Answering Sean Gerety and the Cowards at the Gordon H. Clark Discussions Facebook Forum Wednesday, Jul 31 2013
Natsarim olivianus 2:21 pm
How many more times am I going to have to learn about Sean Gerety and Co. personally defaming me behind closed doors? Do these men really find themselves impressive while attacking an opponent whose is not allowed to be present to defend himself?
Sean says,
"A friend mentioned Drake Shelton's blog today. I hadn't been there in quite a while, but it seems this unmitigated loon has finally formalized his rejection the Christian faith (something he now calls "heresy'). I know, big surprise.
You can read his latest departure from reality and truth here: http://drakeshelton.com/2013/07/28/christianity-is-heresy-my-formal-renunciation-of-the-christian-religion/"
>>>Sean gives no answer to my arguments. He simply calls me a loon, and punts to his den of Hyenas.
Rob Roy says,
"I've seen this happen to others, and it is very sad. People who come to the realization that Matt. 5:17-19 is true, sometimes swing too far and reject Christianity as a whole — as opposed to rejecting only the doctrine(s) in question."
>>>Since Justin Martyr's Dialogue with Trypho, and the rejection of the Nicene Creed 325, Christianity's rejections of Yah's Law have been foundational . To stay within the bounds of Christianity while keeping Yah's Law and worshiping only one God is dishonest and I'll have none of it.
Ed Garrett says,
"So he is now –what? A gentile OT'er?"
>>>Natsarim.
http://drakeshelton.com/2013/07/07/the-natsarim-the-original-messianic-sect/
Joel Tay says [and he will be the one I am replying to through the duration of the article],
Drake: "1.The first piece of evidence that I present to the reader is the Historical documents that prove that at least a portion of the New Testament was written in Hebrew, not Greek.[1] This is aggravated by the fact that it is undisputed that Messiah and the Apostles spoke Hebrew and Aramaic to their audiences. The modern day Bible translations for English speakers are based on Greek texts which do not fully reflect the meaning of the Hebrew in the way that the Jews would have understood it."
"Reply: First of all, if a portion of the New Testament was written in Hebrew, it does not follow that the Greek is not canonized."
>>>By canonized do you mean inspired? Do you only mean the Greek translation of Matthew? Otherwise I never said that the entire NT was written in Hebrew and I never said all Greek texts are by definition fraudulent.
"(He has also yet to show that it is written in Hebrew)."
>>>I have spent the last month writing these issues out and you pretend to know my position.
http://drakeshelton.com/2013/07/10/was-the-new-testament-originally-written-in-hebrew/
"He then claims it is undisputed that Messiah and the Apostles spoke Hebrew and Aramaic to their audiences. Hebrew was by and large a dead language at that time except to those who were likely scribes, pharisees and those who are well educated."
Josephus (37-100 A.D.) says in Antiquities of the Jews – Book XX.11.2,
"2. I shall now, therefore, make an end here of my Antiquities; after the conclusion of which events, I began to write that account of the war; and these Antiquities contain what hath been delivered down to us from the original creation of man, until the twelfth year of the reign of Nero, as to what hath befallen the Jews, as well in Egypt as in Syria and in Palestine, and what we have suffered from the Assyrians and Babylonians, and what afflictions the Persians and Macedonians, and after them the Romans, have brought upon us; for I think I may say that I have composed this history with sufficient accuracy in all things. I have attempted to enumerate those high priests that we have had during the interval of two thousand years; I have also carried down the succession of our kings, and related their actions, and political administration, without [considerable] errors, as also the power of our monarchs; and all according to what is written in our sacred books; for this it was that I promised to do in the beginning of this history. And I am so bold as to say, now I have so completely perfected the work I proposed to myself to do, that no other person, whether he were a Jew or foreigner, had he ever so great an inclination to it, could so accurately deliver these accounts to the Greeks as is done in these books. For those of my own nation freely acknowledge that I far exceed them in the learning belonging to Jews; I have also taken a great deal of pains to obtain the learning of the Greeks, and understand the elements of the Greek language, although I have so long accustomed myself to speak our own tongue, that I cannot pronounce Greek with sufficient exactness; for our nation does not encourage those that learn the languages of many nations, and so adorn their discourses with the smoothness of their periods; because they look upon this sort of accomplishment as common, not only to all sorts of free-men, but to as many of the servants as please to learn them. But they give him the testimony of being a wise man who is fully acquainted with our laws, and is able to interpret their meaning; on which account, as there have been many who have done their endeavors with great patience to obtain this learning, there have yet hardly been so many as two or three that have succeeded therein, who were immediately well rewarded for their pains."
http://www.sacred-texts.com/jud/josephus/ant-20.htm
As we see from Josephus, Joel has it backwards. It was the educated among the Jews who struggled to learn Greek not the other way around.
As we see, the carpenter who never learned in the schools speaks to Paul,
Acts 26:14 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.'
We see that during the Bar Kochba Revolt Jewish coinage was inscribed with Hebrew.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bar_Kochba_Revolt_coinage
Also the Dead Sea Scrolls contained much Hebrew and were dated up to 318 A.D.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_Sea_Scrolls
There is also the Mishna
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mishna
and the Gemara (Aramaic)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gemara
"Even those who had basic literary ability in Greek numbered 20%. As for the modern Bible Translations being based on Greek Text, first of all, this is because the New Testament authors for a great majority of the time, quoted the Greek Text."
>>>Easy to say when we don't have the Hebrew of Matthew.
"Reply: When Elohim is used with the plural verb, it usually refers to gods (plural). When elohiim (plural ending) is used with a singular verb/adjective, it refers to God. This is basic biblical Hebrew."
>>> Smith's Bible Dictionary,
"The fanciful idea that it referred to the trinity of persons in the Godhead hardly finds now a supporter among scholars. It is either what grammarians call the plural of majesty, or it denotes the fullness of divine strength, the sum of the powers displayed by God."
http://www.htmlbible.com/kjv30/smith/smith1684.htm
Dr. Anthony Buzzard,
"Elohim must rather be explained as an intensive plural, denoting greatness and majesty" (The American Journal of Semitic Language and Literature, 1905, Vol. XXI, p. 208).
"Early dogmaticians were of the opinion that so essential a doctrine as that of the Trinity could not have been unknown to the men of the Old Testament…No modern theologian…can longer maintain such a view. Only an inaccurate exegesis which overlooks the more immediate grounds of interpretation can see references to the Trinity in the plural form of the divine name Elohim, the use of the plural in Genesis 1:26 or such liturgical phrases as three members of the Aaronic blessing of Numbers 6:24-26 and the Trisagion of Isaiah 6:3" (The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, Vol. 12, p. 18).
"The plural form of the name of God, elohim, in the Hebrew Scriptures has often been adduced as proof of the plurality of persons in the Godhead…Such use of Scripture will not be likely to advance the interests of truth, or be profitable for doctrine…The plural of elohim may just as well designate a multiplicity of divine potentialities in the deity as three personal distinctions, or it may be explained as the plural of majesty and excellency. Such forms of expression are susceptible of too many explanations to be used as valid proof texts of the Trinity" (Milton Terry, Biblical Hermeneutics, p. 587).
"Secondly, the Tanakh is not even considered canonical by Jews."
>>> Source?
" John 20:28 was first written in Greek. Drake has not shown otherwise apart from this assertion."
>>>I never said it wasn't written in Greek.
"The Greek grammar does imply the Christian doctrine of a plurality within the Godhead. Is Drake even well verse in Greek Grammar? Or is he just parroting what he hears from others?"
>>>Do you know the difference between an assertion and an argument?
"And perhaps he would like to show a historical church council which teaches four gods."
>>>4th Lateran Council Canon 1
"We firmly believe and openly confess that there is only one true God, eternal and immense, omnipotent, unchangeable, incomprehensible, and ineffable, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost; three Persons indeed but one essense, substance, or nature absolutely simple; the Father (proceeding) from no one, but the Son from the Father only, and the Holy Ghost equally from both, always without beginning and end. The Father begetting, the Son begotten, and the Holy Ghost proceeding; consubstantial and coequal, co-omnipotent and coeternal, the one principle of the universe, Creator of all things invisible and visible, spiritual and corporeal, who from the beginning of time and by His omnipotent power made from nothing creatures both spiritual and corporeal, angelic, namely, and mundane, and then human, as it were, common, composed of spirit and body. The devil and the other demons were indeed created by God good by nature but they became bad through themselves; man, however, sinned at the suggestion of the devil. This Holy Trinity in its common essense undivided and in personal properties divided, through Moses, the holy prophets, and other servants gave to the human race at the most opportune intervals of time the doctrine of salvation."
The one God is then an essence which is one. Then there are three persons as well which may be worshiped. 1 + 3 = 4.
This is why Augustine's De Trintate Chapter 9 is titled, "Chapter 9.—All are Sometimes Understood in One Person."
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf103.iv.i.iii.ix.html
Three persons and one person = 4 persons. This is standard in Trinitarian Theology and is the supposed dividing line between Clark and Van Til. Coming from someone in a forum devoted to Gordon Clark, I am suspicious why you are surprised I would make such an argument.
"Perhaps he is not familiar with Christianities refutation of Plato's fourth person. He needs to brush up on his scholarship."
>>> Christianities? Do you mean Christianity's? Do you mean Plato's third man?
"Feel free to proof me wrong. It seems he has to erect a strawman to attack because he is not able to attack the biblical understanding of the Trinity"
>>>Do you believe Van Til's view of the Trinity is wrong?
I already spoke to this here if you are a Clarkian:
Sean Gerety Comes Out of the Closet
Sean Gerety Unmasked!
Documentation For the Assertion that the Meaning of the Term Homoousios was Misunderstood and Changed in the West
More of Sean Gerety's Van Tilism
"assuming he even understands it (Something I doubt if he is presenting this as Christianity). The Targums in Gen 4:1 teach that Eve understood that her offspring would be God. "I have gotten a man: YHWH (or The Angel of YHWH in some versions)".
>>>Is this seriously an argument? Your complaint here shows just how badly you understand my position. It is my contention that Yahshua and his apostles never spoke against Torah but against the Rabbinc interpretation of the Torah. For you to quote Targum confirms my suspicion that you are still deceived by this. Finally, the Angel of Yah is not the same numeric subject as Yah. I already demonstrated this here:
http://drakeshelton.com/2012/09/23/who-is-it-that-in-isaiah-6/
"who is God himself and in all replaced the messiah with the word Melchizedek in the Dead Sea Scroll understanding him to be divine. One wonders why Drake never ever quotes these. Perhaps it is because they refute his claim that the biblical wordview is foreign to Jewish understanding."
>>>When did I say that "the biblical wordview is foreign to Jewish understanding"?
"Secondly, in the light of progressive revelation, it is not surprising even if the Jews do not understand since it was not revealed to them in its fullness, and also because Jesus Himself said that many did not even believe the OT scriptures. (John 5:44-45)"
>>>Progressive revelation? Oh, you mean Roman Catholicism.
They also did not keep the law, just like you. John 7:19.
"Reply: Another strawman argument. And perhaps he can show us where the rejection of the kosher laws have to do with external affairs of the body. Just name me one church council."
>>>Tell me then your interpretation of Mark 7:18-19. Show me one Church Council that says that the kosher laws were abrogated for another reason than the soul-body dialectic.
"The Talmud was written hundreds of years after the close of the Jewish Canon and after the New Testament. So it should be clear where this error came from. This is very poor scholarship from someone who speaks so highly of himself."
P.S. the shadow-substance view is baseless.
>>>This is hilarious. Ok……sir…the Oral Torah of Rabbinic Judaism is said to begin at the time of Moses and Mt.Sinai and then later transcribed in the Talmud.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oral_Torah
"And about Jesus freeing them from the law, against Drake himself should know that is not what the bible teaches, so to pick on a errant example of a false covert not knowing the bible, he rejects Christianity. He rejects Christianity based on the lifestyle and doctrine of someone who is not even a Christian to begin with?"
>>>That is an assertion. You have not answered the argument. If indeed Christians need not obey law but Spirit, and if actions of the body do not affect the quality of the heart, how do you answer their argument?
"HUH?! That is like me saying that I know a Jew who justifies his pre-marital sex by saying as a Jew, he is part of Israel and will be saved… and for that reason, I reject Judaism. Same moronic logic. Setting up a strawman and then attacking it."
>>>No. That argument would admit that the action was sin and then only later he would receive absolution. The Gnostic Christian argument never admits the sin to begin with.
"Gnostic view of sex? Really? He then quotes, "It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman." (1 Cor 7:1b)"
>>>No I didn't. I never quoted that verse. I was actually referring to vs 27.
"He quotes this half verse, but then fail to mention that the passage then devotes 4 verses to marital sex. And finally, in 1 Cor 7:6, Paul makes it clear that what he is discussing in this context, "Now as a concession, not a command, I say this. I wish that all were as I myself am. But each has his own gift from God, one of one kind and one of another." — was not a commandment from God but his opinion! It was his opinion that "To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is good for them to remain single as I am. But if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to burn with passion. (1 Cor 7:8-9). So much for his distribe against celibacy."
>>>He invokes the word good. You have your doctrine of inspiration all screwed up dude. Do you believe, pursuant to vs 27, "seek not a wife." Do you believe this is a regular command for Christians? Calvin did.
John Calvin, Commentary on 1 Cor 7:26
"26. I think therefore that this is good. While I translate this passage of Paul's writings differently from Erasmus or the Vulgate, ****I at the same time do not differ from them as to its meaning****. They divide Paul's words in such a way, that the same thing is repeated twice. I, on the other hand, make it simply one proposition, and not without authority, for I follow ancient and approved manuscripts, which make it all one sentence, with merely a colon between. The meaning is this: "I think it expedient on account of the necessity, *********with which the saints are always harassed in this life********, that all should enjoy ********the liberty and advantage of celibacy*******, as this would be of advantage to them." There are some, however, that view the term necessity as referring to the age of the Apostle, which was, undoubtedly, full of trouble to the pious: but he appears to me to have had it rather in view to express the disquietude with which the saints are incessantly harassed in the present life. I view it, therefore, *****as extending to all ages********, and I understand it in this way, that the saints are often, in this world, driven hither and thither, and are exposed to many and various tempests, so that their condition appears to be **********unsuitable for marriage********. The phrase so to be, signifies to remain unmarried, or to abstain from marriage."
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/calcom39.xiv.vi.html
Sorry folks, that is Gnosticism simple and plain and is a direct contradiction to natural law.
"And since he is so devoted to the talmud, he would be familiar with this: Talmudic tractate Yevamot (63b). "Here the story is told of the Palestinian teacher Simeon ben Azzai (early second century CE), who preached an eloquent sermon on the duty of procreation. When his colleagues reproached him for not practicing what he preached since he himself was unmarried, he replied: 'What can I do? Mv soul is in love with the Torah. The world can be populated through others. Ben Azzai's vocation as a diligent student of the Torah did not allow him to shoulder the responsibilities of married life. His love of the Torah prevented him from being a proper husband to a human wife. (The idea of the Torah as Israel's bride is found in many Talmudic and Midrashic passages.)" So surprise surprise!!! It is the Talmud here that actually states what Drake criticizes the bible of. What a Hypocrite!"
>>>Where does he say it is good to remain unmarried? Where does he command them to not seek a wife?
"Reply: Christianity rejects the Sabbath? That depends on which Christian group you are referring to. Not all do. Many keep the Saturday Sabbath."
>>>Many? Sabbath Keepers are a fringe among Christians. 9th Commandment Joel!
"Some on a Sunday"
>>>Which ignores my arguments. Acts 20 and 1 Cor 16 rule out Sunday Sabbath. This also makes the Sabbath a principle instead of a day. The Sabbath is a day.
"Some on anyday, etc."
>>>Which makes the Sabbath a Principle and not a day.
"The issue here is not whether it is a creation ordinance or not, but whether it is required now of Gentiles after Christ"
>>>In which case the proof of it being a Creation ordinance instead of something uniquely Jewish would be very relevant.
"He then claims Christians work on the first day of the week. He quotes 1 Cor 16, which discusses the collection of money for the saints."
>>>You are ignorant sir. 1 Cor 16:1-2 is not a public worship service with a public collection.
The fact that this verse is not referring to a worship meeting and public collection on Sunday is seen in the phrase παρ᾽ ἑαυτῷ τιθέτω θησαυρίζων. This is private not public.
Vincent's Word Studies Vol. 3, commenting on this phrase on page 288 says,
"Lay by him in store…Lit., put by himself treasuring. Put by at home."
http://archive.org/stream/cu31924092322548#page/n337/mode/2up
"Firstly, this does not in any way mean that they did not celebrate the sabbath, since the first century church had congregations what worshipped only on Sunday"
>>>Then they were Gnostic Heretics.
"and others that worshipped on Sunday and also practiced a Saturday Sabbath — so proving Sunday work does not mean they work on a saturday sabbath."
>>>True. That still retains the 7th Day Sabbath which Christianity rejects.
"Secondly, If collection of money is work… if church ministry is work… then Judaism's temple priests themselves are guilty of breaking the sabbath."
>>>You don't have a clue what you are talking about dude. I would hate to be you right now. The shame of it.
The Targum writes, "and look upon the carcasses of the men that have transgressed against my word."
Understanding the role of prophesy in the OT and the NT's usage, this is not surprising. The direct context would of course be referring to "the dead bodies of Gog's army, the Turks, that will be slain in their attempt to recover Judea. ( Ezekiel 38:1-39:29 ) or else the carcasses of those that will be slain at the battle at Armageddon, ( Revelation 16:16 ) ( 19:18-21 ) or the army of Gog and Magog, at the end of the thousand years, ( Revelation 20:8 Revelation 20:9 ) The Talmudists… FOOTNOTES: F20 observe from hence, that the wicked, even at the gate of hell, return not by repentance; for it is not said, that "have transgressed", but "that transgress"; for they transgress, and go on for ever; and so indeed the word may be rendered, "that transgress", or "are transgressing" F21; for they interpret it of the damned in hell, as many do; and of whom the following clauses may be understood: for their worm shall not die; with which their carcasses shall be covered, they lying rotting above ground; or figuratively their consciences, and the horrors and terrors that shall seize them, which they will never get rid of.
The Targum is,`their souls shall not die;"as they will not, though their bodies may; but will remain to suffer the wrath of God to all eternity: neither shall their fire be quenched; in hell, as Jarchi interprets it; those wicked men, the followers and worshippers of antichrist, will be cast into the lake which burns with fire and brimstone; they will for ever suffer the vengeance of eternal fire; and the smoke of their torment shall ascend for ever and ever, ( Revelation 14:10 ) ( 19:20 ) : and they shall be an abhorring unto all flesh;
the true worshippers of God, ( Isaiah 66:23 ) to whom their carcasses will be loathsome, when they look upon them; and their souls abominable, because of their wicked actions; and who cannot but applaud the justice of God in their condemnation; and admire distinguishing grace and mercy, that has preserved them from the like ruin and destruction. The Targum is,
"and the ungodly shall be judged in hell, till the righteous shall say concerning them, we have seen enough;"
see ( Mark 9:44 Mark 9:46 Mark 9:48 ) , where our Lord mentions and repeats some of the clauses of this, text, and applies them to the torments of hell.
F20 T. Bab. Erubim, fol. 19. 1. R. Hona in Midrash Tillim in Psal. i. 6."
>>>So your answer is to quote the Targum from john Gill and mention a scripture passage I already refuted in the tract? Wow.
"So If Drake had been so diligent to read up on his ancient Jewish sources like that Targums, he would have come to the conclusion they souls are indeed immortal and do not die."
>>>Yahshua clearly says they do die as do a host of other passages from the Old Testament as I have shown:
http://drakeshelton.com/2013/07/04/conditional-immortality-and-eternal-punishment/
"Once again, extremely sloppy scholarship from Mr. Drake. If he wants to quote Jewish literature, he better know his Jewish literature."
>>>The fact that you think these works represent the Torah only serve to prove my point: Yashua and the Apostles are preaching against Rabbinic Tradition not the Torah.
Triune Theology and Hermeticism Tuesday, Jul 30 2013
Theology Proper and Triadology olivianus 6:04 am
Great find Mark Xu!
Triune Theology is based off of occult materialism with the myth of the Triune Stone. It has no meaning in propositional language. It is only designed to work (not to be confused with making any rational sense) in the phenomenal world.
This comes from the Hermetic writings:
1. THE SOPHIC HYDROLITH,
PSALM 25.
"Who is he that fears the Lord? He will instruct him in the right path."
When you have thus, as it were, devoted yourself to God (who is not mocked), and learned to appreciate justly the aim and scope of this Art, you should, in the first place, strive to realise how Nature, having been set in order by God the Triune, now works invisibly day by day, and moves and dwells in the will of God alone. For no one should set about the study of this Art without a just appreciation of natural processes. Now Nature may truly be described as being one, true, simple, and perfect in her own essence, and as being animated by an invisible spirit…
ISAIAH XXVIII.
"Therefore, thus saith the Lord: Behold I lay in Zion for a foundation a Stone, a tried Stone, a precious corner Stone, a sure foundation. He that has it shall not be confounded."
The numerous writers on our most noble Art have never wearied of singing its praises, and inventing for it new and glorious names. Its most precious object they have called the PHILOSOPHER'S STONE, or the most ancient, secret, natural, incomprehensible, heavenly, blessed, beatified, and triune universal Stone of the Sages. Their reason for naming it a stone, or likening it to a stone, was this: First because its original Matter is really a kind of stone, which, being hard and solid like a stone, may be pounded, reduced to powder, and resolved into its three elements (which Nature herself has joined together), and then again may be re-combined into a solid stone of the fusibility of wax by the skilled hand of the artist adjusting the law of Nature."
http://www.sacred-texts.com/alc/hm1/hm106.htm
2. Rosarium Philosophorum (part 2)
"Rosinus: That is mineral, animal, and vegetable. A mineral Stone, a vegetable Stone, and an animal Stone, three in name but one in essence.
The Spirit is double, that is tincturing and preparing."
http://www.levity.com/alchemy/rosary2.html
Here we even have the Filioque Theology spelled out as well.
Joseph P Farrell put it into this diagram:
This image is based on A Chymicall treatise of the Ancient and highly illuminated Philosopher, Devine and Physitian, Arnoldus de Nova Villa,
"Now will I in the name of God make manifest the practice and the very sense of the Philosophers how one shall perfect that Ellixir, that is the augmentation of the true tincture and of Silver and Gold only out of the Mercury of the Sages, or the minerall Mercury and in all copper bodies which fall short of perfection, insomuch that they become perfect into a perfect Luna and gold above the naturall, which is not that common Mercury, call'd by the Philosophers prima materia, waterish hot moist and cold, an element, a constant water, a Spirit, a body, a swimming smoake, a blessed water, a water of the wise, a vinegar of Philosophers, a dew of Heaven, virgin Milke, a corporeal Mercury, besides others innumerable names whereby he is called in the Bookes of the Philosophers; allthough these names sound variously, yet they signifie but one thing, to witt the aforesaid Mercurium Philosophorum, for out of him, and in him and by him only are sought all the vertues of the whole art of Alchimy, and of the red and white tincture, Q and R."
http://www.levity.com/alchemy/arnaldus_treatise.html
Reply to Matt Singleton Part 3 Monday, Jul 29 2013
Natsarim olivianus 10:05 am
In your article What do Jew mean? A biblical analysis of Judaism I did not see much to respond to relevant to our discussion.
"TrueChurch Christians are those who adhere strictly to the New Covenant."
>>>So having sex with an animal is no longer an immoral action?
"They do depend on the Old Testament to provide their worldview. Fundamental beliefs such as Monotheism, the Name of God (Jehovah), morality (Ten Commandments)"
>>>You stated before Christians are not under the law and now your ethics is the ten commandment? I blush for you and Christianity alike when I read things like this. How could you with a straight face tell people you believe in the Ten Commandments when both of us know you don't believe number 4? I have seen liberal political heads absolutely humiliate Christians on this point on national TV so many times. This is why Christianity is losing power.
"True church Christians recognize the authority of the Old Testament and take it literally. They are grateful to the Jewish people and the Jew who saved their souls. (Jesus Christ) New Testament Christians are included in the line of Abraham spiritually. Though they recognize that they have not replaced Israel."
>>>If you mean that Yah is done with Israel then I disagree with that definition of Replacement but there is a biblical sense:
Romans 11: 17 And if some of the branches be broken off, and thou, being a wild olive tree, wert grafted in among them, and with them partakest of the root and fatness of the olive tree;
19 Thou wilt say then, The branches were broken off, that I might be grafted in.
21 For if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he also spare not thee.
22 Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them which fell, severity; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in his goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off.
23 And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be grafted in: for God is able to graft them in again.
Notice the Gentiles do not get their own tree. They are grafted into the old one. Same Covenant, same religion, same God, same moral law.
"They desire offer Jews the New Covenant by which they may have access to the future resurrection of the dead and have the eternally secure hope of Heaven."
>>>Translated: Christianity demands that Jews abandon most everything Yah told them and become polytheists, Sabbath breakers, swine eaters, blood drinkers, pagan holiday observers, and all around apostates.
"TrueChurch Christianity is Hebrew in their respect for the Old Covenant."
>>>Respect? Is that what you call abrogating most of what it says?
"H. Messianic Jews) Jewish Christians who are faithful to Hebrew culture and followers of Christ."
>>>I already answered Col 2 and Rom 14. See also here:
Excursus on Romans 14:14, 20
Does Romans 14 Abrogate the Kosher Laws?
Refuting the Reformed Christian Interpretation of the "Jewish Feasts"; Col 2:16-17; Gal 4:10; Acts 15:1,5,10
Does Ephesians 2:14-15 Abrogate the Law of Moses?; Eph 2:11-16; Col 2:13-15
"One of the problems is that we have forgotten that the Old and New Covenant are two separate covenant."
>>>There is no such thing. I just showed from Romans 11 that Gentiles are grafted into the same Covenant the Jews were in. Also, Gal 3: 17 And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect.
"The New Covenant not promise a blessed earthly life, neither does the Old Covenant promise eternal salvation."
>>>Heb 11 says that Abraham looked for a city whose builder and maker was God. I am still working on my understanding of eschatology so I will pass by this for now.
"The body of Christ is both Jew and Gentile. But a Jew must follow the law. While a gentile does not need to. Therefore it is a separate covenant."
>>>Circumcision is not the entirety of the law.
"Gal 3:12 And the law is not of faith: but, The man that doeth them shall live in them."
>>>I have never advocated justification through our law keeping.
Replying to Pastor Matt Singleton Part 2 Monday, Jul 29 2013
Natsarim and Uncategorized olivianus 7:30 am
The following is taken from: The Audacity of Adventism
The Mark 2 passages speaks only to what may be done on the Sabbath not whether or not there should be a Sabbath. Thus the quotation is a straw man.
"We see in Jesus' first reaction to the Pharisees that the disciples were not bound to rituals; but to Christ, who was now with them, and it was a time of celebration."
>>>So why do they keep observing the feast days later in the New Testament?
http://drakeshelton.com/2013/07/08/did-yahshua-and-the-apostles-observe-the-feast-days/
"He also declares that there is a new covenant with new rituals about to take place with the new Bottles."
>>>New Covenants do not abrogate old covenants.
Gal 3:17 What I am saying is this: the Law, which came four hundred and thirty years later, does not invalidate a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to nullify the promise.
"The Pharisees try again to bind the apostles with tradition, yet Jesus shows David "the man after God's Own heart" not being enslaved by religion and therefore Christ would not let his followers be enslaved either. The purpose of Sabbath Keeping is not to be burdened, but to in fact set the follower free. That's why you are not supposed to work on the Sabbath."
>>>Wrong. The Scriptures tell us why we observe the Sabbath.
Exo 20:11 For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day and made it holy.
"Rom 14:4 Who art thou that judgest another man's servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up: for God is able to make him stand. 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. 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. Rom 14:7 For none of us liveth to himself, and no man dieth to himself. Rom 14:8 For whether we live, we live unto the Lord; and whether we die, we die unto the Lord: whether we live therefore, or die, we are the Lord's."
>>>This is talking about fast days, not Sabbath days. The word Sabbath appears nowhere I the text.
"Col 2:14 Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross; Col 2:15 And having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a shew of them openly, triumphing over them in it. Col 2:16 Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days: Col 2:17 Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ."
>>>It says "are a shadow of things to come" not WERE shadows of things in the past.
"Heb 4:2-11 For unto us was the gospel preached, as well as unto them: but the word preached did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in them that heard it. For we which have believed do enter into rest, as he said, As I have sworn in my wrath, if they shall enter into my rest: although the works were finished from the foundation of the world. For he spake in a certain place of the seventh day on this wise, And God did rest the seventh day from all his works. And in this place again, If they shall enter into my rest. Seeing therefore it remaineth that some must enter therein, and they to whom it was first preached entered not in because of unbelief: Again, he limiteth a certain day, saying in David, To day, after so long a time; as it is said, To day if ye will hear his voice, harden not your hearts. For if Jesus had given them rest, then would he not afterward have spoken of another day. There remaineth therefore a rest to the people of God. For he that is entered into his rest, he also hath ceased from his own works, as God did from his. Let us labour therefore to enter into that rest, lest any man fall after the same example of unbelief."
>>>Sorry Matt but that is a bad translation. It says in verse 9, "So there remains a Sabbath rest for the people of God". The word there is σαββατισμός.
"The Sabbath was looking forward to a future rest."
>>>That is not what it says. It says, "there remains a Sabbath". The word remains is ἀπολείπω. The word denotes either a present or past action. Never future.
http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G620&t=NASB
"The People of God rested on the seventh Day in order to better understand the hope of salvation. They would labor six days a week illustrating the toils of this life. But the world would under go a seventh dispensation in which we will enter the rest of God."
>>>If you are speaking of eschatological events, I agree with you which is exactly why your interpretation of Colosians 2 is wrong.
"VII. Burn baby burn! Is there an everlasting fire?
Mar 9:43 And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched:
Mar 9:44 Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.
Mar 9:45 And if thy foot offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter halt into life, than having two feet to be cast into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched:
Mar 9:47 And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out: it is better for thee to enter into the kingdom of God with one eye, than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire:
>>>I refuted this in my recent post:
Mat. 10:28 Do not fear those who kill the body but are unable to kill the soul; but rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.
And with reference to Mark 9:43-48, which is used to defend eternal torture, the original reference in Isa. 66:24 reads,
"Then they will go forth and look
On the corpses of the men
Who have transgressed against Me.
For their worm will not die
And their fire will not be quenched;
And they will be an abhorrence to all mankind."
We see that those in Hell are corpses not living bodies being tortured forever.
"Mat 25:46 And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal."
>>>The punishment is eternal in the sense that it is final. No second chance.
"Rev 20:10 And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever."
This is taken from Daniel 7 which clearly shows that they are destroyed:
10 "A river of fire was flowing
And coming out from before Him;
Thousands upon thousands were attending Him,
And myriads upon myriads were standing before Him;
The court sat,
And the books were opened.
11 Then I kept looking because of the sound of the boastful words which the horn was speaking; I kept looking until the beast was slain, and its body was destroyed and given to the burning fire.
The overwhelming consensus of scripture is annihilation. http://drakeshelton.com/2013/07/04/conditional-immortality-and-eternal-punishment/
"Many might argue that the annihilation hell would fulfill the action of burning. However scripture teaches that the unsaved are resurrected.
Joh 5:29 And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.
Therefore they will not perish as they are in a permanent state of destruction.
1Co 15:42 So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption:
Rev 20:14 And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death."
>>>Yes. They are totally destroyed after the resurrection.
Reply to Pastor Matt Singleton Monday, Jul 29 2013
Natsarim olivianus 6:11 am
The following is my response to Baptist Pastor Matt Singleton on my renunciation of Christianity.
Matt complains, that my article is irrational because Christianity was not defined.
Though not directly stated as a definition, I said, "What I am attacking is Christianity's attempts to conform those writings to the Greco-Roman Philosophies of their Gentile Ancestors."
I define Christianity as the religion that conformed the writings and Theology of the New Testament to the Greco-Roman Philosophies of their Gentile ancestors and away from the Hebraic tradition given to Moses by Yah. Now to respond to Matt's article:
Yeshua? Or jesus? Responding to the radical fringe of the messianic/Hebrew roots movement
"Should we be Christian?
Acts 11:26 And when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch. And it came to pass, that a whole year they assembled themselves with the church, and taught much people. And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch.
The word "christian" was a word of derision. It was a word of name calling and humiliation. Yet the first christians put pride in that title regardless because they had no shame in Christ.
In centuries past many would wear that title in vain and cause a great disservice to our Lord. Yet "christ" points us back to Jesus of Nazareth our savior. As the world has gone back to paganism, the word "christian" is growing unpopular again. Not only among communities among atheist and Muslims. But as well from those who claim to be God's chosen. Many in the radical fringe within the Hebrew roots movement, have made the claim that we are to worship Yashua Hamashia and not Jesus Christ. That we are to be messianic Jews and not christian."
>>>I still don't see the argument. I am not simply talking about the word Christian. I am talking about the doctrines that have dominated it. Second, I have never stated that we should worship Yashua Hamashia. I have advocated that prayer should be given to the Father Yah alone.
http://drakeshelton.com/2012/07/21/how-then-should-we-pray-case-studies-in-nicene-triadology-vs-thomistic-and-van-tillian-sabellianism/
"While I'll admit that there are huge groups of apostates that claim the name of Christ yet are apostate… This does not Justify separation from all those who bear his name."
>>>I would like to see this demonstrated. I see no reason how any Christian no matter how conservative, could find fault with anyone's theology or morals when they themselves worship four gods, eat swine, drink blood, teach a pagan view of the soul, the body and sex, reject the Sabbath, and teach eternal torture.
"This movement of rejecting the gentile languages as pagan, is a form of judaizing."
>>>When did I say I rejected Gentile languages?
"It is a means of by passing the age of grace and accumulating religion by self righteousness…
"4 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth."
>>>Notice what it says Matt. It says Christ is the end of the Law FOR RIGHTEOUSNESS, or as a means to attain righteousness. I am in no way advocating that we be justified with God on the basis of our Law keeping. I have never said that.
"The universal Gentile language was Greek, at this time. Jesus and the apostles were likely to be completely conversant in this dialogue."
>>>This is an assertion not an argument. Where is the Scripture for this? What language did Yahshua speak to Paul? Hebrew!
And I have already shown that it is undisputed that Matthew was written in Hebrew.
"So it is obvious that Luke wrote in Greek."
>>>I'll have to look into that. But even if it was, Christianity has interpreted the scriptures through Greek Philosophy not the Old Testament. That is issue here. It is not merely semantics.
"The Gospels were originally written in Greek, the common lingua franca (common or commercial language among diverse peoples) of the Roman Orient. No original Gospels have been found in Aramaic; the only known Aramaic Gospels are translations from Greek versions. The general consensus is that the Gospel according to Matthew was written particularly for Jews; the Gospel according to Mark was written particularly for Romans; the Gospel according to Luke was written particularly for Greeks; and the Gospel according to John was written for everyone." conservapedia The gospels"
>>>Refuse to acknowledge the facts if you like Matt. Your quotation says, "The Gospels were originally written in Greek". That is flat wrong. Matthew was written in Hebrew. That is undisputed. http://drakeshelton.com/2013/07/10/was-the-new-testament-originally-written-in-hebrew/
"D. How would a Jew (Peter), speak to the Romans?
Aramaic and Hebrew simply were inadequate for Italians, yet it is doubtful peter would have mastered Latin. The point of contact is obviously through the Greek language.
E. Why are Hebrew names given a Greek accent?
They would use the greek accent of Isaiah (esaias) . Because these jews spoke Greek and were more familiar with the Greek than in the Hebrew.
F. Was the Logos in the beginning?
The "logos" is a major concept with the greeks and platonist of this day and age. It even has messianic overtones. If this were Hebrew it would not make such a connection."
>>>I got that and I will take it into consideration. Why don't you start actually addressing my arguments now?
"Why would God use a different language?
Isaiah 28:11 For with stammering lips and another tongue will he speak to this people."
>>>When have I stated that I am against other languages? I am concerned with the meanings.
"Are Christians under the law?
>>>This is talking about a function of the law as a means to attain righteousness per Romans 10, not the law itself. It is not talking about the Law in Substance but in mode.
So you are seriously suggesting that Christians may now have sex with animals, commit adultery, murder and worship other gods? By no means. The New Testament defines sin by saying:
1 John 3:4 sin is the transgression of the law.
Looks to me like Christians are still under the law as a moral guide.
"Is Jesus lord of the Gentiles as well?"
>>>When have I stated that Yahshua is not Lord of the Gentiles?
"The point here is obvious. jesus name was spoken in many languages and dialects in his life. He was meant for His name to be spoken among all people Jesus is the savior of the World."
>>>So where is the J in the Hebrew alphabet?
Christianity is Heresy; My formal renunciation of the Christian Religion Sunday, Jul 28 2013
Mat 5:17 "Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill. 18 For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished.
Acts 21:17 "After we arrived in Jerusalem, the brethren received us gladly. 18 And the following day Paul went in with us to James, and all the elders were present. 19 After he had greeted them, he began to relate one by one the things which God had done among the Gentiles through his ministry. 20 And when they heard it they began glorifying God; and they said to him, "You see, brother, how many thousands there are among the Jews of those who have believed, and they are all zealous for the Law; 21 and they have been told about you, that you are teaching all the Jews who are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children nor to walk according to the customs. 22 What, then, is to be done? They will certainly hear that you have come. 23 Therefore do this that we tell you. We have four men who are under a vow; 24 take them and purify yourself along with them, and pay their expenses so that they may shave their heads; and all will know that there is nothing to the things which they have been told about you, but that you yourself also walk orderly, keeping the Law. 25 But concerning the Gentiles who have believed, we wrote, having decided that they should abstain from meat sacrificed to idols and from blood and from what is strangled and from fornication." 26 Then Paul took the men, and the next day, purifying himself along with them, went into the temple giving notice of the completion of the days of purification, until the sacrifice was offered for each one of them."
Acts 25: 8 Paul said in his own defense, "I have committed no offense either against the Law of the Jews or against the temple or against Caesar."
Drake Shelton
drakeshelton.com
The Christian religion claims to be the fulfillment of the writings of Moses and the Prophets of the Tanakh. However, I have spent the last 14 years of my life realizing that it bears little to no resemblance of the religion handed down to Moses and the Prophets of the Tanakh. Before I begin I want to assure the reader that I am not in any way, attacking the original writings of Yahshua Ha Mashiach (A.K.A. Jesus Christ), or the Apostle Paul. What I am attacking is Christianity's attempts to conform those writings to the Greco-Roman Philosophies of their Gentile Ancestors.
1.The first piece of evidence that I present to the reader is the Historical documents that prove that at least a portion of the New Testament was written in Hebrew, not Greek.[1] This is aggravated by the fact that it is undisputed that Messiah and the Apostles spoke Hebrew and Aramaic to their audiences. The modern day Bible translations for English speakers are based on Greek texts which do not fully reflect the meaning of the Hebrew in the way that the Jews would have understood it.
2. One of the primary examples of this is the Christian doctrine of God. The Hebrew word Elohim was the generic word for God in the Tanakh. However, this word was also used to refer to the false gods of the nations, idols, departed spirits, angels, and men.[2] It did not necessarily refer to the Almighty. This is significant when Christians use John 20:28 to justify the existence of another god in the Christian heresy of the Godhead. There is no such concept in the Tanakh. Traditional Christianity essentially teaches four gods.
Ultimately, the one God is a Pantheistic Monad from which all things emanate. Immediately emanating from the Monad is the Father and the Son and then the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son. Thus, the Monad (primary God) manifests itself as three subordinate gods. This is a radical departure from the Tanakh and even from Christianity's own early tradition. In the original Nicene Creed (325) we read, "We believe in one God, the Father almighty". It does not say that the one God is an abstract Monad or a Trinity. The only time the New Testament uses the Greek word Theos or in English God, and attaches a numeric value to it (Thus a monotheistic context), it is referring to the Father; never to the Son or Spirit.[3] And the fact remains, the one God is never said to be a divine nature. The Bible never refers to the one God as three persons or an essence, but always one person.[4] This person has a name. It is not the generic term God. It is not Holy Trinity. It is Yah; one person.
3. Christians believe that what matters is the soul not the external affairs of the body which is why they reject the Kosher Laws. This is due to their ignorance of the Talmudic category of Common Foods which they have confused with Unclean Foods. Modern English translations do even more to aid this misunderstanding by adding to the Greek text in Mark 7 and mistranslating Mark 7 and Romans 14. This spiritual-physical dialectic was the foundation upon which the Cathar heretics and other Gnostic groups justified their rejection of the physical world and as such some Cathars even took this to mean that free sex was permitted because what happens with the body is irrelevant to the soul. I have personally known Christians who justified their sin of pre-marital sex by saying that Jesus freed them from law.
4. This leads me to the next point. Christianity teaches a Gnostic view of sex. Due to their misunderstanding of 1 Cor. 7, Christians teach that it is good for a man to be unmarried. This is in direct contradiction to Gen. 2:18 "It is not good for the man to be alone; I will make him a helper suitable for him." Yet the Christian tradition has taught the exact opposite. It glorifies the Monastic and Ascetic life which is traditional in Pagan cultures. Paul says in 1 Cor. 7, "26 I think then that this is good in view of the present distress, that it is good for a man to remain as he is. 27 Are you bound to a wife? Do not seek to be released. Are you released from a wife? Do not seek a wife. 28 But if you marry, you have not sinned; and if a virgin marries, she has not sinned. Yet such will have trouble in this life, and I am trying to spare you. 29 But this I say, brethren, the time has been shortened…"
You see, the Corinthian believers were under persecution and were constantly in need of retreat. It would have been difficult for a man to flea persecution with a wife and small children. Paul's prescriptions in this Chapter were specifically for this period and not general rules for all believers in all times.
5. Christianity rejects the Sabbath, the 4th Commandment written with the finger of God. The Sabbath is a creation ordinance (Gen. 2:3). It is as natural as heterosexual marriage (Gen. 2:24, Mat. 19:4-5), the headship of the man over the woman (1 Cor. 11:3), man's dominion over all creation (Gen. 1:26,28) and labor (Gen. 2:15). The Sabbath pre-dates the Jewish Commonwealth by many centuries. The Sabbath Commandment; or the Fourth Commandment of the Decalogue, is clearly in the context of nine other moral commandments. The idea that the 4th Commandment is now expired is a violation of the first principle of Biblical interpretation: Context. Some Christians think Sunday is the new Sabbath. It is a common assumption that the apostles met for sacramental worship on Sunday; yet this is not true. Acts 20:11 says, "When he had gone back up and had broken the bread and eaten, he talked with them a long while until daybreak, and then left." As we can see the breaking of bread was not sacramental. Moreover, Acts 2:42-47 says that the disciples met daily to hear the apostle's doctrine, for worship and for breaking bread. Thus, the fact that they met on the first day of the week does not constitute a new Sabbath, otherwise every day of the week would be a Sabbath according to Acts 2:46-47. Also, in Acts 20 Paul was preparing to travel in the daytime on the first day of the week (Days begin with evenings. See Gen. 1), necessarily inferring that he did not regard it as a Sabbath. Moreover, in 1 Cor. 16:1, 2 Paul commanded work to be done on the first day of the week. If the first day of the week was the Christian Sabbath, then Paul should have commanded them to prepare on another day other than Sunday. As a side note, for the first few centuries of Christian history, worship was conducted on the 7th day Sabbath. It was the Roman and Alexandrian tradition that changed this.[5]
6. The final problem is that Christianity teaches the innate immortality of the soul. Pagans believe in an eternal process of reincarnation, and past lives. This is grounded in their idea of the immortality of the soul. The destructive influence of this error is made manifest in the Christian doctrine of Hell which has influenced many to reject Messiah. The Scriptures teach that in Hell, Yah destroys the souls of wicked men. It does not say he tortures them forever. Yahshua said,
In conclusion, it is inexcusable, but understandable, why the Jews have rejected Messiah for so long. Can the religion that claims to fulfill theirs be a religion of four gods, of swine eating, blood drinking, the celebration of pagan holidays, prayers to statues, a pagan view of the soul, the body and sex, a rejection of the Sabbath, and a doctrine of eternal torture? Not to mention that Christian Theologians like John Chrysostom in his Eight Homilies Against the Jews, which was championed during the Nazi regime, have advocated pure hatred towards these people. The answer is simple: NO.
[1]The Panarion of Epiphanius of Salamis. Nazoraeans, 29. Against Nazoraeans: 9,4; Eusebius, Church History (Book III), C 24.6, C 39.16; (Book V), C 10.3; Edward Gibbon and Peter Eckler, History of Christianity, 185-186
[2]Exo. 7:1, 21:6, 22:8, 9, Deut. 10:17, 1 Sam. 2:25, Psa. 45:6, 7, 82:1, 82:6, 136:2, 138:1
[3]John 17:1-3, 1 Cor. 8:6
[4]Deut. 32:39 , 2 Kings 19:19, Neh. 9:6, Psa. 83:18, 86:10, Isa. 40:25, 43:10, 44:6-8, 45:5,18, 22, 46:5,9, 61:4, 64:6, Joel 2:27
[5]Socrates Scholasticus, Church History (Book V), Chapter 22; Sozomen, Ecclesiastical History (Book VII), Chapter 19
David Stern Answers Seriously Difficult Issues Concerning Circumcision Friday, Jul 26 2013
The following is taken from Jewish New Testament Commentary by David H. Stern, Commentary on Galatians 5:2-4:
"It cannot be emphasized too strongly that the message of these verses is directed to Gentiles, specifically to Gentiles who have been told by the Judaizers that they not only must believe in Yeshua but also must become Jews in order to be acceptable to God. A Gentile who heeds them and gets circumcised loses the advantage of the Messiah and has fallen away from God's grace precisely because he is trying to be declared forensically righteous by God (2:16aN, 2:21N) through legalism (literally, 'by law'; see 2:16bN).
The truth, says Sha'ul, is that now that the Messiah has come, a Gentile becomes part of God's expanded people, the Messianic Community, through trusting in God and his Son. This entails his turning from sin, seeking God's forgiveness, and being immersed [I don't agree with that. He means Baptism, but he is reading the Mikveh into the NT and I don't think it is there in the OT for him to read it back into mode of Baptism.-DS] into the Messiah (3:27&N). But it does not entail his becoming Jewish. So if he turns back to the earlier procedure for joining the people of God, he is denying the Messiah and the new procedure which he has inaugurated. [That is not to say that anything from the Torah has been changed, but something has been added to it to accommodate the new Gentile element which implied peoples that lived in a different land and culture.-DS] …
But none of this applies to Jewish believers. Sha'ul himself circumcised the Messianic Jew Timothy (Ac 16:1-3&NN). [Assuming him a Jew because of his Mother.-DS] His actions during his last visit to Jerusalem were directed specifically at disproving the false charge that he told Jewish believers not to have their children circumcised (Ac 21:20-27&NN). The New Covenant through Yeshua no more cancels b'rit-milah, the 'covenant of circumcision' established by God with Avraham (Genesis 17:9-12), than the Sinai covenant through Moshe cancels God's promises to Avraham (3:15-18).
Thus it is any Gentile man who gets himself circumcised as a result of heeding the Judaizers who is obligated to observe the entire Torah. [Specifically, the Covenant of Works.-DS]…
When Sha'ul wrote, a Gentile initiated into God's people Israel had to (1) immerse himself in a mikveh for ritual purification , (2) offer a sacrifice at the Temple (a requirement which ended when the Temple was destroyed) and, if a man, (3) be circumcised. In other words, circumcision is part of an initiation rite which makes a Gentile part of the Jewish community. At that point he ceases to be a Gentile, becomes a Jew and voluntarily obligates himself to do everything a Jew is expected to do…
Today if a Gentile becomes an Orthodox Jew, he obligates himself to obey the Torah as expounded in Orthodox Judaism, with the details of halakhah as developed in the Oral Torah. A Conservative Jewish proselyte is expected to obey halakhah, but with the interpretive variations developed in that movement…
Could a Gentile believer, one not influenced by Judaizers or attempting to gain favor with God through legalistic works but sincerely wanting to join the Jewish people, convert to Messianic Judaism, get circumcised, and obligate himself to follow the Torah as Messianic Judaism expounds it without falling away from God's grace? In principle, I believe he could, although such a person would be the rare exception and not the rule…
Given that no Gentile needs to become Jewish in order to be saved (Ac 15:1-29), why would a Gentile Christian want to convert to Judaism?…If a Gentile Christian's fear of God includes not only a commitment to the Jewish people, including the desire to serve God and his Messiah as a Jew, does the New Testament allow him to convert to Judaism?
if a Gentile Christian wants to identify fully with the Jewish people, the New Testament in principle would permit him to become a Jew. He should accept the whole Torah as understood in the form of Judaism to which he is converting…except where it conflicts with the New Covenant…
In sum, Sha'ul in these verses is not addressing the Gentile believer who sincerely wants to cast in his lot with the Jewish people, but the Judaized Gentile, who undergoes circumcision because he thinks that by this legalistic work of his own he gains entry to God's 'in-group' and attains a higher spiritual level of being. Verse 3 warns Gentiles influenced by the Judaizers that if they undergo conversion to Judaism, they obligate themselves to become Jewish completely, and at the same time they lose the benefits of having supposedly trusted in the Messiah. The Judaizers downplayed this obligation to obey the Torah because they didn't obey it themselves (6:12-13). But an instruction dealing with a specific problem cannot be generalized to apply to everyone everywhere throughout all time. Sha'ul does not absolutely rule out all Gentile conversion to Messianic Judaism, even though at present it is impractical."
This answers all the primary problems I have had. Yahshua said he didn't come to do away with a single jot or tittle of the law. Acts 21 shows that Paul did not do away with circumcision. Jewish people are to circumcise their children. Acts 25:8 says that Paul did not violate the Jewish law once. But what about the Gentile law to circumcise in Exodus 12? It still remains. If a Gentile believer in Messiah wants to become a Jew and formally enter into the Jewish Community, he should be circumcised. But if a Gentile believer on Messiah has no contact with ethnic Jews and doesn't care to become a Jew, he doesn't have to. Belief upon Messiah does not mean abandoning your race and racial culture.
This also means that Baptism is indeed the Covenant sign for the later case of Gentiles. I then see no reason to modify anything I have written on Baptism.
Some Questions for "Educated" Secularists Friday, Jul 26 2013
Atheism olivianus 11:53 am
I am having a conversation with some folks over new legislation in Kentucky's Department of Education. This is for my own convenience.
What is a sensation and how does sensation produces abstract thought?
How do you identify numeric substances?
How does Science not commit the fallacy of asserting the consequent (Induction)?
How can Mathematics be justified from the Monistic view of Physical reality?
How do we determine Good from Evil?
If knowledge is only particular experience how do we know about universal ethical norms?
If everything is constantly changing how do we justify universal ethical norms like universal equality, and the moral condemnation of slavery and racism?
Does your interpretation of the Golden Rule imply that a Warden, in charge of executing a convicted Serial killer, should release the Serial killer, because if the Warden were in the place of the Serial killer, and the Serial killer in the place of the Warden, the Warden would desire freedom?
How can the abstract concept of a moral person be produced from sensation?
How is a decision just if it is not unanimous if all people are sovereign unto themselves….How can the decision be just if it violates the sovereignty of the individual?
Where does a Government or anyone get the authority to coerce someone else? By what right does a majority coerce a minority?
Is the majority decision distinct from common good? If so what is the distinction?
By what right does a Social Contract coerce the children of the original body politic to contract and surrender their rights and become a member of the body politic, whatever that means?
What is a Nation?
These issues are memorized off the top of my head with these wierd acronyms that happen to work for me.
Saimz
Sensation, Aristotle's numeric identity, Induction, Mathematics and numbers justified from the material world, Zeno's Paradox
Huctuag
Huperousia anthropology, Universals, Change, Teleological Ethics, Utilitarian Ethics, Ateleological Ethics, the Golden Rule
Muccon
Moral Person, Unanimous Decision, Common Good, Coercion, Original contracting body, Nation-What is it?
Acts 15, Acts 16 and Circumcision Thursday, Jul 25 2013
Acts 15-NASB
1 Some men came down from Judea and began teaching the brethren, "Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved."
I have pointed out that the phrase "according to the custom of Moses" may be alluding to the Talmud. Even if it did, I don't think there would be much significance of this when the context is taken into consideration. The context of this Chapter is a contrast between the Covenant of Works and the Covenant of Grace. Do we earn our own salvation through meritorious works or receive our regeneration through faith in someone else's works? The context is not circumcision vs. uncircumcision. The question here concerns why someone wants to be circumcised not IF they are. The heresy being condemned was something akin to Baptismal Regeneration or in the Roman Church, the doctrine of Ex opere operato.
2 And when Paul and Barnabas had great dissension and debate with them, the brethren determined that Paul and Barnabas and some others of them should go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and elders concerning this issue. 3 Therefore, being sent on their way by the church, they were passing through both Phoenicia and Samaria, describing in detail the conversion of the Gentiles, and were bringing great joy to all the brethren. 4 When they arrived at Jerusalem, they were received by the church and the apostles and the elders, and they reported all that God had done with them. 5 But some of the sect of the Pharisees who had believed stood up, saying, "It is necessary to circumcise them and to direct them to observe the Law of Moses."
6 The apostles and the elders came together to look into this matter. 7 After there had been much debate, Peter stood up and said to them, "Brethren, you know that in the early days God made a choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles would hear the word of the gospel and believe.
The second issue we need to understand is that the question concerned how circumcision related to the Gentiles. If indeed circumcision is being abrogated in this Chapter, it is only being abrogated for Gentiles not Jews.
8 And God, who knows the heart, testified to them giving them the Holy Spirit, just as He also did to us; 9 and He made no distinction between us and them, cleansing their hearts by faith. 10 Now therefore why do you put God to the test by placing upon the neck of the disciples a yoke which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear? 11 But we believe that we are saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, in the same way as they also are."
See, the issue here is salvation, not whether or not someone should be circumcised. He is saying the say thing as Paul in Romans 4:10
How then was it credited? While he was circumcised, or uncircumcised? Not while circumcised, but while uncircumcised
The heart is cleansed by faith, not by works. It is the Covenant of Works, a certain function of the Law, that Peter mentions as being an unbearable burden, not the Law itself. The reason we know this is because we read of so many who kept the Law blamelessly.
Luke 1: 5 In the days of Herod, king of Judea, there was a priest named Zacharias, of the division of Abijah; and he had a wife from the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elizabeth.6 They were both righteous in the sight of God, walking blamelessly in all the commandments and requirements of the Lord.
That included circumcision folks.
In Psalm 119 David repeats over and again how he loved Yah's Law. It was not a burden to him.
12 All the people kept silent, and they were listening to Barnabas and Paul as they were relating what signs and wonders God had done through them among the Gentiles.
13 After they had stopped speaking, James answered, saying, "Brethren, listen to me.14 Simeon has related how God first concerned Himself about taking from among the Gentiles a people for His name. 15 With this the words of the Prophets agree, just as it is written, 16 'After these things I will return, And I will rebuild the tabernacle of David which has fallen, And I will rebuild its ruins, And I will restore it, 17 So that the rest of mankind may seek the Lord, And all the Gentiles who are called by My name,' 18 Says the Lord, who makes these things known from long ago. 19 Therefore it is my judgment that we do not trouble those who are turning to God from among the Gentiles, 20 but that we write to them that they abstain from things contaminated by idols and from fornication and from what is strangled and from blood.21 For Moses from ancient generations has in every city those who preach him, since he is read in the synagogues every Sabbath."
From Exo 34:15, Lev 17:1-7, Lev 7:28-36, 1 Cor 10:19-21, 25-28, and Rev 2:14, 20, it is morally sinful for anyone to eat meat knowingly sacrificed to an idol in both the Old and the New Covenant. The distinction Paul gives concerns one's liberty when eating with other Gentiles and the meat may or may not have been sacrificed to an idol (You do not know and Paul forbids you to ask). Paul wants to avoid offenses as much as possible but if it is made known to you that meat was sacrificed to an idol you are morally obliged to abstain.
James gave an exposition on fine points of the Law that Gentile converts might not understand. Only fine points are clarified here because the Gentiles would receive regular training in the Torah as he mentions, "For Moses from ancient generations has in every city those who preach him, since he is read in the synagogues every Sabbath."
Notice there is no mention of circumcision being abrogated in James' judgment. And I find it entertaining how insane Christian Theologians drive themselves considering the first few verses of the next Chapter.
Acts 16:1-3
1 Paul came also to Derbe and to Lystra. And a disciple was there, named Timothy, the son of a Jewish woman who was a believer, but his father was a Greek, 2 and he was well spoken of by the brethren who were in Lystra and Iconium. 3 Paul wanted this man to go with him; and he took him and circumcised him because of the Jews who were in those parts, for they all knew that his father was a Greek.
Calvin,
"3. He circumcised him, because of the Jews. Luke doth plainly express that Timothy was not circumcised, because it was necessary it should be so, or because the religion of that sign did continue as yet, but that Paul might avoid an offense. Therefore there was respect had of men, whereas the matter was free before God. [Directly contradictory to Gal 2:14-DS] Wherefore, the circumcising of Timothy was no sacrament, as was that which was given to Abraham and his posterity, (Genesis 17:13;) but an indifferent ceremony which served only for nourishing of love, and not for any exercise of godliness.
Now, the question is, whether it were lawful for Paul to use a vain sign, whose signification and force was abolished; for it seemeth a vain thing when there is a departure made from the institution of God. But circumcision was commanded by God to continue only until the coming of Christ. To this question I answer, that circumcision did so cease at the coming of Christ, that, notwithstanding the use thereof was not quite abolished by and by; but it continued free, until all men might know that Christ was the end of the law, by the more manifest revelation of the light of the gospel.
For circumcision was not in the same place wherein the sacrifices were, which were ordained for the purging [expiating] of sins. Wherefore it was lawful for Paul to circumcise Timotheus; it had not been lawful for him to offer a sacrifice for sin."
First, the passage is not saying that Timothy was a past disciple of Paul, who was taught by Paul not be be circumcised, but only received circumcision to please the Jews. Paul had just arrived to Derbe and Lystra and had just met Timothy. This is Timothy's first mention in Scripture. The Jews in town knew he was a Gentile and was not circumcised. They brought this to Paul's attention and Paul circumcised him.
Secondly, Really? Not lawful to offer sacrifice for sin? Let me introduce the reader to possibly the most devastating Scripture verse against Christianity:
Calvin comments in desperation,
"26. Whereas some accuse Paul of subtilty, as if he did play the hypocrite, I have before refuted this. Yet I do not deny but that he granted to do thus much at the request of the brethren, being thereunto in a manner enforced. Therefore, it hath more color, and is (as they say) more disputable, that he was too easily entreated, and too ready to obey; and yet I do not admit that which some men say, that it went not well with Paul, because, taking upon him a new and unwonted person, he did not so constantly, as he was wont, maintain the liberty purchased by Christ. I confess, indeed, that God doth oftentimes punish foolish purposes with unhappy success; but I see not why this should be applied to Paul, who through voluntary subjection sought to win the favor of the rude, and such as were not thoroughly instructed, that he might do them good; being about to do that not willingly, but because he had rather yield to the brethren than stick to his own judgment."[1]
He mentions nothing of the Sacrifice folks. Nothing. His interpretation of Acts 16:1-3 depends on his idea that to offer sacrifice for sins is absolute Judaizing not circumcision. Yet here we have Paul, under a Nazarite vow (Num 6:13-20[2]) offering a sin offering. Gill, Henry, and Poole admit it in their commentaries. Paul took this vow specifically to deny the accusation that he was against circumcision. That is the check mate. Game, set , match.
Continuing with Calvin's interpretation of Acts 16:
"This is, indeed, a general thing, that all the worship of the law did cease at the coming of Christ, (because it was to continue but for a time,) as touching faith and conscience; but concerning the use we must know this, that it is indifferent, and left in the liberty of the godly for a short time, so far as it was not contrary to the confession of faith. We must note the shortness of time whereof I speak, to wit, until the plain manifestation of the Gospel; because some learned men are grossly deceived in this point, who think that circumcision doth yet take place among the Jews; whereas Paul teacheth, that it is superfluous when we are buried with Christ by baptism, (Colossians 2:11,12.) It was better and more truly said in the old proverb, That the synagogue was to be buried with honor.
Now it resteth that we declare how far forth the use of circumcision was indifferent. That shall easily appear by the manner of the liberty. Because the calling of the Gentiles was not as yet generally known, it was meet that the Jews should have some prerogative granted them. Therefore, until it might be better known that the adoption was deducted from the lineage and kindred of Abraham unto all the Gentiles, it was lawful, so far as edification did require, to retain the sign of difference. For seeing that Paul would not circumcise Titus, and doth avouch that the same was well done, (Galatians 2:3,) it followeth that it was not lawful to use this ceremony always and without choice. Therefore they were to have respect unto edification, and unto the public commodity of the Church. Because he could not circumcise Titus, unless he would betray the doctrine of the Gospel, and lay himself open to the slanders of the adversaries, he abstained from the free use of the ceremony, which he did use in Timotheus, when he saw that it was profitable for the Church."
So the way Calvin explains why Timothy was circumcised and Titus was not, was because during the time of Timothy, Yah's movement from Jew to Gentile had not yet been fully known. This seems arbitrary. Does he have any Scripture for it? Nope. The explanation that I have always received from Christians is that the "Ceremonial Law" was abrogated when Yahshua died and the veil of the Temple was ripped apart. As a matter of fact this is exactly Calvin's view as we see from his Commentary on Mat 27:51:
"Nor was it proper that the veil should be rent, until the sacrifice of expiation had been completed; for then Christ, the true and everlasting Priest, having abolished the figures of the law, opened up for us by his blood the way to the heavenly sanctuary, that we may no longer stand at a distance within the porch, but may freely advance into the presence of God. For so long as the shadowy worship lasted, a veil was hung up before the earthly sanctuary, in order to keep the people not only from entering but from seeing it, (Exodus 26:33; 2 Chronicles 3:14.) Now Christ, by blotting out the handwriting which was opposed to us, (Colossians 2:14,) removed every obstruction, that, relying on him as Mediator, we may all be a royal priesthood, (1 Peter 2:9.) Thus the rending of the veil was not only an abrogation of the ceremonies which existed under the law, but was, in some respects, an opening of heaven, that God may now invite the members of his Son to approach him with familiarity."[3]
Calvin can't keep his story straight.
John Gill admits his desperation concerning Acts 16:3:
"and took and circumcised him:
which may seem strange, when there had been so lately a controversy in the church at Antioch about circumcision, from whence the apostle was just come; and when this matter had been debated and determined by the apostles and elders at Jerusalem, where he was present, and he was now carrying about their decrees… thus the apostle to the Jews became a Jew, that he might gain and save some, ( 1 Corinthians 9:20 )".[4]
Gill's use of 1 Cor. 9:20 is refuted by Gal 2:14.
Matthew Henry on Acts 16:3,
"That Paul took him and circumcised him, or ordered it to be done. This was strange. [Only in your Neoplatonic mind Mr. Henry.-DS] Had not Paul opposed those with all his might that were for imposing circumcision upon the Gentile converts? Had he not at this time the decrees of the council at Jerusalem with him, which witnessed against it? He , had, and yet circumcised Timothy, not, as those teachers designed in imposing circumcision, to oblige him to keep the ceremonial law, but only to render his conversation and ministry passable, and, if it might be, acceptable among the Jews that abounded in those quarters. [Which he condemned Peter for in Gal 2-DS] He knew Timothy was a man likely to do a great deal of good among them, being admirably qualified for the ministry, if they were not invincibly prejudiced against him; and therefore, that they might not shun him as one unclean, because uncircumcised, he took him and circumcised him. Thus to the Jews he became as a Jew, that he might gain the Jews, and all things to all men, that he might gain some. He was against those who made circumcision necessary to salvation, but used it himself when it was conducive to edification; nor was he rigid in opposing it, as they were in imposing it. "[5]
Then why didn't he become a Jew in Galatians 2? If Henry is going to admit that those who deny that circumcision saves, yet retain the use of circumcision, are justified in using it, then the Messianic position is the safest position to hold here. We have the Judaizers on one side saying circumcision saves and the Christian religion with all its thousands of denominational failures on the other saying circumcision is abrogated. The safe position is denying both views and affirming the lawful use of circumcision but denying it is Ex opere operato.
[1] http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/calcom37.ix.iv.html
[2] http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Num%206:13-20&version=NASB
[3] http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/calcom33.ii.xlii.html
[4] http://www.biblestudytools.com/commentaries/gills-exposition-of-the-bible/acts-16-3.html
[5] http://www.biblestudytools.com/commentaries/matthew-henry-complete/acts/16.html
Christianity's Heretical Interpretation of 1 Corinthians 7 Wednesday, Jul 24 2013
Mat 5: 17 "Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill. 18 For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished. 19 Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
1 Cor 7: 12 But to the rest I say, not the Lord…17 Only, as the Lord has assigned to each one, as God has called each, in this manner let him walk. And so I direct in all the churches. 18 Was any man called when he was already circumcised? He is not to become uncircumcised. Has anyone been called in uncircumcision? He is not to be circumcised. 19 Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but what matters is the keeping of the commandments of God. 20 Each man must remain in that condition in which he was called…25 Now concerning virgins I have no command of the Lord, but I give an opinion…26 I think then that this is good in view of the present distress, that it is good for a man to remain as he is. 27 Are you bound to a wife? Do not seek to be released. Are you released from a wife? Do not seek a wife. 28 But if you marry, you have not sinned; and if a virgin marries, she has not sinned. Yet such will have trouble in this life, and I am trying to spare you. 29 But this I say, brethren, the time has been shortened…31 and those who use the world, as though they did not make full use of it; for the form of this world is passing away.
Calvin comments on 1 Cor 7:26,
"There are some, however, that view the term necessity as referring to the age of the Apostle, which was, undoubtedly, full of trouble to the pious: but he appears to me to have had it rather in view to express the disquietude with which the saints are incessantly harassed in the present life. I view it, therefore, as extending to all ages, and I understand it in this way, that the saints are often, in this world, driven hither and thither, and are exposed to many and various tempests, so that their condition appears to be unsuitable for marriage. The phrase so to be, signifies to remain unmarried, or to abstain from marriage."[1]
First, the Greek word for present in vs. 26 is ἐνίστημι (enistēmi). It never means a long duration extending or a continual existence. It refers to an immediate and present reality.[2] Though riddled with some surrounding error, the celebrated Reformed Commentators admit this:
1. Gill's exposition of vs. 26, though mixed with some error, unveils it all,
"because of the necessity of the time", or season: using the very Greek word in text; as the Targumists also have frequently adopted it into their language, and use the phrase (yqea tev) , "an hour, or time of necessity", for a time of great affliction and distress, just as the apostle does here; because this was the present case of the Christians, he thought it most prudent for such as were single to remain so; since as they were often obliged to move from place to place, to fly from one city to another, this would be very incommodious for married persons, who might have young children to take care of, and provide for; see ( Matthew 24:19 ) ( Luke 23:29 ) upon a like account, the Jewish doctors advise to the same the apostle here does;
"from the day that the empire is extended, which decrees hard decrees upon us, and causes the law and the commandments to cease from us, and does not suffer us to circumcise children; it is right that we agree among ourselves, (hva avyl alv) , not to marry, and beget children:"[3] [FN: T. Bab. Bava Bathra, fol. 60. 2.-DS]
2. JFB comments on vs. 26,
"the present distress–the distresses to which believers were then beginning to be subjected, making the married state less desirable than the single; and which would prevail throughout the world before the destruction of Jerusalem, according to Christ's prophecy ( Matthew 24:8-21 ; compare Acts 11:28 )."[4]
3. Matthew Henry's comments on vs. 26, though also riddled with some error, does speak some truth,
"This is good, says he, for the present distress. Christians, at the first planting of their religion, were grievously persecuted. Their enemies were very bitter against them, and treated them very cruelly. They were continually liable to be tossed and hurried by persecution. This being the then state of things, he did not think it so advisable for Christians that were single to change conditions. The married state would bring more care and cumber along with it (v. 33, v. 34), and would therefore make persecution more terrible, and render them less able to bear it."[5]
This establishes the context of this chapter and explains it perfectly. Paul keeps telling them that he is not giving them divine dogma but is giving them his opinion on a particular occasion. Paul says, "But to the rest I say, not the Lord" and "I have no command of the Lord, but I give an opinion". The Church at this time was under terrible persecution and would need to be able to flea quickly without any encumbrances in order to survive. Marriage is accompanied by children. This would make fleeing very difficult. Also, circumcision would also make fleeing difficult. This is why Israel did not circumcise their sons in the wildernesses as we read in Josh. 5:2-8. Circumcision comes with about two months of recovery time. This was why the Sons of Jacob were able to take Shechem's city so easily in Gen. 34.
Secondly, Calvin states,
"their condition appears to be unsuitable for marriage. The phrase so to be, signifies to remain unmarried, or to abstain from marriage".
Folks, if that is taken in the context that Calvin has placed it, in a perpetual context, that is Gnostic, Pagan, Anchorism par excellence. Gen. 2:18 says It is not good for the man to be alone. Christianity says, it is. Which is right?
Paul is concerned that because of the present distress, instability and persecution of the time, unnecessary attachments and burdens like marriage, children and circumcision should be avoided. To comfort the consciences of those who understand the requirement for circumcision Paul reminds them of his statement in Rom. 4:10 and the ruling of Acts 15, that circumcision does not save the soul. We understand from Rom. 6 that we are required to keep Yah's commands even though we are saved by grace and not by our law keeping. Christianity, in its hatred for the Jews and its love for Pagan Anchorism, has done exactly what Paul said he was not doing: making dogma out of rules he himself acknowledged were not divine dogma but prescriptions for a particular period of time.
This passage does not teach that Circumcision has been abrogated.
[1] http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/calcom39.xiv.vi.html
[2] http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G1764&t=KJV
[3] http://www.biblestudytools.com/commentaries/gills-exposition-of-the-bible/1-corinthians-7-26.html
[4] http://www.biblestudytools.com/commentaries/jamieson-fausset-brown/1-corinthians/1-corinthians-7.html
[5] http://www.biblestudytools.com/commentaries/matthew-henry-complete/1-corinthians/7.html