I would like to suggest some guidlelines on the above topic so people dont go over all the place
and instead we focus on sabbath keeping as a commandment of God.
Please give a maximum of 1 or 2 scriptures (chapter and verse) at a time in the beginning of your reply
so it doesnt get confusing for people who may not have an indepth knowledge on the above mentioned topic
and have a hard time understanding the scriptures relating to sabbath keeping.
Please do not provide scriptures that have nothing to with sabbath keeping- for instance
Matt 15:20 “These arethe thingswhich defile a man: but to eat with unwashen hands defileth not a man.”
You are welcome to explain the bible verses you provided and it can also be about sin and the laws of God
as it relates to sabbath keeping
Waxit - I disagree with your assessment that Colossians 2:16 is referring to a converted gentiles new way of life as a Christian. The context is referring to the feast days, the new moon festivals and sabbath days. The New Moon festivals were known as the Rosh Chodesh in Hebrew. Numbers 10:10 mentions the Rosh Chodesh:
Hi Infoabsorption
I trust you read my first message to you on the importance of the sabbath.
and the new testament bible verses in Hebrews 4 where God puts a strong emphasis on sabbath keeing
Here's the second message in reply to your understanding of Colossians 2:16
It's a long message but bear with me and I assure you will get an accurate understanding
and it will clear your doubts about sabbath keeping
Colossians 2:16
16 Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:
Ok! Let me clarify myself so you can understand where i am coming from
Although Col 2:16 is not directly making mention of a converted gentiles new way of life- if you back up right to the top in Colossians 1, you will
see that Colossians was specifically written to the church at Colosse- predominantly gentiles although they did have a strong jewish
minority
One of the first things in rightly interpreting the word of God among other things in the new testament especially in Paul's epistles
is to see who it was written and what was the problem that was being addressed by Paul
If you look the book of hebrews, you will see rtight from th start that it was written specifically to converts from judaism and you
can see Paul explaining the situation to the jewish converts, their position preJesus Christ
andhow the accomplishment of Jesus Christ puts the jewish believer in a much better and excellent position
and he illustrates with examples that a jewish conver would readily grasp
For instance Heb 3:5-6
5 And Moses verily was faithful in all his house, as a servant, for a testimony of those things which were to be spoken after;
6 But Christ as a son over his own house; whose house are we, if we hold fast the confidence and the rejoicing of the hope firm unto the end.
So we have to understand that in Colossians, it's primarily a gentile congrgation that Paul is addressing
If we get this wrong or ignore who it is being written to then it's more than likely the interpretation of the word will be wrong
or something will not quite fit and we end up with assumptions that are not true. or we are left wondering what is the correct interpretation from the word of God
Ok! back to Colossians to answer the issue with Col 2:16
Who is Paul writing to and what's the problem at Colosse
Colossians 1: 1 Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, and Timotheus our brother,
2 To the saints and faithful brethren in Christ which are at Colosse: Grace be unto you, and peace, from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.
Background of the Colossians
Located about 100 miles east of Ephesus, Colossae was a Graeco-Phrygian city in the Roman proconsular of Asia also known as Asia Minor.
It was one of three cities located in the Lycus Valley (Colossae, Hierapolis, and Laodicea) that formed an important trade route,
a virtual meeting point between east and west. Colossae was about ten miles from Laodicea and thirteen miles from Hierapolis.
At one time Colossae had been a large and populous city, but when Paul wrote to the Colossian church, it had become
just a small town in contrast to its nearest neighbors, Hierapolis and Laodicea
By virtue of its location along an important trade route Colosse was exposed to all kinds of cultural influences
and religious beliefs. They had syncretism -a mix of different belief systems- much like today's ecumenical movement -
where anything goes and everything is right. What right do you have in telling me that Jesus Christ is the only way to the Father and salvation?
This is the sort of harassment, the colossians were hammered with.
Secondly,gnosticism- where they believed matter or your body is irrelevant- it didnt matter what you did with your body-
(vpw would have been happy with this -he could have all the sex he wanted), it was the pure "spirit" that was important to the gnostics (yeah right! more like devil spirits)
You name it Colosse would have had it. The confusing poupourri of religious belief systems all wanting to exert it's influence on the gentile colossians
Simply put the colossians were in a spiritual mess, they didnt know what to believe
Paul writes this letter from Ephesus which is 100 miles east of Colosse to the Colossians by the hands of one Epaphras(resident of Colosse)
and beloved servant of God
Please note the colossans understanding of what is wrong and what is right was mixed up and they were coming under fire for
practising true christian beliefs and Paul is both straigthening them out and exhorting themto practise the truth as commanded by God
The colossians being part of a heavy traffic and important trade route were coming into contact and under pressure to incorporate
syncretic and gnostic belief systems into their new found christian faith
As a result they are being bombarded- dont eat this, dont drink this, then you might have the orthodox jews (phraisaical) telling them taste not,
touch not from their huge list of man made traditions- like the 613 rules of the mosaic law that you mentioned earlier
which God didnt command
That's why Paul is telling the colossians not to take notice of those from the syncretic and gnostic party trying to stick their
false religious beliefs on to the colossians
So all the false rubbish being being bandied about (touch not/taste note/vain philosphy/angel rubbish
shouldnt be jumbled up with the keeping of the 7th day sabbath and holy days, meat and drink during holy days which is legit
this is the mistake people make when trying to make sense of Col 2:16.
They look at all the false practices mentioned in Colossians and just slap it on to the sabbath and the holy days
It's like throwing out the baby with the bath water
Because of the huge number of negatives in Colossians- dont to this and dont do that etc, people automatically
think that sabbath and the holy days must also be negative which is simply not rue
Just to give you an analogy of how easy to have an understanding that is opposite to what the word of God is saying
is the example of gold mining
What is important is to sort out out the gold from the corrupt and impure horse manure of satan and his syncretism/gnostic/jewish tradition agents
If you dont do that- yup- it's like going gold mining and coming away empty- you come across what's looks like it has gold nuggets.
and you swivel the clump of dirt around in a pan and all you can see dirt o and you say Nah! it's all dirt mate- because it's full of dirt at the top
you reckon the whole shebang must be dirt
So US$100,00 gets thrown away with the dirt because the gold was not allowed to surfce to the top.
I will explain about what the new moon fesitvals- what it's relevance is- incidentally God's holy days,
new moon festivals were never a commanded observance
I would also like to bring your attention so you can see sabbath and holy days are actually commanded practices by God
Colossians 2:16-17
16 Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:
17 Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.
If you hold the view that in vs 16 it says : Do not allow anyone to judge you for not observing the sabbath, the holy days and for the type meat you eat or the type of drinks you have then vs 17 doesnt make sense
Why? because in vs 17- it plainly says these are similiar things- sabbath and the holy days that are actually going to take place in the future i.e which are a shadow of things to come
So why would Paul say: Hey guys, dont practise this now because thee are true practices that will also happen in the future - doesnt make sense does it?
We need to understand that Paul was confronting a heresy in his letter to the Colossians. False teachers had infiltrated the congregation in Colosse. These deceivers had influenced the Colossian Christians by introducing their own religious philosophy. This prompted Paul to warn the Colossians, “Beware lest anyone cheat you through philosophy and empty deceit according to the tradition of men” (Colossians 2:8). Humanly devised tradition—not the revealed instructions of God’s Word in the Bible—was the problem Paul was countering. Earlier Jesus had taken the Pharisees to task over the same kind of problem. They also had elevated their traditions to greater importance than God’s commandments (Mark 7:8-13).
Paul tried to keep the Colossians focused on Christ as the head of the Church (Colossians 1:18; Colossians 2:10-19). But these false teachers were trying to persuade them to direct their worship toward angels (Colossians 2:18) and neglect their own bodies (Colossians 2:23). No such distorted ideas are taught anywhere in the Scriptures.
Paul characterized the Colossian heresy as “empty deceit” and “the basic principles of the world” (Colossians 2:8). The deceivers were persuading the Colossians to ignore plain biblical instruction in favor of “traditions of men.”
What type of deceitful regulations did Paul combat? “Do not touch, do not taste, do not handle … according to the commandments and doctrines of men” (Colossians 2:21-22). The heretics advocated man-made regulations concerning physical things that “perish with the using” (verse 22).
Why is this important? The deceivers were probably forerunners of a major religious movement, gnosticism, that flourished in the second century. They did not represent the mainstream Jewish thinking of that day, nor were they faithful to the Scriptures.
They believed salvation could be obtained through constant contemplation of what is “spiritual”—to, as Paul explained, the “neglect” of the physical body (Colossians 2:23). It appears they believed in various orders of angels and in direct human interaction with angels.
Paul indicates they regarded all physical things, including the human body, as decadent. He explicitly states that the heresies he was countering “concern things which perish with the using [physical things] according to the commandments and doctrines of men” (Colossians 2:22). Paul tells us he was countering human commandments and doctrines—not the commandments of God.
The Colossian heretics had introduced various man-made prohibitions—such as “Do not touch, do not taste, do not handle” (Colossians 2:21)—against the enjoyment of physical things. They especially objected to the pleasurable aspects of God’s festivals—the eating and drinking aspects—that are commanded in the Scriptures (Deuteronomy 12:17-18).
When Paul wrote, “… Let no one judge you in food …” (Colossians 2:16), he wasn’t discussing what types of foods they should or should not eat. The Greek word brosis, translated “food,” refers not to the kinds of foods one should or should not eat, but to “the act of eating” (Vine’s Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words, 1985, “Food”). The point is that the deceivers disdained feasting—any type of eating and drinking for enjoyment.
Paul instructed the Colossian Christians not to be influenced by these false teachers’ objections to eating, drinking and rejoicing on Sabbaths, feast days and new moons.
Perhaps we should, at this point, mention the relationship between new moons and God’s festivals. The dates for observing God’s festivals are determined by a lunar calendar. Therefore new moons—which mark the beginning of the months—are important for establishing correct festival dates. Unlike God’s Holy Days, however, new moons are not commanded observances in the Scriptures. In the Millennium the custom of making the arrival of each new moon a special occasion will again be restored (Isaiah 66:23), but no biblical command exists now that requires their observance.
Now back to Paul’s main point: The Colossian deceivers had no authority to judge or determine how the Colossians were to observe God’s festivals. That is why Paul said, “Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days …” (Colossians 2:16-17, King James Version).
Notice that Paul tells them to reject false human judgment, not the judgment of God found in the Scriptures.
At this point we should note another grammatical matter. The words “respect of” are translated from the Greek noun meros, which denotes a part of something. Therefore a more accurate rendering of what Paul wrote would be “Let no man therefore judge you … in any part of a holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days …”
Paul is simply being consistent. Eating or drinking is an appropriate part of Sabbath and feast-day observance according to the Scriptures. Therefore Paul uses meros (“part”) to cover all parts or aspects of God’s Holy Days that these heretics might condemn or criticize. Nothing in this passage even suggests that God abolished His Sabbaths or Holy Days, nor authorized Paul to do so. Succumbing to the judgmental influence of those early gnostic heretics is what Paul condemns, not the observance of Sabbaths and feast days.
God’s festivals are times for joy and celebration. He commands us to attend them and rejoice with our children—our entire family (Deuteronomy 12:5-7; Deuteronomy 14:26). He wants us to delight in them. No wonder Paul condemns the misguided ascetic philosophy of the Colossian heretics with such vigor. Paul was defending the Christians’ right to enjoy feasting at God’s holy festivals.
Conclusion:
Paul is encouraging the Colossians to stand strong and do not give in to false heresies and wrong teachings
contrary to what they were already observing, in { keeping sabbath and holy days} and {enjoying the sabbaths by having your meals with meat and drinks
The new moons sighing were not a commanded observance and was simply there so people could mark the beginning of a new month
in accurately deciding on the holy feasts commanded by God
Colosians 2:16
16 Let no man therefore judge you ( in what you are already doing as part of your christian belief)
in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:
I suspect everyone else, no matter their positions which vary widely- thinks this is obvious in a way you're missing. I'll try to make it a clear question.
What are these "10 commandments that was given by God to all christians" of which you speak?
You've jumped to the ASSUMPTION that everyone is on board with you on this, and you might be entirely out on your own here. So, please speak directly to the question. BTW, it's a completely legit question, and I'm asking it to discuss the answer, so please don't suppose I didn't want an answer, and please don't toss down a glib answer that ducks the question.
Good luck getting a straight answer from him on that.
In order to propose that the 10 commandment were given by God to all Christians, you have to dismiss the concept of dispensationalism. Conversely, in order to suggest that certain sections of scripture are intended only for a specific time period or group of people you have to embrace the concept of dispensationalism. It's a real dilemma.
FWIW, IMO, believing that the 10 commandments were given by God to the Israelites one at least kinda has to side-step cultural history and anthropology too.
FWIW, IMO, believing that the 10 commandments were given by God to the Israelites one at least kinda has to side-step cultural history and anthropology too.
Historians, Biblical scholars and anthropologists has questioned the very existence of Moses for some time now.
That's right Allan- You hit the nail on the head -Mark 2:27
God loved his creaion and He created the 7th day as a sabbath- rest
and turned his creation's attention to him as the God the creator (worship)
So if God specifically made the 7th day sabbath for man- How come people ignore it?
But that's the point Waxit ! give me your definition of exactly what it is to follow or ignore it ?! I seem to remember Jesus bringing this up with the Pharisees about what they would do should one of their oxen fall into a ditch on the sabbath ! Orthodox Jews on a sabbath will not push buttons on an elevator but rather, wait for someone to come along who may be wanting to ride the elevator and get them to push it for them :)
Edited by Modgellan Deleted a phrase which violated policy here about no political comments.
A) We already have a thread on this very topic- which you started and which is an active thread. Adding a second thread only adds confusion.
B) This thread wasn't even put in the right forum. You posted it in Open- which is for everything that doesn't fit anywhere else. This is a DOCTRINAL post, so the DOCTRINAL forum is where it goes, and it goes in the "Doctrinal- Exploring the Bible" subforum, which is where the other one is.
C) If you really want to control the discussion (it appears you really want people to post YOUR way AND to have them agree with you), have you considered making your own messageboard? You can make the rules and force posts to conform to your ideas, mannerisms and opinions. If you post here, you're under the rules, policies and practices HERE. BTW, a lot of those are pretty standard for cyberspace, so finding another messageboard- unless it's specifically ex-twi- will probably feel much the same to you as this one does.
I've always found it interesting that Isaiah 28:11 is quoted in 1Corinthians 14:21 and it appears to be about the the OT prophesy of a day when Gods' people would speak in tongues and glorify Him in spirit and truth and in Isaiah it is called the 'rest' and the 'refreshing' (v12)
Contact them and tell them - nobody has seen their brain physically therfore they aint got one
"A brain is an organ that serves as the center of the nervous system in all vertebrate and most invertebrate animals. It is located in the head, usually close to the sensory organs for senses such as vision. It is the most complex organ in a vertebrate's body. In a human, the cerebral cortex contains approximately 14–16 billion neurons,[1] and the estimated number of neurons in the cerebellum is 55–70 billion.[2] Each neuron is connected by synapses to several thousand other neurons. These neurons communicate with one another by means of long protoplasmic fibers called axons, which carry trains of signal pulses called action potentials to distant parts of the brain or body targeting specific recipient cells."
"A brain is an organ that serves as the center of the nervous system in all vertebrate and most invertebrate animals. It is located in the head, usually close to the sensory organs for senses such as vision. It is the most complex organ in a vertebrate's body. In a human, the cerebral cortex contains approximately 14–16 billion neurons,[1] and the estimated number of neurons in the cerebellum is 55–70 billion.[2] Each neuron is connected by synapses to several thousand other neurons. These neurons communicate with one another by means of long protoplasmic fibers called axons, which carry trains of signal pulses called action potentials to distant parts of the brain or body targeting specific recipient cells."
Needless to say one should revise, revise, revise before submitting an article…Revision to the Nth degree = to a very high unspecified level or perhaps to the highest extent to which something can be taken is often informally expressed as “to the Nth degree”…which usually incites envy with letters A through M. The letter L is especially known to take serious offense – since one can research the “L” out of a _ot of things but that’s not as thorough as researching a lot of things to the Nth degree.
I've always found it interesting that Isaiah 28:11 is quoted in 1Corinthians 14:21 and it appears to be about the the OT prophesy of a day when Gods' people would speak in tongues and glorify Him in spirit and truth and in Isaiah it is called the 'rest' and the 'refreshing' (v12)
Hi Alan - Hopefully you will get something out of this- I spent quite a bit of time because I know that God will bless me and deepen my understanding
It's a sacrifice of my time- Not because i want to boast- it's because I love people- iron sharpeneth iron
I have had to study Isaiah 28:11 backwards and forwards and 1 Cor 14:21 and getting feedback from a couple of sources and prayed to God for understanding.
Without the spirit of truth, we can go round and round and not understand it- as good as speaking in toungues as a gift of the Holy Spirit
vpw the spiritual idiot used it to promote himself to increase his "authority" and recognition and did not abide by the keys and principles in right dividing of the word
wwhen it came into important topics and led people to think what he wanted them to think. He always rightly divided the word when it came to insignificant things like for instance "Paul's thorn in the flesh"
Thats why i call him an spiritual idiot because misled people and only used right diviiding of the word when it suited him so anything like the sabbath will be binned
Very often when we taken a verse in isolation without seeing where it's taken from and God is actually referring to
then we can make a mistake and will be in error.
It's like if you took an electrical switch from your television and fitted it into your car. Will it fit? It wont work will it?
So it's the same with the word of God taken out of context - it's happened to me quite a few times
If you look at the of Isaiah 28- it's about God wanting to communicate and teach the tribe of Ephraim (God's word-truth, law and commandments)
to build them up. He starts by giving it to the Ephaimites left right and centre for their pride and drunkeness (physical) vs 1-8
Boy! I wouldnt have wanted to be in their shoe for their complete ignorance, vanity and pride
How horrible can it get for these guys in Isaiah 28:8
8 For all tables are full of vomit and filthiness, so that there is no place clean.
Everywhere he looked there was filth (spiritual as well) and He is asking whom can he teach and show the way
9 Whom shall he teach knowledge? and whom shall he make to understand doctrine? them that
are weaned from the milk, and drawn from the breasts
(People who are meek and humble and cry out to God for knowledge and understanding)
Almost to the point of when a child cries out to the Father for understanding
Proverbs 2:1-5
1 My son, if thou wilt receive my words, and hide my commandments with thee;
2 So that thou incline thine ear unto wisdom, and apply thine heart to understanding;
3 Yea, if thou criest after knowledge, and liftest up thy voice for understanding;
4 If thou seekest her as silver, and searchest for her as for hid treasures;
5 Then shalt thou understand the fear of the Lord, and find the knowledge of God.
Isaiah 28
10For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line;here a little, and there a little:
(Sometimes to get a complete picture of what the verse is actually saying, we have got to go
different parts of the bible and the verses before and the verses after- all the verses that relate to the same subject- so you can see Allan, leading up to vs 11 Notice it's about the knowledge of God's word (laws and commandments) - it's not about speaking in tongues as such
11For with stammering lips and another tongue will he speak to this people.
(The Ephraimites were not only physically drunk but worse than that they were spiritual drunk with their own vanity, pride
and ignorance. This is why when God communicated knowledge and truth from His word to the spiritually drunk Ephraimites,it was as though He was speaking to them in a foreign language and very strange to themi,e stammering lips and another tongue)
Why would God need to speak to them in toungues- No! Thats not what he is doing here, rather he appears to the Ephraiites to speak in a foreign tongue
because they are spiritually drunk with false ideologies and combine that with pride,vanity and arogance- so what have you -spiritual stupor on the part of Ephraimies causing them not to understand or receive God's word?
12 To whom he said, This is the rest wherewith ye may cause the weary to rest; and this is the refreshing: yet they would not hear.
(So when God is saying- this is the rest - He is referring what he has been talked about all along- a knowledge of God's word,truth,laws & commandments
that is designed to give them rest and set them free from their toils and snares(spiritual enslavement to satan)
because of their state of spirital drunkeness, they were not able to receieve and rejected it
Jesus Christ (Lord of the Sabbath) said (This keeps coming up in my conversations on sabaath, I don't know if you are taking notice?
The Lord when teaching always spoke in spiritual terms and He said Learn of me-
Jesus Chrit is also the Word of God (Laws & Commandments of God)
Comeunto me,allye that labour andareheavyladen, and I will give you rest.
(spiritual rest that comes from observing and doing God's commandments)
13 But the word of theLordwas unto them precept upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line,
line upon line; here a little, and there a little; that they might go, and fall backward, and be broken, and snared, and taken. and this is the refreshing: yet they would not hear.
When the Ephraimites heard the word of God which was supposed to give rest and refreshing, (they stumbled and fell
what was good turned out bad for them because they were lifted up invanity and pride - they would not hear and it left
them in a very bad shape spiritually - deaf and blind even the word of God was being fed to them
Paul citing 1 Cor 14:21 referring to
1 Cor 14-21
21 In the law it is written, With men of other tongues and other lips will I speak unto this people; and yet for all that will they not hear me, saith the Lord.
Here Paul is quoting directly from Isaiah 28:11-12
11 For with stammering lips and another tongue will he speak to this people. (This is how it came across to Eprahaim)
12 To whom he said, This is the rest wherewith ye may cause the weary to rest; and this is the refreshing: yet they would not hear.
(God's word is refreshing and brings rest to the hearers who are able to receieve it)
So what Is Paul saying in 1 Cor 14:20-21? Same thing as what Isaiah is saying in 28:11-12
In 1 Cor 14 although the subject is speaking in tongues and prophesy
( rest in Isaiah 28:12 is referring to teaching of God's word not speaking in tongues)
Paul is using Isaiah 28:12 as a word for word quote to convey the meaning as it is used in Isaiah 28:12
that without the proper heart and attitude, speaking in tongues or the teaching of God's word will
be meaningless
{So I Corr 4:21 where the word "rest" is used should not be tied to speaking in tongues but rather
how it is used in Isaiah 28:12- The word of God (laws & commandments when it is observed and followed though
will bring rest and refreshment spiritually}
So if one is puffed up with pride, vanity,ignorance and lack of love,iinstead of being spiritul music to our ears,
it will be like a strange language with a lot of noise
So what is the heart and attitude we need to have, in order to be able to hear and benefit from the speaking in tongues according to Paul?
Have a look right at the beginning of
I Cor 14: Follow after charity...... (love of God) We saw earlier how the Ephraimites were spiritually drunk lifted up in their own vanity, pride and ignorance
and this is why they couldnt hear and refused the teaching of God
and as a result when God taught them His word, laws and commnandments, he was as someone speaking
in a foreign tongue that was strange to them
Waxit, not overly impressed with your ability to see, understand and learn. You said:
4 hours ago, Waxit said:
Hi Alan - Hopefully you will get something out of this- I spent quite a bit of time because I know that God will bless me and deepen my understanding
It's a sacrifice of my time- Not because i want to boast- it's because I love people- iron sharpeneth iron
I have had to study Isaiah 28:11 backwards and forwards and 1 Cor 14:21 and getting feedback from a couple of sources and prayed to God for understanding.
Well, you quoted the post from the person you are replying to. And if you look carefully, at the quote you posted, it's headed with his "handle" and with the slightest amount of attention, you will see he is called ALLAN - not Alan. Indeed, I know you've known this man for - gosh, it must be 30 years. And he's posted on this very thread several times.
You say you do all this study "because [you] love people." One of the fundamentals to demonstrate that you love people is to get their name right.
Something I carry away from TWI is: if people can't get the obvious correct, they surely are not reliable in what they say about what's less obvious.
Hi Alan - Hopefully you will get something out of this- I spent quite a bit of time because I know that God will bless me and deepen my understanding
It's a sacrifice of my time- Not because i want to boast- it's because I love people- iron sharpeneth iron
I have had to study Isaiah 28:11 backwards and forwards and 1 Cor 14:21 and getting feedback from a couple of sources and prayed to God for understanding. Without the spirit of truth, we can go round and round and not understand it- as good as speaking in toungues as a gift of the Holy Spirit
vpw the spiritual idiot used it to promote himself to increase his "authority" and recognition and did not abide by the keys and principles in right dividing of the word
wwhen it came into important topics and led people to think what he wanted them to think. He always rightly divided the word when it came to insignificant things like for instance "Paul's thorn in the flesh"
Thats why i call him an spiritual idiot because misled people and only used right diviiding of the word when it suited him so anything like the sabbath will be binned
Very often when we taken a verse in isolation without seeing where it's taken from and God is actually referring to
then we can make a mistake and will be in error.
It's like if you took an electrical switch from your television and fitted it into your car. Will it fit? It wont work will it?
So it's the same with the word of God taken out of context - it's happened to me quite a few times
(snip)
Concerning some of the double-talk on this thread I’ve noticed – and maybe other readers have too – that some folks use wierwille references almost like a polemic device - even if it's just alluding to some nebulous idea associated with wierwille or the Bible . It's contentious rhetoric that is intended to support a specific position by aggressive claims and undermining opposing viewpoints. I use the word “rhetoric” specifically because it is language that is designed to have a persuasive or impressive effect on its audience, but often regarded as lacking in sincerity or meaningful content.
Aside from the fact that even wierwille said “sincerity is no guarantee for truth” – which is actually a good bit of advice coming from someone who presented them self as being free from pretense, deceit, or hypocrisy – I think more often than not, an astute listener will analyze the actual content of what is said.
wierwille or Bullinger may have gotten some things wrong and may not have always adhered to the principles of interpretation of the Bible that they touted. Two of those “interpretation principles” have been brought up a few times on this thread – context and to whom is it written. I think wierwille and Bullinger were pretty consistent in going by those “rules”. My reason for presenting whole chapters (Rom. 14 & Col. 2) was to give context (Exhibit A)
BUT - one poster claimed I took Rom. 14. & Col. 2 out of context (Exhibit B) I had a growing concern that some readers would not realize this obfuscating tactic – claiming something is taken out of context when it actually was not – like yelling “fire” in a crowded movie theater when there is no fire (unless Towering Inferno is on the screen – we may dismiss that as audience participation for immersive enthusiasts).... Anyway at this point I realized the poster meant my passages were taken out of context with his viewpoint. (Exhibit C) In other words, Romans 14 and Colossians 2 can only be correctly understood when surrounded in the essential framework of keeping the Sabbath
Now let’s look at “to whom it is written” principle: my hopes were raised for a more sensible discussion as to what’s applicable for whom - when a post referred to wierwille’s/Bullinger’s interpretation principle “to whom is it written” (Exhibit D)
So I asked to whom is the Old Testament written (Exhibit E)
And as unbelievable as it sounds the answer to my question was that “The old testament was written for all of God's people -and it is the old covenant under Abrahan It's different from the new testament where you can see in the epistles to whom it is being written to The New Testament which is the new covenant in Jesus Christ is a continuation of the old testament” (Exhibit F)
So for those reading this thread who might wonder what the he11 is going on – let me just say this – there is more than one definition of what context means, and there is more than one interpretation of wierwille/Bullinger’s “to whom is it written” interpretation principle . It depends on who you ask.
To clarify my position I go with the standard definition of context being the circumstances that form the setting for an event, statement, or idea, and in terms of which it can be fully understood and assessed; in other words, a “normal” literary method one would use to explain a book, a story, technical instructions or a legal document…some folks might lean toward interpreting a passage in the context of their own belief system. I am sure there are other ways to define context – I’m just trying to be clear on my position.
And for the purposes of this thread regarding “to whom is it written”, I lean toward the wierwille/Bullinger categories of “address recipients” – Jew, Gentile and Church of God…some folks might lean toward interpreting a passage as speaking directly to their belief system or somehow supporting their viewpoint. I’m sure there’s other ways of understanding to whom a passage is speaking to as well – for this thread, I’m going with the wierwille/Bullinger’s “address recipients” as the apparent...obvious and specific person or group on the receiving end of the message.
It’s kind of odd – but I guess it’s convenient and efficient for selling something - when some folks use wierwille’s incompetence and/or his scandalous lifestyle as almost a makeshift strawman argument - intentionally misrepresenting a proposition (of a corrected, improved or unadulterated use of interpretation principles), because it is easier to defeat than an opponent's real argument; and furthermore claiming that one is using “biblical principles to rightly-divide the word” is nothing more than a sales pitch; personally I am very wary of pretentious folks who claim they have all this in-depth research. One person’s idea of in-depth work might be someone else’s idea of frolicking in the shallow end of a stagnant pool. Then there’s some folks who don’t like public pools cuz they’re worried about who peed in it.
== == == ==
Bonus feature: for solving the technical dilemma in the following problem: “It's like if you took an electrical switch from your television and fitted it into your car. Will it fit? It wont work will it?” Several issues need to be addressed before you can make this cannibalization of a TV set actually work in your car. What type of switch is it? Rotary, push-button, rocker, latching, momentary, etc.? What is the voltage/current rating of the “TV switch”? What are the voltage/current requirements of the circuit / device in the vehicle? Where will this switch be mounted in the vehicle? On the dashboard, project box on the floorboard, remotely – inside the engine well? Is there room to mount it, is there room to make the proper electrical connections, is there room for you to properly operate the switch? If these details are all properly addressed and appropriately handled – the do-it-yourself-modification should work...
...by the way - The “problem” as it was originally stated is NOT a good example of taking scripture (words) or ideas out of context – because the TV switch/car analogy actually refers to taking a physical object (TV switch) out of the context we usually find it in (a television set) and installing it in a different technological context (an automobile). It involves a much more tedious physical process and would probably be very easily noticed since it would not match the rest of the controls on the vehicle. (Sometimes mental trickery (logical fallacies) can get by unnoticed. But never fear, there’s a lot of sharp honest folks here at Grease Spot. ) Anyway for the TV Switch modification to be operational (actually work) in the car depends on the competency of the technician. Motor-heads thrive on modifying their vehicles.
That reminds me - I once worked with another very capable technician who came from Mexico. I think his being so successful and efficient was due in part to the culture he grew up in. He once said to me a lot of the handy folks that were around him did not have a throw-away-mentality like some have in the US. You work with what you got. The computer went out in his Ford Expedition during one of his trips back home. All he could find was a computer out of a Lincoln Navigator at a junk yard in Mexico and with a few modifications and workarounds for some sensor errors he got it to work!
...Now if you were trying to sell the vehicle and claimed the “TV switch” in the car was factory installed or that it was a standard feature on models for that year – that wouldn’t “work” in my book because that’s being dishonest. Now something that is relatively “easy” to do since it merely involves ignoring the rules of grammar and logic in critical thinking – is to take scripture out of context or on the flip flop to insist the passage relates to something else. It is by far a much easier modification to perform than the TV switch/ vehicle adaptation – since it involves the manipulation of ideas.
Waxit, not overly impressed with your ability to see, understand and learn. You said:
Well, you quoted the post from the person you are replying to. And if you look carefully, at the quote you posted, it's headed with his "handle" and with the slightest amount of attention, you will see he is called ALLAN - not Alan. Indeed, I know you've known this man for - gosh, it must be 30 years. And he's posted on this very thread several times.
You say you do all this study "because [you] love people." One of the fundamentals to demonstrate that you love people is to get their name right.
Something I carry away from TWI is: if people can't get the obvious correct, they surely are not reliable in what they say about what's less obvious.
I think you are jumping to conclusions too quickly and casting doubts on my realiability, just on the basis
of one missing letter. What you think is obvious may not necessarily be obvious for whatever reason
Yeah sure- you can get all the names correctly and can still be the biggest rat bag in town.
Do you make it a habit of just judging a person just on misspellings or wrong posting
which might be an honest mistake
I know you are in the legal professional but this is not a legal document I am writing
HA told LCM to get his name right! HA also used to arrange his clothing meticulously
and they are both sewer rats
It's in the heart bud
Alan knows me more than you do - I have even been in his fellowship before.
Yes! we do have our differences but we have always respected each other
People even sometimes spell my name wrongly and it is an honest mistake
and I don't jump on their throats
I think it's unfair for you to cast doubts on my love for people and unrealibility
just on the basis of a misspelling and a post neglecting the considerable amount
of time I spend when I could be doing something else
It doesnt matter mate- It can be a short form- dont make a big deal of it
Harsh words stirreth up strife but gentle words can break a bone
A Kind word gets the job done but anger produces resistance- especially if it is
no big deal- like i said it's not a legal document
And, as I said, I am firm in my belief that if the obvious is incorrect, the less obvious is suspect.
What is obvious to you may not be obvious to someone else- not everyone is as smart as you are
I don't get it, you are telling me
that you are not influencing anybody's perceptionw of me but your above quote is clearly
telling people overall that I am "suspect" and people like me must be scrutinied- vpw is ok- because he has all his "i"s dottd and "t"'s crossed
perfect grammar yes! you did think
he was the best since sliced bread (LOL) at one stage, didnt you but i am suspect - nothing is said about my actual message or contents
but because I missed something "obvious" to you- i must be suspect in the less obvious- peolple should look carefully
because I might be a conman
Twinky, you are on the leaderbord so people are going to respect you and when you say statements like this:
And, as I said, I am firm in my belief that if the obvious is incorrect, the less obvious is suspect.
they are going to have a negative bias even before they start reading my messages on open forum
Can you not see how subtly, you may be influencing others negatively in open forum instead of letting
them make up their own minds?
Yeah, Twinky. Waxit can post mean things about T-Bone, but if you post them about Waxit it's wrong because "you may be influencing others negatively", and apparently, they can't read the same posts as you and make up their own minds and agree or disagree individually.
What does it matter if we keep getting someone's name wrong even after being asked not to? It's only one letter? There were big rifts in Christendom over one letter. That's why "an iota of difference" may be small, but make a big difference (IIRC, it was "homouisis" vs "homousis" or something like that, with the difference being whether it was one word or the other, and the meanings varied between "of similar substance" vs "of the same substance" with the doctrine of the Trinity dividing up the sides.)
"He that is faithful in that which is least is faithful also in much: and he that is unjust in the least is unjust also in much."
If you're flubbing the less important, people won't trust you with the more important.
"If therefore ye have not been faithful in the unrighteous mammon, who will commit to your trust the true riches?"
I seldom post, but do read most of them, and wonder why zealots, such as yourself, continue to argue your point to such a small group of opponents? You have been going round and round for a goodly amount of time, even attempting to bypass this thread, and begin a new one on the same subject. Why you attempted the new thread is up for speculation, unless you decide to declare the mystery. I notice it has been deleted. either by you or the moderators, for being in the incorrect forum.
As animate and forceful as you are, I can assume you want as many people as possible to become aware of your strong beliefs. You are very livid in your understanding that the word be rightly divided, so why try to convert the posters at GSC, who repeated divide the word differently? Using your most persuasive arguments, zero have switched their dividing of the word to your right dividing. Seems you may be beating a dead horse and your time and talents better directed in another avenue. I guess, it is possible you are expending your energies to sharpen and hone your debate skills, and this is a good place to undertake such a measure. There are ample participants willing to sharpen iron against iron.
IMO, and if it was me with such a strong Godly belief with so many rebuffs, it would be time to knock on the next door. As a former WOW Ambassador (twice), when I encountered unbelief at a home, my next move was to hop across the sidewalk to the next house. This was done many, many times in a day over two years. I did not go back to the same unbelieving residence over and over trying to change their minds, and hopefully bring them around to what I was selling. I don't know your background in TWI, but you may have done identical witnessing.
As a WOW, I was holding forth the word with an overwhelming and strong belief I knew what God wanted for the world. This left all other occupants of the planet in the category of clueless. I gave them one chance to change their minds. Then at the end of the day, with all the other members of my WOW family, we licked our wounds, knowing we had done our best. To keep our moral up we put all those who had slammed their door on us, in the category of unbelievers, or not in God's Household.
Matthew 7:6 was the scripture we ended the day with; "Do not give what is holy to the dogs; nor cast your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you to pieces."
Would your pearls be better cast in more fertile ground with another website or other persons? Your pearls have definitely been trampled under foot by everyone at GSC who have responded to your posts. I don't know if you realize it, or not, but you have been turned on and torn to pieces.
Waxit, please stop being so insulting. Particularly towards me (is that because you know me?).
And do NOT attribute things to me that I haven't said. There is one VPW worshipper between you and me, AND IT ISN'T, AND NEVER HAS BEEN, ME! You may think you are not a VPW-worshipper, and you do speak against his behaviour (quite rightly) but (together with an overlay of other things you have read later) you continue to : refer to, quote,use, and otherwise adhere to, many of the things he taught in PFAL, in a way that sounds, whether you mean it or not, like a VPW-worshipper. .
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
60
71
80
156
Popular Days
May 24
27
Apr 23
25
Apr 26
24
May 20
23
Top Posters In This Topic
Rocky 60 posts
T-Bone 71 posts
Twinky 80 posts
Waxit 156 posts
Popular Days
May 24 2020
27 posts
Apr 23 2020
25 posts
Apr 26 2020
24 posts
May 20 2020
23 posts
Popular Posts
Twinky
Right. The goal of the law is to get to know Jesus, the Christ. Get to know the Man, the King, the Shepherd, the Redeemer. The goal of the law IS NOT to get to observe any specific day, or time
WordWolf
"The thing though with you guys, it looks like in a clique, you are comfortable in protecting yourselves and when a new kid in the block comes is with something you don't like (which is quite clearl
WordWolf
Waxit: "The 7th day Sabbath was universally accepted by all and observed by both Jews,Gentiles and the apostles/leadership Acts 13: 42 And when the Jews were gone out of the synagogue, the
T-Bone
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Twinky
Keep it in one place, please. Doesn't need to sprawl all over the Café.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Waxit
Hi Infoabsorption
I trust you read my first message to you on the importance of the sabbath.
and the new testament bible verses in Hebrews 4 where God puts a strong emphasis on sabbath keeing
Here's the second message in reply to your understanding of Colossians 2:16
It's a long message but bear with me and I assure you will get an accurate understanding
and it will clear your doubts about sabbath keeping
Colossians 2:16
16 Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:
Ok! Let me clarify myself so you can understand where i am coming from
Although Col 2:16 is not directly making mention of a converted gentiles new way of life- if you back up right to the top in Colossians 1, you will
see that Colossians was specifically written to the church at Colosse- predominantly gentiles although they did have a strong jewish
minority
One of the first things in rightly interpreting the word of God among other things in the new testament especially in Paul's epistles
is to see who it was written and what was the problem that was being addressed by Paul
If you look the book of hebrews, you will see rtight from th start that it was written specifically to converts from judaism and you
can see Paul explaining the situation to the jewish converts, their position preJesus Christ
andhow the accomplishment of Jesus Christ puts the jewish believer in a much better and excellent position
and he illustrates with examples that a jewish conver would readily grasp
For instance Heb 3:5-6
5 And Moses verily was faithful in all his house, as a servant, for a testimony of those things which were to be spoken after;
6 But Christ as a son over his own house; whose house are we, if we hold fast the confidence and the rejoicing of the hope firm unto the end.
So we have to understand that in Colossians, it's primarily a gentile congrgation that Paul is addressing
If we get this wrong or ignore who it is being written to then it's more than likely the interpretation of the word will be wrong
or something will not quite fit and we end up with assumptions that are not true. or we are left wondering what is the correct interpretation from the word of God
Ok! back to Colossians to answer the issue with Col 2:16
Who is Paul writing to and what's the problem at Colosse
Colossians 1:
1 Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, and Timotheus our brother,
2 To the saints and faithful brethren in Christ which are at Colosse: Grace be unto you, and peace, from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.
Background of the Colossians
Located about 100 miles east of Ephesus, Colossae was a Graeco-Phrygian city in the Roman proconsular of Asia also known as Asia Minor.
It was one of three cities located in the Lycus Valley (Colossae, Hierapolis, and Laodicea) that formed an important trade route,
a virtual meeting point between east and west. Colossae was about ten miles from Laodicea and thirteen miles from Hierapolis.
At one time Colossae had been a large and populous city, but when Paul wrote to the Colossian church, it had become
just a small town in contrast to its nearest neighbors, Hierapolis and Laodicea
By virtue of its location along an important trade route Colosse was exposed to all kinds of cultural influences
and religious beliefs. They had syncretism -a mix of different belief systems- much like today's ecumenical movement -
where anything goes and everything is right. What right do you have in telling me that Jesus Christ is the only way to the Father and salvation?
This is the sort of harassment, the colossians were hammered with.
Secondly,gnosticism- where they believed matter or your body is irrelevant- it didnt matter what you did with your body-
(vpw would have been happy with this -he could have all the sex he wanted), it was the pure "spirit" that was important to the gnostics (yeah right! more like devil spirits)
You name it Colosse would have had it. The confusing poupourri of religious belief systems all wanting to exert it's influence on the gentile colossians
Simply put the colossians were in a spiritual mess, they didnt know what to believe
Paul writes this letter from Ephesus which is 100 miles east of Colosse to the Colossians by the hands of one Epaphras(resident of Colosse)
and beloved servant of God
Please note the colossans understanding of what is wrong and what is right was mixed up and they were coming under fire for
practising true christian beliefs and Paul is both straigthening them out and exhorting themto practise the truth as commanded by God
The colossians being part of a heavy traffic and important trade route were coming into contact and under pressure to incorporate
syncretic and gnostic belief systems into their new found christian faith
As a result they are being bombarded- dont eat this, dont drink this, then you might have the orthodox jews (phraisaical) telling them taste not,
touch not from their huge list of man made traditions- like the 613 rules of the mosaic law that you mentioned earlier
which God didnt command
That's why Paul is telling the colossians not to take notice of those from the syncretic and gnostic party trying to stick their
false religious beliefs on to the colossians
So all the false rubbish being being bandied about (touch not/taste note/vain philosphy/angel rubbish
shouldnt be jumbled up with the keeping of the 7th day sabbath and holy days, meat and drink during holy days which is legit
this is the mistake people make when trying to make sense of Col 2:16.
They look at all the false practices mentioned in Colossians and just slap it on to the sabbath and the holy days
It's like throwing out the baby with the bath water
Because of the huge number of negatives in Colossians- dont to this and dont do that etc, people automatically
think that sabbath and the holy days must also be negative which is simply not rue
Just to give you an analogy of how easy to have an understanding that is opposite to what the word of God is saying
is the example of gold mining
What is important is to sort out out the gold from the corrupt and impure horse manure of satan and his syncretism/gnostic/jewish tradition agents
If you dont do that- yup- it's like going gold mining and coming away empty- you come across what's looks like it has gold nuggets.
and you swivel the clump of dirt around in a pan and all you can see dirt o and you say Nah! it's all dirt mate- because it's full of dirt at the top
you reckon the whole shebang must be dirt
So US$100,00 gets thrown away with the dirt because the gold was not allowed to surfce to the top.
I will explain about what the new moon fesitvals- what it's relevance is- incidentally God's holy days,
new moon festivals were never a commanded observance
I would also like to bring your attention so you can see sabbath and holy days are actually commanded practices by God
Colossians 2:16-17
16 Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:
17 Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.
If you hold the view that in vs 16 it says : Do not allow anyone to judge you for not observing the sabbath, the holy days and for the type meat you eat or the type of drinks you have then vs 17 doesnt make sense
Why? because in vs 17- it plainly says these are similiar things- sabbath and the holy days that are actually going to take place in the future i.e which are a shadow of things to come
So why would Paul say: Hey guys, dont practise this now because thee are true practices that will also happen in the future - doesnt make sense does it?
We need to understand that Paul was confronting a heresy in his letter to the Colossians. False teachers had infiltrated the congregation in Colosse. These deceivers had influenced the Colossian Christians by introducing their own religious philosophy. This prompted Paul to warn the Colossians, “Beware lest anyone cheat you through philosophy and empty deceit according to the tradition of men” (Colossians 2:8). Humanly devised tradition—not the revealed instructions of God’s Word in the Bible—was the problem Paul was countering. Earlier Jesus had taken the Pharisees to task over the same kind of problem. They also had elevated their traditions to greater importance than God’s commandments (Mark 7:8-13).
Paul tried to keep the Colossians focused on Christ as the head of the Church (Colossians 1:18; Colossians 2:10-19). But these false teachers were trying to persuade them to direct their worship toward angels (Colossians 2:18) and neglect their own bodies (Colossians 2:23). No such distorted ideas are taught anywhere in the Scriptures.
Paul characterized the Colossian heresy as “empty deceit” and “the basic principles of the world” (Colossians 2:8). The deceivers were persuading the Colossians to ignore plain biblical instruction in favor of “traditions of men.”
What type of deceitful regulations did Paul combat? “Do not touch, do not taste, do not handle … according to the commandments and doctrines of men” (Colossians 2:21-22). The heretics advocated man-made regulations concerning physical things that “perish with the using” (verse 22).
Why is this important? The deceivers were probably forerunners of a major religious movement, gnosticism, that flourished in the second century. They did not represent the mainstream Jewish thinking of that day, nor were they faithful to the Scriptures.
They believed salvation could be obtained through constant contemplation of what is “spiritual”—to, as Paul explained, the “neglect” of the physical body (Colossians 2:23). It appears they believed in various orders of angels and in direct human interaction with angels.
Paul indicates they regarded all physical things, including the human body, as decadent. He explicitly states that the heresies he was countering “concern things which perish with the using [physical things] according to the commandments and doctrines of men” (Colossians 2:22). Paul tells us he was countering human commandments and doctrines—not the commandments of God.
The Colossian heretics had introduced various man-made prohibitions—such as “Do not touch, do not taste, do not handle” (Colossians 2:21)—against the enjoyment of physical things. They especially objected to the pleasurable aspects of God’s festivals—the eating and drinking aspects—that are commanded in the Scriptures (Deuteronomy 12:17-18).
When Paul wrote, “… Let no one judge you in food …” (Colossians 2:16), he wasn’t discussing what types of foods they should or should not eat. The Greek word brosis, translated “food,” refers not to the kinds of foods one should or should not eat, but to “the act of eating” (Vine’s Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words, 1985, “Food”). The point is that the deceivers disdained feasting—any type of eating and drinking for enjoyment.
Paul instructed the Colossian Christians not to be influenced by these false teachers’ objections to eating, drinking and rejoicing on Sabbaths, feast days and new moons.
Perhaps we should, at this point, mention the relationship between new moons and God’s festivals. The dates for observing God’s festivals are determined by a lunar calendar. Therefore new moons—which mark the beginning of the months—are important for establishing correct festival dates. Unlike God’s Holy Days, however, new moons are not commanded observances in the Scriptures. In the Millennium the custom of making the arrival of each new moon a special occasion will again be restored (Isaiah 66:23), but no biblical command exists now that requires their observance.
Now back to Paul’s main point: The Colossian deceivers had no authority to judge or determine how the Colossians were to observe God’s festivals. That is why Paul said, “Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days …” (Colossians 2:16-17, King James Version).
Notice that Paul tells them to reject false human judgment, not the judgment of God found in the Scriptures.
At this point we should note another grammatical matter. The words “respect of” are translated from the Greek noun meros, which denotes a part of something. Therefore a more accurate rendering of what Paul wrote would be “Let no man therefore judge you … in any part of a holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days …”
Paul is simply being consistent. Eating or drinking is an appropriate part of Sabbath and feast-day observance according to the Scriptures. Therefore Paul uses meros (“part”) to cover all parts or aspects of God’s Holy Days that these heretics might condemn or criticize. Nothing in this passage even suggests that God abolished His Sabbaths or Holy Days, nor authorized Paul to do so. Succumbing to the judgmental influence of those early gnostic heretics is what Paul condemns, not the observance of Sabbaths and feast days.
God’s festivals are times for joy and celebration. He commands us to attend them and rejoice with our children—our entire family (Deuteronomy 12:5-7; Deuteronomy 14:26). He wants us to delight in them. No wonder Paul condemns the misguided ascetic philosophy of the Colossian heretics with such vigor. Paul was defending the Christians’ right to enjoy feasting at God’s holy festivals.
Conclusion:
Paul is encouraging the Colossians to stand strong and do not give in to false heresies and wrong teachings
contrary to what they were already observing, in { keeping sabbath and holy days} and {enjoying the sabbaths by having your meals with meat and drinks
The new moons sighing were not a commanded observance and was simply there so people could mark the beginning of a new month
in accurately deciding on the holy feasts commanded by God
Colosians 2:16
16 Let no man therefore judge you ( in what you are already doing as part of your christian belief)
in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:
Regards
Waxit
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
Good luck getting a straight answer from him on that.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
FWIW, IMO, believing that the 10 commandments were given by God to the Israelites one at least kinda has to side-step cultural history and anthropology too.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Historians, Biblical scholars and anthropologists has questioned the very existence of Moses for some time now.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Twinky
Now you're winding Waxit up, Waysider.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Allan
But that's the point Waxit ! give me your definition of exactly what it is to follow or ignore it ?! I seem to remember Jesus bringing this up with the Pharisees about what they would do should one of their oxen fall into a ditch on the sabbath ! Orthodox Jews on a sabbath will not push buttons on an elevator but rather, wait for someone to come along who may be wanting to ride the elevator and get them to push it for them :)
Edited by ModgellanDeleted a phrase which violated policy here about no political comments.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Allan
I've always found it interesting that Isaiah 28:11 is quoted in 1Corinthians 14:21 and it appears to be about the the OT prophesy of a day when Gods' people would speak in tongues and glorify Him in spirit and truth and in Isaiah it is called the 'rest' and the 'refreshing' (v12)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Waxit
Contact them and tell them - nobody has seen their brain physically therfore they aint got one
Edited by WaxitLink to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
"A brain is an organ that serves as the center of the nervous system in all vertebrate and most invertebrate animals. It is located in the head, usually close to the sensory organs for senses such as vision. It is the most complex organ in a vertebrate's body. In a human, the cerebral cortex contains approximately 14–16 billion neurons,[1] and the estimated number of neurons in the cerebellum is 55–70 billion.[2] Each neuron is connected by synapses to several thousand other neurons. These neurons communicate with one another by means of long protoplasmic fibers called axons, which carry trains of signal pulses called action potentials to distant parts of the brain or body targeting specific recipient cells."
from: Wikipedia, the brain
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Waxit
Thanks Doc- I will publish your findings in the scientific journal
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Before you hit the “submit” button to scientific journal, here’s a checklist (and pitfalls to avoid) right here - steps to publishing in a scientific journal
Needless to say one should revise, revise, revise before submitting an article…Revision to the Nth degree = to a very high unspecified level or perhaps to the highest extent to which something can be taken is often informally expressed as “to the Nth degree”…which usually incites envy with letters A through M. The letter L is especially known to take serious offense – since one can research the “L” out of a _ot of things but that’s not as thorough as researching a lot of things to the Nth degree.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Waxit
Hi Alan - Hopefully you will get something out of this- I spent quite a bit of time because I know that God will bless me and deepen my understanding
It's a sacrifice of my time- Not because i want to boast- it's because I love people- iron sharpeneth iron
I have had to study Isaiah 28:11 backwards and forwards and 1 Cor 14:21 and getting feedback from a couple of sources and prayed to God for understanding.
Without the spirit of truth, we can go round and round and not understand it- as good as speaking in toungues as a gift of the Holy Spirit
vpw the spiritual idiot used it to promote himself to increase his "authority" and recognition and did not abide by the keys and principles in right dividing of the word
wwhen it came into important topics and led people to think what he wanted them to think. He always rightly divided the word when it came to insignificant things like for instance "Paul's thorn in the flesh"
Thats why i call him an spiritual idiot because misled people and only used right diviiding of the word when it suited him so anything like the sabbath will be binned
Very often when we taken a verse in isolation without seeing where it's taken from and God is actually referring to
then we can make a mistake and will be in error.
It's like if you took an electrical switch from your television and fitted it into your car. Will it fit? It wont work will it?
So it's the same with the word of God taken out of context - it's happened to me quite a few times
If you look at the of Isaiah 28- it's about God wanting to communicate and teach the tribe of Ephraim (God's word-truth, law and commandments)
to build them up. He starts by giving it to the Ephaimites left right and centre for their pride and drunkeness (physical) vs 1-8
Boy! I wouldnt have wanted to be in their shoe for their complete ignorance, vanity and pride
How horrible can it get for these guys in Isaiah 28:8
8 For all tables are full of vomit and filthiness, so that there is no place clean.
Everywhere he looked there was filth (spiritual as well) and He is asking whom can he teach and show the way
9 Whom shall he teach knowledge? and whom shall he make to understand doctrine? them that
are weaned from the milk, and drawn from the breasts
(People who are meek and humble and cry out to God for knowledge and understanding)
Almost to the point of when a child cries out to the Father for understanding
Proverbs 2:1-5
1 My son, if thou wilt receive my words, and hide my commandments with thee;
2 So that thou incline thine ear unto wisdom, and apply thine heart to understanding;
3 Yea, if thou criest after knowledge, and liftest up thy voice for understanding;
4 If thou seekest her as silver, and searchest for her as for hid treasures;
5 Then shalt thou understand the fear of the Lord, and find the knowledge of God.
Isaiah 28
10 For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little:
(Sometimes to get a complete picture of what the verse is actually saying, we have got to go
different parts of the bible and the verses before and the verses after- all the verses that relate to the same subject- so you can see Allan, leading up to vs 11
Notice it's about the knowledge of God's word (laws and commandments) - it's not about speaking in tongues as such
11 For with stammering lips and another tongue will he speak to this people.
(The Ephraimites were not only physically drunk but worse than that they were spiritual drunk with their own vanity, pride
and ignorance. This is why when God communicated knowledge and truth from His word to the spiritually drunk Ephraimites, it was as though
He was speaking to them in a foreign language and very strange to them i,e stammering lips and another tongue)
Why would God need to speak to them in toungues- No! Thats not what he is doing here, rather he appears to the Ephraiites to speak in a foreign tongue
because they are spiritually drunk with false ideologies and combine that with pride,vanity and arogance- so what have you -spiritual stupor on the part of Ephraimies causing them not to understand or receive God's word?
12 To whom he said, This is the rest wherewith ye may cause the weary to rest; and this is the refreshing: yet they would not hear.
(So when God is saying- this is the rest - He is referring what he has been talked about all along- a knowledge of God's word,truth,laws & commandments
that is designed to give them rest and set them free from their toils and snares(spiritual enslavement to satan)
because of their state of spirital drunkeness, they were not able to receieve and rejected it
Jesus Christ (Lord of the Sabbath) said (This keeps coming up in my conversations on sabaath, I don't know if you are taking notice?
The Lord when teaching always spoke in spiritual terms and He said Learn of me-
Jesus Chrit is also the Word of God (Laws & Commandments of God)
13 But the word of the Lord was unto them precept upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line,
line upon line; here a little, and there a little; that they might go, and fall backward, and be broken, and snared, and taken.
and this is the refreshing: yet they would not hear.
When the Ephraimites heard the word of God which was supposed to give rest and refreshing, (they stumbled and fell
what was good turned out bad for them because they were lifted up invanity and pride - they would not hear and it left
them in a very bad shape spiritually - deaf and blind even the word of God was being fed to them
Paul citing 1 Cor 14:21 referring to
1 Cor 14-21
21 In the law it is written, With men of other tongues and other lips will I speak unto this people; and yet for all that will they not hear me, saith the Lord.
Here Paul is quoting directly from Isaiah 28:11-12
11 For with stammering lips and another tongue will he speak to this people. (This is how it came across to Eprahaim)
12 To whom he said, This is the rest wherewith ye may cause the weary to rest; and this is the refreshing: yet they would not hear.
(God's word is refreshing and brings rest to the hearers who are able to receieve it)
So what Is Paul saying in 1 Cor 14:20-21? Same thing as what Isaiah is saying in 28:11-12
In 1 Cor 14 although the subject is speaking in tongues and prophesy
( rest in Isaiah 28:12 is referring to teaching of God's word not speaking in tongues)
Paul is using Isaiah 28:12 as a word for word quote to convey the meaning as it is used in Isaiah 28:12
that without the proper heart and attitude, speaking in tongues or the teaching of God's word will
be meaningless
{So I Corr 4:21 where the word "rest" is used should not be tied to speaking in tongues but rather
how it is used in Isaiah 28:12- The word of God (laws & commandments when it is observed and followed though
will bring rest and refreshment spiritually}
So if one is puffed up with pride, vanity,ignorance and lack of love,iinstead of being spiritul music to our ears,
it will be like a strange language with a lot of noise
So what is the heart and attitude we need to have, in order to be able to hear and benefit from the speaking in tongues according to Paul?
Have a look right at the beginning of
I Cor 14:
Follow after charity...... (love of God)
We saw earlier how the Ephraimites were spiritually drunk lifted up in their own vanity, pride and ignorance
and this is why they couldnt hear and refused the teaching of God
and as a result when God taught them His word, laws and commnandments, he was as someone speaking
in a foreign tongue that was strange to them
Regards
Waxit
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Twinky
Waxit, not overly impressed with your ability to see, understand and learn. You said:
Well, you quoted the post from the person you are replying to. And if you look carefully, at the quote you posted, it's headed with his "handle" and with the slightest amount of attention, you will see he is called ALLAN - not Alan. Indeed, I know you've known this man for - gosh, it must be 30 years. And he's posted on this very thread several times.
You say you do all this study "because [you] love people." One of the fundamentals to demonstrate that you love people is to get their name right.
Something I carry away from TWI is: if people can't get the obvious correct, they surely are not reliable in what they say about what's less obvious.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Concerning some of the double-talk on this thread I’ve noticed – and maybe other readers have too – that some folks use wierwille references almost like a polemic device - even if it's just alluding to some nebulous idea associated with wierwille or the Bible . It's contentious rhetoric that is intended to support a specific position by aggressive claims and undermining opposing viewpoints. I use the word “rhetoric” specifically because it is language that is designed to have a persuasive or impressive effect on its audience, but often regarded as lacking in sincerity or meaningful content.
Aside from the fact that even wierwille said “sincerity is no guarantee for truth” – which is actually a good bit of advice coming from someone who presented them self as being free from pretense, deceit, or hypocrisy – I think more often than not, an astute listener will analyze the actual content of what is said.
wierwille or Bullinger may have gotten some things wrong and may not have always adhered to the principles of interpretation of the Bible that they touted. Two of those “interpretation principles” have been brought up a few times on this thread – context and to whom is it written. I think wierwille and Bullinger were pretty consistent in going by those “rules”. My reason for presenting whole chapters (Rom. 14 & Col. 2) was to give context (Exhibit A)
BUT - one poster claimed I took Rom. 14. & Col. 2 out of context (Exhibit B) I had a growing concern that some readers would not realize this obfuscating tactic – claiming something is taken out of context when it actually was not – like yelling “fire” in a crowded movie theater when there is no fire (unless Towering Inferno is on the screen – we may dismiss that as audience participation for immersive enthusiasts).... Anyway at this point I realized the poster meant my passages were taken out of context with his viewpoint. (Exhibit C) In other words, Romans 14 and Colossians 2 can only be correctly understood when surrounded in the essential framework of keeping the Sabbath
Now let’s look at “to whom it is written” principle: my hopes were raised for a more sensible discussion as to what’s applicable for whom - when a post referred to wierwille’s/Bullinger’s interpretation principle “to whom is it written” (Exhibit D)
So I asked to whom is the Old Testament written (Exhibit E)
And as unbelievable as it sounds the answer to my question was that “The old testament was written for all of God's people -and it is the old covenant under Abrahan It's different from the new testament where you can see in the epistles to whom it is being written to The New Testament which is the new covenant in Jesus Christ is a continuation of the old testament” (Exhibit F)
So for those reading this thread who might wonder what the he11 is going on – let me just say this – there is more than one definition of what context means, and there is more than one interpretation of wierwille/Bullinger’s “to whom is it written” interpretation principle
. It depends on who you ask.
To clarify my position I go with the standard definition of context being the circumstances that form the setting for an event, statement, or idea, and in terms of which it can be fully understood and assessed; in other words, a “normal” literary method one would use to explain a book, a story, technical instructions or a legal document…some folks might lean toward interpreting a passage in the context of their own belief system. I am sure there are other ways to define context – I’m just trying to be clear on my position.
And for the purposes of this thread regarding “to whom is it written”, I lean toward the wierwille/Bullinger categories of “address recipients” – Jew, Gentile and Church of God…some folks might lean toward interpreting a passage as speaking directly to their belief system or somehow supporting their viewpoint. I’m sure there’s other ways of understanding to whom a passage is speaking to as well – for this thread, I’m going with the wierwille/Bullinger’s “address recipients” as the apparent...obvious and specific person or group on the receiving end of the message.
It’s kind of odd – but I guess it’s convenient and efficient for selling something - when some folks use wierwille’s incompetence and/or his scandalous lifestyle as almost a makeshift strawman argument - intentionally misrepresenting a proposition (of a corrected, improved or unadulterated use of interpretation principles), because it is easier to defeat than an opponent's real argument; and furthermore claiming that one is using “biblical principles to rightly-divide the word” is nothing more than a sales pitch; personally I am very wary of pretentious folks who claim they have all this in-depth research. One person’s idea of in-depth work might be someone else’s idea of frolicking in the shallow end of a stagnant pool. Then there’s some folks who don’t like public pools cuz they’re worried about who peed in it.
== == == ==
Bonus feature: for solving the technical dilemma in the following problem: “It's like if you took an electrical switch from your television and fitted it into your car. Will it fit? It wont work will it?” Several issues need to be addressed before you can make this cannibalization of a TV set actually work in your car. What type of switch is it? Rotary, push-button, rocker, latching, momentary, etc.? What is the voltage/current rating of the “TV switch”? What are the voltage/current requirements of the circuit / device in the vehicle? Where will this switch be mounted in the vehicle? On the dashboard, project box on the floorboard, remotely – inside the engine well? Is there room to mount it, is there room to make the proper electrical connections, is there room for you to properly operate the switch? If these details are all properly addressed and appropriately handled – the do-it-yourself-modification should work...
...by the way - The “problem” as it was originally stated is NOT a good example of taking scripture (words) or ideas out of context – because the TV switch/car analogy actually refers to taking a physical object (TV switch) out of the context we usually find it in (a television set) and installing it in a different technological context (an automobile). It involves a much more tedious physical process and would probably be very easily noticed since it would not match the rest of the controls on the vehicle. (Sometimes mental trickery (logical fallacies) can get by unnoticed. But never fear, there’s a lot of sharp honest folks here at Grease Spot.
) Anyway for the TV Switch modification to be operational (actually work) in the car depends on the competency of the technician. Motor-heads thrive on modifying their vehicles.
That reminds me - I once worked with another very capable technician who came from Mexico. I think his being so successful and efficient was due in part to the culture he grew up in. He once said to me a lot of the handy folks that were around him did not have a throw-away-mentality like some have in the US. You work with what you got. The computer went out in his Ford Expedition during one of his trips back home. All he could find was a computer out of a Lincoln Navigator at a junk yard in Mexico and with a few modifications and workarounds for some sensor errors he got it to work!
...Now if you were trying to sell the vehicle and claimed the “TV switch” in the car was factory installed or that it was a standard feature on models for that year – that wouldn’t “work” in my book because that’s being dishonest. Now something that is relatively “easy” to do since it merely involves ignoring the rules of grammar and logic in critical thinking – is to take scripture out of context or on the flip flop to insist the passage relates to something else. It is by far a much easier modification to perform than the TV switch/ vehicle adaptation – since it involves the manipulation of ideas.
Edited by T-Bonerevisions abound
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Waxit
I think you are jumping to conclusions too quickly and casting doubts on my realiability, just on the basis
of one missing letter. What you think is obvious may not necessarily be obvious for whatever reason
Yeah sure- you can get all the names correctly and can still be the biggest rat bag in town.
Do you make it a habit of just judging a person just on misspellings or wrong posting
which might be an honest mistake
I know you are in the legal professional but this is not a legal document I am writing
HA told LCM to get his name right! HA also used to arrange his clothing meticulously
and they are both sewer rats
It's in the heart bud
Alan knows me more than you do - I have even been in his fellowship before.
Yes! we do have our differences but we have always respected each other
People even sometimes spell my name wrongly and it is an honest mistake
and I don't jump on their throats
I think it's unfair for you to cast doubts on my love for people and unrealibility
just on the basis of a misspelling and a post neglecting the considerable amount
of time I spend when I could be doing something else
A Poem called "Kind Word Never Fails"
Go to https://images.app.goo.gl/waGTd289px2zzUdS7
No hard feelings- I still love all people including you regardless even if you choose to think
Edited by Waxitotherwise
Regards
Gabe
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Twinky
Waxit, I am not unduly influencing anybody here - as if!!!
And, as I said, I am firm in my belief that if the obvious is incorrect, the less obvious is suspect.
I'm not saying anything about your spelling, though I'm sure you do know better. "Realiability" better.
And BTW, you still misspelled Allan's name!!!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Waxit
It doesnt matter mate- It can be a short form- dont make a big deal of it
Harsh words stirreth up strife but gentle words can break a bone
A Kind word gets the job done but anger produces resistance- especially if it is
no big deal- like i said it's not a legal document
Have a pleasant day
Waxit
Edited by WaxitLink to comment
Share on other sites
Waxit
What is obvious to you may not be obvious to someone else- not everyone is as smart as you are
- nothing is said about my actual message or contents
I don't get it, you are telling me
that you are not influencing anybody's perceptionw of me but your above quote is clearly
telling people overall that I am "suspect" and people like me must be scrutinied- vpw is ok- because he has all his "i"s dottd and "t"'s crossed
perfect grammar yes! you did think
he was the best since sliced bread (LOL) at one stage, didnt you but i am suspect
but because I missed something "obvious" to you- i must be suspect in the less obvious- peolple should look carefully
because I might be a conman
Twinky, you are on the leaderbord so people are going to respect you and when you say statements like this:
And, as I said, I am firm in my belief that if the obvious is incorrect, the less obvious is suspect.
they are going to have a negative bias even before they start reading my messages on open forum
Can you not see how subtly, you may be influencing others negatively in open forum instead of letting
them make up their own minds?
Regards
Waxit
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Yeah, Twinky. Waxit can post mean things about T-Bone, but if you post them about Waxit it's wrong because "you may be influencing others negatively", and apparently, they can't read the same posts as you and make up their own minds and agree or disagree individually.
What does it matter if we keep getting someone's name wrong even after being asked not to? It's only one letter? There were big rifts in Christendom over one letter. That's why "an iota of difference" may be small, but make a big difference (IIRC, it was "homouisis" vs "homousis" or something like that, with the difference being whether it was one word or the other, and the meanings varied between "of similar substance" vs "of the same substance" with the doctrine of the Trinity dividing up the sides.)
"He that is faithful in that which is least is faithful also in much: and he that is unjust in the least is unjust also in much."
If you're flubbing the less important, people won't trust you with the more important.
"If therefore ye have not been faithful in the unrighteous mammon, who will commit to your trust the true riches?"
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Stayed Too Long
Waxit
I seldom post, but do read most of them, and wonder why zealots, such as yourself, continue to argue your point to such a small group of opponents? You have been going round and round for a goodly amount of time, even attempting to bypass this thread, and begin a new one on the same subject. Why you attempted the new thread is up for speculation, unless you decide to declare the mystery. I notice it has been deleted. either by you or the moderators, for being in the incorrect forum.
As animate and forceful as you are, I can assume you want as many people as possible to become aware of your strong beliefs. You are very livid in your understanding that the word be rightly divided, so why try to convert the posters at GSC, who repeated divide the word differently? Using your most persuasive arguments, zero have switched their dividing of the word to your right dividing. Seems you may be beating a dead horse and your time and talents better directed in another avenue. I guess, it is possible you are expending your energies to sharpen and hone your debate skills, and this is a good place to undertake such a measure. There are ample participants willing to sharpen iron against iron.
IMO, and if it was me with such a strong Godly belief with so many rebuffs, it would be time to knock on the next door. As a former WOW Ambassador (twice), when I encountered unbelief at a home, my next move was to hop across the sidewalk to the next house. This was done many, many times in a day over two years. I did not go back to the same unbelieving residence over and over trying to change their minds, and hopefully bring them around to what I was selling. I don't know your background in TWI, but you may have done identical witnessing.
As a WOW, I was holding forth the word with an overwhelming and strong belief I knew what God wanted for the world. This left all other occupants of the planet in the category of clueless. I gave them one chance to change their minds. Then at the end of the day, with all the other members of my WOW family, we licked our wounds, knowing we had done our best. To keep our moral up we put all those who had slammed their door on us, in the category of unbelievers, or not in God's Household.
Matthew 7:6 was the scripture we ended the day with; "Do not give what is holy to the dogs; nor cast your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you to pieces."
Would your pearls be better cast in more fertile ground with another website or other persons? Your pearls have definitely been trampled under foot by everyone at GSC who have responded to your posts. I don't know if you realize it, or not, but you have been turned on and torn to pieces.
I believe Matthew 7:6 has been rightly divided?
Stayed Too Long
Edited by Stayed Too LongLink to comment
Share on other sites
Twinky
Waxit, please stop being so insulting. Particularly towards me (is that because you know me?).
And do NOT attribute things to me that I haven't said. There is one VPW worshipper between you and me, AND IT ISN'T, AND NEVER HAS BEEN, ME! You may think you are not a VPW-worshipper, and you do speak against his behaviour (quite rightly) but (together with an overlay of other things you have read later) you continue to : refer to, quote, use, and otherwise adhere to, many of the things he taught in PFAL, in a way that sounds, whether you mean it or not, like a VPW-worshipper. .
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.