Re: [TruthTalk] Saturday Sabbath/Other lost Israelite sheep
- Original Message - From: Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 1/5/2006 1:50:13 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Saturday Sabbath/Other lost Israelite sheep Blaine writes Jesus himself never went to the Gentiles. He never spoke to them except on one occasion thatwas an exception to his rule. NKJ Mark 5:1 Then they came to the other side of the sea, to the country of the Gadarenes. 2 And when He had come out of the boat, immediately there met Him out of the tombs a man with an unclean spirit, ... 18 And when He got into the boat, he who had been demon-possessed begged Him that he might be with Him. 19 However, Jesus did not permit him, but said to him, "Go home to your friends, and tell them what great things the Lord has done for you, and how He has had compassion on you." 20 And he departed and began to proclaim in Decapolis all that Jesus had done for him; and all marveled. You might want to ruminate on this passage a while, Blaine. Only one of the "ten cities"which together made up the Decapolis was located to the west of the River Jordan (it was called Scythopolis, a.k.a. Bethshaen). The rest weresituated beyond the banks ofthe "promised land," in what could only be classified Gentile territory (the other nine cities were Hippos, Gadara, Pella, Philadelphia, Gerasa [home of the "Garasenes," a.k.a. "Gadarenes"], Dion, Canatha, Raphana, and Damascus).Indeed Jesus sent this duly impressed Gentile into the far country to "publish" (GR. karussein) his story until throughout Decapolis "all kept on marveling(imperfect tense) at what Jesus had done." And, Blaine, I find it quite noteworthy that Jesus did this without first proselytizing himin thedoctrines and duties of the Jewish people. IF I had a complaint, it would be that many Christians get bogged done in the minutiae of their peculiar forms of legalism and fail to realize this subtle but profound point. To their shame, the astonishing truthremains that Jesus sent this brand new Gentile convert out withoutany discipling at all,not permitting him tostay on with them and learn through the traditions of his peoplethe proper way of holiness.The truth is he sent him out without so much as a whisper from the lawand prophets, offwithout a word on thedo's and don'ts of godly living. No law. No commandments. No holy days. No feasts orordinances -- justa simple request: "Tell them what great things the Lord has done for you, and how He has had compassion on you." In your post you claim that Peter was the first to introduce the Gospel to the Gentiles. In fact,Blaine,he was not. A caveman from Gerasa gets credit for that one. What Peter was was the first JEW to go to the Gentiles. Ah yes, but before he was fit to go, he had to come to grips with the fact that what Jesus had done under law for the Jews, he had accomplished as well for the Gentiles -- and this he did for them apart from the law! Indeed before he could go, Peter had to grasp the fact that he dare not foist upon Greeks his Jewish customs: for who washe tocall unholy what God in Christhad cleansed? Bill cd: Well stated Taylor-The Samaritan women also preached of Jesus and did not consider herself a Jew-for she said" How is it that thou,being a Jew askest drink of me,which am a Samarian"? And went her way into the city, and saith to the men. Come, see a man, which told me all things that ever I did: Is not this the Christ?I believe God gives us simple understanding first and then later deeper understanding of the law. - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Wednesday, January 04, 2006 6:32 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Saturday Sabbath/Other lost Israelite sheep The Gentiles first received the gospel by way of the Apostles--Peter first received the command to carry the message to those whom God had cleansed as he saw the sheet lowered with the unclean animals on it, and was commanded to "Rise, Peter, Kill and eat." This was the introduction of any Gentile to a gospel message. Paul was then commissioned to carry the message to Gentiles, and was deemed the apostle to the Gentiles. Jesus himself never went to the Gentiles. He never spoke to them except on one occasion thatwas an exception to his rule. They never heard his voice, yet he says, "Other sheep I have which are not of this fold, and they too must Hear My Voice!" His personal appearances were ALWAYS reserved for the House of Israel, ONLY!! In a message dated 1/4/2006 6:33:16 A.M. Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: - Original Message - From: To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 1/3/2006 7:39:32 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Saturday Sabbath/Other lost Israelite sheep What about this? Matthew 15:22-26 "And behold a woman of Canaan came . . . but he answered and said, I am not sent but to the lost sheep of the Ho
Re: [TruthTalk] Saturday Sabbath/Other lost Israelite sheep
Blainerb: There were many Jews throughout the Roman Empire. It doesn't really say whether this fellow with the unclean spirit was a Gentile or a Jew. More than likely he was considered by the Lord to be an Israelite, however, consideringHe had already explicitly stated his ministry was "but to the Lost Sheep of the House of Israel." Regards the caveman from Geresa?? I would need a source for that one. In a message dated 1/4/2006 11:50:33 P.M. Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Blaine writes Jesus himself never went to the Gentiles. He never spoke to them except on one occasion thatwas an exception to his rule. NKJ Mark 5:1 Then they came to the other side of the sea, to the country of the Gadarenes. 2 And when He had come out of the boat, immediately there met Him out of the tombs a man with an unclean spirit, ... 18 And when He got into the boat, he who had been demon-possessed begged Him that he might be with Him. 19 However, Jesus did not permit him, but said to him, "Go home to your friends, and tell them what great things the Lord has done for you, and how He has had compassion on you." 20 And he departed and began to proclaim in Decapolis all that Jesus had done for him; and all marveled. You might want to ruminate on this passage a while, Blaine. Only one of the "ten cities"which together made up the Decapolis was located to the west of the River Jordan (it was called Scythopolis, a.k.a. Bethshaen). The rest weresituated beyond the banks ofthe "promised land," in what could only be classified Gentile territory (the other nine cities were Hippos, Gadara, Pella, Philadelphia, Gerasa [home of the "Garasenes," a.k.a. "Gadarenes"], Dion, Canatha, Raphana, and Damascus).Indeed Jesus sent this duly impressed Gentile into the far country to "publish" (GR. karussein) his story until throughout Decapolis "all kept on marveling(imperfect tense) at what Jesus had done." And, Blaine, I find it quite noteworthy that Jesus did this without first proselytizing himin thedoctrines and duties of the Jewish people. IF I had a complaint, it would be that many Christians get bogged done in the minutiae of their peculiar forms of legalism and fail to realize this subtle but profound point. To their shame, the astonishing truthremains that Jesus sent this brand new Gentile convert out withoutany discipling at all,not permitting him tostay on with them and learn through the traditions of his peoplethe proper way of holiness.The truth is he sent him out without so much as a whisper from the lawand prophets, offwithout a word on thedo's and don'ts of godly living. No law. No commandments. No holy days. No feasts orordinances -- justa simple request: "Tell them what great things the Lord has done for you, and how He has had compassion on you." In your post you claim that Peter was the first to introduce the Gospel to the Gentiles. In fact,Blaine,he was not. A caveman from Gerasa gets credit for that one. What Peter was was the first JEW to go to the Gentiles. Ah yes, but before he was fit to go, he had to come to grips with the fact that what Jesus had done under law for the Jews, he had accomplished as well for the Gentiles -- and this he did for them apart from the law! Indeed before he could go, Peter had to grasp the fact that he dare not foist upon Greeks his Jewish customs: for who washe tocall unholy what God in Christhad cleansed? Bill
Re: [TruthTalk] Saturday Sabbath/Other lost Israelite sheep
Blaine writes More than likely he wasconsidered by the Lord to be an Israelite . . ." A tomb-dwelling Israelite: that's a good one! Are you familiar with the thousands of graves which line the eastern wall of old Jerusalem, which block the gate and stretch to and throughthe Valley Kidron? Do you know why they're there?It would take more than a legion to cause a Jew to lie with the dead. _ Blaine writes Regards the caveman from Geresa?? I would need a source for that one. Mark 5:1 "They went across the lake to the region of the Gerasenes[and] there met Him out of the tombs a man with an unclean spirit," Bill - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Thursday, January 05, 2006 4:44 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Saturday Sabbath/Other lost Israelite sheep Blainerb: There were many Jews throughout the Roman Empire. It doesn't really say whether this fellow with the unclean spirit was a Gentile or a Jew. More than likely he was considered by the Lord to be an Israelite, however, consideringHe had already explicitly stated his ministry was "but to the Lost Sheep of the House of Israel." Regards the caveman from Geresa?? I would need a source for that one. In a message dated 1/4/2006 11:50:33 P.M. Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Blaine writes Jesus himself never went to the Gentiles. He never spoke to them except on one occasion thatwas an exception to his rule. NKJ Mark 5:1 Then they came to the other side of the sea, to the country of the Gadarenes. 2 And when He had come out of the boat, immediately there met Him out of the tombs a man with an unclean spirit, ... 18 And when He got into the boat, he who had been demon-possessed begged Him that he might be with Him. 19 However, Jesus did not permit him, but said to him, "Go home to your friends, and tell them what great things the Lord has done for you, and how He has had compassion on you." 20 And he departed and began to proclaim in Decapolis all that Jesus had done for him; and all marveled. You might want to ruminate on this passage a while, Blaine. Only one of the "ten cities"which together made up the Decapolis was located to the west of the River Jordan (it was called Scythopolis, a.k.a. Bethshaen). The rest weresituated beyond the banks ofthe "promised land," in what could only be classified Gentile territory (the other nine cities were Hippos, Gadara, Pella, Philadelphia, Gerasa [home of the "Garasenes," a.k.a. "Gadarenes"], Dion, Canatha, Raphana, and Damascus).Indeed Jesus sent this duly impressed Gentile into the far country to "publish" (GR. karussein) his story until throughout Decapolis "all kept on marveling(imperfect tense) at what Jesus had done." And, Blaine, I find it quite noteworthy that Jesus did this without first proselytizing himin thedoctrines and duties of the Jewish people. IF I had a complaint, it would be that many Christians get bogged done in the minutiae of their peculiar forms of legalism and fail to realize this subtle but profound point. To their shame, the astonishing truthremains that Jesus sent this brand new Gentile convert out withoutany discipling at all,not permitting him tostay on with them and learn through the traditions of his peoplethe proper way of holiness.The truth is he sent him out without so much as a whisper from the lawand prophets, offwithout a word on thedo's and don'ts of godly living. No law. No commandments. No holy days. No feasts orordinances -- justa simple request: "Tell them what great things the Lord has done for you, and how He has had compassion on you." In your post you claim that Peter was the first to introduce the Gospel to the Gentiles. In fact,Blaine,he was not. A caveman from Gerasa gets credit for that one. What Peter was was the first JEW to go to the Gentiles. Ah yes, but before he was fit to go, he had to come to grips with the fact that what Jesus had done under law for the Jews, he had accomplished as well for the Gentiles -- and this he did for them apart from the law! Indeed before he could go, Peter had to grasp the fact that he dare not foist upon Greeks his Jewish customs: for who washe tocall unholy what God in Christhad cleansed? Bill -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by Plains.Net, and is believed to be clean.
Re: [TruthTalk] Saturday Sabbath/Other lost Israelite sheep
- Original Message - From: To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 1/3/2006 7:39:32 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Saturday Sabbath/Other lost Israelite sheep What about this? Matthew 15:22-26 "And behold a woman of Canaan came . . . but he answered and said, I am not sent but to the lost sheep of the House of Israel . . . It is not meet to take the children's bread, and cast it to the dogs." Do you not believe your Bible? Here He actually stated in so many words his mission was to the HOUSE OF ISRAEL only. The woman from Caanan, although a Gentile, was an exception because of her great faith. cd: Then does that mean that gentiles cannot be saved? If his words were for the "House of Israel" only then why are we told to live by those same words that Jesus spoke to the Jews? If so then the message that Jesus carried were for all men-this was foretold as the Jews had to first be offered the truth with the understanding that they would reject that truth-it was also foretold that Jesus would die for the sins of the whole world-so he was also here for the whole world not just the Jews. We then are grafted intothe tribes-and in a sense become a part of the promise given to Abraham and are actually grafted into Israel (ie. Romans 11:17) His mission to the Samaritans was due to the largeamount of the bloodof Israel in that group of people. The Samaritans were a mixture of Israelite bloodlines and Babylonian bloodlines--they were descendants ofthose Jews who were not taken captive in the Babylonian Captivity, and who intermarried with the Babylonians who were sent from Babylon to occupy the land. Because the Jews would not recognize their Israelite heritage, they even had a separate temple, alter, priests, etc. But Jesus, knowing all things, knewmany of themwere also Israelites. This was not a contradiction to his stance that he was sent "but to the House of Israel." cd: The Samaritans were more correctly termed half-Jews (ie mixture of gentile and Jewish blood) as such they were outcasts to which the Jews would have no part of-nor any dealing with-as a half Jew is regarded as a gentiles-It is my view that Jesus helped those whom asked for help-Jew or Gentile.After the Babylonian captivityEzra separated those that inner married with those Gentiles mentioned and the Jewish blood line remained pure (ie. see Ezra 10: 6-17). Not only that, but if his mission was "but to the House of Israel," what about those Israelites--ten tribes of them--who had already been taken captive many years earlier into the "Northlands" by Assyria? How was he to minister to them? The Jews were basically two tribes only--Judah and Benjamin--and parts of a third tribe, Levi. The other ten tribes had been takencaptive years earlier and were never heard from again. They are even today referred to as the "Lost Ten tribes." So what about them? Did THE SAVIOR NOT CARE ABOUT THEM? cd: In Bible prophecy we are told to look for Israel to become a nation again as a sign of the last days of the Gentile world rule-to wit the Messianic Jews and the converted Gentiles will rule the worldunder the leadership of Jesus Christ (ie. King of Kings) at this same time there is a seven year time of testing and the outpouring of Gods wrath-within this same time period God seals 12,000 from each tribe of Israel equaling 144,000 and each tribe is mentioned as being present in Israel (ie. Rev.7,14). The nation of Israel came into existence May 14,1947 and was ratified in 1969-This has never happened in the history of the world-no nation has ever ceased to exist for 2,000 years and returned-yet Israel has done so. The Jews have returned and all the tribes are present-so therefore logic would dictate there are no "lost tribes".The sheep of another fold was the Gentiles. In a message dated 1/1/2006 8:48:23 A.M. Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: cd: I see no contradictions of my original statement Blain-The Gospel was first preached to the Jews and later given to the sheep of another fold(gentiles). You also failed to explain the gospel being given to the Samaritan women-please do so?? - Original Message - From: To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 12/24/2005 4:14:58 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Saturday Sabbath/Other lost Israelite sheep In a message dated 12/20/2005 4:18:51 P.M. Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: cd: Jesus didn't stay he wasn't here for the Gentiles-He said that he was here first for the Jews-and later the gentiles upon the Jews rejection. Jew spoke to and healed many gentiles. The Samaritan woman at the well was one of those he preached to-there were many others.The other sheep mentioned were gentiles Your total lack of understanding of the NT record is showing Deano, buddy. Jesus sent ONLY to the House of Israel-- see Matthew 15:22-26 "And behold a woman of Canaan came . . . but he an
Re: [TruthTalk] Saturday Sabbath/Other lost Israelite sheep
The Gentiles first received the gospel by way of the Apostles--Peter first received the command to carry the message to those whom God had cleansed as he saw the sheet lowered with the unclean animals on it, and was commanded to "Rise, Peter, Kill and eat." This was the introduction of any Gentile to a gospel message. Paul was then commissioned to carry the message to Gentiles, and was deemed the apostle to the Gentiles. Jesus himself never went to the Gentiles. He never spoke to them except on one occasion thatwas an exception to his rule. They never heard his voice, yet he says, "Other sheep I have which are not of this fold, and they too must Hear My Voice!" His personal appearances were ALWAYS reserved for the House of Israel, ONLY!! In a message dated 1/4/2006 6:33:16 A.M. Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: - Original Message - From: To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 1/3/2006 7:39:32 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Saturday Sabbath/Other lost Israelite sheep What about this? Matthew 15:22-26 "And behold a woman of Canaan came . . . but he answered and said, I am not sent but to the lost sheep of the House of Israel . . . It is not meet to take the children's bread, and cast it to the dogs." Do you not believe your Bible? Here He actually stated in so many words his mission was to the HOUSE OF ISRAEL only. The woman from Caanan, although a Gentile, was an exception because of her great faith. cd: Then does that mean that gentiles cannot be saved? If his words were for the "House of Israel" only then why are we told to live by those same words that Jesus spoke to the Jews? If so then the message that Jesus carried were for all men-this was foretold as the Jews had to first be offered the truth with the understanding that they would reject that truth-it was also foretold that Jesus would die for the sins of the whole world-so he was also here for the whole world not just the Jews. We then are grafted intothe tribes-and in a sense become a part of the promise given to Abraham and are actually grafted into Israel (ie. Romans 11:17) His mission to the Samaritans was due to the largeamount of the bloodof Israel in that group of people. The Samaritans were a mixture of Israelite bloodlines and Babylonian bloodlines--they were descendants ofthose Jews who were not taken captive in the Babylonian Captivity, and who intermarried with the Babylonians who were sent from Babylon to occupy the land. Because the Jews would not recognize their Israelite heritage, they even had a separate temple, alter, priests, etc. But Jesus, knowing all things, knewmany of themwere also Israelites. This was not a contradiction to his stance that he was sent "but to the House of Israel." cd: The Samaritans were more correctly termed half-Jews (ie mixture of gentile and Jewish blood) as such they were outcasts to which the Jews would have no part of-nor any dealing with-as a half Jew is regarded as a gentiles-It is my view that Jesus helped those whom asked for help-Jew or Gentile.After the Babylonian captivityEzra separated those that inner married with those Gentiles mentioned and the Jewish blood line remained pure (ie. see Ezra 10: 6-17). Not only that, but if his mission was "but to the House of Israel," what about those Israelites--ten tribes of them--who had already been taken captive many years earlier into the "Northlands" by Assyria? How was he to minister to them? The Jews were basically two tribes only--Judah and Benjamin--and parts of a third tribe, Levi. The other ten tribes had been takencaptive years earlier and were never heard from again. They are even today referred to as the "Lost Ten tribes." So what about them? Did THE SAVIOR NOT CARE ABOUT THEM? cd: In Bible prophecy we are told to look for Israel to become a nation again as a sign of the last days of the Gentile world rule-to wit the Messianic Jews and the converted Gentiles will rule the worldunder the leadership of Jesus Christ (ie. King of Kings) at this same time there is a seven year time of testing and the outpouring of Gods wrath-within this same time period God seals 12,000 from each tribe of Israel equaling 144,000 and each tribe is mentioned as being present in Israel (ie. Rev.7,14). The nation of Israel came into existence May 14,1947 and was ratified in 1969-This has never happened in the history of the world-no nation has ever ceased to exist for 2,000 years and returned-yet Israel has done so. The Jews have returned and all the tribes are pr
Re: [TruthTalk] Saturday Sabbath/Other lost Israelite sheep
Blaine writes Jesus himself never went to the Gentiles. He never spoke to them except on one occasion thatwas an exception to his rule. NKJ Mark 5:1 Then they came to the other side of the sea, to the country of the Gadarenes. 2 And when He had come out of the boat, immediately there met Him out of the tombs a man with an unclean spirit, ... 18 And when He got into the boat, he who had been demon-possessed begged Him that he might be with Him. 19 However, Jesus did not permit him, but said to him, "Go home to your friends, and tell them what great things the Lord has done for you, and how He has had compassion on you." 20 And he departed and began to proclaim in Decapolis all that Jesus had done for him; and all marveled. You might want to ruminate on this passage a while, Blaine. Only one of the "ten cities"which together made up the Decapolis was located to the west of the River Jordan (it was called Scythopolis, a.k.a. Bethshaen). The rest weresituated beyond the banks ofthe "promised land," in what could only be classified Gentile territory (the other nine cities were Hippos, Gadara, Pella, Philadelphia, Gerasa [home of the "Garasenes," a.k.a. "Gadarenes"], Dion, Canatha, Raphana, and Damascus).Indeed Jesus sent this duly impressed Gentile into the far country to "publish" (GR. karussein) his story until throughout Decapolis "all kept on marveling(imperfect tense) at what Jesus had done." And, Blaine, I find it quite noteworthy that Jesus did this without first proselytizing himin thedoctrines and duties of the Jewish people. IF I had a complaint, it would be that many Christians get bogged done in the minutiae of their peculiar forms of legalism and fail to realize this subtle but profound point. To their shame, the astonishing truthremains that Jesus sent this brand new Gentile convert out withoutany discipling at all,not permitting him tostay on with them and learn through the traditions of his peoplethe proper way of holiness.The truth is he sent him out without so much as a whisper from the lawand prophets, offwithout a word on thedo's and don'ts of godly living. No law. No commandments. No holy days. No feasts orordinances -- justa simple request: "Tell them what great things the Lord has done for you, and how He has had compassion on you." In your post you claim that Peter was the first to introduce the Gospel to the Gentiles. In fact,Blaine,he was not. A caveman from Gerasa gets credit for that one. What Peter was was the first JEW to go to the Gentiles. Ah yes, but before he was fit to go, he had to come to grips with the fact that what Jesus had done under law for the Jews, he had accomplished as well for the Gentiles -- and this he did for them apart from the law! Indeed before he could go, Peter had to grasp the fact that he dare not foist upon Greeks his Jewish customs: for who washe tocall unholy what God in Christhad cleansed? Bill - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Wednesday, January 04, 2006 6:32 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Saturday Sabbath/Other lost Israelite sheep The Gentiles first received the gospel by way of the Apostles--Peter first received the command to carry the message to those whom God had cleansed as he saw the sheet lowered with the unclean animals on it, and was commanded to "Rise, Peter, Kill and eat." This was the introduction of any Gentile to a gospel message. Paul was then commissioned to carry the message to Gentiles, and was deemed the apostle to the Gentiles. Jesus himself never went to the Gentiles. He never spoke to them except on one occasion thatwas an exception to his rule. They never heard his voice, yet he says, "Other sheep I have which are not of this fold, and they too must Hear My Voice!" His personal appearances were ALWAYS reserved for the House of Israel, ONLY!! In a message dated 1/4/2006 6:33:16 A.M. Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: - Original Message - From: To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 1/3/2006 7:39:32 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Saturday Sabbath/Other lost Israelite sheep What about this? Matthew 15:22-26 "And behold a woman of Canaan came . . . but he answered and said, I am not sent but to the lost sheep of the House of Israel . . . It is not meet to take the children's bread, and cast it to the dogs." Do you not believe your Bible? Here He actually stated in so many words his mission was to the HOUSE OF ISRAEL only. The woman from Caanan, although a Gentile, was an exception because of her grea
Re: [TruthTalk] Saturday Sabbath/Other lost Israelite sheep
I like it when I read a post and actually learn something, don't you guys ?? Some great thoughts. I would review but you just wrote the post !! So, like the man said, "Don't just do someting, stand there!!" Thanks for these words. Much to think on - between the lines. jd -- Original message -- From: "Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Blaine writes Jesus himself never went to the Gentiles. He never spoke to them except on one occasion thatwas an exception to his rule. NKJ Mark 5:1 Then they came to the other side of the sea, to the country of the Gadarenes. 2 And when He had come out of the boat, immediately there met Him out of the tombs a man with an unclean spirit, ... 18 And when He got into the boat, he who had been demon-possessed begged Him that he might be with Him. 19 However, Jesus did not permit him, but said to him, "Go home to your friends, and tell them what great things the Lord has done for you, and how He has had compassion on you." 20 And he departed and began to proclaim in Decapolis all that Jesus had done for him; and all marveled. You might want to ruminate on this passage a while, Blaine. Only one of the "ten cities"which together made up the Decapolis was located to the west of the River Jordan (it was called Scythopolis, a.k.a. Bethshaen). The rest weresituated beyond the banks ofthe "promised land," in what could only be classified Gentile territory (the other nine cities were Hippos, Gadara, Pella, Philadelphia, Gerasa [home of the "Garasenes," a.k.a. "Gadarenes"], Dion, Canatha, Raphana, and Damascus).Indeed Jesus sent this duly impressed Gentile into the far country to "publish" (GR. karussein) his story until throughout Decapolis "all kept on marveling(imperfect tense) at what Jesus had done." And, Blaine, I find it quite noteworthy that Jesus did this without first proselytizing himin thedoctrines and duties of the Jewish people. IF I had a complaint, it would be that many Christians get bogged done in the minutiae of their peculiar forms of legalism and fail to realize this subtle but profound point. To their shame, the astonishing truthremains that Jesus sent this brand new Gentile convert out withoutany discipling at all,not permitting him tostay on with them and learn through the traditions of his peoplethe proper way of holiness.The truth is he sent him out without so much as a whisper from the lawand prophets, offwithout a word on thedo's and don'ts of godly living. No law. No commandments. No holy days. No feasts orordinances -- justa simple request: "Tell them what great things the Lord has done for you, and how He has had compassion on you." In your post you claim that Peter was the first to introduce the Gospel to the Gentiles. In fact,Blaine,he was not. A caveman from Gerasa gets credit for that one. What Peter was was the first JEW to go to the Gentiles. Ah yes, but before he was fit to go, he had to come to grips with the fact that what Jesus had done under law for the Jews, he had accomplished as well for the Gentiles -- and this he did for them apart from the law! Indeed before he could go, Peter had to grasp the fact that he dare not foist upon Greeks his Jewish customs: for who washe tocall unholy what God in Christhad cleansed? Bill - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Wednesday, January 04, 2006 6:32 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Saturday Sabbath/Other lost Israelite sheep The Gentiles first received the gospel by way of the Apostles--Peter first received the command to carry the message to those whom God had cleansed as he saw the sheet lowered with the unclean animals on it, and was commanded to "Rise, Peter, Kill and eat." This was the introduction of any Gentile to a gospel message. Paul was then commissioned to carry the message to Gentiles, and was deemed the apostle to the Gentiles. Jesus himself never went to the Gentiles. He never spoke to them except on one occasion thatwas an exception to his rule. They never heard his voice, yet he says, "Other sheep I have which are not of this fold, and they too must Hear My Voice!" His personal appearances were ALWAYS reserved for the House of Israel, ONLY!! In a message dated 1/4/2006 6:33:16 A.M. Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: - Original Message - From: To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 1/3/2006 7:39:32 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Saturday Sabbath/Other lost Israelite sheep What about this? Matthew 15:22-26 "And behold a woman of Canaan came . . . but he answered and said, I am not sent but to the lost sheep of the House of Israel . . . It is not meet to take the children's bread, and cast it to the dogs." Do you not believe your Bible? Here He actually stated in so many words his mission was to the HOUSE OF ISRAEL only. The woman fr
Re: [TruthTalk] Saturday Sabbath/Other lost Israelite sheep
What about this?
Matthew 15:22-26
"And behold a woman of Canaan came . . . but he answered and
said, I am not sent but to the lost
sheep of the House of Israel . . . It is not meet to take the children's
bread, and cast it to the dogs."
Do you not believe your Bible? Here He
actually stated in so many words his mission was to the HOUSE OF ISRAEL
only. The woman from Caanan, although a
Gentile, was an exception because of her great
faith.
His mission to the Samaritans was due to the
largeamount of the bloodof Israel in that group of people. The
Samaritans were a mixture of Israelite bloodlines and Babylonian
bloodlines--they were descendants ofthose Jews who were not taken captive
in the Babylonian Captivity, and who intermarried with the Babylonians who were
sent from Babylon to occupy the land. Because the Jews would not recognize
their Israelite heritage, they even had a separate temple, alter, priests,
etc. But Jesus, knowing all things, knewmany of themwere also
Israelites. This was not a contradiction to his stance that
he was sent "but to the House of Israel."
Not only that, but if his mission was "but
to the House of Israel," what about those Israelites--ten tribes of them--who
had already been taken captive many years earlier into the "Northlands" by
Assyria? How was he to minister to them? The Jews were
basically two tribes only--Judah and Benjamin--and parts of a third tribe,
Levi. The other ten tribes had been takencaptive years earlier and
were never heard from again. They are even today referred to as the "Lost
Ten tribes." So what about them? Did THE SAVIOR NOT CARE ABOUT
THEM?
In a message dated 1/1/2006 8:48:23 A.M. Mountain Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
cd: I see no contradictions of my original
statement Blain-The Gospel was first preached to the Jews and later given to
the sheep of another fold(gentiles). You also failed to explain the gospel
being given to the Samaritan women-please do so??
- Original Message -
From:
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: 12/24/2005 4:14:58 PM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Saturday
Sabbath/Other lost Israelite sheep
In a message dated 12/20/2005 4:18:51 P.M. Mountain Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
cd: Jesus didn't stay he wasn't here for the Gentiles-He
said that he was here first for the Jews-and later the gentiles upon the
Jews rejection. Jew spoke to and healed many gentiles. The Samaritan woman
at the well was one of those he preached to-there were many others.The
other sheep mentioned were gentiles
Your total lack of understanding of the NT record is showing Deano,
buddy.
Jesus sent ONLY to the House
of Israel-- see Matthew 15:22-26
"And behold a woman of Canaan came . . . but he answered and
said, I am not sent but to the lost sheep of the House
of Israel . . . It is not meet to take the
children's bread, and cast it to the dogs."
Gentiles given the
gospel
Peter receivesa visionto preach to the Gentiles:(Read
entire chapter 11 in Acts) "
When they heard these things, they held their peace, , and glorified
god, saying, Then hath God also to the Gentiles granted
repentance unto life." Acts
11:18
The Jews were to actually hear his voice, but the Gentiles were to
receive the gospel via the Holy ghost and the preaching of the
Apostles--
Re: [TruthTalk] Saturday Sabbath
cd: Time will tell Blain-by the way I meant what I prayed for. - Original Message - From: To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 12/24/2005 3:43:00 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Saturday Sabbath Be careful what you pray for, Dean--and I have not felt any rebukes except from some of theTT witches and warlocks putting hex's on me. :) Blainerb In a message dated 12/20/2005 4:00:56 P.M. Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: - Original Message - From: To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 12/19/2005 10:08:24 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Saturday Sabbath I love the Bible! In church, we are currently studying the DC, but will begin the Old Testament in January, for a year. Last year we studied the BoM, the year before, the New Testament. It is all scripture to us. We do not see the problems you see with the BoM. It is 100% compatible with the Bible--you just have to have the perspective we have. You have to first believe, even if just a little bit, and faith will grow within you, to take over you whole soul, Dean. cd: The Lord rebuke you Blain for such a evil suggestion. May God kill me before something that dark takes over my soul.
Re: [TruthTalk] Saturday Sabbath/Other lost Israelite sheep
cd: I see no contradictions of my original statement Blain-The Gospel was first preached to the Jews and later given to the sheep of another fold(gentiles). You also failed to explain the gospel being given to the Samaritan women-please do so?? - Original Message - From: To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 12/24/2005 4:14:58 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Saturday Sabbath/Other lost Israelite sheep In a message dated 12/20/2005 4:18:51 P.M. Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: cd: Jesus didn't stay he wasn't here for the Gentiles-He said that he was here first for the Jews-and later the gentiles upon the Jews rejection. Jew spoke to and healed many gentiles. The Samaritan woman at the well was one of those he preached to-there were many others.The other sheep mentioned were gentiles Your total lack of understanding of the NT record is showing Deano, buddy. Jesus sent ONLY to the House of Israel-- see Matthew 15:22-26 "And behold a woman of Canaan came . . . but he answered and said, I am not sent but to the lost sheep of the House of Israel . . . It is not meet to take the children's bread, and cast it to the dogs." Gentiles given the gospel Peter receivesa visionto preach to the Gentiles:(Read entire chapter 11 in Acts) " When they heard these things, they held their peace, , and glorified god, saying, Then hath God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life." Acts 11:18 The Jews were to actually hear his voice, but the Gentiles were to receive the gospel via the Holy ghost and the preaching of the Apostles--
RE: [TruthTalk] Saturday Sabbath
Again, your RCC hackles are up as you write this, Lance. Why do you attack me, as I have not attacked you? Why the psychological innuendo? Why do you take offense at being called a liberal, as I consider you and bt, etc., are the very definition of what liberal Christianity represents. If that is an insult please tell me why so I can apologize. I never consider it insulting for anyone to call me a conservative. I am not ashamed of what I am. I was not the least bit angry when I wrote that, and I am not now. Just puzzled, izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir Sent: Thursday, December 22, 2005 5:12 AM To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Saturday Sabbath Iz:You have a most caustic and inflammatory 'spirit' . No kiddin! I wouldn't employ the cat imagery when speaking of you ON OCCASION. You are more like a venomous snake. You seem quite angry. Are you carrying things forward in your life that haven't be 'dealt with' spiritually? - Original Message - From: ShieldsFamily To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: December 21, 2005 19:21 Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Saturday Sabbath By your very presence, Lance, yes you have defined it perfectly. iz A good word, Terry. I shall attempt to take it to heart. By the by, just who do you perceive to be the 'liberals' on TT? How is it that you define 'liberal'? Yikes!! , have I done 'it' already?
Re: [TruthTalk] Saturday Sabbath
Be careful what you pray for, Dean--and I have not felt any rebukes except from some of theTT witches and warlocks putting hex's on me. :) Blainerb In a message dated 12/20/2005 4:00:56 P.M. Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: - Original Message - From: To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 12/19/2005 10:08:24 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Saturday Sabbath I love the Bible! In church, we are currently studying the DC, but will begin the Old Testament in January, for a year. Last year we studied the BoM, the year before, the New Testament. It is all scripture to us. We do not see the problems you see with the BoM. It is 100% compatible with the Bible--you just have to have the perspective we have. You have to first believe, even if just a little bit, and faith will grow within you, to take over you whole soul, Dean. cd: The Lord rebuke you Blain for such a evil suggestion. May God kill me before something that dark takes over my soul.
Re: [TruthTalk] Saturday Sabbath/Other lost Israelite sheep
In a message dated 12/20/2005 4:18:51 P.M. Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: cd: Jesus didn't stay he wasn't here for the Gentiles-He said that he was here first for the Jews-and later the gentiles upon the Jews rejection. Jew spoke to and healed many gentiles. The Samaritan woman at the well was one of those he preached to-there were many others.The other sheep mentioned were gentiles Your total lack of understanding of the NT record is showing Deano, buddy. Jesus sent ONLY to the House of Israel-- see Matthew 15:22-26 "And behold a woman of Canaan came . . . but he answered and said, I am not sent but to the lost sheep of the House of Israel . . . It is not meet to take the children's bread, and cast it to the dogs." Gentiles given the gospel Peter receivesa visionto preach to the Gentiles:(Read entire chapter 11 in Acts) " When they heard these things, they held their peace, , and glorified god, saying, Then hath God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life." Acts 11:18 The Jews were to actually hear his voice, but the Gentiles were to receive the gospel via the Holy ghost and the preaching of the Apostles--
Re: [TruthTalk] Saturday Sabbath
- Original Message - From: Lance Muir To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 12/22/2005 6:11:37 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Saturday Sabbath Iz:You have a most caustic and inflammatory 'spirit' . No kiddin! I wouldn't employ the cat imagery when speaking of you ON OCCASION. You are more like a venomous snake. You seem quite angry. Are you carrying things forward in your life that haven't be 'dealt with' spiritually? cd: Lance I sense a spirit of hostility eluding from you-be nice:-) - Original Message - From: ShieldsFamily To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: December 21, 2005 19:21 Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Saturday Sabbath By your very presence, Lance, yes you have defined it perfectly. iz A good word, Terry. I shall attempt to take it to heart. By the by, just who do you perceive to be the 'liberals' on TT? How is it that you define 'liberal'? Yikes!! , have I done 'it' already?
Re: [TruthTalk] Saturday Sabbath
If you really believe what you just wrote Lance then your last few hissing responses would hardly have smoothed her fur now would they? She is being blunt rather than ugly and even so is a lot more pleasant to read and easier on the eyes than Gary. How is it you don't ever take offense at anything he writes?. On Thu, 22 Dec 2005 06:11:39 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Iz:You have a most caustic and inflammatory 'spirit' . No kiddin! I wouldn't employ the cat imagery when speaking of you ON OCCASION. You are more like a venomous snake. You seem quite angry. Are you carrying things forward in your life that haven't be 'dealt with' spiritually? From: ShieldsFamily By your very presence, Lance, yes you have defined it perfectly. iz A good word, Terry. I shall attempt to take it to heart. By the by, just who do you perceive to be the 'liberals' on TT? How is it that you define 'liberal'? Yikes!! , have I done 'it' already? judyt He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His Commandments is a liar (1 John 2:4)
Re: [TruthTalk] Saturday Sabbath
Why then the H? When part of the family (RCC) is spoken of by TTers, I genuinely take offence on their behalf. I most assuredly find some of what they believe to be without Biblical foundation but, THEY ARE BROTHERS AND SISTERS IN CHRIST. - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: December 22, 2005 06:54 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Saturday Sabbath If you really believe what you just wrote Lance then your last few hissing responses would hardly have smoothed her fur now would they? She is being blunt rather than ugly and even so is a lot more pleasant to read and easier on the eyes than Gary. How is it you don't ever take offense at anything he writes?. On Thu, 22 Dec 2005 06:11:39 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Iz:You have a most caustic and inflammatory 'spirit' . No kiddin! I wouldn't employ the cat imagery when speaking of you ON OCCASION. You are more like a venomous snake. You seem quite angry. Are you carrying things forward in your life that haven't be 'dealt with' spiritually? From: ShieldsFamily By your very presence, Lance, yes you have defined it perfectly. iz A good word, Terry. I shall attempt to take it to heart. By the by, just who do you perceive to be the 'liberals' on TT? How is it that you define 'liberal'? Yikes!! , have I done 'it' already? judyt He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His Commandments is a liar (1 John 2:4)
Re: [TruthTalk] Saturday Sabbath
cd: Terry here is something for you to consider: Rev:12:17 And the dragon was wroth with the women, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God , and have the testimony of Jesus Christ. Saint/Christians keeping the commandment of God? All ten commandments are within the two you mentioned(ie love of God and love of the brethern)-yet one cannot remove the ten from the two-The ten gives understanding/boundries to the two.The ten shows how to love and how to not sin by worshipping idols,breaking sabbath,...etc.Butas important is the love of the brethern as is Judy-You should not have hurt her it is wrong.She was really trying to help you and loved you. - Original Message - From: Terry Clifton To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 12/19/2005 10:54:00 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Saturday Sabbath Keeping the law has never saved anyone, girls. The law has value in that it shows us (to some extent) what sin is. We no longer offer a sacrifice because Jesus was our sacrifice. If that part of the law has been fulfilled, then all the law has been fulfilled. The shed blood of Jesus was far more valuable than the blood of any sacrifice you can think of or all the sacrifices ever offered stacked on an alter together. The law is history, and history only has value as a teacher. Look at the verse you post in every missive, Judy. He that says, "I know Him", and doesn't keep HIS commandments is a liar. The two laws given by Jesus are HIS commands. The old law allowed you to hate your enemy. The new law requires you to love him. Now you know. What are you going to do about it? If the love is there, let it show, 'cause right now, Judy, I Truly wish I could see it in you and I cannot, no matter how hard I try. I know it hurts you to read this, but it needed to be said. I hope you will examine yourself before you reply, then, when you are done, feel free to examine me. I am sure I have faults that I cannot see either.TerryShieldsFamily wrote: Oooh, Judy, good point! iz From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Judy TaylorSent: Monday, December 19, 2005 5:52 AMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgCc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Saturday Sabbath In a message dated 12/17/2005 3:25:29 P.M. Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Christ's physical ministry was to the Jew, only. He lived under the law and was the fulfillment of that law. In Him is the end of the law. In Him is no such thing. God's law has not gone anywhere. In fact according to the apostle John who writes under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit in the New Testament "SIN IS THE TRANSGRESSION OF THE LAW" So how can one transgress against something that is ended? Or are you saying that nobody sins anymore since you have proclaimed the end of the law? judyt He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His Commandments is a liar (1 John 2:4)< /BODY>
Re: [TruthTalk] Saturday Sabbath
Sometimes you hurt people to help people Dean. I love Judy too. I am
usually on her side in these stupid arguements we are all having. What
I told her was to help her communicate with those who find her so
abrasive. If we can clean up our act, possibly they will clean up
their's and we can have some meaningful discussions. Right now we are
biting great chunks out of one another simply trying to be top dog. To
quote Jesus:"Do good to those who abuse you." If we cannot all learn
that, it would be better to just leave this list and not communicate at
all. Someone has to show not only love, but humility and concern for
our Lord and each other. If the conservatives do not do it, we cannot
expect the liberals to do it. Too much pride on both sides, and that
includes you and me
Terry
Dean Moore wrote:
cd: Terry here is something for you to consider:
Rev:12:17 And the dragon was wroth with the women, and went to make war
with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God , and
have the testimony of Jesus Christ.
Saint/Christians keeping the commandment
of God? All ten commandments are within the two you mentioned(ie love
of God and love of the brethern)-yet one cannot remove the ten from the
two-The ten gives understanding/boundries to the two.The ten shows how
to love and how to not sin by worshipping idols,breaking
sabbath,...etc.Butas important is the love of the brethern as is
Judy-You should not have hurt her it is wrong.She was really trying to
help you and loved you.
-
Original Message -
From:
Terry Clifton
To:
TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent:
12/19/2005 10:54:00 AM
Subject:
Re: [TruthTalk] Saturday Sabbath
Keeping the law has never saved anyone, girls. The
law has value in that it shows us (to some extent) what sin is. We no
longer offer a sacrifice because Jesus was our sacrifice. If that part
of the law has been fulfilled, then all the law has been fulfilled.
The shed blood of Jesus was far more valuable than the blood of any
sacrifice you can think of or all the sacrifices ever offered stacked
on an alter together. The law is history, and history only has value
as a teacher. Look at the verse you post in every missive, Judy. He
that says, "I know Him", and doesn't keep HIS commandments
is a liar. The two laws given by Jesus are HIS commands.
The old law allowed you to hate your enemy. The new law requires you
to love him. Now you know. What are you going to do about it? If the
love is there, let it show, 'cause right now, Judy, I Truly wish I
could see it in you and I cannot, no matter how hard I try.
I know it hurts you to read this, but it needed to be said. I hope you
will examine yourself before you reply, then, when you are done, feel
free to examine me. I am sure I have faults that I cannot see either.
Terry
ShieldsFamily wrote:
Oooh, Judy, good point! iz
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
On Behalf Of Judy
Taylor
Sent: Monday,
December 19, 2005 5:52 AM
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Subject: Re:
[TruthTalk] Saturday Sabbath
In a
message dated 12/17/2005 3:25:29 P.M. Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
Christ's
physical ministry was to the Jew, only. He lived under the law and
was the fulfillment of that law. In Him is
the end of the law.
In
Him is no such thing.
God's law has not gone anywhere. In fact according to the apostle John
who writes under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit in the New
Testament "SIN IS THE TRANSGRESSION OF THE LAW" So
how can one transgress against something that is ended? Or are you
saying that nobody sins anymore since you have proclaimed the end of
the law?
judyt
He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His Commandments
is a liar (1 John 2:4)
/BODY
Re: [TruthTalk] Saturday Sabbath
A good word, Terry. I shall attempt to take it to heart. By the by, just who do you perceive to be the 'liberals' on TT? How is it that you define 'liberal'? Yikes!! , have I done 'it' already? - Original Message - From: Terry Clifton To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: December 21, 2005 07:49 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Saturday Sabbath Sometimes you hurt people to help people Dean. I love Judy too. I am usually on her side in these stupid arguements we are all having. What I told her was to help her communicate with those who find her so abrasive. If we can clean up our act, possibly they will clean up their's and we can have some meaningful discussions. Right now we are biting great chunks out of one another simply trying to be top dog. To quote Jesus:"Do good to those who abuse you." If we cannot all learn that, it would be better to just leave this list and not communicate at all. Someone has to show not only love, but humility and concern for our Lord and each other. If the conservatives do not do it, we cannot expect the liberals to do it. Too much pride on both sides, and that includes you and meTerryDean Moore wrote: cd: Terry here is something for you to consider: Rev:12:17 And the dragon was wroth with the women, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God , and have the testimony of Jesus Christ. Saint/Christians keeping the commandment of God? All ten commandments are within the two you mentioned(ie love of God and love of the brethern)-yet one cannot remove the ten from the two-The ten gives understanding/boundries to the two.The ten shows how to love and how to not sin by worshipping idols,breaking sabbath,...etc.Butas important is the love of the brethern as is Judy-You should not have hurt her it is wrong.She was really trying to help you and loved you. - Original Message - From: Terry Clifton To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 12/19/2005 10:54:00 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Saturday Sabbath Keeping the law has never saved anyone, girls. The law has value in that it shows us (to some extent) what sin is. We no longer offer a sacrifice because Jesus was our sacrifice. If that part of the law has been fulfilled, then all the law has been fulfilled. The shed blood of Jesus was far more valuable than the blood of any sacrifice you can think of or all the sacrifices ever offered stacked on an alter together. The law is history, and history only has value as a teacher. Look at the verse you post in every missive, Judy. He that says, "I know Him", and doesn't keep HIS commandments is a liar. The two laws given by Jesus are HIS commands. The old law allowed you to hate your enemy. The new law requires you to love him. Now you know. What are you going to do about it? If the love is there, let it show, 'cause right now, Judy, I Truly wish I could see it in you and I cannot, no matter how hard I try. I know it hurts you to read this, but it needed to be said. I hope you will examine yourself before you reply, then, when you are done, feel free to examine me. I am sure I have faults that I cannot see either.TerryShieldsFamily wrote: Oooh, Judy, good point! iz From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Judy TaylorSent: Monday, December 19, 2005 5:52 AMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgCc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Saturday Sabbath In a message dated 12/17/2005 3:25:29 P.M. Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Christ's physical ministry was to the Jew, only. He lived under the law and was the fulfillment of that law. In Him is the end of the law. In Him is no such thing. God's law has not gone anywhere. In fact according to the apostle John who writes under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit in the New Testament "SIN IS THE TRANSGRESSION OF THE LAW" So how can one transgress against something that is ended? Or are you saying that nobody sins anymore since you have proclaimed the end of the law? judyt He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His
Re: [TruthTalk] Saturday Sabbath
Terry Clifton [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: That is exactly what I am talking about, David. Jesus said "You have heard it said that you should love your neighbor and hate your enemy, but I tell you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you." Jesus is saying to change.Stop doing it the way you have been taught. I have a better way. Why did the Jews teach this? Look at Leviticus 19:18. It forbids hard feelings or bad brhavior toward your neighbor, but there is nothing there about the enemy. The principle is not new Terry; it has been there all along. God did not have a change in personality after the incarnation/cross. Overcoming evil with good has always been there in fact Romans 12:20 is Proverbs 25:21,22 exactly and David acted on this during his conflict with Shimei in 2 Sam 16:12. If you doubt that, look at Samson. He killed a thousand enemies with the jawbone of an ass. After he had killed nine hundred and ninety- nine, don't you think the thousanth one asked for mercy? Don't you think Samson could have taken him prisoner instead of taking his life. Why would he want to do that? His ministry to Israel was as a Judge or military leader and in this capacity he was serving God. He did mess up with Bathsheba and paid for it with his own life. They didn't have POW camps back then. Saul lost the Kingdom over disobedience in this area. Israel was in covenant with God and their enemies were also His enemies. Look at King Saul. God was with him until he showed mercy to an enemy king. It wasn't exactly "mercy" - Saul just didn't do what God said. He kept the best of everything and then refused to take responsibility for his actions (telling Samuel it was because of the people he directly disobeyed the Lord) and thenhe becameimpatient because Samuel was late incoming and took it upon himself to do the sacrifice when he knew better (sin of presumption) following which there was no repentance and he added insult to injury by seeing thewitch of Endor.A classic example of what not to do. I know that somewhere in proverbs we are told to feed our ememy, but the reason given is not love. The reason is always love Terry. God's nature and character have always been love. Love is not something new that was introduced from 5BC to33ADDavid Miller wrote: Terry wrote: I was not talking about divorce or brothers or neighbors.. I was talking about enemies. Again, when you say, "old law," are you talking about the law of Moses? What "old law" allows a person to hate their enemies? I hope you are not talking about the Torah. Peace be with you. David Miller. -- "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed. judyt He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His Commandments is a liar (1 John 2:4)
Re: [TruthTalk] Saturday Sabbath
It's hard to give a definition so I will give you an example. I do not
know if you are old enough to remember George Wallace, but he was just
a tad too liberal for me. That is the political picture.
Seriously, I think that liberals are convinced that God is too loving
to send people like Judas to Hell. That may be an ultra liberal. I am
not sure. Conservarives take no chances on God being that kind and
play it safe by being as obedient as they can possibly be. Fear of
God's wrath is as important to consider in my own walk as is my
gratitude for His mercy.
A good word, Terry. I shall attempt
to take it to heart. By the by, just who do you perceive to be the
'liberals' on TT? How is it that you define 'liberal'? Yikes!! , have I
done 'it' already?
-
Original Message -
From:
Terry Clifton
To:
TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent:
December 21, 2005 07:49
Subject:
Re: [TruthTalk] Saturday Sabbath
Sometimes you hurt people to help people Dean. I love Judy too. I am
usually on her side in these stupid arguements we are all having. What
I told her was to help her communicate with those who find her so
abrasive. If we can clean up our act, possibly they will clean up
their's and we can have some meaningful discussions. Right now we are
biting great chunks out of one another simply trying to be top dog. To
quote Jesus:"Do good to those who abuse you." If we cannot all learn
that, it would be better to just leave this list and not communicate at
all. Someone has to show not only love, but humility and concern for
our Lord and each other. If the conservatives do not do it, we cannot
expect the liberals to do it. Too much pride on both sides, and that
includes you and me
Terry
Dean Moore wrote:
cd: Terry here is something for you to consider:
Rev:12:17 And the dragon was wroth with the women, and went to make war
with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God , and
have the testimony of Jesus Christ.
Saint/Christians keeping the commandment
of God? All ten commandments are within the two you mentioned(ie love
of God and love of the brethern)-yet one cannot remove the ten from the
two-The ten gives understanding/boundries to the two.The ten shows how
to love and how to not sin by worshipping idols,breaking
sabbath,...etc.Butas important is the love of the brethern as is
Judy-You should not have hurt her it is wrong.She was really trying to
help you and loved you.
-
Original Message -
From:
Terry Clifton
To:
TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent:
12/19/2005 10:54:00 AM
Subject:
Re: [TruthTalk] Saturday Sabbath
Keeping the law has never saved anyone, girls.
The law has value in that it shows us (to some extent) what sin is. We
no longer offer a sacrifice because Jesus was our sacrifice. If that
part of the law has been fulfilled, then all the law has been
fulfilled. The shed blood of Jesus was far more valuable than the
blood of any sacrifice you can think of or all the sacrifices ever
offered stacked on an alter together. The law is history, and history
only has value as a teacher. Look at the verse you post in every
missive, Judy. He that says, "I know Him", and doesn't keep HIS
commandments is a liar. The two laws
given by Jesus are HIS commands. The old law allowed you to
hate your enemy. The new law requires you to love him. Now you know.
What are you going to do about it? If the love is there, let it show,
'cause right now, Judy, I Truly wish I could see it in you and I
cannot, no matter how hard I try.
I know it hurts you to read this, but it needed to be said. I hope you
will examine yourself before you reply, then, when you are done, feel
free to examine me. I am sure I have faults that I cannot see either.
Terry
ShieldsFamily wrote:
Oooh, Judy, good point! iz
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
On Behalf Of Judy
Taylor
Sent: Monday,
December 19, 2005 5:52 AM
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Subject:
Re: [TruthTalk] Saturday Sabbath
In a
message dated 12/17/2005 3:25:29 P.M. Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
Christ's
physical ministry was to the Jew, only. He lived under the law and
was the fulfillment of that law. In Him is
the end of the law.
In
Him is no such thing.
God's law has not gone anywhere. In fact according to the apostle John
who writes under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit
Re: [TruthTalk] Saturday Sabbath
Welcome back, Judy. Terry Judy Taylor wrote: Terry Clifton [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: That is exactly what I am talking about, David. Jesus said "You have heard it said that you should love your neighbor and hate your enemy, but I tell you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you." Jesus is saying to change.Stop doing it the way you have been taught. I have a better way. Why did the Jews teach this? Look at Leviticus 19:18. It forbids hard feelings or bad brhavior toward your neighbor, but there is nothing there about the enemy. The principle is not new Terry; it has been there all along. God did not have a change in personality after the incarnation/cross. Overcoming evil with good has always been there in fact Romans 12:20 is Proverbs 25:21,22 exactly and David acted on this during his conflict with Shimei in 2 Sam 16:12. If you doubt that, look at Samson. He killed a thousand enemies with the jawbone of an ass. After he had killed nine hundred and ninety- nine, don't you think the thousanth one asked for mercy? Don't you think Samson could have taken him prisoner instead of taking his life. Why would he want to do that? His ministry to Israel was as a Judge or military leader and in this capacity he was serving God. He did mess up with Bathsheba and paid for it with his own life. They didn't have POW camps back then. Saul lost the Kingdom over disobedience in this area. Israel was in covenant with God and their enemies were also His enemies. Look at King Saul. God was with him until he showed mercy to an enemy king. It wasn't exactly "mercy" - Saul just didn't do what God said. He kept the best of everything and then refused to take responsibility for his actions (telling Samuel it was because of the people he directly disobeyed the Lord) and thenhe becameimpatient because Samuel was late incoming and took it upon himself to do the sacrifice when he knew better (sin of presumption) following which there was no repentance and he added insult to injury by seeing thewitch of Endor.A classic example of what not to do. I know that somewhere in proverbs we are told to feed our ememy, but the reason given is not love. The reason is always love Terry. God's nature and character have always been love. Love is not something new that was introduced from 5BC to33AD David Miller wrote: Terry wrote: I was not talking about divorce or brothers or neighbors.. I was talking about enemies. Again, when you say, "old law," are you talking about the law of Moses? What "old law" allows a person to hate their enemies? I hope you are not talking about the Torah. Peace be with you. David Miller. -- "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed. judyt He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His Commandments is a liar (1 John 2:4)
Re: [TruthTalk] Saturday Sabbath
That's clear enough for me, Terry. One could/ought
pursue this but, I'll leave it there.
thanks,
L
- Original Message -
From:
Terry Clifton
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: December 21, 2005 08:25
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Saturday
Sabbath
It's hard to give a definition so I will give you an
example. I do not know if you are old enough to remember George Wallace,
but he was just a tad too liberal for me. That is the political
picture.Seriously, I think that liberals are convinced that God is
too loving to send people like Judas to Hell. That may be an ultra
liberal. I am not sure. Conservarives take no chances on God being that
kind and play it safe by being as obedient as they can possibly be. Fear
of God's wrath is as important to consider in my own walk as is my gratitude
for His mercy.
A good word, Terry. I shall attempt to take it
to heart. By the by, just who do you perceive to be the 'liberals' on TT?
How is it that you define 'liberal'? Yikes!! , have I done 'it'
already?
-
Original Message -
From:
Terry Clifton
To:
TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent:
December 21, 2005 07:49
Subject:
Re: [TruthTalk] Saturday Sabbath
Sometimes you hurt people to help people Dean. I love
Judy too. I am usually on her side in these stupid arguements we are
all having. What I told her was to help her communicate with those
who find her so abrasive. If we can clean up our act, possibly they
will clean up their's and we can have some meaningful discussions.
Right now we are biting great chunks out of one another simply trying to
be top dog. To quote Jesus:"Do good to those who abuse you."
If we cannot all learn that, it would be better to just leave this list
and not communicate at all. Someone has to show not only love, but
humility and concern for our Lord and each other. If the
conservatives do not do it, we cannot expect the liberals to do it.
Too much pride on both sides, and that includes you and
meTerryDean Moore wrote:
cd: Terry here is something for you to consider: Rev:12:17
And the dragon was wroth with the women, and went to make war with the
remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God , and have the
testimony of Jesus Christ.
Saint/Christians keeping the commandment
of God? All ten commandments are within the two you mentioned(ie love of
God and love of the brethern)-yet one cannot remove the ten from the
two-The ten gives understanding/boundries to the two.The ten shows how
to love and how to not sin by worshipping idols,breaking
sabbath,...etc.Butas important is the love of the brethern as is
Judy-You should not have hurt her it is wrong.She was really trying to
help you and loved you.
-
Original Message -
From:
Terry Clifton
To:
TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent:
12/19/2005 10:54:00 AM
Subject:
Re: [TruthTalk] Saturday Sabbath
Keeping the law has never saved anyone,
girls. The law has value in that it shows us (to some extent)
what sin is. We no longer offer a sacrifice because Jesus was
our sacrifice. If that part of the law has been fulfilled, then
all the law has been fulfilled. The shed blood of Jesus was far
more valuable than the blood of any sacrifice you can think of or all
the sacrifices ever offered stacked on an alter together. The
law is history, and history only has value as a teacher. Look at
the verse you post in every missive, Judy. He that says, "I
know Him", and doesn't keep HIS
commandments is a liar. The two laws given
by Jesus are HIS commands. The old law allowed you to
hate your enemy. The new law requires you to love him. Now
you know. What are you going to do about it? If the love
is there, let it show, 'cause right now, Judy, I Truly wish I could
see it in you and I cannot, no matter how hard I try. I know
it hurts you to read this, but it needed to be said. I hope you
will examine yourself before you reply, then, when you are done, feel
free to examine me. I am sure I have faults that I cannot see
either.TerryShieldsFamily wrote:
Oooh, Judy,
good point! iz
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [TruthTalk] Saturday Sabbath
Terry Clifton [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Sometimes you hurt people to help people Dean. I love Judy too. I am usually on her side in these stupid arguements we are all having. Thank you Terry; I know you are always well meaning and I do appreciate that. What I told her was to help her communicate with those who find her so abrasive. If we can clean up our act, possibly they will clean up their's and we can have some meaningful discussions. Right now we are biting great chunks out of one another simply trying to be top dog. You do misjudge motives however Terry and deliberately hurting ppl to change them should be left to God whose judgment is perfect. We are told to love ppl (this is where the New Commandment comes in) and love covers the multitude of sin... I don't see the discussions on TT as meaningless in spite of the sniping. Paul reasoned with ppl (who thought they knew it all) from the scriptures for 3yrs before he wiped his hands of their blood and went on. To quote Jesus:"Do good to those who abuse you." Examples of this in scripture (ie praying for enemies) are Luke 23:34 which is Jesus praying from the cross; Acts 7:60 = Stephen praying for those who are stoning him; 1 Cor 4:12 where Paul writes "even to this present hour we both hunger and thirst, and are naked and are buffeted and have no certain dwellingplace; and labor working with our own hands; being reviled we bless; being persecuted we suffer it; being defamed we entreat; we are made as the filth of the world, and are the offscouring of all things unto this day"(Sounds like a street preacher doesn't he)? And finally Christour example "Who did not sin, neither was guile found in his mouth; who when he was reviled reviled not again; when he suffered, he threatened not; but committed himself to him that judgeth righteously ..." If we cannot all learn that, it would be better to just leave this list and not communicate at all. Someone has to show not only love, but humility and concern for our Lord and each other. Then the adversary would have won by shutting everyone up. You need to understand Terry that the war is not personal. It is not about you or me; the war is against God's Word. If the conservatives do not do it, we cannot expect the liberals to do it. Too much pride on both sides, and that includes you and me Terry I don't consider it pride to say what God says Terry. Nor do I consider God or His Word to be political in any way. Please pray about these judgments you are making. Blessings, judytDean Moore wrote: cd: Terry here is something for you to consider: Rev:12:17 And the dragon was wroth with the women, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God , and have the testimony of Jesus Christ. Saint/Christians keeping the commandment of God? All ten commandments are within the two you mentioned(ie love of God and love of the brethern)-yet one cannot remove the ten from the two-The ten gives understanding/boundries to the two.The ten shows how to love and how to not sin by worshipping idols,breaking sabbath,...etc.Butas important is the love of the brethern as is Judy-You should not have hurt her it is wrong.She was really trying to help you and loved you. - Original Message - From: Terry Clifton To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 12/19/2005 10:54:00 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Saturday Sabbath Keeping the law has never saved anyone, girls. The law has value in that it shows us (to some extent) what sin is. We no longer offer a sacrifice because Jesus was our sacrifice. If that part of the law has been fulfilled, then all the law has been fulfilled. The shed blood of Jesus was far more valuable than the blood of any sacrifice you can think of or all the sacrifices ever offered stacked on an alter together. The law is history, and history only has value as a teacher. Look at the verse you post in every missive, Judy. He that says, "I know Him", and doesn't keep HIS commandments is a liar. The two laws given by Jesus are HIS commands. The old law allowed you to hate your enemy. The new law requires you to love him. Now you know. What are you going to do about it? If the love is there, let it show, 'cause right now, Judy, I Truly wish I could see it in you and I cannot, no matter how hard I try. I know it hurts you to read this, but it needed to be said. I hope you will examine yourself before you reply, then, when you are done, feel free to examine me. I am sure I have faults that I ca
Re: [TruthTalk] Saturday Sabbath
Thanks Terry On Wed, 21 Dec 2005 07:32:30 -0600 Terry Clifton [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Welcome back, Judy.TerryJudy Taylor wrote: Terry Clifton [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: That is exactly what I am talking about, David. Jesus said "You have heard it said that you should love your neighbor and hate your enemy, but I tell you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you." Jesus is saying to change.Stop doing it the way you have been taught. I have a better way. Why did the Jews teach this? Look at Leviticus 19:18. It forbids hard feelings or bad brhavior toward your neighbor, but there is nothing there about the enemy. The principle is not new Terry; it has been there all along. God did not have a change in personality after the incarnation/cross. Overcoming evil with good has always been there in fact Romans 12:20 is Proverbs 25:21,22 exactly and David acted on this during his conflict with Shimei in 2 Sam 16:12. If you doubt that, look at Samson. He killed a thousand enemies with the jawbone of an ass. After he had killed nine hundred and ninety- nine, don't you think the thousanth one asked for mercy? Don't you think Samson could have taken him prisoner instead of taking his life. Why would he want to do that? His ministry to Israel was as a Judge or military leader and in this capacity he was serving God. He did mess up with Bathsheba and paid for it with his own life. They didn't have POW camps back then. Saul lost the Kingdom over disobedience in this area. Israel was in covenant with God and their enemies were also His enemies. Look at King Saul. God was with him until he showed mercy to an enemy king. It wasn't exactly "mercy" - Saul just didn't do what God said. He kept the best of everything and then refused to take responsibility for his actions (telling Samuel it was because of the people he directly disobeyed the Lord) and thenhe becameimpatient because Samuel was late incoming and took it upon himself to do the sacrifice when he knew better (sin of presumption) following which there was no repentance and he added insult to injury by seeing thewitch of Endor.A classic example of what not to do. I know that somewhere in proverbs we are told to feed our ememy, but the reason given is not love. The reason is always love Terry. God's nature and character have always been love. Love is not something new that was introduced from 5BC to33ADDavid Miller wrote: Terry wrote: I was not talking about divorce or brothers or neighbors.. I was talking about enemies. Again, when you say, "old law," are you talking about the law of Moses? What "old law" allows a person to hate their enemies? I hope you are not talking about the Torah. Peace be with you. David Miller. -- "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed. judyt He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His Commandments is a liar (1 John 2:4) judyt He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His Commandments is a liar (1 John 2:4)
Re: [TruthTalk] Saturday Sabbath
It seems to me,Judy, that the enemy is winning now by getting us all to bicker instead of reason together. I know that this is not personal, but I also know that we are so far apart that we can take no prisoners. It takes time to change one's thinking. If I yell at Lance and tell him I am right and he is wrong, he will not say "Gee, I'd better change"! More likely he will just decide that I am a jerk and ignore me. It is also within the realm of possibility that I am wrong and he is right and if we talk to each other as if we are talking to the Lord, we are more inclined to try to reach an agreement, I would think. It is not pride to say what God says, Judy. The pride comes from having a superior attitude. John considered you arrogant a short time back and more or less called you a liar when you said you did not understand what he was saying. That is an excellent example of a superior attitude, but John is not the only one to write this way. I have been guilty of it. You will have to decide for yourself I guess if you are too. Judy Taylor wrote: Terry Clifton [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: If we cannot all learn that, it would be better to just leave this list and not communicate at all. Someone has to show not only love, but humility and concern for our Lord and each other. Then the adversary would have won by shutting everyone up. You need to understand Terry that the war is not personal. It is not about you or me; the war is against God's Word. If the conservatives do not do it, we cannot expect the liberals to do it. Too much pride on both sides, and that includes you and me Terry I don't consider it pride to say what God says Terry. Nor do I consider God or His Word to be political in any way. Please pray about these judgments you are making. Blessings, judyt
Re: [TruthTalk] Saturday Sabbath
Terry the arbitrator. Terry the mediator. I like it! The points you make are somewhat similar to those made by David Miller in his recent post. - Original Message - From: Terry Clifton To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: December 21, 2005 14:30 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Saturday Sabbath It seems to me,Judy, that the enemy is winning now by getting us all to bicker instead of reason together. I know that this is not personal, but I also know that we are so far apart that we can take no prisoners. It takes time to change one's thinking. If I yell at Lance and tell him I am right and he is wrong, he will not say "Gee, I'd better change"! More likely he will just decide that I am a jerk and ignore me. It is also within the realm of possibility that I am wrong and he is right and if we talk to each other as if we are talking to the Lord, we are more inclined to try to reach an agreement, I would think.It is not pride to say what God says, Judy. The pride comes from having a superior attitude. John considered you arrogant a short time back and more or less called you a liar when you said you did not understand what he was saying. That is an excellent example of a superior attitude, but John is not the only one to write this way. I have been guilty of it. You will have to decide for yourself I guess if you are too.Judy Taylor wrote: Terry Clifton [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: If we cannot all learn that, it would be better to just leave this list and not communicate at all. Someone has to show not only love, but humility and concern for our Lord and each other. Then the adversary would have won by shutting everyone up. You need to understand Terry that the war is not personal. It is not about you or me; the war is against God's Word. If the conservatives do not do it, we cannot expect the liberals to do it. Too much pride on both sides, and that includes you and me Terry I don't consider it pride to say what God says Terry. Nor do I consider God or His Word to be political in any way. Please pray about these judgments you are making. Blessings, judyt
Re: [TruthTalk] Saturday Sabbath
On Wed, 21 Dec 2005 13:30:38 -0600 Terry Clifton [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: It seems to me,Judy, that the enemy is winning now by getting us all to bicker instead of reason together. I know that this is not personal, but I also know that we are so far apart that we can take no prisoners.It takes time to change one's thinking. Take prisoners? Must be a figure of speech. I hear you Terry but I don't think their minds will change anyway At leastnot from what they feed upon. Renewing the mind happens just one way which the ppl you are speaking of (I think) are not open to, not yet anyway. If I yell at Lance and tell him I am right and he is wrong, he will not say "Gee, I'd better change"! More likely he will just decide that I am a jerk and ignore me. It is also within the realm of possibility that I am wrong and he is right and if we talk to each other as if we are talking to the Lord, we are more inclined to try to reach an agreement, I would think. I'm not for yelling or striving - although it may not appear that way at times. How does on contradict someone else like talking to the Lord? The Lord is the one who is always right. He is the Truth. It is not pride to say what God says, Judy. The pride comes from having a superior attitude. John considered you arrogant a short time back and more or less called you a liar when you said you did not understand what he was saying. John was wrong; I was speaking the truth to him. In fact I went over that whole post again and I still don't know what he was trying to communicate; possibly because I am not into theology and all of those big sounding terms mean nothing to me. OTOH I am into the Word of God and we could fellowship around that if everyone was as interested as me.Opinions are neither here nor there, even though peopleseem to have a lot of them. That is an excellent example of a superior attitude, but John is not the only one to write this way. I have been guilty of it. You will have to decide for yourself I guess if you are too. Thanks for the reminder - an attitude check is a good thing. I hate the tit for tat but could not say I have not ever been guilty of getting caught up in it. Terry Clifton [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: If we cannot all learn that, it would be better to just leave this list and not communicate at all. Someone has to show not only love, but humility and concern for our Lord and each other. Then the adversary would have won by shutting everyone up. You need to understand Terry that the war is not personal. It is not about you or me; the war is against God's Word. If the conservatives do not do it, we cannot expect the liberals to do it. Too much pride on both sides, and that includes you and me Terry I don't consider it pride to say what God says Terry. Nor do I consider God or His Word to be political in any way. Please pray about these judgments you are making. Blessings, judyt judyt He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His Commandments is a liar (1 John 2:4)
Re: [TruthTalk] Saturday Sabbath
- Original Message - From: To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org;TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 12/20/2005 10:06:00 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Saturday Sabbath Weren't we talking about holy day obsevances? You have added a traditional point of view to the text, which is fine, but it is a tradition I do not accept. Paul is dealing with Jewish issues in Romans 14, which would include the Sabbath. That opinion is a tradition as well.But I believe the context supports the point since the Jews are clearly a major consideration of Paul. Butthanks for you comments. jd cd: Actually 14:1-At the start of the Chapter Paul is speaking of those of the faith and continues dealing with this faith based problem of how to judge or not judge a brother by his eating habits-This is not for the Jews but the church. Paul was a missionary to the Gentiles also.Here are some additional passages to view in regards of the Sabbath. (1) Rev.12:17 And the dragon was wroth with the women, and to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God and have the testimony of Jesus Christ. John a Christian is identified here as (a) One that knows Jesus and (b) one who keeps Gods commandment's. These two identifying characteristics cannot be separated and one still remain a Christian. (2) Matt. 24:20 But pray ye that you flight be not in the winter,neither on the Sabbath day. Matt 24:3 shown that Jesus is answering questions related to a future event and in verse 20, Jesus is identifying the Sabbath as the Jewish Sabbath and showing it to be in effect for that future time period. Isaiah 66 show the Sabbath to be a future event that we are to keep in heaven. (3) I would like to deal with the Law as related to the church but I think we should first identify if a Christian should even keep the law-then deal with the law's aspects. Matt.19:17 ...but if thou will enter into life keep the commandments. And in verse 18 Jesus identifies which commandments-Gods commandments. -- Original message -- From: "Dean Moore" [EMAIL PROTECTED] cd: John Rom.14 again is speaking of eating certain food on feast days called Holy Days and to not judge you brother for eating certain foods -read the entire verse and tell me how many times food, or eating,or drinking is mention in that chapter? It is mentioned 19 times John-now tell me what does the Sabbath (sat) have to do with eating?Yet eating has a important role in the Feasts of Isreal.Use logic and the answer will come. - Original Message - From: To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org;TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 12/19/2005 1:06:46 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Saturday Sabbath Romans 14 puts to an end this argument. -- Original message -- From: "Marlin halverson" [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Over one hundred years ago the Catholic Mirror ran a series of articles discussing the right of the Protestant churches to worship on Sunday. The articles stressed that unless one was willing to accept the authority of the Catholic Church to designate the day of worship, the Christian should observe Saturday. Those articles are presented here in their entirety." http://www.cbcg.org/rome's_challenge.htm Photo copyright 1914 by Underwood Underwood
Re: [TruthTalk] Saturday Sabbath
- Original Message - From: Terry Clifton To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 12/21/2005 7:49:23 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Saturday Sabbath Sometimes you hurt people to help people Dean. I love Judy too. I am usually on her side in these stupid arguements we are all having. What I told her was to help her communicate with those who find her so abrasive. If we can clean up our act, possibly they will clean up their's and we can have some meaningful discussions. Right now we are biting great chunks out of one another simply trying to be top dog. To quote Jesus:"Do good to those who abuse you." If we cannot all learn that, it would be better to just leave this list and not communicate at all. Someone has to show not only love, but humility and concern for our Lord and each other. If the conservatives do not do it, we cannot expect the liberals to do it. Too much pride on both sides, and that includes you and meTerry cd: I will consider you point-But I also see a lot of truth being presented correctly by Judy that should be heeded-and it is ignored.Dean Moore wrote: cd: Terry here is something for you to consider: Rev:12:17 And the dragon was wroth with the women, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God , and have the testimony of Jesus Christ. Saint/Christians keeping the commandment of God? All ten commandments are within the two you mentioned(ie love of God and love of the brethern)-yet one cannot remove the ten from the two-The ten gives understanding/boundries to the two.The ten shows how to love and how to not sin by worshipping idols,breaking sabbath,...etc.Butas important is the love of the brethern as is Judy-You should not have hurt her it is wrong.She was really trying to help you and loved you. - Original Message - From: Terry Clifton To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 12/19/2005 10:54:00 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Saturday Sabbath Keeping the law has never saved anyone, girls. The law has value in that it shows us (to some extent) what sin is. We no longer offer a sacrifice because Jesus was our sacrifice. If that part of the law has been fulfilled, then all the law has been fulfilled. The shed blood of Jesus was far more valuable than the blood of any sacrifice you can think of or all the sacrifices ever offered stacked on an alter together. The law is history, and history only has value as a teacher. Look at the verse you post in every missive, Judy. He that says, "I know Him", and doesn't keep HIS commandments is a liar. The two laws given by Jesus are HIS commands. The old law allowed you to hate your enemy. The new law requires you to love him. Now you know. What are you going to do about it? If the love is there, let it show, 'cause right now, Judy, I Truly wish I could see it in you and I cannot, no matter how hard I try. I know it hurts you to read this, but it needed to be said. I hope you will examine yourself before you reply, then, when you are done, feel free to examine me. I am sure I have faults that I cannot see either.TerryShieldsFamily wrote: Oooh, Judy, good point! iz From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Judy TaylorSent: Monday, December 19, 2005 5:52 AMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgCc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Saturday Sabbath In a message dated 12/17/2005 3:25:29 P.M. Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Christ's physical ministry was to the Jew, only. He lived under the law and was the fulfillment of that law. In Him is the end of the law. In Him is no such thing. God's law has not gone anywhere. In fact according to the apostle John who writes under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit in the New Testament "SIN IS THE TRANSGRESSION OF THE LAW" So how can one transgress against something that is ended? Or are you saying that nobody sins anymore since you have proclaimed the end of the law? judyt He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His Commandments is a liar (1 John 2:4)& lt; /BODY
RE: [TruthTalk] Saturday Sabbath
By your very presence, Lance, yes you have defined it perfectly. iz A good word, Terry. I shall attempt to take it to heart. By the by, just who do you perceive to be the 'liberals' on TT? How is it that you define 'liberal'? Yikes!! , have I done 'it' already?
RE: [TruthTalk] Saturday Sabbath
It is only ignored by those arguing with her. The rest of us are the Silent Majority. J iz From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dean Moore Sent: Wednesday, December 21, 2005 5:40 PM To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Saturday Sabbath - Original Message - From: Terry Clifton To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 12/21/2005 7:49:23 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Saturday Sabbath Sometimes you hurt people to help people Dean. I love Judy too. I am usually on her side in these stupid arguements we are all having. What I told her was to help her communicate with those who find her so abrasive. If we can clean up our act, possibly they will clean up their's and we can have some meaningful discussions. Right now we are biting great chunks out of one another simply trying to be top dog. To quote Jesus:Do good to those who abuse you. If we cannot all learn that, it would be better to just leave this list and not communicate at all. Someone has to show not only love, but humility and concern for our Lord and each other. If the conservatives do not do it, we cannot expect the liberals to do it. Too much pride on both sides, and that includes you and me Terry cd: I will consider you point-But I also see a lot of truth being presented correctly by Judy that should be heeded-and it is ignored. Dean Moore wrote: cd: Terry here is something for you to consider: Rev:12:17 And the dragon was wroth with the women, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God , and have the testimony of Jesus Christ. Saint/Christians keeping the commandment of God? All ten commandments are within the two you mentioned(ie love of God and love of the brethern)-yet one cannot remove the ten from the two-The ten gives understanding/boundries to the two.The ten shows how to love and how to not sin by worshipping idols,breaking sabbath,...etc.Butas important is the love of the brethern as is Judy-You should not have hurt her it is wrong.She was really trying to help you and loved you. - Original Message - From: Terry Clifton To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 12/19/2005 10:54:00 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Saturday Sabbath Keeping the law has never saved anyone, girls. The law has value in that it shows us (to some extent) what sin is. We no longer offer a sacrifice because Jesus was our sacrifice. If that part of the law has been fulfilled, then all the law has been fulfilled. The shed blood of Jesus was far more valuable than the blood of any sacrifice you can think of or all the sacrifices ever offered stacked on an alter together. The law is history, and history only has value as a teacher. Look at the verse you post in every missive, Judy. He that says, I know Him, and doesn't keep HIS commandments is a liar. The two laws given by Jesus are HIS commands. The old law allowed you to hate your enemy. The new law requires you to love him. Now you know. What are you going to do about it? If the love is there, let it show, 'cause right now, Judy, I Truly wish I could see it in you and I cannot, no matter how hard I try. I know it hurts you to read this, but it needed to be said. I hope you will examine yourself before you reply, then, when you are done, feel free to examine me. I am sure I have faults that I cannot see either. Terry ShieldsFamily wrote: Oooh, Judy, good point! iz From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Judy Taylor Sent: Monday, December 19, 2005 5:52 AM To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Saturday Sabbath In a message dated 12/17/2005 3:25:29 P.M. Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Christ's physical ministry was to the Jew, only. He lived under the law and was the fulfillment of that law. In Him is the end of the law. In Him is no such thing. God's law has not gone anywhere. In fact according to the apostle John who writes under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit in the New Testament SIN IS THE TRANSGRESSION OF THE LAW So how can one transgress against something that is ended? Or are you saying that nobody sins anymore since you have proclaimed the end of the law? judyt He that says I know Him and doesn't keep His Commandments is a liar (1 John 2:4) lt; /BODY
Re: [TruthTalk] Saturday Sabbath
No argument there brother. Judy has much to offer this group. Terry Dean Moore wrote: cd: I will consider you point-But I also see a lot of truth being presented correctly by Judy that should be heeded-and it is ignored.
Re: [TruthTalk] Saturday Sabbath
- Original Message - From: To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org;TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 12/19/2005 10:17:23 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Saturday Sabbath cd: Is John and the LDS in agreement now? You might actually try reading some of my posts rather than sitting there trying to come up with something cute to say. Refer to my 8 point post comparing Mormonism to Christianity and you will have your answer. cd: While it might not have been "cute"-it reminds me of a simular statement made by you to me last week-and I answered by sending the extra wives to the moon. But I would reath discuss the Bible than bite and scratch. By the way I read all you posts(usually).
Re: [TruthTalk] Saturday Sabbath
cd: Then you are looking as a blind man would -Judys love is in her desire to help you and others on better understanding God's word-as that strengthens you souls and it's relationship with the creator-This is why she fights put so much energy into her work-for you and the others. - Original Message - From: Terry Clifton To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 12/19/2005 1:42:41 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Saturday Sabbath I am sorry Judy. It pains me to say it, but I do not see any love in you. I see an intense desire to be right and I see at least a tendency to condemn those who do not see it as you do. I hope that love is there. I hope I am just blind to it and do not see it because of my inability. I thought you should know that if it is there, I cannot see it, because others may have the same problem.Thanks for clearing up your perceptions of the remaining law.TerryJudy Taylor wrote: I'm talking about God's moral law Terri and Jesus did not negate any of that. The ceremonial law was for the Levitical priesthood which has passed away. He is now our Prophet, Priest, and King. Jesus Commandments are the Spirit of the Law which as you say is based on Love, but then so is God's moral law. Most of the 10 Commandments are basically the Golden Rule. Terry, please tell me. If you could see the love in me - what would it look like? Can you describe it please? judyt On Mon, 19 Dec 2005 09:53:35 -0600 Terry Clifton [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Keeping the law has never saved anyone, girls. The law has value in that it shows us (to some extent) what sin is. We no longer offer a sacrifice because Jesus was our sacrifice. If that part of the law has been fulfilled, then all the law has been fulfilled. The shed blood of Jesus was far more valuable than the blood of any sacrifice you can think of or all the sacrifices ever offered stacked on an alter together. The law is history, and history only has value as a teacher. Look at the verse you post in every missive, Judy. He that says, "I know Him", and doesn't keep HIS commandments is a liar. The two laws given by Jesus are HIS commands. The old law allowed you to hate your enemy. The new law requires you to love him. Now you know. What are you going to do about it? If the love is there, let it show, 'cause right now, Judy, I Truly wish I could see it in you and I cannot, no matter how hard I tr y. I know it hurts you to read this, but it needed to be said. I hope you will examine yourself before you reply, then, when you are done, feel free to examine me. I am sure I have faults that I cannot see either.TerryShieldsFamily wrote: Oooh, Judy, good point! iz From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Judy TaylorSent: Monday, December 19, 2005 5:52 AMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgCc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Saturday Sabbath In a message dated 12/17/2005 3:25:29 P.M. Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Christ's physical ministry was to the Jew, only. He lived under the law and was the fulfillment of that law. In Him is the end of the law. In Him is no such thing. God's law has not gone anywhere. In fact according to the apostle John who writes under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit in the New Testament "SIN IS THE TRANSGRESSION OF THE LAW" So how can one transgress against something that is ended? Or are you saying that nobody sins anymore since you have proclaimed the end of the law? judyt He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His Commandments is a liar (1 John 2:4) judyt He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His Commandments is a liar (1 John 2:4)
Re: [TruthTalk] Saturday Sabbath
OrTerry has discerned and, expressed that which he discerned. - Original Message - From: Dean Moore To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: December 20, 2005 06:58 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Saturday Sabbath cd: Then you are looking as a blind man would -Judys love is in her desire to help you and others on better understanding God's word-as that strengthens you souls and it's relationship with the creator-This is why she fights put so much energy into her work-for you and the others. - Original Message - From: Terry Clifton To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 12/19/2005 1:42:41 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Saturday Sabbath I am sorry Judy. It pains me to say it, but I do not see any love in you. I see an intense desire to be right and I see at least a tendency to condemn those who do not see it as you do. I hope that love is there. I hope I am just blind to it and do not see it because of my inability. I thought you should know that if it is there, I cannot see it, because others may have the same problem.Thanks for clearing up your perceptions of the remaining law.TerryJudy Taylor wrote: I'm talking about God's moral law Terri and Jesus did not negate any of that. The ceremonial law was for the Levitical priesthood which has passed away. He is now our Prophet, Priest, and King. Jesus Commandments are the Spirit of the Law which as you say is based on Love, but then so is God's moral law. Most of the 10 Commandments are basically the Golden Rule. Terry, please tell me. If you could see the love in me - what would it look like? Can you describe it please? judyt On Mon, 19 Dec 2005 09:53:35 -0600 Terry Clifton [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Keeping the law has never saved anyone, girls. The law has value in that it shows us (to some extent) what sin is. We no longer offer a sacrifice because Jesus was our sacrifice. If that part of the law has been fulfilled, then all the law has been fulfilled. The shed blood of Jesus was far more valuable than the blood of any sacrifice you can think of or all the sacrifices ever offered stacked on an alter together. The law is history, and history only has value as a teacher. Look at the verse you post in every missive, Judy. He that says, "I know Him", and doesn't keep HIS commandments is a liar. The two laws given by Jesus are HIS commands. The old law allowed you to hate your enemy. The new law requires you to love him. Now you know. What are you going to do about it? If the love is there, let it show, 'cause right now, Judy, I Truly wish I could see it in you and I cannot, no matter how hard I tr y. I know it hurts you to read this, but it needed to be said. I hope you will examine yourself before you reply, then, when you are done, feel free to examine me. I am sure I have faults that I cannot see either.TerryShieldsFamily wrote: Oooh, Judy, good point! iz From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Judy TaylorSent: Monday, December 19, 2005 5:52 AMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgCc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Saturday Sabbath In a message dated 12/17/2005 3:25:29 P.M. Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Christ's physical ministry was to the Jew, only. He lived under the law and was the fulfillment of that law. In Him is the end of the law. In Him is no such thing. God's law has not gone anywhere. In fact according to the apostle John who writes under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit in the New Testament "SIN IS THE TRANSGRESSION OF THE LAW" So how can one transgress against something that is ended? Or are you saying that nobody sins anymore since you have proclaimed the end of the law? judyt He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His Commandments is a liar (1 John 2:4) judyt He that says "I know Him"
Re: [TruthTalk] Saturday Sabbath
You could be right, Dean. Dean Moore wrote: cd: Then you are looking as a blind man would -Judys love is in her desire to help you and others on better understanding God's word-as that strengthens you souls and it's relationship with the creator-This is why she fights put so much energy into her work-for you and the others. - Original Message - From: Terry Clifton To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 12/19/2005 1:42:41 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Saturday Sabbath I am sorry Judy. It pains me to say it, but I do not see any love in you. I see an intense desire to be right and I see at least a tendency to condemn those who do not see it as you do. I hope that love is there. I hope I am just blind to it and do not see it because of my inability. I thought you should know that if it is there, I cannot see it, because others may have the same problem. Thanks for clearing up your perceptions of the remaining law. Terry Judy Taylor wrote: I'm talking about God's moral law Terri and Jesus did not negate any of that. The ceremonial law was for the Levitical priesthood which has passed away. He is now our Prophet, Priest, and King. Jesus Commandments are the Spirit of the Law which as you say is based on Love, but then so is God's moral law. Most of the 10 Commandments are basically the Golden Rule. Terry, please tell me. If you could see the love in me - what would it look like? Can you describe it please? judyt On Mon, 19 Dec 2005 09:53:35 -0600 Terry Clifton [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Keeping the law has never saved anyone, girls. The law has value in that it shows us (to some extent) what sin is. We no longer offer a sacrifice because Jesus was our sacrifice. If that part of the law has been fulfilled, then all the law has been fulfilled. The shed blood of Jesus was far more valuable than the blood of any sacrifice you can think of or all the sacrifices ever offered stacked on an alter together. The law is history, and history only has value as a teacher. Look at the verse you post in every missive, Judy. He that says, "I know Him", and doesn't keep HIS commandments is a liar. The two laws given by Jesus are HIS commands. The old law allowed you to hate your enemy. The new law requires you to love him. Now you know. What are you going to do about it? If the love is there, let it show, 'cause right now, Judy, I Truly wish I could see it in you and I cannot, no matter how hard I tr y. I know it hurts you to read this, but it needed to be said. I hope you will examine yourself before you reply, then, when you are done, feel free to examine me. I am sure I have faults that I cannot see either. Terry ShieldsFamily wrote: Oooh, Judy, good point! iz From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Judy Taylor Sent: Monday, December 19, 2005 5:52 AM To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Saturday Sabbath In a message dated 12/17/2005 3:25:29 P.M. Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Christ's physical ministry was to the Jew, only. He lived under the law and was the fulfillment of that law. In Him is the end of the law. In Him is no such thing. God's law has not gone anywhere. In fact according to the apostle John who writes under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit in the New Testament "SIN IS THE TRANSGRESSION OF THE LAW" So how can one transgress against something that is ended? Or are you saying that nobody sins anymore since you have proclaimed the end of the law? judyt He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His Commandments is a liar (1 John 2:4) judyt He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His Commandments is a liar (1 John 2:4)
Re: [TruthTalk] Saturday Sabbath
cd: Thank you botherMarlin for this site-good stuff-I have saved it to my computer:-) - Original Message - From: Marlin halverson To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 12/19/2005 12:38:33 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Saturday Sabbath "Over one hundred years ago the Catholic Mirror ran a series of articles discussing the right of the Protestant churches to worship on Sunday. The articles stressed that unless one was willing to accept the authority of the Catholic Church to designate the day of worship, the Christian should observe Saturday. Those articles are presented here in their entirety." http://www.cbcg.org/rome's_challenge.htm Photo copyright 1914 by Underwood Underwood
Re: [TruthTalk] Saturday Sabbath
- Original Message - From: To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 12/19/2005 10:08:24 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Saturday Sabbath I love the Bible! In church, we are currently studying the DC, but will begin the Old Testament in January, for a year. Last year we studied the BoM, the year before, the New Testament. It is all scripture to us. We do not see the problems you see with the BoM. It is 100% compatible with the Bible--you just have to have the perspective we have. You have to first believe, even if just a little bit, and faith will grow within you, to take over you whole soul, Dean. cd: The Lord rebuke you Blain for such a evil suggestion. May God kill me before something that dark takes over my soul. In a message dated 12/19/2005 4:40:06 A.M. Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: - Original Message - From: To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 12/18/2005 11:05:09 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Saturday Sabbath Just another little disagreement as to what conclusions can be reached in reading a particular passage in the Bible. Blainerb cd: The bible say to study to show thyself approved. Some passages must be studied-I see no problem here-you bias against the Bible is showing Blain-better cover it.
Re: [TruthTalk] Saturday Sabbath
cd: John Rom.14 again is speaking of eating certain food on feast days called Holy Days and to not judge you brother for eating certain foods -read the entire verse and tell me how many times food, or eating,or drinking is mention in that chapter? It is mentioned 19 times John-now tell me what does the Sabbath (sat) have to do with eating?Yet eating has a important role in the Feasts of Isreal.Use logic and the answer will come. - Original Message - From: To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org;TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 12/19/2005 1:06:46 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Saturday Sabbath Romans 14 puts to an end this argument. -- Original message -- From: "Marlin halverson" [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Over one hundred years ago the Catholic Mirror ran a series of articles discussing the right of the Protestant churches to worship on Sunday. The articles stressed that unless one was willing to accept the authority of the Catholic Church to designate the day of worship, the Christian should observe Saturday. Those articles are presented here in their entirety." http://www.cbcg.org/rome's_challenge.htm Photo copyright 1914 by Underwood Underwood
Re: [TruthTalk] Saturday Sabbath/Other lost Israelite sheep
- Original Message - From: To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 12/19/2005 10:13:45 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Saturday Sabbath/Other lost Israelite sheep JD was just stating a biblical truth, Dean. Jesus said several times he was sent to the house of Israel ONLY!!! He never went to the Gentiles. His apostles did that. But he did visit the Israelite branches in the Americas and the isles of the sea--these werehis "other sheep." And because the visit was in person, they heard his voice. Blainerb cd: Jesus didn't stay he wasn't here for the Gentiles-He said that he was here first for the Jews-and later the gentiles upon the Jews rejection. Jew spoke to and healed many gentiles. The Samaritan woman at the well was one of those he preached to-there were many others.The other sheep mentioned were gentiles-there were no Jews in early Americas only Indians which migrated from the south eastern part of Asia-DNA has proved this to be true. Also the lack of artifacts and language singularizes proves this did not happen. You have be deceived Blaine. In a message dated 12/19/2005 4:42:06 A.M. Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Blainerb: VERY GOOD, jd!! Jesus said several times he was sentonly to the House of Israel, which is why he even went to the Samaritans, many of whom had Jewish bloodlines. That being concluded, what do you think when he said, "Other sheep I have which are not of this fold, and they too I must visit, and they too must Hear My Voice!" cd: Is John and the LDS in agreement now? In a message dated 12/17/2005 3:25:29 P.M. Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Christ's physical ministry was to the Jew, only. He lived under the law and was the fulfillment of that law. In Him is the end of the law.
Re: [TruthTalk] Saturday Sabbath
Weren't we talking about holy day obsevances? You have added a traditional point of view to the text, which is fine, but it is a tradition I do not accept. Paul is dealing with Jewish issues in Romans 14, which would include the Sabbath. That opinion is a tradition as well.But I believe the context supports the point since the Jews are clearly a major consideration of Paul. Butthanks for you comments. jd -- Original message -- From: "Dean Moore" [EMAIL PROTECTED] cd: John Rom.14 again is speaking of eating certain food on feast days called Holy Days and to not judge you brother for eating certain foods -read the entire verse and tell me how many times food, or eating,or drinking is mention in that chapter? It is mentioned 19 times John-now tell me what does the Sabbath (sat) have to do with eating?Yet eating has a important role in the Feasts of Isreal.Use logic and the answer will come. - Original Message - From: To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org;TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 12/19/2005 1:06:46 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Saturday Sabbath Romans 14 puts to an end this argument. -- Original message -- From: "Marlin halverson" [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Over one hundred years ago the Catholic Mirror ran a series of articles discussing the right of the Protestant churches to worship on Sunday. The articles stressed that unless one was willing to accept the authority of the Catholic Church to designate the day of worship, the Christian should observe Saturday. Those articles are presented here in their entirety." http://www.cbcg.org/rome's_challenge.htm Photo copyright 1914 by Underwood Underwood
Re: [TruthTalk] Saturday Sabbath
- Original Message - From: To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 12/18/2005 11:05:09 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Saturday Sabbath Just another little disagreement as to what conclusions can be reached in reading a particular passage in the Bible. Blainerb cd: The bible say to study to show thyself approved. Some passages must be studied-I see no problem here-you bias against the Bible is showing Blain-better cover it. In a message dated 12/17/2005 3:10:10 P.M. Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Dean, the words of Romans 14 eliminates all holy days. To escape this conclusion, one must add some sort of contextual consideration.Such is perfectedly permissible ... the larger context of a passage is always an important consideration. But, your conclusions regarding the observance of the sabbath is based upon this contextual consideration and not upon the literal wording of the passage. You could be right BUT not necessarily. Agreed? So there is room for disagreement on this issue (?) jd cd:If Romans 14 eliminates all Holy Days why then did Christ and Paul keep those Holy Days? Why did the early Christians keep the Sat. Sabb. and honor the first day?On considering the Contextual meaning relating of the passage in Question one must insert the passage into the context of the entirechapter or the meaning of the passage will be lost-and once that is done insert the chapter into the entire Bible. The context of thechapter deals with eating herbs or meats on Holy days and to not judge ones brother if they eat herbs or eat other foods. No where in the context of this passage does it mention the Sabbath-it is speaking of the Feasts of Israel (ie called Holy Days). Is there not a Commentary available for you or Terry to research?If not E-Sword is a good starting place.Your argument would be better fought using Col 2:6. Romans 14:5 Is teaching us to be fully persuaded that there is not sin involved-breaking a commandment is sin therefore the Sabbath is obligatory.
Re: [TruthTalk] Saturday Sabbath
- Original Message - From: To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 12/18/2005 11:12:43 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Saturday Sabbath Blainerb: VERY GOOD, jd!! Jesus said several times he was sentonly to the House of Israel, which is why he even went to the Samaritans, many of whom had Jewish bloodlines. That being concluded, what do you think when he said, "Other sheep I have which are not of this fold, and they too I must visit, and they too must Hear My Voice!" cd: Is John and the LDS in agreement now? In a message dated 12/17/2005 3:25:29 P.M. Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Christ's physical ministry was to the Jew, only. He lived under the law and was the fulfillment of that law. In Him is the end of the law. As to Paul, it is Paul who writes against holy days. Why did he continue to keep them (and I believe he kept ALL of them) : he became all things to all men that by all means he might save some. He was a Jew to the Jews, and a Gentile to the Gentiles. jd
Re: [TruthTalk] Saturday Sabbath
In a message dated 12/17/2005 3:25:29 P.M. Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Christ's physical ministry was to the Jew, only. He lived under the law and was the fulfillment of that law. In Him is the end of the law. In Him is no such thing. God's law has not gone anywhere. In fact according to the apostle John who writes under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit in the New Testament "SIN IS THE TRANSGRESSION OF THE LAW" So how can one transgress against something that is ended? Or are you saying that nobody sins anymore since you have proclaimed the end of the law? judyt He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His Commandments is a liar (1 John 2:4)
Re: [TruthTalk] Saturday Sabbath
cd: Is John and the LDS in agreement now? You might actually try reading some of my posts rather than sitting there trying to come up with something cute to say. Refer to my 8 point post comparing Mormonism to Christianity and you will have your answer.
RE: [TruthTalk] Saturday Sabbath
Oooh, Judy, good point! iz From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Judy Taylor Sent: Monday, December 19, 2005 5:52 AM To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Saturday Sabbath In a message dated 12/17/2005 3:25:29 P.M. Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Christ's physical ministry was to the Jew, only. He lived under the law and was the fulfillment of that law. In Him is the end of the law. In Him is no such thing. God's law has not gone anywhere. In fact according to the apostle John who writes under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit in the New Testament SIN IS THE TRANSGRESSION OF THE LAW So how can one transgress against something that is ended? Or are you saying that nobody sins anymore since you have proclaimed the end of the law? judyt He that says I know Him and doesn't keep His Commandments is a liar (1 John 2:4)
Re: [TruthTalk] Saturday Sabbath
Keeping the law has never saved anyone, girls. The law has value in that it shows us (to some extent) what sin is. We no longer offer a sacrifice because Jesus was our sacrifice. If that part of the law has been fulfilled, then all the law has been fulfilled. The shed blood of Jesus was far more valuable than the blood of any sacrifice you can think of or all the sacrifices ever offered stacked on an alter together. The law is history, and history only has value as a teacher. Look at the verse you post in every missive, Judy. He that says, "I know Him", and doesn't keep HIS commandments is a liar. The two laws given by Jesus are HIS commands. The old law allowed you to hate your enemy. The new law requires you to love him. Now you know. What are you going to do about it? If the love is there, let it show, 'cause right now, Judy, I Truly wish I could see it in you and I cannot, no matter how hard I try. I know it hurts you to read this, but it needed to be said. I hope you will examine yourself before you reply, then, when you are done, feel free to examine me. I am sure I have faults that I cannot see either. Terry ShieldsFamily wrote: Oooh, Judy, good point! iz From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Judy Taylor Sent: Monday, December 19, 2005 5:52 AM To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Saturday Sabbath In a message dated 12/17/2005 3:25:29 P.M. Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Christ's physical ministry was to the Jew, only. He lived under the law and was the fulfillment of that law. In Him is the end of the law. In Him is no such thing. God's law has not gone anywhere. In fact according to the apostle John who writes under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit in the New Testament "SIN IS THE TRANSGRESSION OF THE LAW" So how can one transgress against something that is ended? Or are you saying that nobody sins anymore since you have proclaimed the end of the law? judyt He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His Commandments is a liar (1 John 2:4)
Re: [TruthTalk] Saturday Sabbath
Terry wrote: The old law allowed you to hate your enemy. When you say, old law, are you talking about the Torah of Moses? Where does it allow anyone to hate anybody? I don't see how this is possible because Jesus said that those who love God and love their neighbor fulfill the requirements of the Torah of Moses. Do you mean that the Torah was more permissible than the New Covenant, for example, allowing for divorce whereas Jesus did not? Is that what you are talking about? Please consider the following passage from Torah: Leviticus 19:17 (17) Thou shalt not hate thy brother in thine heart: thou shalt in any wise rebuke thy neighbour, and not suffer sin upon him. Peace be with you. David Miller. -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
Re: [TruthTalk] Saturday Sabbath
David: You may have addressed the 'letter' of Terry's post but, might you have missed it's spirit? No, I don't believe this needs any clarification. - Original Message - From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: December 19, 2005 11:20 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Saturday Sabbath Terry wrote: The old law allowed you to hate your enemy. When you say, old law, are you talking about the Torah of Moses? Where does it allow anyone to hate anybody? I don't see how this is possible because Jesus said that those who love God and love their neighbor fulfill the requirements of the Torah of Moses. Do you mean that the Torah was more permissible than the New Covenant, for example, allowing for divorce whereas Jesus did not? Is that what you are talking about? Please consider the following passage from Torah: Leviticus 19:17 (17) Thou shalt not hate thy brother in thine heart: thou shalt in any wise rebuke thy neighbour, and not suffer sin upon him. Peace be with you. David Miller. -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed. -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
Re: [TruthTalk] Saturday Sabbath
I was not talking about divorce or brothers or neighbors.. I was talking about enemies. David Miller wrote: Terry wrote: The old law allowed you to hate your enemy. When you say, "old law," are you talking about the Torah of Moses? Where does it allow anyone to hate anybody? I don't see how this is possible because Jesus said that those who love God and love their neighbor fulfill the requirements of the Torah of Moses. Do you mean that the Torah was more permissible than the New Covenant, for example, allowing for divorce whereas Jesus did not? Is that what you are talking about? Please consider the following passage from Torah: Leviticus 19:17 (17) Thou shalt not hate thy brother in thine heart: thou shalt in any wise rebuke thy neighbour, and not suffer sin upon him. Peace be with you. David Miller. -- "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
Re: [TruthTalk] Saturday Sabbath
I'm talking about God's moral law Terri and Jesus did
not negate any of that. The ceremonial law was for
the Levitical priesthood which has passed away.
He is now our Prophet, Priest, and King. Jesus Commandments
are the Spirit of the Law which as you say is based on
Love, but then so is God's moral law. Most of the
10 Commandments are basically the Golden
Rule.
Terry, please tell me. If you could see the love
in me - what would it look like? Can you describe it please?
judyt
On Mon, 19 Dec 2005 09:53:35 -0600 Terry Clifton [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
Keeping the law has never saved anyone, girls. The law has value in
that it shows us (to some extent) what sin is. We no longer offer a
sacrifice because Jesus was our sacrifice. If that part of the law has
been fulfilled, then all the law has been fulfilled. The shed blood of
Jesus was far more valuable than the blood of any sacrifice you can think of
or all the sacrifices ever offered stacked on an alter together. The law
is history, and history only has value as a teacher. Look at the verse
you post in every missive, Judy. He that says, "I know Him", and
doesn't keep HIS commandments is a
liar. The two laws given by Jesus are HIS commands. The
old law allowed you to hate your enemy. The new law requires you to love
him. Now you know. What are you going to do about it? If the
love is there, let it show, 'cause right now, Judy, I Truly wish I could see
it in you and I cannot, no matter how hard I try. I know it hurts
you to read this, but it needed to be said. I hope you will examine
yourself before you reply, then, when you are done, feel free to examine
me. I am sure I have faults that I cannot see
either.TerryShieldsFamily wrote:
Oooh, Judy,
good point! iz
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
On Behalf Of Judy
TaylorSent: Monday,
December 19, 2005 5:52 AMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgCc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Saturday
Sabbath
In a message dated
12/17/2005 3:25:29 P.M. Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
Christ's
physical ministry was to the Jew, only. He lived under the
law and was the fulfillment of that law. In Him
is the end of the law.
In Him
is no such thing. God's law has
not gone anywhere. In fact according to the apostle John who
writes under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit in the New
Testament "SIN IS THE TRANSGRESSION OF THE LAW"
So how can one transgress against something
that is ended? Or are you saying that nobody sins anymore since
you have proclaimed the end of the law?
judyt
He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His
Commandments
is a liar (1 John 2:4)
judyt
He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His
Commandments
is a liar (1 John 2:4)
Re: [TruthTalk] Saturday Sabbath
Terry wrote: I was not talking about divorce or brothers or neighbors.. I was talking about enemies. Again, when you say, old law, are you talking about the law of Moses? What old law allows a person to hate their enemies? I hope you are not talking about the Torah. Peace be with you. David Miller. -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
Re: [TruthTalk] Saturday Sabbath
Lance wrote: You may have addressed the 'letter' of Terry's post but, might you have missed it's spirit? I did not miss it's spirit. I agree with that and see no reason to respond to it. It stands fine on its own. We all need to be provoked to love one another more fervently. The idea, however, that the law has been done away does not agree with all of Scripture. The idea that the law allows one to hate their enemies seems problematic to me. Maybe he means that the law is not strong enough in condemning the hatred of enemies? I'm just asking for clarification. Do you know anywhere that the law allows one to hate their enemies? I think the law preaches love just as Jesus did. Both the commands to love God and love your neighbor are found in the Torah. These are the two greatest commandments of Torah, and all of Torah hinges upon these two commandments according to Jesus. All the so-called ceremonial laws also hinge on these two commandments. Peace be with you. David Miller. -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
Re: [TruthTalk] Saturday Sabbath
Romans 14 puts to an end this argument. -- Original message -- From: "Marlin halverson" [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Over one hundred years ago the Catholic Mirror ran a series of articles discussing the right of the Protestant churches to worship on Sunday. The articles stressed that unless one was willing to accept the authority of the Catholic Church to designate the day of worship, the Christian should observe Saturday. Those articles are presented here in their entirety." http://www.cbcg.org/rome's_challenge.htm Photo copyright 1914 by Underwood Underwood ---BeginMessage--- attachment: image001.jpg ---End Message---
Re: [TruthTalk] Saturday Sabbath
I am sorry Judy. It pains me to say it, but I do not see any love in you. I see an intense desire to be right and I see at least a tendency to condemn those who do not see it as you do. I hope that love is there. I hope I am just blind to it and do not see it because of my inability. I thought you should know that if it is there, I cannot see it, because others may have the same problem. Thanks for clearing up your perceptions of the remaining law. Terry Judy Taylor wrote: I'm talking about God's moral law Terri and Jesus did not negate any of that. The ceremonial law was for the Levitical priesthood which has passed away. He is now our Prophet, Priest, and King. Jesus Commandments are the Spirit of the Law which as you say is based on Love, but then so is God's moral law. Most of the 10 Commandments are basically the Golden Rule. Terry, please tell me. If you could see the love in me - what would it look like? Can you describe it please? judyt On Mon, 19 Dec 2005 09:53:35 -0600 Terry Clifton [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Keeping the law has never saved anyone, girls. The law has value in that it shows us (to some extent) what sin is. We no longer offer a sacrifice because Jesus was our sacrifice. If that part of the law has been fulfilled, then all the law has been fulfilled. The shed blood of Jesus was far more valuable than the blood of any sacrifice you can think of or all the sacrifices ever offered stacked on an alter together. The law is history, and history only has value as a teacher. Look at the verse you post in every missive, Judy. He that says, "I know Him", and doesn't keep HIS commandments is a liar. The two laws given by Jesus are HIS commands. The old law allowed you to hate your enemy. The new law requires you to love him. Now you know. What are you going to do about it? If the love is there, let it show, 'cause right now, Judy, I Truly wish I could see it in you and I cannot, no matter how hard I try. I know it hurts you to read this, but it needed to be said. I hope you will examine yourself before you reply, then, when you are done, feel free to examine me. I am sure I have faults that I cannot see either. Terry ShieldsFamily wrote: Oooh, Judy, good point! iz From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Judy Taylor Sent: Monday, December 19, 2005 5:52 AM To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Saturday Sabbath In a message dated 12/17/2005 3:25:29 P.M. Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Christ's physical ministry was to the Jew, only. He lived under the law and was the fulfillment of that law. In Him is the end of the law. In Him is no such thing. God's law has not gone anywhere. In fact according to the apostle John who writes under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit in the New Testament "SIN IS THE TRANSGRESSION OF THE LAW" So how can one transgress against something that is ended? Or are you saying that nobody sins anymore since you have proclaimed the end of the law? judyt He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His Commandments is a liar (1 John 2:4) judyt He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His Commandments is a liar (1 John 2:4)
Re: [TruthTalk] Saturday Sabbath
That is exactly what I am talking about, David. Jesus said "You have heard it said that you should love your neighbor and hate your enemy, but I tell you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you." Jesus is saying to change. Stop doing it the way you have been taught. I have a better way. Why did the Jews teach this? Look at Leviticus 19:18. It forbids hard feelings or bad brhavior toward your neighbor, but there is nothing there about the enemy. If you doubt that, look at Samson. He killed a thousand enemies with the jawbone of an ass. After he had killed nine hundred and ninety- nine, don't you think the thousanth one asked for mercy? Don't you think Samson could have taken him prisoner instead of taking his life. Look at King Saul. God was with him until he showed mercy to an enemy king. I know that somewhere in proverbs we are told to feed our ememy, but the reason given is not love. David Miller wrote: Terry wrote: I was not talking about divorce or brothers or neighbors.. I was talking about enemies. Again, when you say, "old law," are you talking about the law of Moses? What "old law" allows a person to hate their enemies? I hope you are not talking about the Torah. Peace be with you. David Miller. -- "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
Re: [TruthTalk] Saturday Sabbath
I love the Bible! In church, we are currently studying the DC, but will begin the Old Testament in January, for a year. Last year we studied the BoM, the year before, the New Testament. It is all scripture to us. We do not see the problems you see with the BoM. It is 100% compatible with the Bible--you just have to have the perspective we have. You have to first believe, even if just a little bit, and faith will grow within you, to take over you whole soul, Dean. In a message dated 12/19/2005 4:40:06 A.M. Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: - Original Message - From: To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 12/18/2005 11:05:09 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Saturday Sabbath Just another little disagreement as to what conclusions can be reached in reading a particular passage in the Bible. Blainerb cd: The bible say to study to show thyself approved. Some passages must be studied-I see no problem here-you bias against the Bible is showing Blain-better cover it.
Re: [TruthTalk] Saturday Sabbath/Other lost Israelite sheep
JD was just stating a biblical truth, Dean. Jesus said several times he was sent to the house of Israel ONLY!!! He never went to the Gentiles. His apostles did that. But he did visit the Israelite branches in the Americas and the isles of the sea--these werehis "other sheep." And because the visit was in person, they heard his voice. Blainerb In a message dated 12/19/2005 4:42:06 A.M. Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Blainerb: VERY GOOD, jd!! Jesus said several times he was sentonly to the House of Israel, which is why he even went to the Samaritans, many of whom had Jewish bloodlines. That being concluded, what do you think when he said, "Other sheep I have which are not of this fold, and they too I must visit, and they too must Hear My Voice!" cd: Is John and the LDS in agreement now? In a message dated 12/17/2005 3:25:29 P.M. Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Christ's physical ministry was to the Jew, only. He lived under the law and was the fulfillment of that law. In Him is the end of the law.
Re: [TruthTalk] Saturday Sabbath
- Original Message - From: Terry Clifton To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 12/17/2005 8:04:43 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Saturday Sabbath Dean Moore wrote: As for the Commandments being only for the Jews you are wrong-dead wrong. The ceremonial law (ie. the Holy Feast days),the Priestly law ,and the dietary law are non- binding to Christians but this does not include the commandments.Terry you need to learn these distinctions.Consider the forth Commandment and the obligation the stranger within the gates had in keeping it-Exod.20:10-these strangers were gentiles.How can you overlook 1JN 2:4-Judy puts that passage on all her postings? Leviticus 27:34 THESE are the commandments which the Lord commanded Moses for the children of Israel! That is not me, Dean. I am not a Jew. I have two commandments, given to me by my Savior. "Love God more than anything or anybody, and love others as myself." Absolutely nothing in there about Saturday or Wednesday, or holiday or rainy day. I can even eat pork and shrimp and rabbit and all that stuff that is against the law for Isrealites. I have great freedom along with great responsibility. Please don't load me up with stuff that was never meant for me. No Jew except Christ has ever kept the law. What makes you think I could? Terry cd Actually Terry I am trying to free you from error-and release you from false teachings but as you are determined -I honor you request-and will not decuss this subject with you any longer-if you want to jump back in this discussion feel free to do so.
RE: [TruthTalk] Saturday Sabbath
So now we are full circlethis is about how it ended up when I was discussing it, too, Dean. Nice try, and thank you. izzy cd Actually Terry I am trying to free you from error-and release you from false teachings but as you are determined -I honor you request-and will not decuss this subject with you any longer-if you want to jump back in this discussion feel free to do so.
RE: [TruthTalk] Saturday Sabbath
- Original Message - From: ShieldsFamily To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 12/18/2005 12:29:58 PM Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Saturday Sabbath So now we are full circlethis is about how it ended up when I was discussing it, too, Dean. Nice try, and thank you. izzy cd: This is not the end rather it is the beginning:-) cd Actually Terry I am trying to free you from error-and release you from false teachings but as you are determined -I honor you request-and will not decuss this subject with you any longer-if you want to jump back in this discussion feel free to do so.
Re: [TruthTalk] Saturday Sabbath
Just another little disagreement as to what conclusions can be reached in reading a particular passage in the Bible. Blainerb In a message dated 12/17/2005 3:10:10 P.M. Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Dean, the words of Romans 14 eliminates all holy days. To escape this conclusion, one must add some sort of contextual consideration.Such is perfectedly permissible ... the larger context of a passage is always an important consideration. But, your conclusions regarding the observance of the sabbath is based upon this contextual consideration and not upon the literal wording of the passage. You could be right BUT not necessarily. Agreed? So there is room for disagreement on this issue (?) jd cd:If Romans 14 eliminates all Holy Days why then did Christ and Paul keep those Holy Days? Why did the early Christians keep the Sat. Sabb. and honor the first day?On considering the Contextual meaning relating of the passage in Question one must insert the passage into the context of the entirechapter or the meaning of the passage will be lost-and once that is done insert the chapter into the entire Bible. The context of thechapter deals with eating herbs or meats on Holy days and to not judge ones brother if they eat herbs or eat other foods. No where in the context of this passage does it mention the Sabbath-it is speaking of the Feasts of Israel (ie called Holy Days). Is there not a Commentary available for you or Terry to research?If not E-Sword is a good starting place.Your argument would be better fought using Col 2:6. Romans 14:5 Is teaching us to be fully persuaded that there is not sin involved-breaking a commandment is sin therefore the Sabbath is obligatory.
Re: [TruthTalk] Saturday Sabbath
Blainerb: VERY GOOD, jd!! Jesus said several times he was sentonly to the House of Israel, which is why he even went to the Samaritans, many of whom had Jewish bloodlines. That being concluded, what do you think when he said, "Other sheep I have which are not of this fold, and they too I must visit, and they too must Hear My Voice!" In a message dated 12/17/2005 3:25:29 P.M. Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Christ's physical ministry was to the Jew, only. He lived under the law and was the fulfillment of that law. In Him is the end of the law. As to Paul, it is Paul who writes against holy days. Why did he continue to keep them (and I believe he kept ALL of them) : he became all things to all men that by all means he might save some. He was a Jew to the Jews, and a Gentile to the Gentiles. jd
Re: [TruthTalk] Saturday Sabbath
- Original Message - From: Terry Clifton To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 12/16/2005 9:30:38 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Saturday Sabbath Romans 14:4-6 Who are you to judge another man's servant? To his own master he stands or falls..One person esteems one day above another; another esteems every day alike. Let each be fully convinced in his own mind.You seem to be convinced, Iz, that you need to keep the Sabbath, therefore you should do so. I have no such conviction, so I do not. You esteem one day over another, I do not. That seem scriptural to you? Terry-I realize this letter was written to Izzy but I would like to add input to better understand -or to learn more-of God's word. 1. The above verse does not by any means take away the obligation of keeping Gods 4 th commandment-it is a commandment of Perpetual obligation,"Remember the Sabbath Day and keep it Holy "as God sanctified it-and nowhere in the Bible is it shown to have been done away with by the introduction of Christianity. Are you unsatisfying this day with your use of Romans 14:4-6? Did Jesus tell the rich young ruler that to enter heaven-one must keep the commandments but not the 4th? Does John 2 :4 State that He that saith, I know him and keepeth not his commandments, EXCEPT THE SABBATH COMMANDMENT ,is a liar, and the truth is not in him? Surelyit does no such thing. 2. No where in this verse is the Sabbath day even mentioned-it is making reference to the feasts days-and tell each" to be fullypersuaded in his own mind" if the thing he does is lawful or not because the Jews added many restrictions to the new Moon Days or "Feast Day". Adam Clark and John Wesley both agree with this. Upon being "fully persuaded" that the thing one does is lawful of not-one would have to view the breaking of The4th Commandment as unlawful.Consider Romans 14:3 " Let him eateth not judge him that eateth" If this is referring to the Sabbath then one must conclude that it is wrong to eat on the Sabbath that no longer exists? The Jews demandedrestrictions on certain foodonThe feast Day(s)-see Romans 14:2. 3. If one can decides by their "convictions which commandments should be kept then they would no longer be 11 commandments but rather 11 choices and this would also allow the luke warmers to break God's law without judgement as they only have to live by their "convictions" and without the ability to listening to that "still small voice" one convictions would be overruled by the desires of the fleshthat luke warmers follow anyway. Why then would there be any need for the Word of God as we would not need it as we have private convictions to do what is right in each mans own eyes. Thank God for teaching us to observe his word as to fine tune our convictions unto submission to His word as there is no truth apart from God. If you Terry are "convicted" that one should either eat herbs or meat on the feast Days then don't use this small giving liberty to encourage other to break God's Commandment-nor do so yourself. Isa 66:22-24 shows the keeping of the Sabbath follows into heaven-are you saying that in that Holy place it is co ntinued but not here where it is needed most..
Re: [TruthTalk] Saturday Sabbath
Dean Moore wrote: - Original Message - From: Terry Clifton To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 12/16/2005 9:30:38 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Saturday Sabbath Romans 14:4-6 Who are you to judge another man's servant? To his own master he stands or falls..One person esteems one day above another; another esteems every day alike. Let each be fully convinced in his own mind. You seem to be convinced, Iz, that you need to keep the Sabbath, therefore you should do so. I have no such conviction, so I do not. You esteem one day over another, I do not. That seem scriptural to you? Terry-I realize this letter was written to Izzy but I would like to add input to better understand -or to learn more-of God's word. 1. The above verse does not by any means take away the obligation of keeping Gods 4 th commandment-it is a commandment of Perpetual obligation,"Remember the Sabbath Day and keep it Holy "as God sanctified it-and nowhere in the Bible is it shown to have been done away with by the introduction of Christianity. Are you unsatisfying this day with your use of Romans 14:4-6? Did Jesus tell the rich young ruler that to enter heaven-one must keep the commandments but not the 4th? Does John 2 :4 State that He that saith, I know him and keepeth not his commandments, EXCEPT THE SABBATH COMMANDMENT ,is a liar, and the truth is not in him? Surelyit does no such thing. 2. No where in this verse is the Sabbath day even mentioned-it is making reference to the feasts days-and tell each" to be fullypersuaded in his own mind" if the thing he does is lawful or not because the Jews added many restrictions to the new Moon Days or "Feast Day". Adam Clark and John Wesley both agree with this. Upon being "fully persuaded" that the thing one does is lawful of not-one would have to view the breaking of The4th Commandment as unlawful.Consider Romans 14:3 " Let him eateth not judge him that eateth" If this is referring to the Sabbath then one must conclude that it is wrong to eat on the Sabbath that no longer exists? The Jews demandedrestrictions on certain foodonThe feast Day(s)-see Romans 14:2. 3. If one can decides by their "convictions which commandments should be kept then they would no longer be 11 commandments but rather 11 choices and this would also allow the luke warmers to break God's law without judgement as they only have to live by their "convictions" and without the ability to listening to that "still small voice" one convictions would be overruled by the desires of the fleshthat luke warmers follow anyway. Why then would there be any need for the Word of God as we would not need it as we have private convictions to do what is right in each mans own eyes. Thank God for teaching us to observe his word as to fine tune our convictions unto submission to His word as there is no truth apart from God. If you Terry are "convicted" that one should either eat herbs or meat on the feast Days then don't use this small giving liberty to encourage other to break God's Commandment-nor do so yourself. Isa 66:22-24 shows the keeping of the Sabbath follows into heaven-are you saying that in that Holy place it is co ntinued but not here where it is needed most.. === I appreciate your trying to help me Dean, but I do not agree. Terry
Re: [TruthTalk] Saturday Sabbath
Dean, the words of Romans 14 eliminates all holy days. To escape this conclusion, one must add some sort of contextual consideration.Such is perfectedly permissible ... the larger context of a passage is always an important consideration. But, your conclusions regarding the observance of the sabbath is based upon this contextual consideration and not upon the literal wording of the passage. You could be right BUT not necessarily. Agreed? So there is room for disagreement on this issue (?) jd -- Original message -- From: "Dean Moore" [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Original Message - From: Terry Clifton To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 12/16/2005 9:30:38 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Saturday Sabbath Romans 14:4-6 Who are you to judge another man's servant? To his own master he stands or falls..One person esteems one day above another; another esteems every day alike. Let each be fully convinced in his own mind.You seem to be convinced, Iz, that you need to keep the Sabbath, therefore you should do so. I have no such conviction, so I do not. You esteem one day over another, I do not. That seem scriptural to you? Terry-I realize this letter was written to Izzy but I would like to add input to better understand -or to learn more-of God's word. 1. The above verse does not by any means take away the obligation of keeping Gods 4 th commandment-it is a commandment of Perpetual obligation,"Remember the Sabbath Day and keep it Holy "as God sanctified it-and nowhere in the Bible is it shown to have been done away with by the introduction of Christianity. Are you unsatisfying this day with your use of Romans 14:4-6? Did Jesus tell the rich young ruler that to enter heaven-one must keep the commandments but not the 4th? Does John 2 :4 State that He that saith, I know him and keepeth not his commandments, EXCEPT THE SABBATH COMMANDMENT ,is a liar, and the truth is not in him? Surelyit does no such thing. 2. No where in this verse is the Sabbath day even mentioned-it is making reference to the feasts days-and tell each" to be fullypersuaded in his own mind" if the thing he does is lawful or not because the Jews added many restrictions to the new Moon Days or "Feast Day". Adam Clark and John Wesley both agree with this. Upon being "fully persuaded" that the thing one does is lawful of not-one would have to view the breaking of The4th Commandment as unlawful.Consider Romans 14:3 " Let him eateth not judge him that eateth" If this is referring to the Sabbath then one must conclude that it is wrong to eat on the Sabbath that no longer exists? The Jews demandedrestrictions on certain foodonThe feast Day(s)-see Romans 14:2. 3. If one can decides by their "convictions which commandments should be kept then they would no longer be 11 commandments but rather 11 choices and this would also allow the luke warmers to break God's law without judgement as they only have to live by their "convictions" and without the ability to listening to that "still small voice" one convictions would be overruled by the desires of the fleshthat luke warmers follow anyway. Why then would there be any need for the Word of God as we would not need it as we have private convictions to do what is right in each mans own eyes. Thank God for teaching us to observe his word as to fine tune our convictions unto submission to His word as there is no truth apart from God. If you Terry are "convicted" that one should either eat herbs or meat on the feast Days then don't use this small giving liberty to encourage other to break God's Commandment-nor do so yourself. Isa 66:22-24 shows the keeping of the Sabbath follows into heaven-are you saying that in that Holy place it is co ntinued but not here where it is needed most..
Re: [TruthTalk] Saturday Sabbath
- Original Message - From: Terry Clifton To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 12/17/2005 1:19:38 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Saturday Sabbath Dean Moore wrote: - Original Message - From: Terry Clifton To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 12/16/2005 9:30:38 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Saturday Sabbath Romans 14:4-6 Who are you to judge another man's servant? To his own master he stands or falls..One person esteems one day above another; another esteems every day alike. Let each be fully convinced in his own mind.You seem to be convinced, Iz, that you need to keep the Sabbath, therefore you should do so. I have no such conviction, so I do not. You esteem one day over another, I do not. That seem scriptural to you? Terry-I realize this letter was written to Izzy but I would like to add input to better understand -or to learn more-of God's word. 1. The above verse does not by any means take away the obligation of keeping Gods 4 th commandment-it is a commandment of Perpetual obligation,"Remember the Sabbath Day and keep it Holy "as God sanctified it-and nowhere in the Bible is it shown to have been done away with by the introduction of Christianity. Are you unsatisfying this day with your use of Romans 14:4-6? Did Jesus tell the rich young ruler that to enter heaven-one must keep the commandments but not the 4th? Does John 2 :4 State that He that saith, I know him and keepeth not his commandments, EXCEPT THE SABBATH COMMANDMENT ,is a liar, and the truth is not in him? Surelyit does no such thing. 2. No where in this verse is the Sabbath day even mentioned-it is making reference to the feasts days-and tell each" to be fullypersuaded in his own mind" if the thing he does is lawful or not because the Jews added many restrictions to the new Moon Days or "Feast Day". Adam Clark and John Wesley both agree with this. Upon being "fully persuaded" that the thing one does is lawful of not-one would have to view the breaking of The4th Commandment as unlawful.Consider Romans 14:3 " Let him eateth not judge him that eateth" If this is referring to the Sabbath then one must conclude that it is wrong to eat on the Sabbath that no longer exists? The Jews demandedrestrictions on certain foodonThe feast Day(s)-see Romans 14:2. 3. If one can decides by their "convictions which commandments should be kept then they would no longer be 11 commandments but rather 11 choices and this would also allow the luke warmers to break God's law without judgement as they only have to live by their "convictions" and without the ability to listening to that "still small voice" one convictions would be overruled by the desires of the fleshthat luke warmers follow anyway. Why then would there be any need for the Word of God as we would not need it as we have private convictions to do what is right in each mans own eyes. Thank God for teaching us to observe his word as to fine tune our convictions unto submission to His word as there is no truth apart from God. If you Terry are "convicted" that one should either eat herbs or meat on the feast Days then don't use this small giving liberty to encourage other to break God's Commandment-nor do so yourself. Isa 66:22-24 shows the keeping of the Sabbath follows into heaven-are you saying that in that Holy place it is co ntinued but not here where it is needed most..=== I appreciate your trying to help me Dean, but I do not agree.Terry cd: You do realize that this is the Bible I am quoting that you are disagreeing with?
Re: [TruthTalk] Saturday Sabbath
Dean Moore wrote: - Original Message - From: Terry Clifton To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 12/17/2005 1:19:38 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Saturday Sabbath Dean Moore wrote: - Original Message - From: Terry Clifton To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 12/16/2005 9:30:38 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Saturday Sabbath Romans 14:4-6 Who are you to judge another man's servant? To his own master he stands or falls..One person esteems one day above another; another esteems every day alike. Let each be fully convinced in his own mind. You seem to be convinced, Iz, that you need to keep the Sabbath, therefore you should do so. I have no such conviction, so I do not. You esteem one day over another, I do not. That seem scriptural to you? Terry-I realize this letter was written to Izzy but I would like to add input to better understand -or to learn more-of God's word. 1. The above verse does not by any means take away the obligation of keeping Gods 4 th commandment-it is a commandment of Perpetual obligation,"Remember the Sabbath Day and keep it Holy "as God sanctified it-and nowhere in the Bible is it shown to have been done away with by the introduction of Christianity. Are you unsatisfying this day with your use of Romans 14:4-6? Did Jesus tell the rich young ruler that to enter heaven-one must keep the commandments but not the 4th? Does John 2 :4 State that He that saith, I know him and keepeth not his commandments, EXCEPT THE SABBATH COMMANDMENT ,is a liar, and the truth is not in him? Surelyit does no such thing. 2. No where in this verse is the Sabbath day even mentioned-it is making reference to the feasts days-and tell each" to be fullypersuaded in his own mind" if the thing he does is lawful or not because the Jews added many restrictions to the new Moon Days or "Feast Day". Adam Clark and John Wesley both agree with this. Upon being "fully persuaded" that the thing one does is lawful of not-one would have to view the breaking of The4th Commandment as unlawful.Consider Romans 14:3 " Let him eateth not judge him that eateth" If this is referring to the Sabbath then one must conclude that it is wrong to eat on the Sabbath that no longer exists? The Jews demandedrestrictions on certain foodonThe feast Day(s)-see Romans 14:2. 3. If one can decides by their "convictions which commandments should be kept then they would no longer be 11 commandments but rather 11 choices and this would also allow the luke warmers to break God's law without judgement as they only have to live by their "convictions" and without the ability to listening to that "still small voice" one convictions would be overruled by the desires of the fleshthat luke warmers follow anyway. Why then would there be any need for the Word of God as we would not need it as we have private convictions to do what is right in each mans own eyes. Thank God for teaching us to observe his word as to fine tune our convictions unto submission to His word as there is no truth apart from God. If you Terry are "convicted" that one should either eat herbs or meat on the feast Days then don't use this small giving liberty to encourage other to break God's Commandment-nor do so yourself. Isa 66:22-24 shows the keeping of the Sabbath follows into heaven-are you saying that in that Holy place it is co ntinued but not here where it is needed most.. === I appreciate your trying to help me Dean, but I do not agree. Terry cd: You do realize that this is the Bible I am quoting that you are disagreeing with? I realize that the commandments were for the children of Israel. I was never under the law and am not under the law now. I have no obligation to keep the Sabbath. I am free from the law. Terry
Re: [TruthTalk] Saturday Sabbath
cd: You do realize that this is the Bible I am quoting that you are disagreeing with? Jd: the comments below are or should be of some value. It is safe to say, however, that Terry Cliffton is not disagreeing with scripture - only your understanding of scripture. I personally believe that Paul has in mind any holy day - and, most definitely the Sabbath. Christ is the end of the law. N.T. scriptures do not separate the "Law" into dietary, ceremonial and moral -- man does this. Your opinion cannot, therefore, be considered as being on the same levelas scripture, in this case. jd Dean, the words of Romans 14 eliminates all holy days. To escape this conclusion, one must add some sort of contextual consideration.Such is perfectedly permissible ... the larger context of a passage is always an important consideration. But, your conclusions regarding the observance of the sabbath is based upon this contextual consideration and not upon the literal wording of the passage. You could be right BUT not necessarily. Agreed? So there is room for disagreement on this issue (?) jd -- Original message -- From: "Dean Moore" [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Original Message - From: Terry Clifton To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 12/16/2005 9:30:38 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Saturday Sabbath Romans 14:4-6 Who are you to judge another man's servant? To his own master he stands or falls..One person esteems one day above another; another esteems every day alike. Let each be fully convinced in his own mind.You seem to be convinced, Iz, that you need to keep the Sabbath, therefore you should do so. I have no such conviction, so I do not. You esteem one day over another, I do not. That seem scriptural to you? Terry-I realize this letter was written to Izzy but I would like to add input to better understand -or to learn more-of God's word. 1. The above verse does not by any means take away the obligation of keeping Gods 4 th commandment-it is a commandment of Perpetual obligation,"Remember the Sabbath Day and keep it Holy "as God sanctified it-and nowhere in the Bible is it shown to have been done away with by the introduction of Christianity. Are you unsatisfying this day with your use of Romans 14:4-6? Did Jesus tell the rich young ruler that to enter heaven-one must keep the commandments but not the 4th? Does John 2 :4 State that He that saith, I know him and keepeth not his commandments, EXCEPT THE SABBATH COMMANDMENT ,is a liar, and the truth is not in him? Surelyit does no such thing. 2. No where in this verse is the Sabbath day even mentioned-it is making reference to the feasts days-and tell each" to be fullypersuaded in his own mind" if the thing he does is lawful or not because the Jews added many restrictions to the new Moon Days or "Feast Day". Adam Clark and John Wesley both agree with this. Upon being "fully persuaded" that the thing one does is lawful of not-one would have to view the breaking of The4th Commandment as unlawful.Consider Romans 14:3 " Let him eateth not judge him that eateth" If this is referring to the Sabbath then one must conclude that it is wrong to eat on the Sabbath that no longer exists? The Jews demandedrestrictions on certain foodonThe feast Day(s)-see Romans 14:2. 3. If one can decides by their "convictions which commandments should be kept then they would no longer be 11 commandments but rather 11 choices and this would also allow the luke warmers to break God's law without judgement as they only have to live by their "convictions" and without the ability to listening to that "still small voice" one convictions would be overruled by the desires of the fleshthat luke warmers follow anyway. Why then would there be any need for the Word of God as we would not need it as we have private convictions to do what is right in each mans own eyes. Thank God for teaching us to observe his word as to fine tune our convictions unto submission to His word as there is no truth apart from God. If you Terry are "convicted" that one should either eat herbs or meat on the feast Days then don't use this small giving liberty to encourage other to break God's Commandment-nor do so yourself. Isa 66:22-24 shows the keeping of the Sabbath follows into heaven-are you saying that in that Holy place it is co ntinued but not here where it is needed most..
Re: [TruthTalk] Saturday Sabbath
- Original Message - From: To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org;TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 12/17/2005 1:41:13 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Saturday Sabbath Dean, the words of Romans 14 eliminates all holy days. To escape this conclusion, one must add some sort of contextual consideration.Such is perfectedly permissible ... the larger context of a passage is always an important consideration. But, your conclusions regarding the observance of the sabbath is based upon this contextual consideration and not upon the literal wording of the passage. You could be right BUT not necessarily. Agreed? So there is room for disagreement on this issue (?) jd cd:If Romans 14 eliminates all Holy Days why then did Christ and Paul keep those Holy Days? Why did the early Christians keep the Sat. Sabb. and honor the first day?On considering the Contextual meaning relating of the passage in Question one must insert the passage into the context of the entirechapter or the meaning of the passage will be lost-and once that is done insert the chapter into the entire Bible. The context of thechapter deals with eating herbs or meats on Holy days and to not judge ones brother if they eat herbs or eat other foods. No where in the context of this passage does it mention the Sabbath-it is speaking of the Feasts of Israel (ie called Holy Days). Is there not a Commentary available for you or Terry to research?If not E-Sword is a good starting place.Your argument would be better fought using Col 2:6. Romans 14:5 Is teaching us to be fully persuaded that there is not sin involved-breaking a commandment is sin therefore the Sabbath is obligatory. -- Original message -- From: "Dean Moore" [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Original Message - From: Terry Clifton To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 12/16/2005 9:30:38 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Saturday Sabbath Romans 14:4-6 Who are you to judge another man's servant? To his own master he stands or falls..One person esteems one day above another; another esteems every day alike. Let each be fully convinced in his own mind.You seem to be convinced, Iz, that you need to keep the Sabbath, therefore you should do so. I have no such conviction, so I do not. You esteem one day over another, I do not. That seem scriptural to you? Terry-I realize this letter was written to Izzy but I would like to add input to better understand -or to learn more-of God's word. 1. The above verse does not by any means take away the obligation of keeping Gods 4 th commandment-it is a commandment of Perpetual obligation,"Remember the Sabbath Day and keep it Holy "as God sanctified it-and nowhere in the Bible is it shown to have been done away with by the introduction of Christianity. Are you unsatisfying this day with your use of Romans 14:4-6? Did Jesus tell the rich young ruler that to enter heaven-one must keep the commandments but not the 4th? Does John 2 :4 State that He that saith, I know him and keepeth not his commandments, EXCEPT THE SABBATH COMMANDMENT ,is a liar, and the truth is not in him? Surelyit does no such thing. 2. No where in this verse is the Sabbath day even mentioned-it is making reference to the feasts days-and tell each" to be fullypersuaded in his own mind" if the thing he does is lawful or not because the Jews added many restrictions to the new Moon Days or "Feast Day". Adam Clark and John Wesley both agree with this. Upon being "fully persuaded" that the thing one does is lawful of not-one would have to view the breaking of The4th Commandment as unlawful.Consider Romans 14:3 " Let him eateth not judge him that eateth" If this is referring to the Sabbath then one must conclude that it is wrong to eat on the Sabbath that no longer exists? The Jews demandedrestrictions on certain foodonThe feast Day(s)-see Romans 14:2. 3. If one can decides by their "convictions which commandments should be kept then they would no longer be 11 commandments but rather 11 choices and this would also allow the luke warmers to break God's law without judgement as they only have to live by their "convictions" and without the ability to listening to that "still small voice" one convictions would be overruled by the desires of the fleshthat luke warmers follow anyway. Why then would there be any need for the Word of God as we would not need it as we have private convictions to do what is right in each mans own eyes. Thank God for teaching us to observe his word as to fine tune our convictions unto submission to His word as there is no truth apart from God. If you Terry are "convicted" that one should either eat herbs or meat on the feast Days then don't use this small giving liberty to encourage other to break God's Commandment-nor do so yourself. Isa 66:22
Re: [TruthTalk] Saturday Sabbath
Christ's physical ministry was to the Jew, only. He lived under the law and was the fulfillment of that law. In Him is the end of the law. As to Paul, it is Paul who writes against holy days. Why did he continue to keep them (and I believe he kept ALL of them) : he became all things to all men that by all means he might save some. He was a Jew to the Jews, and a Gentile to the Gentiles. jd -- Original message -- From: "Dean Moore" [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Original Message - From: To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org;TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 12/17/2005 1:41:13 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Saturday Sabbath Dean, the words of Romans 14 eliminates all holy days. To escape this conclusion, one must add some sort of contextual consideration.Such is perfectedly permissible ... the larger context of a passage is always an important consideration. But, your conclusions regarding the observance of the sabbath is based upon this contextual consideration and not upon the literal wording of the passage. You could be right BUT not necessarily. Agreed? So there is room for disagreement on this issue (?) jd cd:If Romans 14 eliminates all Holy Days why then did Christ and Paul keep those Holy Days? Why did the early Christians keep the Sat. Sabb. and honor the first day?On considering the Contextual meaning relating of the passage in Question one must insert the passage into the context of the entirechapter or the meaning of the passage will be lost-and once that is done insert the chapter into the entire Bible. The context of thechapter deals with eating herbs or meats on Holy days and to not judge ones brother if they eat herbs or eat other foods. No where in the context of this passage does it mention the Sabbath-it is speaking of the Feasts of Israel (ie called Holy Days). Is there not a Commentary available for you or Terry to research?If not E-Sword is a good starting place.Your argument would be better fought using Col 2:6. Romans 14:5 Is teaching us to be fully persuaded that there is not sin involved-breaking a commandment is sin therefore the Sabbath is obligatory. -- Original message -- From: "Dean Moore" [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Original Message - From: Terry Clifton To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 12/16/2005 9:30:38 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Saturday Sabbath Romans 14:4-6 Who are you to judge another man's servant? To his own master he stands or falls..One person esteems one day above another; another esteems every day alike. Let each be fully convinced in his own mind.You seem to be convinced, Iz, that you need to keep the Sabbath, therefore you should do so. I have no such conviction, so I do not. You esteem one day over another, I do not. That seem scriptural to you? Terry-I realize this letter was written to Izzy but I would like to add input to better understand -or to learn more-of God's word. 1. The above verse does not by any means take away the obligation of keeping Gods 4 th commandment-it is a commandment of Perpetual obligation,"Remember the Sabbath Day and keep it Holy "as God sanctified it-and nowhere in the Bible is it shown to have been done away with by the introduction of Christianity. Are you unsatisfying this day with your use of Romans 14:4-6? Did Jesus tell the rich young ruler that to enter heaven-one must keep the commandments but not the 4th? Does John 2 :4 State that He that saith, I know him and keepeth not his commandments, EXCEPT THE SABBATH COMMANDMENT ,is a liar, and the truth is not in him? Surelyit does no such thing. 2. No where in this verse is the Sabbath day even mentioned-it is making reference to the feasts days-and tell each" to be fullypersuaded in his own mind" if the thing he does is lawful or not because the Jews added many restrictions to the new Moon Days or "Feast Day". Adam Clark and John Wesley both agree with this. Upon being "fully persuaded" that the thing one does is lawful of not-one would have to view the breaking of The4th Commandment as unlawful.Consider Romans 14:3 " Let him eateth not judge him that eateth" If this is referring to the Sabbath then one must conclude that it is wrong to eat on the Sabbath that no longer exists? The Jews demandedrestrictions on certain foodonThe feast Day(s)-see Romans 14:2. 3. If one can decides by their "convictions which commandments should be kept then they would no longer be 11 commandments but rather 11 choices and this would also allow the luke warmers to break God's law without judgement as they only have to live by their "convictions" and without the ability to listening to that "still small voice" one convictions would be overruled by the desires of the fleshthat luke warmers follow anyway. Why then wou
Re: [TruthTalk] Saturday Sabbath
Terry cd: You do realize that this is the Bible I am quoting that you are disagreeing with? I realize that the commandments were for the children of Israel. I was never under the law and am not under the law now. I have no obligation to keep the Sabbath. I am free from the law. Terry cd: Then why were you condemned to eternal death before salvation-as the breaking of the law condemns. Yes, we are above the law thru Christ but doesn't the Bible teach us that if we sin the full weight of the law falls back upon us.Why now is the law written on the hearts of all men-your too,why thenisitnot binding to you. You may not sin and be above the law but that does not mean the law doesn't exist for you-it is there waiting. 1 Cor 7:19 Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of God. As for the Commandments being only for the Jews you are wrong-dead wrong. The ceremonial law (ie. the Holy Feast days),the Priestly law ,and the dietary law are non- binding to Christians but this does not include the commandments.Terry you need to learn these distinctions.Consider the forth Commandment and the obligation the stranger within the gates had in keeping it-Exod.20:10-these strangers were gentiles.How can you overlook 1JN 2:4-Judy puts that passage on all her postings?
Re: [TruthTalk] Saturday Sabbath
Dean Moore wrote: As for the Commandments being only for the Jews you are wrong-dead wrong. The ceremonial law (ie. the Holy Feast days),the Priestly law ,and the dietary law are non- binding to Christians but this does not include the commandments.Terry you need to learn these distinctions.Consider the forth Commandment and the obligation the stranger within the gates had in keeping it-Exod.20:10-these strangers were gentiles.How can you overlook 1JN 2:4-Judy puts that passage on all her postings? Leviticus 27:34 THESE are the commandments which the Lord commanded Moses for the children of Israel! That is not me, Dean. I am not a Jew. I have two commandments, given to me by my Savior. "Love God more than anything or anybody, and love others as myself." Absolutely nothing in there about Saturday or Wednesday, or holiday or rainy day. I can even eat pork and shrimp and rabbit and all that stuff that is against the law for Isrealites. I have great freedom along with great responsibility. Please don't load me up with stuff that was never meant for me. No Jew except Christ has ever kept the law. What makes you think I could? Terry
Re: [TruthTalk] Saturday Sabbath
In a message dated 12/15/2005 8:12:57 A.M. Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Please tell us your view of resting on the Saturday Sabbath. I hesitate to bring up the subject because of such stinking attitudes from some on TT. iz Blainerb: I think the Saturday Sabbath is great, more power to anyone who keeps a Sabbath of any kind, providing they sincerely believe they are in the right. The key here is that we are consistent and honorable in what we do--that we maintain our integrity. As one man put it, "Whatsoever thou do est, O man, play the part well." But Saturday Sabbath obviously is a hold-over from the Law of Moses, so as such it is no longer binding--It was, further, the practice of early Christians to honor the Lord's Day, or the first day of the week, Sunday, in deference to the Lord's overcoming the final enemy of mankind, death.
Re: [TruthTalk] Saturday Sabbath
- Original Message - From: To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 12/16/2005 3:52:43 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Saturday Sabbath In a message dated 12/15/2005 8:12:57 A.M. Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Please tell us your view of resting on the Saturday Sabbath. I hesitate to bring up the subject because of such stinking attitudes from some on TT. iz Blainerb: I think the Saturday Sabbath is great, more power to anyone who keeps a Sabbath of any kind, providing they sincerely believe they are in the right. The key here is that we are consistent and honorable in what we do--that we maintain our integrity. As one man put it, "Whatsoever thou do est, O man, play the part well." But Saturday Sabbath obviously is a hold-over from the Law of Moses, so as such it is no longer binding--It was, further, the practice of early Christians to honor the Lord's Day, or the first day of the week, Sunday, in deference to the Lord's overcoming the final enemy of mankind, death. cd: I don't believe you read the attachment I sent with the 'Saturday Sabbath' Blain-I suggest you take the time to do so as it will save us both some time.The Sabbath was giving before Moses received the ten commandments which is the part of the Law that is still with us (Gen 2:2,Exod 16:28).The early Christians kept theSaturday Sabbathas both Jesus and Paul observed Saturaday.Because the Lord rose the first day of the week does not void the Sabbath-some kept both days. Every group or nationthat forgot the Sabbath in the bible was severely punished-Babylon captivity was in the most part due to forgetting the Sabbath.
Re: [TruthTalk] Saturday Sabbath
Romans 14:4-6 Who are you to judge another man's servant? To his own master he stands or falls..One person esteems one day above another; another esteems every day alike. Let each be fully convinced in his own mind. You seem to be convinced, Iz, that you need to keep the Sabbath, therefore you should do so. I have no such conviction, so I do not. You esteem one day over another, I do not. That seem scriptural to you? Dean Moore wrote: - Original Message - From: To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 12/16/2005 3:52:43 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Saturday Sabbath In a message dated 12/15/2005 8:12:57 A.M. Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Please tell us your view of resting on the Saturday Sabbath. I hesitate to bring up the subject because of such stinking attitudes from some on TT. iz Blainerb: I think the Saturday Sabbath is great, more power to anyone who keeps a Sabbath of any kind, providing they sincerely believe they are in the right. The key here is that we are consistent and honorable in what we do--that we maintain our integrity. As one man put it, "Whatsoever thou do est, O man, play the part well." But Saturday Sabbath obviously is a hold-over from the Law of Moses, so as such it is no longer binding--It was, further, the practice of early Christians to honor the Lord's Day, or the first day of the week, Sunday, in deference to the Lord's overcoming the final enemy of mankind, death. cd: I don't believe you read the attachment I sent with the 'Saturday Sabbath' Blain-I suggest you take the time to do so as it will save us both some time.The Sabbath was giving before Moses received the ten commandments which is the part of the Law that is still with us (Gen 2:2,Exod 16:28).The early Christians kept theSaturday Sabbathas both Jesus and Paul observed Saturaday.Because the Lord rose the first day of the week does not void the Sabbath-some kept both days. Every group or nationthat forgot the Sabbath in the bible was severely punished-Babylon captivity was in the most part due to forgetting the Sabbath.
