Mac94:
Thanks for your patience.
Your background sounds similar to mine. I also grew up in Baptist churches and Bible churches, and went to a non-denominational private school from 7 to 12 grades of which Baptists and Methodists made up the majority.
My focus isn’t on the keeping of individual commandments, but instead is on establishing our doctrine on the correct basis. Most Christian doctrine, I have found, is established on the writings of Paul, not on the Torah, which leads to misinterpretations of Paul. Because of this, Christianity doesn’t really stress the necessity of righteous living, nor does it teach one how to define sin and how to avoid it.
Yeshua said “If you love Me, keep My commandments” (John 14:15), but I have found few Christians, if any, who can point out what those commandments are. Most will point to Luke 10:27 which says to “love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself.” That’s all well and good, but it really doesn’t give us much to go on when confronted with peer pressure, parental pressure, or other societal pressures, nor does it really tell us how to define “sin,” which is why there is so much disagreement among Christians about such issues as abortion, divorce, the death penalty, pre-marital sex, homosexuality, and so on. If all we have to go on is just those two commandments, then we have reduced Christianity to nothing more than a subjective interpretation of “righteousness” so that we define moral behavior in exactly the same way as an atheist.
Other Christians will point to the Ten commandments, but even these ten are not sufficient for defining “sin.” For instance, the Ten Commandments say “do not commit adultery” but says nothing about pre-marital sex, homosexuality, or pedophilia. Furthermore, most Christians do not even keep the Ten Commandments, not the least of which is the commandment to “observe the Sabbath and keep it holy.” So, when one looks at the Ten commandments, an obvious contradiction can be seen: “if we don’t have to keep the Sabbath commandment, then why do we have to keep the other commandments?”
When you say “I don’t think we can,” I’m not sure you are defining the term the same way I am. I’m saying that there are certain commandments that cannot be kept while we are in exile, just as there were during the Babylonian captivity. But this in no way abolishes the Torah anymore than it was abolished during the Babylonian captivity. We can easily see that Daniel, for instance, continued to obey the Torah commandments even though he was not able to observe them all, such as the offerings of sacrifices. Refusing to bow down to idols and false gods was a commandment that he could keep, and did keep, even under the thread of the penalty of death.
Christians pull this single verse out of context without reading the entire chapter. James isn’t using this as an excuse not to obey the Torah, he is teaching that one violates one of the most fundamental principles of the Torah when they show favoritism. The entire chapter is dealing with favoritism:
The above quote established the context for the chapter. All James was saying is that if one shows favoritism and injustice, then all of his Sabbath-keeping, observance of food laws, and everything else amounts to nothing because he is not showing love and mercy toward his brother. He’s saying “all of your Torah-observance amounts to non-Torah-observance because you are violating one of the most fundamental and foundation principles that the Torah teaches: love towards your brother.” He is not, by any means, saying that we don’t need to keep the Torah commandments.
Some commandments may not appear to apply directly to me from a general, surface-reading of the text, but if I delve deeper, I can generally find that it does apply directly to me. For instance, I am not a judge, but that doesn’t excuse me to be injust. All of the commandments teach me something about God, and the way I should behave.
I was taught the “Once Saved, Always Saved” doctrine, and then I realized that this doctrine removes accountability. Furthermore, that doesn’t appear to be what Ezekiel is saying at all:
If a righteous man turns from his righteousness, and commits iniquity, he will die in his trespasses.
I’m not convinced that the Temple must be rebuilt. I’m open to the possibility, but there are a lot of factors that have to be considered. For starters, I believe that the 3 ½ years of Yeshua’s ministry is the first half of Daniel’s 70th Week. That 3 ½ weeks ended with the Messiah being cut off, and with an abomination of desolation. So, does this mean that the A of D has already occurred, or should we be looking for another A of D that will begin the final 3 ½ weeks? Secondly, can we not consider the Dome of the Rock which sits on the Holy Place to be an “abomination of desolation?” Is it possible that maybe it is already there? Thirdly, didn’t Paul say that our own bodies are a Temple of the Holy Spirit?
When I read end times prophecies, I try to unload all of the end times teachings that I have heard and start from scratch, as if I had never heard any teachings on the subject before. It can be difficult, because oftentimes, I’m not even aware of how my interpretations have been influenced. For instance, I had always interpreted Revelation 13 which talks about the two beasts, as referring to the anti-christ. However, when I go back to take a long, hard look at the chapter, it never identifies the beast as the anti-christ, and never even mentions him. When I translate the words of Revelation 13 back into Hebrew, I see an entirely different interpretation than anything I have heard or been taught before.
[This message has been edited by Bracy (edited 2/22/2006 12:04p).]
Thanks for your patience.
quote:
First, just to be up front in my roots, I am a Baptist and came to Christ in a Baptist church. Not reaslly important other than it may give some insight into where I learn things (or not).
Your background sounds similar to mine. I also grew up in Baptist churches and Bible churches, and went to a non-denominational private school from 7 to 12 grades of which Baptists and Methodists made up the majority.
quote:
Very true. Again, we may disgree on what part of God's commands can be obeyed and such, but the basic idea that we must obey is still there. One cannot reconcile the books of James and John with Paul without the idea of obedience being a key idea. It does not save us, but it is the fruit of our salvation and therefor essential. We (evangeleical Christianity) have made this idea of coming to God a bit "to easy." We have boiled it down to alomst a "say the magic word and 'poof' fire insurance" type of gig. A sinners prayer is a good thing, as prayer is our communication with God, but it is the heart attitude that is key, not the words in a prayer. David rightfully said, a broken spirit and a contrite heart God would not deny. The "savlation experience," though, is the first baby step in a journey. Salvation sin't a one time gig and thats it, it is a life change towards a Loving and Holy God.
My focus isn’t on the keeping of individual commandments, but instead is on establishing our doctrine on the correct basis. Most Christian doctrine, I have found, is established on the writings of Paul, not on the Torah, which leads to misinterpretations of Paul. Because of this, Christianity doesn’t really stress the necessity of righteous living, nor does it teach one how to define sin and how to avoid it.
Yeshua said “If you love Me, keep My commandments” (John 14:15), but I have found few Christians, if any, who can point out what those commandments are. Most will point to Luke 10:27 which says to “love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself.” That’s all well and good, but it really doesn’t give us much to go on when confronted with peer pressure, parental pressure, or other societal pressures, nor does it really tell us how to define “sin,” which is why there is so much disagreement among Christians about such issues as abortion, divorce, the death penalty, pre-marital sex, homosexuality, and so on. If all we have to go on is just those two commandments, then we have reduced Christianity to nothing more than a subjective interpretation of “righteousness” so that we define moral behavior in exactly the same way as an atheist.
Other Christians will point to the Ten commandments, but even these ten are not sufficient for defining “sin.” For instance, the Ten Commandments say “do not commit adultery” but says nothing about pre-marital sex, homosexuality, or pedophilia. Furthermore, most Christians do not even keep the Ten Commandments, not the least of which is the commandment to “observe the Sabbath and keep it holy.” So, when one looks at the Ten commandments, an obvious contradiction can be seen: “if we don’t have to keep the Sabbath commandment, then why do we have to keep the other commandments?”
quote:
I don't think we can, and you've hinted as much in the idea that sin offerings were there for when we do mess up. We are all sinners in need of God's mercy. Of course, does that mean we chunk the whole thing because we can't do it, of course not. Our inability doesn't negate a thing. God's command; "be ye Holy as I am Holy" is still in effect, even though by my own strength and character I can't do it. This shows me my need for a savior, the true sacrifice for my sin, not that we should just "give up" because we can't.
When you say “I don’t think we can,” I’m not sure you are defining the term the same way I am. I’m saying that there are certain commandments that cannot be kept while we are in exile, just as there were during the Babylonian captivity. But this in no way abolishes the Torah anymore than it was abolished during the Babylonian captivity. We can easily see that Daniel, for instance, continued to obey the Torah commandments even though he was not able to observe them all, such as the offerings of sacrifices. Refusing to bow down to idols and false gods was a commandment that he could keep, and did keep, even under the thread of the penalty of death.
quote:
I do beleive that if we break just one small point we are guilty of breaking all of it.
Christians pull this single verse out of context without reading the entire chapter. James isn’t using this as an excuse not to obey the Torah, he is teaching that one violates one of the most fundamental principles of the Torah when they show favoritism. The entire chapter is dealing with favoritism:
quote:
James 2:1-4: My brethren, have not the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, [the Lord] of glory, with respect of persons. For if there come unto your assembly a man with a gold ring, in goodly apparel, and there come in also a poor man in vile raiment; And ye have respect to him that weareth the gay clothing, and say unto him, Sit thou here in a good place; and say to the poor, Stand thou there, or sit here under my footstool: Are ye not then partial in yourselves, and are become judges of evil thoughts?
The above quote established the context for the chapter. All James was saying is that if one shows favoritism and injustice, then all of his Sabbath-keeping, observance of food laws, and everything else amounts to nothing because he is not showing love and mercy toward his brother. He’s saying “all of your Torah-observance amounts to non-Torah-observance because you are violating one of the most fundamental and foundation principles that the Torah teaches: love towards your brother.” He is not, by any means, saying that we don’t need to keep the Torah commandments.
Some commandments may not appear to apply directly to me from a general, surface-reading of the text, but if I delve deeper, I can generally find that it does apply directly to me. For instance, I am not a judge, but that doesn’t excuse me to be injust. All of the commandments teach me something about God, and the way I should behave.
quote:
I wrestle with this one, esp since I am in a church that teaches this. Scripture seems to point, though, to me anyway, that salvation can be lost if we turn against God and we rebuke His loving guidence back to Him (God is patient). However, there is one verse that I can't get around, and it is this: "depart from me ye workers of iniquity, I never knew you." The key for me is the word "never." The way I understand it, if we are a part of God's kingdom, part of His flock, He knows us, we are His and He dwells in us. If that is so, how can the Lord use the word "never" to those that once had fellowship but turned or fell away?
I was taught the “Once Saved, Always Saved” doctrine, and then I realized that this doctrine removes accountability. Furthermore, that doesn’t appear to be what Ezekiel is saying at all:
quote:
Ezekiel 18:24-26: But when the righteous turneth away from his righteousness, and committeth iniquity, [and] doeth according to all the abominations that the wicked [man] doeth, shall he live? All his righteousness that he hath done shall not be mentioned: in his trespass that he hath trespassed, and in his sin that he hath sinned, in them shall he die. Yet ye say, The way of the Lord is not equal. Hear now, O house of Israel; Is not my way equal? are not your ways unequal? When a righteous [man] turneth away from his righteousness, and committeth iniquity, and dieth in them; for his iniquity that he hath done shall he die.
If a righteous man turns from his righteousness, and commits iniquity, he will die in his trespasses.
quote:
So, do you beleive that the Temple must be rebuilt before these events casn occur or do you translate the abomination to mean something else?
I’m not convinced that the Temple must be rebuilt. I’m open to the possibility, but there are a lot of factors that have to be considered. For starters, I believe that the 3 ½ years of Yeshua’s ministry is the first half of Daniel’s 70th Week. That 3 ½ weeks ended with the Messiah being cut off, and with an abomination of desolation. So, does this mean that the A of D has already occurred, or should we be looking for another A of D that will begin the final 3 ½ weeks? Secondly, can we not consider the Dome of the Rock which sits on the Holy Place to be an “abomination of desolation?” Is it possible that maybe it is already there? Thirdly, didn’t Paul say that our own bodies are a Temple of the Holy Spirit?
When I read end times prophecies, I try to unload all of the end times teachings that I have heard and start from scratch, as if I had never heard any teachings on the subject before. It can be difficult, because oftentimes, I’m not even aware of how my interpretations have been influenced. For instance, I had always interpreted Revelation 13 which talks about the two beasts, as referring to the anti-christ. However, when I go back to take a long, hard look at the chapter, it never identifies the beast as the anti-christ, and never even mentions him. When I translate the words of Revelation 13 back into Hebrew, I see an entirely different interpretation than anything I have heard or been taught before.
[This message has been edited by Bracy (edited 2/22/2006 12:04p).]