Bibleguys - My Journey These Past Couple of Years (1 Viewer)

[Jayrok]

Ken Ham is a myth.  

 

[mr roboto]

Well holy cow if it isn't @Gold Dragon!  I don't venture into these threads all that often, so maybe I just missed that you were poking around again.  Either way, welcome back.  Good to see you.  How you been?

As if this thread isn't confusing enough...let's leave eastern religion out of it, k?

 

[shader]

You might be surprised, if you do the research and are wiling to think outside of what you've been taught. 

How Many Tribes?

I have to admit that my confusion in your beliefs only gets larger with that article. I'd be willing to discuss this, however, because I find it interesting.

My response may be answered in that article, and if it is, I apologize.  I honestly don't have the time right now to read the whole thing.  I've been planning to sit down and give this thread (and your DM) a little more thought, but this week isn't going well for that.

To me, the Gentiles, or perhaps more accurately translated the "Nations" referred to EVERYONE that wasn't Jewish.  The ten tribes had already been lost and yes they interspersed with mankind to some degree, but is there really any way to determine how much?  What about those nations that hadn't mixed with the Jews?  Are they not included?

I just don't see the need to try and force-feed history into the Israelite lens when, in my opinion, there's no biblical need to do so.

The wonderful thing about the early church is that it began opening it's doors wide to people of all nations.  To go back and try and claim that it was only to the "lost 10 tribes" seems quite odd to me, and seems quite at odds with the way that the early Christians seemed to preach (they preached to everyone). 

The word translated "ethnos" can also be translated Nations, as many bibles do, and in that translation it really underscores the fact that the message was now open to EVERYONE, not just the Jews and the "lost tribes of Israel".

Also, I'm struggling to see where this type of belief system would leave someone like me or someone else that may have zero Israelite heritage?

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

The word only refers to what we might think of as a Jew beginning with the second temple period, principally in the book of Esther, probably written in 350 BC about events that occurred in 470 BC, that is after the return of the exiles to Jerusalem. I maintain that Rabbinic Phariseeism, which is what we now call Judaism, really took hold of the religion of Israel in Babylon, the cultural center of the remnant of Israel after the devastation of the Holy land in 132 AD.  Remember, it’s the Babylonian Talmud that carries the most weight in Jewish life, not the Jerusalem Talmud. The Pharisee movement created an innovation in the religion of Israel that allowed one to practice a form of the religion of Israel when one could not go to the temple. This was an innovation.

He would fulfill the Messianic expectation of the rebuilding and purifying the temple that had been profaned by the Syrian Greeks, the Hasmoneans who extended its space for military purposes and then by Herod the Great, who used it to aggrandize himself. He would, however, do so in a way unexpected. He would create a living temple, the church.  He thus claimed to be the fulfillment of the tradition of Israel. It was the Pharisees who were the innovation.  
My dear friend Rabbi Lefkowitz, an ultra-orthodox Rabbi, would howl at this interpretation, as would most Christians, but it was he who started my thinking about this, I’m sure to his chagrin. He once said, “You Christians have got it wrong. You are more Jewish than we are. You have temples and sacrifices. We believe that the temple and the sacrifices of the law were concessions to the Jews, lest they backslide into the practices of the Canaanites. The sacrificial order is not central to Judaism. It’s the moral and ethical content of the Torah that matters.”

It's sort of ironic-funny to me that the Jews have this same debate as the Christians about the real true original nature of the religion being spoiled by the institutional 'church' as it were.

And I wonder which Judaism CE is hearkening back to himself, he could just land in the same trap in the Jewish rubric he did in the Christian.

 

[mr roboto]

Ken Ham is a myth.  

I swear he's a giant troll. 

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

The groom’s uncle, a true Tsaddik, (righteous man) was there.

So I could be wrong but I think 'tsaddik' is essentially the same as 'zadok' or 'Sadducees'. I was never really sure what this meant in the Bible but it makes more sense to think of it in this contemporary way.

Rabbinic Phariseeism, or what we now call Judaism, is a religion of the synagogue. It survives because the temple is optional, though desirable. 

I guess the Pharisees were essentially rabbis then? Jewish priests? the religion certainly seems digfferent today than what we saw in the Bible. The Pharisees seemed like a sort of theocratic class in the Bible.

 

[shader]

People always stop a verse or two short. 

Acts 15:21 - "For from ancient generations Moses has had in every city those who proclaim him, for he is read every Sabbath in the synagogues."

So the council basically decided to deal with the most pressing issues that new believers were dealing with in the society in which they lived. These were some of the practices of the day that they needed to immediately leave behind. The rest they would learn every Sabbath as they were taught Torah in the synagogues.

Think about it...was murder ok? Coveting? Stealing? Of course not. But they would be taught all of those things as they continually grew in their faith. 

I was actually reading from later in the chapter, so I apologize, i wasn't trying to leave anything out.

I don't quite understand the point you're making by including Acts 15:21.  I don't think I can buy the fact that the council was only talking about the things that the christians "needed to immediately leave behind" and  that they'd learn the rest every Sabbath.  

I think he was making the point with that scripture (although admittedly, it's kind of a confusing scripture when you read the context) that the Jewish people had been taught these things for many years.  At the beginning of that chapter, the point is made that some Pharisees had become Christians. These Pharisees obviously still believed in Circumcision and in holding to many parts of the law.  The law, for these Jewish ones, was something taught to them every Sabbath for their entire lives. It wasn't something that all of them could just leave behind.

But it's pretty clear that in the decision on circumcision, that they weren't required to get circumcised.  So wasn't this the first example that something that was REQUIRED of the Israelites, was NOT required of the "nations"? or Gentiles?

Then in the letter that Paul and Barnabas carried to all the congregations, they cleared up that they weren't going to add any further burdens, aside from a few key points:  things strangled, blood, fornication, etc.  

Your point that "The rest they would learn every Sabbath as they were taught Torah in the synagogues.", is not one I can find in the scriptures.  There's no indication that this was just a starting point and that as time went on the christians in all these cities began adapting more and more of the laws from the Torah.  And again, if that was the ultimate goal, wouldn't the command to get circumcised have been given at that time? 

As for Murder, coveting and stealing, didn't Jesus himself cover these things?  Those aren't really teachings that the apostles necessarily needed to touch on, because Jesus covered them very well while he was on earth.  Also, I'm sure all the Christian congregations already knew these things, as no doubt they knew the events of Jesus' life, death and resurrection.

 

[Psychopav]

So I could be wrong but I think 'tsaddik' is essentially the same as 'zadok' or 'Sadducees'. I was never really sure what this meant in the Bible but it makes more sense to think of it in this contemporary way.

I guess the Pharisees were essentially rabbis then? Jewish priests? the religion certainly seems digfferent today than what we saw in the Bible. The Pharisees seemed like a sort of theocratic class in the Bible.

I think the Sadducees were essentially wiped out with the destruction of the temple. 

I think that rabbinic pharisaism developed as a result of the Babylonian exile, as a way of practicing the law without a temple to practice it in.

But I know nothing about this stuff really. 

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Shanks holds that two forms of Judaism survived the destruction of the temple, Christianity and Rabbinic Phariseeism. The Sadducees, the Zealots, the Essenes and the followers of John lost their reason for being with the destruction of the temple. Rabbinic Phariseeism, or what we now call Judaism, is a religion of the synagogue. It survives because the temple is optional, though desirable. 

I just thought this was interesting because my impression was:

- Sadducees are still around in the sense that tsadik like the fellow mentioned above are still around.

- The Zealots - Judas iscariot (or i-scaria, or Ha-Sikkaryoth) was possibly one. These were the 'assassins' who were fighting the Romans, essentially Hebrew nationalists. Well they went away because the Romans killed them all.

- The Essenes and followers of John - well now, who would they have been?

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

I think the Sadducees were essentially wiped out with the destruction of the temple.

Apparently the word is still around, which I just never thought of. I think the concept of Sadducees who form a sort of an ideological phalanx around or behind the Pharisees in the Roman era Judaic theocracy (under Herod) is what disappeared.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

I think that rabbinic pharisaism developed as a result of the Babylonian exile, as a way of practicing the law without a temple to practice it in.

See, again, I thought that was what happened with the destruction of Jerusalem. So is CE in the pre-Babylon camp? If he just goes pre-Jerusalem then he lands himself back in a debate about what is the 'original' faith all over again. But then I guess no one is really interested in Temple based Judaism. But technically that was Jesus' era. even if there were Pharisees they were obviously dedicated to the Temple system.

 

[shader]

One thing I forgot to mention, CE. 

As for the Law, please don't mis-understand, in no way am I trying to claim that there was anything wrong with it, or that the principles behind it weren't still in effect.  Ultimately, God doesn't change.  But back when the Law was instituted, he had one nation, and they were an actual nation.  So a law was needed, not only for morality (spiritual reasons), but also for legal reasons.

So I think it's important to read the law and think of the principles behind it, and imagine why God made that law and how it could help a nation.  For instance, is God really tying morality to the eating of shrimp and pork?  I doubt it.  But did avoiding shrimp and pork back in ancient times possibly protect his nation from diseases?  Quite likely.  Likewise, there were many laws on sanitation, uncleanness, etc.  The world was a dirtier and more ancient place.  There's good reason for those laws in a world where germs and diseases weren't understood.

Sacrifices were needed then, but they aren't now, as Jesus' sacrifice paid the price for all of our sins.  

I still think it's very important to study the Law, but we aren't under all aspects of the law, I'm sure we can both agree on that. Where we may differ is in our understanding of which portions are still valid and which are not.

 

[Gold Dragon]

Regarding the argument that the Gentiles of the NT were merely referencing the descendants of the northern tribes, I think that is pretty evident that was not the case.

12 When the Gentiles sin, they will be destroyed, even though they never had God’s written law. And the Jews, who do have God’s law, will be judged by that law when they fail to obey it. 13 For merely listening to the law doesn’t make us right with God. It is obeying the law that makes us right in his sight. 14 Even Gentiles, who do not have God’s written law, show that they know his law when they instinctively obey it, even without having heard it. 15 They demonstrate that God’s law is written in their hearts, for their own conscience and thoughts either accuse them or tell them they are doing right.    Romans 2:12-15 (NLT)

Romans 2 is just such an amazing chapter to help us understand the value and function of the law.

28 For you are not a true Jew just because you were born of Jewish parents or because you have gone through the ceremony of circumcision. 29 No, a true Jew is one whose heart is right with God. And true circumcision is not merely obeying the letter of the law; rather, it is a change of heart produced by the Spirit. And a person with a changed heart seeks praise from God, not from people.   Romans 2:28-29 (NLT)

And then the law is placed in a completely new perspective in Christ in chapter 6.

4 So, my dear brothers and sisters, this is the point: You died to the power of the law when you died with Christ. And now you are united with the one who was raised from the dead. As a result, we can produce a harvest of good deeds for God. 5 When we were controlled by our old nature, sinful desires were at work within us, and the law aroused these evil desires that produced a harvest of sinful deeds, resulting in death. 6 But now we have been released from the law, for we died to it and are no longer captive to its power. Now we can serve God, not in the old way of obeying the letter of the law, but in the new way of living in the Spirit.  

7 Well then, am I suggesting that the law of God is sinful? Of course not! In fact, it was the law that showed me my sin. I would never have known that coveting is wrong if the law had not said, “You must not covet.” 8 But sin used this command to arouse all kinds of covetous desires within me! If there were no law, sin would not have that power.9 At one time I lived without understanding the law. But when I learned the command not to covet, for instance, the power of sin came to life,10 and I died. So I discovered that the law’s commands, which were supposed to bring life, brought spiritual death instead. 11 Sin took advantage of those commands and deceived me; it used the commands to kill me. 12 But still, the law itself is holy, and its commands are holy and right and good.

Romans 6:4-12 (NLT)

The law is holy right and good.   Does that mean we follow it slavishly as if following the letter of the law was the function of the law?   Or maybe it means that we follow the law by understanding its purpose in God's relationship with humans and humbly attempt the very difficult task of rightly interpreting how we should apply those principles today, even if that is not something we can all agree with in practice much of the time.

 

[shader]

Regarding the argument that the Gentiles of the NT were merely referencing the descendants of the northern tribes, I think that is pretty evident that was not the case.

Romans 2 is just such an amazing chapter to help us understand the value and function of the law.

And then the law is placed in a completely new perspective in Christ in chapter 6.

The law is holy right and good.   Does that mean we follow it slavishly as if following the letter of the law was the function of the law?   Or maybe it means that we follow the law by understanding its purpose in God's relationship with humans and humbly attempt the very difficult task of rightly interpreting how we should apply those principles today, even if that is not something we can all agree with in practice much of the time.

Yeah that first scripture really is a tough obstacle to that argument, imo. I'd imagine if I read the entire NT with the idea of showing that the "Gentiles or Ethnos" of the NT were not just descendants of the northern tribes, there would be a number of scriptures to support that.  I've never really discussed this issue before, which is why it interests me.  It's quite an interesting set of beliefs, though I don't see any scriptural support for it at all.

 

[Jayrok]

Yeah that first scripture really is a tough obstacle to that argument, imo. I'd imagine if I read the entire NT with the idea of showing that the "Gentiles or Ethnos" of the NT were not just descendants of the northern tribes, there would be a number of scriptures to support that.  I've never really discussed this issue before, which is why it interests me.  It's quite an interesting set of beliefs, though I don't see any scriptural support for it at all.

Another one that might be added is Matt 10:5-6 where Jesus sends out the twelve.   These twelve Jesus sent out with the following instructions: “Do not go among the Gentiles or enter any town of the Samaritans. 6 Go rather to the lost sheep of Israel.

"Gentiles" here is translated in the Greek as "Ethnos" (Strong's G1484) and in the context of this passage it is definitely separated from the lost sheep of Israel (if these lost sheep are the northern tribes of Israel).  

 

[Gold Dragon]

You might be surprised, if you do the research and are wiling to think outside of what you've been taught. 

How Many Tribes?

If you went from dispensationalism to the mess on that website, I fear you may be going further away from what scripture actually says.   Those guy(s) seem like they get stuck on specific words and extrapolate pretty wildly from those words.   They reference a lot of true things from the original greek and hebrew but draw completely erroneous conclusions from those truths.   It is sort of like a lay person getting a hold of a medical texbook and having no clue how to correctly interpret what they are reading.   They also lose the forest in the trees and seem intent on spreading some fairly strange ideas.  I really hope you don't get too far into that mess.

Challenge what they say with scripture because a lot of it does not hold up, if any of it does.

It looks like the author of the website and John Keyser who is an editor, come from the Worldwide Church of God (Herbert Armstrong) tradition which most of the Christian world rejected as unorthodox.   The modern Worldwide Church of God have since rejected some of the major errors of Armstrong but looking at the website you referenced, there are still some folks who are true believers of his messed up theology.

http://www.hope-of-israel.org/berean.htm

If you have the slightest doubts about the changes in doctrine in the Worldwide Church of God, then I have GOOD NEWS for you. Although many former ministers of the church have started and incorporated their own "churches," seeking a following, in the midst of this Babylon of CONFUSION, I have found ONE VOICE OF REASON who has without fear or favor upheld sound doctrine and exposed error with impeccable Biblical scholarship. This one voice of reason and truth is John D. Keyser, who, like the apostle Paul, supports himself with a full-time job. The mission of his BEREAN VOICE is truth, not money. Since the apostates now in control of organized churches will not respond to doctrinal truth, and dismiss the truth without a fair hearing or just cause, then it behooves YOU -- for your own salvation and eternal life! -- to check up and PROVE John D. Keyser's teachings FROM THE BIBLE! LET YEHOVAH'S WORD BE THE JUDGE! I know. I have proved that he faithfully upholds the doctrines of Herbert Armstrong that can be proven true from Scripture.

Read up on the history of Armstrong and the WWCOG

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armstrongism

 

[CrossEyed2]

If you went from dispensationalism to the mess on that website, I fear you may be going further away from what scripture actually says.   Those guy(s) seem like they get stuck on specific words and extrapolate pretty wildly from those words.   They reference a lot of true things from the original greek and hebrew but draw completely erroneous conclusions from those truths.   It is sort of like a lay person getting a hold of a medical texbook and having no clue how to correctly interpret what they are reading.   They also lose the forest in the trees and seem intent on spreading some fairly strange ideas.  I really hope you don't get too far into that mess.

Challenge what they say with scripture because a lot of it does not hold up, if any of it does.

It looks like the author of the website and John Keyser who is an editor, come from the Worldwide Church of God (Herbert Armstrong) tradition which most of the Christian world rejected as unorthodox.   The modern Worldwide Church of God have since rejected some of the major errors of Armstrong but looking at the website you referenced, there are still some folks who are true believers of his messed up theology.

http://www.hope-of-israel.org/berean.htm

Read up on the history of Armstrong and the WWCOG

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armstrongism

I didn't point anyone to the entire website, simply that particular article. I honestly have no idea what the rest of the articles are on that site. 

Look, I'm not interested in twisting arms. I left that behind a long time ago. Do the research (or don't), and reach your own conclusions. Trying to accomplish that by reading one article or one website is impossible. 

Here's what I've found...the church has this stuff wrong. They get the salvation part right, but they completely misunderstand the continuity between the OT and the NT. As I've already stated, it's one continuous love story between God and His people. One bride, Israel. 

And someone asked about those who do not have an Israelite heritage. Well, it's no different now than it was at Sinai. There were "foreigners" who had joined themselves to Isreal. They were welcomed, and they were told that the same instructions that applied to the Israelites applied to them. All who are being saved are being grafted into the olive tree, Israel, regardless of their heritage. 

 

[Gold Dragon]

I didn't point anyone to the entire website, simply that particular article. I honestly have no idea what the rest of the articles are on that site. 

Look, I'm not interested in twisting arms. I left that behind a long time ago. Do the research (or don't), and reach your own conclusions. Trying to accomplish that by reading one article or one website is impossible. 

Here's what I've found...the church has this stuff wrong. They get the salvation part right, but they completely misunderstand the continuity between the OT and the NT. As I've already stated, it's one continuous love story between God and His people. One bride, Israel. 

And someone asked about those who do not have an Israelite heritage. Well, it's no different now than it was at Sinai. There were "foreigners" who had joined themselves to Isreal. They were welcomed, and they were told that the same instructions that applied to the Israelites applied to them. All who are being saved are being grafted into the olive tree, Israel, regardless of their heritage. 

It sounds like a lot of the stuff you are into now is pretty in line with armstrong's view.   

The apostacy of mainline churches, stricter observance of the law particularly the dietary laws, the paganism of Christian holidays and the "lost northern tribes".

These are all pretty old issues that have not stood up to the test of both scriptural and historical evidence.  

 

[Gold Dragon]

Here's what I've found...the church has this stuff wrong. They get the salvation part right, but they completely misunderstand the continuity between the OT and the NT. As I've already stated, it's one continuous love story between God and His people. One bride, Israel.

I agree with the bolded.  And it is not all of Christianity that gets this wrong.   Mostly dispensationlist leaning ones.   

The bride is not just Israel as shown in revelation 7 after talking about the 144000 from Israel. 

After this I looked, and there before me was a great multitude that no one could count, from every nation, tribe, people and language, standing before the throne and before the Lamb.

 

[CrossEyed2]

I agree with the bolded.  And it is not all of Christianity that gets this wrong.   Mostly dispensationlist leaning ones.   

The bride is not just Israel as shown in revelation 7 after talking about the 144000 from Israel. 

144,000 is a symbolic number, not a literal one. 12 is a biblical number of completion. "Thousands" represents the idea of a multitude. So it is the completed multitude of the completed Kingdom (12 tribes). 

Notice that John only hears the number, but then he sees the great multitude that "no one could count". It's the same group of people. 

 

[CrossEyed2]

It sounds like a lot of the stuff you are into now is pretty in line with armstrong's view.   

The apostacy of mainline churches, stricter observance of the law particularly the dietary laws, the paganism of Christian holidays and the "lost northern tribes".

These are all pretty old issues that have not stood up to the test of both scriptural and historical evidence.  

According to the same people who have been teaching it incorrectly since Constantine. 

 

[cstu]

Here's what I've found...the church has this stuff wrong. They get the salvation part right, but they completely misunderstand the continuity between the OT and the NT. As I've already stated, it's one continuous love story between God and His people. One bride, Israel. 

Except for the flood, of course.

 

[Gold Dragon]

144,000 is a symbolic number, not a literal one. 12 is a biblical number of completion. "Thousands" represents the idea of a multitude. So it is the completed multitude of the completed Kingdom (12 tribes). 

Notice that John only hears the number, but then he sees the great multitude that "no one could count". It's the same group of people. 

My focus is not on the number but all the nations tribes and tongues talked about after the number suggesting that the bride is not just Israel.  

 

[Gold Dragon]

According to the same people who have been teaching it incorrectly since Constantine. 

Believe what you want but the pagan holidays is really a non issue. And the whole restorationist movement is couched on a poor understanding of history to defend a theological position on the RCC.   As a Baptist I'm sure you are used to the whole trail of blood nonsense.  

 

[CrossEyed2]

My focus is not on the number but all the nations tribes and tongues talked about after the number suggesting that the bride is not just Israel.  

Where do you think the northern tribes were scattered to? Read your OT.

 

[CrossEyed2]

Believe what you want but the pagan holidays is really a non issue. And the whole restorationist movement is couched on a poor understanding of history to defend a theological position on the RCC.   As a Baptist I'm sure you are used to the whole trail of blood nonsense.  

Study the origins of the customs practiced on Easter and Christmas. Then read Deuteronomy 12: "1“These are the statutes and rules that you shall be careful to do in the land that the LORD, the God of your fathers, has given you to possess, all the days that you live on the earth.2You shall surely destroy all the places where the nations whom you shall dispossess served their gods, on the high mountains and on the hills and under every green tree. 3You shall tear down their altars and dash in pieces their pillars and burn their Asherim with fire. You shall chop down the carved images of their gods and destroy their name out of that place. 4You shall not worship the LORD your God in that way. 5But you shall seek the place that the LORD  your God will choose out of all your tribes to put his name and make his habitationa there. There you shall go, 6and there you shall bring your burnt offerings and your sacrifices, your tithes and the contribution that you present, your vow offerings, your freewill offerings, and the firstborn of your herd and of your flock. 7And there you shall eat before the LORD your God, and you shall rejoice, you and your households, in all that you undertake, in which the LORDyour God has blessed you.

It doesn't really matter what it means to you, it matters what it means to Him. 

 

[Gold Dragon]

I am very familiar and acknowledge the pagan history of Christian holidays and traditions.  That association has no bearing on Christian holidays today and is in no way construed as worship of idols.

If Islamic State took over the USA, co-opted the dates and symbols of Christmas, Easter or whichever holiday you consider pure into the Islamic holiday calendar, does that make them Christian and worshiping Jehovah?

Or if communists took over the USA and made July 4th Marx day would they suddenly be a democratic and capitalistic group?

 

[Psychopav]

My focus is not on the number but all the nations tribes and tongues talked about after the number suggesting that the bride is not just Israel.  

The bride is just Israel, if you consider the Christian Church to be Israel by adoption, right? 

 

[Gold Dragon]

The bride is just Israel, if you consider the Christian Church to be Israel by adoption, right? 

Except that is not what the NT says about adoption.  We are adopted as sons of God, not sons of Israel.  

 

[CrossEyed2]

I am very familiar and acknowledge the pagan history of Christian holidays and traditions.  That association has no bearing on Christian holidays today and is in no way construed as worship of idols.

If Islamic State took over the USA, co-opted the dates and symbols of Christmas, Easter or whichever holiday you consider pure into the Islamic holiday calendar, does that make them Christian and worshiping Jehovah?

Or if communists took over the USA and made July 4th Marx day would they suddenly be a democratic and capitalistic group?

God is pretty straightforward about what He thinks about His people worshiping Him in the same way as the pagans worshipped their gods. But that's between you and Him. For me, He's made it quite clear. 

 

[CrossEyed2]

Except that is not what the NT says about adoption.  We are adopted as sons of God, not sons of Israel.  

Paul says we are all grafted into Israel. It's quite clear if you can drop your traditional thinking and just read Scripture for what it says. 

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

According to the same people who have been teaching it incorrectly since Constantine. 

Dude if it wasn't for Constantine you and billions might likely never heard of Jesus. Take that one for a spin in the SS Dispensationalism. 

 

[Psychopav]

Dude if it wasn't for Constantine you and billions might likely never heard of Jesus. Take that one for a spin in the SS Dispensationalism. 

Roses are red and violets are bluish.  If it weren't for Christ, we'd all be Jewish.

 

[Gold Dragon]

Paul says we are all grafted into Israel. It's quite clear if you can drop your traditional thinking and just read Scripture for what it says. 

It says we were grafted into the tree, not Israel.  What the tree represents is not explicitly clarified and a source of debate but looking at the passage in its context, I would say the tree is God's family.   Israel is a major portion of the tree and is represented by the branches that were broken off.  We were grafted into the place of the broken branches.  But Israel is not the tree itself unless you are trying to read that into this passage.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans+11

 

[CrossEyed2]

This whole thread I've been trying to think of why I'm having trouble tracking with you. I'm down with rejecting dispensationalism, I'm just not comfortable with the direction you've gone, and I think this is at the heart of it. 

My two cents, and I don't mean this to be critical, but I'm interested in engaging you where I see things differently, so here goes. I don't think that any of us can read scripture apart from our own presuppositions and biases. Consequently, not a single one of us is able to "read scripture for what it says." We interpret it, just as the best and brightest minds in the church have done for thousands of years. We can certainly have our own individual interpretation of scripture and we can consider our interpretation to be God's clear word, but make no mistake - it is simply our interpretation of scripture, and if we want to hold our interpretation over all others then we've basically turned ourselves into our own pope with a very tiny but devoted fiefdom. 

I am most comfortable when I am in line with what the church has believed - I am not near confident enough in my own mind to break from Augustine, Aquinas, Calvin, etc and feel like I'm in better shape abandoning them for what I believe the bible to say. And hey, maybe I'm wrong - but I feel better about my chances with the church than against her. 

The "best and brightest" minds are those who are promoted by the leaders of that group. History is written by the victors, so who do you think gets pushed as the "best and brightest".

You may feel most comfortable with the crowd. I completely understand that. I feel most comfortable when I'm aligning with Scripture. I like my chances there. 

 

[CrossEyed2]

It says we were grafted into the tree, not Israel.  What the tree represents is not explicitly clarified and a source of debate but looking at the passage in its context, I would say the tree is God's family.   Israel is a major portion of the tree and is represented by the branches that were broken off.  We were grafted into the place of the broken branches.  But Israel is not the tree itself unless you are trying to read that into this passage.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans+11

I guess we'll have to disagree on this for now. 

 

[CrossEyed2]

Dude if it wasn't for Constantine you and billions might likely never heard of Jesus. Take that one for a spin in the SS Dispensationalism. 

Dude, you need to think that statement through just a bit longer. 

 

[CrossEyed2]

If anyone is interested in exploring these topics further, 119 Ministries has some good teachings. I don't completely agree with them on everything, but they're pretty good. 

119 Ministries

 

[The Commish]

This whole thread I've been trying to think of why I'm having trouble tracking with you. I'm down with rejecting dispensationalism, I'm just not comfortable with the direction you've gone, and I think this is at the heart of it. 

My two cents, and I don't mean this to be critical, but I'm interested in engaging you where I see things differently, so here goes. I don't think that any of us can read scripture apart from our own presuppositions and biases. Consequently, not a single one of us is able to "read scripture for what it says." We interpret it, just as the best and brightest minds in the church have done for thousands of years. We can certainly have our own individual interpretation of scripture and we can consider our interpretation to be God's clear word, but make no mistake - it is simply our interpretation of scripture, and if we want to hold our interpretation over all others then we've basically turned ourselves into our own pope with a very tiny but devoted fiefdom. 

I am most comfortable when I am in line with what the church has believed - I am not near confident enough in my own mind to break from Augustine, Aquinas, Calvin, etc and feel like I'm in better shape abandoning them for what I believe the bible to say. And hey, maybe I'm wrong - but I feel better about my chances with the church than against her. 

The "best and brightest" minds are those who are promoted by the leaders of that group. History is written by the victors, so who do you think gets pushed as the "best and brightest".

You may feel most comfortable with the crowd. I completely understand that. I feel most comfortable when I'm aligning with Scripture. I like my chances there. 

My

Take this from a guy who has had pretty much the same epiphany as you have....there's a fine line here.  Sometimes the crowd is right and we are wrong.  Sometimes we are right and the crowd is wrong.  I learned that if I come to my conclusions and interpretations without going through all three phases of prayer, reading scripture and fellowship with others, I'm doing it wrong.  Of course, that doesn't mean that I have to follow the crowd, but if I exclude fellow believers in my journey, I'm not doing it the way God designed and I'm probably not going to get it right ever.  There's a fine line between being loyal to the word and putting one's self above everyone else.

 

[CrossEyed2]

My

Take this from a guy who has had pretty much the same epiphany as you have....there's a fine line here.  Sometimes the crowd is right and we are wrong.  Sometimes we are right and the crowd is wrong.  I learned that if I come to my conclusions and interpretations without going through all three phases of prayer, reading scripture and fellowship with others, I'm doing it wrong.  Of course, that doesn't mean that I have to follow the crowd, but if I exclude fellow believers in my journey, I'm not doing it the way God designed and I'm probably not going to get it right ever.  There's a fine line between being loyal to the word and putting one's self above everyone else.




 




 

No disagreement. I'm in fellowship with numerous like-minded brothers and sisters. Long distance fellowship, but fellowship nonetheless. There is a growing group of folks who are reaching the same conclusions and finding little/no receptivity to the ideas within the church. So many are leaving the institutional church and starting home fellowships.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Dude, you need to think that statement through just a bit longer. 

Constantine is a known quantity to me. And I know what you mean and I have some things to say on the subject but let's face it without the Emperor how many people would be Christians today? He's such a bad guy in doctrine but he spread the faith in a massive way.

 

[CrossEyed2]

Regarding Acts 15, I was sent this resource. I have only scanned it and not read it all in detail, but I trust the source who sent me the link.

Lifting the Veil, Acts 15:20-21

 

[CrossEyed2]

Constantine is a known quantity to me. And I know what you mean and I have some things to say on the subject but let's face it without the Emperor how many people would be Christians today? He's such a bad guy in doctrine but he spread the faith in a massive way.




 

Compare what Constantine did with Yahweh's instructions in Deuteronomy 12. Good intentions (if he had good intentions) do not override poor decisions. 

 

[shader]

CE, how do you view the following scriptures:

Matt 21:42,43

Matt 23:37,38

Those seem pretty clear that God was rejecting Israel.  

You've mentioned that it's important to read what the bible really says and not focus on what the Church has been teaching for many years.  While I'm in major agreement with you on that overall premise, in this case my problem is that I can't seem to find any scriptural support for what you're saying, nor does it make much sense to me.

I don't know or agree with your premise that the "Gentiles" don't mean the surrounding nations and instead mean the lost tribes of Israel, primarily because there's no biblical support for that, and I'd imagine that a history major could tear apart the notion that all of those Roman cities in which congregations were formed in the NT were in reality descendants from the original tribe of Israel. 

To me, God's relationship with Israel was based on birthright and heritage, and Israel basically failed to live up to God's standards for the vast majority of their life as a nation, resulting in endless punishments, and a final destruction of Jerusalem in the 1st century (of which Jesus foretold)

On the other hand, God's relationship with Christians is not based on being a part of any physical nation, but on your heart condition and your faith and your belief in God.

It seems pretty simple to think of the "Israel of God" mentioned at Gal 6:16 as a spiritual Israel, and to think of the New Covenant as one between God and people of all the nations.  When you try and tie it back in to the old relationship God had with the original nation of Israel, of which the vast majority of them rejected God and who put his son Jesus to death, that's where it all falls apart for me.  

Sometimes it's tough in the bible to say "just read what's there" because "what's there" can be symbolic or doesn't always have to be taken literal.  So when I read the words "Israel of God" I may think one thing and you may think another.  In this instance, you may be able to claim "just read the bible it's right there!!!", but then in another place (as an example your interpretation of 144,000 above) you may say, "well that's not a literal number".  

I really think it's awesome that you're searching, but on none of these new beliefs that you found should you lose the ability to look at them with a critical eye and see whether they are true or not, imo.

 

[shader]

Believe what you want but the pagan holidays is really a non issue. And the whole restorationist movement is couched on a poor understanding of history to defend a theological position on the RCC.   As a Baptist I'm sure you are used to the whole trail of blood nonsense.  

That's a strong position to take.  If CE has decided that the pagan origins of holidays is enough to cause him to want to avoid them, where is the harm in that?  

It's a non-issue in today's world, but that doesn't mean it's a non-issue to God.

Take Christmas for example.  It wasn't Jesus birthday, it's not a biblical celebration, it's pagan origins are quite clearly evident, as are the origins of many of the symbols and rites surrounding it, much less the fact that now it's become basically a strictly secular and money-making holiday...Now, I'm not going to tell you not to celebrate it, but it seems quite reasonable to me that someone who is quite strictly trying to separate themselves from all vestiges of false worship (pagan teachings) may make that decision to avoid it.  After all, it's not a Christian holiday, it's a holiday that the church instituted based on faulty reasonings and to help pagans feel more at ease.

God doesn't change.  Think about how God felt about the "mixing of worship" in ancient Israel.  He hated it.  It'd hard for me to see how God wouldn't hate the same things today.

Overall your point is true in a sense, in that it's a "non-issue" today.  That's true.  But there are a lot of things that were wrong in bible times that are "non issues" today.  Drunkenness, fornication, adultery, etc.  Most churches seem to have made many "allowances" for the way people today live, and so it doesn't surprise me and shouldn't surprise anyone that no one really cares about the pagan origins of many holidays.

 

[Jayrok]

Regarding Acts 15, I was sent this resource. I have only scanned it and not read it all in detail, but I trust the source who sent me the link.

Lifting the Veil, Acts 15:20-21

Man, that's a whole lot of words to essentially say the Mosaic laws were still in effect for believers in Jesus.  It seems the author is claiming that Acts 15:20 is a summary of why the Israelites were divorced from God in the OT (idolatry, cult prostitution) and if the Gentile believers didn't abstain from those few requirements, they run the risk of being cut off as well.  He goes on to say that James is encouraging those believers in Antioch, Syria and Cilicia to learn the Torah (verse 21).  

Not sure I buy all that but it is interesting.  I think the law is one thing (the main thing) that Christians have misunderstood, with regards to the new covenant, from the beginning of the church.  And no one talks about it. 

 

[CrossEyed2]

Man, that's a whole lot of words to essentially say the Mosaic laws were still in effect for believers in Jesus.  It seems the author is claiming that Acts 15:20 is a summary of why the Israelites were divorced from God in the OT (idolatry, cult prostitution) and if the Gentile believers didn't abstain from those few requirements, they run the risk of being cut off as well.  He goes on to say that James is encouraging those believers in Antioch, Syria and Cilicia to learn the Torah (verse 21).  

Not sure I buy all that but it is interesting.  I think the law is one thing (the main thing) that Christians have misunderstood, with regards to the new covenant, from the beginning of the church.  And no one talks about it. 




 

Jesus, Paul, Peter, John...none of them wrote/said anything that did away with the law. They all followed the law. The law is perfect. Does it save? No, absolutely not. Does it still apply to believers? Absolutely. That includes the dietary laws and the feasts. They were given to us for our benefit. Why would they no longer serve to benefit us?

 

[shader]

Jesus, Paul, Peter, John...none of them wrote/said anything that did away with the law. They all followed the law. The law is perfect. Does it save? No, absolutely not. Does it still apply to believers? Absolutely. That includes the dietary laws and the feasts. They were given to us for our benefit. Why would they no longer serve to benefit us?

Because we don't live in Ancient Israel?  I agree that the law was perfect for the Israelites.  But I think that it's important to understand that certain elements of the law that were perfect for them, might not be perfect for us.

I'd argue that there are scriptures that showed that the Law Covenant wasn't in force anymore, (Eph 2:13-15, Col 2:13,14), not to mention the very book in Acts that we keep talking about where James said "It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements: 29 You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things."  I mean, if there was ever a time to tell the Christians that they were going to be following the entire law, this was it, but he didn't want to burden them. 

As I said in an earlier post, the law was amazing for the time.

But it seems to me that by claiming the dietary laws and the feasts are still applicable, you're picking and choosing which aspects to live by?  I mean, you're not sacrificing animals anymore are you?

I am in agreement that most churches don't teach the law much now, and I think that's a mistake.  The principles in the law the show how God feels about matters are still 100% valid.  If he hates murder, he hates murder.  

 

[Gold Dragon]

That's a strong position to take.  If CE has decided that the pagan origins of holidays is enough to cause him to want to avoid them, where is the harm in that?  

It's a non-issue in today's world, but that doesn't mean it's a non-issue to God.

Take Christmas for example.  It wasn't Jesus birthday, it's not a biblical celebration, it's pagan origins are quite clearly evident, as are the origins of many of the symbols and rites surrounding it, much less the fact that now it's become basically a strictly secular and money-making holiday...Now, I'm not going to tell you not to celebrate it, but it seems quite reasonable to me that someone who is quite strictly trying to separate themselves from all vestiges of false worship (pagan teachings) may make that decision to avoid it.  After all, it's not a Christian holiday, it's a holiday that the church instituted based on faulty reasonings and to help pagans feel more at ease.

God doesn't change.  Think about how God felt about the "mixing of worship" in ancient Israel.  He hated it.  It'd hard for me to see how God wouldn't hate the same things today.

Overall your point is true in a sense, in that it's a "non-issue" today.  That's true.  But there are a lot of things that were wrong in bible times that are "non issues" today.  Drunkenness, fornication, adultery, etc.  Most churches seem to have made many "allowances" for the way people today live, and so it doesn't surprise me and shouldn't surprise anyone that no one really cares about the pagan origins of many holidays.

If people want to avoid celebrating things because they think it is pagan worship, by all means.  

It is just like the eating of food offered to idols that Paul had to sort out.  Some felt it was sin by association with pagan worship while others knew it was just eating food and had no spiritual significance.   I guess the direct application would be that I don't celebrate holidays so that my weaker brethren do not stumble and I would have no problem doing that if it helped my brother/sister in Christ.  

I'm only using the word weaker here because that is the word Paul used and not because I think that I or my interpretation is any better.  

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Corinthians+8

 

[Jayrok]

I agree that the law was perfect for the Israelites.  

It is argued in Hebrews (using an example of priesthood, which was part of the law) that the law was not perfect... else it wouldn't need a new priest to come along (Jesus).  

Hebrews 7:11-12 -- If perfection could have been attained through the Levitical priesthood—and indeed the law given to the people established that priesthood—why was there still need for another priest to come, one in the order of Melchizedek, not in the order of Aaron? 12 For when the priesthood is changed, the law must be changed also. 

V18-19 -- The former regulation is set aside because it was weak and useless (for the law made nothing perfect), and a better hope is introduced, by which we draw near to God.