The Law

[KBC1963]

Shalom KBC, thank you again for responding. Are you positive your beliefs are correct? Please consider several things. first tell me why the New Covenant is NOT written on tables of stone, but rather tables of the heart? (2 Corinthians 3:3-6)

Because the first covenant (temporary) was only a symbolic representation (form) of the final covenant.
The temporary covenant had no inherent righteousness, it did not have the spirit of the law within itself. It was after all only words on paper and stone and Paul states unequivocally that both the law and the commandments are holy.
2 Corinthians 3:9-10
For if the ministration of condemnation had glory, much more does the ministration of righteousness exceed in glory.
For verily that which had been made glorious had not been made glorious in this respect, by reason of the glory that surpasseth.

This first covenant was symbolic or put another way it was "a practice covenant" a school master which was intended to teach things. What is it that was supposed to be learned during this practice covenant?

2 Corinthians 3:6 who also made us sufficient as ministers of a new covenant; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.

Most understand what is meant when there is a discussion of the letter of the law vs. the spirit of the law. Even now many people obey the letter of the laws we live under but they don't live according to its intent (spirit). The law states that speeding is a sin /crime. Most that follow the law do so because they don't want to deal with the fine, not because they agree with the intended purpose of it. So just as God's commands and laws are holy / good so are many of ours but the fact is they are only ink on the paper of a system that has no real spirit and can never be expected to change the heart because of that lack of spirit.

And a related question. Why was the "ministration of death" so glorious that Moses had to place a "veil" over his face when he came down off the mountain at Sinai with those 2 tables of stone? (Exodus 34:29-35, 2 Corinthians 3:7-15)

Because even a symbolic representation of the final covenant from God is indeed glorious.

So KBC, how is it that Paul considered the 10 commandments (The Testimony) a "ministration of death,"
would it be along the lines of what he said about "Thou shalt not covet," that what he thought this command "which was ordained to life," was really "found to be unto death." (Romans 7:7-10)

Because of the form it was in. The commandments written on the tablets were an earthly symbolic representation of the heavenly pattern right? and being that they were not actually written on our hearts and minds during that period they could not have the effect they were ordained for. So, the commandments and the laws in their symbolic forms having no power to overcome sin became death to all that believed in the symbolic form as the way to overcome sin.
You could read into Paul's commentary that he was asserting that God's commandments gave sin its power over us but such an interpretation would not logically follow everything else that was written concerning God's laws.

I will continue this tomorrow.

 

[Ken Brown]

Because the first covenant (temporary) was only a symbolic representation (form) of the final covenant.
The temporary covenant had no inherent righteousness, it did not have the spirit of the law within itself. It was after all only words on paper and stone and Paul states unequivocally that both the law and the commandments are holy.
2 Corinthians 3:9-10
For if the ministration of condemnation had glory, much more does the ministration of righteousness exceed in glory.
For verily that which had been made glorious had not been made glorious in this respect, by reason of the glory that surpasseth.

This first covenant was symbolic or put another way it was "a practice covenant" a school master which was intended to teach things. What is it that was supposed to be learned during this practice covenant?

2 Corinthians 3:6 who also made us sufficient as ministers of a new covenant; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.

Most understand what is meant when there is a discussion of the letter of the law vs. the spirit of the law. Even now many people obey the letter of the laws we live under but they don't live according to its intent (spirit). The law states that speeding is a sin /crime. Most that follow the law do so because they don't want to deal with the fine, not because they agree with the intended purpose of it. So just as God's commands and laws are holy / good so are many of ours but the fact is they are only ink on the paper of a system that has no real spirit and can never be expected to change the heart because of that lack of spirit.



Because even a symbolic representation of the final covenant from God is indeed glorious.



Because of the form it was in. The commandments written on the tablets were an earthly symbolic representation of the heavenly pattern right? and being that they were not actually written on our hearts and minds during that period they could not have the effect they were ordained for. So, the commandments and the laws in their symbolic forms having no power to overcome sin became death to all that believed in the symbolic form as the way to overcome sin.
You could read into Paul's commentary that he was asserting that God's commandments gave sin its power over us but such an interpretation would not logically follow everything else that was written concerning God's laws.

I will continue this tomorrow.

Shalom KBC, thank you again for your reply. I think that if we would come to an agreement about Grace (how Paul taught it), we would come to an agreement about how the Law/Torah is a whole and it is ALL Spiritual. To try and divide the Torah into different Covenants (Sinai/Moab) is not how any one from the 1st Century thought or taught. The Sinai Covenant was NOT two separate covenants, it was ONE, but the Sinai Covenant can be accomplished or fulfilled in TWO ways..one way would be according to the letter (accomplishing the Torah/Law in a "physical" sense). An example would be:

(Deuteronomy 25:4) Thou shalt not muzzle the ox when he treadeth out [the corn].

To fulfill this "letter" of the Law/Torah, a farmer would not keep the ox from eating as it worked for them. Fairly straightforward. But there is also the Spiritual Side of the Law/Torah, and Paul on several occasions appealed to that Spiritual Side in defending the benefit of receiving assistance as he and others worked for Elohim with spreading forth the Gospel:

1 Corinthians 9:9-11

(9) For it is written in the law of Moses, Thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the ox that treadeth out the corn. Is Elohim concerned for oxen?

(10) Or saith He [it] altogether for our sakes? For our sakes, no doubt, [this] is written: that he that ploweth should plow in hope; and that he that thresheth in hope should be partaker of his hope.

(11) If we have sown unto you spiritual things, [is it] a great thing if we shall reap your carnal things?

1 Timothy 5:17-18

(17) The elders who rule well are to be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who work hard at preaching and teaching.

(18) For the Scripture says, “YOU SHALL NOT MUZZLE THE OX WHILE HE IS THRESHING,” and “The laborer is worthy of his wages.”

Paul saw how that "hidden" or "veiled" within the "letter" of the Law/Torah, there was a Spiritual Side, and this is why he stated, "The Law is Spiritual," and "a shadow." When it came to understanding Grace, most of his fellow Jews stumbled over the fact that the Law/Torah is Spiritual, and could not accept or believe that a "man" would be The Passover Lamb, or The Red Heifer, or any of the other offerings as prescribed by the Law/Torah. They could only see a four legged animal in the "letter" of the Law/Torah, and they denied their part in Sacrificing the Messiah to FULFILL the Spiritual Side of the Law/Torah. This is the essence of Grace. All sinners have slain their Offering (Messiah Yeshua), by sinning. This is why when you increase sin, you increase Grace all the more. Those who deny their part in placing Yeshua up on the Cross and "piercing" His side, deny the Righteousness that is given to all as a Free Gift (Grace). Righteousness is DOING the Law/Torah (Romans 2:13, Psalms 119:172, Deuteronomy 6:24-25), and this FREE Gift of Righteousness comes as a result of our sin. The Law/Torah commands all sinners to sacrifice, and when they do this command, they are righteous. So according to the "letter," when a Jew killed a four-legged lamb, it was righteousness for them in accomplishing this requirement of the Law/Torah, but on the Spiritual Side of the Law/Torah, when we ALL killed and sacrificed the Messiah, as OUR offering (by sinning-see Hebrews 6:6), we receive a Righteousness that is NOT according to the "letter" of the Law/Torah, rather a RIGHTEOUSNESS that is received by FAITH. It takes faith to believe and accept that we, as sinners, did put Him to death, just as the Law/Torah commanded, and this is the FAITH concerning Grace that Paul taught. I hope you might be able to "see" it. Blessings in The Name, ImAHebrew.

 

[Brickjectivity]

"Some Christians believe that they should keep old covenant observances such as the weekly and annual Sabbaths. A person is a "true Christian" only if he or she observes Sabbaths and certain other old covenant requirements. But the truth is that these old worship regulations are not required today, and it is legalistic to teach that people must obey those rules in order to be accounted worthy of salvation."

That is a popular argument for why Christians don't observe those Laws...

Why does that paragraph say the things that it says? First the Bible commanded us to keep 613 Commandments. Where is the prophecy in the "Old Testament" that says those Laws would someday be invalid or no longer required?

Forgive me for not having read all 63 previous pages of this thread.

The basis is the ministry of the prophet Elisha. Recently there was a much shorter thread about the baptism of John the Baptist. He is mentioned in all 4 gospels, and the basis of his ministry is that he is 'The voice calling in the wilderness' -- an allusion to Isaiah 40 and some other Isaiah passages. His baptism is modelled after the baptism of Naaman they Assyrian general by Elisha. Specifically Jesus suggests that John the Baptist is Elijah, and Jesus has himself baptised by John, specifically re-enacting the scene in which Elijah is taken up to heaven and replaced by Elisha. This basis does not align with every modern Christian notion, but it isn't very specific either and is fairly broad. It doesn't replace Judaism or corrupt it.

Naaman is an Assyrian with an Israeli captive slave girl. He gets leprosy. She suggests that he go to see Elisha the Tishbite. Elisha commands him to dip 7 times in the dirty Jordan river. He is cleansed of his leprosy not because he has followed a correct practice but for other reasons. He then converts without becoming Jewish and taking a bit of soil from the land returns to his home where he, not being in Israel and not being Jewish, must still partially engage in idolatrous practices not by choice but by the will of his master. Despite his shortcomings and failings as a gentile, as someone living in an iniquitous state, the prophet tells him to go in peace. Therein is the basis for non-kosher eating, not keeping Sabbaths and so forth. It isn't Judaism exactly, but its a connection to the same. It allows for partially keeping the laws, analogous to what Naaman does. He does everything in his power to be peaceful, yet he is a general of a warlike king.

Peace is his commission and the same commission that Jesus preaches, called 'The Gospel of the Preparation of Peace'. The gospels say it is announced by angels something like this "Glory to God in the highest and on Earth, peace and goodwill toward humankind."

 

[2ndpillar]

Forgive me for not having read all 63 previous pages of this thread.

The basis is the ministry of the prophet Elisha. Recently there was a much shorter thread about the baptism of John the Baptist. He is mentioned in all 4 gospels, and the basis of his ministry is that he is 'The voice calling in the wilderness' -- an allusion to Isaiah 40 and some other Isaiah passages. His baptism is modelled after the baptism of Naaman they Assyrian general by Elisha. Specifically Jesus suggests that John the Baptist is Elijah, and Jesus has himself baptised by John, specifically re-enacting the scene in which Elijah is taken up to heaven and replaced by Elisha. This basis does not align with every modern Christian notion, but it isn't very specific either and is fairly broad. It doesn't replace Judaism or corrupt it.

Naaman is an Assyrian with an Israeli captive slave girl. He gets leprosy. She suggests that he go to see Elisha the Tishbite. Elisha commands him to dip 7 times in the dirty Jordan river. He is cleansed of his leprosy not because he has followed a correct practice but for other reasons. He then converts without becoming Jewish and taking a bit of soil from the land returns to his home where he, not being in Israel and not being Jewish, must still partially engage in idolatrous practices not by choice but by the will of his master. Despite his shortcomings and failings as a gentile, as someone living in an iniquitous state, the prophet tells him to go in peace. Therein is the basis for non-kosher eating, not keeping Sabbaths and so forth. It isn't Judaism exactly, but its a connection to the same. It allows for partially keeping the laws, analogous to what Naaman does. He does everything in his power to be peaceful, yet he is a general of a warlike king.

Peace is his commission and the same commission that Jesus preaches, called 'The Gospel of the Preparation of Peace'. The gospels say it is announced by angels something like this "Glory to God in the highest and on Earth, peace and goodwill toward humankind."

Dear brick,
You devise an excuse for Naaman's failings, what is the excuse for the modern day "Christian"? As for Yeshua's gospel, it was the gospel of "repent; for the kingdom of heaven is at hand". You are to "repent" from what, and what are the "fruit, keeping with your repentance"? As for "Peace", Yeshua said in Mt 10:34,""Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword." If you look at current events, the earth must still be in the "preparation" phase of the peace you are speaking about.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Dear brick,
You devise an excuse for Naaman's failings, what is the excuse for the modern day "Christian"? As for Yeshua's gospel, it was the gospel of "repent; for the kingdom of heaven is at hand". You are to "repent" from what, and what are the "fruit, keeping with your repentance"? As for "Peace", Yeshua said in Mt 10:34,""Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword." If you look at current events, the earth must still be in the "preparation" phase of the peace you are speaking about.

I have made clear in the past that I do not accept the basis of Biblical fundamentalism -- the insistence that the Bible interprets itself or that Christianity can be reconstructed from scratch merely using the Bible. I do not accept it. I do not accept the implication that the gospel was 'Lost' and has been 'Regained' through scholarship. I do not accept modern bizarre interpretations of the Bible that are based upon (usually) a preference for particular outcomes in the book Revelation. These interpretations are the basis for Biblical fundamentalism today. I do not accept the ideas of 'Rapture' or 'Millennialism'. I do not accept the assumption of some kind of beast lord coming to Earth as satan's representative or of Revelation being a timetable of any kind and do not accept it as a tool for reverse engineering the gospels to suit particular outcomes. You begin with the assumption that the Bible is perfect with no two words out of sync, and you get this assumption from people who support bizarre ideas like the above. This is the assumption that you begin with and the reason that you are in error on this point. We cannot agree I think because of your insistence that the Bible is flawless, one proposition that is not backed up and has been disproved to me many times. Another reason is that you have not accepted the meaning of 'Glory to God in the highest'.

This situation in which you draw this scripture verse out of its grouping, out of its context and try to lean it against the general theme of the gospel of peace, does not create a responsibility for me to place the gospel theme into your mind. It is not my fault that your proposition prevents you from accepting the gospel's theme of peace and glory to God. It is your responsibility to find the harmony between your supposedly opposing verse and to explain how it fits with the statements of the angels and of Jesus about peace upon Earth goodwill toward men and glory to God in the highest, because you are the one insisting upon Biblical perfection and an interpretive ability that implies glory for those with persuasive Bible skills. So what am I to gather from your point? What words should go here: 'On earth ____ and ____ to men'? Surely it is not 'War' and 'Glory' that go in these slots, but that is the result that comes from Biblical fundamentalism. That is the result that can be witnessed repeatedly for the past 2000 years, but even more in the last 400 years where Biblical fundamentalism has held sway. The gospel has been replaced with 'Glory to man and on Earth war', and that is what Biblical fundamentalism has proven to be about.

As for what you say about Naaman and that I devised an excuse for his failings. Maybe I did. Maybe I didn't. Maybe something I said was in contradiction with the presupposition of biblical fundamentalism and you simply reacted to that.

 

[KBC1963]

Shalom KBC, thank you again for your reply. I think that if we would come to an agreement about Grace (how Paul taught it), we would come to an agreement about how the Law/Torah is a whole and it is ALL Spiritual. To try and divide the Torah into different Covenants (Sinai/Moab) is not how any one from the 1st Century thought or taught. The Sinai Covenant was NOT two separate covenants, it was ONE, but the Sinai Covenant can be accomplished or fulfilled in TWO ways..one way would be according to the letter (accomplishing the Torah/Law in a "physical" sense). An example would be:

(Deuteronomy 25:4) Thou shalt not muzzle the ox when he treadeth out [the corn].

To fulfill this "letter" of the Law/Torah, a farmer would not keep the ox from eating as it worked for them. Fairly straightforward. But there is also the Spiritual Side of the Law/Torah, and Paul on several occasions appealed to that Spiritual Side in defending the benefit of receiving assistance as he and others worked for Elohim with spreading forth the Gospel:

1 Corinthians 9:9-11

(9) For it is written in the law of Moses, Thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the ox that treadeth out the corn. Is Elohim concerned for oxen?

(10) Or saith He [it] altogether for our sakes? For our sakes, no doubt, [this] is written: that he that ploweth should plow in hope; and that he that thresheth in hope should be partaker of his hope.

(11) If we have sown unto you spiritual things, [is it] a great thing if we shall reap your carnal things?

1 Timothy 5:17-18

(17) The elders who rule well are to be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who work hard at preaching and teaching.

(18) For the Scripture says, “YOU SHALL NOT MUZZLE THE OX WHILE HE IS THRESHING,” and “The laborer is worthy of his wages.”

Paul saw how that "hidden" or "veiled" within the "letter" of the Law/Torah, there was a Spiritual Side, and this is why he stated, "The Law is Spiritual," and "a shadow." When it came to understanding Grace, most of his fellow Jews stumbled over the fact that the Law/Torah is Spiritual, and could not accept or believe that a "man" would be The Passover Lamb, or The Red Heifer, or any of the other offerings as prescribed by the Law/Torah. They could only see a four legged animal in the "letter" of the Law/Torah, and they denied their part in Sacrificing the Messiah to FULFILL the Spiritual Side of the Law/Torah. This is the essence of Grace. All sinners have slain their Offering (Messiah Yeshua), by sinning. This is why when you increase sin, you increase Grace all the more. Those who deny their part in placing Yeshua up on the Cross and "piercing" His side, deny the Righteousness that is given to all as a Free Gift (Grace). Righteousness is DOING the Law/Torah (Romans 2:13, Psalms 119:172, Deuteronomy 6:24-25), and this FREE Gift of Righteousness comes as a result of our sin. The Law/Torah commands all sinners to sacrifice, and when they do this command, they are righteous. So according to the "letter," when a Jew killed a four-legged lamb, it was righteousness for them in accomplishing this requirement of the Law/Torah, but on the Spiritual Side of the Law/Torah, when we ALL killed and sacrificed the Messiah, as OUR offering (by sinning-see Hebrews 6:6), we receive a Righteousness that is NOT according to the "letter" of the Law/Torah, rather a RIGHTEOUSNESS that is received by FAITH. It takes faith to believe and accept that we, as sinners, did put Him to death, just as the Law/Torah commanded, and this is the FAITH concerning Grace that Paul taught. I hope you might be able to "see" it. Blessings in The Name, ImAHebrew.

 

[KBC1963]

Shalom KBC, thank you again for your reply. I think that if we would come to an agreement about Grace (how Paul taught it), we would come to an agreement about how the Law/Torah is a whole and it is ALL Spiritual. To try and divide the Torah into different Covenants (Sinai/Moab) is not how any one from the 1st Century thought or taught. The Sinai Covenant was NOT two separate covenants, it was ONE, but the Sinai Covenant can be accomplished or fulfilled in TWO ways..one way would be according to the letter (accomplishing the Torah/Law in a "physical" sense).

We can both agree that salvation is a free gift. No question. The important thing that does need discernment here is whether there is still a law in effect and whether there would be repercussions for not obeying it.
I would probably agree about fulfillment of the requirements of the law since there were likely many who did obey it until they died and never had an understanding of Christ so, they will pass the bar so to say for fulfilling the obligations during their time.

Paul saw how that "hidden" or "veiled" within the "letter" of the Law/Torah, there was a Spiritual Side, and this is why he stated, "The Law is Spiritual," and "a shadow." When it came to understanding Grace, most of his fellow Jews stumbled over the fact that the Law/Torah is Spiritual, and could not accept or believe that a "man" would be The Passover Lamb, or The Red Heifer, or any of the other offerings as prescribed by the Law/Torah. They could only see a four legged animal in the "letter" of the Law/Torah, and they denied their part in Sacrificing the Messiah to FULFILL the Spiritual Side of the Law/Torah.

Agreed on this part.

This is the essence of Grace. All sinners have slain their Offering (Messiah Yeshua), by sinning.

This is where we may disagree. All sinners have not slain their offering until they ask for forgiveness for the sins they have already committed and they commit to turn from sinning.

This is why when you increase sin, you increase Grace all the more.

ummmmm no. We should never knowingly commit more sins. In fact sin never actually increased when the law was given, it was knowledge of what was sin that increased. Most of God's people had no idea what the range of sin was until the law came and not only defined it crudely in its letter but also defined crudely how much it would take to pay for it. The commandments were the starting point to learn about God.
Romans 3:20Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.

Those who deny their part in placing Yeshua up on the Cross and "piercing" His side, deny the Righteousness that is given to all as a Free Gift (Grace). Righteousness is DOING the Law/Torah (Romans 2:13, Psalms 119:172, Deuteronomy 6:24-25), and this FREE Gift of Righteousness comes as a result of our sin.

The free gift does not come as a result of sin, it comes as a result of mercy, because God knows we have nothing to offer in order to pay the price for what has already happened. He has mercy on us because the blood of Christ covers our sins.

The Law/Torah commands all sinners to sacrifice, and when they do this command, they are righteous. So according to the "letter," when a Jew killed a four-legged lamb, it was righteousness for them in accomplishing this requirement of the Law/Torah,

I disagree;
Romans 8:3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh: 4That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.
Romans 3:9-11 What then? are we better than they? No, in no wise: for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin; As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one: There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God.

when we ALL killed and sacrificed the Messiah, as OUR offering (by sinning-see Hebrews 6:6), we receive a Righteousness that is NOT according to the "letter" of the Law/Torah, rather a RIGHTEOUSNESS that is received by FAITH. It takes faith to believe and accept that we, as sinners, did put Him to death, just as the Law/Torah commanded, and this is the FAITH concerning Grace that Paul taught. I hope you might be able to "see" it. Blessings in The Name, ImAHebrew.

I think your rationale is a little crooked. Sin alone is not what caused Christ to be crucified;
John 10:17 Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again. 18 No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father.

Christ gave his life for the sins of the repentant faithful believers. We all know that few will enter heaven which means that those that didn't enter did not get their sins forgiven so, even though his sacrifice had the potential to save every person from the cost of their sins He knew and told us that only a few would actually be accepted.

Hebrews 6:4-6 For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come, If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.

This set of verses talks about an already saved person falling away and describing what it would take to bring them back into the fold and we are plainly told that it is impossible to return to the fold because they would need to crucify Christ again. You see if sin alone causes Christ to be crucified then nearly everyone would be crucifying him daily. It was by repenting and asking forgiveness that Christ would possibly offer his blood to cover our sins. When you understand how you are sinning and you actually regret doing it and make a commitment to turn from it and ask for forgiveness then Christ can offer his blood to cover your sins. Remember he is the high priest after the order of Melchisedec. Christ is the only priest who can make the offering to satisfy the law and he has a choice to cover your sins or not;
Matthew 7:21-23, “Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

 

[2ndpillar]

I have made clear in the past that I do not accept the basis of Biblical fundamentalism -- the insistence that the Bible interprets itself or that Christianity can be reconstructed from scratch merely using the Bible. I do not accept it. I do not accept the implication that the gospel was 'Lost' and has been 'Regained' through scholarship. I do not accept modern bizarre interpretations of the Bible that are based upon (usually) a preference for particular outcomes in the book Revelation. These interpretations are the basis for Biblical fundamentalism today. I do not accept the ideas of 'Rapture' or 'Millennialism'. I do not accept the assumption of some kind of beast lord coming to Earth as satan's representative or of Revelation being a timetable of any kind and do not accept it as a tool for reverse engineering the gospels to suit particular outcomes. You begin with the assumption that the Bible is perfect with no two words out of sync, and you get this assumption from people who support bizarre ideas like the above. This is the assumption that you begin with and the reason that you are in error on this point. We cannot agree I think because of your insistence that the Bible is flawless, one proposition that is not backed up and has been disproved to me many times. Another reason is that you have not accepted the meaning of 'Glory to God in the highest'.

This situation in which you draw this scripture verse out of its grouping, out of its context and try to lean it against the general theme of the gospel of peace, does not create a responsibility for me to place the gospel theme into your mind. It is not my fault that your proposition prevents you from accepting the gospel's theme of peace and glory to God. It is your responsibility to find the harmony between your supposedly opposing verse and to explain how it fits with the statements of the angels and of Jesus about peace upon Earth goodwill toward men and glory to God in the highest, because you are the one insisting upon Biblical perfection and an interpretive ability that implies glory for those with persuasive Bible skills. So what am I to gather from your point? What words should go here: 'On earth ____ and ____ to men'? Surely it is not 'War' and 'Glory' that go in these slots, but that is the result that comes from Biblical fundamentalism. That is the result that can be witnessed repeatedly for the past 2000 years, but even more in the last 400 years where Biblical fundamentalism has held sway. The gospel has been replaced with 'Glory to man and on Earth war', and that is what Biblical fundamentalism has proven to be about.

As for what you say about Naaman and that I devised an excuse for his failings. Maybe I did. Maybe I didn't. Maybe something I said was in contradiction with the presupposition of biblical fundamentalism and you simply reacted to that.

Dear brick,
Talk about jump to conclusions. "Rapture" is a false narrative, and the best example is from Mt 13, whereas the tares/wicked (Mt 13:49) are the ones "gathered out" /raptured first and cast into the "furnace of fire". Tares are simply weeds/wicked which look like wheat, which represent the righteous, but the tares do not produce fruit.

As for the bible, 2/3 of the bible comes from false prophet Paul and his disciples, and I certainly do not give them credence except in the sense of relating someone's point of view history. I was just pointing out your inconsistencies with respect to the word of God, the testimony of Yeshua, and with your point of view with relationship to history as it is unfolding before us. That you choose to call light darkness, and bitter sweet, is par for the course. There is no general peace. There is only joy and blessing for those who rebuke the wicked. Proverbs 24:25," But to those who rebuke the wicked will be delight, And a good blessing will come upon them.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Dear brick,
Talk about jump to conclusions. "Rapture" is a false narrative, and the best example is from Mt 13, whereas the tares/wicked (Mt 13:49) are the ones "gathered out" /raptured first and cast into the "furnace of fire". Tares are simply weeds/wicked which look like wheat, which represent the righteous, but the tares do not produce fruit.

As for the bible, 2/3 of the bible comes from false prophet Paul and his disciples, and I certainly do not give them credence except in the sense of relating someone's point of view history. I was just pointing out your inconsistencies with respect to the word of God, the testimony of Yeshua, and with your point of view with relationship to history as it is unfolding before us. That you choose to call light darkness, and bitter sweet, is par for the course. There is no general peace. There is only joy and blessing for those who rebuke the wicked. Proverbs 24:25," But to those who rebuke the wicked will be delight, And a good blessing will come upon them.

Sorry if I jumped to conclusions, but you know what the trends are. You have a fine line to walk if you are going to work with a 'Cleaned up' NT. Without Paul you have a very different canon. If I choose to call light darkness and bitter sweet it is certainly not on purpose, but the gospel is peace and glory to God. Its peace first between gentiles and God. I don't need Paul for that.

Back to Namaan and baptism: About this passage where Jesus says 'I come not to bring peace but a sword' he certainly does not advocate an uprising with weapons. His sword is not physical. In terms of physical weapons he is 'Numbered with the transgressors' simply by possessing a weapon. His followers refuse to join Rome's military.

 

[2ndpillar]

Sorry if I jumped to conclusions, but you know what the trends are. You have a fine line to walk if you are going to work with a 'Cleaned up' NT. Without Paul you have a very different canon. If I choose to call light darkness and bitter sweet it is certainly not on purpose, but the gospel is peace and glory to God. Its peace first between gentiles and God. I don't need Paul for that.

Back to Namaan and baptism: About this passage where Jesus says 'I come not to bring peace but a sword' he certainly does not advocate an uprising with weapons. His sword is not physical. In terms of physical weapons he is 'Numbered with the transgressors' simply by possessing a weapon. His followers refuse to join Rome's military.

Dear brick,
Yeshua's weapon is a two edged sword, and with it "the rest were killed with the sword which came from the mouth of him who sat upon the horse, and all the birds were filled with their flesh." (Rev 19:21)
With respect to the period of time when Yeshua becomes "king over all the earth" (Ze 14:9), all the nations which came against Jerusalem will be struck with a plague, which is described with the same details that can be found in the book "Hiroshima" , which is the result of acute radiation poisoning. (Ze 14:12) Yeshua's gospel was not one of peace, but following true repentance, the kingdom of heaven, one of Spirit and power. The world belongs to the "ruler of the world", and world peace only comes after Armageddon, at which future time the swords will be made into plows, in spite of what Jimmy Carter might have been trying to selling. (John 14:30)

Hereafter I will not talk much with you: for the prince of this world cometh, and hath nothing in me (John 14:30).

 

[Brickjectivity]

Dear brick,

I don't mean to offend but would appreciate it if you don't call me dear. It reminds me of the way that businesses tell their least important employees, temps etc. that they are part of a family. Its a compliment that cuts because it means much more than can possibly be true. It would be nice if I were dear to everyone, but I am not. Conversely I mean no offence by not calling you a dear.

Yeshua's weapon is a two edged sword, and with it "the rest were killed with the sword which came from the mouth of him who sat upon the horse, and all the birds were filled with their flesh." (Rev 19:21)

This is the book Revelation we are talking about, and you neglect to mention that the sword comes out of his mouth. I hope you aren't suggesting that there is a literally a metal or flaming sword sticking out of Jesus mouth and agree with me that this is talking about Jesus message of peace. In my own terms: Jesus fights not with hands but with words. I don't claim to have studied Zechariah but it sounds like this passage "...Not by might, nor by power, but by my spirit, saith the LORD of hosts." (Zech 4:6). There is power but not electricity or volcano power but a different kind, a soft kind of power. This is the sword of Jesus, fighting against violence. Hence he could call it the way of peace, even while talking about the sword of the spirit; since it is a sword against violence. I hope you agree with that.

With respect to the period of time when Yeshua becomes "king over all the earth" (Ze 14:9), all the nations which came against Jerusalem will be struck with a plague, which is described with the same details that can be found in the book "Hiroshima" , which is the result of acute radiation poisoning. (Ze 14:12)

Cool, I was just mentioning Zechariah to you in the previous paragraph and the concept of 'Not by might nor by power but by my spirit.' The passage here in Zechariah chapters 13 and 14 are supposed to be fulfilled in the time of Jesus own preaching long, long ago. Recall Zechariah 13:1 says "In that day there shall be a fountain opened to the house of David and to the inhabitants of Jerusalem for sin and for uncleanness." Notice also 13:6 "And one shall say unto him, What are these wounds in thine hands? Then he shall answer, Those with which I was wounded in the house of my friends." You see these are all presumed to be about Jesus, and chapters 13 and 14 are about Jesus and his time before his death. "v13 Awake, O sword, against my shepherd, and against the man that is my fellow, saith the LORD of hosts: smite the shepherd, and the sheep shall be scattered: and I will turn mine hand upon the little ones."

So again, Jesus arrives and all of these prophecies in Zechariah 13 and 14 he claims, and he claims they are about him and his time. Here is the penultimate achievement: Zechariah 14:9 "And the LORD shall be king over all the earth: in that day shall there be one LORD, and his name one." This Jesus proclaimed in saying 'The Kingdom of God is here', so far from suggesting physical violence he was talking about soft power and the violence that peace does to violence which is a very old idea, much older than the Roman empire going back at least as far as the prophet Daniel who prophesied about a kingdom not made with hands. The kingdoms that men make are made with violence of physical weapons, but a kingdom made by God is not made in that way.

Yeshua's gospel was not one of peace, but following true repentance, the kingdom of heaven, one of Spirit and power. The world belongs to the "ruler of the world", and world peace only comes after Armageddon, at which future time the swords will be made into plows, in spite of what Jimmy Carter might have been trying to selling. (John 14:30)

I am really appalled by what you are suggesting. Any fool with enough guns and followers can conquer the world. Several already have come close, but their memory eventually fades and all their accomplishments are doomed to fail. They can't make any lasting good, and Jesus (whom you call Yeshua) doesn't use their methods.

Hereafter I will not talk much with you: for the prince of this world cometh, and hath nothing in me (John 14:30).

I'm glad you like John's gospel. Here's a closing quote for you from Acts: "You know the message God sent to the people of Israel, announcing the good news of peace through Jesus Christ, who is Lord of all." (Acts 10:36)

 

[2ndpillar]

I don't mean to offend but would appreciate it if you don't call me dear. It reminds me of the way that businesses tell their least important employees, temps etc. that they are part of a family. Its a compliment that cuts because it means much more than can possibly be true. It would be nice if I were dear to everyone, but I am not. Conversely I mean no offence by not calling you a dear.
This is the book Revelation we are talking about, and you neglect to mention that the sword comes out of his mouth. I hope you aren't suggesting that there is a literally a metal or flaming sword sticking out of Jesus mouth and agree with me that this is talking about Jesus message of peace. In my own terms: Jesus fights not with hands but with words. I don't claim to have studied Zechariah but it sounds like this passage "...Not by might, nor by power, but by my spirit, saith the LORD of hosts." (Zech 4:6). There is power but not electricity or volcano power but a different kind, a soft kind of power. This is the sword of Jesus, fighting against violence. Hence he could call it the way of peace, even while talking about the sword of the spirit; since it is a sword against violence. I hope you agree with that.

Cool, I was just mentioning Zechariah to you in the previous paragraph and the concept of 'Not by might nor by power but by my spirit.' The passage here in Zechariah chapters 13 and 14 are supposed to be fulfilled in the time of Jesus own preaching long, long ago. Recall Zechariah 13:1 says "In that day there shall be a fountain opened to the house of David and to the inhabitants of Jerusalem for sin and for uncleanness." Notice also 13:6 "And one shall say unto him, What are these wounds in thine hands? Then he shall answer, Those with which I was wounded in the house of my friends." You see these are all presumed to be about Jesus, and chapters 13 and 14 are about Jesus and his time before his death. "v13 Awake, O sword, against my shepherd, and against the man that is my fellow, saith the LORD of hosts: smite the shepherd, and the sheep shall be scattered: and I will turn mine hand upon the little ones."

So again, Jesus arrives and all of these prophecies in Zechariah 13 and 14 he claims, and he claims they are about him and his time. Here is the penultimate achievement: Zechariah 14:9 "And the LORD shall be king over all the earth: in that day shall there be one LORD, and his name one." This Jesus proclaimed in saying 'The Kingdom of God is here', so far from suggesting physical violence he was talking about soft power and the violence that peace does to violence which is a very old idea, much older than the Roman empire going back at least as far as the prophet Daniel who prophesied about a kingdom not made with hands. The kingdoms that men make are made with violence of physical weapons, but a kingdom made by God is not made in that way.

I am really appalled by what you are suggesting. Any fool with enough guns and followers can conquer the world. Several already have come close, but their memory eventually fades and all their accomplishments are doomed to fail. They can't make any lasting good, and Jesus (whom you call Yeshua) doesn't use their methods.


I'm glad you like John's gospel. Here's a closing quote for you from Acts: "You know the message God sent to the people of Israel, announcing the good news of peace through Jesus Christ, who is Lord of all." (Acts 10:36)

Dear brick,
You can blame my English teacher, from in the day, about how to begin a letter. I think it is used to set a tone, and has nothing to do with how "dear" you are to anyone. I am more concerned with setting a tone. People are generally much less likely to throw stones if you begin with a show of civility. Not that it is any guarantee.

As for the "ruler of the world", that would be the dragon/devil/Satan, whose authority was given to the beast (Rev 13:4), and whose present form would be in the 8th head of the beast with 10 horns, and who has not been "crushed" as of this date. (Daniel 2)

As for when "the lord will be king over all the earth", that hasn't happen as of this time. Before that happens, the tares/wicked need to be "gathered" (raptured) and tossed into the "furnace of fire".(Mt 13:49) And the sword "which came from the mouth of him", apparently kills. (Rev 19:21) The rhyme of "sticks and stone may break my bones, but words will never hurt me", apparently isn't always the case.

 

[Ken Brown]

We can both agree that salvation is a free gift. No question. The important thing that does need discernment here is whether there is still a law in effect and whether there would be repercussions for not obeying it.
I would probably agree about fulfillment of the requirements of the law since there were likely many who did obey it until they died and never had an understanding of Christ so, they will pass the bar so to say for fulfilling the obligations during their time.


Agreed on this part.


This is where we may disagree. All sinners have not slain their offering until they ask for forgiveness for the sins they have already committed and they commit to turn from sinning.


ummmmm no. We should never knowingly commit more sins. In fact sin never actually increased when the law was given, it was knowledge of what was sin that increased. Most of God's people had no idea what the range of sin was until the law came and not only defined it crudely in its letter but also defined crudely how much it would take to pay for it. The commandments were the starting point to learn about God.
Romans 3:20Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.


The free gift does not come as a result of sin, it comes as a result of mercy, because God knows we have nothing to offer in order to pay the price for what has already happened. He has mercy on us because the blood of Christ covers our sins.


I disagree;
Romans 8:3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh: 4That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.
Romans 3:9-11 What then? are we better than they? No, in no wise: for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin; As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one: There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God.


I think your rationale is a little crooked. Sin alone is not what caused Christ to be crucified;
John 10:17 Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again. 18 No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father.

Christ gave his life for the sins of the repentant faithful believers. We all know that few will enter heaven which means that those that didn't enter did not get their sins forgiven so, even though his sacrifice had the potential to save every person from the cost of their sins He knew and told us that only a few would actually be accepted.

Hebrews 6:4-6 For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come, If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.

This set of verses talks about an already saved person falling away and describing what it would take to bring them back into the fold and we are plainly told that it is impossible to return to the fold because they would need to crucify Christ again. You see if sin alone causes Christ to be crucified then nearly everyone would be crucifying him daily. It was by repenting and asking forgiveness that Christ would possibly offer his blood to cover our sins. When you understand how you are sinning and you actually regret doing it and make a commitment to turn from it and ask for forgiveness then Christ can offer his blood to cover your sins. Remember he is the high priest after the order of Melchisedec. Christ is the only priest who can make the offering to satisfy the law and he has a choice to cover your sins or not;
Matthew 7:21-23, “Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

Shalom KBC, as usual, I do appreciate your reply. At issue here is properly understanding Paul, and his explanation concerning Grace. There is a SPECIFIC free gift that he speaks of, and it is the free gift of RIGHTEOUSNESS (Romans 5:17). In considering righteousness, the Messiah said that unless your righteousness EXCEEDS that of the Scribes and Pharisees, in no case will one enter the Kingdom of Heaven (Matthew 5:20). Righteousness IS all of Elohim’s commandments (Psalms 119:172), and ONLY the DOERS of Elohim’s commandments (Law) will be declared RIGHTEOUS (Romans 2:13), and Peter declares that IF the RIGHTEOUS (with difficulty) are saved, what is the outcome for the ungodly and sinner (1 Peter 4:18). It is apparent that ONLY the RIGHTEOUS will be saved from death (Proverbs 10:2), and this is why He has given us the Free Gift of RIGHTEOUSNESS.

So how does it work? What are the mechanics? Paul taught that Elohim INCREASED the transgression of Adam (by giving the Law/Torah), and Grace, or the Free Gift of Righteousness increased all the more (Romans 5:20). You see, BEFORE the Law was given, mankind was sinning, but where there is no Law, sin is not imputed (Romans 5:13)…mankind was not transgressing as did Adam, because Adam WAS given a command, which he transgressed, and up until the giving of the Law/Torah, mankind was not counted as transgressors. Now that the Law was given, mankind as a whole could NOW become as Adam (being a transgressor), and die for their OWN sin, and not Adams. So when TRANSGRESSION increased (through the giving of the Law/Torah), Grace (The Free Gift of Righteousness) increased all the more.

How was this message of Paul received? Wouldn’t some say, “Hey Paul, let’s continue in sin all the more so that this Grace can abound,” (Romans 6:1)? Or didn’t some slander Paul by saying, “Let us do evil so that good may come (Romans 3:8)? Paul taught that if anyone sought the RIGHTEOUSNESS found through Messiah, they had to be a sinner (Galatians 2:17), and in the same verse, Paul then asks, “Is therefore Messiah the minister (promoter) of sin.” IF it is THROUGH us being sinners, that we are made RIGHTEOUS, then can’t it be said that Messiah promotes sin?

Here is how it works. Through OUR sin, each and every one of us, with the help of “wicked men” crucified the Messiah (Acts of the Apostles 2:23). We put Him to death on the Cross, by sinning, and when a sinner comes to a KNOWLEDGE of this Truth, they should mourn (Zechariah 12:10), and be cut to the heart (Acts of the Apostles 2:36-37), and no longer dwell in deliberate sin, as that would place Him back up on the Cross (Hebrews 6:6).

So how does our sin result in the Free Gift of Righteousness? The Law/Torah commands all sinners to sacrifice (Leviticus 4:27-29), and when a sinner accomplishes what the Law/Torah commands, they are righteous, and that is how we are made righteous, by and through OUR sacrificing of Messiah. We killed Him, with the help of wicked men (Acts of the Apostles 2:23), and He did this WILLINGLY (allowed us to kill Him in laying down His life- John 10:17-18), so that we could DO the RIGHTEOUSNESS of the Law, according to IT’S Spiritual Fulfillment. Those who BELIEVE Messiah is THEIR Spiritual Sin Offering are not condemned, because they are FULFILLING the JUST/RIGHTEOUS requirement of the Law/Torah, as they are WALKING according to, or accomplishing the Spiritual Fulfillment of the Law/Torah:

Romans 8:1-4
(1) Therefore there is now no condemnation for those who are in Messiah Yeshua.
(2) For the law of the Spirit of life in Messiah Yeshua has set you free from the law of sin and of death.
(3) For what the Law could not do, weak as it was through the flesh, Elohim did: sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and as an offering for sin, He condemned sin in the flesh,
(4) so that the RIGHTEOUSNESS of the Law might be fulfilled BY us, who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.

All have sinned and come short of the Glory of Elohim, therefore ALL have this Free Gift of Righteousness, it just takes FAITH to believe and accept it (Romans 3:21-23). Blessings in The Name, ImAHebrew.

 

[Brickjectivity]

As for the "ruler of the world", that would be the dragon/devil/Satan, whose authority was given to the beast (Rev 13:4), and whose present form would be in the 8th head of the beast with 10 horns, and who has not been "crushed" as of this date. (Daniel 2)

Watch out for the pitfall of trying to get the NT to match your particular interpretation of Revelation. It has wasted a lot of time for many people. You know it is a book full of symbols and events that never happen literally. For example no woman can wear the sun as it is neither a garment, nor small enough to be a coat nor cool enough to be one. No one would be happy to sit beneath a throne shouting the same thing repeatedly for an eternity, unless they were high out of their minds. Things like this are good indications that perhaps Revelation is not a good place to get doctrine from, since the goal of doctrine is a righteous life not a life spent pent up with a book.

As for when "the lord will be king over all the earth", that hasn't happen as of this time. Before that happens, the tares/wicked need to be "gathered" (raptured) and tossed into the "furnace of fire".(Mt 13:49) And the sword "which came from the mouth of him", apparently kills. (Rev 19:21) The rhyme of "sticks and stone may break my bones, but words will never hurt me", apparently isn't always the case.

So, in your opinion Jesus isn't the king. People die every day, but I suppose you are invested in a particular interpretation of Revelation that requires you to believe that first death doesn't count. Good luck with that metal sword that comes directly from Jesus lips. Man, that is weird.

 

[2ndpillar]

Watch out for the pitfall of trying to get the NT to match your particular interpretation of Revelation. It has wasted a lot of time for many people. You know it is a book full of symbols and events that never happen literally. For example no woman can wear the sun as it is neither a garment, nor small enough to be a coat nor cool enough to be one. No one would be happy to sit beneath a throne shouting the same thing repeatedly for an eternity, unless they were high out of their minds. Things like this are good indications that perhaps Revelation is not a good place to get doctrine from, since the goal of doctrine is a righteous life not a life spent pent up with a book.

So, in your opinion Jesus isn't the king. People die every day, but I suppose you are invested in a particular interpretation of Revelation that requires you to believe that first death doesn't count. Good luck with that metal sword that comes directly from Jesus lips. Man, that is weird.

Dear brick,
If you had paid attention, you would have noticed that I had tied the prophecy of Revelation to that of Daniel 2, whereas the 10 horns of Revelation were paralleled to the 10 toes of Daniel 2, which have yet to have been crushed. I try and make allowances for those who do not believe in Revelation, but who seem to have little problem believing the rest of the canon produced from what the Protestant founders called the "whore of Babylon".

You seem to read into things that aren't written. Who mentioned a "metal" sword? The only thing that will be metal is the rod of iron. Who said the "first death doesn't count"? And if you read Zechariah 14, when has Jerusalem been "captured" forcing the "the lord to go forth and fight against those nations" which have come against "Jerusalem to battle". It is only after this event will the "Lord be king over all the earth", and the nations will be struck with a plague resembling acute radiation poisoning (Ze 14:12).

If you neither believe in Zechariah or Revelation, what do you believe in, and what is your foundation for debate? Is it that you only want to say peace, peace, when war is all around us?

Isaiah 5:20," Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil; Who substitute darkness for light and light for darkness; Who substitute bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter!

 

[Brickjectivity]

If you had paid attention, you would have noticed that I had tied the prophecy of Revelation to that of Daniel 2, whereas the 10 horns of Revelation were paralleled to the 10 toes of Daniel 2, which have yet to have been crushed. I try and make allowances for those who do not believe in Revelation, but who seem to have little problem believing the rest of the canon produced from what the Protestant founders called the "whore of Babylon".

Perhaps I was distracted by your calling me 'Dear' or your continual insistence upon focusing on Revelation as a book of timetables. Through complicated theorems you intend to prove a particular version of the gospel that you favor is aligned with historical events which you will point me to in attempt to get me to see things your way. This is a well trodden road with many, many versions, many pilgrims, seven wives, seven sacks and how many are going to St Ives.

Yes, the 'Protestant founders' who are no longer with us today and who inspired venomous hatred against all catholics, Jews and anyone else who opposed themselves -- I mean God. I surely want to know what they thought, because they were so pure and loving. They endearingly tortured Jews and Catholics in the love of Christ. I can see why you might think that Jesus was in favor of killing his enemies with steel swords. Thank you for revealing this truth to me. Goodness its like hearing the gospel for the first time.

I remember the 10 horns of Revelation, which some people think are representative of historical items, such as the 10 barbarian tribes that invaded Rome. After all in Daniel's vision the statue has feet of partially mixed clay and steel, so it could symbolize those barbarians as clay and Rome as steel. Why not? But what is the stone made without hands for? That shouldn't be in Nebuchadnezzar's dream, since Jesus wants a kingdom made with hands, swords etc. Down with peace! We must hate the beast, which is no doubt the Catholic church since its cardinals wear red. Darn those red robed cardinals with their stupid underwear-upside-down hats. They look like children eating at Red Lobster. Sometimes they also wear little bowls on their heads. Those must be for collecting money from helpless widows. Boy, I sure hope they are unbelieving widows who deserve it and not righteous people. Who was Daniel, again? I just can't remember sometimes.

You seem to read into things that aren't written. Who mentioned a "metal" sword? The only thing that will be metal is the rod of iron. Who said the "first death doesn't count"? And if you read Zechariah 14, when has Jerusalem been "captured" forcing the "the lord to go forth and fight against those nations" which have come against "Jerusalem to battle". It is only after this event will the "Lord be king over all the earth", and the nations will be struck with a plague resembling acute radiation poisoning (Ze 14:12).

Quite so. I read into things. I'm a reader into things person. I see now that only the most violent interpretation could possibly be the right one, since after all we must align with your particular views of revelation. It is such an enlightening book, and when Jesus comes down with his iron bar heads are going to roll. Heck yeah. Now that's gospel. I'm thinking about becoming a preacher, starting with buying some rebar. All my followers are going to have rebar, too. We're going to have a church that gets things done and prepare the world for Jesus, so they know what his iron bar is for.

If you neither believe in Zechariah or Revelation, what do you believe in, and what is your foundation for debate? Is it that you only want to say peace, peace, when war is all around us?

Isaiah 5:20," Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil; Who substitute darkness for light and light for darkness; Who substitute bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter!

Wow, I see now that any desire for peace or any envisioning of peace in the gospel must be merely an illusion. It couldn't possibly be about peace, because of that one verse you quoted out of context and because of all the dreamlike action in Revelation and because Daniel was bad ***.

 

[2ndpillar]

Perhaps I was distracted by your calling me 'Dear' or your continual insistence upon focusing on Revelation as a book of timetables. Through complicated theorems you intend to prove a particular version of the gospel that you favor is aligned with historical events which you will point me to in attempt to get me to see things your way. This is a well trodden road with many, many versions, many pilgrims, seven wives, seven sacks and how many are going to St Ives.

Yes, the 'Protestant founders' who are no longer with us today and who inspired venomous hatred against all catholics, Jews and anyone else who opposed themselves -- I mean God. I surely want to know what they thought, because they were so pure and loving. They endearingly tortured Jews and Catholics in the love of Christ. I can see why you might think that Jesus was in favor of killing his enemies with steel swords. Thank you for revealing this truth to me. Goodness its like hearing the gospel for the first time.

I remember the 10 horns of Revelation, which some people think are representative of historical items, such as the 10 barbarian tribes that invaded Rome. After all in Daniel's vision the statue has feet of partially mixed clay and steel, so it could symbolize those barbarians as clay and Rome as steel. Why not? But what is the stone made without hands for? That shouldn't be in Nebuchadnezzar's dream, since Jesus wants a kingdom made with hands, swords etc. Down with peace! We must hate the beast, which is no doubt the Catholic church since its cardinals wear red. Darn those red robed cardinals with their stupid underwear-upside-down hats. They look like children eating at Red Lobster. Sometimes they also wear little bowls on their heads. Those must be for collecting money from helpless widows. Boy, I sure hope they are unbelieving widows who deserve it and not righteous people. Who was Daniel, again? I just can't remember sometimes.


Quite so. I read into things. I'm a reader into things person. I see now that only the most violent interpretation could possibly be the right one, since after all we must align with your particular views of revelation. It is such an enlightening book, and when Jesus comes down with his iron bar heads are going to roll. Heck yeah. Now that's gospel. I'm thinking about becoming a preacher, starting with buying some rebar. All my followers are going to have rebar, too. We're going to have a church that gets things done and prepare the world for Jesus, so they know what his iron bar is for.


Wow, I see now that any desire for peace or any envisioning of peace in the gospel must be merely an illusion. It couldn't possibly be about peace, because of that one verse you quoted out of context and because of all the dreamlike action in Revelation and because Daniel was bad ***.

Dear brick,
That you "read into things" not written is surely evident. You are like a record that is stuck in a groove, and keeps going around and around in the same groove. As for proclaiming "peace, peace", Jeremiah 6:14-15, has an prophetic answer to people who are do such, in spite of reality:

14“They have healed the brokenness of My people superficially,
Saying, ‘Peace, peace,’
But there is no peace.

15“Were they ashamed because of the abomination they have done?
They were not even ashamed at all;
They did not even know how to blush.
Therefore they shall fall among those who fall;
At the time that I punish them,
They shall be cast down,” says the LORD.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Now I am into abominations and falling among those who fall! All because I'm unwilling to abandon principles and am able to see that Jesus preached a gospel of peace as repetitiously mentioned in the gospels and Acts.

 

[12jtartar]

KBC1963,
First, please remember that we are required to search the scriptures and find out the truth for ourselves, and not listen, or depend on what someone says the Bible says, Romans 12:2, 14:10,12. Remember, Satan is the God of this world, and he is blinding many to the truth and misleading many, 2Corinthians 4:3,4, 11:13-15, 1John 5:19,20, Revelation 12:9.
The Mosaic Law Covenant was de bene esse covenant, an interim covenant, that was to be in force until Jesus, the Messiah would come, Gal 3:19-25. The Jews were told this centuries before Jesus came to earth, Jeremiah 31:31-34. One of the important reasons for Jesus coming to earth was to remove the Law Covenant, because all those under the Mosaic Law Covenant were under a curse, Gal 3: 7-14, Romans 8:2,3, 7:6, 3:20, 6:23, 2Corinthians 3:6,7.
On the night before Jesus died he instituted The New Covenant, Luke 22:20. Notice that this New Covenant was based on Jesus' blood not on the bold of goats and Bulls, a the Mosaic Law Covenant was, Hebrews 9:15-22. Please read again Romans 8:6-13, which tells about the New Covenant that is much better than the Mosaic Law Covenant, because it was based on Jesus' blood and gave complete forgiveness of sins which the Mosaic Covenant could not do, Hebrews 7:18-25, 10:1-4, 11, 14-18.
The Mosaic Law Covenant ended when Jesus died, Col 2:13,14, superceded by a much better Covenant, Hebrews 8:13.
After that time no one was under the Mosaic Law Covenant any longer, Romans 6:14,15. The Gentiles were never under the Mosaic Law Covenant, Romans 2:14, Deuteronomy 5:1-4. Please think deeply on these scriptures.

 

[Ken Brown]

KBC1963,
First, please remember that we are required to search the scriptures and find out the truth for ourselves, and not listen, or depend on what someone says the Bible says, Romans 12:2, 14:10,12. Remember, Satan is the God of this world, and he is blinding many to the truth and misleading many, 2Corinthians 4:3,4, 11:13-15, 1John 5:19,20, Revelation 12:9.
The Mosaic Law Covenant was de bene esse covenant, an interim covenant, that was to be in force until Jesus, the Messiah would come, Gal 3:19-25. The Jews were told this centuries before Jesus came to earth, Jeremiah 31:31-34. One of the important reasons for Jesus coming to earth was to remove the Law Covenant, because all those under the Mosaic Law Covenant were under a curse, Gal 3: 7-14, Romans 8:2,3, 7:6, 3:20, 6:23, 2Corinthians 3:6,7.
On the night before Jesus died he instituted The New Covenant, Luke 22:20. Notice that this New Covenant was based on Jesus' blood not on the bold of goats and Bulls, a the Mosaic Law Covenant was, Hebrews 9:15-22. Please read again Romans 8:6-13, which tells about the New Covenant that is much better than the Mosaic Law Covenant, because it was based on Jesus' blood and gave complete forgiveness of sins which the Mosaic Covenant could not do, Hebrews 7:18-25, 10:1-4, 11, 14-18.
The Mosaic Law Covenant ended when Jesus died, Col 2:13,14, superceded by a much better Covenant, Hebrews 8:13.
After that time no one was under the Mosaic Law Covenant any longer, Romans 6:14,15. The Gentiles were never under the Mosaic Law Covenant, Romans 2:14, Deuteronomy 5:1-4. Please think deeply on these scriptures.

Shabbat Shalom 12jtartar, I like how you write, sort of reminds me of myself a little. You use a lot of Scripture to make your points. There is something though that you may need a little help with. If you want to have all the Scriptures work with the "mouse over" you need to be a little more accurate in how you type the reference. Several examples from your post above: You typed (2Corinthians 4:3-4,11:13-15), but if you would have typed (2 Corinthians 4:3, 2 Corinthians 11:13-15), both Scriptures would have worked with the "mouse over." Also, separating the book # from the book, and not using a comma between verses, allows the "mouse over" to work--1John 5:19,20 versus 1 John 5:19-20. Another common mistake that many make is with the Book of Acts. If one types Acts 3:26, it will not work, but if you type Acts of the Apostles 3:26, it will work. I build houses and I am very detailed orientated.

Which brings me to ask you several questions about the content you wrote.

1. You state: "One of the important reasons for Jesus coming to earth was to remove the Law Covenant, because all those under the Mosaic Law Covenant were under a curse." My question to you would be, "Are you sure the Law is a curse? And, "Do you know what the curse of the Law is?"

2. You state: "The Mosaic Law Covenant ended when Jesus died." My question to you would be, "Are you sure it ended when "Jesus" died? And, why would Yeshua say, "For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled," and the writer of Hebrews 8:13 indicates that the Old Covenant is growing old, and IS ready to vanish away. How can something that "ended when Jesus died," be ready to vanish away years later?

3. You state: "After that time no one was under the Mosaic Law Covenant any longer," so does this mean that Moses should not be listened to and obeyed any longer? Please consider, Matthew 5:19, John 5:45-47, and Acts of the Apostles 21:20 in answering.

Blessings in The Name, ImAHebrew