There is nothing wrong in "Baptizing" a non-Christian practice as long as there is seperation of the two.

No Christian celebrates Christmas thinking they are worshipping the sun, they are giving glory to Christ.

We can take something that is not of Christian origin and give it a sacred meaning. This is better than just running away from it. Take the Jehovah's Witnesses for example. They shun Christmas, birthdays and the like and it is going too far to try and impose an outside belief on something that doesn't bear such kind of adherence.

There is nothing intrinsically wrong with things that are neutral to Christianity. Only (as Physics has pointed out) is it wrong if it first is evil or sinful.

What is better - ignoring pagan practices, or taking the good things in them, changing their meaning and giving it a Christian connotation in order to work "from within"? This is how Christmas on Dec. 25th came about. Many times in fact the overreaction to such things helps them to prosper and assigns a meaning to neutral objects (like Christmas trees) that have no evil meaning inherent in them at all.

Dave Armstrong made a good point...he said:

quote:

---

We observe the Apostle Paul "incorporating paganism" in a sense when he dialogues with the Greek intellectuals and philosophers on Mars Hill in Athens (Acts 17). He compliments their religiosity (17:22), and comments on a pagan "altar with the inscription, 'To an unknown god.' " (17:23). He then goes on to preach that this "unknown god" is indeed Yahweh, the God of the OT and of the Jews (17:23-24). Then he expands upon the understanding of the true God as opposed to "shrines made by human hands" (17:24-25), and God as Sovereign and Sustaining Creator (17:26-28). In doing so he cites two pagan poets and/or philosophers: Epimenides of Crete (whom he also cites in Titus 1:12) and Aratus of Cilicia (17:28) and expands upon their understanding as well (17:29).

---

Good points. Thanks for the read!




"...we will not tire, we will not faulter and we will not fail..."

I admit to being torn on this issue. On the one hand, I believe that it is important to recognize that the Mosaic Law is no longer binding. On the other hand, I think that we ought to respect the Jewish traditions where possible. Perhaps there is less conflict than we might think on some of these issues. I would be curious to see if the following violate Talmudic law:
-- the use of pagan gods in naming a day. As far as I can tell, this would apply to Easter as well as every single name of every day of the week (Thor's day -> Thursday).
-- the making of statutes that are not used in liturgy. Let's leave out praying in front of them for the moment, but just having statues in a church (note: there is no praying before a statute in the Mass, but some individuals do so before or after Mass).

We may have more agreement here than you'd think, Bracy.

[This message has been edited by Physics96 (edited 3/12/2002).]

tu ag:

quote:

---

There is nothing wrong in "Baptizing" a non-Christian practice as long as there is seperation of the two.

---

Do you have scriptural evidence to back that up? I've already provided the scriptural evidence that it *IS* wrong to adopt pagan practices and traditions, but I'll repeat them again:

quote:

---

Deuteronomy 12:29-31: “When Yahweh your God has annihilated the nations confronting you, whom you are going to dispossess, and when you have dispossessed them and made your home in their country, beware of being entrapped into copying them, after they have been destroyed to make way for you, and do not enquire about their gods, saying, ‘How did these nations worship their gods? I am going to do the same too.” This is not the way to treat Yahweh your God. For in honour of their gods they have done everything detestable that Yahweh hates; yes, in honour of their gods, they even burn their own sons and daughters as sacrifices!”

---

quote:

---

Matthew 5:17-19: "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven."

---

quote:

---

1 John 5:1-5: “Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God, and everyone who loves the father loves his child as well. This is how we know that we love the children of God: by loving God and carrying out his commands. This is love for God: to obey his commands. And his commands are not burdensome, for everyone born of God overcomes the world. This is the victory that has overcome the world, even our faith. Who is it that overcomes the world? Only he who believes that Jesus is the Son of God.”

---

quote:

---

Matthew 7:21-23: "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?' Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!'

---

quote:

---

Exodus 23:13: "Be careful to do everything I have said to you. Do not invoke the names of other gods; do not let them be heard on your lips.

---

quote:

---

Mark 7:6-8: He replied, "Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you hypocrites; as it is written:

"'These people honor me with their lips,
but their hearts are far from me.
They worship me in vain;
their teachings are but rules taught by men.'

You have let go of the commands of God and are holding on to the traditions of men."

---

quote:

---

Jeremiah 10:1-4: "Hear the word which the Lord speaks to you, O house of Israel.

Thus says the Lord,
"Do not learn the way of the nations,
And do not be terrified by the signs of the heavens
Although the nations are terrified of them;
For the customs of the peoples are delusion;
Because it is wood cut from the forest,
The work of the hands of a craftsman with a cutting tool.
They decorate it with silver and with gold;
They fasten it with nails and with hammers
So that it will not totter."

---

In my opinion, you place far too much weight on what the church says -- on the teachings and traditions of *men.* Sure, church leaders and scholars can *aid* our understanding, but they are not gospel. They are prone to error.

I give no more weight to the teachings of the Pope and the RCC, than I do the Southern Baptist Convention, the Jehovah's Witnesses Watchtower, or the Christian Science Monitor.

Seriously, from someone outside the RCC, the teachings of the church is the same as the teachings of the Pharisees -- and Jesus told us that unless our righteousness exceeds that of the Pharisees, we will not enter His Kingdom.

What does the *Bible* say?

Can you imagine how frustrating it is, when I'm pointing out that God commanded us not to follow the "teachings of men" and then be answered with: "I highly recommend you read the Didache and some other writings from the Church Fathers on how they saw this?"

quote:

---

No Christian celebrates Christmas thinking they are worshipping the sun, they are giving glory to Christ.

---

As it is in *ANY* legal system: Ignorance of the law is no excuse.

That's why we *HAVE* the Torah in the first place: so that we *KNOW* what the law *IS*.

It doesn't matter what it means to the believer. All that matters is what it means to God, and it means something completely different. The wisdom of men is foolishness in the eyes of God.

quote:

---

We can take something that is not of Christian origin and give it a sacred meaning.

---

Don't tell me something like this without giving sciptural support for it. I don't believe it is okay. In fact, I believe God considers it an abomination.

quote:

---

What is better - ignoring pagan practices, or taking the good things in them, changing their meaning and giving it a Christian connotation in order to work "from within"?

---

Ignoring pagan practices is what we are commanded to do. By "Christianizing" the pagan practices, you are replacing what God has commanded with pagan practices. There is a *reason* why God commanded us to observe the Sabbath and His Festivals: they are *historic* and *prophetic*. You learn about God's nature and His promises by keeping His festivals. You do not learn these things through pagan practices.

God didn't give us meaningless commandments. There is a REASON behind them -- *ALL* of them:

quote:

---

Hebrews 10:1:"For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect."

---

Physics96:

quote:

---

I admit to being torn on this issue. On the one hand, I believe that it is important to recognize that the Mosaic Law is no longer binding. On the other hand, I think that we ought to respect the Jewish traditions where possible.

---

Christians are still under obligation to the law, not for redemption, but for righteousness sake, the avoidance of sin (1 John 3:4).

Don't confuse the two. We are to observe the Torah for the sake of righteousness, and doing His will. We are commanded to keep His commandments. You keep making the argument that, since we cannot be saved by the Law, we don't have to keep the Law. That is entirely untrue.

quote:

---

I would be curious to see if the following violate Talmudic law:
-- the use of pagan gods in naming a day. As far as I can tell, this would apply to Easter as well as every single name of every day of the week (Thor's day -> Thursday).

---

Jews keep a different calendar than the Roman Gregorian calendar. The Jewish calendar has the Hebrew names of the days and months. We have to use the Gregorian calendar when speaking to people unfamiliar with the Hebrew calendar. If I say to you that Passover is on Aviv 14, do you know what day that is?

What is truly unfortunate is that, when speaking to a Jew -- even a Messianic Jew -- you will immediately turn them off by saying the names "Jesus" or "Christ." When speaking to a Jew (not to myself, because I was raised in a Gentile church), you use the names "Yeshua" and "Messiah." The reason is because so many Jews have been killed and persecuted in the name of "Jesus Christ" that it holds a very negative connotation for them.

Bracy


[This message has been edited by Bracy (edited 3/12/2002).]

Bracy: Here we go again...

Recap:
-- All of your Old Testament citations (Deuteronomy, Jeremiah, etc.) involved other cultures that were sinful either in practice or belief. It may be that every other religion at the time used sinful practices. This doesn't say that particular actions become sinful. For example,

quote:

---

For the customs of the peoples are delusion;

---

refers to the custom of worshipping the trees decorated in that way, not decorating the tree itself. The book goes on to talk of the tree being an unfit object for worship, since it cannot speak and cannot even move itself. In context, the WORSHIP of the tree is the sin, not the decoration of the tree. Furthermore, if your interpretation of the law is correct, you blaspheme just as much to say "Sunday" as you do "Easter." "Do not even mention their names" refers to the ancient belief in the significance of names as invoking the power of the thing named; it would be translated today as "do not profess belief in false gods."

-- All of your arguments that we have to keep following the Mosaic Law were flatly refuted by Paul in Galatians. Other than your bald assertions that your interpretation is correct, you have never produced one piece of evidence, either from within the text of Galatians itself or from history, to refute my contention that the letter to the Galatians addresses the very issue of whether Gentiles must follow the Mosaic law or not. Paul answers with an emphatic "NO!" He specifically ties circumcision to the Old Law, and then says that there is no difference between circumcision and uncircumcision. Note that he does NOT say that there is no law, but that there is a new law governed by faith (the New Covenant). Heck, you even said it yourself

quote:

---

Hebrews 10:1:"For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things,

---

Furthermore, you still haven't responded to the use of the Antitheses in Matthew 5, when Jesus says "You have heard it said... But I say to you...." This formulation clearly indicates that Jesus has the power to change the law and in fact does change the law. And you STILL haven't addressed why Jesus used the term "fulfill" to describe his role with the law if He meant "follow."

quote:

---

That's why we *HAVE* the Torah in the first place: so that we *KNOW* what the law *IS*.

---

Actually, that's why we have the Holy Spirit. The Old Testament is a useful moral guide, but the Holy Spirit is what informs us of its significance.

quote:

---

Jews keep a different calendar than the Roman Gregorian calendar. The Jewish calendar has the Hebrew names of the days and months. We have to use the Gregorian calendar when speaking to people unfamiliar with the Hebrew calendar. If I say to you that Passover is on Aviv 14, do you know what day that is?

What is truly unfortunate is that, when speaking to a Jew -- even a Messianic Jew -- you will immediately turn them off by saying the names "Jesus" or "Christ." When speaking to a Jew (not to myself, because I was raised in a Gentile church), you use the names "Yeshua" and "Messiah." The reason is because so many Jews have been killed and persecuted in the name of "Jesus Christ" that it holds a very negative connotation for them.

---

This is the one place where I agree with you, but it is impossible to rectify hundreds of years of history. This is clinging to the same error that James made: letting obsession with the details of the practice of Christianity interfere with his relationship with Gentiles. You, and they, have to get past it. This is what Paul calls you to do in the Scriptures, and more importantly, this is what God calls you to do.

PS, And please, for the good of the thread, do not challenge tu ag to a knock down/drag out over the validity of the Magisterium. It's a separate issue, and there has been plenty of Scriptural evidence counter to your position presented by me and Greatheart, not to mention a great deal of refutation for your Scriptural support.

[This message has been edited by Physics96 (edited 3/12/2002).]

[This message has been edited by Physics96 (edited 3/12/2002).]

Physics96:

quote:

---

Furthermore, you still haven't responded to the use of the Antitheses in Matthew 5, when Jesus says "You have heard it said... But I say to you...." This formulation clearly indicates that Jesus has the power to change the law and in fact does change the law. And you STILL haven't addressed why Jesus used the term "fulfill" to describe his role with the law if He meant "follow."

---

Jesus did *NOT* change the law. God is unchanging. He was explaining the *spirit* of the law. The Jews of His day had become so legalistic, that the true spirit of the law was completely missed.

quote:

---

Actually, that's why we have the Holy Spirit. The Old Testament is a useful moral guide, but the Holy Spirit is what informs us of its significance.

---

If that were true, then every Believer would be in complete agreement with one another. If it were true, you and I wouldn't be having this discussion.

quote:

---

You, and they, have to get past it. This is what Paul calls you to do in the Scriptures, and more importantly, this is what God calls you to do.

---

This is *NOT* Christian brotherly love. Basically, you're telling the Jews: "I'm not changing. Deal with it." That's a terrible attitude.

Btw, I was born and raised as a Gentile, in a Southern Baptist church, so the use of "Jesus" and "Christ" does not have the effect on me that it does on Jews.

[This message has been edited by Bracy (edited 3/12/2002).]

quote:

---

If that were true, then every Believer would be in complete agreement with one another. If it were true, you and I wouldn't be having this discussion.

---

I'm Catholic, so I don't think that every individual gets it right, I think the Church does, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. But that's not the issue at hand; the issue is the reasonable interpretation of the Scriptures.

quote:

---

This is *NOT* Christian brotherly love. Basically, you're telling the Jews: "I'm not changing. Deal with it." That's a terrible attitude.

---

No, Bracy, I am saying let go of what keeps you from us. James was a wonderful Christian, but he couldn't stomach the idea of sharing his faith with the Gentiles, who wouldn't even follow the most basic commandments of the Mosaic Law. No matter what name we use, we will still be part of the same faith that was used erroneously to justify hatred of our Jewish brothers, and we will still not be practicing Jews. Understand that asking Gentiles to yield their culture is exactly what James wanted, but Paul said he was wrong to do so. We want to share in the faith with everyone; don't let a cultural prejudice on your part keep you from us.

[This message has been edited by Physics96 (edited 3/12/2002).]

Physics96:

quote:

---

I'm Catholic, so I don't think that every individual gets it right, I think the Church does, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. But that's not the issue at hand; the issue is the reasonable interpretation of the Scriptures.

---

The Church too, has contradicted itself many times throughout its history. I'm pretty certain that it wasn't the Holy Spirit that led the Church to sell indulgences, kill Jews, keep the scriptures in Latin so that the common man could not read them, etc.

Bracy

quote:

---

The Jews of His day had become so legalistic, that the true spirit of the law was completely missed.

---

The more things change...

The antitheses weren't about the Pharisees' interpretation of the law, they were about the law itself. It makes sense in the context of Jesus "fulfilling" the law, but not if Jesus is just a follower of the law. He did more than interpret; at least 3 of the anitheses changed the law. It works consistently with Galatians and Romans 10:4 ("Christ is the fulfillment of the law..."), but not with your interpretation.

The references in the Epistles to the law referred to the Law of the New Covenant established by Jesus.

Incidentally, the Law binds us, not God. God never changes, but His relationship with man did change, and drastically, with Jesus. The Law is a component of our relationship with Him. This is Paul's "Abba" reference in Galatians.

Bracy:

quote:

---

The Church too, has contradicted itself many times throughout its history. I'm pretty certain that it wasn't the Holy Spirit that led the Church to sell indulgences, kill Jews, keep the scriptures in Latin so that the common man could not read them, etc.

---

Separate issue, and tu ag and I can talk to you about that some other time. Stick to the topic at hand: Did Jesus change the Law? If not, then what is your Scriptural basis for the statement, and why is my interpretation inaccurate?

PS, and since we are also discussing this issue, why is my interpretation of the Old Testament texts in context wrong? I haven't received an answer to that, other than quoting bits out of context.

BTW, take your time this time if you'd like. I will be away until about 9 Central time.

[This message has been edited by Physics96 (edited 3/12/2002).]

[This message has been edited by Physics96 (edited 3/12/2002).]

Physics96:

In the letter to Galatia Paul is simply doing what James, the chairman of the rabbinical council at Jerusalem, had ruled in order for Gentiles to fellowship with Jews. James had ruled that the Gentiles could learn the Torah at their own pace by attending Synagogues in their local areas.

quote:

---

Acts 15:21 "For Moses of old time has in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every Sabbath day."

---

Bracy

Physics96:

Literally, Jews keep the Torah and its ordinances for righteousness sake, not for redemption. Jews know, it is only the mercy of God that brings redemption, through trusting in Him. Gentiles who received redemption and righteousness through trusting in Jesus, and then turn to the law for redemption, nullify the act of redemption provided to the gentile through Jesus Christ.

Bracy

[This message has been edited by Bracy (edited 3/12/2002).]

Physics96:

quote:

---

Separate issue, and tu ag and I can talk to you about that some other time.

---

Fair enough, but let me make one point: if what the church says is true because they are led by the Holy Spirit, then wouldn't it make sense to include their writings in the bible as the inspired Word of God? tu ag told me to read the Didache. My reply to that would be "why isn't it already in the Bible?"

quote:

---

Stick to the topic at hand: Did Jesus change the Law? If not, then what is your Scriptural basis for the statement, and why is my interpretation inaccurate?

---

I've given my scriptural support, I don't know what else you're looking for. There aren't any changed laws, Jesus taught the same laws that Moses taught.

quote:

---

PS, and since we are also discussing this issue, why is my interpretation of the Old Testament texts in context wrong? I haven't received an answer to that, other than quoting bits out of context.

---

Sorry, I missed seeing the question, thanks for pointing it out to me. I know it probably doesn't seem like it, but I do try not to sound like I'm saying "My interpretation is correct, yours is wrong." It's just that, if the bible is pretty clear and specific about a certain point, and someone says "that's not really what it says," I don't know another way to answer that, but to say "you're wrong, it *does* say that."

It's not like we're talking about the proper interpretation of prophecy that is yet to be fulfilled. We're talking about something that is *very clearly* stated.

If you were to say: "The sky is blue" and I read it and then said "Physics96 isn't saying that the sky is blue," then how else would you reply other than "you're wrong?"

Take for example, this commandment:

quote:

---

Exodus 20:13: You shall not murder.

---

If you were to come back to me and say: "It doesn't say we can't murder," I wouldn't know any other way to answer you but to say "you're *wrong*, it *does* say we can't murder. It's right there in black and white."

When God says: "Don't learn the way of the heathen" and Easter eggs, Easter bunnies, Christmas trees, etc are ways of the heathen, then what other answer can I give?

Saying that these things are "christianized" or "baptized" is nothing more than self-justification. It's nothing more than reasoning and rationalizing a justification to continue the behavior.

Robin Hood stole from the rich, and gave to the poor. One might rationalize that it was okay, because he was "doing a good deed" by giving to the poor. That doesn't justify him for stealing. It was still stealing.

While I do believe that we are expected to obey the whole Torah, such as the food laws, for instance, I *do* concede that that is a matter of interpretation, and therefore I do not argue that point as strongly. The main point that I am arguing is with regard to the pagan practices that have polluted our worship of Jesus Christ, and I believe the scriptures are very clear on that point, and are stated rather emphatically.

Bracy

[This message has been edited by Bracy (edited 3/12/2002).]

Home early, so here goes...

Bracy, I see what you're having trouble with. We look at the same passages, and read completely different things. For example, when I see a passage that says "Do not follow their customs, for they have offended Yahweh by doing X, Y and Z." I take it as "Do not do X, Y, and Z", not "Do not do anything that this culture has ever done before; do not speak their language, do not eat their food, do not play their music, etc., etc." The question that I would pose to you is how do we tell what is meant by "customs"? I would read this as meaning "customs which are offensive because of...." We differ on the canons of Scriptural interpretation, so I am asking you to explain your rule for interpretation. To me, the passages you cite say clearly and ambiguously "do not adopt the sinful practices of other cultures" while you read it as "do not adopt ANY practices of other cultures," which I would argue is taken out of context.

Similarly, you would say that the Mosaic law persists in its entirety, except for the parts that were replaced. I have trouble understanding that because you advance no criteria for what is and isn't replaced. I would say that the Law of the New Covenant is based on the Commandments of Jesus, and therefore I don't encounter the problem. The advantage of my interpretation is that it is consistent across the New Testament, including Matthew, the letters of John, Galatians and Romans. There are very specific questions that I have raised, such as the meaning of Jesus using the word "fulfill" in Matthew (also quoted by Paul in Romans 10:4), the Antitheses, and the equation of circumcision with the Old Law in Galatians, that you haven't answered. Again, we read the same thing, but I have a theory that explains all of it consistently (e.g., John's references to the law refer to the laws of the New Covenant, not the Mosaic laws). You select a particular passage, but don't reconcile it with the whole of the text or with the other books.

Suffice it to say that I remain unconvinced. I believe that Jesus and the Scriptures of the New Testament told us the Law of the New Covenant fully. Rather than picking and choosing which commandments were abrogated by Jesus (e.g., circumcision, sacrifice of the lamb), I view the Old Testament as a source of moral guidance, rather than a legal text.

Physics96:

Oops, you wrote your message as I was editing mine. You probably haven't seen the last paragraph that I added.

Bracy

Physics96:

quote:

---

To me, the passages you cite say clearly and ambiguously "do not adopt the sinful practices of other cultures" while you read it as "do not adopt ANY practices of other cultures," which I would argue is taken out of context.

---

The point that I am having difficulty explaining eloquently is the *intent* behind God's commandments. There was a *reason* for them, a *meaning* that He was conveying to us.

For instance, God commanded us to work for 6 days and to rest on the seventh day. That seventh day is *significant.* God wasn't just saying "Pick a day of the week to rest," that seventh day has a special *meaning.* That meaning is lost when we do not observe the Sabbath on the seventh day. You don't see what God is trying to show you if you observe it on the 1st day.

God commanded us to rest on the seventh day. He commanded the Jews to work the land for 6 years, and let it rest in the seventh year. There is a *reason* behind this.

The Epistle of Barnabus says:

quote:

---

15:1 Moreover concerning the sabbath likewise it is written in the Ten Words, in which He spake to Moses face to face on Mount Sinai;
15:2 And ye shall hallow, the sabbath of the Lord with pure hands and with a pure heart.
15:3 And in another place He saith ;
15:4 If My sons observe the sabbath, then I will bestow My mercy upon them.
15:5 Of the sabbath He speaketh in the beginning of the creation;
15:6 And God made the works of His hands in six days, and He ended on the seventh day, and rested on it, and He hallowed it.
15:7 Give heed, children, what this meaneth ;
15:8 He ended in six days.
15:9 He meaneth this, that in six thousand years the Lord shall bring all things to an end ;
15:10 for the day with Him signifieth a thousand years ;
15:11 and this He himself beareth me witness, saying;
15:12 Behold, the day of the Lord shall be as a thousand years.
15:13 Therefore, children, in six days, that is in six thousand years, everything shall come to an end.
15:14 And He rested on the seventh day.
15:15 This He meaneth;
15:16 when His Son shall come, and shall abolish the time of the Lawless One, and shall judge the ungodly, and shall change the sun and the moon and the stars, then shall He truly rest on the seventh day.

---

Do you see what Barnabus is saying here? Just like we work for 6 days and rest on the seventh day, and just as the Jews worked the land for 6 years and let it rest on the 7th year, so too will the earth toil under man for 6000 years, and Jesus will reign for the 7th 1000 years. Jesus Millenial Kingdom is the "Kingdom of Rest."

That's why Peter said:

quote:

---

2 Peter 3:8: But do not let this one fact escape your notice, beloved, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

---

Peter is echoing the very same thing that Barnabus was explaining.

But when we keep the Sabbath on the 1st day, instead of the 7th day, that meaning is lost. Satan would rather us be blind to what God is doing.

Likewise, the laws concerning the cleansing of a leper was among the most elaborate laws in the Torah. The Jews couldn't understand why there was so much attention paid to the cleansing of a leper compared to the other laws, such as those surrounding sacrifices. The leper was to go through a very lengthy and elaborate ritual of purification and then present himself to the elders.

Why was so much attention paid to a leper? The *reason* is because leprosy is an incurable disease. If someone is suddenly cured of leprosy, then chances are, he was cured by the Messiah. This is why, when Jesus healed the 10 lepers, He immediately instructed them to present themselves to the elders. The elders were supposed to recognize this as a sign that the Messiah had come.

When John the Baptist was in prison, and needed reassurance that Jesus was the Messiah, the answer that Jesus sent back to him, was "The blind see, the lame walk, and the lepers are cleansed." That's why Jesus' answer was good enough for John the Baptist. But that meaning would be lost, had it not been for the Torah Law concerning leprosy.

When we don't follow God's Commandments, the meaning of what He is trying to teach us is lost.

Bracy

[This message has been edited by Bracy (edited 3/12/2002).]

Barnabus? Having trouble finding that one in my Bible.

Leaving that aside, I think we have actually found some area of agreement: that commandments are there for a reason. I would posit, based on the Scriptures that I cited, that Jesus lets us transcend the commandments themselves to reach the reasons. Thus, we are bound to the meaning of the law, not the letter. This is why I find it unhelpful to argue the details of Old Testament law, since we are following the spirit of the commands (under the guidance of the Holy Spirit). If the Pharisees demonstrated anything, it is that following the letter of the law may not lead you to its spirit. But the Holy Spirit certainly does.

quote:

---

Barnabus? Having trouble finding that one in my Bible.

---

Whose decision was it to leave it out of the Bible? Men's.

Barnabus was a Believer who travelled with Paul. Why do you place so much faith in RCC dogma and so little in Barnabus? Why would you be more inclined to believe the Didache than Barnabus?

quote:

---

Leaving that aside, I think we have actually found some area of agreement: that commandments are there for a reason. I would posit, based on the Scriptures that I cited, that Jesus lets us transcend the commandments themselves to reach the reasons. Thus, we are bound to the meaning of the law, not the letter. This is why I find it unhelpful to argue the details of Old Testament law, since we are following the spirit of the commands (under the guidance of the Holy Spirit). If the Pharisees demonstrated anything, it is that following the letter of the law may not lead you to its spirit. But the Holy Spirit certainly does.

---

My point is that there is *meaning* inside the Torah that goes far beyond "right and wrong." There is prophetic signficance that is lost when we don't observe it. And you learn more of that meaning by *practicing* it, rather than just reading about it.

I believe that continuing to practice pagan traditions pleases Satan -- and if they are pleasing to Satan, then they are *not* pleasing to God.

Bracy


[This message has been edited by Bracy (edited 3/12/2002).]

Got it. There's definitely a disconnect between us, but at least now I understand what the disconnect is. For my part, my faith says that the Sacraments bring us closer to God (impart grace), and that Satan is never happy about that. But I agree with you to the extent that Satan is pleased with any division in the Church, no matter what form that division takes. We should be working toward reconciliation with our Jewish brothers, and working to heal the past wounds that have separated Christians from Jews. I'm not sure what can erase the history between the groups, but I have faith that one day (and it may well be the Last Day), we will be reconciled. I thank God that we have a Pope who takes ecumenism seriously, and has worked tirelessly for this goal. Thanks for the dialogue, and peace be with you!

[This message has been edited by Physics96 (edited 3/12/2002).]

Physics96:

quote:

---

Thanks for the dialogue, and peace be with you!

---

Thanks, I enjoyed it too -- and Shalom!

Bracy

excellent site for study on Law & Grace:

http://www.realanswers.net/realaudio/lawngrace.htm

[This message has been edited by Tagg (edited 3/18/2002).]

Bracy.. I'm wanting to learn more, I am starting to agree and believe we should follow the original laws.. just starting to study about it all this week.. Thank you!

Wow. 15 year bump. Is Bracy still around anymore?

I hope so.