonah was swallowed by a fish, not a whale, that means it was a fish.

It could mean a whale, because mankind at that time in history groups sea mammals differently. They thought a whale WAS a giant fish.

Ken Rank · Jun 26, 2015

jerry kelso said:
The lost sheep of Israel were those who were not saved.

I will only comment on this since we are just speaking from two different places right now. I do appreciate the time you put into your post. The idea of "saved" in today's culture, and salvation in that day, are not a perfect equal match. When we see the word 'saved' we THINK eternal salvation, and while that is part of it, we have stopped there, pitched a tent, and missed the rest of the picture. If you go to Romans 9:27 for example, you will see that "all Israel will be saved." You would consider that to mean eternal salvation, but... he is quoting Isaiah 10:22 which lacks the word "saved" in English AND Hebrew. It is the word teshuvah, actually a form of it, but it means "to return." Salvation includes the idea of eternity but it ALSO includes God fulfilling all of His promises which includes calling Israel back out of the nations where He drove them and bringing them to the land that is their inheritance. This promise begins in Deut. 30:1-6 and continues throughout the words of almost every prophet culminating in some ways for me, in Hosea who tells the whole story through the names of his children. And in chapter 1 verse 11, we see that when the two houses come back together they will appoint for themselves one head.. and a united Israel has not had a king since Solomon... Yeshua will be that king!

So the lost sheep are those not saved... from the nations they were scattered into.

Ken Rank · Jun 26, 2015

Open Heart said:
It could mean a whale, because mankind at that time in history groups sea mammals differently. They thought a whale WAS a giant fish.

That is a point I have made. God created the LAND creatures and He created the SEA creatures. We, today... classify animals by what and how they breath or whether they are warm blooded or cold... God classified them by whether or not they lived on land or in the sea. So, a whale is classified as a sea creature with the fish. To call what Jonah was in a whale or a fish doesn't matter because both are part of the same class of creature.

Ken Rank · Jun 26, 2015

pat34lee said:
Moses was taught in the house of the Pharaoh. He knew everything that any educated Egyptian would know, including their standards of weights and measures. The Hebrews knew Egyptian measurements too, having lived there for several generations.

The scriptures are as exact as they need to be. One of the supposed errors in the bible proves this.
http://creation.com/does-the-bible-say-pi-equals-3

Pat... Moses was indeed taught in Egypt. But to make your point, you now need to show the biblical evidence that Moses taught the Israelites the Egyptian methods and you can't do that because those things don't exist in Scripture. In fact, when you go through Torah there are many commands that seem to deal with things that would differentiate the Israelite FROM the Egyptian. For example, the command to not mar the sides of the head would seem to stand opposed to the Egyptian practice of cutting lines in the beard which depicted one's social or political standing. When it comes to units of measurement, both from history AND the bible... we find that a foot was the size of a man's foot. A cubit was the size of a man forearm. An inch was the length from the joint in the thumb to the end of the thumb. And since not all people were the same size, you had variations and this does not bother anyone but the western minded person who was raised in a paradigm where things are measured down to the millimeter and beyond. We lean toward exactness, they were the kings of rounding things off.

Blessings.
Ken

What do Messianics consider themselves a sect of?

Messianic Jewish Christian

Well-Known Member

Messianic Jewish Christian

Messianic

Messianic

Messianic

Messianic

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Food For Thought

Food For Thought

Food For Thought

Messianic

Pilgrim/Monastic on the Road to God (Psalm 84:1-7)

Freylekher Yid

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency