Posted on 12/01/2002 2:33:40 PM PST by fishtank
Thanks Terry. Did the jewish people of biblical times believe in the modern day concept of the trinity? Do Jewish people today? If the inspired writers of scripture didn't believe in the modern day concept of the trinity then would you say that the today's idea of the trinity is a concept that has evolved?
and also the absorption into the God head
Let's look at this one later...
Can you prove from scripture, not tradition, that Armstrong was wrong about the above?
No one could have ever proven anything to Armstrong, so there should be no surprise there.
Herbert couldn't be proven wrong when it came to divorced people being allowed to remarry as long as their first spouse was still alive either.
That was until he fell for his 46 year old divorced secretary, when he was 86 him self, then he began studying the Bible and lo and behold, he found he was aloud to marry her after all.
All this, while my mother and step father had to separate even though they had been married for over 12 years at the time, and had two boys, and the oldest boy was the one I posted about on this thread #10.
Several local marriages were broken up from that belief until the shoe was on Herbert’s foot, then the scripture became flexible.
The original WWCG has apologized for all the harm they caused, even though they no longer teach the doctrine of separatist you belong to, and yours still tries to divide God's people into camps as they always have.
So were to believe that God has worked for 6 thousand years to save only your little group of a couple of thousand people that are to teach and rule the billions he will call later, am I right about your belief on that?
JH
This amill believes Jesus is the Sabbath rest for Christians (not legalistically *keeping* any particular day of the week as a NT or OT *Sabbath*).
I also believe that the promises to Israel are not abrogated, but extended and fulfilled through the salvation of both Jews and Gentiles in the New Testament community.
I believe that the accurate Reformed view on who the NT people of God are can be described as "unity theology". In this outlook, the New Testament church is one with Israel of the Old Testament. "Grafted in" is the terminology.
Is it your contention that Paul was coming to preach on Sunday? If so then how come he's telling them to gather things on the first day day of the week when he's going to be there on the first day of the week? Isn't this the opposite of what he wanted?
Acts 20:7 And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight.
This was on what we would call a Saturday night. The first day of the week begins Saturday at sundown. This could have been any night. It wasn't uncommon for the early members of the church to get together to eat...or break bread.
If you take away Christian tradition then these two passages are mighty weak arguments for overthrowing the word of God in the bible and doing away with the worship day he ordained...especially when it's considered how many times it's mentioned that Paul preached on the sabbath.
Armstrong is correct on these three points but that doesn't make him right elsewhere.
True enough. Pick out something else and we'll see if he was wrong or right on it.
I do not assume that the Church is the New Israel. Your question is better addressed to the amils. We dispensationalists do not equate Sunday with the Sabbath or Israel with the Church.
Okay, we'll see who responds...
Can you prove from scripture, not tradition, that Armstrong was wrong about the above?
And can you prove that God ever intended for the Gentiles to keep the Sabbath?
The New Covenant changed everything, the whole Jewish belief was left for them to carry on, but the Gentiles were given a whole new plan of salvation and freedom that Israel never had.
The Jews were to keep the covenant God made with them and Moses, we Christians are to keep the New Covenant that was made at the Last Supper, and which Paul revealed to us during his ministry.
Paul and all the Apostles agreed that all the Gentiles were to be given at that present time was as stated in Acts 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.
I realize you're developing a spin on this scripture, but its only your conjecture, and not solid scripture as I have quoted.
The Sabbath was never kept by any man until God gave it to Israel at Sinai, and the Jews still keep it today, but we Christians were never given the Sabbath.
JH
Apparently Joe Tkach could... :-)
Herbert couldn't be proven wrong when it came to divorced people being allowed to remarry as long as their first spouse was still alive either. Several local marriages were broken up from that belief until the shoe was on Herbert’s foot, then the scripture became flexible.
I'm sorry you felt wronged personally by Armstrong on this issue. Biblically speaking I agree with the first position. I think your parents were doing right in God's eyes and they will have rewards for doing so. But like you and me Jim, Armstrong was only human. Were your parentse free to leave the church if they didn't agree with the doctrine being taught?
The original WWCG has apologized for all the harm they caused, even though they no longer teach the doctrine of separatist you belong to, and yours still tries to divide God's people into camps as they always have.
Based on the people I know they caused more harm changing the doctrine radically then they ever did before. Don't get me wrong, I've heard of lots of things wrong in Worldwide, but they are nearly all administrative difficulties or authoritarian problems.
The original WWCG has apologized for all the harm they caused, even though they no longer teach the doctrine of separatist you belong to, and yours still tries to divide God's people into camps as they always have.
I'm sorry Jim, but that's just not accurate. You well know that our doctrine is that most people are going to be saved and given eternal life. An us against them attitude is pretty self defeating if you're going to have to spend eternity with someone whom you disagree with now.... :-)
So were to believe that God has worked for 6 thousand years to save only your little group of a couple of thousand people that are to teach and rule the billions he will call later, am I right about your belief on that?
If by "your little group" you mean United Church of God, no. If by "your little group" you mean the body of Christ, yes. Scripture teaches that the elect will live as kings and priests in God's kingdom. The number in all probability is going to well exceed a couple of thousand. The role of the elect is to teach God's ways to even more people during the milleniel kingdom.
If you remove Christian tradition that's the only possible conclusion you can come to.
The New Covenant changed everything, the whole Jewish belief was left for them to carry on, but the Gentiles were given a whole new plan of salvation and freedom that Israel never had.
That's certainly what tradition teaches. It's true that Israel never had an explicit promise of eternal life in the old covenent. But the basic laws of the old covenent applied to the new with one twist: Christ's sacrifice removed the penalty of the law, death, for our past sins. And his live, Christ living in us, helps to ensure that we won't incur the penalty of the law by keeping us from future sin. Not much really changed biblically except in tradition.
The Jews were to keep the covenant God made with them and Moses, we Christians are to keep the New Covenant that was made at the Last Supper, and which Paul revealed to us during his ministry.
Well yeah....
Paul and all the Apostles agreed that all the Gentiles were to be given at that present time was as stated in Acts 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.
I realize you're developing a spin on this scripture, but its only your conjecture, and not solid scripture as I have quoted.
Spin? Here's my "spin". Is this an all inclusive list? Were gentiles free to do anything else? Could they rob? Swear? Slug their neighbors? No because this is a list of the pagan stuff they're supposed to stay away from. Where are they supposed to learn the other stuff that makes them Christian??
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 Sabbath was never kept by any man until God gave it to Israel at Sinai, and the Jews still keep it today, but we Christians were never given the Sabbath.
Again I understand that's tradition. But it's not borne out biblically or historically. God is eternal. When he blesses and sanctifies the 7th day it stays blessed and sanctified eternally unless he removes it. He never did, but man did.
Sorry, forgot the word of God when it comes to gentiles and the sabbath:
Isa 56:6 Also the sons of the stranger, that join themselves to the LORD, to serve him, and to love the name of the LORD, to be his servants, every one that keepeth the sabbath from polluting it, and taketh hold of my covenant;
Just as a druggie suffers when his supply is removed, he learns to begin a new life eventually, but some simply replace the hard stuff for milder drugs, such a pot or alcohol, but their still on drugs in my book.
I'm sorry Jim, but that's just not accurate. You well know that our doctrine is that most people are going to be saved and given eternal life. An us against them attitude is pretty self defeating if you're going to have to spend eternity with someone whom you disagree with now.... :-)
And the only reason it sounds good to you is because that theory puts you in final charge under Christ. and supports your belief that everyone in the world is wrong except your little spin off group which will eventually set the world straight because of your works belief, and every one will see that your recapturing Israel’s laws and becoming a better Jew then the Jew, as though that was what God had really wanted all along, not our faith.
In this case, Paul will not be with you, because he certainly didn’t act like a Jew when he told us there is nothing that can defile a man as did Christ in Mark 7.
Ro 14: 14. I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing unclean of itself: but to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him it is unclean.
Paul used the Greek word koinos for unclean, which is caused by eating or touching something physically, not the akathartos you would like to claim, and its is used 32 times in the NT to point to spiritual unclean-ness, such as evil spirits and demonic forces, and not once does it have anything to do with meat or eating, or something tangible, being able to contaminate someone.
If by "your little group" you mean United Church of God, no. If by "your little group" you mean the body of Christ, yes. Scripture teaches that the elect will live as kings and priests in God's kingdom. The number in all probability is going to well exceed a couple of thousand. The role of the elect is to teach God's ways to even more people during the milleniel kingdom.
That’s a cop out and you know it. Your Church believes that only those who believe as you do, will be allowed into the millennium as the spiritually saved of God, and that it will be your little group of law keepers who will teach and train all of us to understand God’s will.
That’s so egotistical, and so divisive to think the whole Bible was written just for you, since only your mindset of pull your selves up by your own bootstraps mentality, could override Christ promise that our faith in Him would save us, and not that of works.
Its Christ goodness that will save us, and if your thinking you’ll be saved by your strict keeping of the law, I think you may be very disappointed when you find out that Christ made salvation available to all mankind, and not just to a few spiritual supremeist.
The good news is, that God still loves you anyway, and he knows why your particular personality needs physical proof of everything, so that’s why you want to be able to point to a law and say I’m keeping that law, then point to the next one and say…..etc.
As Paul said in 2 Cor 3:3 Forasmuch as ye are manifestly declared to be the epistle of Christ ministered by us, written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God; not in tables of stone, but in fleshy tables of the heart.
I prefer having faith that Christ will remind me of all the laws he wishes to be observed, and since you prefer holding them in your hand and touching them and constantly pointing to them as reminders of God’s laws, I guess it only means you haven’t the faith to trust Christ to keep you from forgetting them.
The only difference between you and the Jew, is that the Jew doesn’t believe the Messiah has come, where you believe he’s come, but didn’t really change much except doing away with sacrifices, and helping you to be strong and overcome.
Well, Jews no longer need sacrifices either, and they are much better at keeping the legalities of the law then you or I, so where does that leave you now? IMO, :-)
JH
That's certainly what tradition teaches. It's true that Israel never had an explicit promise of eternal life in the old covenent. But the basic laws of the old covenent applied to the new with one twist: Christ's sacrifice removed the penalty of the law, death, for our past sins. And his live, Christ living in us, helps to ensure that we won't incur the penalty of the law by keeping us from future sin. Not much really changed biblically except in tradition.
Instead of you choosing the words Christian Traditions, I prefer the word scriptural proof. Also, where did you find the term “penalty of the law,” I find it no where in the NT, and I never said anything about Jews not being promised eternal life, what’s that about?
Christ living in us, helps to ensure that we won't incur the penalty of the law by keeping us from future sin. Not much really changed biblically except in tradition.
Helps? …..Helps?…. Not in my case, the only way I will see eternal life is if Christ takes care of it all for me, my works are as filthy rags, and so if Christ doesn’t save me, I haven’t a chance, since even one small sin I may not even be aware of, condemns me to death.
Spin? Here's my "spin". Is this an all inclusive list? Were gentiles free to do anything else? Could they rob? Swear? Slug their neighbors? No because this is a list of the pagan stuff they're supposed to stay away from. Where are they supposed to learn the other stuff that makes them Christian??
God has made them part of my hard drive programming, and I know when I sin or am about to sin way before any written law can be read by me.
Act 15:21 For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day.
I explained this before.
Acts 15:19. Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God:
V-20 But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.
V-21 For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day.
Since the Gentiles were not allowed in the temple to hear Moses being taught, then James certainly wasn’t referring to the Gentiles learning the rest of law from them.
So why didn’t James simply tell them to observe the ten commandments? Which ones would have devastated them to find out they must keep it?
Please tell me why, at such a perfect opportunity, the Gentiles weren’t given the law? Why did they give them the 2nd and the 7th Commandment and leave out the other eight?
Why did they give them 2 of the Levitical laws, but not the other hundreds?
Let me tell you why, because they knew the Jewish laws were not to be given to the new Testament Gentile Church, but they weren’t sure how the Holy Spirit was going to handle it, so they made it as simplistic as possible.
While they didn’t want to burden them with all the laws they were struggling with, they were afraid the Pharisees and the other hard line Jews would accuse them of teaching against the laws of Moses. They used two of each groups of the laws, which were pure common sense, but still cleared them of possibly being accused of throwing out Moses law.
It had nothing to do with Gentiles going to the temple later, and hearing all the rest of the law, as taught by Moses.
Instead, this decision by the council in Jerusalem made it clear that it was a new day for the Gentiles, and all the hassling they had been receiving from the Jews, who had been telling them how they must become as a Jew, and keep all the laws of Moses, and this was settled once and for all.
Acts 15:30 So when they were dismissed, they came to Antioch: and when they had gathered the multitude together, they delivered the epistle:
V-31 Which when they had read, they rejoiced for the consolation.
Read that again,
CONSOLATION, = "exhortation," RV, "comfort"; Why did this news comfort them? Why did they rejoice? What was there about this news that was so great to hear?
Let me tell you again, It showed them and everyone there including the apostles, that the Jewish laws were not going to be forced on them, as this had been their concern.
Somehow the Holy Spirit was able to teach them with out the law which was written in stone, and later John had observed how well it had worked, and was able to assure them it had been the right way.
1 John 2:27 But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.
The anointing abides in us, and teaches us all things, of truth and cannot lie. The anointing replaced the written law by placing it in our hearts.
JH
I don't really know where to begin with this. I am a wretched sinner Jim, just like you. Just like everyone. The death of Christ paid the penalty for my sins. Christ living through me saves me. By faith, I let Christ live in and through me. If you want to call that works, or ascribe an attitude to me then so be it.
Ro 14: 14. I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing unclean of itself: but to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him it is unclean. Paul used the Greek word koinos for unclean, which is caused by eating or touching something physically, not the akathartos you would like to claim, and its is used 32 times in the NT to point to spiritual unclean-ness, such as evil spirits and demonic forces, and not once does it have anything to do with meat or eating, or something tangible, being able to contaminate someone.
That's what you keep saying and what the tradition you are embracing tells you. But there really are animals that are akathartos and you know it. It's in Acts 10 and it's translated as such in the septuagent. But you already know all this... :-)
That’s a cop out and you know it. Your Church believes that only those who believe as you do, will be allowed into the millennium as the spiritually saved of God, and that it will be your little group of law keepers who will teach and train all of us to understand God’s will.
No Jim, it really is the body of Christ who will be there. I have no idea who is or who will be in the body of Christ. I only know that my salvation is secured. Christ said:
Mat 5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
Mat 5:19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach [them], the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
That’s so egotistical, and so divisive to think the whole Bible was written just for you, since only your mindset of pull your selves up by your own bootstraps mentality, could override Christ promise that our faith in Him would save us, and not that of works.
The bible was written for everyone. Faith in Christ means letting Christ live in and through us.
Its Christ goodness that will save us, and if your thinking you’ll be saved by your strict keeping of the law, I think you may be very disappointed when you find out that Christ made salvation available to all mankind, and not just to a few spiritual supremeist.
It's not Christ "goodness" that saves us, it's Christ himself fullfilling the righteous requirements of the law by living through us.
Let me try an analogy. There are laws against speeding. Every day for 10 years a man sped every chance he got. Sometimes he did it willfully, sometimes unknowingly, sometimes there were speed traps. But he never got caught. One day he got caught and went before the judge. The judge said "We've been watching you. We know that you've been speeding for the last 10 years and we're prepared to put a hefty fine on you for doing so. You're guilty. But you know what? You're free to go because that gentlemen over there has offered to pay all your fines for you. Not only that, he has offered to drive you anywhere you want to go for the rest of your life so that you won't speed anymore."
The man is a sinner, Christ is the man who paid the fine. Now tell me: Should the man accept the whole offer from Christ? Or should he let Christ pay the fine and then keep driving himself, knowing that he's going to keep acting the same way? And if he did let Christ drive and you saw the mans car go by always obeying the speed limit would you be calling the man legalistic, or Christ?
The good news is, that God still loves you anyway, and he knows why your particular personality needs physical proof of everything, so that’s why you want to be able to point to a law and say I’m keeping that law, then point to the next one and say…..etc.
Thanks Jim. God loves you too despite of your hard headedness and lack of obedience... :-)
2 Cor 3:3 Forasmuch as ye are manifestly declared to be the epistle of Christ ministered by us, written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God; not in tables of stone, but in fleshy tables of the heart.
What exactly is written in our hearts Jim? Hint:
Jer 31:33 But this [shall be] the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.
I prefer having faith that Christ will remind me of all the laws he wishes to be observed, and since you prefer holding them in your hand and touching them and constantly pointing to them as reminders of God’s laws, I guess it only means you haven’t the faith to trust Christ to keep you from forgetting them.
I admit it, I'm a sinner. Invariably everything I consider righteous, or good, or proper is wrong. Thank God all I had to do was learn obedience and to follow the direction of Christ and the scriptures.
Well, Jews no longer need sacrifices either, and they are much better at keeping the legalities of the law then you or I, so where does that leave you now? IMO, :-)
I guess that would depend on whether I was keeping the law physically and not spiritually, as Christ deplored, or whether the law was being kept spiritually and physically, as only Christ can do.
Have a good afternoon....
Hopefully I'll be seeing you at church sometime... :-)
Now that I know that Good News is Plain Truth revived, I'll know to keep my eyes wide open, even though as soon as I laid eyes on it, I knew something was wrong with it.
Yeah, it made sense right? :-)
Isa 56:6 Also the sons of the stranger, that join themselves to the LORD, to serve him, and to love the name of the LORD, to be his servants, every one that keepeth the sabbath from polluting it, and taketh hold of my covenant;
Besides this having nothing to do with the New Covenant since it clearly states that it’s the Mosaic Covenant that dealt with the Sabbath and strangers, and not the New.
And why is this about the sons of the stranger, and not the stranger himself?
Consider this, the stranger may have lived with Israel for years, but he was always a stranger in their eyes, unless they became proselytes.
But what about their children, who had been brought up living with and knowing the Jews as his own family. He was possibly as Jewish thinking as most Jews were, and God made it clear to them that He loved them also, and had a plan for them.
He told them that if they joined themselves to the Lord, and served and loved Him, and kept his sabbath and didn’t pollute it, and held to His covenant………………………………………
Isa 56:7 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 altar; for mine house shall be called an house of prayer for all people.
Unless the the New Testament church was offering sacrifices and burnt offerings on the alter, then this certainly isn't taslking about the New Covenant era now was it, so then it has nothing to do with the New Testament times.
JH
I realized that when I read the bible I always approached it with my own objections to what it actually says. It was only by not relying on myself or others ideas that these truths became evident.
Act 15:21 For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day.
and then said the following
Since the Gentiles were not allowed in the temple to hear Moses being taught, then James certainly wasn’t referring to the Gentiles learning the rest of law from them.
This is the 2nd time I've had to correct you about this. Gentiles weren't allowed in the Temple but they were and are allowed in synagogues. This is becoming rather disengenuous of you.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.