Not at all! Thanksgiving was Sukkot morphed for the gentile world. Better to do what God wants in ignorance than what He doesn’t want in knowledge, imo. 
I did celebrate and gave thanks!
Blessings and peace, Auggy!
Kelly,
Glad you also had a good thanksgiving! Thanks, and yes, agreeing that the rules for “priesthood and sacrifice” (which I agree remain realities in a re-interpreted manner) have “changed,” puts us closer with some common ground. Perhaps then we’re not debating whether the Mosaic code has experienced any change (versus being our calling in toto). We’re only quibbling as to what extent we are no longer expected to just follow its’ original meaning.
Much love to you and your family,
Bob
Hi Mag!
I’m sorry, I’m not a theologian or even really good at getting my point across.
I’m not sure about the Adamic area (if you will). I would assume Adam and Eve didn’t eat meat. Although, they did sacrifice, presumably on my part, for the covering for the sin of partaking of the forbidden fruit and we see that Abel offered from the “firstlings of the flock”. Because of this, I would assume Yehovah told them what was “clean” to sacrifice. There was a distinction between the clean and unclean animals on the ark. Abraham sacrificed the ram (at least that we know of) which is a clean animal. And, we have everything written down plainly as clean and unclean at the time of Moses. I think clean and unclean animals were the same from the time of Adam. That being said, I also think Yehovah considers certain matters of His law “weightier” as spoken by Yeshua, " the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith:" (Mat 23:23)
I believe Yehovah had mercy on Noah. His was a special calling. The earth didn’t produce during this time and Yehovah allowed Noah to eat the “unclean” animals to preserve a people on the earth. This is why there was a deviation or exception for Noah. I think of it not so much as a change but, an allowance.
We seem to be having the same thing going on with the Sabbath issue. God allows certain things which to us seem contrary to other commandments. I trust that Yehovah understands these things and that they look very different to Him.
Thank you, Mag. I appreciate you not begrudging me. Thanks for saying so. I am not familiar with Ernest Martin but, what you say makes sense. I have actually been a believer for about 25 years so, I’m not really coming out of paganism. I keep the commandments for a couple of reasons. If the commandments are a schoolmaster to point us to Messiah then, they also seem to me to make one keeping them “pointed to Messiah” themselves and a witness, or a pointer of Messiah, to the world. Also, a pointer to believers who have largely seemed to have lost their way. Another thing is, as written in Psalms and other places, they are a joy to me. They remind me of who my God is and how He is. Also, they are a common sense way to know what action take to minister to my family, friends and people that don’t know me. The Torah is a good standard of what we ought to look like in the flesh if we truly walk in the Spirit of the Law Giver, full of mercy, love and truth. I think that when we lay aside this flesh (are resurrected) there will be no more need for upholding the law because we will be perfect and unable to sin. We are already entering in, as we are being sanctified even now, covered by Yeshua’s blood for salvation and that the “old schoolmaster” not only tells us how to love but, points us to Yeshua, who teaches us how to love.
You don’t sound condescending. Thank you for your sincerity. Perhaps it is that I am still very immature. I don’t deny that I have much to learn and am in need of much changing and sanctification. I just can’t honestly convince myself that under the covering of Messiah, there is no validity in upholding God’s commands. The NT repeats the necessity for them. For example, in Eph. 9 out of the 10 are repeated as how we should conduct our way. If the NT is our big source for faith in Messiah then . . . Yeshua was the rod that came forth out of the stem of Jesse, (and a Branch shall grow out of his roots). If anything, we are grafted into that “tree”. The tree that came forth from an earthly Israelite bloodline. Yehovah could have chosen to graft Israel into the gentile, pagan nations but, He didn’t. He grafted us, a wild olive branch into Israel. The roots of Messiah go deep into the earth, even as they go deep into heaven. But, it is the law and the prophets of Israel that point to the Messiah that we follow. They are the image of Yehovah, He is the image of Yehovah. How can we even know Him without His people or His Torah? I know christians like Martin Luther hated them, persecuted them and spread the hate to others, like Hitler . . . like christianity. But, their God is our God. They have been entrusted with the oracles of God. If our Messiah is a different God, we are lost beyond hope for there is no other way to be saved or any other salvation promised that is worth having. So, as the first Jewish believers in Messiah Yeshua did, I also want to do. To be covered by Yeshua’s blood for salvation and keep the commandments of Yehovah with a good will.
Thank you Mag, for trying to sort out my thoughts and I am sorry they are not as clear as I would like. 
May Yehovah bless you!
Steve,
You emphasize that Pharisees thought Jesus broke command 4 because "their" law was “contradictory.” I don’t see how you are reasoning? Wouldn’t your assumption that they believed that some Sabbath work was allowed actually lead them in the opposite direction: toward questions as to whether Jesus’ actions truly broke the law, or was one of the exceptions? Why would their recognition of such complications confirm their perception that he broke the law?
You express amazement that I don’t see that Jesus used a Scriptural “exception” to justify what he did. But Jesus’ use of Scripture to argue for exceptions was at the heart of my contention and exposition of what he did!! Perhaps the difference is that you deduce that this shows that Leviticus means the Sabbath command was not “no work.” But where does it even define what the priests did as “work”? More important, wouldn’t whether the Pharisees had reason to think that the command was in fact “no work” most pivot on the specific texts that spell out that command**?** On that score, could any language be more definitive than “you shall not do any work” ? It seems to me that they didn’t even need all the arguments of tradition that you speculate about, to fear that ‘work’ was a precarious Sabbath venture. Scripture itself spells it out! Perhaps the debate was more focused on what qualified as ‘work,’ rather than the confidence you posit that some ‘work’ is fine.
You repeat your argument that the N.T. teaches that being a priest is the basis of our not needing to obey laws that others must. I see how you could speculate that this is implied between the lines, but I don’t see that conclusion expounded or embraced, and again wonder if any other scholars see it there as you do. Most central, I have repeated the Biblical texts that encourage me to reject your view that the Pharisees should have felt the distinctions between ‘good’ work, and illicit work were plain, and I can’t see that you’ve answered concerning this critique of your repeated arguments.
Blessings to you,
Bob
I thought Jason was in Tennesse?! 
Otherwise I would urge him to start the first EU Church of Texas!! And I would be the first Member!
Hey Bob,
God’s RIchest Blessings on you Brother! Just noticed your comment about being retired. I’m envious as you might just reach the Lord before me!!! Unless you believe in Soul Sleep! 
This discussion is turning into a marathon is it not? I guess i’ll give it another whirl here for what it’s worth. Eventually I would like to move on to what we believe carries over to the new covenant from the OT. I think that would really be an insightful discussion. I think we have all agreed some things carry over while others do not.
I think I have already made this point, but I will make it again. You are coming from the Premise that the Pharisees were good hearted men of God seeking the Truth and attempting to uphold Righteousness. Therefore in your view the Pharisees were taking a sincere honest approach to question Jesus Sabbath actions. I think this view is incorrect. Jesus spends a whole lot of time exposing the false motives of the Pharisees. He points out that they do everything to be seen by men rather than God. So by Jesus own words, these were men with false motives. They were not seeking to uphold the law or the true intention behind the law, they were seeking to use the law for their own selfish purposes. They were in Bed with Rome and Lording it over the people, Oppressing the poor and flaunting their riches. The last thing on their mind was upholding the true teaching of the law. So first of all let’s realize the Pharisees were concerned about their appearance and status and NOT the things of God. When they are accusing Jesus they are doing so apart from what their law said. They don’t see Jesus as Messiah or anyone special so they think they can condem him on a simplistic general statement about breaking the Sabbath. Jesus then points them back to their law and how even their law justifies his actions.
Did the Pharisees know their Law Justified what he was doing? I believe they knew the exceptions, but again, their law had justified exceptions (sheep in pit, Davids actions) on one hand, but their law also had 23 other chapters that seemed to contradict those exceptions. So what one could and couldnt do on the Sabbath was very Muddy waters. It was unclear and frankly I believe the Pharisees thought they could use their authority to interpret it any way they felt at the moment, especially to silence this radical teacher Jesus that was opposing them and their esablished authority.
I guess the best way to put it is, in my opinion, the Pharisees knew the exceptions, but due to the contradictory statements in their law they were themselves confused as to what was OK, and when the opportunity came to silence the one opposing them, they thought they could easily convict him with a blanket statement regarding breaking the Sabbath. But to their surprise he was fully aware of their law and the exceptions within their law, which he used to justify his actions. I don’t like to argue from silence, but we don’t see any arguement from the Pharisees after he quotes their own law to them. The reason in my view, is because they knew all along the exceptions were there, they just didn’t think Jesus would be astute enough to cite the exact place where their law justifed such actions.
Coming from the Premise that the Pharisees were concerned about upholding the true pure reading of the law (with it’s exceptions) is not a good place to start from, in my opinion. The Pharisees were concerned about holding onto their established power, not keeping people in line with the true interpretation of the law.
Again, see my above notes about your premise regarding the Pharisees. You see them as some sort of innocent Bible Believers that are just trying to uphold what God said. Jesus presents them as false teachers with evil motives unconcerned about the things of God and more concerned about their status and power. So why would you gather the Pharisees onto your side to make your arguement, as if their statement that Jesus was breaking the Sabbath is coming from some Righteous men with a clear reading of the law. It wasn’t. The accusation had nothing to do with the clear reading of the law and everything to do with fear and intimidation and false statements to protect their power, as Jesus exposes.
So if you want to make the arguement that Jesus was breaking the literal reading of Gods commands regarding the Sabbath, it seems that looking at the OT texts apart from the Pharisees statements is the best way to make a judgement as to what the Literal teaching is. What comes out of the Pharisees mouths is often false based on other motives.
And it seems we have argued the OT passages apart from the Pharisees already. I pointed out that the “no work” passages are always in context of the already established “your work”. You keep going back to the following arguement, “look! it says literally NO WORK! over here in Exodus and Leviticus”. But I have pointed out that in those same passages if we scroll up a little we see that the “no work” had already been defined as “your work” or as the hebrew literally says “work-of-yours”. I see alot of Jews to interpret “your work” to mean a persons typical 9-5 “non-God” work.
By very Nature of what the Sabbath was to be and the different roles that the leaders/priests were to have vs the common people, it seems pretty obvious that “no work” on the sabbath needed to have exceptions, or at a minimun be viewed as “your work” or unneccesary labor that took the focus off worshipping God or the work of God. Even in the NT we see the disciples commited to “the work of preaching the Word of God” on the day they gathered for worship. We see Paul tell the corinthians to commit themselves to the Work of God. Is this not what the Preachers did? The Work of God? What about those teaching from the Torah and explaining it? And the Priests with the Meticulous rituals and sacrafices. Who would not consider this the “Work of God”? It seems to me this is why Jesus could say “My father works and so do I”? I am not sure God’s Spirit would have been involved in carrying firewood on the Sabbath, but I am pretty sure we can agree that his Spirit is highly involved in ministering to his people in many ways every Sabbath or day of Worship.
I am not sure I said the NT teaches that we dont need to obey laws because we are Priests. I think Redhot said we are all Priests and Kings and therefore are doing the work of God everyday and above the Literal law keeping. So, not sure if you have me confused with him on this point. Do you have a statement of mine in mind?
Maybe you have said it and I just missed it, but what did Jesus mean when he said that David desecrated the Sabbath and yet was Innocent? How in Jesus view could David have been Innocent? I see Jesus upholding the Literal law. He tells the woman in Sin to Go and Sin no more. He repeats the 10 commandments infering that not keeping them is sin and grounds to miss entering the Kingdom. So why would Jesus call David Innocent when he breaks one of the 10 commands (in your “no work” sabbath view) and then turn around and tell others to keep the commands or they are sinning and in danger of missing the Kingdom? Your view presents a confused Jesus does it not? Or maybe I am just confused
My dear brother Steve,
Yep, when I think a view is right, I’m afraid I can stubbornly “marathon,” lest anyone think that I no longer perceive an adequate response 
But No, No! I don’t see Pharisees as “good-hearted,” only as actually convinced that they upheld Biblical Law. You insist their impure heart would rule out them thinking that. WHY? Isn’t an evil heart precisely what blinds us to moral goodness? You speculate that they felt “confused” about the rules. But scholars of 2nd temple Judaism find the evidence we’ve discussed contrary: they felt great clarity! That seems to explain butting heads with Jesus’ own clarity, better than thinking that they admitted their laws were contradictory and left ample room for “work.”
But I totally agree that whether Jesus challenged an understandable reading, depends on the O.T. texts! We see it says, don’t do on Sat. any work you would do that could be done on Friday (I don’t see how modifying it as work you would do contradicts or restricts the word “any” in the command). You say, “I see a lot of Jews” who say it is limited to “non-God work.” Where do you find this? It sounds anyway like human tradition and thus irrelevant to our question. You assert it’s “obvious” that some “work” was o.k. Of course, some deeds were allowed, but where do they define them as “work”? Doesn’t it stand that serious O.T. Jews are often convinced that the command consistently intends to prohibit any unessential effort (things we’d think of as work) that could be done on another day? I cited specific support in O.T. punishments for carrying things or gathering food.
If you didn’t argue that Jesus’ priesthood created an exception for work, I misunderstood 
You ask why the N.T. calls us to fulfill the law, if it’s o.k. to ‘break’ it. Again, it’s the distinction of letter & spirit. Christians don’t uphold the Law by obeying its’ letter, but by fulfilling its’ loving purpose as Jesus defined it. But you say e.g. that you can’t believe God would allow “carrying firewood,” for it would not be “doing the work of God.” Should we then truly fear condemnation (or execution) if we forgot to stock our wood-heater before Sunday?
You say Jesus “upheld the literal letter” in John 8. But it expressly required expediting the woman’s execution! So didn’t Jesus in fact contravene the law?
You ask how Jesus called David “innocent” when he “desecrated” the Sabbath. I answer (like you?), because Jesus argued that Sabbath work was not a sin. So the question remains for You: WHY DID JESUS CALL WHAT PRIESTS DID A “DESECRATION”? The O.T. seems clear, we must NOT “desecrate the Sabbath” (Neh. 13:17f). And it emphasizes that “work” is what “desecrates” it. Jesus, like the Pharisees, knew the command literally prohibited “work.” So he points out that what priests did must be acknowledged as “desecrating” (literally violating) the Sabbath. His kicker is pronouncing them innocent. Similarly, Jesus explicityly acknowledges that on the Sabbath David was "unlawful" (= broke the Law)! So doesn’t he expressly argue precisely that Scripture itself shows that it’s o.k. to ‘break’ the law (and thus also to “desecrate” the Sabbath)?
Steve, on "What carries over to the new covenant from the O.T. I see countless theological realties (hopefully detailed in my page’: “The Bible’s Story - O.T.”). But on prescriptive ‘rules’ for our lives, I’ve been arguing that the confirmation of O.T. guidelines in the N.T. seems important for the assurance of what has abiding application.
I don’t insist the Pharisees heart would rule out them trying to uphold the law. My point is… you making an assumtion that the Pharisees were trying to uphold the Law is a shaky premise to start with. I would personally not want to stake any argument on a starting point that assumes the Pharisees words reflected what they knew. much of how they presented themselves was false, and not consistent to what was actually inside them according to Jesus.
I see the fear of the Lord (and keeping his moral law) as the beginning of wisdom. Without Faith and a right heart, It is insufficient and lacking but i would not call it a reflection of an evil heart in all cases.
What evidence would you point to to prove that 2nd temple Judaism had great Clarity on the rules regarding the Sabbath. On the Contrary, I see that the Oral Tradition of Judaism during this time had 24 chapters devoted to defining Sabbath Do’s and Don’ts. And many contradictions within those 24 chapters. Even to this day Judaism is split in a multitude of directions regarding how to correctly keep the Sabbath. As stated before, some see turning on a light switch as breaking the Sabbath. Other Jews disagree with that implementation.
If you want to hold to a Literal “any work” Then why on earth would they circumcize or Slaughter the sacrifices on Saturday instead of Friday? Is this not “any” work by your defintion and work that could be done on Friday? Was ye old shop of circumcision only open on Saturday? Was the Levite house of Bulls only open on Saturday?
Their own law. Maybe I should just paste up samples from their law. Their law justified things such as David and his men eating when in need and pulling a sheep out of a pit, but normal everyday work is constantly forbidden. With alot of grey areas of course. The overall impression I get when I read it is that the general rule is to not do any work unless there is a neccessary justified reason.
What one calls work another calls effort, so I guess it depends on what you are referring specifically and who’s doing it. I would consider what the Priests were commanded to do on the Sabbath as some serious work, would you not?
Actually I did argue that Jesus Priesthood Created an exception for work!
Here is your original statement and my reply:
Your original statment: “You repeat your argument that the N.T. teaches that being a priest is the basis of our not needing to obey laws that others must”
My reply to that statement: “I am not sure I said the NT teaches that we dont need to obey laws because we are Priests”.
It was Redhot that argued we are above the Literal law since we are all Kings and Priests. I see the Literal (universal Laws) as very important. Murder, stealing and coveting are not good. I also believe understanding the purpose of a law and the Spirit of the law as critical to understand the Literal.
Perhaps obeying the letter (stealing, murdering, Sabbath) is very important, but only when the purpose and Spirit is understood clearly (like what God really meant by "No Work…Or what he meant by bearing false witness, which in my opinion I believe he meant in most cases but not in others such as Rahab and the spies when life was threatened).
I see the penalty of death for the firewood incident to be something God enforced between Israel and himself under the Mosaic Covenant. We are not only not Jews but no longer under that Covenant, so have no reason to fear that penalty. God was establishing a Theocracy in which certain laws had to be strictly enforced with a lawless stiffnecked people. It was very important at that time with those people under that Covenant, but Jesus introduced the new Covenant in fulfillment of the scripture.
While Jesus was sinlessly fulfilling the Law in accord with Prophecy, He was also introducing a New Covenant in fulfillment of Prophecy. So as strange as it seems, I see him Simultaneously keeping the Literal law himself (as correctly understood) while introducing the New Covenant which was prophecied in that same Literal law. The Mosaic law was passing away, what he was doing with the Woman was insightful regarding the Coming New Covenant, it was profound. Pointing out that All are Sinners and that she is NOT condemned (before God).
It was the same thing repeated in Romans 8…
Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus,because through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit of life set me free from the law of sin and death. For what the law was powerless to do in that it was weakened by the sinful nature, God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful man to be a sin offering.
In what way could Jesus encounter with the Woman render his actions as failing to keep the law. He was not required to stone her, they were just asking him if she should be stoned in accord with law, and he just used the opportunity to open their minds to God’s view of Sin and forgiveness, which was an important principle for everyone to understand at that point.
I see this as Jesus stating that the Sabbath was desecrated according to the Pharisees perspective. Notice he says…Or haven’t you read in the Law that on the Sabbath the priests in the temple desecrate the day and yet are innocent. He’s refering to their law, their perspective, their law that called it unlawful but also a justified exception to the general law.
Don’t get me Wrong Bob, I am considering your perspective on this as Valid and possibly correct. I am just arguing from my current understanding in hopes of framing the different Perspectives, so that I can see the arguements on each side, and where the strengths/weaknesses of each lies. I am still considering that Jesus “perfect following of the law” might be perfect in a way seperate from the Mosiac law. Like Perfect according to the “Spirit of the Law” or Perfect by “God’s Higher law” which is of a different order, such as Melchizedek. I see pro’s and Con’s to both our views right now.
Steve, you’re right that where a circle ends depends on where it starts. You repeatedly stake your case on assuming that the Pharisees are only pretending to believe in the Law as our texts have them interpreting it. Then since they really know what you perceive is true, of course, they couldn’t have truly seen what I too perceive as undertandable about the O.T.
But I see no assurance for your premise! Do any respected New Testament, or Jewish, scholars agree with you? I perceive that it’s universally recognized that their confidence and devotion was enormous! And that Jesus appears to paint them even more critically as arrogantly ego-tistic in their over-confidence. (I know you objected to my correlation between state of heart and evil blindness, but don’t numerous texts teach that**?** And it’s irrelevant to AD 30, but it’s also not true that non-secular Jewish Sabbath keepers today are even in the disarray you assert. As I reported, Spring in Israel reminded me of how lock-step they are-down to light switches and all.) So it’s your premise that assumes they really were convinced of things that the text leaves unspoken which seems “shaky” and a challenge to the consensus.
On priesthood, I now take it, unlike Redhot, you think Jesus could “work” on Sabbath in ways that we can’t, as we’re not priests. You repeat, Jesus kept the “literal” law in Jn. 8, yet it required execution. I’m totally confused by what you mean then by “literal.” You keep insisting the “literal” & the “letter” are essential. Could you then list literal examples of what things you might then recognize as sinful, or as o.k., on your Saturdays? That might be less abstract for me.
You keep saying Sabbath temple sacrifices show that Jews agreed that Sabbath “work” that could wait was fine. I don’t follow! Didn’t they believe God called them to offer sacrifices on the Sabbath? And similarly, that circumcision was commanded on the 8th day, which necessitated some Sabbaths? Why then would they assume that these were defined as “work” or that which was forbidden, or something that could wait?? Sure, you insist that offering a sacrifice would be intense “work” for you (and that I should feel that way too). But that’s not the question. It’s whether Jews thought it was listed as “work” such as what was illicit.
You interpret Jesus saying “in the Law” the sabbath is 'desecrated" was a reference to “their” man-made traditional law, and thus simply decribing “their” false interpretation. But I think there is wide consensus that when Jesus or the apostles say, “in THE Torah,” they always mean God’s Mosaic Word in the Scripture. Is there any place where this phrase is used which clearly refers to some kind of “Law” that Jesus opposes? I’m afraid your position leads to a terrible strain on a most pivotal Sabbath text. There is strong consensus that Jesus is again actually making a strong***Scriptural*** argument against the Pharisees, by accepting the term “descretation” for what He affirms as legitamate.
It could seem our common ground is thinning, but you do say that you think the Pharisees’ “general rule” (and I take it you think they reflected the Bible here) recognized that ‘work’ with a “necessary justified reason” was o.k. Here, I think all disputants might actually sympathize (only quibbling over the semantic use of “work”). But isn’t the catch that words like “necessary” & “justified” are rather subjective and thus subject to great dispute**?** Could I argue that the Pharisees simply were convinced that what Jesus approved was not clearly validated as necessary or justified, and thus Scripture gave sober reasons to err on the side of being conservative? Whereas Jesus, in my words, was a more progressive exegete, who pushed in the direction of not focusing on the letter, so much as grasping what a heart of love would do**?**
Hey Bob,
There is alot to chew on and think through on this topic. I’m going to take a “Sabbatical” I think!!
Maybe regroup and approach the topic after a break. There are an awful lot of things said on this thread that I would like to reread and I would also like to do a little more study regarding the Sabbath as viewed by the 1st century Jews. I have not forgotten this topic or your latest points, just taking a break for a little. I’d like to heed the biblical counsel that says “Everyone should be quick to listen, slow to speak”.
I also see TV arguing it on the other thread and would like to make way for some of his arguements and hear them out as well.
Anyways I appreciate the grace and patience you have displayed towards me on this thread as I have tried to argue the opposite position while trying to also hear your arguements as best as i could.
My brother Steve,
Blessings on your sabbatical! In the pastorate, I found that they literally can be wonderful (the irony of my view here is that I actually think Christians in this hectic world need to recover the glorious principles of God’s sabbath provision). You have engaged the substance of the relevant texts in a way that is seldom done, and you’ve always presented challenges in a gracious way. I’ve thoroughly enjoyed wresting with the issues together. Let me know of further insights you gain.
Thanks Bob.
I plan to revisit this topic a little later and meanwhile plan to pop on the board here and there to make a comment or two.
There are a few other things I feel are important for me to study at the moment that will take the bulk of my time. One of which is Penal Substitution and the various atonement views.
Thank you for your patience and positive, kind words.
Steve,
Please do fill us in and drop your thought on PS. I’m not bit on PS and have moved away from it. I see different metaphors being regarding the atonement. But a literal PS, I have very strong doubts.
Anyways please do drop your thoughts here on the forum.
Aug
Hi Lefein,
I agree with much of what you are saying. I have seen the opposite concerning the “grafted in” scenario though. I have seen Christian’s say Jews should give up being a Jew - and indeed that they must to accept their own Messiah. The atrocities committed to people, and especially Jews, in the name of christianity makes me sick and I think the arrogance of telling a Jew that if they want to accept the Jewish Messiah they have to submit to a mostly pagan institution is ridiculous. It is not about a gentile “becoming Jewish” either but, about the gentile becoming one with His people and taking part in the covenants of promise. The division between Jew and Gentile being broken down by Christ’s work on the cross.
Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands; That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world:
(Eph 2:11-12) But now? the gentiles aren’t aliens from the commonwealth of Israel anymore . . . or strangers from the covenants of promise . . . now they have hope and are with God in the world. Yes, we are to be part of the commonwealth of Israel not Israel being a part of whatever we call “true” Christianity. Hammering on the Jews has been going on from the first organized christian organization, Luther hated them and called for their destruction, the inquisition? Crusades? We are all “trained” to believe certain religious teachings and need to be set free.
I’m not sure if I posted this article already. Should add some food for thought.
Redhot,
Thanks for the links. I’m working through the first one and I have some sympathies and reservations both. The author quotes Eze 20 to state that God gave them bad commands. I don’t think that’s what the text means. I believe it means he gave them over to bad commands (not God’s but foreign).
Consider v. 24
He seems strongly dispensational and I have strong doubts about dispensationalism.
What is dispensationalism in a nutshell, and what are your reservations about it?
Well dispensationalism - as I understand it - is the position held that God works differently in different time periods. The whole Pre tribulation rapture is a major part of the position. The age of grace end and God then re-institutes the age of law and people have to obey the law in order to be saved as they did in the OT.
The author of this paper seems to be very much along those lines. I may be wrong about that, but that’s how I read him.