Quote:

---

Quote:

---

You are interpreting scripture for yourself as you see fit.

---

---

Nope, as the Holy Spirit guides me and illuminates Scripture. Just like the Bereans in Acts 17. And using it as instructed in 2 Timothy 3:15-16.

The Bible is replete with reference to the Scriptures as authoritative and the source of knowledge of truth and of God. There is no reference whatsoever to organized religion as a source of authority or truth. In fact, almost all examples of organized religion in the Bible are ones of corruption, including corruption of the truth.

one MEEN Ag said:

---

You left this one off your replies.

If the EO has literally no authority even with its traditions, teachings, and apostolic succession that goes back to Peter - how do you claim any superior authority?

Would you like to assert your denominational beliefs?

---

I don't claim that I have any superior authority. That rests solely within the Scriptures themselves.

I'm not sure what you mean by your last question. Are you asking what denomination I'm part of?

Levirate marriage is not polygamy.

Jabin said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

You are interpreting scripture for yourself as you see fit.

---

---

Nope, as the Holy Spirit guides me and illuminates Scripture. Just like the Bereans in Acts 17. And using it as instructed in 2 Timothy 3:15-16.

The Bible is replete with reference to the Scriptures as authoritative and the source of knowledge of truth and of God. There is no reference whatsoever to organized religion as a source of authority or truth. In fact, almost all examples of organized religion in the Bible are ones of corruption, including corruption of the truth.

---

You and I have vastly different interpretations of scripture, authority, and sacraments. How can the holy spirit contradict itself by endorsing all interpretations of scripture? Do you think there is good fruit in the 10000+ denominations that hold every belief under the sun while still calling themselves Christian? Including that Christ isn't God and the bible is just made up stories? Clearly there has to be a right and wrong interpretation. You draw a line somewhere about rejecting heretical teachings.

The Pharisees doing liturgical practices with hard hearts didn't mean to throw out the practices, but the hard hearts. Jesus himself even said to listen to what the Pharisees teach and do what they say because they sit in the seat of Moses, but do not do as they do because they are hypocrites.

Jabin said:

---

one MEEN Ag said:

---

You left this one off your replies.

If the EO has literally no authority even with its traditions, teachings, and apostolic succession that goes back to Peter - how do you claim any superior authority?

Would you like to assert your denominational beliefs?

---

I don't claim that I have any superior authority. That rests solely within the Scriptures themselves.

I'm not sure what you mean by your last question. Are you asking what denomination I'm part of?

---

You make claims about Christ, Christianity, and how to interpret scripture. You either A) believe you have the authority yourself to deduce your own conclusions (this is the me + holy spirit) about christ or B) believe it belongs to a group of individuals who do have the authority. And when you disagree with them you withdraw your consent to accepting their authority. I.E - you get your turn with the pope hat.

Claiming no authority to interpret means its uninterpretable, not your current belief that its just you and the holy spirit with bible that is in english, with footnotes, and has been preserved for 2000 years.

Jabin said:

---

one MEEN Ag said:

---

You left this one off your replies.

If the EO has literally no authority even with its traditions, teachings, and apostolic succession that goes back to Peter - how do you claim any superior authority?

Would you like to assert your denominational beliefs?

---

I don't claim that I have any superior authority. That rests solely within the Scriptures themselves.

I'm not sure what you mean by your last question. Are you asking what denomination I'm part of?

---

Scriptures are not self interpreting. They have never been. Christ established a church, not a giant religious category that encompasses the totality and equality of beliefs about Him.

You can't have any prophecy in a self interpreting scripture anyway.

So again, some group preserved these texts. They then preserved the teachings and understanding of these texts. You have received your teaching from someone else. Who was it, why did they believe it, and why is it different than what the early church fathers teach and did liturgically? If you don't claim to receive any teachings about Christ from someone else and that its just you and the bible that is in error and not the teaching of the church, nor the scriptures.

Quote:

---

You and I have vastly different interpretations of scripture, authority, and sacraments.

---

We do, at least with regard to scripture and authority, and possibly the sacraments.

Quote:

---

How can the holy spirit contradict itself by endorsing all interpretations of scripture?

---

The HS never contradicts itself and does not endorse all interpretations of scripture, nor have I ever made that argument. You are creating a straw man.

Quote:

---

Clearly there has to be a right and wrong interpretation.

---

Of course there does. A man-made church, however, is no more capable of deciding what is right and wrong than I can. If there is anything that the history of any church teaches us, it's that churches are frequently in error.

Quote:

---

You make claims about Christ, Christianity, and how to interpret scripture. You either A) believe you have the authority yourself to deduce your own conclusions (this is the me + holy spirit) about christ or B) believe it belongs to a group of individuals who do have the authority. And when you disagree with them you withdraw your consent to accepting their authority. I.E - you get your turn with the pope hat.

---

A little that's true in that and a lot that's wrong. I follow the teachings of the Bible in looking at it to decide what's right and wrong. Unlike the Pope, however, I don't attempt to wield authority over others. And I never "withdraw" my consent from a group of individuals since I never gave them my consent.

Quote:

---

Claiming no authority to interpret means its uninterpretable

---

That's just silly.

Quote:

---

Scriptures are not self interpreting. They have never been.

---

You are badly wrong.

Quote:

---

Christ established a church,

---

You're right - the church is the body of all believers, not some man-made organization whose leaders wear funny hats, live in mansions, and impregnate their own daughters.

Quote:

---

So again, some group preserved these texts. They then preserved the teachings and understanding of these texts. You have received your teaching from someone else. Who was it, why did they believe it, and why is it different than what the early church fathers teach and did liturgically?

---

No, a bunch of different groups preserved texts. A near-unanimity emerged over the meaning of those texts not because of some paternalistic man-made church, but because of the plain, clear, and generally obvious meaning of those texts. Many people have come to follow the Lord Jesus Christ after simply being given and read a copy of the book of John. It does not take a bunch of funny men in strange robes and weird hats to explain the gospels.

Sure, there are differences on some of the fringes of the NT, but the core teachings of Christianity are perfectly obvious to anyone that reads the scriptures.

I don't know of any differences between my beliefs and that of the consensus of early church writers. The liturgy is another issue that I'm not knowledgeable enough about to discuss. However, it's my understanding that the first Christians met in each other's homes and synagogues (since they considered themselves to be Jews), and I strongly suspect that their liturgy was radically different than that of today's RCC and/or EO.

Quote:

---

If you don't claim to receive any teachings about Christ from someone else and that its just you and the bible that is in error and not the teaching of the church, nor the scriptures.

---

I'm frequently in error. So I pray that God will use his Spirit to remove the blinders from my eyes, and I read lots and lots of stuff written by other Christians to see what I may be missing.

Let me turn your question around. Howe do you know that the teaching of your church is not in error? You guys keep asserting that it is infallible; what is your evidence or proof of that?

Quote:

---

A man-made church, however, is no more capable of deciding what is right and wrong than I can.

---

Phew. Good thing I don't go to one of those.

Zobel said:

---

Quote:

---

A man-made church, however, is no more capable of deciding what is right and wrong than I can.

---

Phew. Good thing I don't go to one of those.

---

Come on out in the sun. It won't hurt you.

Your entire analysis is based on presentism. It assumes a canon of scripture and completely ignores centuries of wild gnostic and other heresies, all based on the scriptures we used today plus other writings that those people held as sacred and authoritative in their communities.

It's the post-turtle approach to Christianity. Didn't get there by itself, doesn't know how it got up there, and elevated beyond its ability to function.

Zobel said:

---

Your entire analysis is based on presentism. It assumes a canon of scripture and completely ignores centuries of wild gnostic and other heresies, all based on the scriptures we used today plus other writings that those people held as sacred and authoritative in their communities.

It's the post-turtle approach to Christianity. Didn't get there by itself, doesn't know how it got up there, and elevated beyond its ability to function.

---

Given the erudition and deep insight of that post, I will respond accordingly: Uh uh.

ETA: Nice conclusory statements you've made there. Any evidence to back any of them up? And I don't mean your statements about other communities. What basis do you have for alleging that my analysis is based on presentism and ignores the past? And historical Protestantism does know how it got to where it is and seems to be functioning quite well, thank you; much better than the dying EO.

you say the core teachings of Christianity are perfectly obvious. History says they aren't.

You and I don't even agree on what those core teachings are. When asked you want to talk about some list made in the 1900s

This thread can't even get agreement on the Ten Commandments.

Because you have a canon you take for granted that you can't validate. You assume people can read when historical literacy rates up to and including the early 20th century were less than 20% in most of the world. Because the church is older than the Bible by centuries. That's all presentism.

Jabin said:

---

ramblin_ag02 said:

---

Just an FYI, one of the more common Jewish interpretations of Lev 18:18 is as a broad prohibition against polygamy. Sister is interpreted in the universal sense and not necessarily the blood sibling sense. Taking any additional wives would make the the wives into sisters in this sense. We use the same terminology, for example the show "Sister Wives". So the prohibition against polygamy is plausibly explicit in the Torah. Not that the point is any less valid. The Torah is not in any way a fully comprehensive accounting of all possible sins

---

The Bible never condemns polygamy (despite its near universality in the OT), so why are we adding yet one more rule or sin?

Also, the Bible seems to condone it. In Deuteronomy, men are commanded to marry their brother's widow. There is no exception to that commandment for men that are already married.

Finally, polygamy may have been an economic necessity. Unmarried women had only two options in ancient cultures: starvation or prostitution. Because men had much, much higher death rates than did women, resulting in many more women than men, polygamy was the only way for women to avoid those two horrible alternatives.

In these times, polygamy would seem to be very unwise to the point of stupidity. But I see little strong basis for arguing that it is per se against God's will under any circumstances.

---

Maybe the Bible does condemn polygamy. After all, that's one interpretation made by people who speak the language and understand the cultural vocabulary better than I do.

Also, the Bible is overwhelmingly against polygamy. I can't think of a single instance in the Bible where polygamy turns out great for everyone, and I'd be impressed if you can. From Jacob to Solomon, polygamy is consistently portrayed as causing misery for all involved. Then you have the NT with Jesus saying that marriage is one man and one woman, and verses saying that the elders, leaders, and examples should be men with one wife.

I agree with all that you wrote and that polygamy is indeed a bad idea. By no stretch am I attempting to defend polygamy.

However, there is nothing explicit in the Bible against polygamy. And just about everyone in the Bible turned out "bad", even those who weren't polygamists. In fact, the people chosen by God obviously weren't chosen for their merits, which gives me some hope.

We have no need to create any more rules or sins than those already explicit in the Bible.

So torturing animals is not explicitly prohibited in the Bible. Nor is voluntary abortion. How do you see those?

Jabin said:

---

Quote:

---

You and I have vastly different interpretations of scripture, authority, and sacraments.

---

We do, at least with regard to scripture and authority, and possibly the sacraments.

Since you've shown you don't understand the early church, catholicism nor orthodoxy go ahead and include the sacraments.

Quote:

---

How can the holy spirit contradict itself by endorsing all interpretations of scripture?

---

The HS never contradicts itself and does not endorse all interpretations of scripture, nor have I ever made that argument. You are creating a straw man.

Again, how do you + holy spirit winnow out bad interpretations then? How do you know you don't have a bad interpretation? Have you ever learned something about the bible and it changed your view on some biblical subject? Did the holy spirit lead you to a bad conclusion before your present 'good' one? Do you understand who the Angel of the Lord is? A flat reading of scripture would not make it easy to understand.

Quote:

---

Clearly there has to be a right and wrong interpretation.

---

Of course there does. A man-made church, however, is no more capable of deciding what is right and wrong than I can. If there is anything that the history of any church teaches us, it's that churches are frequently in error.

What is a man made church versus a non man made church? What learning do you have to lean on that the church doesn't while the church can point to A) being there when Peter was told to be the rock, B) preserving the church fathers and lives of the saints C) Dispensing sacraments and D) recording miracles performed by/witnessed by saints, priests, and laypersons and E) performing the act of theosis for mankind.

Quote:

---

You make claims about Christ, Christianity, and how to interpret scripture. You either A) believe you have the authority yourself to deduce your own conclusions (this is the me + holy spirit) about christ or B) believe it belongs to a group of individuals who do have the authority. And when you disagree with them you withdraw your consent to accepting their authority. I.E - you get your turn with the pope hat.

---

A little that's true in that and a lot that's wrong. I follow the teachings of the Bible in looking at it to decide what's right and wrong. Unlike the Pope, however, I don't attempt to wield authority over others. And I never "withdraw" my consent from a group of individuals since I never gave them my consent.

So you do put your pope hat on by interpreting things for yourself. Just you, an english bible and what learning? How'd that bible get there in front of you? But, you draw the line at saying you don't wield authority. That means you don't teach. But then who taught you? They probably believed the same things you do but it didn't stop them from teaching you. And none of this is biblical as the bible clearly states you are to be under your priest who is under the bishop, which tracks back to the apostles. So someone is playing bishop or your not in accordance with your own understanding of right and wrong from the bible.

Quote:

---

Claiming no authority to interpret means its uninterpretable

---

That's just silly.

How is it though? Its just words on a page. You've clearly shown that A) you believe you are capable of interpreting it yourself, deciding right from wrong for yourself, and that you can perfectly interpret the whole canon - by the way whats your canon and how'd you get it?

Quote:

---

Scriptures are not self interpreting. They have never been.

---

You are badly wrong.

I thought you don't show authority when it comes to scripture? You're just supposed to say, 'thats your opinion man.'

Quote:

---

Christ established a church,

---

You're right - the church is the body of all believers, not some man-made organization whose leaders wear funny hats, live in mansions, and impregnate their own daughters.

But what did they believe? How do you define a believer? What did being a Christian even mean? The early church absolutely believed that if you weren't participating in communion and worship you were not a Christian - how could you be? Being a christian meant holding very specific views ardently (up until realistically the last 100 years but it all traces back to schisms.) Can you recite the Nicene creed? Can you stand before each of the church councils and side with the results? Could you recount your current beliefs infront of any the church counsels and not be told you're a heretic and excommunicated from the church?

Would you like to learn about why priests wear the robe they do? Do you think the Priest class of the old testament wore funny hats and robes that reduced their authority to be the only ones inside the temple? Would you like to see read the lives of the saint of saint after saint giving up their money to become bishops, priests, monks, nuns, abbots and abbotess? How poverty stricken but full of joy the history of the church is? The miracles seen and performed by saints living in hermitures on Mt. Athos and abroad? And who is impregnating their own daughters? And doing so with their hand held high, prideful of this sin?

Quote:

---

So again, some group preserved these texts. They then preserved the teachings and understanding of these texts. You have received your teaching from someone else. Who was it, why did they believe it, and why is it different than what the early church fathers teach and did liturgically?

---

No, a bunch of different groups preserved texts. A near-unanimity emerged over the meaning of those texts not because of some paternalistic man-made church, but because of the plain, clear, and generally obvious meaning of those texts. Many people have come to follow the Lord Jesus Christ after simply being given and read a copy of the book of John. It does not take a bunch of funny men in strange robes and weird hats to explain the gospels.

You don't even know how many different gnostic groups have attacked the church. Or how the counsels have fended off heresies. Don't understand your thing about clothes here.

Sure, there are differences on some of the fringes of the NT, but the core teachings of Christianity are perfectly obvious to anyone that reads the scriptures.

We can't even agree upon anything in this thread. Nor have you plumbed the depths of depravity within protestant theology nor ancient gnosticism.

I don't know of any differences between my beliefs and that of the consensus of early church writers. The liturgy is another issue that I'm not knowledgeable enough about to discuss. However, it's my understanding that the first Christians met in each other's homes and synagogues (since they considered themselves to be Jews), and I strongly suspect that their liturgy was radically different than that of today's RCC and/or EO.

Your beliefs are far from the early church fathers. They wouldn't let you take communion because you refuse to belief the things they do about living under authority and continuing the practices handed down by the apostles.

Quote:

---

If you don't claim to receive any teachings about Christ from someone else and that its just you and the bible that is in error and not the teaching of the church, nor the scriptures.

---

I'm frequently in error. So I pray that God will use his Spirit to remove the blinders from my eyes, and I read lots and lots of stuff written by other Christians to see what I may be missing.

Let me turn your question around. Howe do you know that the teaching of your church is not in error? You guys keep asserting that it is infallible; what is your evidence or proof of that?

You have a lot to learn. Come to liturgy.

---

Zobel said:

---

So torturing animals is not explicitly prohibited in the Bible. Nor is voluntary abortion. How do you see those?

---

Torturing animals - similar to what I believe about polygamy, wrong but not specifically addressed in the Bible. A stronger argument might be made against animal torture than polygamy because of the mandate God gave to humans at creation, which implies a duty of stewardship. A good steward should not torture the animals over which he or she is stewarding.

Re polygamy, given its ubiquity in the OT, surely God would have indicated his displeasure with it if in fact He was strongly displeased with it. The silence of the Bible on the subject is deafening.

Voluntary abortion - a very strong Biblical argument can be made against it because of the Biblical injunction against murder. However, I have not completely thought through the lesser punishment for abortion in the Levitical law. Does that mean that God viewed abortion as something less than murder? I don't know.

You know what made me reject Protestantism so much harder than my nondenominational upbringing of KSBJ worship + hokey sermon without communion ever did? Watching ReadytoHarvest's videos. Because when I sat down and said, I'm going to learn about the church, not just my church it lead to me consuming basically his whole channel. And guess what, the protestant 'obvious' reading is complete bunk. There is no centrally obvious telling of Christianity that isn't anchored by what the ortho/catholic church promoted for a thousand years together. Its 'protest' for a reason. A word that has no use within the bible among christian ethic by the way. A rebellion against the church, and when a denomination is no longer just 'catholic lite' rebelling against catholicism, it just wanders aimlessly until it schisms into cultural oblivion.

Just start watching and learning about all the crazy different denominations you've never heard about and how they have 'equal' understanding of God. Spoiler: there's an athiest church in Canada.

Maybe your mistake was watching one flaky youtube guy to learn about Protestantism, rather than reading from a collection of the greats of Protestantism?

By the way, if you lived in traditionally EO countries, you'd find lots of flaky EO priests, bishops, etc. A significant person in my parents and my life was a Greek missionary to Americans. He had left the EO and become a Protestant and had very little good to say about the EO of Greece and its culture.

My friend. If your faith can't be coherent enough to make you sure that animal torture and abortion are absolutely wrong, I think it's time to pause and take stock of the situation.

Jabin said:

---

Maybe your mistake was watching one flaky youtube guy to learn about Protestantism, rather than reading from a collection of the greats of Protestantism?

By the way, if you lived in traditionally EO countries, you'd find lots of flaky EO priests, bishops, etc. A significant person in my parents and my life was a Greek missionary to Americans. He had left the EO and become a Protestant and had very little good to say about the EO of Greece and its culture.

---

Trust me, its a lifetime of learning, but this was huge in shifting my view from similar to yours (nondenominational) to orthodoxy. And before you consider him flaky. Go watch his stuff. He's easily the most unbiased, flat reading of every denominations history and statement of faiths. He's a bible college professor and this is part of his research.

And yes, the orthodox church majority countries can have cultural malaise just like any other country expressing its version of Chrisitanity. The Greeks culturally acting like they invented Christianity is nothing new nor does it detract from teachings of the church.

Zobel said:

---

My friend. If your faith can't be coherent enough to make you sure that animal torture and abortion are absolutely wrong, I think it's time to pause and take stock of the situation.

---

My friend? Are you selling him a gold watch in the Harwin district?

Zobel said:

---

My friend. If your faith can't be coherent enough to make you sure that animal torture and abortion are absolutely wrong, I think it's time to pause and take stock of the situation.

---

My friend, I did not say that they are not absolutely wrong. Once again, you're putting words in my mouth. All I discussed was the Biblical basis, or lack thereof, for considering that they're wrong.

I'm disappointed in you, Zobel. You're being intellectually dishonest now.

Be disappointed all you like. When I said polygamy is absolutely wrong you replied "Why? Where is the scriptural prohibition?" And then proceeded to say maybe it wasn't wrong.

Then you're drawing interpretive conclusions about animal husbandry and involuntary / manslaughter abortion from the text to defend things you KNOW are wrong even though they're NOT explicit. While saying maybe polygamy is fine? Maybe abortion is lesser than murder?

Who knows?

But one thing we know for sure - the scriptures are -totally- clear and plain on their meanings based on a simple reading. Even though that is also weirdly not explicit in the text.

Zobel said:

---

Be disappointed all you like. When I said polygamy is absolutely wrong you replied "Why? Where is the scriptural prohibition?" And then proceeded to say maybe it wasn't wrong.

Then you're drawing interpretive conclusions about animal husbandry and involuntary / manslaughter abortion from the text to defend things you KNOW are wrong even though they're NOT explicit. While saying maybe polygamy is fine? Maybe abortion is lesser than murder?

Who knows?

But one thing we know for sure - the scriptures are -totally- clear and plain on their meanings based on a simple reading. Even though that is also weirdly not explicit in the text.

---

That would require a synthesis view of scriptures that hinges on the authority to interpret. Which Jabin doesn't have either.

Quote:

---

In fact, the people chosen by God obviously weren't chosen for their merits, which gives me some hope.

---

Amen to that

Jabin said:

---

. In fact, the people chosen by God obviously weren't chosen for their merits, which gives me some hope.

We have no need to create any more rules or sins than those already explicit in the Bible.

---

Amen.

OK, whatever.

dermdoc said:

---

Yukon Cornelius said:

---

I guess that begs the question. What is required under the new covenant?

---

Council of Jerusalem decided that. No eating of blood, meat counting blood, strangled animals, no idols, and no sexual immorality.

I believe if we are truly regenerate, we will naturally love God and love our neighbor.

If we do that, how could we break one of the 10 Commandments? God has written them on our hearts.

---

Yes sir.

What should we think about divorce then? Clearly allowed in the OT but Jesus says no.

How can any person argue it's ok to divorce your spouse if you are married in the eyes of God given what Jesus says? {I'm looking at you my Protestant brothers}

Quote:

---

And Pharisees came up to him and tested him by asking, "Is it lawful to divorce one's wife for any cause?" He answered, "Have you not read that he who made them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, 'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one'? So they are no longer two but one. What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder." They said to him, "Why then did Moses command one to give a certificate of divorce, and to put her away?" He said to them, "For your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for unchastity, and marries another, commits adultery; and he who marries a divorced woman, commits adultery." (Matthew 19:3-9, RSV-CE)

---

Is "unchastity" a loophole? What at first appears as a loophole is a consequence of misinterpretation or mistranslation. The King James Version and others translate the passage into English words that appear to say fornication, unchastity, or adultery are exceptions that allow a divorce.

The constant teaching of the Church has been that a valid sacramental marriage cannot be broken, even if one party sins. As Matthew 19:6 says, "Therefore, what God has joined together, no human being must separate." The Greek word here that is translated as "unchastity" is "porneia," which means unlawful sexual intercourse. The Gospel does not use the Greek word "moicheia," which is the ordinary Greek word for adultery.

The intent appears to be to distinguish a true marriage from concubinage. What is being said is that if a man and a woman are in fact married, the bond is inseparable. But if they are not married, just "living together," then there is no lawful marriage and there can be a separation or annulment. The wording of the New American Bible for Matthew 19:9 is a translation that gives us this sense.

Meen one, you probably missed my question but I'm curious for the scripture that teaches that incense is how God wants to be worshipped.

The traditional understanding of what happened with Moses on Mt Sinai was that he ascended to the mountain of God, that is, the mountain where God was, and took part of the divine council (as we see in Job) in the heavenly tabernacle (as described by St Paul in Hebrews).

The traditional understanding is also that the seventy elders and twelve tribes is a mirror of heavenly things in the divine council (as described by St John in Revelation) and echoed in Christ's twelve apostles and sending out the seventy. Typically the understanding of the seventy is that it numbers all the nations of the world, like the table of nations in Deuteronomy (one angel / son of God for each nation), and the number of the bulls sacrificed at Sukkot (one for each nation).

Moses was then commanded to build the tabernacle as a kind of earthly copy of what he saw. With that in mind, we understand that the altar of incense he was commanded to build is both God-pleasing and a copy of a heavenly altar where incense is offered. We should understand this as a spiritual altar, and the incense offered is linked in the scriptures to prayer and worship.

The Israelites are commanded to build an altar of incense, and then are commanded to offer incense morning and evening, every day, perpetually. You can find this in Exodus 30.

This specifically falls to the house of Levi and there's all kinds of incense-related drama with Korah.

Offerings - including incense - are a form of worship. They are an invitation to relationship and bonding, mutual gifts and hospitality. Incense is always linked with worship, positively (commanded by God to Israel at the tabernacle) and negatively (Korah as mentioned above, or offered to demons in Ezekiel 8:9-12, 16:18 etc).

This morning and evening cycle of worship is witnessed in the scriptures, but is the most basic rhythm - dressing the lamps in the morning, offer incense - lighting the lamps in the evening, offer incense. This pattern of morning and evening services is maintained as Matins/Orthros and Vespers services.

Malachi records the word of the Lord - "I have no pleasure in you [priests of Israel], and I will not accept an offering from your hand. For from the rising of the sun to its setting my name will be great among the nations, and in every place incense will be offered to my name, and a pure offering."

This incense is offered daily in the churches, and when we can't participate in the communal worship, we participate by offering in our homes. Our understanding is that all Christians are part of the royal priesthood - we can approach the altar, consume the priestly portion of the offerings, something Israelites outside of the Levitical priesthood could never do. So as priests, we can similarly offer incense even though we are outside of the Levitical priesthood.

Description of an activity Moses did we apply as "How God wants to be worshipped"

Explicit command by God to remember act of God at creation that points to Jesus, we ignore because "Torah'".

Quote:

---

You shall make an altar on which to burn incense; you shall make it of acacia wood...and Aaron shall burn fragrant incense on it. Every morning when he dresses the lamps he shall burn it, and when Aaron sets up the lamps at twilight, he shall burn it, a regular incense offering before the Lord throughout your generations.

---

This is not a random activity Moses did. This is a direct commandment given from God Himself to Israel telling them precisely how He wanted to be worshipped in the Tabernacle that He gave direct instructions on how to build.

And we have an explicit testimony from the Lord Himself through His prophet that in every nation incense WILL be offered to His name.

If we did not have this prophecy, we could (correctly) say that God only commanded the Levitical priesthood to offer incense to Him.

Quote:

---

Explicit command by God to remember act of God at creation that points to Jesus, we ignore because "Torah'".

---

Nobody said ignore.

Being honest man, you asked a question and I gave you a pretty thorough response. Was that question not in good faith? Kind of a crappy response from you.