Re: [TruthTalk] The Kryptonite Theory of Sin

[Lance Muir]

What God 'means' through His Word and Judy Taylor's understanding/interpretation of what God 'means' through His Word are not always completely the same. Would you concur? ----- Original Message ----- From: Judy Taylor To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: October 30, 2004 07:15 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The Kryptonite Theory of Sin     On Sat, 30 Oct 2004 06:43:53 -0400 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: 'chip off your shoulder'..'stop being HATEFUL in your interpretation of Scripture' ..Judy: a brother has said this to you in love. Do not disregard it. The embedded invective is often readily apparent to some of us on some occasions.   Judyt: The "EMBEDDED INVECTIVE" has no part in reality Lance. To those who love him God's Word is not grevious; you see what you term "my interpretation of scripture" as hateful because you are unwilling to see God as he is.  His judgment and justice is just as much part of his nature as his love but you don't accept that and your doctrine negates it.  I'm not sure where Slade is at but with all those Mitzvahs he has to deal with along with work and family responsibilities I'd say he has his hands full.   Judyt notes: When Messiah cleansed the temple He made the observation that it was full of thieves and robbers - not a real good recommendation as far as who was eligible to do what at the altar or in the temple itself..    Slade says, " So, you are implying there is no righteous Jewish people in the 2nd Temple period. If you would spend some time learning a bit of history, you would understand that the ruling Sadducees were extremely Hellenized. Their lack of policing allowed some of their numbers to inspect the animal coming into the Temple but would allow so very few to be called "kosher." This forced the people to purchase the "kosher" animals available for sale at an inflated price. The sellers (some, not all) were corrupt and were robbers; this is true. Were all Jewish people robbers? Of course not. Stop placing the whole into a terrible box. Remember how it hurts to hear that all Christians are hypocritical snake charmers. Judy says: I only know what I read Slade and being called a 'son of the devil' is pretty serious stuff I would say, in spite of where they sit. Apparently being faithful to read the law of Moses in the temple didn't guarantee personal understanding because they had no fear of God and did not recognize His Word when it was in their faces in the flesh.    It's quite apparent that you've never heard to Jewish sages/Rabbis discussing Scripture; if you were to experience such a thing (and then see the two go off to eat together as friends), then you would not be so surprised at Yeshua's words. (Granted, it's a strong rebuke, but an idiomatic rebuke nonetheless.) Even Rabbi Dosa called his brother a "son of the devil" (in the Talmud) because his brother sided with House Shammai on a ruling. Slade: I disagree the Perushim mocked God; the whole basis for the Pharisaic lifestyle was one to bless the God of Yisrael. To imply, as you have, that they didn't love Him produces great emotion because we can puff ourselves up and say, "God chose me because I'm better."     Judy says: No cause to go overboard now Slade, God is no respecter of any man's person. It is He however who sets the standard and it is He who says "If a person loves me they will do what I say"    Slade: God's M.O. never entered my equation above. It is people like you who elevate themselves above those whom they do not understand. All you stated I agree with. I should not go overboard and it is HE who sets the standard. I suggest that both you and I should BEGIN to try to work toward that standard. Take the chip off your shoulder and realize you need to learn to stop being hateful in your interpretation of Scripture. Once you do this, you can begin to learn to love your neighbor AND your opponent. Judyt says: I have no idea whether or not Luke was circumcised, apparently he doesn't think we need to know. What difference would this make to what he has written?    Just an interesting point and your answer tells volumes. Your study of Scripture (if it involves grammatical, historical, cultural, literary "gaps" into considerations) should have told you Luke was circumcised because he was a participant in Temple worship, meaning one of two things: (1) He was Jewish by blood. (2) He was born from the nations and he took the step from God-Fearer to Proselyte. Thank you for taking Slade's little test.   -- slade