I'm cool with a truce! Or is it a cease fire? Actions open and empty? Cant wait for the retreat! Really looking forward to meeting everybody!
-
Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.
Law, commands, or instructions?
- Thread starter Verifyveritas76
- Start date
I would love to see a truce for several reasons. At the risk of setting off a whole new round of maneuvering, I want to step back and mention a couple of things.
First, this ministry by design and by definition is open to both Torah-observant and non-Torah-observant BROTHERS. If you think this is a "what fellowship does light have with darkness?" issue, then this isn't really a good forum or group for you, and you should seek fellowship with others of your faction.
Second, historically we tend to attract relatively mature believers here. For better or worse, all of us have been around the block a few times, and most of us have already come to reasoned conclusions on this matter. To hash this out as if anyone here is going to change their mind on the core issue is misguided at best, and again, may be some evidence that you'd be a better fit somewhere else. (That doesn't mean it's a complete waste of time to discuss such matters as they come up. I tend to avoid these conversations because of the amount of tail-chasing that goes on, but they are still interesting in terms of what they reveal about a person's character, charity, and integrity. From that point of view—getting to know each other and sussing out each other's beliefs and the way we treat others who disagree with us—it's not a waste of time at all.)
Third, some people just enjoy arguing. And to the extent we can 'spar' with each other and sharpen our rhetorical skills, and our own understanding of the things we claim to believe, and our ability to present our truth-claims to others without becoming belligerent, condescending, or offensive, then we can actually help each other out a bit that way. But as in physical sparring, remember that we're all here to learn together and sharpen our skills, including the valuable Christian skill of not being a jerk. Somebody that makes a habit out of actually injuring other sparring partners eventually gets asked (and then told) to leave the dojo and not come back.
Finally, to wrap up and illustrate what I've just said, I'm going to pick on my younger brother Samuel a bit, because he knows I love him and won't get mad at me (although he could very well come back and politely tell me why he disagrees with my points!).
First (here we go again...), I disagree that there's a fundamental issue at stake that requires that we spend hours thrashing this out. I mean, yeah, everybody wants to use language that makes it a fundamental issue (as in, "you don't agree with the way I look at this, so you must also believe a, b, & c", which usually ends up with something about serving a different god or something), but around here, if you subscribe to the Apostles Creed, then we're on the same page on the fundamentals. Everything else is colorful variation.
Second, when I say no one is going to change their mind, let me offer this as Exhibit A:
When we can say stuff like "A & B are not really making sense but that doesn't mean they're wrong" and "C & D are making more sense but that doesn't mean they're right", then that's what I'm talking about. Due to confirmation bias, we spend the lion's share of our time trying to fit new facts and arguments into what we already believe, and little or no time rethinking our complete worldview just because somebody on the other side of the aisle said something that doesn't quite fit. Just the way it is.
Third, I don't agree with any of the following, for reasons that ought to be apparent, but I can develop if I have to. For now I'll just say that it's not my truth, although I'm perfectly content with its being Samuel's.
Fourth, I want to call out this language, even though I'm pretty sure Samuel meant it to be funny.
Some things I don't really joke about, and this is one of them (not just Torah-observance, but just about anything in Christian practice that has been dividing the body for centuries). I already said above that if you think this is a light v. darkness issue this probably isn't the group for you. Now we're moving to a more subtle distinction, and I'd like to shine a flashlight on it. If you think you're more mature in your faith because you're Torah-observant, or you think you're more mature in your faith because you're not Torah-observant, then you're welcome to your conceit, and it won't get you asked to leave if you're habitually condescending to others, but that stuff gets noticed. Focus on your service to God, and don't judge another man's servant. Who do you think you are? (see Rom 14:4)
-------
Quick shout-out to Brother Zec, who I think caught the sense of this back in post #6 on the first page of this thread. Would have saved us all a bunch of time if we had just stopped there (but some of us really like to argue...).
And a shout-out to my Brother Samuel, whose systematic and rational thought processes command my utmost respect, even when we disagree. Especially when we disagree.
First, this ministry by design and by definition is open to both Torah-observant and non-Torah-observant BROTHERS. If you think this is a "what fellowship does light have with darkness?" issue, then this isn't really a good forum or group for you, and you should seek fellowship with others of your faction.
Second, historically we tend to attract relatively mature believers here. For better or worse, all of us have been around the block a few times, and most of us have already come to reasoned conclusions on this matter. To hash this out as if anyone here is going to change their mind on the core issue is misguided at best, and again, may be some evidence that you'd be a better fit somewhere else. (That doesn't mean it's a complete waste of time to discuss such matters as they come up. I tend to avoid these conversations because of the amount of tail-chasing that goes on, but they are still interesting in terms of what they reveal about a person's character, charity, and integrity. From that point of view—getting to know each other and sussing out each other's beliefs and the way we treat others who disagree with us—it's not a waste of time at all.)
Third, some people just enjoy arguing. And to the extent we can 'spar' with each other and sharpen our rhetorical skills, and our own understanding of the things we claim to believe, and our ability to present our truth-claims to others without becoming belligerent, condescending, or offensive, then we can actually help each other out a bit that way. But as in physical sparring, remember that we're all here to learn together and sharpen our skills, including the valuable Christian skill of not being a jerk. Somebody that makes a habit out of actually injuring other sparring partners eventually gets asked (and then told) to leave the dojo and not come back.
Finally, to wrap up and illustrate what I've just said, I'm going to pick on my younger brother Samuel a bit, because he knows I love him and won't get mad at me (although he could very well come back and politely tell me why he disagrees with my points!).
First (here we go again...), I disagree that there's a fundamental issue at stake that requires that we spend hours thrashing this out. I mean, yeah, everybody wants to use language that makes it a fundamental issue (as in, "you don't agree with the way I look at this, so you must also believe a, b, & c", which usually ends up with something about serving a different god or something), but around here, if you subscribe to the Apostles Creed, then we're on the same page on the fundamentals. Everything else is colorful variation.
Second, when I say no one is going to change their mind, let me offer this as Exhibit A:
When we can say stuff like "A & B are not really making sense but that doesn't mean they're wrong" and "C & D are making more sense but that doesn't mean they're right", then that's what I'm talking about. Due to confirmation bias, we spend the lion's share of our time trying to fit new facts and arguments into what we already believe, and little or no time rethinking our complete worldview just because somebody on the other side of the aisle said something that doesn't quite fit. Just the way it is.
Third, I don't agree with any of the following, for reasons that ought to be apparent, but I can develop if I have to. For now I'll just say that it's not my truth, although I'm perfectly content with its being Samuel's.
Fourth, I want to call out this language, even though I'm pretty sure Samuel meant it to be funny.
Some things I don't really joke about, and this is one of them (not just Torah-observance, but just about anything in Christian practice that has been dividing the body for centuries). I already said above that if you think this is a light v. darkness issue this probably isn't the group for you. Now we're moving to a more subtle distinction, and I'd like to shine a flashlight on it. If you think you're more mature in your faith because you're Torah-observant, or you think you're more mature in your faith because you're not Torah-observant, then you're welcome to your conceit, and it won't get you asked to leave if you're habitually condescending to others, but that stuff gets noticed. Focus on your service to God, and don't judge another man's servant. Who do you think you are? (see Rom 14:4)
-------
Quick shout-out to Brother Zec, who I think caught the sense of this back in post #6 on the first page of this thread. Would have saved us all a bunch of time if we had just stopped there (but some of us really like to argue...).
And a shout-out to my Brother Samuel, whose systematic and rational thought processes command my utmost respect, even when we disagree. Especially when we disagree.
100% agree with this (and with the general intent of Andrew's entire post, but I don't want to bombard you with quotes I like!).
I would like to clarify this statement, that Andrew disagrees with, to better explain why and where I think it is of relevance.
There is an extreme position that only the 10 commandments are applicable to us today, or that even those are superceded by a general command to love, and that provided you are doing things in love then you're following Christ. If you follow this to it's logical conclusion, you can end up here, or in all manner of other erroneous positions, throwing away everything that scripture says about morality and just thinking that provided you love each other and everyone's cool with it, it's all good. We see that in many places in the church today, with homosexuality being widely accepted for instance. We need to accept that at least some of Torah is a guide to life in order to see that homosexuality and incest are sinful, for instance.
However, once we accept that Torah at least gives us a window into the opinion that God has about particular matters, or is relevant at least when it is speaking about interpersonal relationships, then we are going to come to the same conclusions on marriage regardless of our views on other matters such as food or feasts. A common position, and a very good starting point when trying to understand this issue, is to accept that anything in Torah that is restated in the New Testament is of relevance to us today. So as matters relating to marriage tend to be restated in the New Testament, most conservative Christians tend to accept these parts of Torah as relevant anyway. This means that on marriage, we're usually all working from the same rulebook. At this point Andrew is correct that it becomes less fundamental.
This is an issue if you are discussing marriage with someone who has a more "liberal" understanding of morality than most of us here do. But since basically everyone here has at least the level of acceptance of Torah that I describe above, then Andrew may be correct that it is not a serious issue in this particular company.
So just to put a final mature Christian cap on all of this, done with love and solicitude and decorum, keeping sure not to boast or brag, I GOT THE ANDREW SHOUTOUT! IN YOUR FACE SUCKAS!
As some here are probably aware, I do a whole lotta radio shows and podcasts, some oriented toward a “mostly” secular audience, but with an openly Biblical worldview, one show with a more specifically 'legal vs lawful' bent that often focuses on Constitutional and historical issues, and several others that are directed explicitly to study of Scripture. Most of those originate on Hebrew Nation Radio, or are carried there.
Without revealing any 'confidences', when I began doing those latter shows, quite a few years back, I was asked to avoid openly 'advocating' for the Biblical truth concerning polygyny (even though there was no argument concerning the truth thereof). The rationale was the network mission was to assist people to “come out of her” (my central focus anyway) and that there would be many who are “not ready for meat,” but are beginning to seek the Truth, and understand the “lies we have inherited from our fathers.” Encourage them, a bit like Acts 15, and allow them to learn most over time. I agreed, on the condition that I would never shy from answering a direct question on the topic honestly from Scripture, or refrain from honestly dealing with specific verses or topics in the course of study in a particular Book or parsha.
Over the years I adopted a “heirarchy” of teachings, where some shows are more “in-depth” than others. In that vein, the teachings that I do on the Sabbath day, usually related directly to the annual cycle weekly Torah portion, but often with a bit of 'latitude' as well as a look at relevant current events, are directed at what I joke about as being “Torah 501”, or a bit like graduate-level classes. (The April 23rd session on a subject very much related to this thread, but FAR more blunt, was even titled, “Time for some MEAT!”) Since they are on-line and live worldwide, there is opportunity for questions and feedback, and people who might be offended simply don't have to listen.
But I will not pull any punches.
Those teachings are now posted on a number of networks now, often with a warning. But every single person who downloads them does so voluntarily, and can turn them off if they want. That, indeed, is why I do radio. It is still possible for people to "change the dial," even now that they're digital.
It has been obvious for about two pages on this thread that 'discussion' was not occurring. That is the same reason I no long generally “argue” polygyny with those who will not be swayed by what “Scripture actually says,” and in particular with arguably well-intentioned folks who believe that what “men say He should have said matters more than what is actually Written.” While I might disagree, there is a logical impasse. Either His Word is what matters, or the 'vicar of christ' has the final say. With different 'postulates' up front, there will BE no logical resolution.
Moreover, if His Word won't convince them, who do I think I am?
But most of you here know the converse. I like the colloquial summary penned by Albert J. Nock about 80 years back, entitled Isaiah's Job. He said the job of those who seek to “reach the Remnant” is simply, paraphrasing YHVH Instruction to His prophets, “TELL 'em what I tell you to tell 'em!” The warning via Ezekiel to the “watchman on the wall” is, of course, apropos, too. But that shofar has been blown.
I will continue to teach His Word, all of it, as Written. I am ALWAYS open to answering questions, although I reserve the right to interpret their sincerity. And I've been kicked out of churches before...
The broader topic which this thread only just touches on has been on my heart for several months now, because I have long contended that “time draws short,” to the extent that spiritual, economic, and then multiple levels of open physical warfare are on the horizon, generally in that order. Since His promises are in most cases conditional, and He makes it SO repeatedly clear, our obedience matters.
For those so inclined, the teachings that do not pull any punches are on my website, and at places like WayToZion.org. Perhaps a good place to start (since it references His truth about marriage as part of a discussion of 'third-rail' topics) is one I've already mentioned (from the Pesach timeframe) entitled “Time for some MEAT!” The follow-ons, for paraschot like Emor, Naso, and Behar/Bechukotai, build on the issues. Because Scripture is either utterly consistent, and He IS Who He says He is, or ultimately what we're talking about isn't really "Scripture".
Blessings in Him.
Without revealing any 'confidences', when I began doing those latter shows, quite a few years back, I was asked to avoid openly 'advocating' for the Biblical truth concerning polygyny (even though there was no argument concerning the truth thereof). The rationale was the network mission was to assist people to “come out of her” (my central focus anyway) and that there would be many who are “not ready for meat,” but are beginning to seek the Truth, and understand the “lies we have inherited from our fathers.” Encourage them, a bit like Acts 15, and allow them to learn most over time. I agreed, on the condition that I would never shy from answering a direct question on the topic honestly from Scripture, or refrain from honestly dealing with specific verses or topics in the course of study in a particular Book or parsha.
Over the years I adopted a “heirarchy” of teachings, where some shows are more “in-depth” than others. In that vein, the teachings that I do on the Sabbath day, usually related directly to the annual cycle weekly Torah portion, but often with a bit of 'latitude' as well as a look at relevant current events, are directed at what I joke about as being “Torah 501”, or a bit like graduate-level classes. (The April 23rd session on a subject very much related to this thread, but FAR more blunt, was even titled, “Time for some MEAT!”) Since they are on-line and live worldwide, there is opportunity for questions and feedback, and people who might be offended simply don't have to listen.
But I will not pull any punches.
Those teachings are now posted on a number of networks now, often with a warning. But every single person who downloads them does so voluntarily, and can turn them off if they want. That, indeed, is why I do radio. It is still possible for people to "change the dial," even now that they're digital.
It has been obvious for about two pages on this thread that 'discussion' was not occurring. That is the same reason I no long generally “argue” polygyny with those who will not be swayed by what “Scripture actually says,” and in particular with arguably well-intentioned folks who believe that what “men say He should have said matters more than what is actually Written.” While I might disagree, there is a logical impasse. Either His Word is what matters, or the 'vicar of christ' has the final say. With different 'postulates' up front, there will BE no logical resolution.
Moreover, if His Word won't convince them, who do I think I am?
But most of you here know the converse. I like the colloquial summary penned by Albert J. Nock about 80 years back, entitled Isaiah's Job. He said the job of those who seek to “reach the Remnant” is simply, paraphrasing YHVH Instruction to His prophets, “TELL 'em what I tell you to tell 'em!” The warning via Ezekiel to the “watchman on the wall” is, of course, apropos, too. But that shofar has been blown.
I will continue to teach His Word, all of it, as Written. I am ALWAYS open to answering questions, although I reserve the right to interpret their sincerity. And I've been kicked out of churches before...
The broader topic which this thread only just touches on has been on my heart for several months now, because I have long contended that “time draws short,” to the extent that spiritual, economic, and then multiple levels of open physical warfare are on the horizon, generally in that order. Since His promises are in most cases conditional, and He makes it SO repeatedly clear, our obedience matters.
For those so inclined, the teachings that do not pull any punches are on my website, and at places like WayToZion.org. Perhaps a good place to start (since it references His truth about marriage as part of a discussion of 'third-rail' topics) is one I've already mentioned (from the Pesach timeframe) entitled “Time for some MEAT!” The follow-ons, for paraschot like Emor, Naso, and Behar/Bechukotai, build on the issues. Because Scripture is either utterly consistent, and He IS Who He says He is, or ultimately what we're talking about isn't really "Scripture".
Blessings in Him.
Bey
Are you familar with Pastor Joe Fox at Viking Preparedness and Shofar Mountain?
As some here are probably aware, I do a whole lotta radio shows and podcasts, some oriented toward a “mostly” secular audience, but with an openly Biblical worldview, one show with a more specifically 'legal vs lawful' bent that often focuses on Constitutional and historical issues, and several others that are directed explicitly to study of Scripture. Most of those originate on Hebrew Nation Radio, or are carried there.
Without revealing any 'confidences', when I began doing those latter shows, quite a few years back, I was asked to avoid openly 'advocating' for the Biblical truth concerning polygyny (even though there was no argument concerning the truth thereof). The rationale was the network mission was to assist people to “come out of her” (my central focus anyway) and that there would be many who are “not ready for meat,” but are beginning to seek the Truth, and understand the “lies we have inherited from our fathers.” Encourage them, a bit like Acts 15, and allow them to learn most over time. I agreed, on the condition that I would never shy from answering a direct question on the topic honestly from Scripture, or refrain from honestly dealing with specific verses or topics in the course of study in a particular Book or parsha.
Over the years I adopted a “heirarchy” of teachings, where some shows are more “in-depth” than others. In that vein, the teachings that I do on the Sabbath day, usually related directly to the annual cycle weekly Torah portion, but often with a bit of 'latitude' as well as a look at relevant current events, are directed at what I joke about as being “Torah 501”, or a bit like graduate-level classes. (The April 23rd session on a subject very much related to this thread, but FAR more blunt, was even titled, “Time for some MEAT!”) Since they are on-line and live worldwide, there is opportunity for questions and feedback, and people who might be offended simply don't have to listen.
But I will not pull any punches.
Those teachings are now posted on a number of networks now, often with a warning. But every single person who downloads them does so voluntarily, and can turn them off if they want. That, indeed, is why I do radio. It is still possible for people to "change the dial," even now that they're digital.
It has been obvious for about two pages on this thread that 'discussion' was not occurring. That is the same reason I no long generally “argue” polygyny with those who will not be swayed by what “Scripture actually says,” and in particular with arguably well-intentioned folks who believe that what “men say He should have said matters more than what is actually Written.” While I might disagree, there is a logical impasse. Either His Word is what matters, or the 'vicar of christ' has the final say. With different 'postulates' up front, there will BE no logical resolution.
Moreover, if His Word won't convince them, who do I think I am?
But most of you here know the converse. I like the colloquial summary penned by Albert J. Nock about 80 years back, entitled Isaiah's Job. He said the job of those who seek to “reach the Remnant” is simply, paraphrasing YHVH Instruction to His prophets, “TELL 'em what I tell you to tell 'em!” The warning via Ezekiel to the “watchman on the wall” is, of course, apropos, too. But that shofar has been blown.
I will continue to teach His Word, all of it, as Written. I am ALWAYS open to answering questions, although I reserve the right to interpret their sincerity. And I've been kicked out of churches before...
The broader topic which this thread only just touches on has been on my heart for several months now, because I have long contended that “time draws short,” to the extent that spiritual, economic, and then multiple levels of open physical warfare are on the horizon, generally in that order. Since His promises are in most cases conditional, and He makes it SO repeatedly clear, our obedience matters.
For those so inclined, the teachings that do not pull any punches are on my website, and at places like WayToZion.org. Perhaps a good place to start (since it references His truth about marriage as part of a discussion of 'third-rail' topics) is one I've already mentioned (from the Pesach timeframe) entitled “Time for some MEAT!” The follow-ons, for paraschot like Emor, Naso, and Behar/Bechukotai, build on the issues. Because Scripture is either utterly consistent, and He IS Who He says He is, or ultimately what we're talking about isn't really "Scripture".
Blessings in Him.
Are you familar with Pastor Joe Fox at Viking Preparedness and Shofar Mountain?
I am likewise perplexed about how Noah was supposed to understand the difference between clean and unclean animals, before the law was given... and before God had even told them they could eat meat. They had not entered into any covenant by which those were even relevant terms. And yet I expect that there were seven sheep, but only 2 pigs on the ark.
No.
It makes the point. It was not "law" that was Written out by Moshe. It was Instruction, and much was known to "men of Yah" long before. Noach clearly knew what was 'clean' and not. Even pagans understood aspects of 'adultery' when it came to the wives of Abram, later Abraham, and Isaac. Judah understood the principles of "Levirate marriage" , and so on.
Well, that more or less becomes my point. If Noah can be expected to understand and walk in principles that were to become part of an 'official' covenant way before there were even Jews to have a covenant with, based around the precept that "much was known", why would Jesus need to wait until He had confirmed the new covenant with His own death and resurrection to begin walking in it, as Zec seemed to be saying? He is, and has always been, Lord of the Sabbath, even before there was a Sabbath to be Lord of, as I understand it.
Before it was Written down, He was, is, remains, and shall be, YHVH. His Word and His character are inseparable. That He 'spoke' everything (ha olam) into existence is fundamental.
[Note that when Moses refers to Sabbath even the first time to 'kol Israel' (it was never just Judah) it's in the past tense, because it's been around since Genesis 2. And the commandment is to 'zakar' ("remember") it and keep His Sabbaths separated/distinct/'qadosh'/"holy".]
[Note that when Moses refers to Sabbath even the first time to 'kol Israel' (it was never just Judah) it's in the past tense, because it's been around since Genesis 2. And the commandment is to 'zakar' ("remember") it and keep His Sabbaths separated/distinct/'qadosh'/"holy".]
Amen?
@FollowingHim, you and I are on exactly the same page.
@Mark C, I respect absolutely your right to follow your conscience, and I believe your bookmarking for everyone your extended teaching on your website is a great way to acknowledge that there is 'more to this story' for whomever wants to pursue it.
@Everybody: Anybody questioning 21st century McChurch teaching on marriage is undoubtedly going to wonder "what else are they wrong about?". It ends up being a 'meet in the middle kind of thing'. Some of us got to pondering marriage through the gateway of trying to get our heads around Torah observance generally and how that applies to Christ-followers. Some of us, having been led first to a radical rethinking of our position on marriage, go on from there to explore other aspects of the relationship between Old and New Covenants, and particularly what happened as Christian teaching became dominated by Roman culture and interpretation. One way or the other, it's a little artificial and unrealistic to think that a ministry dedicated to serving "biblical families" isn't going to periodically circle back to a conversation about "what else should we know about God's will for our lives that maybe our Sunday School teacher got wrong?", so there will always be a place for these kinds of convos on our discussion board (and I know Samuel and I are still on the same page here). Let's just keep it civil.
That said, I would like to civilly and respectfully call out something Mark said.
It will help all of us to remember that the phrase "His Word" actually has multiple meanings in different contexts that should not be confused. To the extent we are discussing the scriptures (really just fancy Latin for "writings", but commonly used to refer to religious writings), "His Word" is what's written, and does not include any one person's or group of people's or denomination's chosen interpretation of what it means. To the extent we want to go there and talk about his spoken or rhema word, that's a different kettle of fish altogether, and I think outside the scope of this particular discussion.
Meanwhile, nobody I know personally through Biblical Families or have any depth of interaction with on the board here is going to kowtow to any Pope, bishop, vicar, or any other would-be prophet who claims to have the authoritative "Word". Most of us have come through the fire of strong opposition, and wherever we fall on the scale of "I study my bible a lot and try to do what it says" to "God talks to me personally", we have figured out how to walk with God in a way that makes sense to us. It is part of the charm and a great source of strength for Biblical Families that we don't all come from the same religious upbringing and don't all follow one person's dogma. So it will never be Andrew's teaching or Mark's teaching or Samuel's teaching or anyone else's teaching that gets held up here as "the Word of the Lord". We are all just trying to do the best we can with what we have.
@Mark C, I respect absolutely your right to follow your conscience, and I believe your bookmarking for everyone your extended teaching on your website is a great way to acknowledge that there is 'more to this story' for whomever wants to pursue it.
@Everybody: Anybody questioning 21st century McChurch teaching on marriage is undoubtedly going to wonder "what else are they wrong about?". It ends up being a 'meet in the middle kind of thing'. Some of us got to pondering marriage through the gateway of trying to get our heads around Torah observance generally and how that applies to Christ-followers. Some of us, having been led first to a radical rethinking of our position on marriage, go on from there to explore other aspects of the relationship between Old and New Covenants, and particularly what happened as Christian teaching became dominated by Roman culture and interpretation. One way or the other, it's a little artificial and unrealistic to think that a ministry dedicated to serving "biblical families" isn't going to periodically circle back to a conversation about "what else should we know about God's will for our lives that maybe our Sunday School teacher got wrong?", so there will always be a place for these kinds of convos on our discussion board (and I know Samuel and I are still on the same page here). Let's just keep it civil.
That said, I would like to civilly and respectfully call out something Mark said.
This is a classic false dichotomy: Either we agree with Mark or I guess we're all Roman Catholics. On its face, that is a ludicrous claim. As a rhetorical flourish, it works for preaching to the choir, but with others not so much.
It will help all of us to remember that the phrase "His Word" actually has multiple meanings in different contexts that should not be confused. To the extent we are discussing the scriptures (really just fancy Latin for "writings", but commonly used to refer to religious writings), "His Word" is what's written, and does not include any one person's or group of people's or denomination's chosen interpretation of what it means. To the extent we want to go there and talk about his spoken or rhema word, that's a different kettle of fish altogether, and I think outside the scope of this particular discussion.
Meanwhile, nobody I know personally through Biblical Families or have any depth of interaction with on the board here is going to kowtow to any Pope, bishop, vicar, or any other would-be prophet who claims to have the authoritative "Word". Most of us have come through the fire of strong opposition, and wherever we fall on the scale of "I study my bible a lot and try to do what it says" to "God talks to me personally", we have figured out how to walk with God in a way that makes sense to us. It is part of the charm and a great source of strength for Biblical Families that we don't all come from the same religious upbringing and don't all follow one person's dogma. So it will never be Andrew's teaching or Mark's teaching or Samuel's teaching or anyone else's teaching that gets held up here as "the Word of the Lord". We are all just trying to do the best we can with what we have.
Slumberfreeze, your suggestion was that although the covenant mentioning clean and unclean animals was not delivered until Moses, Noah was already walking in it earlier. So although the new covenant that abolished some of this was not delivered until Christ died, maybe He could start walking in that earlier.
Mark's point is that there was no change. There have always been clean and unclean animals right back to creation. Noah knew this. Moses later wrote it down. And there still are today, Christ didn't change it at all.
The points being made are quite different. We spent a lot of time in this thread debating a single passage that appears, on a cursory reading, to point towards the law being changed. Here is a verse that appears to suggest the law is permanent. We could debate it equally fervently if we liked. But in reality we need to understand a wide number of such verses, and see where the majority are pointing us, then we form our understanding from that. There may still be the odd passage we cannot fully explain, because we are human, but we will be comfortable that our view is the best we can do at this point in our lives to understand the big picture.
Mark's point is that there was no change. There have always been clean and unclean animals right back to creation. Noah knew this. Moses later wrote it down. And there still are today, Christ didn't change it at all.
The points being made are quite different. We spent a lot of time in this thread debating a single passage that appears, on a cursory reading, to point towards the law being changed. Here is a verse that appears to suggest the law is permanent. We could debate it equally fervently if we liked. But in reality we need to understand a wide number of such verses, and see where the majority are pointing us, then we form our understanding from that. There may still be the odd passage we cannot fully explain, because we are human, but we will be comfortable that our view is the best we can do at this point in our lives to understand the big picture.
Oh! Thank you, that really helps.
Not so much, Andrew, although it WAS intended as a 'rhetorical flourish' to make a point that I was in fact quite serious about.
I OFTEN talk about the fact "His Word" is, shall we say, "tough to pin down". It's why I study, and urge others to, Scripture as best as possible, in the original Hebrew, and attempt to understand it in cultural and linguistic context. (I'm NOT a "KJV-only" guy, IOW. I have a teaching on the first few CHARACTERS in Bereshiet/Gen 1 that I hope makes the point that it isn't even possible to completely translate the depth of understanding there into a SINGLE English rendering.)
But the larger point is what I stated explicitly above. POSTULATES matter. (The entire field of "NON-Euclidian geometry arises from a change in just one famous starting-point, about parallel lines.) How much more so, then, if we can't agree on whether men have the authority to change His statutes, judgments, and commandments? The Roman church, to their credit, comes right out and STATES it. By "apostolic succession", and the authority of the pope as 'vicar of christ', literally his man on earth, they can and do change 'the Law'. They changed His Sabbath, and are proud of it. It is in fact a catholic claim (easy to verify, I often quote a famous article by US Cardinal Gibbons, etc) that nowhere in Scripture did 'God Himself' change the Sabbath to sun-day, it was the church that did it. And they contend that all "protesting catholics' who keep 'the lord's day' instead of His Sabbath are 'catholics'. If you want to blame someone for calling sunday-keepers "catholics," I respectfully suggest you start there. (And please check it out, don't just believe me!)
It was once a capital crime in 'Christendom' for a lay person to possess a Bible. (Gutenburg fixed that, by mass-production.) And just a couple months ago, the pope reiterated that laity can NOT even 'interpret' the Bible without the aid of a priest.
Any kidding aside, there can BE no argument "from Scripture", with those who do not accept the authority of Scripture. It's a logical impasse. (I don't quote the verse about what 'the fool says in his heart' to atheists, either. They find it unconvincing.
)And ultimately, I will respectfully suggest that this is why my perspective is so very different from those who can accept that "Jesus changed The Law". I look at Deuteronomy chapter 13. It seems undeniable to me that YHVH is very serious when it comes to "other gods" -- and that this is why we are in fact still in exile. Ezekiel chapters 8 and 9 make the same point. This is VERY serious stuff. We are not to mix the pagan or profane and the 'qadosh', or set apart. That's all I'll say here. But it's entirely consistent, therefore, that the "Torah Made Flesh" could NOT have done so, or He would simply NOT have been Who He Was, Is, Will Be.
Call it a "postulate", but based on the entirety of Scripture, in context.
So when I see His teaching about David and the showbread, for example, or the fact that He "healed" on the Sabbath, but He also defines that neither that, nor getting one's "ox out of the ditch" is "work", I don't see it at ALL as the same kind of question as those who accept that He MIGHT be changing 'the Law'.
IOW, I'm not interested in proving He did something that it's clear He didn't do. I'm interested in learning what He is trying to teach us ABOUT His Instruction, and the Laws (like Gravity, and the Laws of Motion and Thermodynamics, to Reaping what you Sow) that govern the world He made for us. Because Scripture -- properly translated -- is 100% consistent, it's the apparent contradictions that are most interesting. (Read any of the 'midrash' from the 'sages'. The differences are what really teach us!) WHY did David's action NOT result in death? (That applies to his adultery, too, and he is STILL called a "man after God's own heart!" Doesn't that inspire some in-depth study? I'd suggest, start with Deuteronomy 30, and then Psalm 51...
)We tell young kids not to go into the street...period. Later, "look both ways". Eventually they get ready for meat, and learn that what was a "law" when they were children, are "instruction" when they're ready to "put away childish things."
It's not the Creator that changes, it's our perspective on what He is trying to teach us.
Last edited:
Very well put.
And that was a big part of what helped me understand what He was saying. That, and an article that I then read from a 'popular science' publication that had a headline I still vividly remember:
"Science Discovers Pig DNA Closest to Human!"
This, they said in the story later, was why "every single pandemic in history has always come to humans via swine," because this DNA similarity means that viruses which infect pigs can easily "jump the species barrier" into man.
It occurred to me that neither pigs' BODIES nor ours suddenly "changed" after the cross. And refrigeration may have come later and alleviated some concern about Trichinosis, but that was hardly the whole story. So just maybe the 'plagues' He kept warning us about might still be something "Science" will eventually figure out, too...
Mark, that's all great, but I stand by everything I wrote.
Your framing of a couple of issues as things you have researched that I need to check into is a fail for anyone who knows me.
I find your choice of the word "postulates" where others would more typically use "premises" mildly interesting.
Your failure to acknowledge the false dichotomy I pointed out essentially establishes my point; you are begging the question. You can assume in this forum that "His Word is what matters" to everyone you're interacting with, whether we agree with your approach and conclusions or not.
Beyond that, you and I don't have much to discuss in this context. There's no point in your and my arguing positions we're both committed to, and I leave you to your explorations with Slumberfreeze and whomever else is tracking the thread.
Peace.
Your framing of a couple of issues as things you have researched that I need to check into is a fail for anyone who knows me.
I find your choice of the word "postulates" where others would more typically use "premises" mildly interesting.
Your failure to acknowledge the false dichotomy I pointed out essentially establishes my point; you are begging the question. You can assume in this forum that "His Word is what matters" to everyone you're interacting with, whether we agree with your approach and conclusions or not.
Beyond that, you and I don't have much to discuss in this context. There's no point in your and my arguing positions we're both committed to, and I leave you to your explorations with Slumberfreeze and whomever else is tracking the thread.
Peace.
Guys, don't freak out, I'm going to say something radical here.
Samuel and I keep Torah, mostly, as much as we understand it so far. I'm going to give you the story of how we got there.
We had kind of been looking into the laws and seeing whether we should be following certain things. Not deeply, not routinely, just occasionally. I was drawn to it, and we had some good conversations.
My favourite food was always roast pork. Pork crackle to be exact. Bet chocolate even. We very rarely ate it, though we ate a bit of bacon, mostly because we do home kill and don't have pigs so we tend to eat mutton and beef. One day we were given a large pork roast by our neighbours that they hadn't used for a neighbourhood party. I was very thankful. But I couldn't eat it. I tried to, I cooked it up for everyone and took a bite. It tasted fine, but it seemed absolutely abominable to me. I really can't explain it except that it was unclean. I can't even explain that word properly.
We got about a third of the way through the roast, and I thought my head was going stupid because I was pregnant and it had decided to have a new weird food aversion. So I said to Samuel "I'm feeling really weird about this pork." And here's the clincher. He said "Me too."
This was not just me. He was having the exact same thoughts and feelings as I was. Samuel loves meat, and it's very rare that he doesn't like or won't eat a type of food so it was a big deal for him to say that.
We discussed it and figured it was YHWH speaking to us. After that we decided to keep the food laws. A few days later I said to him "Are we going to keep the feasts now too?" He said "Yes." We hadn't discussed this at all, but I felt this huge weight off my shoulders and I felt free. It was like I'd been wanting to go in this direction all this time and hadn't known it, and now it was finally happening.
There are many more things that have happened along this line to do with the laws etc, but I'm not going to detail every one. The important thing to know is that we didn't come to this conclusion based on debate online. We didn't come to it based on talking with others nearby who keep Torah, in fact I don't know of any. We didn't even come to this conclusion based on reading the bible.
We got here because of the Holy Spirit. We got here because we were spoken to specifically.
So, how did Noah know what animals were clean and unclean? Probably the exact same way I did.
And how do we convince others to follow Torah? We don't. It's not our job. Discuss it, sure. But the important thing to remember is that everyone is at a different place in their journey. Where we were 2 years ago is vastly different from where we are now. What we need to remember is that everyone is saved in Yeshua. Keeping the laws doesn't make you saved. Too often we get stuck into something that we think is hugely important and try to shove it down everyone's throat. The reality is that what is important is salvation, and there are too many out there that aren't saved. The church is divided in so many ways. We need to stand together, Torah or not, and fight the real war.
I really hope this is coming across how I mean it to, Samuel isn't here to proof read for me
.
Samuel and I keep Torah, mostly, as much as we understand it so far. I'm going to give you the story of how we got there.
We had kind of been looking into the laws and seeing whether we should be following certain things. Not deeply, not routinely, just occasionally. I was drawn to it, and we had some good conversations.
My favourite food was always roast pork. Pork crackle to be exact. Bet chocolate even. We very rarely ate it, though we ate a bit of bacon, mostly because we do home kill and don't have pigs so we tend to eat mutton and beef. One day we were given a large pork roast by our neighbours that they hadn't used for a neighbourhood party. I was very thankful. But I couldn't eat it. I tried to, I cooked it up for everyone and took a bite. It tasted fine, but it seemed absolutely abominable to me. I really can't explain it except that it was unclean. I can't even explain that word properly.
We got about a third of the way through the roast, and I thought my head was going stupid because I was pregnant and it had decided to have a new weird food aversion. So I said to Samuel "I'm feeling really weird about this pork." And here's the clincher. He said "Me too."
This was not just me. He was having the exact same thoughts and feelings as I was. Samuel loves meat, and it's very rare that he doesn't like or won't eat a type of food so it was a big deal for him to say that.
We discussed it and figured it was YHWH speaking to us. After that we decided to keep the food laws. A few days later I said to him "Are we going to keep the feasts now too?" He said "Yes." We hadn't discussed this at all, but I felt this huge weight off my shoulders and I felt free. It was like I'd been wanting to go in this direction all this time and hadn't known it, and now it was finally happening.
There are many more things that have happened along this line to do with the laws etc, but I'm not going to detail every one. The important thing to know is that we didn't come to this conclusion based on debate online. We didn't come to it based on talking with others nearby who keep Torah, in fact I don't know of any. We didn't even come to this conclusion based on reading the bible.
We got here because of the Holy Spirit. We got here because we were spoken to specifically.
So, how did Noah know what animals were clean and unclean? Probably the exact same way I did.
And how do we convince others to follow Torah? We don't. It's not our job. Discuss it, sure. But the important thing to remember is that everyone is at a different place in their journey. Where we were 2 years ago is vastly different from where we are now. What we need to remember is that everyone is saved in Yeshua. Keeping the laws doesn't make you saved. Too often we get stuck into something that we think is hugely important and try to shove it down everyone's throat. The reality is that what is important is salvation, and there are too many out there that aren't saved. The church is divided in so many ways. We need to stand together, Torah or not, and fight the real war.
I really hope this is coming across how I mean it to, Samuel isn't here to proof read for me
.
No offense, but you missed the point, and the dichotomy. Let me try a rephrase.
Either we seek to read what is REALLY Written, as best as we fallible humans are able, IN context, in as close to the original sense as we can, or it's ultimately SOME MAN that says what He should have meant. That 'vicar' just might be the guy in the mirror, too. Or someThing else.
When I say "postulates" I'm making a fundamental point. WHAT is it that defines "law", or "truth"?
There really are only two choices; call the alternative what you will.