Posted on 12/01/2002 2:33:40 PM PST by fishtank
Those will serve as my expostion. I gave you links to material written independently by two churches of God and a link to a messianic jew website. Messianic jews have basically the same thoughts on Romans 14. Did you attempt to read the links? If you're serious about wanting to have a discussion then that's the starting point.
I'm not playing games Jim. I'm sorry if you didn't understand. Let me see if I can clear up some of your questions.
Your first post today, # 46, you started out by saying, “Here’s a verse from God that contradicts you. Old covenant or new it doesn’t matter.”
This was in reference to the verse we we're discussing where gentiles who honor God's sabbath are promised rewards. You are attempting to make the point that the sabbath wasn't meant for gentiles and attempted to discount the verse because it was part of the old covenant. Are you now changing your position to "the sabbath was meant for gentiles, but only in the old testament"?
You never once dealt with the subject I asked you about, which was why does the scripture say? Also the sons of the stranger, that join themselves to the Lord, Why is this about the sons?
I responded with various translations that rendered it "strangers" and not sons of strangers. I attempted to tell you that the hebrew for "sons of strangers" appears in numerous verses in the King James where it's rendered "strangers". I am trying to tell you that it doesn't matter. Why is Joshua referred to as the "the son of Nun?" The old testament uses the phrases "son of" and "sons of" hundreds of times. It doesn't matter.
But suppose it does. Suppose it's referring to descendents of the gentiles at the time of the writing. If it is then it's referring to people who are STILL gentiles. Criminey. How can you not see this??
Better yet, let's look at the 4th commandment:
Exo 20:10 But the seventh day is the Sabbath of Jehovah your God. You shall not do any work, you, nor your son, nor your daughter, your manservant, nor your maidservant, nor your cattle, nor your stranger within your gates.
Exo 20:11 For in six days Jehovah made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore Jehovah blessed the Sabbath day, and sanctified it.
Did you see that? The "stranger" was to observe the sabbath too. And why? BECAUSE verse 11 tells us that it's a memorial to creation! God's rest. Strangers were prohibited from participating in other rituals, but they were specifically told to participate in the sabbath.
Your theory that it was never meant for gentiles makes NO sense in light of scripture which is why I keep telling you that your listening to tradition on the issue.
Hey fishtank...I'll respond to this tonight, I'm on lunch and time doesn't permit the response it warrants.
II-Ok. I did.
No you didn't, and you're being very disingenuous when you say you did.
You conveniently stopped in the midst of my post as though it weren't there. I'll re-post the part you chose to ignore.
2nd half of post #52 that II disingenuously ignored.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
post #52
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,
THEY REJOICED FOR THE CONSOLATION”
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.
II, Please deal with each of my points, and i'll do the same with yours.
JH……….I’ll be waiting, and I hope I don’t have to warn you again that when you say you answered all my points when you didn’t, that will be considered disingenuous, or worse.
JH
KC-Your first post today, # 46, you started out by saying, “Here’s a verse from God that contradicts you. Old covenant or new it doesn’t matter.”
Sorry, I don't see this in any of my post, please find it for me so I'll know your not game playing.
JH
JH- You never once dealt with the subject I asked you about, which was why does the scripture say? Also the sons of the stranger, that join themselves to the Lord, Why is this about the sons?
KC-I responded with various translations that rendered it "strangers" and not sons of strangers. I attempted to tell you that the hebrew for "sons of strangers" appears in numerous verses in the King James where it's rendered "strangers". I am trying to tell you that it doesn't matter. Why is Joshua referred to as the "the son of Nun?" The old testament uses the phrases "son of" and "sons of" hundreds of times. It doesn't matter.
Alright, even though the KJV and the NKJV starts out with the statement, V-6. “Also the sons of the stranger,”
I’ll concede this point since it’s not in my NIV Hebrew/English Interlinear, but only because I’ll expect the same courtesy from you when you use exact quotes from the KJV to make a point, and I can show that other translations differ, is that fair?
Let me ask you a couple of questions before I proceed with Isa 56:6-7.
1. At what point in history do you think this “prophesy” is referring to?
2. What makes you believe it’s a prophesy for any time other then that of the OT?
But suppose it does. Suppose it's referring to descendents of the gentiles at the time of the writing. If it is then it's referring to people who are STILL gentiles. Criminey. How can you not see this??
Consider this Doug, Israel was the only religion that worshipped the true God. If God were to call some exceptional Gentiles or Strangers to worship along with His chosen people, why would he develop a new religion just for them, wouldn’t it be logical He would make them as the Jew?
All of them were still under the Mosiac Covenant, and God was clear in how they were to honor Him, so I see no relationship between that, and if it had happen after the NT church era was established under a New Testament Covenant.
They are two separate dispensations.
JH
Go back and read. I addressed your conjecture and tradition. You're a liar.
They rejoiced. Big deal. Now jews and gentiles could fellowship without the jewish believers becoming unclean for their temple worship. They were happy. Goes without saying. Read my posts and you wouldn't appear to be the liar you are.
Okay, post 46 was a reply to post 36 which was a reply to post 29. Post 29 is where i first posted:
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;
You discounted this verse in post 36 by saying:
"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. "
I responded back to that with post 46 where I said:
Well Jim your entire argument hinges on your assertation that the sabbath wasn't meant for "gentiles". Here's a verse from God that contradicts you. Old covenent or new it doesn't matter.
I was simply referring back to was Isaiah 56:6, not bringing up a new verse.
Sorry if my wording was confusing.
I'm very far from an expert on Isaiah, I've barely scratched the surface of the book. But this verse:
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.
indicates a time probably in the milleniel kingdom. That doesn't mean that observing the sabbath(s) is wrong today, or not for today, or not for gentiles. The sabbath and God are eternal:
James 1:17 Every best gift and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no change nor shadow of alteration.
It could be a prophecy for out time too. I found this verse interesting:
Isa 56:3 Neither let the son of the stranger, that hath joined himself to the LORD, speak, saying, The LORD hath utterly separated me from his people: neither let the eunuch say, Behold, I am a dry tree.
What have "sons of strangers" done today? Most Christians, those who have joined themselves to the Lord, believe they *are* seperated from Israel, God's people, and say as much.
Now maybe you don't interpet it the same way, but that one sort of jumped out at me.
I'm not sure I'm following you here...could you explain further?
All of them were still under the Mosiac Covenant, and God was clear in how they were to honor Him, so I see no relationship between that, and if it had happen after the NT church era was established under a New Testament Covenant.
Again I'm not following...
Golly Doug,
I thought you didn't accept 'other ideas'. What's incredible to me is that you can't trust yourself just to read the chapter and give me a brief explanation of what Paul is telling the Romans. It seems to me all you rely on is 'other ideas'. How 'bout a brief explanation?
Good. If you're really interested in my justifications and thoughts you can go over to the NeverEnding story thread and search through there. I've hashed it over about half a dozen times I think. We went over the whole pronoun and holy spirit thing less than 2 months ago if I remember.
I might have missed this, but were you raised from a child in the UCG?
lol...nope. I felt myself being drawn to repentence about a year and half ago. I began to study the works of C.S. Lewis and John MacArthur. Both were instrumental in my conversion, especially MacArthur's books "The Gospel According to Jesus" and "The Gospel According to the Apostles". The theme is that Christians should be living a life of obedience to God and his laws and that their conversion should reflect that.
Then one night I was reading the 10 commandments and really *saw* that I had broken every one of them in spirit if not in letter. My mind was a cesspool, though outwardly you might have thought I was an okay person.
Well MacArthur is very pro-law...except for one. The 7th day sabbath. That got me wondering and I remembered reading a couple of copies of the Plain Truth in the early 80's that some guy had brought in to work. So I researched the World Wide Church of God and found lo and behold that they were totally changed. MacArthur made tons more sense then they did (except on the sabbath of course).
Then I found United's website, studied their doctrine and was so filled with God's spirit everytime I studied there that I began attending services last November. I was baptized last January.
Since then I have felt myself growing daily in Christ through God's grace. I am being cleansed from the inside out. My wife has also embraced God and will most likely be getting baptized this January. I can also see God working in my daughters (14 and 18). We are all so happy...it's truly a miracle from God.
Probably a little more than you needed to know lol...
You're just not going to let this go are you... :-). I'll accept them if they agree with scripture. "My" ideas are a total waste of time. I'm a selfish sinner and will do everything I can not to follow scripture or obey God's laws. Luckily all I have to do is suspend disbelief and let Christ give me the strength to really believe what scripture is saying based on bible study and word usage.
What is Romans 14 about? It seems that Paul is adressing some concerns and/or controversies about eating habits. Indications are that there were a couple of issues: One issue seems to be eating otherwise clean meats that had been offered to idols. Some people in the Roman church were concerned that eating this kind of meat somehow defiled them so they wouldn't eat any meat at all:
Rom 14:2 For one believeth that he may eat all things: another, who is weak, eateth herbs.
We know this particular issue was a concern because it's mentioned by Paul in 1 Corinthians 8:7-13.
I realize that most people try to make it into a chapter that says "there are no such things as unclean animals. They draw that conclusion from this verse in the KJV:
Rom 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.
This will require some study on your part, but look up the word translated "unclean". It is Strongs number 2839, koinos. Then look up the same word elsewhere in scripture. It's used 9 other times besides this verse. In the KJV it's translated "common" 7 times. The other two times it's translated as "an unholy thing" (hebrews 10:29) and "defiled" (Mark 7:2). Nowhere else is it rendered 'unclean". In fact Green's Literal Translation intepets it:
Rom 14:14 I know and am persuaded in the Lord Jesus that nothing by itself is common; except to the one deeming anything to be common, it is common.
Are you with me so far? I know you're saying "Well what does it matter?"
It matters because there is another greek word that is rendered "unclean". That word is akathartos. Strongs number 169. That word appears 29 times and is translated "unclean" 28 times and "foul" once.
Still with me? Two words, koinos-common, and akathartos - unclean.
Okay now our chore is to find a verse where the two of them are used together. Thankfully there is such a verse. In fact, there's three of them. Here's the first instance:
Act 10:14 But Peter said, Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean.
Look here. Peter has his vision where God tells him to kill and eat certain animals. Peter's answer indicates that there are TWO types of animals that he would not eat: Common (koinos)and akathartos (unclean). Got it?
So again what did Paul say in Romans 14:14?:
Rom 14:14 I know and am persuaded in the Lord Jesus that nothing by itself is KOINOS; except to the one deeming anything to be KOINOS, it is KOINOS.
Did Paul say there is nothing "akathartos"? Nope. Did Paul say there was nothing "koinos"? Yup.
If Peter was describing two kinds of animals he wouldn't eat, koinos and akathartos, and Paul said nothing is koinos, is it then okay to read into scripture and say nothing is akathartos? I don't think so.
There are STILL akathartos animals. And God still doesn't want us to eat them for more reasons that I can type tonight.
Ok.
The next issue is easier. Romans 14 is all about eating and drinking, the whole focus is on it. But yet some people will take this verse and make the case that the sabbath is done away with.:
Rom 14:5 One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.
Of course the huge problem with this is that the word Sabbath isn't even mentioned in the chapter, or even in the entire book of Romans. If someone wants to read "sabbath" into it they're adding to the word of God.
The obvious answer is that this verse has something to do with eating and/or drinking. Correct?
The best answer is that the verse concerns fasting habits. Many of the jewish Christians thought that fasting on certain days was a requirement for godliness. They would fast twice a week, Mondays and Thursdays if I remember right. This seems to make sense considering the next verse:
Rom 14:6 He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it. He that eateth, eateth to the Lord, for he giveth God thanks; and he that eateth not, to the Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks.
Another explanation is that the meat sacrified to idols might have reminded the new Christians who were formerly pagans of pagan holidays. Either explanation makes more logical sense to me then the idea that Paul was telling people who lived and died by the old testament (the only "testment" they had) and some of whom were Jewish Christains that the word of God was invalid when it came to the 7th day sabbath.
So I hope this is good enough for you. If you would like to disagree with anything I've written please feel free.
I'm interested to know what local congregation website you visited.
Not much has changed from the old Worldwide church of God days-the first thing was the diatribe about Anglo-Israelism, a common teaching of Herbert Armstrong.
This is an interesting subject, but Armstrong wasn't the first one to express the idea that Americans were destined for and blessed by God for greatness. This article from the United Methodist Church outlines how Puritans believed they were "the new Israel". From the article:
Promised Land imagery figured prominently in shaping English colonial thought. The pilgrims identified themselves with the ancient Hebrews. They viewed the New World as the New Canaan. They were God's chosen people headed for the Promised Land. Other colonists believed they, too, had been divinely called. The settlers in Virginia were, John Rolf said, "a peculiar people, marked and chosen by the finger of God."
This doesn't sound too different from Anglo/Israelism.
Do a search for on Google for "Manifest Destiny", or "manifest destiny religion" and you'll find the theme of America being chosen by God as a recurrent theme among many denominations.
We in the US are really Israelites and so Herbert would claim, are to live like Jews under the Old Covenant.
Not really. Jews have much more stricter requirements and do not believe Jesus Christ was the promised messiah. Nobody that I know of in my church believes we are living under the old covenant.
The UCG minister relayed Herberts admonition that ,;;all the world is deceived(except,Guess Who?)
Do you think the majority of the world is Christian? Do you feel Muslims are deceived? How about Taoists? Hindus? Are they worshipping the true God?
The gospel according to the UCG is the Coming Kingdom of God,
The gospel according to Jesus is the coming Kingdom of God:
Mat 4:23 And Jesus went about all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues, and preaching the gospel of the kingdom, and healing all manner of sickness and all manner of disease among the people.
Mat 9:35 And Jesus went about all the cities and villages, teaching in their synagogues, and preaching the gospel of the kingdom, and healing every sickness and every disease among the people.
Mat 24:14 And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.
Mar 1:14 Now after that John was put in prison, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God,
Mar 1:15 And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel.
Mat 6:33 But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you.
I think that any organization that teaches the gospel of the kingdom of God first and foremost is in full agreement with Christ. The goal is the kingdom. Christ is the way. Too many churches today teach a gospel *only* about Jesus Christ the man. While this is important, it's meaningless unless we realize why we let him live in us.
and dietary laws based upon the Old Covenant(I do intend to research that one.)
You're welcome to join in the discussion on Romans 14 already going on here.
But all in all, the website of the local UCG was like a step back into time, to the days when Armstrong and his flying whorehouse were in operation, and that is really scary stuff!
Again I'd like to see that website. I haven't seen anything like you describe granted I haven't visited all the local congregational websites. Most are pretty bland. I am the webmaster for ours: www.ucg-Grandrapids.org
You see, I recognize some of these men as being former Pastors of the WCG, and they were quite happy to shove Herberts garbage down the throats of people. How many good marriages were ruined under WCG,how many suicides? Plenty!!!
Some members of United that were with ww do acknowledge that it had it's "cultish" aspects in the late 60's, early 70's mostly due to a lack of openness and a belief that if you really called by God you would find the church. That loosened up from what I understand. As far as the personal issues you talked about i think more of them happened as a result of Worldwides abandonment of their long held doctrine after the death of Armstrong.
In context Paul is referring to not offending fellow Christians by eating meat that they (the weak) consider to be defiled by idol worship. He makes the case that the "weak" person is the one who believes the meat is defiled by idol contact. The issue wasn't whether or not one could eat animals that were "akathartos", that was a non-issue because no Christian did it or considered it an option, at least in biblical times.
Rom 14:17 for the kingdom of God is not eating and drinking, but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit.
Rom 14:18 For he who serves Christ in these things is well-pleasing to God, and approved by men.
I have no problem with verses because I realize what the context is.
However, if you wish to believe that these verses are talking about unclean (akathartos) animals then the burden, according to scripture, is for YOU, the one of stronger faith, not to eat them if it offends ME, the weaker one.
Rom 14:15 If you are hurting others by the foods you eat, you are not guided by love. Don't let your appetite destroy someone Christ died for.
Rom 14:16 Don't let your right to eat bring shame to Christ.(CEV)
By foods YOU eat. Not food I don't eat. Your appetite might destroy me, so you had better not eat.
Rom 14:21 It is best not to eat meat or drink wine or do anything else that causes problems for other followers of the Lord.
Again if you want to read these verses as meaning that I'm the weak one in faith then if I complain that you're eating pork offends me, you need to stop doing it. It's in the bible. (CEV)
Now you have a choice. You can read Romans 14 as doing away with common (koinos) and not akathartos (unclean) in the context of clean animals being made common by being sacrificed to idols...or you can stop eating stuff that might offend me. :-)
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.