cmp.2009.07.20
ed.2009.08.08.01 (Reposted With different name and URL.)
First Comments Here
Organization
1. Greeting
2. The Oppression of the Poor
3. The Gospel
4. A Den of Thieves
5. The Workman's Hire
6. We Need Servants--Not Prayers
7. True Discipleship
1. Greeting
Pastor [ omitted ],
Greeting in the name of Jesus, our Lord and Shepherd!
Today, several children that I know attended a yearly program offered by the Church, organized under the youth ministry.
These particular children that I know, as many of the others that take part in this program, are from severely broken homes and in general, have no real knowledge or pursuit of Jesus in their homes.
2. The Oppression of the Poor
When they arrived for the first day of this program offered by the church, they were required to register and pay. Because they are very poor, a friend who helps me with them, paid ten dollars for each of them. Then, upon noticing the t-shirts that the other children were wearing, they felt compelled to purchase these for the children as well--another ten dollars for each child for a shirt that was made to market for another Christian organization. However, I can understand why these shirts were purchased for these children, because these particular children would have felt terribly out of place; the intensity of this particular situation was already difficult for them.
There is no doubt that these children had fun today. After the program ended, my friend took them to eat, and they were all looking forward for the next day.
I know that there is a "prevailing wisdom" in the Church today regarding the "best practices" for entertaining and influencing children. I know that for years the Church has tried to perfect these techniques. And, I have also seen how year after year, churches will publish how many children came, and how many children "invited Jesus into their hearts."
When we place a condition for the poor to hear the gospel and to feel at peace around believers, then we are in fact placing a burden on their shoulders; this is oppression of the poor; and, we are selling the free Gospel of Jesus Christ.
We have exchanged the demonstration of The Spirit and Power for intellectualism, commercialism, and "sustainable best practices for business". There is only one problem with this of course: God can't stand it.
God cares about intimacy with people, He cares about their eternal lives, He cares if they are ransomed from Sin and Death, and He cares that they are set free from the authority of Sin over their lives. Transient "spiritual" moments full of entertainment and indulgence are not what we were commanded to provide; and certainly, there is nothing wrong with helping children have fun. However, we were commanded to disciple the nations: by teaching how to obey the commandments of Jesus. This implies relationship, not moments of entertainment. If the power of God is not good enough to when the faith of others, and we have to rely on our own strength, then the Gospel is pointless.
3. The Gospel
The Gospel of Jesus Christ is about finding favor with God, freedom from the authority of Sin in our lives, so we can live to do good works like we were created to do; and, the Gospel is for freedom from the consequence Sin--the Gospel is about forgiveness, the release from the just consequences of our actions, so our sin is remembered no more. And this Gospel was paid for fully, for all who are willing to trust in Jesus as Lord evidenced by their obedience to Him as the Lord of their lives--and this is why discipleship is so important.
This is the Gospel. Paul said to let any man be accursed if he preaches a different gospel.
4. A Den of Thieves
On a Passover, Jesus visited the Temple in Jerusalem, and after seeing what was going on, He made the following accusation:
Luke 19
45. Jesus entered the temple and began to drive out those who were selling,
46. saying to them, "It is written, 'AND MY HOUSE SHALL BE A HOUSE OF PRAYER,' but you have made it a ROBBERS' DEN."
Now how can Jesus accuse them of being thieves if they are not stealing from each other? They were, after all, selling items for sacrifice. It was because they were stealing from the worshippers, and from God. The House of God was devoted, and set apart for prayer and worship--without cost. The worshippers who came, were denied what God had given them, a consecrated house. The House of God was set apart for Him to fellowship with us--without people adding their own conditions.
Jesus was actually quoting a passage from Jeremiah. Unfortunately, the New Testament doesn't go into a lot of explanation about how this was considered thievery like Jeremiah does.
Jeremiah clarifies:
Jeremiah 7
6. if you do not oppress the alien, the orphan, or the widow, and do not shed innocent blood in this place, nor walk after other gods to your own ruin,
7. then I will let you dwell in this place, in the land that I gave to your fathers forever and ever.
How is it that today we oppress the foreigner, the poor, the orphans, and widows in the "House of God", yet at the same we feel entitled to "dwell" in that same house, contrary to the command of God?
We have charged and set a condition for the poor, the needy, and afflicted to come to the house of God, to hear the name of God, and to see the demonstration of His Power, (even if that demonstration was not present). We have exchanged the demonstration of the Spirit and Power of God for theatrics and the ever present "next thing" for someone to buy.
The Workman's Hire
Traditionally, in defense of placing a condition on the proclamation of the Gospel, we cite:
1 Timothy 5
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."
Now, even if we were paying the "workmen" who were helping us with these programs, and if these "workmen" were not actually volunteers, this verse would still not justify selling a gospel that had already been purchased for them to hear freely.
What does Paul mean?
1 Cor. 9
14 So also the Lord directed those who proclaim the gospel to get their living from the gospel.
He states the one who labors in word and teaching is worthy of double honor, and their hire, so that they can live--not so that they can become wealthy or rewarded in this life, because the laborer who labors in faith, labors for the eternal reward--in faith.
We ask children, those who have never been taught the gospel, the poor, the needy, and the afflicted to pay for stage productions, props, facility expenses, pamphlets, and more, just to hear the gospel and to fellowship with believers--in the House of God. This is like going to someone else's house, inviting strangers over for a party, and then charging them to cover "costs" but never actually giving the owner the funds collected. God doesn't desire money from us--and especially not from the oppressed--He requires our obedience.
5. A Wiser Way
Wisdom is the ability to distinguish between Good and Evil. And, how do we distinguish between Good and Evil, but by the commandment of God? As it is written, "Your Word is a light unto my feet, and a lamp onto my path." So then, how does God say to preach the Gospel? Contrary to popular culture and the best practices embraced by the Church for winning an audience and influencing people, true Wisdom is to obey the commandment of God--and this wisdom from God is contrary to the wisdom of men.
About two weeks ago, I spoke with a Pastor from the church about getting help with these children. Since I am a missionary and have been all of my life, I really do understand the necessity of depending on the Body of Christ for support.
However, contrary to the command of Jesus, "to go into the World", the Pastor advised me to bring all of the children that I was working with to the Church, (despite having no transportation to do so). Why does the Church demand that the oppressed should submit to the intimidation of the Church, and then require them to quite literally "beg" for clothes and food that they need?
Instead of the wealthiest church in this community helping these children, a friend of mine who lives several thousands miles away gave me a gift card to buy these children desperately needed shoes. One child was wearing shoes that were two sizes two small, and was in pain whenever he walked. Another child had hand-me-down shoes that were two sizes too big. I was at the same time incredibly thankful for this man's generosity to buy them shoes, and at the same time distressed that the local churches would not serve these families, as we are commanded to by Jesus.
Quite truthfully, other than asking for help for these children, the only other thing that I have asked from the church was for people to come visit these children and their families.
Ironically, in the justification that Christians don't really have to go "into the World" to preach the Gospel, the Church instead teaches that they only have to go across the street, or next door. But, where are these disciples? Where are all of the youth that are being discipled to obey the commandments of Jesus--to visit the sick, and the prisoner; to visit the orphans and widows in their distress? The truth is, they are not being discipled to do this. This is true and evident, because they aren't doing this.
6. We Need Servants--Not Prayers
Does Jesus command the Church to pray for the needy, or to serve them? What good will prayer do if the one praying ignores God's voice commanding them to obey? Faith without works is meaningless. We don't need to ask God His will for our lives when it is perfectly clear: we are a kingdom of priests, commanded to serve in obedience in the love of Jesus.
It is through compulsion that I share what I know to be the right way, because I would be ashamed if the only thing I did was criticize or point out flaws, (even despite my own immaturity in doing so). And unfortunately, it is my own immaturity, and disobedience in this same way that makes even my service not as effective as it is supposed to be. And so it remains, that I need the help of the church--but more importantly, so do these children and their families.
Jesus promised that the power of the Holy Spirit would follow those that trust in Him, and that their trust would be evident by their obedience. And so, we need disciples who are committed to obedience to Jesus to come here, because in their trust and obedience, the Spirit and Power of God can truly be known. This is what we need the most.
If this request for help in this field sounds desperate, it is because we are overwhelmingly in need for the Church to help this community by showing them the love of Jesus. The poor are always with us; they are always around us. We have opened our home to these children and their families; but it is incredibly difficult to do this alone.
Spiritualness is not found in expense, or the amount of children that come to our churches. Our spiritualness, (our "religion", as James teaches), is measured in our obedience to the commandment of Jesus, which includes the command for us to visit and to send disciples to the children, the needy, the afflicted and the prisoner.
I am sharing this commandment to bring into rememberance the need of those of us trying to walk in obedience even though we are overwhelmed. And this commandment is not new, but the commandment of the One we call "Lord": Make disciples, teaching them to obey all that Jesus commanded. Where are the workers that the Church has been discipling? Why are Christians ignoring their own neighbors, and refusing to serve them?
7. True Discipleship
We must teach through demonstration, inviting those we disciple into our home so they can learn how we invite the poor into our home; we have to place them in a position to use their gifts so they can learn obedience to Jesus, let them follow in our footsteps throughout our day. Show them how to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, visit the prisoner, and visit the needy in their distress. This is true discipleship--there is no other valid form of discipleship than the form that Jesus showed us.
But what should we do? We have at our disposal something invaluable, that was in fact already purchased: the lives of believers. We must send them into the World as Jesus did--to their neighbors first. We cannot require the world to come to us.
If we do not trust in the power of God and in the Gospel of Jesus, (and this becomes evident when we do not serve our neighbors), then the world will remember what it is we actually trust in. If we depended on "entertainment" and "expense", to gain their faith, then they will remember the entertainment and expense--and their faith will then be exchanged for the next most entertaining thing they find. And, as a result, what they remember, is what they will share with others.
But rather, if we depend on demonstration of the Spirit and Power of God to help them find favor with God, then their faith will be founded upon an unshakable rock. Therefore, it remains true that because of our own immaturity, we resort to our own strength rather than Jesus' to do the will of God. But this walk can only begin when trust is mixed with obedience.
Even if it is impossible for your church to send people to this neighborhood, or cannot help relieve some of the needs of the children we are sending to your program this week, please, please send those you are discipling into the community around your church, and to their own neighbors. There is need all around us; all it takes is the love of Christ to serve them and meet their needs. But, you will have to teach them how to do this first, (practically, by letting them walk in your footsteps as you walk in the steps of Jesus).
In the name of Christ Jesus the Lord of Lords, may you grow in favor and peace in Him as you trust in His faithfulness to fulfill His promises to you.
Saturday, August 8, 2009
Wednesday, August 5, 2009
A Defense for Messianic Judaism
cmp.2009.08.05
ed.2009.08.05.03
There is a strong movement in the Church to uphold the commands of Moses, especially in view of Rabbinical interpretation. I disagree with this. That being said, there are a lot of arguments to support both positions. I am posting the dialogue I had with "K" here to help show both sides of this division in the Church today.
Note: There was a significant portion of this conversation that occured in an instant messaging conversation, but I was not able to save the conversation. Actually, I think it was probably the more substantive part of this conversation, and I regret losing it. I have included a block to describe, (in my words), what was said.
K Said:
-----------
[Personal Info Omitted by e.s.] I have one question though what about when Yeshua said ""Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth until heaven and earth disappear not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the Kingdom of heaven. For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven." Matthew 5:17-20 I ask this because you say you are messianic and yet you do not believe in the new testament and you say that the Jewish religion is antichrist? I am a little confused on that comment. Yeshua came as a Jew, lived and walked as a Jew, died as a Jew, resurrected as a Jew and will return as a Jew. He wore tsit tsit and celebrated Passover, Shabbat...he kept all Jewish law and did he not say in Matthew 10:38" and anyone who does not take up his cross follow me is not worthy of me." Should we not keep the law as He said to and walk the way He walked. He said He did not come to abolish the law but fulfill it. He also said in John 4:22 "For Salvation is from the Jews."
Shalom,
K
e.s. response:
Wow. I think you misunderstood.
You said:
-------------
Matthew 5:17-20 I ask this because you say you are messianic and yet you do not believe in the new testament
me:
------------------
I totally believe in the new testament, and the old.
You:
-------------
and you say that the Jewish religion is antichrist? I am a little confused on that comment.
Me:
------------
If you ask a Rabbi if they believe that Jesus is the Messiah, they will say no. If you ask them if they believe that they must trust in Him to be saved from destruction, they will say no.
According to the new testament, this by definition is being anti-christ, against Jesus. Heck, they stand up behind pulpits and say they are anti-christs.
You said:
---------------
Yeshua came as a Jew, lived and walked as a Jew, died as a Jew, resurrected as a Jew and will return as a Jew.
Me:
--------------
Careful where you get your "info". According to Scripture, He was a "Hebrew". Though, if He existed before Abraham, He certainly was not Hebrew, but that is a different topic.
Ask a "Rabbi" what a Jew is, and they will say someone that submits to tradition, halakha and the Rabbis, someone born of a Jewish mother. All of this is a "new" definition of Judaism. Jesus was very "Anti-tradition, anti-intelletualism, anti elitism, etc".
You said:
--------------
He wore tsit tsit and celebrated Passover, Shabbat...he kept all Jewish law
Me:
------------
According to the Bible, Jesus broke their traditions, and their view of what the law meant. He worked on Shabbat, Healed on Shabbat, got food from the crops on Shabbat. He said they did not really understand the law, yet he taught people to break the "Pharasaic and Sadducean" perception of the law.
Also, if Jesus wore a four cornered garment, I am sure he did wear tsit tsit. However, there a verse in Scripture where a woman grabbed the "Hem" of his garment, and people twist that into meaning "Tsit Tsit". In other words, I have no clue if he did or not. Nor does it matter.
The law He followed was HIS law that He established before the foundation of the Earth, and that was shadowed after Him. And He did not teach anyone to break that His law, but He taught them to see through Moses' command that was a shadow to see His eternal commandm (Hebrews). And that law will never pass away.
You said:
--------------------
and did he not say in Matthew 10:38" and anyone who does not take up his cross follow me is not worthy of me." Should we not keep the law as He said to and walk the way He walked.
Response:
-------------------
Jesus said that they neglected the weightier matters of the law to uphold their own tradition. Tell me, what is more important, to feed the hungry every day, or keep kosher every day?
So, in this way, we forsake the commandment of God to fulfill our own tradition. Jesus gave a whole lot of new commandments, that were much more difficult to uphold than Moses'. So, instead of studying those people often get distracted studying tradition, and the intellectualism of men.
Me, I prefer to teach people to walk in the way and example of Jesus, and letting the Holy Spirit do the rest. So, when I see someone dedicated to visiting the prisoners, feeding the hungry, taking care of the orphans, the widows, the afflicted and needy in their distress, then I will have found someone upholding the law of Jesus AND the law of Moses.
You said:
-------------------------
He said He did not come to abolish the law but fulfill it. He also said in John 4:22 "For Salvation is from the Jews."
Response:
------------------
Unfortunately, you do not understand the law of Christ. If you did, you wouldn't have asked me all this. I know this is offensive, so I will give you evidence.
They asked Jesus what the greatest commandment IN THE LAW was. Jesus said, to love with all of YOUR Mind, Emotions, and Means.
But then, He gave a new commandment. To love as He Loved Us. This is the greatest commandment, not to love with OUR own abilities, but to love with HIS heart, HIS mind, and HIS abundance. Totally different thing.
And then Paul writes, "Bear each other's burdens and thereby fulfill the Law of Christ.
This is the Law that Moses was patterned after. It is a much GREATER law. It always WAS the law. But, it was because of the hardness of Israel's heart that God gave them the law of Moses, when He wanted them to walk into something nobler and greater. This is why the law of Moses was called a schoolmaster... to teach Israel how to learn to become selfless, to love unconditionally, and to obey the Heavenly law, and not the Earthly.
If the Covenant and Law of Moses was Eternal, then certainly another would not have been given.
K Said:
-----------
My thoughts are is that all you see are men's decisions to do what God commanded again...you do not even see that these men are being led by the Holy Spirit to do this....the same reason I attend a messianic judaism synogogue because God told me to...now you can see it how ever you want but I have had visions and dreams and I am very in tune with the Holy Spirit as I think many people who listen to God are....He will pour out His spirit on mankind young men will see visions and old men will dream dreams....If there is a movement to walk as God commanded thousands years ago why do you see it as only traditions...when I hear it as God's voice and word has not changed ...only the people have not been listening...the things that these people do is because it was commanded by God it doesn't matter when...He didn't change His laws...His laws will never change...
e.s. response:
Okay... You said taht you don't understand... and that is partly because I haven't explained it... So don't jump to any conclusions yet. Please. :)
I didn't say Jesus wasn't Hebrew, nor did I say that Jesus didn't observe the law of Moses to a degree. (He obviously deviated from it quite a bit in the view of the Rabbis).
The point I am making is that Modern Judaism is nothing like Judaism during the time of Jesus.
For example, the Talmud and the Mishnah were compiled 300 years AFTER Jesus died.
One of the things written was that they wanted to get people wearing Tzit Tzit again. They noticed that people weren't wearing four cornered garments anymore, so they had no reason to wear the tzit tzit. Four cornered garments went out of vogue a long long long time ago.
So, they created the Talit Katans and the Tallits so that they could observe this commandment. There was no law to wear four cornered garments. So, they created a tradition to wear four cornered garments SO they could fulfill the law of tzit tzit.
I suppose I could give you a bunch of references for this, but then google will feel depressed... so, have a gander yourself.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=history+of+tallit
The Mishnah and the Talmud were compiled after Jesus' death, to help stop people from converting to Christianity. /Some/ of what is in the Mishneh MAY have been taken from ancient texts, but obviously, the majority of it was new, (since it references modern things).
Also... During Jesus' life, Hebrew was a dead language, (like Latin), spoken by scholars only. Common folks spoke Aramaic, Greek, etc.
Again, if we imitate modern Jews, who imitate Pharisees, who Jesus called a Synagogue of Satan, we certainly will not be imitating Jesus.
The imitation of Jesus comes through obeying His commands and doing what He did.
Research for yourself, the History of Hebrew, History of the Talmud, History of the Mishnah, etc.
I would love to know your thoughts.
K Said:
-----------
Well the scripture also says that in the end times that demons will be able to perform miracles that even the elect will be fooled by and I must tell you that the things I saw the first things I was shown told me they were from God but I know they weren't for many reasons. I do know that God allowed me to see these things to bring me to Him and I did have many visions and dreams that were from God. I think if you have doubts in what people say or share with you then you should pray for discernment. The Lord has blessed me with discernment in these days. Which is the only way I determined which visions and dreams are from God and which are from the enemy. I do not think keeping Shabbat and celebrating God's commanded feasts are traditions. He said forever...I believe what God says. Washing hands He said was a tradition....resting in God and remembering the things He did are not traditions they are sacred days to be thankful for what He does. Tsit Tsit is not a tradition it is to remind men constantly of the Lord's commandments since men struggle more than women. The prayer shaw shows are humbleness before God and closes us off from the world and brings and encircles us with abarrier from the world so we can just be intimate with God.The yamaka also shows humilty and reminds us that there is someone above us. To dress modest is to be mindful of others and help our brothers and sisters from stumbling.There are many deep beautiful meanings behind what you call traditions...which perhaps is all you see but you should study the reasons for these things before castinng judgement and then you will see God's reasoning for commaning those things ans the wisdom that came with it. It is really quite beautiful. None of these thinsg did Yeshua command not to be done. In fact He did them we wore prayer shaws and tsit tsit and celebrated God's commanded holidays and He did observe shabbat....whether or not you want to hear this it is true...ask Him...pray about it....He is right next to you.
e.s. response:
Yes, I understand what you are saying. I have heard so many people tell me of their visions and dreams.
However, Scripture itself warns me to be wary of those who claim these things.
And Jesus Himself commanded me in Scripture not to submit or adhere to the traditions and intellectualism of men.
So, if people are telling me to, then they are telling me to disobey Jesus. I would rather obey what He specifically said rather than be led by someone else's "experience" that encourages them to teach me to disobey.
And no, I am not talking about you.
e.s response:
was going to send this to you earlier, but I forgot... I took it from:
http://disciplesandfishers.blogspot.com/2009/05/mat-153-do-not-forsake-commandment-of.html
but here is a part of it:
Proverbs 3:5
Trust in the LORD with all your heart and do not lean on your own understanding.
Psalm 146:3
Do not trust in princes, in mortal man, in whom there is no salvation.
Jeremiah 17:5
Thus says the LORD, "Cursed is the man who trusts in mankind and makes flesh his strength, and whose heart turns away from the LORD.
Matthew 15:3
And He answered and said to them, "Why do you yourselves transgress the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition?"
2 Corinthians 1:9-10
Indeed, we had the sentence of death within ourselves so that we would not trust in ourselves, but in God who raises the dead; who delivered us from so great a peril of death, and will deliver us, He Son whom we have set our hope. And He will yet deliver us.
e.s. response:
"The Lord has blessed me with discernment in these days. Which is the only way I determined which visions and dreams are from God and which are from the enemy."
Modern Christianity has exchanged the term "discernment" for the word "Intuition". Like, people believe that "discernment" is some spiritual gift that allows you to figure out things through "feelings" and "intuition".
In Scripture though, the word is actually the verb of "To Judge" according to Word/Law.
So, if your foundation is this, then I obviously cannot persuade you. Though, even the Mormons are as convinced as you are. And, we are commanded not to rely on our own strength, gifts, understanding, dreams, hearts, etc.
Jesus followed the Shabbat, every day. And He observed Shabbat in a different way than the Jews did. In otherwords, the commandment of Jesus is Eternal--forever. But the way in which His commandments are/were observed changed.
For example, the heavenly, eternal command regarding "cleanliness" had nothing to do with what went inside of you, but what came out, and abstaining from fellowship with non-believers, and those that had fallen away. Israel was too stubborn and rebelious to obey this command, so Moses gave them a simpler one. This happened time and again.
For example: Mark 7:19
For it doesn't go into his heart but into his stomach, and then out of his body." (In saying this, Jesus declared all foods "clean.")
Jesus changed the understanding of this law. There are actually morons out there that say what is in parenthesis is not really what Jesus said. (this is totally untrue, and is in all of the Greek/Aramaic manuscripts).
Then again, they claim that the Apostles wrote in Hebrew too, and that Israelis spoke in Hebrew too.
So, you are going to have to pick your standard for truth. Personally, I believe that the Spirit gave us the Scripture we have today, so I will follow His leading. Also, I do not trust my own heart to "know His voice" the way I should. Sometimes I am deceived.
So, perhaps you are more mature than me, and have some awesome revelation that will supercede Scripture. Or, the Spirit that is leading you is deceiving you and encouraging me to disobey the Law of Jesus and to submit to the Law of Moses. It cannot be the case that we are free from the law if we are led by the Spirit but at the same time still required to submit to the law of Moses and the traditions of Rabbis.
Galatians 5:
7 You were running well; who hindered you from obeying the truth?
8 This persuasion did not come from Him who calls you.
12Those who desire (Y)to make a good showing in the flesh try to (Z)compel you to be circumcised, simply so that they (AA)will not be persecuted for the cross of Christ.
But why do Christians teach obedience to the commandments of Moses?
Galatians 6:
13 For those who are circumcised do not even keep the Law themselves, but they desire to have you circumcised so that they may boast in your flesh.
According to Paul, it was because he taught people to depart from the Law of Moses that he was persecuted:
Galatians 5:
11 But I, brethren, if I still preach circumcision, why am I still persecuted? Then the stumbling block of the cross has been abolished.
12 I wish that those who are troubling you would even mutilate themselves.
13 For you were called to freedom, brethren; only do not turn your freedom into an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another.
Paul even implied that the stumbling block of the cross of Christ was that there was no requirement to submit to bondage under the law of Moses.
But what of the Eternal Law? Scripture very clearly says that Moses gave to Israel a "Pattern" of what He saw in Heaven. And, what was in Heaven was Eternal, but His pattern was a shadow intended to let people know that something like it but better existed, and would replace the shadow at some point.
It is the observance of this eternal law that must be observed. Just like Jesus taught us how to, by keeping every day holy, not defiling ourselves with what comes out of us, etc, etc. There are SO many of His commandments. That is why I started writing those articles anyway:
http://disciplesandfishers.blogspot.com/2008/08/matt-123-call-his-name-immanuel.html
Anyhoo. As I said before, I cannot persuade you from Scripture if your standard for faith is warm fuzzy feelings and what these folks have been teaching you. If you come onto my "Rock", then certainly, I can persuade you.
However, I recommend you study it for yourself. The three books to study this A LOT, is Galatians, Hebrews and then Romans. Over and over again, in that order.
Avoid the "Judiazer" translations that try to force translations into Hebrew, etc. These simply are not correct translations. You can however find Interlinear Greek bibles online or so you can look things up for yourself. Try http://www.biblos.com too for interlinear versions, etc.
The point is, if you want to study this out, I would be more than happy to help you find references. I would prefer that your faith be established on what you find in Scripture, rather than my intellectualism.
K Said:
-----------
If you knew me you would know just how much I do trust in the Lord. If you knew me you would never doubt that.
e.s. response
I know me, and I know that I do not Trust Him.
If I did, His promise would come true. "These signs will follow those that trust, (believe), they WILL cast out demons, raise the dead ..." etc, etc.
The love of God is being perfected in me. And so is my faith. So, I try not to rely to heavily on any claim of mine of super spirituality, trustworthiness, love, etc.
Though, I am growing! :)
So, if I don't trust my own intellectalism, or my own understanding, or my own maturity in Him, how would it be reasonable to trust in someone else's--since He commanded me specifically not to do both?
K Said:
-----------
Do you really think using the word morons to refer to your brothers and sister iis a christian way to think...you see maybe you do not believe in discernment because you think everyone besides you is a moron and they could not possibly be hearing the holy spirit or being lead by it... I am only saying that when God says something that He meant it and doesn't lie...do you think He lies? He said not one word from the law would ever change...that God's law is forever...I kind of take the word forever to mean forever because God said it was forever and God doesn't lie ...that is just me...i do not think it is me who is not reading the scriptures...I think I am reading them very clearly ...why do I think that because I pray on it and ask God to tell me...I believe my Lord is faithful, does not lie and always answers prayers asked in His son name....which is why I know when I ask for discernment I am given it...sounds like you have little faith which is why you do not believe in discernment or that God will answer prayers.
e.s. response:
You said:
------------
Do you really think using the word morons to refer to your brothers and sister iis a christian way to think...
Response:
------------
Actually, what I said was:
"There are actually morons out there that say what is in parenthesis is not really what Jesus said. (this is totally untrue, and is in all of the Greek/Aramaic manuscripts)."
And yes, if people intend to twist Scripture around, to take out, to put in, just to promote their doctrines, then yes, Moron would be a nice word. Jesus used other words, like a "Synagogue of Satan". So, in this sense, I am just quoting Jesus, but being more politically correct.
You Said:
--------------
you see maybe you do not believe in discernment because you think everyone besides you is a moron and they could not possibly be hearing the holy spirit or being lead by it...
Response:
-------------
You are making a lot of assumptions about me. I have no clue why you think that I think everyone is a Moron. :(
So, I will retract "Moron", and say that people who distort and twist scripture to promote the tradition and intellectualism of men, are in fact a Synagogue of Satan. These are Jesus' words, not mine. He rebuked these people, so if you don't like it, take it up with Him.
You said:
------------
I am only saying that when God says something that He meant it and doesn't lie...do you think He lies?
Response:
------------
This is a "Strawman" argument. You are implying that I disagree with this statement in order to prove a point. I do agree that these things are true, and I have no idea why you are implying that I don't.
You Said:
------------
He said not one word from the law would ever change...that God's law is forever...I kind of take the word forever to mean forever because God said it was forever and God doesn't lie ...that is just me...
Response:
------------
Actually, the Bible contradicts you:
Hebrews 7:12
For when the priesthood is changed, of necessity there takes place a change of law also.
This is actually mentioned over and over again, especially in the O.T. There was a LOT of the "law" that was changed. Or rather, a lot of Moses' law that was obsoleted by the true and Eternal Heavenly law, that existed well before Moses.
You Said:
------------
i do not think it is me who is not reading the scriptures...I think I am reading them very clearly ...
Response:
------------
You have never actually made an argument from Scripture, but from your feeling of discernment, and from other's intellectualism. For example, the claim that Jesus' name back then was "Yeshua", despite the fact that Hebrew was a dead language, and the only names recorded for Him are Iesos in Greek, Ishoa in Aramaic, and Immanuel in Hebrew.
You Said:
------------
sounds like you have little faith which is why you do not believe in discernment or that God will answer prayers.
Response:
------------
You are right that I have little faith, but I am growing. I believe that all faith, (trust rather), must be founded on the Word of God. If God hasn't promised it, then there is no point in hoping for it.
I do not put my faith on my "gifting", "my intellecte", or "feelings", but on the Word and the Power of God. This is a commandment, that you are repeatedly asking me to disobey in order to uphold what you believe are valid "traditions".
If I trust in something that God has not promised, then I am sinning. Because, anything not of faith is SIN.
K Said:
-----------
As I have said before you shouls pray on it...but it was just a suggestion from Yeshua...you have free will.
e.s. response:
You Said:
------------------
As I have said before you shouls pray on it...but it was just a suggestion from Yeshua...you have free will.
Response:
-----------------
Are you suggesting that I should pray about whether or not I should obey the command of Jesus and not forsake the commandment of God for the tradition of Men?
Why would I have to pray in order to obey?
Why do you keep trying to convince me to obey the tradition of men, when I am apparently obeying the commandment of Jesus by forsaking the tradition of men?
Do you see how you appear to be contradicting yourself? On one hand, you are telling me to submit to the traditions and commandments of Rabbis, and on the other you are telling me to disobey Jesus, and HIS eternal law which was existent way before Moses.
How do you justify teaching me to disobey Jesus?
e.s. NOTE
Okay, this is where it get's confusing because I lost the text of the Instant Messaging Conversation. Essentially, this is where substance of our disagreement took place. From what I understood, "K" is arguing that God led them to pursue observance of Jewish laws and traditions through visions and dreams. And that it is valid to establish faith upon these things.
I argued that God would never lead someone to disobey the commandments of Jesus, through visions or otherwise. That Joseph Smith had visions, and many people have contradicting visions. And so, we must use the Word of God as a lamp unto our feet, and a light unto our path, to discern the validity of our dreams and visions and other "spiritual" experiences.
"K" then claimed to have seen Jesus. And that these experiences were so extraordinary that they couldn't possibly be doubted. I was accused of trying to make them doubt their experiences, and I confirmed this.
I argued that we are often led astray when we lean on our own understanding and experiences. And I argued, that there are ways to validate the "truth" of these experiences according to Scripture. After this conversation, I sent the following message ...
e.s. response:
1 John 3:6
No one who lives in him keeps on sinning. No one who continues to sin has either seen him or known him.
K Said:
-----------
I realy can not continue to have my faith and what God has told me fall under what ever attack you have ...once again I must say that you should pray before you speak...you really are not as informed as you think you are.
e.s. response
I really am sorry for stirring all of this up. I wish I was more mature at this. :(
K Said:
-----------
Yeshua said we should pray all day and I think you talk more than you ask God what to do...I think you have some resentment to your hebrew upbringing and are a very angry person.
e.s. response:
[NOTE: I haven't responded to this yet.]
K Said:
-----------
judge not les thy be judged....you are not Jesus...I know I saw him...I dot care what you think...I hear angels singing and demons cursing...why don't you pray for the Lord to show you what I have been experiencing since he literally walked in picked me up and carried me out of the world I was in...if you have so much faith pray for truth...pray that you can be shown what i have seen...what I was shown...what i was told...go ahead ask...or will you keep on playing jude as if you have the power to.
e.s. response
[NOTE: I haven't responded to this yet.]
K Said:
-----------
If you were more mature I would know you are being led by the Holy spirit since you are not I know it is an attack from the enemy...see discenment...wow pray to God ask for His help in His son's name He answers..who knew...amazing...that is faith...
e.s. response:
K Said:
-----------
If you were more mature I would know you are being led by the Holy spirit since you are not I know it is an attack from the enemy...see discenment...wow pray to God ask for His help in His son's name He answers..who knew...amazing...that is faith...
Response:
--------------
Scripture teaches me to grow in maturity through obedience, AND through dependence on the Body of Christ, (Ps. 119, and Eph. 4; actually, this is in a lot of places).
Discernment in Scripture is not "a gift". But in actualilty is the verb "to differentiate" or to "judge", which both require wisdom.
Hebrews 5:14
But solid food is for the mature, who because of practice have their senses trained to differentiate/judge good and evil.
If anything is a gift, it would be the "senses" that should be TRAINED in order to judge/differentiate.
And this word "senses" in the Old Testament is translated as "Da'at" which is knowledge or knowing. And so it is that our knowledge should be trained so we can differentiate between good and evil. This kind of discernment IS NOT subjective or based on one particular person's feelings.
Like I mentioned before, I wanted to put this conversation online so that other people can see this dialogue and see why there is division over this topic. I have removed your name, so not to offend you.
Here is the link:
http://disciplesandfishers.blogspot.com/2009/08/defense-for-messianic-judaism.html
ed.2009.08.05.03
There is a strong movement in the Church to uphold the commands of Moses, especially in view of Rabbinical interpretation. I disagree with this. That being said, there are a lot of arguments to support both positions. I am posting the dialogue I had with "K" here to help show both sides of this division in the Church today.
Note: There was a significant portion of this conversation that occured in an instant messaging conversation, but I was not able to save the conversation. Actually, I think it was probably the more substantive part of this conversation, and I regret losing it. I have included a block to describe, (in my words), what was said.
K Said:
-----------
[Personal Info Omitted by e.s.] I have one question though what about when Yeshua said ""Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth until heaven and earth disappear not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the Kingdom of heaven. For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven." Matthew 5:17-20 I ask this because you say you are messianic and yet you do not believe in the new testament and you say that the Jewish religion is antichrist? I am a little confused on that comment. Yeshua came as a Jew, lived and walked as a Jew, died as a Jew, resurrected as a Jew and will return as a Jew. He wore tsit tsit and celebrated Passover, Shabbat...he kept all Jewish law and did he not say in Matthew 10:38" and anyone who does not take up his cross follow me is not worthy of me." Should we not keep the law as He said to and walk the way He walked. He said He did not come to abolish the law but fulfill it. He also said in John 4:22 "For Salvation is from the Jews."
Shalom,
K
e.s. response:
Wow. I think you misunderstood.
You said:
-------------
Matthew 5:17-20 I ask this because you say you are messianic and yet you do not believe in the new testament
me:
------------------
I totally believe in the new testament, and the old.
You:
-------------
and you say that the Jewish religion is antichrist? I am a little confused on that comment.
Me:
------------
If you ask a Rabbi if they believe that Jesus is the Messiah, they will say no. If you ask them if they believe that they must trust in Him to be saved from destruction, they will say no.
According to the new testament, this by definition is being anti-christ, against Jesus. Heck, they stand up behind pulpits and say they are anti-christs.
You said:
---------------
Yeshua came as a Jew, lived and walked as a Jew, died as a Jew, resurrected as a Jew and will return as a Jew.
Me:
--------------
Careful where you get your "info". According to Scripture, He was a "Hebrew". Though, if He existed before Abraham, He certainly was not Hebrew, but that is a different topic.
Ask a "Rabbi" what a Jew is, and they will say someone that submits to tradition, halakha and the Rabbis, someone born of a Jewish mother. All of this is a "new" definition of Judaism. Jesus was very "Anti-tradition, anti-intelletualism, anti elitism, etc".
You said:
--------------
He wore tsit tsit and celebrated Passover, Shabbat...he kept all Jewish law
Me:
------------
According to the Bible, Jesus broke their traditions, and their view of what the law meant. He worked on Shabbat, Healed on Shabbat, got food from the crops on Shabbat. He said they did not really understand the law, yet he taught people to break the "Pharasaic and Sadducean" perception of the law.
Also, if Jesus wore a four cornered garment, I am sure he did wear tsit tsit. However, there a verse in Scripture where a woman grabbed the "Hem" of his garment, and people twist that into meaning "Tsit Tsit". In other words, I have no clue if he did or not. Nor does it matter.
The law He followed was HIS law that He established before the foundation of the Earth, and that was shadowed after Him. And He did not teach anyone to break that His law, but He taught them to see through Moses' command that was a shadow to see His eternal commandm (Hebrews). And that law will never pass away.
You said:
--------------------
and did he not say in Matthew 10:38" and anyone who does not take up his cross follow me is not worthy of me." Should we not keep the law as He said to and walk the way He walked.
Response:
-------------------
Jesus said that they neglected the weightier matters of the law to uphold their own tradition. Tell me, what is more important, to feed the hungry every day, or keep kosher every day?
So, in this way, we forsake the commandment of God to fulfill our own tradition. Jesus gave a whole lot of new commandments, that were much more difficult to uphold than Moses'. So, instead of studying those people often get distracted studying tradition, and the intellectualism of men.
Me, I prefer to teach people to walk in the way and example of Jesus, and letting the Holy Spirit do the rest. So, when I see someone dedicated to visiting the prisoners, feeding the hungry, taking care of the orphans, the widows, the afflicted and needy in their distress, then I will have found someone upholding the law of Jesus AND the law of Moses.
You said:
-------------------------
He said He did not come to abolish the law but fulfill it. He also said in John 4:22 "For Salvation is from the Jews."
Response:
------------------
Unfortunately, you do not understand the law of Christ. If you did, you wouldn't have asked me all this. I know this is offensive, so I will give you evidence.
They asked Jesus what the greatest commandment IN THE LAW was. Jesus said, to love with all of YOUR Mind, Emotions, and Means.
But then, He gave a new commandment. To love as He Loved Us. This is the greatest commandment, not to love with OUR own abilities, but to love with HIS heart, HIS mind, and HIS abundance. Totally different thing.
And then Paul writes, "Bear each other's burdens and thereby fulfill the Law of Christ.
This is the Law that Moses was patterned after. It is a much GREATER law. It always WAS the law. But, it was because of the hardness of Israel's heart that God gave them the law of Moses, when He wanted them to walk into something nobler and greater. This is why the law of Moses was called a schoolmaster... to teach Israel how to learn to become selfless, to love unconditionally, and to obey the Heavenly law, and not the Earthly.
If the Covenant and Law of Moses was Eternal, then certainly another would not have been given.
K Said:
-----------
My thoughts are is that all you see are men's decisions to do what God commanded again...you do not even see that these men are being led by the Holy Spirit to do this....the same reason I attend a messianic judaism synogogue because God told me to...now you can see it how ever you want but I have had visions and dreams and I am very in tune with the Holy Spirit as I think many people who listen to God are....He will pour out His spirit on mankind young men will see visions and old men will dream dreams....If there is a movement to walk as God commanded thousands years ago why do you see it as only traditions...when I hear it as God's voice and word has not changed ...only the people have not been listening...the things that these people do is because it was commanded by God it doesn't matter when...He didn't change His laws...His laws will never change...
e.s. response:
Okay... You said taht you don't understand... and that is partly because I haven't explained it... So don't jump to any conclusions yet. Please. :)
I didn't say Jesus wasn't Hebrew, nor did I say that Jesus didn't observe the law of Moses to a degree. (He obviously deviated from it quite a bit in the view of the Rabbis).
The point I am making is that Modern Judaism is nothing like Judaism during the time of Jesus.
For example, the Talmud and the Mishnah were compiled 300 years AFTER Jesus died.
One of the things written was that they wanted to get people wearing Tzit Tzit again. They noticed that people weren't wearing four cornered garments anymore, so they had no reason to wear the tzit tzit. Four cornered garments went out of vogue a long long long time ago.
So, they created the Talit Katans and the Tallits so that they could observe this commandment. There was no law to wear four cornered garments. So, they created a tradition to wear four cornered garments SO they could fulfill the law of tzit tzit.
I suppose I could give you a bunch of references for this, but then google will feel depressed... so, have a gander yourself.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=history+of+tallit
The Mishnah and the Talmud were compiled after Jesus' death, to help stop people from converting to Christianity. /Some/ of what is in the Mishneh MAY have been taken from ancient texts, but obviously, the majority of it was new, (since it references modern things).
Also... During Jesus' life, Hebrew was a dead language, (like Latin), spoken by scholars only. Common folks spoke Aramaic, Greek, etc.
Again, if we imitate modern Jews, who imitate Pharisees, who Jesus called a Synagogue of Satan, we certainly will not be imitating Jesus.
The imitation of Jesus comes through obeying His commands and doing what He did.
Research for yourself, the History of Hebrew, History of the Talmud, History of the Mishnah, etc.
I would love to know your thoughts.
K Said:
-----------
Well the scripture also says that in the end times that demons will be able to perform miracles that even the elect will be fooled by and I must tell you that the things I saw the first things I was shown told me they were from God but I know they weren't for many reasons. I do know that God allowed me to see these things to bring me to Him and I did have many visions and dreams that were from God. I think if you have doubts in what people say or share with you then you should pray for discernment. The Lord has blessed me with discernment in these days. Which is the only way I determined which visions and dreams are from God and which are from the enemy. I do not think keeping Shabbat and celebrating God's commanded feasts are traditions. He said forever...I believe what God says. Washing hands He said was a tradition....resting in God and remembering the things He did are not traditions they are sacred days to be thankful for what He does. Tsit Tsit is not a tradition it is to remind men constantly of the Lord's commandments since men struggle more than women. The prayer shaw shows are humbleness before God and closes us off from the world and brings and encircles us with abarrier from the world so we can just be intimate with God.The yamaka also shows humilty and reminds us that there is someone above us. To dress modest is to be mindful of others and help our brothers and sisters from stumbling.There are many deep beautiful meanings behind what you call traditions...which perhaps is all you see but you should study the reasons for these things before castinng judgement and then you will see God's reasoning for commaning those things ans the wisdom that came with it. It is really quite beautiful. None of these thinsg did Yeshua command not to be done. In fact He did them we wore prayer shaws and tsit tsit and celebrated God's commanded holidays and He did observe shabbat....whether or not you want to hear this it is true...ask Him...pray about it....He is right next to you.
e.s. response:
Yes, I understand what you are saying. I have heard so many people tell me of their visions and dreams.
However, Scripture itself warns me to be wary of those who claim these things.
And Jesus Himself commanded me in Scripture not to submit or adhere to the traditions and intellectualism of men.
So, if people are telling me to, then they are telling me to disobey Jesus. I would rather obey what He specifically said rather than be led by someone else's "experience" that encourages them to teach me to disobey.
And no, I am not talking about you.
e.s response:
was going to send this to you earlier, but I forgot... I took it from:
http://disciplesandfishers.blogspot.com/2009/05/mat-153-do-not-forsake-commandment-of.html
but here is a part of it:
Proverbs 3:5
Trust in the LORD with all your heart and do not lean on your own understanding.
Psalm 146:3
Do not trust in princes, in mortal man, in whom there is no salvation.
Jeremiah 17:5
Thus says the LORD, "Cursed is the man who trusts in mankind and makes flesh his strength, and whose heart turns away from the LORD.
Matthew 15:3
And He answered and said to them, "Why do you yourselves transgress the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition?"
2 Corinthians 1:9-10
Indeed, we had the sentence of death within ourselves so that we would not trust in ourselves, but in God who raises the dead; who delivered us from so great a peril of death, and will deliver us, He Son whom we have set our hope. And He will yet deliver us.
e.s. response:
"The Lord has blessed me with discernment in these days. Which is the only way I determined which visions and dreams are from God and which are from the enemy."
Modern Christianity has exchanged the term "discernment" for the word "Intuition". Like, people believe that "discernment" is some spiritual gift that allows you to figure out things through "feelings" and "intuition".
In Scripture though, the word is actually the verb of "To Judge" according to Word/Law.
So, if your foundation is this, then I obviously cannot persuade you. Though, even the Mormons are as convinced as you are. And, we are commanded not to rely on our own strength, gifts, understanding, dreams, hearts, etc.
Jesus followed the Shabbat, every day. And He observed Shabbat in a different way than the Jews did. In otherwords, the commandment of Jesus is Eternal--forever. But the way in which His commandments are/were observed changed.
For example, the heavenly, eternal command regarding "cleanliness" had nothing to do with what went inside of you, but what came out, and abstaining from fellowship with non-believers, and those that had fallen away. Israel was too stubborn and rebelious to obey this command, so Moses gave them a simpler one. This happened time and again.
For example: Mark 7:19
For it doesn't go into his heart but into his stomach, and then out of his body." (In saying this, Jesus declared all foods "clean.")
Jesus changed the understanding of this law. There are actually morons out there that say what is in parenthesis is not really what Jesus said. (this is totally untrue, and is in all of the Greek/Aramaic manuscripts).
Then again, they claim that the Apostles wrote in Hebrew too, and that Israelis spoke in Hebrew too.
So, you are going to have to pick your standard for truth. Personally, I believe that the Spirit gave us the Scripture we have today, so I will follow His leading. Also, I do not trust my own heart to "know His voice" the way I should. Sometimes I am deceived.
So, perhaps you are more mature than me, and have some awesome revelation that will supercede Scripture. Or, the Spirit that is leading you is deceiving you and encouraging me to disobey the Law of Jesus and to submit to the Law of Moses. It cannot be the case that we are free from the law if we are led by the Spirit but at the same time still required to submit to the law of Moses and the traditions of Rabbis.
Galatians 5:
7 You were running well; who hindered you from obeying the truth?
8 This persuasion did not come from Him who calls you.
12Those who desire (Y)to make a good showing in the flesh try to (Z)compel you to be circumcised, simply so that they (AA)will not be persecuted for the cross of Christ.
But why do Christians teach obedience to the commandments of Moses?
Galatians 6:
13 For those who are circumcised do not even keep the Law themselves, but they desire to have you circumcised so that they may boast in your flesh.
According to Paul, it was because he taught people to depart from the Law of Moses that he was persecuted:
Galatians 5:
11 But I, brethren, if I still preach circumcision, why am I still persecuted? Then the stumbling block of the cross has been abolished.
12 I wish that those who are troubling you would even mutilate themselves.
13 For you were called to freedom, brethren; only do not turn your freedom into an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another.
Paul even implied that the stumbling block of the cross of Christ was that there was no requirement to submit to bondage under the law of Moses.
But what of the Eternal Law? Scripture very clearly says that Moses gave to Israel a "Pattern" of what He saw in Heaven. And, what was in Heaven was Eternal, but His pattern was a shadow intended to let people know that something like it but better existed, and would replace the shadow at some point.
It is the observance of this eternal law that must be observed. Just like Jesus taught us how to, by keeping every day holy, not defiling ourselves with what comes out of us, etc, etc. There are SO many of His commandments. That is why I started writing those articles anyway:
http://disciplesandfishers.blogspot.com/2008/08/matt-123-call-his-name-immanuel.html
Anyhoo. As I said before, I cannot persuade you from Scripture if your standard for faith is warm fuzzy feelings and what these folks have been teaching you. If you come onto my "Rock", then certainly, I can persuade you.
However, I recommend you study it for yourself. The three books to study this A LOT, is Galatians, Hebrews and then Romans. Over and over again, in that order.
Avoid the "Judiazer" translations that try to force translations into Hebrew, etc. These simply are not correct translations. You can however find Interlinear Greek bibles online or so you can look things up for yourself. Try http://www.biblos.com too for interlinear versions, etc.
The point is, if you want to study this out, I would be more than happy to help you find references. I would prefer that your faith be established on what you find in Scripture, rather than my intellectualism.
K Said:
-----------
If you knew me you would know just how much I do trust in the Lord. If you knew me you would never doubt that.
e.s. response
I know me, and I know that I do not Trust Him.
If I did, His promise would come true. "These signs will follow those that trust, (believe), they WILL cast out demons, raise the dead ..." etc, etc.
The love of God is being perfected in me. And so is my faith. So, I try not to rely to heavily on any claim of mine of super spirituality, trustworthiness, love, etc.
Though, I am growing! :)
So, if I don't trust my own intellectalism, or my own understanding, or my own maturity in Him, how would it be reasonable to trust in someone else's--since He commanded me specifically not to do both?
K Said:
-----------
Do you really think using the word morons to refer to your brothers and sister iis a christian way to think...you see maybe you do not believe in discernment because you think everyone besides you is a moron and they could not possibly be hearing the holy spirit or being lead by it... I am only saying that when God says something that He meant it and doesn't lie...do you think He lies? He said not one word from the law would ever change...that God's law is forever...I kind of take the word forever to mean forever because God said it was forever and God doesn't lie ...that is just me...i do not think it is me who is not reading the scriptures...I think I am reading them very clearly ...why do I think that because I pray on it and ask God to tell me...I believe my Lord is faithful, does not lie and always answers prayers asked in His son name....which is why I know when I ask for discernment I am given it...sounds like you have little faith which is why you do not believe in discernment or that God will answer prayers.
e.s. response:
You said:
------------
Do you really think using the word morons to refer to your brothers and sister iis a christian way to think...
Response:
------------
Actually, what I said was:
"There are actually morons out there that say what is in parenthesis is not really what Jesus said. (this is totally untrue, and is in all of the Greek/Aramaic manuscripts)."
And yes, if people intend to twist Scripture around, to take out, to put in, just to promote their doctrines, then yes, Moron would be a nice word. Jesus used other words, like a "Synagogue of Satan". So, in this sense, I am just quoting Jesus, but being more politically correct.
You Said:
--------------
you see maybe you do not believe in discernment because you think everyone besides you is a moron and they could not possibly be hearing the holy spirit or being lead by it...
Response:
-------------
You are making a lot of assumptions about me. I have no clue why you think that I think everyone is a Moron. :(
So, I will retract "Moron", and say that people who distort and twist scripture to promote the tradition and intellectualism of men, are in fact a Synagogue of Satan. These are Jesus' words, not mine. He rebuked these people, so if you don't like it, take it up with Him.
You said:
------------
I am only saying that when God says something that He meant it and doesn't lie...do you think He lies?
Response:
------------
This is a "Strawman" argument. You are implying that I disagree with this statement in order to prove a point. I do agree that these things are true, and I have no idea why you are implying that I don't.
You Said:
------------
He said not one word from the law would ever change...that God's law is forever...I kind of take the word forever to mean forever because God said it was forever and God doesn't lie ...that is just me...
Response:
------------
Actually, the Bible contradicts you:
Hebrews 7:12
For when the priesthood is changed, of necessity there takes place a change of law also.
This is actually mentioned over and over again, especially in the O.T. There was a LOT of the "law" that was changed. Or rather, a lot of Moses' law that was obsoleted by the true and Eternal Heavenly law, that existed well before Moses.
You Said:
------------
i do not think it is me who is not reading the scriptures...I think I am reading them very clearly ...
Response:
------------
You have never actually made an argument from Scripture, but from your feeling of discernment, and from other's intellectualism. For example, the claim that Jesus' name back then was "Yeshua", despite the fact that Hebrew was a dead language, and the only names recorded for Him are Iesos in Greek, Ishoa in Aramaic, and Immanuel in Hebrew.
You Said:
------------
sounds like you have little faith which is why you do not believe in discernment or that God will answer prayers.
Response:
------------
You are right that I have little faith, but I am growing. I believe that all faith, (trust rather), must be founded on the Word of God. If God hasn't promised it, then there is no point in hoping for it.
I do not put my faith on my "gifting", "my intellecte", or "feelings", but on the Word and the Power of God. This is a commandment, that you are repeatedly asking me to disobey in order to uphold what you believe are valid "traditions".
If I trust in something that God has not promised, then I am sinning. Because, anything not of faith is SIN.
K Said:
-----------
As I have said before you shouls pray on it...but it was just a suggestion from Yeshua...you have free will.
e.s. response:
You Said:
------------------
As I have said before you shouls pray on it...but it was just a suggestion from Yeshua...you have free will.
Response:
-----------------
Are you suggesting that I should pray about whether or not I should obey the command of Jesus and not forsake the commandment of God for the tradition of Men?
Why would I have to pray in order to obey?
Why do you keep trying to convince me to obey the tradition of men, when I am apparently obeying the commandment of Jesus by forsaking the tradition of men?
Do you see how you appear to be contradicting yourself? On one hand, you are telling me to submit to the traditions and commandments of Rabbis, and on the other you are telling me to disobey Jesus, and HIS eternal law which was existent way before Moses.
How do you justify teaching me to disobey Jesus?
e.s. NOTE
Okay, this is where it get's confusing because I lost the text of the Instant Messaging Conversation. Essentially, this is where substance of our disagreement took place. From what I understood, "K" is arguing that God led them to pursue observance of Jewish laws and traditions through visions and dreams. And that it is valid to establish faith upon these things.
I argued that God would never lead someone to disobey the commandments of Jesus, through visions or otherwise. That Joseph Smith had visions, and many people have contradicting visions. And so, we must use the Word of God as a lamp unto our feet, and a light unto our path, to discern the validity of our dreams and visions and other "spiritual" experiences.
"K" then claimed to have seen Jesus. And that these experiences were so extraordinary that they couldn't possibly be doubted. I was accused of trying to make them doubt their experiences, and I confirmed this.
I argued that we are often led astray when we lean on our own understanding and experiences. And I argued, that there are ways to validate the "truth" of these experiences according to Scripture. After this conversation, I sent the following message ...
e.s. response:
1 John 3:6
No one who lives in him keeps on sinning. No one who continues to sin has either seen him or known him.
K Said:
-----------
I realy can not continue to have my faith and what God has told me fall under what ever attack you have ...once again I must say that you should pray before you speak...you really are not as informed as you think you are.
e.s. response
I really am sorry for stirring all of this up. I wish I was more mature at this. :(
K Said:
-----------
Yeshua said we should pray all day and I think you talk more than you ask God what to do...I think you have some resentment to your hebrew upbringing and are a very angry person.
e.s. response:
[NOTE: I haven't responded to this yet.]
K Said:
-----------
judge not les thy be judged....you are not Jesus...I know I saw him...I dot care what you think...I hear angels singing and demons cursing...why don't you pray for the Lord to show you what I have been experiencing since he literally walked in picked me up and carried me out of the world I was in...if you have so much faith pray for truth...pray that you can be shown what i have seen...what I was shown...what i was told...go ahead ask...or will you keep on playing jude as if you have the power to.
e.s. response
[NOTE: I haven't responded to this yet.]
K Said:
-----------
If you were more mature I would know you are being led by the Holy spirit since you are not I know it is an attack from the enemy...see discenment...wow pray to God ask for His help in His son's name He answers..who knew...amazing...that is faith...
e.s. response:
K Said:
-----------
If you were more mature I would know you are being led by the Holy spirit since you are not I know it is an attack from the enemy...see discenment...wow pray to God ask for His help in His son's name He answers..who knew...amazing...that is faith...
Response:
--------------
Scripture teaches me to grow in maturity through obedience, AND through dependence on the Body of Christ, (Ps. 119, and Eph. 4; actually, this is in a lot of places).
Discernment in Scripture is not "a gift". But in actualilty is the verb "to differentiate" or to "judge", which both require wisdom.
Hebrews 5:14
But solid food is for the mature, who because of practice have their senses trained to differentiate/judge good and evil.
If anything is a gift, it would be the "senses" that should be TRAINED in order to judge/differentiate.
And this word "senses" in the Old Testament is translated as "Da'at" which is knowledge or knowing. And so it is that our knowledge should be trained so we can differentiate between good and evil. This kind of discernment IS NOT subjective or based on one particular person's feelings.
Like I mentioned before, I wanted to put this conversation online so that other people can see this dialogue and see why there is division over this topic. I have removed your name, so not to offend you.
Here is the link:
http://disciplesandfishers.blogspot.com/2009/08/defense-for-messianic-judaism.html
Monday, July 20, 2009
1 Cor. 9:9 - Provide for the Laborer
cmp.2009.07.20
ed.2009.08.08.01
Reposted this content under a different name and URL:
http://disciplesandfishers.blogspot.com/2009/08/mat-2819-go.html
ed.2009.08.08.01
Reposted this content under a different name and URL:
http://disciplesandfishers.blogspot.com/2009/08/mat-2819-go.html
Thursday, June 18, 2009
Intimate Acountability
cmp.2009.06.17
// Written to Carolyn Curtis James in response to:
// http://www.whitbyforum.com/2009/05/happy-ezer-day.html
Carolyn,
I had a thought about your use of "Ezer" from Scripture. I notice that you haven't really referenced to the context of this term stated in Genesis, or the MASSIVE qualifier that is left out of most modern translations, (or it is simply mistranslated as "suitable").
Gen 2:18
וַיֹּאמֶר יְהוָה אֱלֹהִים לֹא־טֹוב הֱיֹות הָאָדָם לְבַדֹּו אֶעֱשֶׂהּ־לֹּו עֵזֶר כְּנֶגְדֹּו׃
There are two very big implications of the qualification following "Ezer": "Kenegdo". This literally translates as: "as before him".
For example, in 2 Sam 22:23, it states "All his laws are before me; I have not turned away ...
The same Hebrew word is used, (Neged).
In the context of Gen 2, God very clearly gave a commandment to Adam, and IMMEDIATELY afterward, said it was not right for Adam to be alone. Why?
Doesn't the context support the idea that woman was created to help keep Adam accountable to the command that God had given to him?
Isn't this exactly why Adam pointed to Eve and said, "The woman that you gave me, she ...".
If a woman is truly a "helper before" man, to keep them accountable, and to remind them of the command of God for his life, then why is this rarely taught in Christianity today?
Is it the case that women are too scared to be perceived as "naggy"? Is it because men truly do not want this kind of accountability? Is it because women do not really want their husbands to pursue the commandment of God?
If what I am arguing is true, and this IS the reason that God created woman, (as stated in this passage), then are women off the mark in their role in a marriage if they do not understand this simple concept that God determined that man NEEDED an intimate source of accountability?
I pray that God blesses you with His favor and peace as you trust in Him.
In Jesus,
e.s.
// Written to Carolyn Curtis James in response to:
// http://www.whitbyforum.com/2009/05/happy-ezer-day.html
Carolyn,
I had a thought about your use of "Ezer" from Scripture. I notice that you haven't really referenced to the context of this term stated in Genesis, or the MASSIVE qualifier that is left out of most modern translations, (or it is simply mistranslated as "suitable").
Gen 2:18
וַיֹּאמֶר יְהוָה אֱלֹהִים לֹא־טֹוב הֱיֹות הָאָדָם לְבַדֹּו אֶעֱשֶׂהּ־לֹּו עֵזֶר כְּנֶגְדֹּו׃
There are two very big implications of the qualification following "Ezer": "Kenegdo". This literally translates as: "as before him".
For example, in 2 Sam 22:23, it states "All his laws are before me; I have not turned away ...
The same Hebrew word is used, (Neged).
In the context of Gen 2, God very clearly gave a commandment to Adam, and IMMEDIATELY afterward, said it was not right for Adam to be alone. Why?
Doesn't the context support the idea that woman was created to help keep Adam accountable to the command that God had given to him?
Isn't this exactly why Adam pointed to Eve and said, "The woman that you gave me, she ...".
If a woman is truly a "helper before" man, to keep them accountable, and to remind them of the command of God for his life, then why is this rarely taught in Christianity today?
Is it the case that women are too scared to be perceived as "naggy"? Is it because men truly do not want this kind of accountability? Is it because women do not really want their husbands to pursue the commandment of God?
If what I am arguing is true, and this IS the reason that God created woman, (as stated in this passage), then are women off the mark in their role in a marriage if they do not understand this simple concept that God determined that man NEEDED an intimate source of accountability?
I pray that God blesses you with His favor and peace as you trust in Him.
In Jesus,
e.s.
Saturday, May 2, 2009
Mat. 15:3 - Do not Forsake the Commandment of God for the Tradition of Men
cmp.2009.05.02
ed.2009.07.29.01 (Edited some, smoothed out the contrary parts a tad.)
To: William Lane Craig,
Reasonable Faith
P.O. Box 72888
Marietta, Georgia 30007
Office: 404.348.6301
Organization:
1. Question
3. Traditionalism and Creation
2. Traditionalism and Evolution
4. Traditionalism and Trinity
5. Conclusion
Question
Very frequently, when Christians debate with unbelievers, its always noticeable that the Christians will make appeals to the authority of tradition. And, this trend, where we incorporate tradition into doctrine, seems to contribute a whole lot of confusion regarding what it is we actually believe in.
So, my question simply is, "Why do we hold onto untenable traditional beliefs when Scripture does not support them"?
Please know that I am not asserting that what I have stated below is the absolute "truth" regarding Creation, Evolution or even the Trinity doctrine; I simply do not know. On the other hand, these examples are intended to illustrate my argument: "if the strongholds of traditionalism are removed, then we find that Scripture and reason really do not seem to contradict."
So my question could also be considered to be: "Why do we continue to hold onto traditionalism and consider it to have so much authority?"
Do we do this just so we can fill in our gaps of knowledge? Maybe we hold onto traditional beliefs just so we can boast in the confidence of knowing, even if that knowledge isn't the truth.
Perhaps a better question is: "how do we identify what part of our faith is founded on traditionalism, and how do we know what is established on what God actually said?"
Traditionalism and Creation
It is commonly understood that pretty much every definition of the word "day" either: considers Earth's rotation in relation to the Sun, or we believe that the term is sometimes symbolic.
Two examples of definitions that are relative to the Sun include: the amount of time for the Earth to rotate around its axis in view of the Sun; and, the Biblical definition that a "day" is the combination of evening and morning.
Both of these definitions rely on the Sun, which didn't really seem to be given as a sign or even created, until the fourth day. These "days" were simply proclaimed to be so. As with all other passages of Scripture, we can infer if it is metaphorical or literal by its context. And, since the days in Genesis 1 evidently do not correspond to a literal 24 hour rotation on its axis in view of the Sun, then it is reasonable to accept that this passage is metaphorical.
We have no Biblical evidence to say that these days consisted of 24 hours, let alone a Biblical "day" which is a combination of evening and morning, (still relative to the Sun). There are some who are so adamant about notion of a 24 hour day that they claim that God was the light that was created on the first day and in this He ensured our notion of a 24 hour day. This is problematic for two obvious reasons: first, the light was created, if God was this light, how can He create Himself? Second, why would God make such a massive effort to comply to our notion of 24 hours?
But despite the obvious ambiguity in the Creation Story, we hold to the position that the Earth was created in six, twenty-four hour periods in order to uphold the tradition of men, (despite the fact that the Bible says no such thing, and is clearly vague on the issue).
Traditionalism and Evolution
Similarly, we presume to know how God made man. Certainly, both the Bible and evolutionists agree on the fact that Man was evidentially created from the dust of the Earth. Even though the theory of evolution has many flaws, it is even more problematic for a Christian to argue in favor of certain beliefs based on tradition, and not Scripture.
To be specific, Christians tend to leave Scripture behind when they allude to the commonly held notion that God stepped out of Heaven, walked along the streams, made a bunch of clay, pulled out His Potter's Wheel, peddaled it around, molded Adam, and then poked two holes making Adam's nostrils. Apparently after this, God breathed into Adam, and then some "Star Trekkian" glow appeared which turned Adam into a living and breathing Man. The truth is that Scripture says that God "breathed" and that God "formed", nothing more.
Again, Scripture does not say how God did either of these two things. Did Jesus do the breathing in Human form since God is Spirit and cannot breathe? Did God form Adam through a literal pottery process or did God use some other means to form Adam like Isaiah speaks of the forming process in the womb, and also he speaks of the forming of a nation? Again, it is reasonable to accept that Moses was either being terribly concise, or at least metaphorical.
Scripture does go as far as to use the connotation of a potter in order to describe that nature of God. This connotation very effectively illustrates God's care, mastery, materials, and several other ideas. However, the Bible does not offer any more details than this.
Scripture frequently omits details, and somehow we feel justified filling in those gaps and we declare with confidence how God did such a complex thing--usually holding to a traditional belief. There are details that are not mentioned in the Creation Story that are mentioned in other places in Scripture, specifically the dialog that God had with Wisdom, and the Christian claim that God created everything with the help of Jesus. There are many more details scattered throughout Scripture that effectively serve to remind us that the Creation Story is a very concise summary, (which seems more than reasonable).
How can anyone presume to have complete knowledge about how God did or did not do something especially in light of the fact that God did not tell us?
Traditionalism and Trinity
There are also traditional positions that we cite as Christians in order to indoctrinate others. For example, the Christian Bible says that Jesus is the Son of God, the anointed King of God, the Lord of Lords, and the Son of David.
Scripture also makes it clear that "God" is not the name of the Most High. "God" is just what the Most High IS. It is His nature. The Most High is God, just like I am Human. If we have Children, the infants are Human. If the Most High has a child, what nature is that child? Jesus said whatever is born of the Spirit is Spirit. It would make sense that any child of the Most High would share His nature, and this is even written in Psalms:
Pslams 82:6-7
6 "I said, 'You are "gods";
you are all sons of the Most High.'
7 But you will die like mere men;
you will fall like every other ruler."
Of course, theologians have a hard time reconciling this passage, and for no reason based on Scripture, they claim that God was being "sarcastic". Really? How in the world does this context show that God was being sarcastic? Before this passage, God was telling Israel that they should take care of the needy and afflicted; after this passage God judges that they will fall like everyone else. Was God being sarcastic about this too?
Isn't it justified to say that if a father has a child, then that child carries the nature of its father? If its father was Human, then it is Human. If its Father is God, then isn't it Spirit? Doesn't Jesus have the right to claim the nature of His Father? Even Jesus confirmed this when he said:
John 3:6-7
That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Do not be amazed that I said to you, 'You must be born again.'
The point is, we are told to believe in the traditional belief that: "The mystery of the godhead is too great to understand". This would seem somewhat reasonable except for this fact: the Bible explicitly states the opposite, that the divine nature of God is understood and clearly seen:
Romans 1:20
For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.
Wouldn't those who want to confess Jesus before men be justified to simply call Him the Lord of Lords and the King of Kings? Isn't this Biblical? Isn't it justified to call Him the Son of Adam and the Son of the Father? Isn't it justified to say that "God" is not the name of the "Most High". Isn't it justified to say that Jesus submitted to His Father, even to death? Isn't it justified to say that Jesus is the image of the Father, since the Father has no image? Isn't it justified to say that if you have seen Jesus, then you have seen the Father, because Jesus is the image of His Father since His Father is Spirit?
But, how can we claim it is justified to add to the covenant of salvation, "You must believe that Jesus IS the Most High and the Father, in order to be saved"? Isn't it more reasonable for believers NOT to put their faith in these traditions since they are not stated directly in Scripture?
Conclusion
Why isn't it considered reasonable faith to just believe what the Bible says without falling into traditionalism and intellectualism?
Why do we require others to put their faith in our intellectual "conclusions" and "logical inferrences"?
If we know that "trust", (what some people call faith) comes from the hearing of God's promises, (just like Abraham and Sarah), and we know that it is only by trusting in the Words of God that we have any opportunity to find favor, then why do we insist on trusting in traditionalism and intellectualism instead?
If "true faith" is trusting in the promises and words of God, then isn't it reasonable to conclude that it really is sinful to trust and depend on anything other than what God has promised and commanded?
Romans 14:23 But he who doubts is condemned if he eats, because his eating is not from faith; and whatever is not from faith is sin.
Isn't it reasonable to not hold dogmatically to a belief if Scripture does not directly state that belief? Wouldn't a believer be justified in not putting their faith on inference and argument by simply saying to God:
"Because you commanded me not to, I did not put trust in my own understanding, and I did not put my trust in men."
Proverbs 3:5
Trust in the LORD with all your heart and do not lean on your own understanding.
Psalm 146:3
Do not trust in princes, in mortal man, in whom there is no salvation.
Jeremiah 17:5
Thus says the LORD, "Cursed is the man who trusts in mankind and makes flesh his strength, and whose heart turns away from the LORD.
Matthew 15:3
And He answered and said to them, "Why do you yourselves transgress the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition?"
2 Corinthians 1:9-10
Indeed, we had the sentence of death within ourselves so that we would not trust in ourselves, but in God who raises the dead; who delivered us from so great a peril of death, and will deliver us, He Son whom we have set our hope. And He will yet deliver us.
ed.2009.07.29.01 (Edited some, smoothed out the contrary parts a tad.)
To: William Lane Craig,
Reasonable Faith
P.O. Box 72888
Marietta, Georgia 30007
Office: 404.348.6301
Organization:
1. Question
3. Traditionalism and Creation
2. Traditionalism and Evolution
4. Traditionalism and Trinity
5. Conclusion
Question
Very frequently, when Christians debate with unbelievers, its always noticeable that the Christians will make appeals to the authority of tradition. And, this trend, where we incorporate tradition into doctrine, seems to contribute a whole lot of confusion regarding what it is we actually believe in.
So, my question simply is, "Why do we hold onto untenable traditional beliefs when Scripture does not support them"?
Please know that I am not asserting that what I have stated below is the absolute "truth" regarding Creation, Evolution or even the Trinity doctrine; I simply do not know. On the other hand, these examples are intended to illustrate my argument: "if the strongholds of traditionalism are removed, then we find that Scripture and reason really do not seem to contradict."
So my question could also be considered to be: "Why do we continue to hold onto traditionalism and consider it to have so much authority?"
Do we do this just so we can fill in our gaps of knowledge? Maybe we hold onto traditional beliefs just so we can boast in the confidence of knowing, even if that knowledge isn't the truth.
Perhaps a better question is: "how do we identify what part of our faith is founded on traditionalism, and how do we know what is established on what God actually said?"
Traditionalism and Creation
It is commonly understood that pretty much every definition of the word "day" either: considers Earth's rotation in relation to the Sun, or we believe that the term is sometimes symbolic.
Two examples of definitions that are relative to the Sun include: the amount of time for the Earth to rotate around its axis in view of the Sun; and, the Biblical definition that a "day" is the combination of evening and morning.
Both of these definitions rely on the Sun, which didn't really seem to be given as a sign or even created, until the fourth day. These "days" were simply proclaimed to be so. As with all other passages of Scripture, we can infer if it is metaphorical or literal by its context. And, since the days in Genesis 1 evidently do not correspond to a literal 24 hour rotation on its axis in view of the Sun, then it is reasonable to accept that this passage is metaphorical.
We have no Biblical evidence to say that these days consisted of 24 hours, let alone a Biblical "day" which is a combination of evening and morning, (still relative to the Sun). There are some who are so adamant about notion of a 24 hour day that they claim that God was the light that was created on the first day and in this He ensured our notion of a 24 hour day. This is problematic for two obvious reasons: first, the light was created, if God was this light, how can He create Himself? Second, why would God make such a massive effort to comply to our notion of 24 hours?
But despite the obvious ambiguity in the Creation Story, we hold to the position that the Earth was created in six, twenty-four hour periods in order to uphold the tradition of men, (despite the fact that the Bible says no such thing, and is clearly vague on the issue).
Traditionalism and Evolution
Similarly, we presume to know how God made man. Certainly, both the Bible and evolutionists agree on the fact that Man was evidentially created from the dust of the Earth. Even though the theory of evolution has many flaws, it is even more problematic for a Christian to argue in favor of certain beliefs based on tradition, and not Scripture.
To be specific, Christians tend to leave Scripture behind when they allude to the commonly held notion that God stepped out of Heaven, walked along the streams, made a bunch of clay, pulled out His Potter's Wheel, peddaled it around, molded Adam, and then poked two holes making Adam's nostrils. Apparently after this, God breathed into Adam, and then some "Star Trekkian" glow appeared which turned Adam into a living and breathing Man. The truth is that Scripture says that God "breathed" and that God "formed", nothing more.
Again, Scripture does not say how God did either of these two things. Did Jesus do the breathing in Human form since God is Spirit and cannot breathe? Did God form Adam through a literal pottery process or did God use some other means to form Adam like Isaiah speaks of the forming process in the womb, and also he speaks of the forming of a nation? Again, it is reasonable to accept that Moses was either being terribly concise, or at least metaphorical.
Scripture does go as far as to use the connotation of a potter in order to describe that nature of God. This connotation very effectively illustrates God's care, mastery, materials, and several other ideas. However, the Bible does not offer any more details than this.
Scripture frequently omits details, and somehow we feel justified filling in those gaps and we declare with confidence how God did such a complex thing--usually holding to a traditional belief. There are details that are not mentioned in the Creation Story that are mentioned in other places in Scripture, specifically the dialog that God had with Wisdom, and the Christian claim that God created everything with the help of Jesus. There are many more details scattered throughout Scripture that effectively serve to remind us that the Creation Story is a very concise summary, (which seems more than reasonable).
How can anyone presume to have complete knowledge about how God did or did not do something especially in light of the fact that God did not tell us?
Traditionalism and Trinity
There are also traditional positions that we cite as Christians in order to indoctrinate others. For example, the Christian Bible says that Jesus is the Son of God, the anointed King of God, the Lord of Lords, and the Son of David.
Scripture also makes it clear that "God" is not the name of the Most High. "God" is just what the Most High IS. It is His nature. The Most High is God, just like I am Human. If we have Children, the infants are Human. If the Most High has a child, what nature is that child? Jesus said whatever is born of the Spirit is Spirit. It would make sense that any child of the Most High would share His nature, and this is even written in Psalms:
Pslams 82:6-7
6 "I said, 'You are "gods";
you are all sons of the Most High.'
7 But you will die like mere men;
you will fall like every other ruler."
Of course, theologians have a hard time reconciling this passage, and for no reason based on Scripture, they claim that God was being "sarcastic". Really? How in the world does this context show that God was being sarcastic? Before this passage, God was telling Israel that they should take care of the needy and afflicted; after this passage God judges that they will fall like everyone else. Was God being sarcastic about this too?
Isn't it justified to say that if a father has a child, then that child carries the nature of its father? If its father was Human, then it is Human. If its Father is God, then isn't it Spirit? Doesn't Jesus have the right to claim the nature of His Father? Even Jesus confirmed this when he said:
John 3:6-7
That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Do not be amazed that I said to you, 'You must be born again.'
The point is, we are told to believe in the traditional belief that: "The mystery of the godhead is too great to understand". This would seem somewhat reasonable except for this fact: the Bible explicitly states the opposite, that the divine nature of God is understood and clearly seen:
Romans 1:20
For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.
Wouldn't those who want to confess Jesus before men be justified to simply call Him the Lord of Lords and the King of Kings? Isn't this Biblical? Isn't it justified to call Him the Son of Adam and the Son of the Father? Isn't it justified to say that "God" is not the name of the "Most High". Isn't it justified to say that Jesus submitted to His Father, even to death? Isn't it justified to say that Jesus is the image of the Father, since the Father has no image? Isn't it justified to say that if you have seen Jesus, then you have seen the Father, because Jesus is the image of His Father since His Father is Spirit?
But, how can we claim it is justified to add to the covenant of salvation, "You must believe that Jesus IS the Most High and the Father, in order to be saved"? Isn't it more reasonable for believers NOT to put their faith in these traditions since they are not stated directly in Scripture?
Conclusion
Why isn't it considered reasonable faith to just believe what the Bible says without falling into traditionalism and intellectualism?
Why do we require others to put their faith in our intellectual "conclusions" and "logical inferrences"?
If we know that "trust", (what some people call faith) comes from the hearing of God's promises, (just like Abraham and Sarah), and we know that it is only by trusting in the Words of God that we have any opportunity to find favor, then why do we insist on trusting in traditionalism and intellectualism instead?
If "true faith" is trusting in the promises and words of God, then isn't it reasonable to conclude that it really is sinful to trust and depend on anything other than what God has promised and commanded?
Romans 14:23 But he who doubts is condemned if he eats, because his eating is not from faith; and whatever is not from faith is sin.
Isn't it reasonable to not hold dogmatically to a belief if Scripture does not directly state that belief? Wouldn't a believer be justified in not putting their faith on inference and argument by simply saying to God:
"Because you commanded me not to, I did not put trust in my own understanding, and I did not put my trust in men."
Proverbs 3:5
Trust in the LORD with all your heart and do not lean on your own understanding.
Psalm 146:3
Do not trust in princes, in mortal man, in whom there is no salvation.
Jeremiah 17:5
Thus says the LORD, "Cursed is the man who trusts in mankind and makes flesh his strength, and whose heart turns away from the LORD.
Matthew 15:3
And He answered and said to them, "Why do you yourselves transgress the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition?"
2 Corinthians 1:9-10
Indeed, we had the sentence of death within ourselves so that we would not trust in ourselves, but in God who raises the dead; who delivered us from so great a peril of death, and will deliver us, He Son whom we have set our hope. And He will yet deliver us.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
