• Help Spread the Fire
  • Click here to read Dr. Brown's latest article
  • Dr. Brown Answers Your Questions

    May 16, 2014 | 556 Comments

    Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

    [Download MP3]

    Is it ever right for Christians to take one another to court? What is the meaning of “word of wisdom” and “word of knowledge” in the New Testament? Is the church using modern explanations for homosexuality rather than biblical ones? Listen live here 2-4 pm EST, and call into the show at (866) 348 7884 with your questions and comments.

     

     

    Hour 1:

    Dr. Brown’s Bottom Line: There is turmoil around us. There is moral insanity around us, which means be sober, be vigilant, and keep your eyes fixed on the Lord.

    Hour 2:

    Dr. Brown’s Bottom Line: Righteousness shines! Righteousness cannot be defeated, and truth will never be overcome!

    SPECIAL OFFER! THIS WEEK ONLY! 
    This week, we’re offering two important resources from Dr. Brown, his brand new book, Can You Be Gay and Christian?, and his DVD debate with gay activist (and professing born-again Christian) Harry Knox. You can get both of these key resources for the super low price of just $25! Postage Paid! That’s a $15 savings!
    Order Online!

    Other Resources:

    How to Test the Spirits

    Cessationist Call-In Day

    Dr. Brown Debates Homosexuality with Prof. John Corvino and Then Discusses Mean-Spirited Communication in the Body (and More)

    Spread the Word:
    • E-mail this story to a friend!
    • Facebook
    • Digg
    • del.icio.us
    • Mixx
    • MySpace
    • Technorati
    • Sphinn
    • StumbleUpon
    • TwitThis

    Comments

    556 Responses to “Dr. Brown Answers Your Questions”

    1. Benjamin Warkentin
      May 16th, 2014 @ 11:34 am

      Mike,

      If you have time on today’s show, maybe you could discuss in particular Acts 15:21 and it’s meaning in light of the surrounding verses dealing with Gentiles and the Law.

      (AV)
      21 For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day.

      It seems there are at least two camps viewing this verse very differently.

      First I will share the view I ‘disagree’ with.

      “Christians generally ignore this verse in the passage because the ramifications are obvious: What has Torah being taught each week in synagogues have to do with Gentile believers? Why is it being mentioned here along with the ‘four laws’? Because the Gentiles were to *learn Torah* each week in the synagogues! They are being started off on these four laws so they would have the bare basics to begin fellowshiping with their Jewish brethren and they would learn the rest of Torah each shabbat at synagogue. Only after pointing out the Gentiles would learn Torah weekly “did it please the apostles and elders” (vs 22) to send this letter out to the various churches.”

      This understanding seems very twisted and dismissive of the grammar of the passage.

      The other view, which makes much more sense and is what I got from the passage when I read it is this:

      “Concerning Moses: Acts 15:21
      For Moses from generations of old has in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath.

      James’ second conclusion concerned Moses, because in every city there were Jewish synagogues where rabbis proclaimed these matters. Gentile believers who continued to practice these things would offend unbelieving Jewish people, as well as believing Jews, because Moses is read in their synagogues every Sabbath. But as for Gentile believers, since they are not adherents of Judaism anyway, there was no need to impose upon them the requirements of the Law.”

      ***End of Question segment***

      I may post more about the four laws mentioned by James later.

    2. Sheila
      May 16th, 2014 @ 12:10 pm

      Benjamin,

      I think what they mean by Moses being read in the synagogues every Sabbath was most likely referring to the reading of one of the first five books of the First Testament. These have come to be known as Torah portion, or commonly the Book of Moses. We know them too, as the Pentateuch.

      I understand what they’re saying is that gentile converts to “Judaism” (it wasn’t yet called that) were quite familiar with the Torah, having attended synagogue and in order to convert to Judaism there would have been requirements to meet, such as circumcision. With the advent of Messiah, the Gentiles no longer need to go through the establishment but directly to and through Messiah, Jesus. Hence their saying what they did. They’re saying only that many Gentiles were familiar with the law and it was probably a little confusing at first to win them over too. But, not that we should all now keep Torah! No. That’s wrong although Bo will tell you otherwise.

      Oh no, I hope we didn’t start something.

    3. Bo
      May 16th, 2014 @ 1:25 pm

      Benjamin and Sheila,

      I do not even know if this thread will be an acceptable venue for this discussion. You both probably know something of my stance. Just about every time I bring the topic up, Dr. Brown says something like, “You have had thousands of posts regarding this topic and it should be dropped.” It is yet to be seen if we are permitted to have this discussion here.

      I will not likely convince either of you toward my side, because of your prior assumptions. I used to have those prior assumptions, but after investigating the matter starting from Genesis instead of starting in Galatians, I am convinced that we are grafted into Israel and that there is one law for both the stranger and the home born and not two separate sets of rules. The Israelites are not grafted into us.

      The issue is one of obedience to the faith once delivered to the Saints. I think that if we honestly take every word in scripture on the subject, instead of using a few to make void the others, that we will see clearly that the only thing wrong with the commitment to keep YHWH’s perfect law is if one is trying to gain salvation by works. But there is much wrong with exempting one’s self from YHWH’s revelation of what actions are righteous and holy. Once salvation has been granted by grace through faith, we work out our own salvation by gaining in knowledge of YHWH’s word and putting it into practice. Thus, at the time of Acts 15, the controversy was salvation by works/keeping the law compared to salvation by grace. This was settled with the concluding remarks that the only scripture available at the time was to be heard by the new converts in the only place that they could hear it read.

      The conclusion was that the whole word of YHWH was important for correctly living as holy and righteous children of YHWH who had been grafted into Israel by grace instead of the law must be learned first and circumcision completed before being made part of YHWH’s chosen people. The latter was a Jewish idea. The former was the Biblical idea as evidenced in the law and the prophets.

      So one could become a Pharisaic Jew via circumcision and the law, that included thousands of humanly added rulings, or one could be grafted into Israel via grace and have the necessary time to learn and grow into law abiding citizens of the kingdom of heaven like Abraham did. The latter should produce gratitude to YHWH and more and more righteous and holy actions out of that gratitude as one knows more. The former will produce more and more a prideful attitude of entitlement or a feeling of hopelessness.

      This said, many Christians have fallen into the the Pharisaic attitude of pride and entitlement thinking that they have done the work of believing properly, not knowing that faith without works is dead or they have fallen into the hopelessness that they will ever live up other Christian’s lives. Others are still trying to work for their salvation via obeying what they think Paul commanded. (And one could twist Paul’s words to mean that we do not have to pay attention to 3.5 out of the 4 things that the apostles commanded, not to mention vast quantities of the words from YHWH’s mouth.) Others think that grace is covering their intentional sin though they have not repented of it. All these are errors and they are surely abounding in modern Christianity.

      O, the simplicity of accepting YHWH’s gracious gift and then showing our gratitude by living out every word that He has spoken as we are made aware of them…like Abraham did.

      Shalom

    4. Nicholas
      May 16th, 2014 @ 2:19 pm

      Only the Catholic understanding of the Eucharist, that it is a true and real sacrifice, the sacrifice of Christ on the cross, made present again, not repeated, but “re-presented,” this theology is the only way in which we can make sense of the concept of the Third Temple in prophesy. The body of Christ in the sacrifice on Calvary was offered “once and for all.” Yet, the prophets speak of future sacrifices. Dr. Brown rightly points out that these will “point back” to the cross. But the “future sacrifices” are already here: they are offered upon the Christian altar (spoken of in the book of Hebrews). The offering is the Christian liturgy.

      This is a very touchy subject, especially since the rejection of the Mass and the Real Presence is the pivotal issue which prompted the Reformation. But I would like to encourage my Evangelical friends to take a closer look at this understanding, which is very ancient. John Chrysostom gave an entire treatise on this very subject. I invite anyone to read his excellent work, “On the Priesthood.” The Eastern Orthodox, and all pre-Reformation churches, believe as Catholics do on the matter, so it’s not just wacky “Romanism.”

    5. Sheila
      May 16th, 2014 @ 2:40 pm

      Nicholas,

      I can’t agree that “rejection of the Mass and the Real Presence [was] the pivotal issue which prompted the Reformation.”

      Salvation without literal payment for sins and having a mediator other than Christ our Only Mediator with the Father in Heaven is the chief dispute that I can see.

      There are other issues, although I’m short on time right now, that we could discuss.

    6. Nicholas
      May 16th, 2014 @ 3:34 pm

      Sheila,

      Martin Luther’s theology about the Mass and predestination got him excommunicated, not his valid concerns about the abuses which were occurring in the selling of indulgences. On this point the Church agreed and banned the practice. An internal reformation of the Church followed (the Catholic Reformation). In a certain sense the Catholic Church has to be grateful that Luther was courageous enough to take a stand on this issue, but we would say that he used his new platform to start preaching his own views about salvation, which were opposed to historical Christianity. Christ is the only Mediator between God and man. On this point we agree. However, we disagree on whether or not Christ set up a tangible institution to minister in the process of that mediation. The sacramental system of the Catholic Church follows from the belief that grace needs to be continuously administered to the soul, which is always in danger of becoming separated from God by way of concupiscence, the constant tendency to sin. Like Arminians, we believe in free will. Luther’s views on predestination forced him to abandon the notion that the sacraments were efficacious or necessary at all, hence his rejection of the Mass. This really is the pivotal issue of the Reformation. Calvin took it ever further.

    7. Benjamin Warkentin
      May 16th, 2014 @ 4:05 pm

      Sheila, you caught me. I would be a liar if I said that I wasn’t thinking about Bo when I thought of my question due to going over that verse and thinking about what it was conveying. In my study I came across the view I posted first above and wanted to hear Mike’s take on the verse in relation to the context.

      But I think Mike usually reads questions that people asked from weeks ago, so maybe he will touch on it in a couple weeks.

      Bo and I have discussed the Law at length previously (as a side issue), so at the present time I was more curious to hear Mike look at the verse on-air. Bo and I could go for another 200 or more posts I’m sure, and I think he knows that I do not “start in Galatians” but “start from Genesis” as he does. I have a lot of respect for Bo as a result of our discussions, and you Sheila. I think our discussions have been wonderful and enriching.

    8. Sheila
      May 16th, 2014 @ 5:53 pm

      Sure, Benjamin, I hope Dr. Brown answers you. Don’t feel bad if he doesn’t check in though. I’ve had at least a few questions go unanswered so I gave up asking him personally. :)

      Thanks for the kind words–you’re quite the gentle-man! And I owe you for way back…when…

      I really enjoy our discussions too. You’re a very kind person and a worthy advocate for Christ! I’m honored to call you a brother.

      Thanks!

    9. Sheila
      May 16th, 2014 @ 6:18 pm

      Hi Nicholas,

      I think it was probably Martin Luther’s quest for learning and understanding the Word of God as stated in the Bible that ultimately got him excommunicated. That’s what I took away from it. I don’t read his writings anymore after running across those from his later years. Left a bad taste in my mouth and I don’t understand why he turned like he did. What are your thoughts on his anti-Semitic rants?

      Are you saying the Catholic Church no longer believes the foundation of the Eucharist as they once did? Because I had no idea that was the case.

      The parents that raised me were Lutheran but I guess you could say I was a pagan until about, what’s it been, maybe 7, give or take years ago that I came to the knowledge of the Truth! I have a terrible memory for “time.”

    10. Sheila
      May 16th, 2014 @ 6:36 pm

      I’ve got to buckle down and prepare an answer for another blog forum. I’m way behind but will check in regularly on the conversation.

      Thanks Fellas! You’ve bolstered my resolve to begin “again” to answer with only the truth as I know it to be. What else do we have?

    11. David Roberts
      May 16th, 2014 @ 7:27 pm

      @Bo, I always find myself exasperated when someone uses unequal weights and measures and in inconsistent hermeneutics.

      When Dr. Brown contends with replacement theology, and quotes Jeremiah 31:35-36,

      “This is what the Lord says,
      he who appoints the sun to shine by day,
      who decrees the moon and stars to shine by night,
      who stirs up the sea so that its waves roar —
      the Lord Almighty is his name:
      “Only if these decrees vanish from my sight,”
      declares the Lord, “will Israel ever cease being a nation before me.”

      And goes on to explain as long as heaven and earth exist, ethnic Israel will remain the covenant people of God. As he does this, I salute him as an elder in the Lord who rightly interprets scripture according to the peshaṭ.

      But then when it comes to Matthew 5:18-21 and Revelation 21, suddenly out of left field another hermeneutic, other than our beloved peshaṭ, comes and pushes the plain meaning of the text out the window, and it always deeply grieves my spirit.

      He’s half way there, he just needs to use the same herminutics he applies on Jeremiah 31:35-36 to Matthew 5:18-21 and Revelation 21, and things will be awesome!

    12. David Roberts
      May 16th, 2014 @ 7:45 pm

      Or to make this really simple.

      Till 1) Israel ceases being a nation before YHWH, not one תג‎ nor י will be removed from the Torah till 2) everything which has been spoken by the mouth of all His holy prophets since the world began is fulfilled.

      And there is so much prophesy yet to be fulfilled. Zechariah 14 for example.

    13. Bo
      May 16th, 2014 @ 8:17 pm

      Nicholas,

      To insist that the Catholic Church is doing the sacrifices of the third temple that Ezekiel portrays does extreme damage to the text. This esoteric view was not held by any apostle or writer of the newer testimony. For Paul to participate in the physical temple sacrifices to prove that he continued to keep and teach the Torah instead of doing the falsified sacrifices that the Roman Church says were in place, which were not invented for hundreds of years, proves your concept to be false. The Roman priesthood is a counterfeit. The Roman sacrifices are abominations as are their idols that they call icons and their worship of Mary and the Pope. I know that Catholics have explanations as to how this is not the case, but the facts are the facts. John Chrysostom wrote 350 years after Messiah. He was by no means accustomed to what the early Church did or thought or taught since he was immersed in apostate Catholic dogma instead of in the Word of YHWH.

      I am not a fan of Martin Luther or John Calvin, but like everybody, they got some things right. I appreciate the the pro-life stance and some other things of the Catholics, but I find most of the church, both priesthood and laity, to be far from being truly regenerate believers in Messiah. And I know some deeply devout Catholics that I would suspect would be found in the kingdom of heaven. The Catholic system is simply not the Kingdom of Heaven, though some of the people that are in it are kingdom people.

      Messiah, in Revelation calls His people to come out of the false harlot system so as not to be a partaker of Her plagues. Much of protestantism are just daughters of the mother of harlots. I do not say these things as insults to you or any well meaning person. It is just time for YHWH’s people to repent and leave the apostate harlot of Revelation and be truly Holy to YHWH in body and spirit.

      The third temple will have the sons of Zadok as its priests that offer offerings on the Biblical feast days, new moons and Sabbaths, and any nation that does not come to worship YHWH in Jerusalem on those days will find drought and curses coming upon their country according to the prophets. The restoration of the Jewish people to the land is just the beginning of YHWH gathering all of Israel back to the land and Messiah will return bodily to the mount of Olives to execute judgment upon the ungodly and to begin His literal thousand year reign very soon. We would do well to be found as obedient commandment keepers, keeping the testimony and faith of Y’shua when he returns.

      None of this is meant as an offense, but provoke us to love and good works, living by every word that has come from YHWH’s mouth, so that we be ready for Messiah’s return.

      Shalom

    14. Greg Allen
      May 16th, 2014 @ 8:18 pm

      Nicholas said,

      >>Only the Catholic understanding of the Eucharist, that it is …

      When someone says, “Only my church has the true understanding of [whatever]” I assume that the person has his brain turned off.

    15. Nicholas
      May 16th, 2014 @ 8:24 pm

      Hi Sheila,

      No, the Catholic Church still believes what it always believed.

      Regarding selling indulgences, this was a practice that developed over time and, due primarily to unchecked corruption in various regions, fell into considerable abuse. Luther was a major force in rooting it out. The Church had no quarrel with him over this and took the necessary action. My point was that the Church did not disagree with Luther on everything. Not all of his theses were rejected.

      For instance, if today there was a priest who courageously spoke out against a case of sexual abuse in a particular diocese, then the Church would acknowledge the scandal and take the necessary measures to put an end to the problem, as per the priest’s recommendations. But if the priest were then to go ahead and use his new platform to teach against the Church’s dogmas, then the Church would have to censure him.

    16. Nicholas
      May 16th, 2014 @ 8:31 pm

      Hi Greg,

      If my brain is turned off, would you care to turn it on?

    17. Greg Allen
      May 16th, 2014 @ 8:33 pm

      >> No, the Catholic Church still believes what it always believed.

      It took 350, but the Catholic Church changed what it believes about Galileo.

      http://www.nytimes.com/1992/10/31/world/after-350-years-vatican-says-galileo-was-right-it-moves.html

      Better (very, very) late than never!

      Now we just have to get the Pentecostals on board with science! ;-)

    18. Greg Allen
      May 16th, 2014 @ 8:50 pm

      Nicholas,

      >>If my brain is turned off, would you care to turn it on?

      Only you can have an open mind about other church traditions.

      For starters – communion is a ritual, not a doctrine.

      Any doctrine your church has about communion is an “add on” to scripture.

      This is fine. Every church does it. It’s no bother to me… unless you claim the my church is wrong and yours is right.

    19. Nicholas
      May 16th, 2014 @ 8:53 pm

      Hi Bo,

      I’m not offended. I appreciate the depth of your response.

      Ezekiel experiences a mystical vision of the physical body of the Lord upon the cross, especially of the point at which blood and water stream from the wound of his pierced side. Christ himself identifies his own body as the Third Temple in John 2:19. The physical body of Christ transcends itself to become the church. We both believe this, hence our use of the term “body of Christ.”

      The issue the caller raises refers to prophecies of future sacrifices in a Third Temple. Malachi also makes reference to this. We believe this refers to the Eucharistic Celebration (the Mass). I think it is dangerous to presume that there will be a physical Third Temple in Jerusalem with animal sacrifices. If such a thing were to occur, this would be in complete derogation of the sacrifice of Christ. If the Levitical system returns, we must be prepared to recognize that it is reactionary, that it denies the cross, that it is anti-Christ.

      The Catholic perspective is only one which can logically harmonize the three concepts which we have before us: that Christ died for our sins once for all, that there are other sacrifices, and that there is a Third Temple. The Eucharist has as its one and only source the atoning death of Christ.

    20. Nicholas
      May 16th, 2014 @ 8:59 pm

      Greg,

      Galileo has nothing to do with Church dogma. The Catholic Church never mandated by dogma that everyone must believe that the earth is the center of the universe.

      For us, communion is not just a ritual, it is a dogmatic issue. On this point I believe that you are wrong and that I am right. If I did not believe this, why on earth would I be a Catholic? I’d be a non-denominational something or other, or I’d just stay at home and read the Bible.

      No disrespect to you, of course.

    21. Greg Allen
      May 16th, 2014 @ 9:00 pm

      In the fundamentalist church, of my youth, our understanding of communion was fairly simple — mostly remembrance and unity.

      The stronger emphasis seemed to be on unity. We were often reminded to not take communion if we had any grievance with another church member.

    22. Greg Allen
      May 16th, 2014 @ 9:05 pm

      Nicholas,

      I guess I have to say this a different way:

      It’s fine that you make communion into a dogma. But that is for _your_ church… not for all churches.

      This dogma is not from the bible but from your own tradition.

      From the bible, communion is a ritual of thanksgiving and remembrance. From Acts, it seems hardly a ritual — just an attitude to have at the church potluck.

      Your own dogmas is not a problem until you claim that you have the only true understanding of communion.

    23. Nicholas
      May 16th, 2014 @ 9:05 pm

      Paul speaks of people getting sick and dying when receiving the Eucharist while not discerning the body and blood of Christ, so he took it pretty seriously.

    24. Greg Allen
      May 16th, 2014 @ 9:13 pm

      In almost every church I’ve attended, communion was treated like a club — you had to be baptized (often in a certain way or by a certain church) or had to be a certain age or had been “received” or whatnot.

      This has always seemed at odds with the gospel accounts of communion which was about inclusion, not exclusion.

    25. Greg Allen
      May 16th, 2014 @ 9:14 pm

      Nicholas,

      >>Paul speaks of people getting sick and dying when receiving the Eucharist while not discerning the body and blood of Christ, so he took it pretty seriously.

      Taking it seriously is very different than saying that your church has the only true understanding of the ritual.

    26. Greg Allen
      May 16th, 2014 @ 9:18 pm

      Nicholas,

      By the way — if your church is the only one that understands communion properly, shouldn’t you be able to prove that with a lower mortality rate?

      After all, you should be getting less sick and dying less frequently! ;-)

    27. Greg Allen
      May 16th, 2014 @ 9:29 pm

      Nicholas,

      I’ll quit teasing you and offer you an olive branch.

      My Episcopalian church is right next to the big Catholic cathedral. Fairly regularly, we get Catholic priest coming over and “breaking bread” with us.

      While they remain in the Catholic church, they tell me they appreciate our Episcopalian inclusiveness.

      I forget… didn’t, a few years ago, the RC church start allowing Episcopalian priests so officiate at their Eucharists?

    28. Nicholas
      May 16th, 2014 @ 9:38 pm

      It’s fine, Greg, I don’t mind a little harmless teasing. We both do it.

      There is nothing wrong with inclusiveness. I would rather see sinners in the pews then out in the world sinning. When it comes to the Eucharist, however, it is a closed club. At least it is in our church. This is how we do things. One has to be in a state of grace to receive the Lord in communion.

      Regarding Episcopalian priests officiating at Catholic masses, they are not supposed to, but it may happen. We do not consider the Episcopal Church to have valid ordinations. Nothing personal, of course.

    29. David Roberts
      May 16th, 2014 @ 11:01 pm

      I don’t believe that the hosts in the Holy Communion become the physical flesh and blood of Christ, but I do believe that after the Holy Spirit is asked to fill them with the life giving power of Christ, that they no longer remain common bread and wine, but become most holy, and that the same power that came out of Christ into the woman with the issue of blood, now resides within the consecrated gifts.

      It is not just symbolic. You don’t get sick and die eating something symbolic. And if you read all the earliest Christian writings, the Didache, what the Apostle Paul wrote, Ireneaus and others, they all clearly believed it was a SACRAMENT, not just some bread you passed around.

    30. Nicholas
      May 16th, 2014 @ 11:29 pm

      The idea that Holy Communion is “just bread” is actually quite a recent phenomenon. I have heard of some congregations that actually throw the remaining bread out to the birds after services. The Reformers believed in a spiritual presence of Christ, at the very least.

    31. Sheila
      May 16th, 2014 @ 11:42 pm

      Nicholas—”The Catholic perspective is only one which can logically harmonize the three concepts which we have before us: that Christ died for our sins once for all, that there are other sacrifices, and that there is a Third Temple. The Eucharist has as its one and only source the atoning death of Christ.”

      Could you elaborate on that please? I’d like to hear more on how your perspective harmonizes the last two, the sacrifices and the third temple. I take the communion very seriously in mentally reaching back to the Cross.

      Thanks!

    32. Nicholas
      May 17th, 2014 @ 12:22 am

      Hi Sheila. I’ll come back tomorrow. Going to bed now. Sorry. But I’ll have a response for you tomorrow. Thank you.

    33. jon
      May 17th, 2014 @ 12:59 am

      Re The caller Mark on the program.

      There was much compassion to this caller to be what he was born a child of a king. God wants Mark to be in the glory of the most holy. The way Mark was dealt with was just like in the books that have been written on this subject with much love,care, and compassion. My heart reached out to Mark and I will pray that Gods presence will be over him for Mark to find himself in the direct love of our creator. I am so happy to be part of this ministry to see the direct fruits of the love of God on the radio. You can see it, feel it and hear it on the airwaves.

    34. Ray
      May 17th, 2014 @ 8:35 am

      I believe the scripture teaches us not to take one another before a worldly court. (I Cor 6)

      Did you ever notice that in a worldly court, it always seems to be about money, or taking away something of value from one person and awarding it to another, rather than about reconciliation to God first? And if there be restitution to be made, shouldn’t it be something the party who has done the wrong would want to do and be blessed by the Lord as he does it willingly, rather than be forced by a court to do?

      In this world, laws intervene because of wrongs done, and things are put on people to do or to pay back.

      Likewise the law of God entered because of sin.

      Fulfilling the righteousness of the law by grace through faith is wonderful.

      I believe it’s certainly possible that while men seek to fulfil the law by it’s written commands, they might find themselves one day to have not even been in the faith of God while they were about doing all that.

      God has a higher way than taking a brother to court, and a better way than living in legality by the letter of whatever law we choose.

    35. Greg Allen
      May 17th, 2014 @ 10:26 am

      Nicholas,

      >>When it comes to the Eucharist, however, it is a closed club. At least it is in our church. This is how we do things. One has to be in a state of grace to receive the Lord in communion.

      It’s the “closed club” thing that bothers me. You aren’t alone in this, of course. Lots of churches use communion as a club.

      It strikes me as counter to Christ’s invitation for all sinners to accept his sacrifice on the cross.

      And this is why “dogma” matters.

      If one believes that communion is fundamentally about the saving sacrifice of Jesus, then who better to accept it than sinners?

      Communion, then, becomes a kind of ‘Billy Graham style” alter call opportunity.

      But, if one believes that communion is fundamentally about church fellowship, then one most join the church first.

      And, if one believes their sect of Christianity is the only legitimate church, communion becomes divisive and exclusionary.

      This, I believe is counter to the spirit of Christ.

    36. Sheila
      May 17th, 2014 @ 11:47 am

      Nicholas, take your time.

      Since it’s such a beautiful day in South Carolina I’ll check in after sunset! Don’t get many perfect days like this one!

    37. Greg Allen
      May 17th, 2014 @ 12:16 pm

      Ray,

      I agree with you in spirit — Christians should avoid suing each other.

      By a “worldly court” do you mean a civil court.

      If two Christians are acting like good Christians, they should be able to come to a fair, peaceful resolution.

      But what if they can’t? What if two sincere Christians see an issue so very differently they can’t resolve it?

      I have never attended a church that has any sort of function/person/committee that would replace a civil court.

      Does yours?

    38. Nicholas
      May 17th, 2014 @ 1:06 pm

      Greg, anyone can take communion, as long as they’ve first repented (normally through confession with a priest, although perfect contrition with the intent to confess as soon as possible is acceptable). I think the club is closed for our benefit, not for haughtiness. We believe the unrepentant sinner eats and drinks his own condemnation if he receives communion unworthily (as per Paul). Normally, only Catholics can take communion in a Catholic church, but permission from the bishop can be granted for non-Catholic Christians in exceptional circumstances.

    39. Greg Allen
      May 17th, 2014 @ 1:23 pm

      Nicholas,

      Discussing this issue with you makes me think I have to go back and refresh myself on this issue.

      I suspect that I am drawing more from the Gospels/Acts and you are drawing more from Paul — and that there is a significant difference between the two.

      By the way — I am not accusing your church of haughtiness. But, by your own account, it does seem like you have turned it into a tool of exclusion.

      How can it be seen any other way?

      And, as a liberal, I tend to favor inclusion.

      As Christian, I believe that grace favors inclusion as well.

      That’s one reason I’m a liberal Christian!

    40. Nicholas
      May 17th, 2014 @ 1:49 pm

      In the old days, it would have looked even more exclusive. Taking communion in the hand was forbidden and you had to be kneeling.

    41. Nicholas
      May 17th, 2014 @ 3:17 pm

      Hi Sheila,

      My response, as promised:

      We agree that Christ’s atoning death is the ultimate sacrifice, and that to which the Passover and the Levitical cult pointed. The question is, why does the Old Testament describe a “Third Temple” and how does this accompany the prophecies of the atoning death of the Messiah? Is there an inherent contradiction here, or not? This was the caller’s question in the first place. How do we understand Ezekiel’s vision in light of the reality of the cross, after which no further work of atonement can occur? Furthermore, why does Malachi make reference to a “pure offering,” as well as to sacrifices upon altars in the future age (“from the rising of the sun to its setting”)? Also, we must not forget this crucial passage in the Book of Hebrews: “And, according to the Law, one may almost say, all things are cleansed with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness. Therefore it was necessary for the copies of the things in the heavens to be cleansed with these, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these.” Consider that this passage, which introduces a pivotal discussion about the work of Christ on the cross, makes reference to multiple sacrifices. It is worth noting that there are no known variants of this verse. Copyists have been very careful in maintaining the inspired author’s intention to refer to sacrifices in the plural. But we also know that Hebrews famously speaks of Christ having died “once for all.” We have to take all of these things into consideration and arrive at a synthesis to understand what is being revealed to us.

      The Catholic position (and, in point of fact, the historical view, that which is held by all pre-Reformation churches) understands the Eucharistic liturgy (what the Roman church calls “the Mass”) to be the act by which the eternal reality of Calvary is made present in perpetuity. Christ does not suffer and die a second time, a third time, etc. He died once, once and for all. Yet, the Mystery of his Passover is sustained until the end the world, being continuously re-presented (not repeated but re-presented) before the Father. This takes place upon the altar (Hebrews 13:10), and it is a true sacrifice of propitiation. It IS really the sacrifice of Christ, but the sacrifice of Christ IS NOT occurring again. Therefore, the altar of God’s people, the Church, is the altar of the Third Temple, the Eucharistic Oblations are the sacrifices, and the fruits of Christ’s singular work of atonement are being applied to the faithful. Christ is the only priest of the New Covenant. The Catholic priest is only the minister of Christ. The work of the Mass is entirely the work of Christ, who did not relinquish his priesthood upon entering the heavenly tabernacle. He is a priest forever, his work of intercession does not cease.

      Catholics and Orthodox disagree on the papacy, primarily, and Catholics and Protestants disagree on the Eucharist. At least, this is how it was in the beginning, at the outset of the Reformation. Selling indulgences, and all that, that is all just a distraction. In the schism within Western Christianity (that is, between Catholics and Protestants), all divisions flow from this one issue: what is the Mass? What is it supposed to be? Is Christian worship supposed to be liturgical? For many peoples, Luther’s ideas were a revelation, but not necessarily because of his theology. More so, because his views created an opportunity whereby nations could challenge the authority of the pope, who was, essentially, the supreme leader of Europe, having the power to crown and depose kings. If someone could prove the Catholic hierarchy wrong, especially from the Bible, then kings would have every excuse to implement total autonomy in their realms. The best example of this is what happened in England in the time of Henry VIII. Although I do not doubt Luther’s sincerity, even as I firmly believe he was severely misguided, his movement became very political, which is why it became so popular. But it all started with a challenge to the Catholic position on the Eucharist and the Mass. The other things came later, once the flood-gates were opened, as it were.

      I imagine that this is a sensitive subject for many here, and, especially for the benefit of others who will read this, I want to be clear that I truly appreciate that a Catholic is able to share his opinions and reflect upon the teachings of his religion on an Evangelical blog. I recognize that I am in the company of charitable and gracious minds, true brothers and sisters in Christ. Thanks to everyone.

    42. Ray
      May 17th, 2014 @ 3:40 pm

      Greg, It seems to me that Churches tend to have a board and the board will determine if someone should leave because they don’t agree with something concerning the leadership or anyone else for that matter, rather than do the work of reconciliation, or determine if that “something” is something they must agree with.

      Then the board will find a way to tell the person that he’s either not welcome there anymore or will find some “reason” to tell him he’s not to come around anymore, without hearing any more from him.

      I don’t believe that’s always the right way to handle things. I believe there may be a better way.

      It takes people wanting to do reconciliation work by the gospel, and walking through things, finding out what is right, looking at actions other people have taken which have affected others in a way that is the cause of any present trouble or distress, verifying facts concerning those things, not being willing to hear anything evil for the sake of evil, willing to plead the cause of anyone being treated unjustly, doing the same for one person as for another, regardless of who it is, seeking earnestly to do what’s right, being willing to repent of their own sins should they happen, and being willing to ask for mercy when mercy is due, on the behalf of another, when it is the right thing to do, doing the best they can on these matters, seeking the Lord’s help, and following up if necessary, to see if any problem is still there.

      Again, the focus should be reconciliation ministry.

      I believe there may be times when one or more people involved will refuse to repent of their sins, and will continue to walk in a way that is contrary to God, and it is then that they may be told to not come around for that reason, having the reason clearly explained to them, answering all their reasonable questions about such things, showing them their sins and what the scripture teaches concerning them, asking them to come back to the cross, asking them to bear the burden of their own sins, and ask forgiveness from others when they do find acknowledgment of them.

      And even as one might not be ready to attend a Church meeting, there may be room for continued ministry of reconciliation work to be done outside of the Church meetings, as long as the person is willing to walk through some of these things that do affect others in negative ways.

      But if the person is not open to such work, then he is willingly staying away from the group, and things I believe are as they should be in such situations, the sheep chasing out the goats, goats being the ones who refuse to hear the word of reconciliation.

      I think of this kind of work as being a part of helps and government type of gifts.

    43. DB
      May 17th, 2014 @ 6:22 pm

      Where Dr. White is pressing the “high priest” function of the atonement (in the Predestination Debate on Revelation TV–e.g.: minute 50:33 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WTU4j3ZeGUw), isn’t it the case that the high priest intercedes for the “nation”, while the “nation” herself is in “flux”–both “expanding” and/or “contracting”, in accordance with people being “grafted in” or “cut off” [Ro 11:17-23] (for entering or breaking the New Covenant “terms and conditions”: “faith” [the definition of which is a-whole-nother discussion]) in just the same way as was the case under the Old Covenant (breakers of Covenant were at times “cut off from their people”; foreigners who wanted to join Israel were “grafted in” so to speak–e.g.: Ruth)?
      This reminds me of Daniel 4: the rock cut out of the mountain fills the earth. Is the “rock” not “the Israel of God” (which in the future will be unified with the Israel of the flesh)? “All other nations will be brought to a full end, but the nation of Israel is eternal” (para.) [Jr 30:11]–but the definition of “the eternal state of Israel” is “a state in flux–growing as she absorbs/inherits people”.
      Israel was to be a light to the nation–those who are “Israel” (those qualifying to be considered a part of the “election of grace” [Ro 9:6; 11:2-7]–different people have different views of this [I believe it includes those who exhibit "obedience of faith in the Good News"])
      If a person wants to be “in the land of the living” on earth in the future, that person will HAVE to be a citizen of Israel–the state which has absorbed “as many as would”.

      On another level, isn’t Christ Himself called “Israel”? So of course there are people being grafted in and cut off from Christ [Ro 11:17-23; Gal 1:6, 3:1-3, 5:4; Hb 3:12,13; 10:38+11:6,39].

      In other words: yes, the High Priest is fulfilling his role for Israel; but “Israel” is not a “static” entity.

    44. DB
      May 17th, 2014 @ 6:25 pm

      IOW,
      Those for whom Christ is “especially” performing “high priestly intercession” is in flux–and He, the King of Israel, mandates His subjects to go and be a Light to all the nations of the world (“and then the end will come”); and to cause them to be integrated into Israel.

    45. Greg Allen
      May 17th, 2014 @ 7:12 pm

      Ray,

      I think I followed your post.

      I agree — especially if the issue involves sin, then the church is a much better place to resolve it instead of the “worldly courts” as you call them.

      But the little experience I have with civil courts didn’t seem like anything a church board would have the time or expertise to resolve.

      For example, a law suit when a sub-contractor in a building matter. Both were Christians, although not from the same church. It had to do with delay of service making the main contractor go over budget. How would a deacon board ever begin to resolve such a thing? And then enforce it?

      Seems to me… the “worldly court” is in a much better place to make a fair judgment.

    46. Greg Allen
      May 17th, 2014 @ 7:31 pm

      Nicholas,

      Do you confess to the priest?

      I have seen it done in the movies, many times, but none of my Catholic friends ever talk about it.

      I see some value in the Catholic way.

      Obviously, the bible says, “confess your sins, one to another” and not “confess our sins to a priest” but at least you Catholics are confessing to somebody!

      In the Protestant churches I’m familiar with, very little confession takes place at all.

      We Episcopalians confess our sins, every week, but it’s a blanket group confessions. I think it is valuable but not as powerful as naming our specific sins to a fellow believer.

      Do I understand correctly that the priest then grants absolution? I would have a problem with that aspect of it. I think absolution comes from God, not man. But, I may be wrong on who does the absolving in Catholicism. Please correct me if I am.

    47. Nicholas
      May 17th, 2014 @ 8:31 pm

      Greg,

      I try to go to confession about once every two weeks or so. We’re obligated to confess our sins only if we’re conscious of grave matter. But we’re encouraged to go to confession in any event, since it’s a sacrament and a channel of grace. At the start of every mass, there’s a penitential rite, during which we call to mind our sins, after which there’s a general absolution. I suppose this is similar to your blanket confessions.

      We do not believe that the priest himself absolves our sins. He acts for Christ and absolves us “in persona Christie,” through the ministry of the Church, which ties in to the idea that the Church is the minister of salvation. In the confessional, we understand that we are confessing to Christ, as it were, through his agent.

    48. Greg Allen
      May 17th, 2014 @ 8:57 pm

      >>We do not believe that the priest himself absolves our sins. He acts for Christ and absolves us “in persona Christie,” through the ministry of the Church, which ties in to the idea that the Church is the minister of salvation. In the confessional, we understand that we are confessing to Christ, as it were, through his agent.

      I guess I am just too much of an Evangelical to want a middle man! ;-)

      In my church tradition — and my own heart — I ask for forgiveness, directly from God though personal prayer.

      Importantly, we are supposed to confess our sins as soon as we are aware of it — no saving it up for Sunday.

      We didn’t have ritualized confession on Sunday that I remember although I see value in that since many of our sins are collective or unwitting.

    49. Greg Allen
      May 17th, 2014 @ 9:04 pm

      I should add… thanks for explaining about the priest not doing the absolving.

      In the absolving pronouncement in our Book of Prayer, it’s a little ambiguous. It reads like this:

      >> The Bishop, when present, or the Priest, stands and says

      >> Almighty God have mercy on you, forgive you all your sins through our Lord Jesus Christ, strengthen you in all goodness, and by the power of the Holy Spirit keep you in eternal life. Amen.

      My own church has changed it so that it is pretty clear that the priest is not doing the granting. We join him in this prayer: :

      >>>Almighty God have mercy on us, forgive us all our sins through our Lord Jesus Christ, strengthen us in all goodness, and by the power of the Holy Spirit keep us in eternal life.

      I like the way our church says it better.

    50. Nicholas
      May 17th, 2014 @ 9:51 pm

      The penitential rite in the Catholic mass has similar wording. The priest says, “May Almighty God have mercy on you,” emphasizing that the priest is not just the presider of the congregation but also the agent of Christ (the alter Christus), through whom Christ works, but some liberal priests will substitute “us” instead, although they are not supposed to.

    51. Ray
      May 17th, 2014 @ 10:09 pm

      Greg, Are there any scriptures that come to mind when you think about the situation in post 45, about the building contractor going over budget because of some fault of a sub contractor, about who’s responsible, about taking a brother to court to sue, about forgiveness, about finding peace, about restoring, or about not enforcing anything, but simply making a plea for mercy whenever one witnesses something done wrong that is the cause of any present distress?

      What about covetousness? How about whether or not one is made a ruler and a judge over another? Is that the same or different than ministry of reconciliation?

      And how should church matters be handled in a different manner than worldly courts?

    52. Sheila
      May 17th, 2014 @ 10:57 pm

      DB—”If a person wants to be “in the land of the living” on earth in the future, that person will HAVE to be a citizen of Israel–the state which has absorbed “as many as would”.”

      You mean a literal citizen? What Scriptures verses are you taking that from?

      Nicholas,

      I’m going to re-read your post again tomorrow. Let’s see, that would be about 4 minutes away! :)

    53. Sheila
      May 18th, 2014 @ 12:01 am

      Hi Nicholas,

      I’ve wrestled with the idea of a third temple for years now. It seems that the description as given to us in the book of Ezekiel is quite literal. The fact that the description is highly specific and detailed and that the dimensions differ from the preceeding temples makes it all the more believable to me. As Scripture is interpreted on various levels, I think we’re dealing with the perfect instance of the melding of the spiritual application together with a literal temple which Christ will occupy during the millennium. By the way, you do consider the millennial reign of Messiah to be a real event don’t you? I imagine so.

      The reason I can accept a literal temple in the millennium is because Messiah is King of all the Earth, headquartered in Jerusalem and we have an altar with sacrifices because people still have to eat. I’m not being facetious either. Bear with me while I give voice to what I’m thinking because I’ve never actually worked it out to my own satisfaction yet. I may not work it out this time either… It’s one of those great questions that not many scholars have specifically delved into that I can see. It will probably remain a mystery until our Lord’s return but seeing how humans love being challenged with a mystery, we’ll continue to try and unravel it, no doubt.

      Looking at the spiritual application we can readily see the verses that support that interpretation. I’m not quite following you when you state: “Therefore, the altar of God’s people, the Church, is the altar of the Third Temple, the Eucharistic Oblations are the sacrifices, and the fruits of Christ’s singular work of atonement are being applied to the faithful.” I don’t understand the Scriptures that combine the altar, the sacrifices and the atoning work of Messiah, Jesus, as being applicable in the example of the Eucharist. But then I’m not seeing them through the lens of the Catholic tradition and that’s the roadblock in my understanding of your view. I admit I’m ignorant of your tradition for the most part. Well, pret’ near all of it! :)

      I’ll continue to parse the verses and work on my reply for tomorrow some time. It will probably be after dinner though. It’s late now.

      Talk to you then.

    54. Bo
      May 18th, 2014 @ 12:17 am

      Nicholas and Greg and Sheila and whoever is reading,

      The new covenant is about YHWH restoring the original offer to Israel to be a nation of kings and priests. The new covenant is to the houses of Judah and Israel. (Jer. 31) According to Paul, for a stranger to partake of this covenant or the others (See Eph. 2:12-13 and Rom. 9:4-5) they must be grafted into Israel. The inauguration of this new covenant was proclaimed on the night that we call the “last supper.” It was paid for on Passover via Messiah’s death and was poured out to us on Pentecost.

      In remembrance of Messiah’s death, we are to partake of the unleavened bread and wine at Passover. Messiah did not start a thing called the Eucharist or even Communion that was to be done on any old day in any old way or every day or even on Sunday. He explained the meaning of the unleavened bread that we are to eat at Passover and the cup of wine after dinner that has been called the cup of redemption for Millennia by Israel. The day that memorializes Messiah’s death till he returns is Passover.

      Catholic and protestant priests and most pastors are really just the perpetuation of nicholaitanism, which YHWH hates. The Levitical preisthood is a temporary mediator between YHWH and man that was necessitated by Israel asking not to hear from YHWH directly. Israel was supposed to be a kingdom of preists. (Ex. 19:5-6) They ended up needing someone to be their priests. The Catholic church is a man made priesthood that comes between YHWH and man. The protestant churches have emulated this to greater or lesser degrees. The new covenant states equivocally that in it no one will be need this intermediary. Messiah alone is the mediator between YHWH and man. All true new covenant believers are YHWH’s representatives, to the world. The believers have no need for priests.

      It is quite instructive that James does not say to confess to the priests but to one another. Peter reiterates the sentiment of Ex. 19 in regards to new covenant believers being a royal priesthood and a holy nation. (1 Pet. 2:7-`10) Nothing at all is said of there being a priesthood to the royal priesthood. There is a high priest and it is not the pope…it is Messiah.

      The new covenant is not a new idea. It is the restoration of the original idea. The feasts of YHWH (They are not Jewish feasts.) are not changed or done away with, but restored to their original intent. There is precedent for Paul’s idea that people get sick from partaking of Passover unworthily. (It is not some new communion thing.) Again, it is not a new idea, but a restored thing.

      2Ch 30:1 And Hezekiah sent to all Israel and Judah, and wrote letters also to Ephraim and Manasseh, that they should come to the house of the LORD at Jerusalem, to keep the passover unto the LORD God of Israel…
      17 For there were many in the congregation that were not sanctified: therefore the Levites had the charge of the killing of the passovers for every one that was not clean, to sanctify them unto the LORD.
      18 For a multitude of the people, even many of Ephraim, and Manasseh, Issachar, and Zebulun, had not cleansed themselves, yet did they eat the passover otherwise than it was written. But Hezekiah prayed for them, saying, The good LORD pardon every one
      19 That prepareth his heart to seek God, the LORD God of his fathers, though he be not cleansed according to the purification of the sanctuary.
      20 And the LORD hearkened to Hezekiah, and healed the people.
      21 And the children of Israel that were present at Jerusalem kept the feast of unleavened bread seven days with great gladness: and the Levites and the priests praised the LORD day by day, singing with loud instruments unto the LORD.

      Isn’t it instructive that 1 Corinthians starts off with calling them to purge out the leaven to keep the feast of unleavened bread? Then for Paul to give instructions later about what is and is not keeping the Passover/Master’s supper and to relate the problem at the Passover of Hezekiah’s time to it?

      This brings up the point that the “Lord’s supper” is not for those that are in sin. It is for those that have been cleansed and that are walking devoutly. It does damage to frivolous believers. It is not for the unrepentant. Paul instructs the Corinthians to judge themselves and their members. Those unwilling to repent of things like adultery, fornication, homosexuality, covetousness, drunkenness, and idolatry are to be removed from the assembly. They are not allowed to be fellowshipped with or to partake and we are not to eat, at least the Passover, with them.

      In the third temple and the millennium, Passover and Tabernacles and new moons and Sabbaths will be kept…at least according to the prophets. The real body of Messiah should keep those things according to the scripture…not according to the inventions of men. The Catholic church has replaced Passover and Unleavened bread with good Friday and Easter. The protestants follow along, give or take. They celebrate Pentecost, but not the way that the scripture states. The protestants usually do not know much about it. The fall feasts are pretty much ignored by both, the best that I can tell.

      So is the Catholic version of the “third temple”, or the protestant version for that matter, really right? Does it really square with scripture? If we are it because we are the body of Messiah, we ought to be doing all the things that the prophets declare. Upon reading the book of Romans, not to mention Colossians and Hebrews and the rest, I am convinced that the Paul through the Holy Spirit rejects Roman Catholicism as the true church or correct method. I am convinced from Revelation and John’s other writings that protestantism is simply following a few steps behind most of the time.

      The new covenant has been misrepresented to us via another gospel. It is time to come out of Churchianity and rediscover, or actually let YHWH’s Spirit re-reveal the truth of living by every word of YHWH. The letters to the seven churches are so obviously against what most people call true religion. How can anyone read 1st John and James honestly and come to the conclusion that what is called the church, whether Roman or protestant, is on track?

      So yes symbolic things in scripture are important. They can cause great blessing if obeyed or great distress if ignored or trivialized. Not because there is real blood and flesh in “the elements”…because of what those things reveal to be in our hearts. Not because immersion in water makes us cleaner inside or out, but because our good conscience via regeneration wants to obey YHWH and fulfill all righteousness. Our new hearts want to identify with Messiah in every way possible.

      Shalom

    55. Bo
      May 18th, 2014 @ 12:25 am

      OOps! That was supposed to be: The new covenant states [[unequivocally]] that in it no one will need this intermediary.

      Late night theology has got me using big words and leaving out letters once again :)

    56. DB
      May 18th, 2014 @ 1:47 am

      Sheila,
      “You mean a literal citizen?”
      Not a “citizen” of the current form of government in Israel; a “citizen” of Heaven.
      :)

      “What Scriptures verses are you taking that from?”
      Every other nation on earth will cease to exist–only Israel (into which all those who believe in Messiah will have been grafted and become partakers in the richness of the root [Ro 11]) will be left [Jr 30:11].

    57. Ray
      May 18th, 2014 @ 3:19 am

      I do not believe the plan of God is to call the entire world, (whosoever will) to become one in Israel, but rather to become one in Christ.

    58. DB
      May 18th, 2014 @ 3:35 am

      Ray,
      Christ is the King of Israel.

    59. Ray
      May 18th, 2014 @ 4:19 am

      DB, Yes Christ is the king of Israel. PTL.

    60. Ray
      May 18th, 2014 @ 4:26 am

      The new covenant isn’t only about Israel becoming kings and priests….unless we are calling the rest of the Church Israel. (see Rev 1:6)

    61. Van
      May 18th, 2014 @ 9:05 am

      People of the same sects cannot agree on what their magic book says. More proof that there is no God.

    62. Ray
      May 18th, 2014 @ 9:08 am

      Seeing as the scripture is authored in such a way that the spirit of man searches out it’s deep secrets, according to where each man is at the time, providing spiritual nourishment that they may grow thereby, having more than any man can fully receive, is proof that God indeed exists.

    63. Greg Allen
      May 18th, 2014 @ 9:36 am

      Nicholas,

      I like the “may” phrasing of your church’s absolution…I think it does put the emphasis on the write place.

      Are you a priest or ex-priest? I don’t meet many Catholics who are as informed about the church as you are.

      Hypothetical question: how will you react if this new pope decrees that the gays are now OK?

      I can’t imagine you haven’t thought about that.

    64. Greg Allen
      May 18th, 2014 @ 9:46 am

      Ray,

      I used that example because it’s a case that I can’t imagine any church being competent to resolve.

      I suppose all business people are greedy, to some degree, but this is about contract law.

      Aren’t there “worldly courts” established for just these kinds of cases? Lawyers and judges got to years of school to specialize in this subject.

      I’ll guess that not one bible school or seminar in America offers a course in contract law! My seminar did offer conflict resolution classes but I don’t think my bible school did.

    65. Greg Allen
      May 18th, 2014 @ 10:05 am

      Bo said,

      >The new covenant is about YHWH restoring the original offer to Israel to be a nation of kings and priests.

      That is fringe theology, Bo. In all my bible school and Seminary classes not one professor believed that. I’ve never heard it preached in a sermon.

      You can’t possibly expect me to engage with the rest of your post when it is based such an extremely-out-of-the-mainstream presumption.

      But I will respond to this:

      >> The new covenant has been misrepresented to us via another gospel.

      This sentence is very hard to parse!

      To be clear:

      I have been taught, countless times, that there is only one gospel.

      In the old covenant they looked forward to the messiah and in new covenant we look back on Jesus.

      Throughout all of time, there is only one savior. This would be before the covenants as well.

      Where there is lots of debate is around the exact meaning and purpose of the covenants. LOTS of debate.

      But, I never hear anyone argue that the purpose of the New Covenant was to allow Israel to rule and judge the world.

      The two mainstream teachings I think I hear the most is that the New Covenant internalizes Old Covenant Law. (aka writes the law on our hearts) and the New Covenant now includes the Gentiles.

      And, obviously, these are compatible with each other.

    66. Bo
      May 18th, 2014 @ 10:07 am

      I forgot to mention that the places in scripture that some people use to support the relaxed idea of communion, or any idea about communion for that matter except 1 Cor. 11, are all referring to eating of meals together. Note that these places do no mention wine. Here are all of them:

      Joh 21:13 Jesus then cometh, and taketh bread, and giveth them, and fish likewise.
      Ac 2:42 And they continued stedfastly in the apostles’ doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers.
      Ac 2:46 And they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart,
      Ac 20:7 And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight.
      Ac 20:11 When he therefore was come up again, and had broken bread, and eaten, and talked a long while, even till break of day, so he departed.
      Ac 27:35 And when he had thus spoken, he took bread, and gave thanks to God in presence of them all: and when he had broken it, he began to eat.

      There are a couple of passages that mention bread besides these:

      Ac 12:3 And because he saw it pleased the Jews, he proceeded further to take Peter also. (Then were the days of unleavened bread.)
      Ac 20:6 And we sailed away from Philippi after the days of unleavened bread, and came unto them to Troas in five days; where we abode seven days.
      1Co 5:8 Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.

      So we do not see anyone doing communion, but we see that the disciples were continuing to keep the feast of unleavened bread. Passover is the beginning meal of unleavened bread and is what Paul is referring to in 1 Cor. 11. The “THIS bread” and “THIS cup” are specific to Passover and not some new thing.

      1 Cor. 11
      1Co 11:26 For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord’s death till he come.

      What is the feast that declares Messiah’s death? Passover. What kind of bread was eaten at Passover? Unleavened bread.

    67. Greg Allen
      May 18th, 2014 @ 10:09 am

      Van,

      >>People of the same sects cannot agree on what their magic book says. More proof that there is no God.

      I’m surprised that a scientific guy, like you, would so misuse the word “proof.”

      When atheists argue with each other, is it proof that God exists?

    68. Greg Allen
      May 18th, 2014 @ 10:17 am

      Bo,

      It seems to me, that “communion” evolved during the hundred years of oral tradition and then writing the NT.

      Early on, it was remembering Jesus during a normal meal. Then the meals became more formal. Then it became ritualized.

      (Skip ahead 2000 years — and now it’s a shot glass of Welch’s and a Tic Tac of bread! ;-)

      This is more of a general impression — I’d need to research it more. I’m sure I studied this once but I forget details like that. I’m not Dr. Brown!

    69. Greg Allen
      May 18th, 2014 @ 10:19 am

      Bo,

      You have me super curious now — what denomination or church to you attend?

      I’ll be honest, I still getting my mind around how you view the New Covenant.

      Are you in a cult?

      I don’t mean that as an insult. But, I have to wonder.

    70. Sheila
      May 18th, 2014 @ 10:39 am

      Van,

      Scripture is perfectly clear on many different levels. Some get the correct message by accepting the work of Messiah and resting in Him while being new to the Word of God. Others have gone way beyond that to delve into the Word on many different levels. My point is that there is something for each depending on where they are in their walk with God.

      Here’s an example. I never got beyond Algebra in College, that doesn’t mean that the world of trying to discern the “First Cause” of the universe is wrong in persuing because scientists/physicists can’t even agree on the specifics. Algebra hasn’t suffered because I’m not at their level of mathematics.

    71. Sheila
      May 18th, 2014 @ 10:40 am

      At their level there’ll be disagreement of some kind.

    72. Sheila
      May 18th, 2014 @ 10:40 am

      At their level there’ll be disagreement of some kind.

    73. Sheila
      May 18th, 2014 @ 10:42 am

      Hmm, strange little hick-up took place. Don’t know what happened to my screen temporarily. ?

    74. Greg Allen
      May 18th, 2014 @ 10:47 am

      PS to Bo:

      I would like to hear you respond to my question about the gold standard.

      I hear “gold standard” guys call radio shows, pretty often, but the host never asks them this very question.

      Wouldn’t the gold standard lock-in the total value of the economy to the total value of the gold?

      In other words, the gold standard would doom America to being a third world country?

      Or, alternatively, it would inflate the value of gold to the point where one fleck could buy you an Escalade. (this seems like the most likely scenario to me. We simply shift the inflation problem from dollars to gold.)

      (I actually have other questions about the gold standard but the above seems the most glaring since it would occur to anyone who took Macroeconomics 101.)

    75. Sheila
      May 18th, 2014 @ 10:55 am

      And how could the little guy ever accumulate true wealth if the Government held the gold? I’m not getting it am I? Is there enough gold out there to underwrite everyone’s wealth?

    76. Sheila
      May 18th, 2014 @ 11:02 am

      Van,

      Have you ever heard Dr. John Lennox speak? He holds triple doctorate degrees in Science and Philosophy. He’s also a Christian. Let me recommend that you go on Youtube and listen to the man reason with the atheists. He’s very polite while remaining super intelligent. I think you’re under the false assumption that Christians are stupid. Wake up to the truth.

    77. Bo
      May 18th, 2014 @ 11:07 am

      Greg,

      I was referring to another gospel like Paul did here:

      2Co 11:4 For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him.
      Ga 1:6 I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel:

      It is not the gospel that the apostles preached that comes up with the idea of communion. They and the early believers kept the feast of Passover and unleavened bread.

      There is only one true gospel for those who lived before and after the time of Messiah. The “another gospel” is a false one.

      You wrote:
      “You can’t possibly expect me to engage with the rest of your post when it is based such an extremely-out-of-the-mainstream presumption.”

      All you have to do is read the scriptures that I quoted and referenced. Then you can respond. Do you not think that it is interesting that the sickness is associated with partaking of Passover unworthily before Paul’s statements? Mainstream is not usually the right stream.

      Mt 7:14 Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.

      The new covenant is only offered to Israel:

      Heb 8:8 For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah: (Quoting Jer. 31)

      The covenants and adoption and promises belong to Israel:

      Ro 9:4 Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises;
      Eph 2:12 That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world:

      Gentiles must be grafted/adopted into Israel to be partakers of the covenants and promises that YHWH made with Israel. They are not grafted into us. Those that are gathered together with Israel are regulated by the same laws and rules as Israel:

      Nu 15:16 One law and one manner shall be for you, and for the stranger that sojourneth with you.

      Strangers that have entered covenant with YHWH are not to think of themselves as separate from Israel:

      Isa 56:3 Neither let the son of the stranger, that hath joined himself to the LORD, speak, saying, The LORD hath utterly separated me from his people: neither let the eunuch say, Behold, I am a dry tree…
      6 Also the sons of the stranger, that join themselves to the LORD, to serve him, and to love the name of the LORD, to be his servants, every one that keepeth the sabbath from polluting it, and taketh hold of my covenant;
      7 Even them will I bring to my holy mountain, and make them joyful in my house of prayer: their burnt offerings and their sacrifices shall be accepted upon mine altar; for mine house shall be called an house of prayer for all people.

      Now we see context of Messiah’s quote about YHWH’s house being a house of prayer for all people. It is about gentiles being grafted/adoptied into Israel and not being a separate entity. Like Paul says:

      Ro 11:24 For if thou wert cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and wert graffed contrary to nature into a good olive tree: how much more shall these, which be the natural branches, be graffed into their own olive tree?

      Israel is the name of YHWH’s people. Some Israelites are not Israel and some gentiles are grafted into Israel:

      Ro 9:6 Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel:

      YHWH chose Israel before they were Israel. He will not go back on His gifts and callings.

      Ro 11:28 As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, they are beloved for the fathers’ sakes.
      29 For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance.
      30 For as ye in times past have not believed God, yet have now obtained mercy through their unbelief:

      In a sense, we can choose to be chosen by accepting YHWH’s name (adoption), covenants (commitment to obedience) and being joined to His people (Israel).

      Isa 56:3 Neither let the son of the stranger, that hath joined himself to the LORD, speak, saying, The LORD hath utterly separated me from his people…
      6 Also the sons of the stranger, that join themselves to the LORD, to serve him, and to love the name of the LORD, to be his servants, every one that keepeth the sabbath from polluting it, and taketh hold of my covenant;

      We can do the above or we can continue to think of ourselves as gentiles and a separate entity from Israel and we can continue to reject YHWH’s laws and statutes. If we are still gentiles, are still strangers to the covenants of promise and we are not adopted into the household of faith for we do not have the family name…Israel. When we refuse to keep YHWH’s family feasts and instead invent our own things like Good Friday and Xmas and Easter and Lent, and communion, and, and, and, then we should not be surprised if we find ourselves in a very large crowd (MANY) at the end.

      Mat 7:21 “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.
      22 On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’
      23 And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.’

      If we will not do the Father’s will and will continue to reject His law, we just may not like what we hear. We can just continue hear the word and not put it into practice…to build on the sand and reject what YHWH’s word says.

      Mat 7:24 “Everyone then who hears these words of mine and does them will be like a wise man who built his house on the rock.
      25 And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat on that house, but it did not fall, because it had been founded on the rock.
      26 And everyone who hears these words of mine and does not do them will be like a foolish man who built his house on the sand.
      27 And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell, and great was the fall of it.”

      Jas 1:22 But be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving your own selves.

      Are we deceiving ourselves or not?

    78. Greg Allen
      May 18th, 2014 @ 11:11 am

      Sheila,

      >>Scripture is perfectly clear on many different levels. Some get the correct message by accepting the work of Messiah and resting in Him while being new to the Word of God.

      For us Evangelicals, there are two very significant efforts to define what we can all agree on: the creeds and the Fundamentals.

      The creeds were the broader effort of the church to define the core beliefs.

      (Although too long to post here, still pretty basic!)

      The original Fundamentalist movement (in reaction to “higher criticism”) defined an even shorter list although they added a couple of things. (inerrancy and substitutionary atonement)

      These are the “fundamentals”

      * The inerrancy of the Bible
      * The literal nature of the Biblical accounts, especially regarding Christ’s miracles and the Creation account in Genesis
      * The Virgin Birth of Christ
      * The bodily resurrection and physical return of Christ
      * The substitutionary atonement of Christ on the cross

      But, if you notice this blog — we tend to argue issues way outside the creeds or even the “fundamentals”

      There is no mention of homosexuality or abortion in the creeds or the fundamentals. Yet, even Dr. Brown called me “anti-Jesus” for disagreeing with him about so-called, “reparative therapy”!

      Others have condemned me to hell for disagreeing on issues that are not even remotely connected to the creeds of the fundamentals.

      As for me, I try to not question people’s claims to be Christian because they differ on issues outside the creeds or the fundamentals.

      I consider it a kind of heresy when we elevate modern social issues to a salvific level.

    79. Bo
      May 18th, 2014 @ 12:14 pm

      Greg,

      Obviously, during much of history with literacy rates being pretty low and Bibles being scarce, creedal religion was of great import. Better was the Jewish idea of memorization of vast amounts of scripture. We do not get writers like Paul from a creed based religion. Now we have the luxury of concordances and Bible software and creeds and memorization and much spare time to argue every conceivable point of doctrine.

      It doesn’t really matter if we agree mentally with the fundamentals or the creeds or the commentaries. What matters is that our lives evidence proof of complete commitment to doing YHWH’s word…or at least what we know of it. When I was a young child, I knew not much more than to be kind to others. Later I knew that my loyalty was to be absolute toward YHWH even to the point of “hating” other relationships and even my own life. As time continues, more and more of the seed of the word of YHWH has been planted in my mind and heart and I am accountable to let that seed grow and produce fruit.

      So to argue that homosexuality is sin with a person that only knows to be kind is fruitless. But once the loyalty to YHWH stage of development has dawned upon someone, it becomes a big issue. Once one knows the passages that condemn it, it becomes an issue of continuing to grow in applying every word of YHWH to every aspect of life.

      Le 19:17 Thou shalt not hate thy brother in thine heart: thou shalt in any wise rebuke thy neighbour, and not suffer sin upon him.
      18 Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the LORD.

      The aspect of the sufficiency and inerrancy of scripture becomes paramount in these discussions, because we are not supposed to stay in the first stage of just being kind in a temporal sort of way. We should realize that to be kind is to warn and rebuke our brothers for the sake of not allowing sin upon them. The fundamentals of the faith encompass even the aspects of abortion and homosexuality because scripture does deal with these topics and every other area of our lives.

      Those that live as loyal servants and obedient children of YHWH should be very concerned about not committing, sanctioning or allowing such detestable sin in their own lives or of those that call themselves brothers/sisters. It is leaven that needs to be removed from the body of Messiah so that the rest of the bread does not become ruined…if it is not too late already in most churches. I still think that it is time to come out of Babylon.

      Messiah never dealt with cannibalism specifically. Does that mean that we are not allowed to call it a sin and warn and rebuke those that participate in it and sanction it? It is simple minded, immature sentiment to state that, “It is not a fundamental of the faith.” or, “Messiah never preached on it.” It is trying to live in the “be kind” mode and not to grow up…if it is not rejection of truth and having ones heart hardened through the deceitfulness of sin. It is definitely allowing the cares of this live to choke the word.

      Heb 3:13 But exhort one another daily, while it is called To day; lest any of you be hardened through the deceitfulness of sin.

      Mr 4:19 And the cares of this world, and the deceitfulness of riches, and the lusts of other things entering in, choke the word, and it becometh unfruitful.
      Lu 21:34 And take heed to yourselves, lest at any time your hearts be overcharged with surfeiting, and drunkenness, and cares of this life, and so that day come upon you unawares.

      There are children and mentally handicapped and older believers that are much like children in their mental capacity. These things are not appropriate to discuss with them. But for those that think that they up to the second and third stages of mental and spiritual development, it is time to grow up or wake up…before “that day come upon you unawares.”

    80. Bo
      May 18th, 2014 @ 12:29 pm

      Greg,

      Also things like murder and theft and adultery are not mentioned in the fundamentals or the creeds. Can someone unrepentantly participate in these and really be a true believer? Just because something does not fall into the fundamentals or creeds by your standards does not make it important enough to be evidence of true faith/commitment to YHWH.

      Jas 2:18 Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works.

    81. Sheila
      May 18th, 2014 @ 12:55 pm

      Greg,

      Not only did I give way too short an answer to Van but I’m probably guilty of doing it too often. A more thoughtful answer always covers more ground than I sometimes take the time for. I apologize for spreading myself too thin sometimes. I’m working on two different threads at the same time and am way behind on one which requires so much study and thought, not to mention specific word choices, which I honestly try to use often. Your point deserves consideration. It’s mostly what I had in mind with the basic tenants of Christianity being summed up for new believers. We are admonished to go on further in our studies but “to each of us is given our own measure of faith.” We are not all outfitted the same way and some go on to get a degree in Theology or to become Ministers and teachers while others walk in their faith to the best of their ability considering where they’re at at the present time. If they learn nothing more than the Gospel I can’t believe the Lord would turn them away. However, when they should know better, they will be disciplined is what Scripture says: Luk 12:47 And that servant who knew his master’s will but did not get ready or act according to his will, will receive a severe beating 48 But the one who did not know, and did what deserved a beating, will receive a light beating. Everyone to whom much was given, of him much will be required, and from him to whom they entrusted much, they will demand the more.

      The basic creeds, though, are good for starters, such as the Apostles Creed, which states:

      1. I believe in God the Father, Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth:

      2. And in Jesus Christ, his only begotten Son, our Lord:

      3. Who was conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary:

      4. Suffered under Pontius Pilate; was crucified, dead and buried: He descended into hell:

      5. The third day he rose again from the dead:

      6. He ascended into heaven, and sits at the right hand of God the Father Almighty:

      7. From thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead:

      8. I believe in the Holy Ghost:

      9. I believe in the holy catholic [universal] church: the communion of saints:

      10. The forgiveness of sins:

      11. The resurrection of the body:

      12. And the life everlasting. Amen.

      Is it wrong to not know whether homosexuality is considered a sin or not? Well, is it wrong to not know whether stealing or adultery is a sin or not? They’re not listed in the creed either. I have to believe that if you’ve come to the point of agreeing with and reciting the creed itself that you would know enough to understand what “sins are being forgiven” in the 10th line of the creed. Our conscience tells us when we’re sinning. When we deliberately dull our consciences we’re headed away from communion with God and sin becomes easier and easier to live with until you no longer hear the voice of the Holy Spirit convicting you anymore. To repent and turn back is the only remedy. I’ve had to do it in the short time I’ve been a believer.

      You and I don’t agree on your liberal interpretation of Scripture. And I don’t consider myself an evangelical, seeing I’m not even sure what one is. :) Maybe I am and don’t know it. I know where I stand on end time prophecy, the rapture, the Church, Israel, etc., etc., but so far I’ve escaped being labeled this or that, other than a devout Christian.

      Greg–”As for me, I try to not question people’s claims to be Christian because they differ on issues outside the creeds or the fundamentals.
      “I consider it a kind of heresy when we elevate modern social issues to a salvific level.”

      I believe the time is now to take a stand on the more pressing social issues of our time. That those opposed to our beliefs will eventually marginalize Christians to the point of silence is already in the works, Greg. I’m not sure your liberal stance hasn’t partially blinded you to the truth of that. What do you make of the trajectory we’re on? There’s a big picture unfolding while we’re debating particulars. Perhaps we need to lift our heads up off the page and truly look around us. “It’s coming to a place near you.”

      But, what I think is that it’s also possible to be too cerebral about our theology. Sometimes the simplicity of the Gospel is better. Perhaps that simpleton will stand in the face of persecution better than another with much learning. I read about it happening in other countries all the time. They’re mostly regular people being killed because they won’t deny the Lord and the truth. How would we fair?

    82. Sheila
      May 18th, 2014 @ 12:58 pm

      Hey, I forgot to mention that I’m typing at lightning speed these days! Well, maybe not lightning but pretty fast considering where I started! Answering others helped tremendously. :)

    83. Nicholas
      May 18th, 2014 @ 1:25 pm

      Hi Sheila,

      Ezekiel’s vision does seem to suggest a literal temple, I agree. At least, at first. However, I still think he witnesses a spiritual reality, because, when he really gets into it, his description becomes highly allegorical.

      I was struggling with this myself. I actually called into Catholic Answers back in 2012. That’s the Catholic apologetics radio broadcast. I had a great exchange with the guest, if you want to listen to it. He articulates the Catholic perspective quite well. The episode is called “The Meaning of the Temple,” with Tim Gray. You can look it up and listen to it on the Catholic Answers website.

    84. Ray
      May 18th, 2014 @ 1:26 pm

      It’s been said that God helps those who help themselves. It seems to me even more so, that he helps us when we help others.

    85. Sheila
      May 18th, 2014 @ 1:36 pm

      Nicholas,

      Thanks for the link, I’ll do that in a bit. I’m working on collecting the Scripture verses to make my case; I find one which reminds me of another and then I’m off to that. I know, I’ve been waylaid at every turn… And I’m trying to work in the garden in between raindrops! Right now I’m heading out to try again. Who knows for how long?

      I haven’t forgotten though. I’ll be back with you.

    86. Nicholas
      May 18th, 2014 @ 1:46 pm

      Greg,

      I’m not a priest, but I did think about becoming one. I realized that my calling is to marriage, so I’m currently working on that now.

      If the pope were to come out (excuse the pun) and say that gays are “ok,” well, first of all, I can’t imagine that would ever happen, but, in point of fact, he doesn’t actually have the authority to contradict the Church’s teachings. Yes, even the pope doesn’t have that power. He has tried to be more compassionate towards how the Church deals with gays, and it is a sensitive issue, so I think his strategy is a good one.

    87. Nicholas
      May 18th, 2014 @ 1:55 pm

      Sheila,

      Actually, it wasn’t much of an exchange, but I asked a good question. His answer was very thorough. It’s about a third of the way through the show.

    88. Greg Allen
      May 18th, 2014 @ 4:48 pm

      Nicholas,

      >>If the pope were to come out (excuse the pun) and say that gays are “ok,” well, first of all, I can’t imagine that would ever happen, but, in point of fact, he doesn’t actually have the authority to contradict the Church’s teachings.

      Interesting. I have always assumed that the pope represents a collective process, rather than being a dictator. But, I assume he has great influence.

      But, you didn’t answer my question.

      The Vatican has changed it’s teaching before. What would you do if they reverse themselves on the gay issue?

      Surely, you’ve thought about it.

      As for married priests, I suspect you would embrace that change. You seem extremely loyal to the church — IMHO, it’s a shame you can’t be a priest because of some medieval view of marriage.

    89. Greg Allen
      May 18th, 2014 @ 4:51 pm

      Bo,

      I’ll concede that you make a good point — murder is not in the creeds or fundamentals.

      But,I would content that one can make a good case that murder hurts innocent people.

      I don’t believe one can make a case that a loving, monogamous gay couple is hurting anyone.

      – - – - – -

      Did you answer my question about what church you belong to? I am very curious, now!

      I PROMISE you that I won’t dump on your group, BTW. No matter how much I might disagree with any group, I respect your right to belong. (as long as nobody is being hurt!)

    90. Greg Allen
      May 18th, 2014 @ 5:05 pm

      Sheila,

      Thanks for the long response.

      I’m not sure what you mean when you say that you disagree with my liberal interpretation of scripture.

      As a liberal, I interpret scripture to hold that Jesus is Lord. He is the Son of God. He died on the cross and was raised from the dead. etc. etc.

      Surely, you don’t disagree with that!

      My church confesses the same core set of Christian beliefs that your church does, I’ll guess.

      Where we differ is on the peripheral issue, often driven externally by things like politics.

      I think it the signature heresy of the American church that we have incorporated American politics into bible.

      You wrote:
      >>I believe the time is now to take a stand on the more pressing social issues of our time.

      According to the bible, pressing social issues would be helping the poor and widows, visiting prisoners, welcoming the immigrants, etc.

      According the GOP, it denying gays equal rights.

      It’s your right to “take a stand” against equality for gays but I believe you do so prompted by politics, not the bible.

    91. Nicholas
      May 18th, 2014 @ 5:14 pm

      The pope is an autocrat. That is to say, he has supreme jurisdiction over the Church in matters of governance and regarding faith and morals. The primacy of the Bishop of Rome is not simply one of honor but of authority. No one in the world is his equal, because he is the Vicar of Christ on earth.

      Having said that, the papacy exists to confirm the Magisterium of the Church, which comes from God. Our understanding of dogma can develop, and we can expand upon its articulation (as we did in the doctrine of the Trinity), but dogma itself cannot change, and the pope has no power to change it. However, he can define new dogmas, such as Pius XII did in 1950, when he proclaimed that the Virgin was assumed into heaven bodily. Now, because Pius XII solemnly proclaimed the Assumption of Mary, Francis cannot come along and say, “Mary was not assumed into heaven, folks.” The Assumption is now part of the deposit of faith. This belief must be held by every Catholic, including the pope. So, regarding homosexuality, because the Church has already spoken on this issue, Francis cannot wink and give gays the “ok.”

    92. Sheila
      May 18th, 2014 @ 5:21 pm

      Greg,

      See, that’s where you err concerning me. You said, “It’s your right to “take a stand” against equality for gays but I believe you do so prompted by politics, not the bible.”

      There are absolutely no politics involved in my position. I am all for equality for every man, women and child there is. What I’m not for is changing the definition of a word that has meant ONE THING and ONE THING ONLY since the dawning of civilization! We have turned the dictionary and God’s holy union into a bad joke! What was once sacred is now mundane, what was once a reflection of Christ and His Church is now a vulgar representation of perversion. I believe it’s a perversion of God’s initial design for mankind for two men to marry each other, or two women, or three or four or whatever. What does politics have to do with that? Not a thing.

    93. Sheila
      May 18th, 2014 @ 5:24 pm

      And I certainly help those less fortunate than me. God is the ultimate champion for the poor, it’s written throughout the pages of the Bible. I have three children in three different countries that I sponsor every month through Compassion International as well as contributing to those ministries and outreaches that I deem worthy of my time and resources.

      Your preaching to the choir.

    94. Sheila
      May 18th, 2014 @ 5:30 pm

      One more thing since you’ve got my blood pressure up. :) If I was politically driven I certainly wouldn’t state what I just did as that’s more or less akin to tightening the noose I just draped around my own neck. Do you see? The “politically correct” thing to do is shut up about it. If you can’t see in what ways the sacred union of husband and wife is reflected throughout the entirety of the Bible, well perhaps you should think about attending a different seminary school.

    95. Sheila
      May 18th, 2014 @ 6:08 pm

      Greg,

      1 Cor 6

      13 The body is not meant for sexual immorality, but for the Lord, and the Lord for the body. 14 And God raised the Lord and will also raise us up by his power. 15 Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ? Shall I then take the members of Christ and make them members of a prostitute? Never! 16 Or do you not know that he who is joined[d] to a prostitute becomes one body with her? For, as it is written, “The two will become one flesh.” 17 But he who is joined to the Lord becomes one spirit with him. 18 Flee from sexual immorality. Every other sin[e] a person commits is outside the body, but the sexually immoral person sins against his own body. 19 Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, whom you have from God? You are not your own, 20 for you were bought with a price. So glorify God in your body.

    96. Greg Allen
      May 18th, 2014 @ 7:02 pm

      Nicholas,

      >>So, regarding homosexuality, because the Church has already spoken on this issue, Francis cannot wink and give gays the “ok.”

      Seriously? No matter what the science says. No matter how much society changes. No matter what the best bible scholars of the day, say… the church can never, ever admit it was wrong?

      This completely defies what I believe about the church — yours or any other church.

      We are people… we get things wrong, as all people do.

      The Crusades and the Inquisition come to mind!

    97. Greg Allen
      May 18th, 2014 @ 7:05 pm

      Sheila,

      >>There are absolutely no politics involved in my position.

      I think you honestly believe that. It is very hard for people to step outside their own culture and be clearly self-reflective.

      Can you explain why Christian conservatives hammer the gays but almost never mention greed? Both are clearly listed sins.

      I am absolutely convinced that this has everything do to with America’s “culture wars” and very little to do with the bible.

    98. Ray
      May 18th, 2014 @ 7:15 pm

      How often do we hear about greed in the news?

      It always seems to be more about homosexuals wanting to promote their agenda, get marriage licenses and such than anyone promoting a greed agenda.

      Should we have more laws that prohibit greed?

      Greg, what do you suggest, more laws against greed?

      Seems to me the gay agenda is full of greed, wanting everything they are not entitled to by simple fact that they do not fulfill the definition of marriage, yet they want all the benefits of it as if it were marriage by God’s definition.

    99. Ray
      May 18th, 2014 @ 7:16 pm

      Greg, does homosexuality glorify God in any way?

    100. Bo
      May 18th, 2014 @ 7:52 pm

      Ray,

      You hit the nail on the head. Homosexuality is covetousness…greed for personal pleasure in disregard to what YHWH has commanded. And according to scripture covetousness is idolatry. That is how important it is to get this right. It is not a political view, it is YHWH’s veiw.

      Col 3:5 Mortify therefore your members which are upon the earth; fornication, uncleanness, inordinate affection, evil concupiscence, and covetousness, which is idolatry:

      Everything in the above verse describes homosex. Everything! If someone calls themselves a believer in Messiah and lives a life of homosex, which is fornication and uncleanness and inordinate affection and evil concupiscence and covetousness and idolatry, we are to rebuke such a one and not have fellowship with him or her and we are not allowed to eat with them…unless they repent.

      1Co 5:9 I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company with fornicators:
      10 Yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or with idolaters; for then must ye needs go out of the world.
      11 But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat.

      Greg, you and your church are directly disobedient to scripture and are helping others to stumble and maybe stumble right into hell. This is not love and kindness, but insidious evil and hating your so-called brother.

    101. Bo
      May 18th, 2014 @ 8:00 pm

      Greg,

      You wrote:
      “Seriously? No matter what the science says. No matter how much society changes. No matter what the best bible scholars of the day, say… the church can never, ever admit it was wrong?”

      No Greg, no matter what anybody says, science or society or apostate Bible scholars…the Bible says that it is wrong. We have nothing to admit. The society and science and Bible scholars need to admit that they are wrong and bow to YHWH and His completely true word. And you are so wrong about your supposed “best bible scholars”…they are apostates if they can find any way to justify any kind of homosex. It is the fringe liberal that claims to be a Bible scholar that would justify such a thing, not a true Bible scholar.

      You serve society and culture. It is your god. It is who you serve. For you to even post such blasphemy proves your real loyalty.

    102. Greg Allen
      May 18th, 2014 @ 8:00 pm

      Ray,

      >>How often do we hear about greed in the news?

      Every day! It’s the root of all evil, afterall! ;-)

      Seriously, there isn’t a day goes by that some body hurts another person over a dollar.

      Most recently, we learned that GM caused a number of people to die because they didn’t want to spend the couple bucks per car to fix the deadly problem.

      Why don’t Christian conservative churches preach sermons on this?

      Because the current conservative political climate says greed is good and gays are bad.

    103. Greg Allen
      May 18th, 2014 @ 8:02 pm

      Bo,

      >>Greg, you and your church are directly disobedient to scripture and are helping others to stumble and maybe stumble right into hell.

      I am quite confident that not one single person has turned gay because of me!

      And, we would disagree about the scripture part.

    104. Bo
      May 18th, 2014 @ 8:06 pm

      Greg,

      You have fallen hook, line and sinker for the apostasy of the last days. You justify those that are lovers of their own selves and are covetous and without natural affection and that are incontinent and traitors and that love pleasure more than YHWW. You have a form of godliness that denies the power of grace to heal a homosexual. We are commanded to turn away from you as far as considering you a brother…until you repent.

      2Ti 3:1 This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come.
      2 For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy,
      3 Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good,
      4 Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God;
      5 Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.
      6 For of this sort are they which creep into houses, and lead captive silly women laden with sins, led away with divers lusts,
      7 Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.
      8 Now as Jannes and Jambres withstood Moses, so do these also resist the truth: men of corrupt minds, reprobate concerning the faith.

      You really need to wake up.

    105. Greg Allen
      May 18th, 2014 @ 8:09 pm

      Ray,

      >Greg, does homosexuality glorify God in any way?

      Does heterosexuality glorify God — even as practiced by Paris Hilton or Donald Sterling?

      I don’t think that sexual preference glorifies or defames God. Most people just like dudes or chicks.

      It’s _how_ you practice your sexuality that matters. Do you hurt people? Does it honor vows? Is it consensual? Does it provide a stable environment for children?

      THAT is what matters to God, I believe. I honestly don’t think he gets freaked out if the body parts don’t fit exactly as he designed them.

    106. Ray
      May 18th, 2014 @ 8:15 pm

      Greg, what would you think if someone comes into your house, and does whatever they want, not listening to what you say at all? How would you feel?

      Isn’t that the way we should consider that God might feel?

      Homosexuality dishonors the body, as it dishonors God.

      If a man doesn’t like greed, how could he not dislike the gay agenda?

      If a man is for the things that honor God, how could he not dislike the gay agenda?

      If a man is for the kingdom of heaven, how could be for the gay agenda?

      If a man is for the gay agenda, how can he be for the kingdom of heaven which is against it?

    107. Bo
      May 18th, 2014 @ 8:21 pm

      Greg,

      You wrote:
      “THAT is what matters to God, I believe. I honestly don’t think he gets freaked out if the body parts don’t fit exactly as he designed them.”

      No He doesn’t get freaked out…He is disgusted, that is what abomination means. He gets sad because He knows the deceived hearts that serve themselves instead of Him. He gets righteously angry at those that call themselves believers that stubbornly insist on rebellion.

    108. Nicholas
      May 18th, 2014 @ 8:21 pm

      Well, we believe that the Catholic Church cannot be wrong about anything concerning faith and morals (i.e, that which is required for salvation). The Crusades and the Inquisition, these are complex issues. They were political situations and they had their historical context.

      In any event, don’t you believe that the Bible specifically condemns homosexuality? Does that mean anything to you, or do you believe that we have to re-interpret scripture? If so, why? Because we live in 2014?

    109. Ray
      May 18th, 2014 @ 8:25 pm

      Greg, are you for or against Christ?

    110. Ray
      May 18th, 2014 @ 8:36 pm

      Here’s a short quiz:

      In Matthew 13:42, is anyone freaking out?

    111. Doug
      May 18th, 2014 @ 9:21 pm

      “Seriously, there isn’t a day goes by that some body hurts another person over a dollar.

      Most recently, we learned that GM caused a number of people to die because they didn’t want to spend the couple bucks per car to fix the deadly problem.

      Why don’t Christian conservative churches preach sermons on this?

      Because the current conservative political climate says greed is good and gays are bad.”

      How can you use the scripture to condemn greed and ignore homosexuality? It seems inconsistent to me. If we can’t understand the teaching Jesus gave on marriage then why should we think we can understand the Biblical teaching on greed? The reason for all the talk about homosexuality is that liberals keep pushing it. If there was agreement about the sinfulness of homosexuality conservative Christians would talk about it much less.

    112. Sheila
      May 18th, 2014 @ 9:24 pm

      Greg,

      I hear you do this all the time. You justify the sin of homosexuality by pointing to the sin of heterosexuals. How does that work exactly? Immorality only applies to heterosexuals? I was under the impression that sin is sin no matter who’s doing the sinning. My opinion is what it is “because” of what the Bible says about it. I don’t distort the truth of Scripture–you do. You’re the one speaking heresy and falsehoods and I have to agree that your total disregard for the absolute authority of Scripture may very well lead some people down a path to destruction by condoning their sin. Would you honestly tell someone that it’s okay for them to commit adultery, to steal, to lie, to cheat because God didn’t really mean what He said? That’s exactly what you want us to believe about the sin of homosexual sex. As of this generation, it’s no longer a sin. Let me reiterate what the Bible says about it for you:

      ESV Lev. 18:22
      You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.

      Lev 18: 20 And you shall not lie sexually with your neighbor’s wife and so make yourself unclean with her. 21 You shall not give any of your children to offer them[b] to Molech, and so profane the name of your God: I am the Lord. 22 You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination. 23 And you shall not lie with any animal and so make yourself unclean with it, neither shall any woman give herself to an animal to lie with it: it is perversion.

      24 “Do not make yourselves unclean by any of these things, for by all these the nations I am driving out before you have become unclean, 25 and the land became unclean, so that I punished its iniquity, and the land vomited out its inhabitants. 26 But you shall keep my statutes and my rules and do none of these abominations, either the native or the stranger who sojourns among you 27 (for the people of the land, who were before you, did all of these abominations, so that the land became unclean), 28 lest the land vomit you out when you make it unclean, as it vomited out the nation that was before you. 29 For everyone who does any of these abominations, the persons who do them shall be cut off from among their people. 30 So keep my charge never to practice any of these abominable customs that were practiced before you, and never to make yourselves unclean by them: I am the Lord your God.”

      Is it now okay to commit adultery with your neighbor?

      Is it now okay to offer our children up in a firey sacrifice to Molech?

      Is it now okay to lie with an animal?

      But somehow homosexuality escapes the injunction against what is an abomination to the Lord.

    113. Greg Allen
      May 18th, 2014 @ 9:25 pm

      Ray,

      >> Greg, are you for or against Christ?

      For Christ. And you?

      And, as a follower of Christ, I notice that he never condemned the gays like you guys do.

      Something to consider: if you doubt my salvation based on this rarely mentioned issue in the bible, you might consider whether you have added something extra to the salvation message.

    114. Greg Allen
      May 18th, 2014 @ 9:39 pm

      Sheila,

      None of those things are like homosexuality.

      The closest parallel to homosexuality is remarriage after divorce.

      Jesus clearly condemns it, yet, many churches allow it.

      Why? Because even some very conservative Christians understand that the nature of marriage and the role of women has so radically changed, it changes the moral implications of divorce.

      I’ve heard Dr. Brown give a nuanced, sensitive answer to a caller about this subject. He encouraged her to read the bible, listen to the Holy Spirit and decide for herself.

      But, he extends no such grace for homosexuality. He insists on the most literal, inflexible enforcement of a very small handful of verses, half which are disputed.

    115. Greg Allen
      May 18th, 2014 @ 9:55 pm

      115 comments! And not all of them were about the gays!

      Feel free to respond to me but I am ready to move on to new issues and probably won’t check back here. I think we have pretty much talked this gay issue out, anyway.

      But, even though I asked him a couple of times, Bo wouldn’t say what church he belonged to.

      His silence raises more questions. Is he ashamed of his church? Has he been banned from church?

      People in even the oddest cults will usually admit they attend. Maybe it’s a church Dr. Brown has previously judged as in error.

    116. Sheila
      May 18th, 2014 @ 10:18 pm

      Greg,

      How about being truthful at least. When it is mentioned, it’s never casually. It’s always very strongly spoken against. Not just in the First Testament but in the New as well. Don’t kid yourself. You can’t mention other sins while leaving that one out is all I’m saying. It’s a forgivable sin just as all others are. The catch is that you can no longer practice it and be considered part of the body of Christ as He pointed out in 1 Cor. It was a capital offense which I’d say is pretty egregious:

      Lev 20:13

      If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them.

      Prov 17:15

      Acquitting the guilty and condemning the innocent— the LORD detests them both.

      Jesus spoke out against adultery and you think He was for gay relationships?

      If you don’t mind, now that you’ve thoroughly stirred the pot you’re just going to walk away and let it burn? I have just one more question for you. What exactly does God consider an abomination? Because He doesn’t use that word that often so it must be those things that particularly irk Him. What are they in your opinion, which hopefully jives with Scripture.f

    117. Sheila
      May 18th, 2014 @ 10:28 pm

      ignore that little typo…it was part of a footnote that I left out of a scripture verse I was going to use.

    118. Sheila
      May 18th, 2014 @ 10:33 pm

      It’s late again. Nicholas we’ll have to pick it up tomorrow some time. I’ve listened to almost half of the recording and he’d just finished answering your question.

      I was surprised to hear that they think Protestants believe in earning salvation by “works” as opposed to the finished work of Christ. I think maybe they’re confusing “doing good works” with the former.

      Talk to you tomorrow.

    119. Bo
      May 18th, 2014 @ 10:50 pm

      Greg,

      You wrote:
      “Feel free to respond to me but I am ready to move on to new issues and probably won’t check back here.”

      When the going gets tough, the intellectually dishonest run and hide.

      I am glad that you are consistent in avoiding the intricacies of this argument. I am glad that you are going to run and hide when the argumentation gets down to the sticky points of the issue. It proves your inability to deal with the facts.

      I am glad that you can feel frustration of having someone not answer questions. You do it all the time. You post, but you do not actually answer a lot of the time. You evade and you appeal to unknown experts that are supposedly the “best bible scholars” but you produce no footnotes or even book titles or authors names.

      I have not refrained from answering your question on purpose. There have been more pressing issues. What I am and where I go are nothing compared your failure to deal with Scripture in an intellectually or spiritually honest manner.

      So for the record…I am just me. I am part of a loose group of believers that actually accept the whole Bible as their rule of faith and practice…not making excuses or thinking that the law of YHWH has been changed or is no longer authoritative. We have no name. We are scattered all over the earth. We keep the faith of Y’shua and keep the commandments of YHWH. We have the Father’s name written in our foreheads. We refuse to take the mark of the beast. We meet in various locations to celebrate the feasts and Sabbaths of YHWH instead of participating in man-made replacements.

      So that is about as best that I can answer. I guess there is no equal sided box that you can put me in. Sorry to disappoint you, but we are much like the very early church…except we wear blue jeans…the men that is, at least some of the time. The women wear head coverings and dresses…most of the time…not because their husbands make them, but because they try to please YHWH in even the small things. The men wear zitzits…tassels and most have beards…some have long ones. The children wear diapers when they are very young. We are just real people that stand on every word of YHWH.

      Some of us even vote. Some of us do not. Some of us grow their hair longer than others. Some of us got to doctors. Almost all of us home school our children. Some of us have degrees. Some of us do not. Most of us do not watch TV…at least not much.

      But none of us think that homosex is anything but abomination. And none of us think that abortion is not murder. And most of us have come out of the Babylonian church system. We think that the Bible should dictate to culture and not culture to the our interpretation of the Bible. John the Baptist would probably like us for the most part.

      I have jokingly said that we are Pajamists. (Penticostal-Jewish-Amish.) Others have proclaimed us to be Jewpentites. (Jewish-penticostal-menonites.) We are early churchers, but we usually meet late in the afternoon. We are every worders…as much as we know how to be. Like Abraham, we look for a city whose builder and maker is YHWH. We are strangers and foreigners to this world but not to the covenants of promise.

      But you will not likely come back to read this…or at least you will not admit that you have or respond to the pertinent points that have been brought up concerning your anti-Bilical views.

      I hope you have not had to wait too long to get this terribly important information about what group I belong to. I belong to Messiah. He purchased me with His own blood. That is about it. Hopefully you were not disappointed.

    120. Nicholas
      May 18th, 2014 @ 10:53 pm

      Okay, Sheila, thanks.

    121. Bo
      May 18th, 2014 @ 10:59 pm

      Greg,

      If you want more of a bio on who I am, here are few posts that explained to Dr. Brown who I really am years ago. Start here and ejoy:

      http://www.lineoffireradio.com/2011/10/28/dr-brown-answers-your-questions-38/#comment-77495

    122. jon
      May 18th, 2014 @ 11:07 pm

      Greg, You never answered me either. What part of the country are you from, and are you interested in attending a D.B. meeting?

    123. jon
      May 18th, 2014 @ 11:08 pm

      Greg, and one more what about starting the book hyper grace ? Do you want to review that book on here?

    124. Ray
      May 19th, 2014 @ 4:53 am

      The reason I asked if a man is for or against Christ when he is so much for the gay agenda, is because the one is so contrary to the other.

      If a man is so much for the thinking of today’s homosexual activists, how can he sincerely be in the faith of Christ?

      It makes no sense to me. The things they say I don’t understand. They are a barbarian to me and me to them it seems.

      So how could both of us have our citizenship in heaven?

    125. Sheila
      May 19th, 2014 @ 8:13 am

      ADMINISTRATOR,

      This web page is unavailable:

      Updates on Anti-Semitism, Insights from the Hebrew Bible, and News from Israel
      May 15, 2014 | 3 Comments

      I’ve tried half a dozen times to get to it but every time it says it’s unavailable.

    126. jon
      May 19th, 2014 @ 8:57 am

      To Van

      There is no evidence that God created the world as written in the Bible, and there is no evidence for the position that it could have come about spontaneously through the blind forces of nature. In such a situation, the choice of which type of world one chooses to accept is a matter that rests entirely on belief.

    127. Sheila
      May 19th, 2014 @ 1:21 pm

      Hi Nicholas,

      I listened to the broadcast and couldn’t find anything to disagree with at first. What I will have to disagree with and discuss in a bit is that there is no Scriptural basis for believing there may be a third temple. The way I read the prophets and reason out the millennial reign of Christ, He will rule the world from His House in Jerusalem, therefore there will be a temple. But I’ll save that for another post.

      I did hear them chuckle over their belief that Protestants “work” for their salvation while Catholics rest in theirs, something to that effect. We’ll have to talk about that another time too as it’s usually the Jewish roots movement and the Mormons who believe in the doctrine of works. Concerning the spiritual, metaphorical temple I think we all know the verses that would support that way of interpreting things. I want to still insert some of the verses for those not familiar with Scripture that may be reading this at some point. Who knows but that even one might consider looking into it further.

      I heard the broadcaster and Mr. Gray agree that “the Holy of Holies symbolizes Heaven itself” and I think the majority of Christians who study Scripture believe the same. The point being that the way into the Holy of Holies, which was where the Mercy Seat was located, in times past was unapproachable except once a year by the High Priest on the Day of Atonement. That the entire congregation was situated outside of it was made clear in the NT when the veil was torn from top to bottom at the time of Christ’s death. The Way, being only through Messiah, was not previously made known to us by what means all of us might enter the Holy of Holies and approach unto God. The High Priest was symbolic of our only eternal High Priest, Messiah, Jesus. The sacrificial system was made to point us to His perfect sacrifice made for the forgiveness of our sins. The tabernacle and later the temple was modeled after those heavenly things, those spiritual truths that transcend our material existence. Why then, don’t be offended, do we need a Vicar on earth now that we have our Heavenly High Priest making intercession for us? That seems contrary to the entire plan of salvation as was outlined by the type. The anti-type has already been fulfilled in Christ. We should look at Hebrews 6-10 for an elaboration of that. I may have missed editing out the little letters for some footnotes so just ignore what might look like a foreign word if I missed some.

      The Lord spoke of the Spiritual temple here: Mat 26:61 And said, This fellow said, I am able to destroy the temple of God, and to build it in three days. John 2:18 So the Jews said to him, “What sign do you show us for doing these things?” 19 Jesus answered them, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.” 20 The Jews then said, “It has taken forty-six years to build this temple,[c] and will you raise it up in three days?” 21 But he was speaking about the temple of his body. 22 When therefore he was raised from the dead, his disciples remembered that he had said this, and they believed the Scripture and the word that Jesus had spoken.

      Hebrews 8-11 gives a great outline of the work of Jesus in light of the Temple rituals and types.

      I’m going to post the Scripture in the following section for those that would like to read it. Otherwise just skip to the next post.

    128. Sheila
      May 19th, 2014 @ 1:26 pm

      Jesus, High Priest of a Better Covenant

      Hebrews 8:1 Now the point in what we are saying is this: we have such a high priest, one who is seated at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in heaven, 2 a minister in the holy places, in the true tent that the Lord set up, not man. 3 For every high priest is appointed to offer gifts and sacrifices; thus it is necessary for this priest also to have something to offer. 4 Now if he were on earth, he would not be a priest at all, since there are priests who offer gifts according to the law. 5 They serve a copy and shadow of the heavenly things. For when Moses was about to erect the tent, he was instructed by God, saying, “See that you make everything according to the pattern that was shown you on the mountain.” 6 But as it is, Christ has obtained a ministry that is as much more excellent than the old as the covenant he mediates is better, since it is enacted n better promises. 7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no occasion to look for a second.
      8 For he finds fault with them when he says:

      “Behold, the days are coming, declares the Lord,
      when I will establish a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah,
      9 not like the covenant that I made with their fathers on the day when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt.
      For they did not continue in my covenant,
      and so I showed no concern for them, declares the Lord.
      10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the Lord: I will put my laws into their minds, and write them on their hearts, and I will be their God,and they shall be my people.
      11 And they shall not teach, each one his neighbor and each one his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest.
      12 For I will be merciful toward their iniquities, and I will remember their sins no more.”

      13 In speaking of a new covenant, he makes the first one obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.

      Redemption Through the Blood of Christ

      9:11 But when Christ appeared as a high priest of the good things that have come, 5 then through the greater and more perfect tent (not made with hands, that is, not of this creation) 12 he entered once for all into the holy places, not by means of the blood of goats and calves but by means of his own blood, thus securing an eternal redemption. 13 For if the blood of goats and bulls, and the sprinkling of defiled persons with the ashes of a heifer, sanctify for the purification of the flesh, 14 how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit proffered himself without blemish to God, purify our conscience from dead works uto serve the living God.
      15 Therefore he is the mediator of a new covenant, so that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance, since a death has occurred that redeems them from the transgressions committed under the first covenant.[h] 16 For where a will is involved, the death of the one who made it must be established. 17 For a will takes effect only at death, since it is not in force as long as the one who made it is alive. 18 Therefore not even the first covenant was inaugurated without blood. 19 For when every commandment of the law had been declared by Moses to all the people, he took the blood of calves and goats, with water and scarlet wool and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book itself and all the people, 20 saying, “This is the blood of the covenant that God commanded for you.” 21 And in the same way he sprinkled with the blood both the tent and all the vessels used in worship. 22 Indeed, under the law almost everything is purified with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins.
      23 Thus it was necessary for the copies of the heavenly things to be purified with these rites, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these. 24 For Christ has entered, not into holy places made with hands, which are copies of the true things, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God on our behalf. 25 Nor was it to offer himself repeatedly, as the high priest enters the holy places every year with blood not his own, 26 for then he would have had to suffer repeatedly since the foundation of the world. But as it is, he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself. 27 And just as it is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgment, 28 so Christ, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time, not to deal with sin but to save those who are eagerly waiting for him.

      Christ’s Sacrifice Once for All

      Hebrews chapter 10:1-18 For since the law has but a shadow of the good things to come instead of the true form of these realities, it can never, by the same sacrifices that are continually offered every year, make perfect those who draw near. 2 Otherwise, would they not have ceased to be offered, since the worshipers, having once been cleansed, would no longer have any consciousness of sins? 3 But in these sacrifices there is a reminder of sins every year. 4 For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins. 5 Consequently, when Christ[a] came into the world, he said,

      “Sacrifices and offerings you have not desired,
      but a body have you prepared for me;
      6 in burnt offerings and sin offerings
      you have taken no pleasure.
      7 Then I said, ‘Behold, I have come to do your will, O God,
      as it is written of me in the scroll of the book.’”

      8 When he said above, “You have neither desired nor taken pleasure in sacrifices and offerings and burnt offerings and sin offerings” (these are offered according to the law), 9 then he added, “Behold, I have come to do your will.” He does away with the first in order to establish the second. 10 And by that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. 11 And every priest stands daily at his service, offering repeatedly the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. 12 But when Christ had offered for all time a single sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God, 13 waiting from that time until his enemies should be made a footstool for his feet. 14 For by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified. 15 And the Holy Spirit also bears witness to us; for after saying,
      16 “This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, declares the Lord: I will put my laws on their hearts, and write them on their minds,”
      17 then he adds, “I will remember their sins and their lawless deeds no more.”
      18 Where there is forgiveness of these, there is no longer any offering for sin.

      The Full Assurance of Faith

      19 Therefore, brothers, since we have confidence to enter the holy places by the blood of Jesus, 20 by the new and living way that he opened for us through the curtain, that is, through his flesh, 21 and since we have a great priest over the house of God, 22 let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, with our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water. 23 Let us hold fast the confession of our hope without wavering, for he who promised is faithful. 24 And let us consider how to stir up one another to love and good works, 25 not neglecting to meet together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another, and all the more as you see the Day drawing near.

    129. Sheila
      May 19th, 2014 @ 1:29 pm

      In reading from the book of Hebrews, do you see why Protestants are opposed to the office of the Pope as Vicariously Christ on earth? No offense, but according to the New Testament doctrine that Paul works so hard to clearly lay out for us, we are now free to approach God, the Father and Son, of our own accord without a human mediator and that each of us can “Know God” through the teaching and guidance of the Holy Spirit in illuminating the Word of God which testifies to Messiah. I do believe we need teachers and pastors and those more knowledgeable to guide us as well but I just don’t see where anyone was given permission to represent or usurp Christ’s authority on earth even while He’s in Heaven, as all things are held together by His power and He is present together with the Father through the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit witnesses and testifies to us concerning Christ and is in each believer on an individual basis and here for Christ corporately. Also, in the example of the last supper, I believe the Eucharist is not necessarily a perpetual rite to be performed repeatedly but that once would be sufficient for those who have accepted Christ. I celebrate it on Passover every year and that would be the time of year to celebrate the Eucharist and remember the sacrifice made for our sins.

      One of the very hardest sayings in the Bible for me was when Jesus proclaimed that we needed to eat His flesh and drink His blood and it still gets under a lot of people’s skin these days especially in the new age of militant atheists. They make great fun of it too. But considering the preamble to those statements He made concerning the metaphorical truth of it it can be more easily understood. As the Bread of Life He tells us that His body is that Bread which is “broken” for us and that His Blood is that shed for the remission of our sins. He is also the Lamb of God, slain for us, therefore He is seen in the Passover as being eaten with nothing left over until the morning. His Blood was that swiped on the lentel and door posts of the Israelites houses which is now covering the doorposts of our hearts, those of believers. That we will be spared just as they were when He comes to Judge the earth is because we have partaken of His Body and His Blood just as He foretold in the type of the first Passover. Seeing as the Lord’s Supper was not yet come to pass we can’t be made to understand it as the taking of a sacrament when it’s meant metaphorically and with a spiritual application. The Jewish leaders were taken aback, even confounded by it and didn’t see the higher meaning in His words.

      I believe it also signifies the incarnation of God, the Son, who only can die that we may live, it was always and only God alone who could save us. “Apart from Him there is no Saviour.” No other divine plan of salvation would bring about the fulness of reparation needed to bring us back to God to dwell in His Presence once more. He paid the ransom of death that men were cursed with. He took the collective blows that should have landed on each of us separately. It was His body that was broken, crucified, dead and buried that we may live again through Him. The Passover meal and the words of Messiah need not be taken any other way than what He says, “This do in ‘remembrance’ of Me.” There is no transubstantiation that I can see when reading it or listening to His discourse. When the Lord said, “Do this in remembrance of me” I think He was referring to the Feast of Passover being remembered in light of His death. That all the Feast Days are prophetic and point to the work of Messiah in one way or another should be obvious and I’m saddened that Christians have separated themselves from them. I think it’s a great teaching tool too, to help others understand the First Testament and how it’s reflected in the New. There are prophecies yet to be fulfilled.

      I am working on those verses and chapters which imply a literal temple because the topic really does need clarification in my mind and prophecy greatly interests me. I’ll try to have it ready in the next day but don’t want to promise for sure. We can branch off though, wherever we choose. (of course)

      The radio guest mentions the word, schism, and it’s implication in the verse where the heavens were ripped open and the Holy Spirit decended. I’d never noticed that before.

      The guest also mentioned the twelve signs of the Zodiac (at about 16:30) as being woven on the Temple Veil. I find that really interesting as it ties into those verses in both Psalm 19 and Romans 10 concerning the signs in the heavens declaring the work of God through Messiah. I didn’t realize the very Zodiac signs were woven on the veil right in front of their faces the whole time. Paul was really one sharp student of Scripture! He certainly never failed to make the connection between those spiritual things reflected in the material, or of those things of both Heaven and Earth. I imagine some of it was given to him when he was caught up to the third heaven.

      Rom 10:14 How then will they call on him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone preaching? 15 And how are they to preach unless they are sent? As it is written, “How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the good news!” 16 But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Isaiah says, “Lord, who has believed what he has heard from us?” 17 So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ.

      18 But I ask, have they not heard? Indeed they have, for
      “Their voice has gone out to all the earth,
      and their words to the ends of the world.”
      19 But I ask, did Israel not understand? First Moses says,
      “I will make you jealous of those who are not a nation;
      with a foolish nation I will make you angry.”
      20 Then Isaiah is so bold as to say,
      “I have been found by those who did not seek me;
      I have shown myself to those who did not ask for me.”
      21 But of Israel he says, “All day long I have held out my hands to a disobedient and contrary people.”

      Why is Paul quoting Psalm 19 and what does that have to do with people, especially Israel, understanding the Gospel? If you’ve never watched “The Star of Bethlehem” by Rick Larson, let me suggest you do. While the fellow comes to a certain set of conclusions that I can’t personally verify, it’s the most facinating documentary I’ve seen in a long time. Other than the Shroud of Turin that is! Another Dr. of Religious Studies, Dr. Michael Heiser, has demonstrated a very short video on Youtube using the same, or similar program of the positions of the stars during history, that he’s run backwards to show the birth of Christ and when it occurred. Here’s the link:

      And you have to watch the bonus portion of The Star of Bethlehem concerning the Ram at the time of Christ’s death. It’ll give you goosebumps!

      Psalm 19

      1 The heavens declare the glory of God,
      and the sky above proclaims his handiwork.
      2 Day to day pours out speech,
      and night to night reveals knowledge.
      3 There is no speech, nor are there words,
      whose voice is not heard.
      4 Their voice goes out through all the earth,
      and their words to the end of the world.
      In them he has set a tent for the sun,
      5 which comes out like a bridegroom leaving his chamber,
      and, like a strong man, runs its course with joy.
      6 Its rising is from the end of the heavens,
      and its circuit to the end of them,
      and there is nothing hidden from its heat.

      Paul quotes Psalm 19 because the Gospel is written in the stars, in the very fabric of the Universe, God tells the redemptive story of the coming of Messiah. When God called the Universe into existence the time of our Lord’s earthly advent was already in place! That is so typical of Him to do that! Just like Noah’s Ark sitting on top of Ararat and the Shroud of Turin bearing witness to the resurrection, so too, the stars bear witness to our Savior, the Creator and upholder of all things! So amazing it just blows me away sometimes to consider the great cloud of “evidence” He’s left us.

      Check it out for yourself, Van. It’s all there for you to verify or disannul.

      Concerning a literal temple, I suppose we would need to establish whether or not one believes that the millennial rule of Christ is literal or not. I believe it is. What do you believe about that, Nicholas? Then we’ll look at those verses that I believe lend themselves to a literal interpretation as well.

      Psa 100:5 For the LORD is good; his mercy is everlasting; and his truth endures to all generations.

    130. Sheila
      May 19th, 2014 @ 1:37 pm

      Let me find “the missing link.” :)

    131. Sheila
      May 19th, 2014 @ 1:41 pm
    132. Sheila
      May 19th, 2014 @ 3:00 pm

      Nicholas,

      I shouldn’t use the word, Eucharist, as we’re not thinking of the same thing. I use, rather, the word, communion to signify the breaking of the matza and the sharing of wine.

    133. Nicholas
      May 19th, 2014 @ 3:16 pm

      Hi Sheila, thank you for your response. I will try to address it in depth later today, when I have more time.

      Regarding the pope, we understand his role to be pastoral. We would not regard him as a mediator between God and man. Through the sacraments and through the ministry of deacons, priests, and bishops, The Church itself functions as a mediator, insofar as God uses her to save mankind. In a certain sense, the Protestant understanding is similar: the great commission applied to the Apostles but also to the body of believers as a whole, and so all Christians have an obligation to preach, teach, and win souls for Christ.

    134. Ray
      May 19th, 2014 @ 6:03 pm

      What should the Church do with this verse?

      Heb 13:4
      Marriage is honorable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge.

      Are we to say that marriage here is not clearly defined and so “everything goes”, hence “in all”, thereby including everything, two of the same sex or whatever?

      I say that context here is one man and one woman marriage, otherwise, it wouldn’t be honorable at all. I believe it is clearly implied, so clearly so, that there is no need for it to be explained any further.

      Yet, it seems today there are so many who seem to think any kind of “marriage” is honorable, so much so that they would go along with it as if it’s all the same thing, and many of them think of themselves as Christians.

      And I have to wonder….Have they been on their journey long?….Been traveling this way since the first day they surveyed the cross, I’ll bet….carrying bread and wine for such a long time and all…(see Josh 9)

    135. Ray
      May 19th, 2014 @ 6:21 pm

      Sheila, I clicked on your link but didn’t hear the part about the Ram and the crucifixion. Is there another link? Thank you for putting that up.

    136. Sheila
      May 19th, 2014 @ 6:41 pm

      Ray,

      You’re welcome! The star configuration with the Ram in it is from “The Star of Bethlehem” video/DVD which you can watch on Youtube. It’s not the best quality and I haven’t found one yet with the extra bonus material about the Ram. It’s on the DVD I have at home. I’ll keep looking for one with it. Meantime there’s this version:

      http://youtu.be/wdX6XzyaDzA

    137. Sheila
      May 19th, 2014 @ 6:57 pm

      Ray,

      Let me say I don’t have any software to verify either video but I would imagine Dr. Heiser has it right only because he took into account the description in Rev. 12 to align everything with Scripture, which he said could only have lined up in an 80 minute window out of 100′s of years between BC and AD. Could Rick Larson be correct in recording His death? Possibly, as we don’t know how old He was when He died. So, maybe take the best of both. I think I recall scholars speculating that Jesus was 30 when He began His ministry. It seems reasonable to me because they explained that in the Jewish tradition one wouldn’t begin teaching until they were 30 years old. Maybe a Jewish person could verify that as I just don’t know for sure.

    138. Nicholas
      May 19th, 2014 @ 7:57 pm

      Hi Sheila,

      I want to try to take this step by step. Bear with me.

      Regarding the Millennial Age, I don’t really think about it too much. The Church teaches that Christ will come on the Day of Judgement, resurrect the dead, to eternal life or eternal condemnation, and set up his kingdom on earth. Some schools of thought within the Church believe that there will be a period of peace prior to the coming of Christ, during which the devil will be chained for a time, as per Revelation. The Church does not have a dogmatic understanding of Millennialism. However, the Church utterly rejects the notion that there will be a literal Third Temple in a literal Jerusalem.

      In point of fact, we hold firmly to the belief that the Church itself is Israel. As such, the Church itself is the true Jerusalem, into which the nations of the world are and will be streaming to worship God. The Third Temple is a spiritual reality, reflected in the Eucharistic sacrifice.

      How does that square with you?

    139. Ray
      May 19th, 2014 @ 8:13 pm

      Sheila, I read about the massing of planets and the retrograde motion in Leo, as well as the Rev
      12 wonder in heaven, and how there was an 81 minute period when the moon was under Virgo’s feet, on Sep 11, 3 BC, back in the early 80′s, about how this was Tishri 1, like our New Years celebration, etc, even how some old teaching connected this day to the first day of creation.

      It all seemed to make good sense to me. It is amazing.

      I am going to check out the other link you posted.
      Thank you.

    140. Sheila
      May 19th, 2014 @ 8:24 pm

      Ray,

      I find it amazing too! God knows we love a good mystery. Think of the fact that we’ve just now after 1000′s of years been able to produce the software to allow us to look back on the stars with such accuracy!

    141. Sheila
      May 19th, 2014 @ 8:58 pm

      Nicholas,

      Well, for me it’s like trying to put a square peg into a round hole! ;)

      No, actually, I was expecting something like that although I didn’t know how you interpreted the millennium. Well, if you’re up for it then we’ll open up the Scriptures together–you’re not going to get excommunicated or something are you? :) It seems the church you belong to doesn’t give you much reason to think about it really. It seems pretty neatly packaged already.

      I do disagree concerning the Church and Israel. God made a promise to Abraham concerning his biological descendants beginning with Isaac. He promised them a piece of real estate in the Middle East and I don’t see where He’s reneged on it. There is a remnant that remains in unbelief still “‘until’ the fullness of the Gentiles has come in.” I think we’re getting close to full.

      HNV Romans 11:25 “For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, (lest ye should be wise in your own conceits) that blindness in part has happened to Israel, until the fullness of the Gentiles shall be come in.”

      Romans 11 explains God’s position concerning natural Israel as opposed to Spiritual Israel. The remnant He chooses will one day be a part of the One New Man.

      The Mystery of Israel’s Salvation

      25 Lest you be wise in your own conceit, I do not want you to be unaware of this mystery, brothers:[d] a partial hardening has come upon Israel, until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in. 26 And in this way all Israel will be saved, as it is written,

      “The Deliverer will come from Zion,
      he will banish ungodliness from Jacob”;
      27 “and this will be my covenant with them
      when I take away their sins.”

      28 As regards the gospel, they are enemies for your sake. But as regards election, they are beloved for the sake of their forefathers. 29 For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable. 30 For just as you were at one time disobedient to God but now have received mercy because of their disobedience, 31 so they too have now been disobedient in order that by the mercy shown to you they also may now[e] receive mercy. 32 For God has consigned all to disobedience, that he may have mercy on all.

      33 Oh, the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgments and how inscrutable his ways!

      34 “For who has known the mind of the Lord,
      or who has been his counselor?”
      35 “Or who has given a gift to him
      that he might be repaid?”
      36 For from him and through him and to him are all things. To him be glory forever. Amen.

      Rom 9:15 For he saith to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.”

      There’s many verses and ideas to discuss if you’re up to it. Don’t let me bore you though because I could talk about it until the cows come home!

    142. Nicholas
      May 19th, 2014 @ 10:22 pm

      Sheila,

      “Well, for me it’s like trying to put a square peg into a round hole!”

      I thought it might be. :)

      It’s true, for the Catholic, he doesn’t have much leeway for his own ideas. We let the Church do the thinking for us.

      I bring up the Catholic view that the church itself is Israel because I think that this is becoming the underlying issue. I am troubled that some Evangelicals tend to interpret everything in scripture through the hermeneutic of the events of 1948. If the modern nation-state in some way represents God’s design, then a literal Third Temple is possible, if not probable, complete with new animal sacrifices. But Christ died on the cross. Therefore, the Levitical system has been abolished. It is null and void. Forever. Bulls and such, animals being led up to the slaughter, this could never “point back” to the perfect and pure offering of the body of the Lord Jesus. His sacrifice does away with animal offerings, which never really accomplished anything anyway. But the Eucharist, the memorial meal, this clearly “points back.” This was the intention of Christ in the first place, to establish a lasting memorial of his suffering and death. Ezekiel and Malachi speak of sacrifices, a sacrificial system, ostensibly one which exists apart from the sacrifice of the Messiah. We have to harmonize these concepts. The only conclusion is that the system predicted by the prophets is a system not apart from the atoning death of Christ but actually based upon it, flowing from it. The Temple must be here already. We believe that the Temple of sacrifice is the Church, which, as Hebrews tells us, has an altar (Hebrews, 13:10).

      I do not doubt that Paul is teaching that the Jews will be saved, en masse, or at least in some measure, even as there will be a party of Jews who will not accept Christ (the Synagogue of Satan, as per Revelation), but I do not believe that he identifies any future restoration of the ethnic nation.

    143. Bo
      May 19th, 2014 @ 11:47 pm

      Nicholas,

      You wrote:
      ” But Christ died on the cross. Therefore, the Levitical system has been abolished. It is null and void. Forever.”

      Why then did Paul participate in temple offerings many years after Messiah’s death? Why did James and the apostles ask him to do so to prove that he continued to keep the law?

      Acts 21
      23 ‘This, therefore, do that we say to thee: We have four men having a vow on themselves,
      24 these having taken, be purified with them, and be at expence with them, that they may shave the head, and all may know that the things of which they have been instructed concerning thee are nothing, but thou dost walk—thyself also—the law keeping.

      Ro 3:31 Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.

      Heb 8:13 In that he saith, A new, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.

      So it is not null and void and it only vanished due to the destruction of the temple. (This also happened when Israel was take captive to Babylon.) It has not been abolished…just temporarily suspended. Those sacrifices never took away sin and therefore are not in opposition to or in competition with Messiah’s sacrifice. They can point back if YHWH chooses for them to point back or they can simply display truth to unregenerate people or they can be reminders to us.

      Hebrews 13
      10 We have an altar, whereof they have no right to eat which serve the tabernacle.
      11 For the bodies of those beasts, whose blood is brought into the sanctuary by the high priest for sin, are burned without the camp.
      12 Wherefore Jesus also, that he might sanctify the people with his own blood, suffered without the gate.
      13 Let us go forth therefore unto him without the camp, bearing his reproach.
      14 For here have we no continuing city, but we seek one to come.

      The altar that we have is in the heavens, not on earth. Hebrews is very thorough about contrasting the earthly tabernacle with the heavenly one. Hebrews 13:10 is speaking metaphorically…else we are not allowed to stay in the camp. Are we physically camping too?

      Shalom

    144. Bo
      May 19th, 2014 @ 11:52 pm

      Nicholas,

      You wrote:
      “but I do not believe that he identifies any future restoration of the ethnic nation.”

      Acts 1
      6 When they therefore were come together, they asked of him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel?
      7 And he said unto them, It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power.

      The apostles thought that there would be a restoration of the kingdom to Israel and Messiah only said that it was not for them to know the timing of it. He did not say that it was not to be.

      Shalom

    145. Nicholas
      May 20th, 2014 @ 12:52 am

      Hi Bo,

      When Christ died, the Old Law was completed, fulfilled and abolished. The Old Covenant does not exist anymore. I think this is Christianity 101.

      There was a grace period, however, and I think we might call it just that, during which Paul participated in the Old rituals. The Apostles also met in and around the Temple, preached there, etc. It was still the center of Jewish life and community. Hebrews says, as you quoted, “Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.” (Thanks for using the King James, by the way, always a classy choice :) .) The system of the Old Law was fading away. The destruction of the Temple was the nail on the coffin. But the Temple veil was rent at the death of Christ. At that moment, the presence of God ceased to reside in the Temple. The Holy Spirit would then come upon believers. After Calvary, God no longer recognized the Levitical cult. To expect its return is utter heresy, pure and simple. I mean no offense, of course, but I must be perfectly honest.

      Explain to me, what is the altar in Heaven exactly?

      Regarding the future restoration of ethnic Israel, the New Testament makes no reference to such an event, and the words of Christ which you cited do not indicate explicitly that we should expect any such thing. To be fair, it’s really open-ended.

    146. Sheila
      May 20th, 2014 @ 10:31 am

      Nicholas,

      Thought I’d jump in here quickly. In Acts, the disciples ask the Lord that very question. Here is His answer:

      Act 1:6 Therefore, when they had come together, they asked Him, saying, “Lord, will You at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?”

      Act 1:7 And He said to them, “It is not for you to know times or seasons which the Father has put in His own authority.

      Act 1:8 “But you shall receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you shall be witnesses to Me [fn] in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth.”

      As the prophets have spoken of the Messiah’s rule from Jerusalem when He comes to judge the nations, will be from the heart of Israel–Jerusalem. Notice He doesn’t say, “You guys are nuts–aint gonna happen!” No. He says it’s not for them to know when.

    147. Sheila
      May 20th, 2014 @ 10:36 am

      Nicholas,

      I’m slowly working on the prophecies that I think speak to that. They have not been fulfilled, judging by the language used, to the full yet. I don’t expect any word of God to fail and that’s why I have to believe they’re yet to come. I don’t follow any Famous-writers-of-books in determining that. I studied and mined them for myself.

    148. Sheila
      May 20th, 2014 @ 10:41 am

      The language of prophecy is sometimes over the top in hyperbole but once you figure out the genre you’re dealing with it’s easy to break it down into historic events past and those yet future.

      Anyway, that’s what I’ve found to be true.

      I’m working on breaking it down for you into smaller chunks. I’ll be working outside for the next several days and won’t have but short spells checking in and also working on it at home.

    149. Bo
      May 20th, 2014 @ 12:19 pm

      Nicholas,

      You wrote:
      “When Christ died, the Old Law was completed, fulfilled and abolished. The Old Covenant does not exist anymore. I think this is Christianity 101.”

      Well Christianity 101 must be taught by someone that does not know the Bible or even the “New Testament.”

      Acts 6
      13 And set up false witnesses, which said, This man ceaseth not to speak blasphemous words against this holy place, and the law:
      14 For we have heard him say, that this Jesus of Nazareth shall destroy this place, and shall change the customs which Moses delivered us.

      So it is false witnesses that say that Messiah will change the law. Messiah actually said:

      Matthew 7
      17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
      18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
      19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

      So our position in the kingdom is predicated upon us obeying and teaching others to obey even the least of the commandments in the law. The law cannot end until heaven and earth end and after all the prophecies are fulfilled. There are still many prophecies that have not been fulfilled and we both are on the earth and can still see the sky.

      Paul does not think that the law has been voided or abolished.

      Romans 3
      31 Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.

      Romans 8
      7 Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.

      A spiritual man keeps and teaches the law. A carnal man rejects the law. Christianity 101 is the carnal man’s basic course in religion.

      Peter thought that Paul’s writings were hard to understand and that the unstable and ignorant would twist what he said to be against keeping the law.

      2 Peter 3 (ESV)
      11 Since all these things are thus to be dissolved, what sort of people ought you to be in lives of holiness and godliness,
      12 waiting for and hastening the coming of the day of God, because of which the heavens will be set on fire and dissolved, and the heavenly bodies will melt as they burn!
      13 But according to his promise we are waiting for new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness dwells.
      14 Therefore, beloved, since you are waiting for these, be diligent to be found by him without spot or blemish, and at peace.
      15 And count the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him,
      16 as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures.
      17 You therefore, beloved, knowing this beforehand, take care that you are not carried away with the error of lawless people and lose your own stability.

      So Peter thought that heaven and earth had not passed away either and that we should live careful lives…the opposite of lawlessness.

      John was the most vocal about YHWH’s law.

      1 John 3
      2 Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.
      3 And every man that hath this hope in him purifieth himself, even as he is pure.
      4 ¶ Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.
      5 And ye know that he was manifested to take away our sins; and in him is no sin.
      6 Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not: whosoever sinneth hath not seen him, neither known him.
      7 Little children, let no man deceive you: he that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous.
      8 He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil.

      Sin is the transgression of the law and he who continues to sin (transgress the law) is not righteous. He is of the devil. If we purify ourselves by knowing and keeping YHWH’s commandments, we prove that we have the hope of being like Messiah and seeing Him as He is. If we think that the law is abolished, we surely fail in many areas of purity/cleanness/holiness. Our carnal minds just can’t accept this. But if we are spiritual and really love YHWH…

      1 John 5
      2 By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God, and keep his commandments.
      3 For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous.

      If YHWH’s law has truly been written on our hearts, we will keep them. If Messiah’s love has been poured out into our hearts, we will love the children of YHWH by keeping His commandments. If we find His commandments to be grievous, we can know that we are carnal.

      1 John 2
      3 And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments.
      4 He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.
      5 But whoso keepeth his word, in him verily is the love of God perfected: hereby know we that we are in him.
      6 He that saith he abideth in him ought himself also so to walk, even as he walked.

      Do we really know Him? Do we really want to keep YHWH’s commandments? Love is perfected by keeping all of YHWH’s word…not just the newer testimony. Real love keeps YHWH’s commandments. Messiah walked perfectly. He kept all of those “old commandments.” We are supposed to walk in His steps.

      Jer 6:16 Thus saith the LORD, Stand ye in the ways, and see, and ask for the old paths, where is the good way, and walk therein, and ye shall find rest for your souls. But they said, We will not walk therein.

      When we follow Messiah and walk in His steps in those old paths, we find rest.

      Matthew 11
      28 Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.
      29 Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls.
      30 For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.

      2 John 1
      5 And now I beseech thee, lady, not as though I wrote a new commandment unto thee, but that which we had from the beginning, that we love one another.
      6 And this is love, that we walk after his commandments. This is the commandment, That, as ye have heard from the beginning, ye should walk in it.
      7 For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.
      8 Look to yourselves, that we lose not those things which we have wrought, but that we receive a full reward.

      From the beginning loving one another is the commandment. Love is keeping YHWH’s commandments. This is the commandment that we should walk in like Messiah did. Any other idea is deception and is anti-Messiah. As Messiah promised, we will be rewarded for doing and teaching YHWH’s commandments. We do not want to lose that reward. Speaking of decetion…

      James 1
      22 But be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving your own selves.
      23 For if any be a hearer of the word, and not a doer, he is like unto a man beholding his natural face in a glass:
      24 For he beholdeth himself, and goeth his way, and straightway forgetteth what manner of man he was.
      25 But whoso looketh into the perfect law of liberty, and continueth therein, he being not a forgetful hearer, but a doer of the work, this man shall be blessed in his deed.

      YHWH’s perfect law is to be obeyed and not just read or heard. We deceive ourselves when we relegate the “Old Testament” to good reading instead of revelation to us concerning faith and practice.

      It is just not possible that the apostles taught your version of Christianity 101. I could go on with many more verses from the newer testimony and the older testimony.

      Messiah is the King of Israel and He will sit on the throne of David, ruling for a thousand years. The kingdom of Israel will be restored. Israel will remain forever as a nation before YHWH…as long as day and night continue. During those 1000 years there will be animal sacrifices…not as replacements or insults to Messiah’s sacrifice, but in honor to it…in honor to YHWH’s word that He will not go back on. David, Zadoc, and the apostles, not to mention Moses, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, are still waiting for YHWH to fulfill His word to them.

      Eze 44:15 But the priests the Levites, the sons of Zadok, that kept the charge of my sanctuary when the children of Israel went astray from me, they shall come near to me to minister unto me, and they shall stand before me to offer unto me the fat and the blood, saith the Lord GOD:

      Isa 9:7 Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even for ever. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will perform this.

      Mt 19:28 And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

      Jeremiah 31
      35 Thus saith the LORD, which giveth the sun for a light by day, and the ordinances of the moon and of the stars for a light by night, which divideth the sea when the waves thereof roar; The LORD of hosts is his name:
      36 If those ordinances depart from before me, saith the LORD, then the seed of Israel also shall cease from being a nation before me for ever.
      37 Thus saith the LORD; If heaven above can be measured, and the foundations of the earth searched out beneath, I will also cast off all the seed of Israel for all that they have done, saith the LORD.

      Israel will be restored. Messiah will sit on the throne of David. The apostles will sit on 12 thrones next to Him. And we will be given positions of honor according to our diligence in keeping and teaching YHWH’s commandments. And the sons of Zadok will minister at the altar.

      Speaking of altars. The one in Hebrews 13:15 does not have bread and wine on it. It has praise and thankfulness as its offerings. Sounds a lot like Revealtion 8:3-4 and 1 Peter 2:4-5. It is the altar of incense that is in the holy place in heaven.

      Shalom

    150. Benjamin Warkentin
      May 20th, 2014 @ 1:29 pm

      Just popping in to post a link to a .pdf pertinent to the topic.

      ISRAELOGY
      The Mosaic Covenant and the Law of Moses

      http://chafer.nextmeta.com/files/v5n4_2.pdf

      Grace and peace,

    151. Bo
      May 20th, 2014 @ 1:49 pm

      Benjamin,

      Just popping your bubble :) I have just read a little over half of the article. The author takes many liberties with the passages he quotes or mentions. There are straw-man arguments and false dichotomies and false joining of terms to be equal. There are stretches in application and downright misrepresentations. I’ll read the rest and see if it gets any better.

      Chesed veShalom

    152. Bo
      May 20th, 2014 @ 2:04 pm

      Benjamin,

      Done. It didn’t get much better. It is mostly a mixture of truths that are then mixed with a theology that is in error to produce a poor representation of the actual facts. I am still thinking about if it is worth my time and energy to answer it point by point. It may not even be appropriate on this thread. I could start my diatribe and have it cut short by the powers that be. I may post a response to a little of it later. If there is some specific point or statement that you would like my take on, let me know. I do think that you need to be careful not to use Fruchtenbaum so much as the basis of or mouthpiece for your stance.

      Shalom

    153. Nicholas
      May 20th, 2014 @ 2:19 pm

      Okay, Sheila, I appreciate your point of view. Thanks.

    154. Nicholas
      May 20th, 2014 @ 2:31 pm

      Bo,

      Just so that I understand (forgive me, sometimes I’m a little slow): do you believe that we have to keep all 613 commandments (that’s the Rabbinic enumeration, I believe)? Do you / your group keep the Sabbath, refrain from non-kosher food, practice circumcision, etc?

    155. Benjamin Warkentin
      May 20th, 2014 @ 2:55 pm

      Bo,

      I am not looking for major dialogue on this topic since I feel in the end we would have to agree to disagree. I just couldn’t let your view go un-responded to ;)

      My bubble is still wet and floating. I didn’t expect you to think the pdf was good. I knew you wouldn’t. It was more for others own perusing.

      Shalom to you my friend.

    156. Bo
      May 20th, 2014 @ 8:47 pm

      Benjamin,

      OK.

      Shalom

    157. Bo
      May 20th, 2014 @ 8:53 pm

      Nicholas,

      The Rabinical 613 do not matter to me. Every word of YHWH does. Man shall not live by bread alone, even Eucharistic bread, but by every word of YHWH. And yes we keep the kosher food laws as found in the scripture and the Holy days and Sabbaths and new moons and circumcision and head coverings and tassels. And we do it all because we have been bought with an extremely high price. We do not do these things to obtain salvation, but because we are saved…out of gratitude.

      Shalom

    158. Nicholas
      May 20th, 2014 @ 9:16 pm

      But, Bo, isn’t that Judaizing? Didn’t Paul condemn that sort of thing?

    159. Nicholas
      May 20th, 2014 @ 9:36 pm

      Sheila,

      Just so that I know where we stand in our discussion, was there any point that I failed to address? I’m not sure if I’ve been keeping track very well, and you’ve raised several issues.

      Thanks.

    160. Bo
      May 20th, 2014 @ 10:36 pm

      Nicholas,

      No, it is not Judaizing. Judaizing is salvation by works. I do not, in any way, think that salvation is by works. Here is what Paul said:

      Galatians 5
      2 Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing.
      3 For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law.

      But he circumcised Timothy:

      Acts 16
      3 Him would Paul have to go forth with him; and took and circumcised him because of the Jews which were in those quarters: for they knew all that his father was a Greek.

      So how are these two things reconciled? By reading one more verse in context…

      Galatians 5
      4 Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace.

      So I am not justified by the law, and neither was Timothy, who Paul circumcised. But I do obey Messiah and His Father and I expect that YHWH is a “rewarder of them that diligently seek Him.”

      Matthew 4
      4 But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.

      Matthew 5
      19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

      Hebrews 11
      6 But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.

      James 2
      20 But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?

      We are not saved by works, but we are saved unto good works…that were before ordained that we should walk in them. Where were these good works before ordained? In the Scriptures that Timothy knew from his childhood.

      Ephesians 2
      8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
      9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.
      10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.

      Timothy, who Paul circumcised, was stationed in Ephesus. Paul wrote to him about where we are to learn about good works. What good works is Paul speaking of?

      2 Timothy 3
      14 But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them;
      15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
      16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
      17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

      We are to learn them form the scripture that Timothy knew from his youth. The “New Testament” was not in existence then. So Timothy was to teach those in Ephesus the good works that the law of YHWH stipulated.

      Paul condemned salvation by works, but he explicitly commanded living out what the scripture of his day stipulated as good works and righteous actions.

      You did not comment on the passages I quoted from John and James and Peter and Paul. They all expected that those that were living in the new covenant would be keeping YHWH’s commandments. They all thought that those that did not were apostatizing. Read my post, especially the scripture quotes, again and see for yourself.

      You see, having YHWH’s law written upon our hearts means that we want to do it. The new covenant is supposed to do that…change our hearts. The law of YHWH will not change until heaven and earth pass away. If we do not want to do it, you are not living in the new covenant…we are carnal. YHWH’s law does not change…the place that is written changes. It was written on stone, but it is now supposed to be written on our hearts.

      Jeremiah 31
      31 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:
      32 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD:
      33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.

      The real New Covenant does a work in us that causes us to love YHWH’s law. We want to learn what it says and put it into practice instead of wanting a priest tell us what we are to do. Instead of having a carnal mind that is not able to agree with keeping YHWH’s law, we have a new heart that desires to keep it.

      Shalom

    161. Nicholas
      May 20th, 2014 @ 11:34 pm

      Well, Bo, we believe (and when I saw “we,” I speak on behalf of my church) that the 10 Commandments are still in force. I have no problem with keeping the Commandments. Obviously, they were never done away with, they were never “spiritualized,” as some claim. I keep the Commandments. How could any Christian ignore them? But, regarding circumcision, didn’t Peter rule that this was not to be imposed upon Gentile converts? Moreover, if I’m not circumcised, would you say that I should be?

    162. Bo
      May 20th, 2014 @ 11:48 pm

      Nicholas,

      I doubt that you keep the Sabbath as described in the scripture. So you really do not think that the 10 are in force. You have changed the day of the week that the scripture indicates.

      “Most Christians assume that Sunday is the biblically approved day of worship. The Catholic Church protests that it transferred Christian worship from the biblical Sabbath (Saturday) to Sunday, and that to try to argue that the change was made in the Bible is both dishonest and a denial of Catholic authority. If Protestantism wants to base its teachings only on the Bible, it should worship on Saturday.” Rome’s Challenge http://www.immaculateheart.com/maryonline Dec 2003.

      What are you going to do with the passages I quoted? Please explain why they do not mean what they say.

      Shalom

    163. Nicholas
      May 20th, 2014 @ 11:57 pm

      Which passages, the scripture quotations?

      As I explained, keeping the 10 Commandments is not the same thing as maintaining that the Old Covenant is still in force.

    164. Ray
      May 20th, 2014 @ 11:59 pm

      So if Timothy was supposed to be circumcised in order to keep the commandments of God, how is it that Paul circumcised him?

      Well we have our answer, it was because of the Jews. It had nothing to do with whatever God said about circumcision as if Paul did this to Timothy out of obedience to God, because of circumcision itself, or because of any commandment to circumcise.

      I say this for anybody who would think that Paul out of obligation circumcised Timothy because of one of God’s commandments, and this he did because the Jews at that time somehow reminding him.

      No, that wasn’t it at all.

      He and Timothy did this for several reasons. First of all it’s not wrong to have circumcision done. They had the liberty to do it, and by exercising that liberty, the gospel could be furthered, as it would be easier to be accepted as God fearing men in the minds of religious men whom they were coming into contact with, and there’s nothing wrong in doing that. I think it was a good thing for them to do in that situation.

      I believe it was along the lines of the saying “When in Rome, do as the Romans do.”

      A saying we don’t find specifically is scripture, but sometimes a good thing to do regardless.

    165. Bo
      May 20th, 2014 @ 11:59 pm

      The above link does not work. Try this one:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Gibbons

      scroll down to: Sabbath Day / Sunday Commentary

    166. Bo
      May 21st, 2014 @ 12:01 am

      Nicholas,

      Post #149 has many references that you have not dealt with.

      Shalom

    167. Ray
      May 21st, 2014 @ 12:02 am

      We are not under all of the ten commandment for the sake of righteousness, if we were we would all be required to keep the Sabbath (Saturday), but God doesn’t put that on us anymore. We are not under that one anymore.

      If men want to judge us on that one, they are wrong. Always.

    168. Nicholas
      May 21st, 2014 @ 12:22 am

      Bo,

      I’ll prepare a more thorough response for you tomorrow, based on #149. Regarding the Sabbath issue, Cardinal Gibbons was expressing his own opinion about the origin of Sunday worship but he does not speak for the whole Church. We understand that the day on which Christ rose from the dead, Sunday, the Eighth Day, is the Lord’s Day and the Sabbath of the New Covenant, which we keep holy. We are obligated to attend mass and rest on Sunday. Even the Didache makes reference to Sunday worship.

    169. Nicholas
      May 21st, 2014 @ 12:30 am

      Bo,

      First, just answer me this, though: am I obligated to be circumcised?

    170. Davis Roberts
      May 21st, 2014 @ 5:27 am

      My position on the millennial temple that Ezekiel saw is that Orthodox position which the Apostle John taught his disciples in Asia after his exile in Patmos ended. And what did he teach Papias and Polycarp and others? Literal temple, literal 1000 years, literal sacrifices, literal transformation of the deserts in the Holy Land into conditions like those in the garden of Eden.

      While Rome and Alexandra had been Apostle-less for many decades, the Apostle John was preserving true Orthodoxy in Asia. This is the true rule of the faith!

    171. jon
      May 21st, 2014 @ 7:06 am

      Nicholas interesting question- loaded question – either way a response can be wrong, or right.

    172. Bo
      May 21st, 2014 @ 8:50 am

      Nicholas,

      So the Catholic church has changed the 10 commandments. The Sabbath command says to remember the 7th day to keep it holy.

      Exodus 20
      8 Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.
      9 Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work:
      10 But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates:
      11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

      There is nothing about Sunday being a Sabbath in scripture.

      There is no commandment, circumcision or otherwise, that we are “obligated to for receiving salvation. This is what Paul and Peter taught. Abraham was saved before he was circumcised. One will not be able to enter the third temple described by Ezekiel without being circumcised in heart and in flesh.

      Eze 44:9 Thus saith the Lord GOD; No stranger, uncircumcised in heart, nor uncircumcised in flesh, shall enter into my sanctuary, of any stranger that is among the children of Israel.

      If the body of Messiah is the third temple, then one would have to be circumcised both physically and spiritually to enter. This would be similar to what the Judaizers were preaching. If there is a physical third temple then one may enter the body of Messiah without being circumcised…just like Peter, James and John and Paul said.

      Shalom

    173. Sheila
      May 21st, 2014 @ 9:01 am

      Nicholas,

      No, you’re good. I have some now though. Are you familiar with the various interpretations of the Protestants concerning the Millennium? Which do you fall under?

      Let me just outline them for you. It’s a bit confusing for those outside the realm of labels…

      I thought I’d give you just a little background on the Protestant views, which vary greatly, on the Millennium and a Third Temple. Speaking of a 1000 year reign of Christ is perhaps a misnomer as His reign is an everlasting one. The thousand years are as a prelude to eternity. As you probably know, there are three more popular and differing views on the Millennium. One group would deny that it’s to be taken literally, they are the A-millennialists. Perhaps the Catholic Church is of that opinion, I haven’t had the time to research it. Since Revelation is the only place where we hear of a specific number of years of Christ reigning on earth, some suggest it should be seen as allegorical. I don’t see why that would be the case though. Actually there’s no need to give a number at all if that’s what the Lord had meant by “a long, long time.” He could have said it differently, I would think. But He knows we like to stay busy figuring things out…so…here we are. Oh, and I don’t see why, in their view, we would need a temple at all.

      Then there’s the post-millennialist understanding. They hold to the view that the Church will continue to grow throughout the earth and with the spread of the Gospel we will enter into a period of relative righteousness with Christ reigning from heaven and only returning after the thousand years for the final judgement. I don’t exactly know how they deal with the tribulation spoken of in Revelation. For our purposes it doesn’t really matter. It seems they wouldn’t miss the temple either.

      Lastly, there are the pre-millennialists. They believe that Christ will return before a literal thousand year reign and that He’ll not execute the final judgement until the thousand years are over. There are, however, within this camp varying views on when the Church is raptured (caught up to be with Christ).

      There are those who look to be raptured off the earth before any tribulation takes place and they believe that they will return with Christ when it’s all over and He comes from Heaven to begin His 1000 year reign. They believe in what’s known as a Pre-tribulation Rapture, made most famous by Tim LaHaye and another fellow, can’t remember his name. The Rapture is another word for the catching away of the saints as spoken of in the NT in 1Th 4:17 We also have the mid-tribbers under the pre-millennialist banner as well. They believe the Church is raptured mid way through the tribulation and I can see where they get that from even though I don’t believe they’re right. Finally, we have the post-tribulation rapturists. They understand that the Church won’t be raptured until the tribulation is over and Christ returns.

      I believe in a literal thousand year reign so I’ll have to include myself with a label of pre-millennialist. I also believe in the post-tribulation rapture. In other words, I believe the tribulation happens before Christ returns and that when He does we are resurrected and/or changed into our eternal bodies regardless of whether we’re dead or alive at the time and that the saints will reign with Him for a thousand years. Only those in Christ are resurrected when He first returns. At the time I was studying the Bible, I had no idea in what category I fit into so it’s not that I was trained in any one particular school of thought. It just happened that that’s where the chips fell.

      So, that’s the background that has to do with the literal reign of Christ and the resurrection of the saints (the rapture) when He returns to earth. This is in anticipation of whether or not there will be a literal third temple when He returns. Or, could it be that it’s built after He returns, or is there no temple at all? On that I’m not sure and that’s why we’re discussing it. Is Ezekiel’s temple real or not? Is the thousand year reign literal or not? What is the Biblical basis for either one?

      Are you worn out yet?! :)

      I haven’t had a lot of time to compile the verses yet but I’ll make some time this evening. Hang in there it gets clearer from here. Well, I hope so anyway! At least you’ll have an idea of where I stand so the verses I interpret should make more sense to you.
      Honestly, I can see where some of the confusion arises. Some though, is just wishful thinking (pre-tribbers) and making mountains out of molehills by misinterpreting Scripture to fit already conceived notions. That’s my personal opinion based on my studies. Sorry, Benjamin, I thought I’d get it out of the way up front! :) Maybe prophecy is like butter, sometimes it’s spread a little too thin.

      Perhaps having a set dogma concerning the millennium would be a relief in a way but then that would take the challenge out of our discussions about it. It’s not at all a matter of salvation so it’s not of grave concern that I can see. Nevertheless, when persecution comes we need to be prepared to stand strong in our faith! So perhaps it should be of more concern afterall.

      Another question. Do you believe in a period of tribulation?

    174. Sheila
      May 21st, 2014 @ 9:55 am

      Nicholas,

      Let me say that I also believe that the book of Revelation can be understood as following the formula of what I call “near/far” prophecy. It was meant for those in John’s day as well as a more thorough time yet future just as most prophets spoke for those in their time and those yet future. Also, the book of Revelation is absolutely full of prophecies that parallel those of the First Testament. It’s couched in symbolism that was disguised for only those in the know, is what I understand.

    175. Nicholas
      May 21st, 2014 @ 12:23 pm

      Bo,

      God himself chose Sunday as the day for his Son’s resurrection. That’s good enough for me.

      You agree there is no commandment to which we are obligated for salvation. I do not have to be circumcised. Well, that’s good news. And yet you have stated your movement practices circumcision, in gratitude, or something like that. Do I have this correct? Moreover, we know God abolished the Kosher laws. In a vision to Peter, Christ declared all foods clean, and Peter then went ahead and ate previously unclean meats. So, why do you keep the Old dietary laws?

    176. Benjamin Warkentin
      May 21st, 2014 @ 1:00 pm

      Nicholas,

      Bo is going to argue that the Kosher laws have not been abolished, and that Peter never ate unclean meats. And that’s why Bo keeps the dietary laws.

    177. Nicholas
      May 21st, 2014 @ 1:00 pm

      Sheila,

      Thank you for the background. I confess I don’t really know too much about the issue.

      Yes, we believe in the Tribulation. Catholic thought emphasizes this quite a bit, but the concept of the Rapture does not seem to have a place in our theology. I suppose we are A-millennialists, and I think this follows from Augustine, but the issue has never been officially resolved. I think I am representing the teaching of the Church when I say that, when Christ comes, this will mark the Day of Judgement and the Resurrection, and then there will be a New Heaven and a New Earth, and this is the crux of our eschatology.

      Now, John in Revelation explains that there will be no Temple in Jerusalem. How do you understand this? Dr. Brown spoke of this in the context of the Eternal Age. So, it doesn’t apply to Christ’s kingdom on earth?

    178. Benjamin Warkentin
      May 21st, 2014 @ 1:01 pm

      And I respect an individuals desire to be Kosher, though it is not a command of Scripture.

    179. Nicholas
      May 21st, 2014 @ 1:03 pm

      Benjamin,

      But Peter did eat unclean meats. Isn’t that explicit in the text? As a Catholic, I’ll admit that sometimes we don’t know the verses very well. :)

    180. Benjamin Warkentin
      May 21st, 2014 @ 1:08 pm

      Nicholas, Yes it is. But Bo will put forth an argument to the contrary dealing with the words common and unclean, etc.

    181. Magnus
      May 21st, 2014 @ 6:19 pm

      GregAllen:” It’s _how_ you practice your sexuality that matters. Do you hurt people? Does it honor vows? Is it consensual? Does it provide a stable environment for children?”

      Gee, so what part of STDs, cant ever procreate and confusing Children about their gender not follow certain predilections?

      GregAllen:” I honestly don’t think he[God] gets freaked out if the body parts don’t fit exactly as he designed them.”

      Well thats an interesting theology. So do you support Bostons Children Hospitals Dr. Norman Spack removing them “body parts” of children? Thats among the awful end results of thinking if it feels good its somehow good.

    182. Nicholas
      May 21st, 2014 @ 7:24 pm

      Hi Bo,

      Firstly, Christ qualifies the statement, “…not one jot and not one tittle shall pass away…” He explains, “until all is fulfilled,” as you quoted. What is this fulfillment of which he speaks if not the cross? Christ did not come to destroy but to fulfill. Which prophecies in the Old Testament have not yet been fulfilled? None. Christ has fulfilled the Torah and the Prophets. Nothing in the predictions of the Old Testament remains to be accomplished, except the Judgement. The Old Covenant has been replaced by the New. They cannot exist side by side. (“He sets aside the first in order to establish the second.”) Moreover, there are not two separate covenants: one for Israel and one for the nations, as some claim (I do not believe that you hold to this, but I wish to emphasize this point nevertheless). Furthermore (and I know that Dr. Brown will disagree strongly), the Kingdom of Israel, the Temple of God, all of this refers to the Church, which is the Israel of God (the people of God, the nation of God, and the only place in which the true sacrifice is offered). This is the bride of Christ. God is not a polygamist. He does not have two brides. There is only the Church. Otherwise, Christ did not accomplish anything, he did not refine the sacrificial system and establish the pure oblation, as per Malachi (the most problematic book in the Bible for Protestants, with all due respect to my dear separated brethren), and he is not the Messiah. Or, he actually accomplished something and he is the Saviour. So, choose between these two outcomes.

      I have to be very clear about something: the Commandments, and the whole Torah, these are summarized in the Decalogue, which is still in force. It is the ethic by which we live. Otherwise, we have no moral absolutes. But everything is fulfilled in Christ, the Sabbath and everything else. If we believe that we are obligated in some way to maintain the kosher laws, to practice circumcision, and to do whatever else, even if we do not believe that this has anything to do with our salvation, this goes against the revelation of the New Covenant, which is why Peter did away with circumcision and started eating with gentiles, at the encouragement of Paul. If you keep kosher, if you are circumcising your children, if you are waiting for a Jerusalem Temple with animal sacrifices, I got news for you: you are not a Christian!

      The Apostles will sit on 12 thrones to judge the 12 tribes. This will happen in the Resurrection. Obviously, the Apostles are no longer living, so this is a reference to events which will take place after the Second Coming.

      Anyway, you can continue to cite verses, but you will not agree with my interpretation, and I cannot agree with yours.

      pax vobiscum

    183. Bo
      May 21st, 2014 @ 9:31 pm

      Nicholas,

      You still have not responded to the verses that I quoted. Just cut and paste them and tell us why they do not mean what they say.

      Shalom

    184. Bo
      May 21st, 2014 @ 9:31 pm

      Benjamin,

      Where in the scripture do we have a story of anyone eating unclean animals?

    185. Sheila
      May 21st, 2014 @ 9:36 pm

      Hi Nicholas,

      You asked: “Now, John in Revelation explains that there will be no Temple in Jerusalem. How do you understand this? Dr. Brown spoke of this in the context of the Eternal Age. So, it doesn’t apply to Christ’s kingdom on earth?”

      Actually, what John said was that he saw the “New Jerusalem” coming down from Heaven and that there was no need for a temple or need of light because the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb was the temple and the light of it.

      Rev 21:22 But I saw no temple in it, for the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are its temple.
      Rev 21:23 The city had no need of the sun or of the moon to shine in it, for the glory of God illuminated it. The Lamb is its light.

      All Things Made New

      21:1 Now I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away. Also there was no more sea. 2 Then I, John, saw the holy city, New Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. 3 And I heard a loud voice from heaven saying, “Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and He will dwell with them, and they shall be His people. God Himself will be with them and be their God. 4 And God will wipe away every tear from their eyes; there shall be no more death, nor sorrow, nor crying. There shall be no more pain, for the former things have passed away.”
      5 Then He who sat on the throne said, “Behold, I make all things new.” And He said to me, “Write, for these words are true and faithful.”
      6 And He said to me, “It is done! I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End.

      My understanding is that this happens only after the final judgement takes place and death and hell are cast out forever. We are then citizens of the New Heavens and the New Earth for all eternity and there will be no more curse. Of course, it’s true that we already live as citizens of Heaven according to Phillippians 3: 20 For our citizenship is in heaven, from which we also eagerly wait for the Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ, 21 who will transform our lowly body that it may be conformed to His glorious body, according to the working by which He is able even to subdue all things to Himself.

      Prior to this, however, we have the events leading up to the coming of the Lord or the “Day of the Lord” to work out. So we’re moving back now to “that day” when Christ will return “taking vengeance on those who do not know God.”

      As stated in 1 Corinthians 15, when the Lord returns we will at that time be resurrected or changed in an instant:

      50 Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; nor does corruption inherit incorruption. 51 Behold, I tell you a mystery: We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed— 52 in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed. 53 For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality.

      2 Thess 1: 6 since it is a righteous thing with God to repay with tribulation those who trouble you, 7 and to give you who are troubled rest with us when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven with His mighty angels, 8 in flaming fire taking vengeance on those who do not know God, and on those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ. 9 These shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of His power, 10 when He comes, in that Day, to be glorified in His saints and to be admired among all those who believe, because our testimony among you was believed.

      That is part and parcel of the Day of the Lord. However, we still have the antichrist to work into the story as we are told what to expect him to do. According to 2 Thessalonians he will enter an earthly temple proclaiming himself to be God and only when the Lord returns does he get defeated. This is according to these verses:

      2Th 2:3 Let no one deceive you by any means; for that Day [the Day of the Lord] will not come unless the falling away comes first, and the man of sin is revealed, the son of perdition,
      2Th 2:4 who opposes and exalts himself above all that is called God or that is worshiped, so that he sits as God in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God.
      5 Do you not remember that when I was still with you I told you these things?
      6 And now you know what is restraining, that he may be revealed in his own time.

      So it seems to me that the antichrist will occupy an earthly temple for a time at the end.

      I’ll have to pick it up tomorrow when I’m better rested. But think on those verses and see how you would interpret them.

      Thanks!

    186. Nicholas
      May 21st, 2014 @ 10:49 pm

      Bo, I already gave my response. The verses about the Commandments are redundant. I already explained that we do not believe that the Decalogue has been discarded. The kosher laws and circumcision, none of that is to be observed by those who are under the law of grace. Acts makes this very clear. That’s all there is to it.

      Thanks.

    187. Nicholas
      May 21st, 2014 @ 11:12 pm

      Okay, Sheila, we’ll discuss these things tomorrow. Thanks.

    188. Sheila
      May 21st, 2014 @ 11:13 pm

      Bo,

      Your question to Benjamin–

      Gal 2:11 Now when Peter [fn] had come to Antioch, I withstood him to his face, because he was to be blamed;
      12 for before certain men came from James, he would eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing those who were of the circumcision.
      13 And the rest of the Jews also played the hypocrite with him, so that even Barnabas was carried away with their hypocrisy.
      14 But when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter before them all, “If you, being a Jew, live in the manner of Gentiles and not as the Jews, why do you[b] compel Gentiles to live as Jews?[c] 15 We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles, 16 knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law but by faith in Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we might be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law; for by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified.

      17 “But if, while we seek to be justified by Christ, we ourselves also are found sinners, is Christ therefore a minister of sin? Certainly not! 18 For if I build again those things which I destroyed, I make myself a transgressor. 19 For I through the law died to the law that I might live to God. 20 I have been crucified with Christ; it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself for me. 21 I do not set aside the grace of God; for if righteousness comes through the law, then Christ died in vain.”

    189. Bo
      May 21st, 2014 @ 11:22 pm

      Nicholas,

      You wrote:
      “Firstly, Christ qualifies the statement, “…not one jot and not one tittle shall pass away…” He explains, “until all is fulfilled,” as you quoted. What is this fulfillment of which he speaks if not the cross? Christ did not come to destroy but to fulfill. Which prophecies in the Old Testament have not yet been fulfilled? None. Christ has fulfilled the Torah and the Prophets. Nothing in the predictions of the Old Testament remains to be accomplished, except the Judgement.”

      It seems that you answered your own question and then contradicted the answer. All is fulfilled, but not all…”the Judgement.” You cannot have it both ways. But actually there is much more. There the anti-messiah and other many things in Daniel. There is the promise to restore all the tribes of Israel to their land…so far we just have the tribe of Judah and a little of Levi and Benjamin. Messiah has not returned to the mount of olives and it has not been split in half. I could go on and on.

      You did not, of course, notice that that same passage that speaks of all being fulfilled included heaven and earth passing away. Until then, all is not fulfilled. Also Messiah says that we will be rewarded by how well we keep the smallest of the commandments in the law and teach others to do the same. You only want to do the big ones…or at least 9 out of 10 with a bit of tweak on graven images (icons). (Keeping the Sabbath on the wrong day is not remembering to keep the seventh day holy.) Also Messiah did not indicate that Sunday means anything special…nor does any scripture. He ascended as the first fruits from the dead to the Father on the Biblical feast of first fruits. (Lev. 23:11) That it was on Sunday has no Biblical meaning as to a change of Sabbath.

      You wrote:
      “God is not a polygamist. He does not have two brides.”

      True to a point. He calls both Judah and Israel His wives. They are still separate entities at this point but according to Ezekiel they will be made one again. (Ooops! There is another unfulfilled prophesy.) So what is the name of YHWH’s bride? Israel. It is not “Bride” or “Body” or “Church.” Those are titles. The name of the Bride is Israel.

      How about answering about the third temple not having anyone come into it that is not circumcised in heart and in the flesh? How can we be in the third temple if being uncircumcised is acceptable to be in the body of Messiah? Do you see the contradiction? Heart circumcision and flesh circumcision are so obviously different things everywhere in the scripture that Ezekiel is not being redundant or equivocating. So if the Body of Messiah is the third temple, we must all have to be circumcised in the flesh to enter or the body of Messiah is not the third temple.

      Where is my logic failing? How can there be a third choice?

      Shalom

    190. Bo
      May 21st, 2014 @ 11:22 pm

      Sheila,

      Where does it say that anyone was eating anything unclean?

    191. Nicholas
      May 21st, 2014 @ 11:58 pm

      Bo, I don’t understand what you mean about the Third Temple. You believe in a literal Temple, correct? So, if it’s literal, then we don’t have to be circumcised, but if it’s spiritual, we do have to be circumcised?

      Anyway, we believe in a Temple that is literal. The Church has literal sacrifices: the Eucharist. These are offered on a literal altar. But there is also a spiritual component to it, since it is the Mystical Body of Christ.

      Also, God declares all foods clean. He does this in a vision to Peter.

    192. Magnus
      May 22nd, 2014 @ 5:08 am

      GregAllen:”Now we just have to get the Pentecostals on board with science!”

      Yeh, lets just make sure its the hard sciences and not the softy kind. Global warming…now its cooling…the oceans run out of fish by 2000…suddenly after supposedly being here for a couple billion years the earth now needs a bunch of grant seeking Darwinists? Keep trying

    193. Sheila
      May 22nd, 2014 @ 8:58 am

      Bo,

      Then why did Paul call him out–to his face?

      Certainly Paul had no problem with people eating pizza without pepperoni. :)

    194. Bo
      May 22nd, 2014 @ 9:14 am

      Nicholas,

      Eze 44:9 Thus saith the Lord GOD; No stranger, uncircumcised in heart, nor uncircumcised in flesh, shall enter into my sanctuary, of any stranger that is among the children of Israel.

      Ezekiel says that to enter the third temple one must be circumcised 2 different ways. They must be circumcised in heart and in the flesh. The flesh, means that skin must be removed…physical circumcision. You think that the body of Messiah is the 3rd temple. Are all the males that enter required to be circumcised in the flesh? NO! Then the body of Messiah is not the 3rd temple.

      Do you understand that the requirement of physical circumcision is not the same as circumcision of the heart? Do you see that both must be true of the men that enter the sanctuary of the third temple according to Ezekiel? Do you see that Catholic church does not mandate circumcision to enter the Body of Messiah? Do you see that they are either in error to not demand physical circumcision or that they are in error to believe that the body of Messiah is the third temple?

      Shalom

    195. Benjamin Warkentin
      May 22nd, 2014 @ 9:54 am

      Good morning all,

      Bo, Sheila raises good points. But I will reference Acts 10 and 11, not to say that Peter ‘physically’ ate unclean meats, but the Apostle Peter understood God to be commanding him to do so ‘in the vision’. And later Peter understands the vision to be a reference to Gentiles and that he is not to withhold fellowship from them, he is to share the Gospel with Gentiles.

      Acts 10

      10 And he became very hungry, and would have eaten: but while they made ready, he fell into a trance,

      11 And saw heaven opened, and a certain vessel descending upon him, as it had been a great sheet knit at the four corners, and let down to the earth:

      12 Wherein were all manner of fourfooted beasts of the earth, and wild beasts, and creeping things, and fowls of the air.

      13 And there came a voice to him, Rise, Peter; kill, and eat.

      14 But Peter said, Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean.

      15 And the voice spake unto him again the second time, What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common.

      So while indeed the greater meaning of the vision is Gentiles and not food, the command not to withhold fellowship makes sense only if “unclean” food is also allowed. The alternative makes no sense: “Eat these unclean foods, as a symbol for fellowshiping with Gentiles—but don’t really eat this food but still fellowship with Gentiles.”

      The reality of the symbolic command is important for the reality of the command it symbolized.

      And in the vision Peter understood God to be commanding him to ‘eat’ unclean foods as evidence in verse 14. Peter would have seen both clean and unclean food on the sheet, he could have easily went for one of the clean animals and prepared it for consumption himself (negating the argument that Peter wouldnt eat a clean animal because it wasn’t prepared correctly), but he understood that God was commanding him to eat everything (all kinds) on the sheet – “Not so, Lord!”.

    196. Bo
      May 22nd, 2014 @ 9:55 am

      Sheila,

      EISEGESIS: the interpretation of a text (as of the Bible) by reading into it one’s own ideas- http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/eisegesis

      Peter was eating with the gentiles until the dudes from Jerusalem came. He was reprimanded for hypocrisy. For acting differently than the truth for the sake of looking good to the Jerusalem dudes. Nothing is said about anyone eating unclean animal meat. They may have been only eating bread or vegetables or Hebrew National Hot Dogs on bagels. The text does not say what they were eating. To insert into the text that Peter, or the gentiles for that matter, were eating anything unclean is eisegesis instead of exegesis.

      To this day the orthodox Jews have an issue with eating with a gentile whether or not any meat is at the table. They are quite concerned with things like any molecule of milk touching any molecule of meat and those molecules might have touched a knife and that knife might have been used to cut a carrot stick…and other similar things. These are not scriptural things, but commandments of men. Nothing in Torah says to not eat with gentiles.

      Ac 11:2 And when Peter was come up to Jerusalem, they that were of the circumcision contended with him,
      3 Saying, Thou wentest in to men uncircumcised, and didst eat with them.

      In acts 11 we find that the circumcision/Orthodox were upset because Peter ate with gentiles. Nothing is said about what they ate that time either. We do not know what they ate, but we know that there were some that were upset by the fact that he went into a gentiles home and ate.

      Ac 10:28 And he said unto them, Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation; but God hath shewed me that I should not call any man common or unclean.

      This law that Peter speaks of is a Jewish thing, not a scriptural thing. There is no such law in Torah.

      Please stick to what the text says instead of reading into it. Peter had been taught directly by YHWH not to consider all gentiles unclean. He deserved a sharp rebuke from Paul because he reverted to the Unbiblical Jewish idea for the sake of looking good. His prejudice/racism had come from the added Jewish commandments of men. Racism and hypocrisy in the body of Messiah were the issue, not what was being eaten.

      Now please show me a place in scripture where anyone is eating unclean animal meat.

      Shalom

    197. Bo
      May 22nd, 2014 @ 9:59 am

      Benjamin,

      Let’s start at the beginning.
      YHWH made some animals to be food for us shortly after the fall of mankind. He did it by giving permission to eat them. Before this we had no permission and so they were unclean to us previously. Noah knew the difference between clean and unclean animals when he gathered them. It is not a Mosaic law, but a law that was put in place for man originally after the fall.

      Acts 10
      9 On the morrow, as they went on their journey, and drew nigh unto the city, Peter went up upon the housetop to pray about the sixth hour:
      10 And he became very hungry, and would have eaten: but while they made ready, he fell into a trance,
      11 And saw heaven opened, and a certain vessel descending unto him, as it had been a great sheet knit at the four corners, and let down to the earth:
      12 Wherein were all manner of fourfooted beasts of the earth, and wild beasts, and creeping things, and fowls of the air.
      13 And there came a voice to him, Rise, Peter; kill, and eat.
      14 But Peter said, Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean.
      15 And the voice spake unto him again the second time, What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common.
      16 This was done thrice: and the vessel was received up again into heaven.
      17 Now while Peter doubted in himself what this vision which he had seen should mean, behold, the men which were sent from Cornelius had made enquiry for Simon’s house, and stood before the gate,
      18 And called, and asked whether Simon, which was surnamed Peter, were lodged there.
      19 While Peter thought on the vision, the Spirit said unto him, Behold, three men seek thee.
      20 Arise therefore, and get thee down, and go with them, doubting nothing: for I have sent them.

      Peter’s vision had a singular meaning. Also the voice did not say that anything that was unclean before was now to be eaten. It said, “What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common.” It did not say that everything on the sheet was cleansed. The sheet represented the concept in Peter’s mind…his prejudice about gentiles…that they were all unclean. It was a wrong concept. Just like some animals were cleansed/sanctified to eat shortly after Adam and Eve were expelled from the garden and Noah knew what they were at the time of the flood, so now Peter was to get the point that some gentiles were cleansed and acceptable to YHWH.

      Get this straight! Nowhere in the scripture does it say that all men are acceptable to YHWH. Nowhere in the scripture does it say that all animals are allowed to be eaten. Only the gentiles that were cleansed and the animal meat that YHWH has permitted are clean.

      If all animals were cleansed at the cross, why is there not one word in scripturedescribing or teaching this? Why had Peter continued to not eat unclean animals to this point now 10 years after the cross? Because Messiah taught no such thing. Because the Spirit taught no such thing.

      Symbolic language is not meant to be taken literally. Peter’s vision was symbolic, not literal. It had a message. To take scriptural parables, dreams, and visions literally is a linguistic and theological mistake. To make them mean more than the scripture itself says they mean is to consider oneself smarter than the one that had the vision, the one that interpreted the vision, and the One that gave the vision.

      If Peter’s vision means that unclean animals are now cleansed, why do not the other visions, dreams and parables mean things different than the scriptural interpretation? Where is the precedent for such loose interpretation? Do Pharaoh ‘s dreams mean that skinny cattle are cannibalistic or that fat cattle are calorie free, since the skinny cattle didn’t look any better after eating the fat ones? Were there going to be real birds eating out of baskets on the chief bakers head? Could we look up into heaven and see the sun, moon and 12 stars literally bowing?

      Dr. Brown has no problem with believers eating unclean animals. He also realizes that the passage in question does not give us permission to do so. He knows that we are not allowed to take symbolic language literally.

      “Now, this has often been interpreted as a
      divine command for Peter to eat treif (i.e.
      unclean food), but the text says nothing of
      the kind. Rather, as Peter was soon to
      understand…”God has shown me that I should
      not call any man impure or unclean.” (Acts
      10:28b). But that is not the point I want to
      emphasize here. Rather, it is Peter’s earlier
      response to the visionary command to kill and
      eat unclean animals…If his Master and Teacher
      had revoked the dietary laws, as some have
      understood Mark 7:19, surely Peter would have
      understood, especially if Peter had been a
      primary source of mark’s information.”-Dr. Michael Brown, in “Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus”, volume 4, says this of Acts 10:9-16 on page 27-275:

      Out of the mouth of two or three witnesses let everything be established. If Dr. Brown and I agree on what this passage means, it must be true.

      And remember nowhere in the vision does it specify that all the animals on the sheet were cleansed. It only says not to consider the animals that have been cleansed to be unclean along with the others that are unclean…just like the interpretation was for Peter to not consider the gentiles that fear YHWH and work righteousness to be unclean along with the idol worshiping gentiles.

      If you are going to try to get some other message out of a vision that is not intended by the giver of that vision, at least be true to the details.

      And if you are going to take this vision literally, you should be consistent and do so with the other visions in the Bible.

      Judges 7
      13 And when Gideon was come, behold, there was a man that told a dream unto his fellow, and said, Behold, I dreamed a dream, and, lo, a cake of barley bread tumbled into the host of Midian, and came unto a tent, and smote it that it fell, and overturned it, that the tent lay along.
      14 And his fellow answered and said, This is nothing else save the sword of Gideon the son of Joash, a man of Israel: for into his hand hath God delivered Midian, and all the host.

      Maybe you should start taking down your tent with barley cakes. Maybe not!

      To be continued below:

    198. Bo
      May 22nd, 2014 @ 10:02 am

      Continued from above:

      Daniel 4
      19 Then Daniel, whose name was Belteshazzar, was astonied for one hour, and his thoughts troubled him. The king spake, and said, Belteshazzar, let not the dream, or the interpretation thereof, trouble thee. Belteshazzar answered and said, My lord, the dream be to them that hate thee, and the interpretation thereof to thine enemies.
      20 The tree that thou sawest, which grew, and was strong, whose height reached unto the heaven, and the sight thereof to all the earth;
      21 Whose leaves were fair, and the fruit thereof much, and in it was meat for all; under which the beasts of the field dwelt, and upon whose branches the fowls of the heaven had their habitation:
      22 It is thou, O king, that art grown and become strong: for thy greatness is grown, and reacheth unto heaven, and thy dominion to the end of the earth.
      23 And whereas the king saw a watcher and an holy one coming down from heaven, and saying, Hew the tree down, and destroy it; yet leave the stump of the roots thereof in the earth, even with a band of iron and brass, in the tender grass of the field; and let it be wet with the dew of heaven, and let his portion be with the beasts of the field, till seven times pass over him;
      24 This is the interpretation, O king, and this is the decree of the most High, which is come upon my lord the king:
      25 That they shall drive thee from men, and thy dwelling shall be with the beasts of the field, and they shall make thee to eat grass as oxen, and they shall wet thee with the dew of heaven, and seven times shall pass over thee, till thou know that the most High ruleth in the kingdom of men, and giveth it to whomsoever he will.
      26 And whereas they commanded to leave the stump of the tree roots; thy kingdom shall be sure unto thee, after that thou shalt have known that the heavens do rule.
      27 Wherefore, O king, let my counsel be acceptable unto thee, and break off thy sins by righteousness, and thine iniquities by shewing mercy to the poor; if it may be a lengthening of thy tranquillity.

      28 All this came upon the king Nebuchadnezzar.
      Did a tree really reach up into the heavens that everyone could see? Was Nebuchadnezzar actually a tree? Did that literal tree get literally cut down? In case you are baffled, the answer to these questions is…NO!

      You see, symbolic messages from YHWH often have outrageous symbolism that grabs our attention. They trouble us. They cause us to wonder what they mean. We know that they cannot be literal. Peter knew it could not be literal. It troubled him. He was wondering what it could possibly mean because he knew it could not be true that he could be allowed to eat unclean animals.

      Acts 10
      16 This was done thrice: and the vessel was received up again into heaven.
      17 Now while Peter doubted in himself what this vision which he had seen should mean, behold, the men which were sent from Cornelius had made enquiry for Simon’s house, and stood before the gate,
      18 And called, and asked whether Simon, which was surnamed Peter, were lodged there.
      19 While Peter thought on the vision, the Spirit said unto him, Behold, three men seek thee…
      34 Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons:
      35 But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him.

      (Note: The words thrice and three in the above passage are related. Just like the 7 fat cattle meant 7 years and the 11 stars meant Josephs 11 brothers.)

      There was AN interpretation…and it had nothing to do with the literal aspects of the vision. We do not see any account of anyone eating unclean animals in the Bible after this vision. As a matter of fact the last book of the Bible still makes mention of unclean birds. If they were made clean back at the cross or in Acts 10, then someone should have told John or the messenger from heaven about it. What did the apostles think that Peter’s vision meant?

      Acts 11
      4 But Peter rehearsed the matter from the beginning, and expounded it by order unto them, saying,
      5 I was in the city of Joppa praying: and in a trance I saw a vision, A certain vessel descend, as it had been a great sheet, let down from heaven by four corners; and it came even to me:
      6 Upon the which when I had fastened mine eyes, I considered, and saw fourfooted beasts of the earth, and wild beasts, and creeping things, and fowls of the air.
      7 And I heard a voice saying unto me, Arise, Peter; slay and eat.
      8 But I said, Not so, Lord: for nothing common or unclean hath at any time entered into my mouth.
      9 But the voice answered me again from heaven, What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common.
      10 And this was done three times: and all were drawn up again into heaven.
      11 And, behold, immediately there were three men already come unto the house where I was, sent from Caesarea unto me.
      12 And the Spirit bade me go with them, nothing doubting. Moreover these six brethren accompanied me, and we entered into the man’s house:
      13 And he shewed us how he had seen an angel in his house, which stood and said unto him, Send men to Joppa, and call for Simon, whose surname is Peter;
      14 Who shall tell thee words, whereby thou and all thy house shall be saved.
      15 And as I began to speak, the Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us at the beginning.
      16 Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost.
      17 Forasmuch then as God gave them the like gift as he did unto us, who believed on the Lord Jesus Christ; what was I, that I could withstand God?
      18 When they heard these things, they held their peace, and glorified God, saying, Then hath God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life.

      We know that the only thing that the apostles got out of the whole story was that gentiles could be saved. No mention of freedom to eat ham sandwiches and clam chowder. It would also be a bad hermeneutic to start eating gentiles since some of them are now cleansed  But if you want to go for a literal interpretation…

      Shalom

    199. Bo
      May 22nd, 2014 @ 10:19 am

      Sorry for the bad spacing and nonworking smilies

      Here are some corrections:

      28 All this came upon the king Nebuchadnezzar.

      Did a tree really reach up into the heavens that everyone could see? Was Nebuchadnezzar actually a tree? Did that literal tree get literally cut down? In case you are baffled, the answer to these questions is…NO!

      Out of the mouth of two or three witnesses let everything be established. If Dr. Brown and I agree on what this passage means, it must be true :)

      It would also be a bad hermeneutic to start eating gentiles since some of them are now cleansed :) But if you want to go for a literal interpretation…

    200. Bo
      May 22nd, 2014 @ 10:27 am

      200

    201. Benjamin Warkentin
      May 22nd, 2014 @ 11:14 am

      Bo,

      EISEGESIS: the interpretation of a text (as of the Bible) by reading into it one’s own ideas- http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/eisegesis

      Many of your premisses are based upon it. Such as follows:

      “Peter’s vision had a singular meaning. Also the voice did not say that anything that was unclean before was now to be eaten. It said, “What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common.” It did not say that everything on the sheet was cleansed. The sheet represented the concept in Peter’s mind…his prejudice about gentiles…that they were all unclean. It was a wrong concept. Just like some animals were cleansed/sanctified to eat shortly after Adam and Eve were expelled from the garden and Noah knew what they were at the time of the flood, so now Peter was to get the point that some gentiles were cleansed and acceptable to YHWH.”

      Complete eisegesis.

      Lets break it down. I agree with the first sentence, “Peter’s vision had a singular meaning” which it did, but I repeat: The reality of the symbolic command is important for the reality of the command it symbolized.

      “Also the voice did not say that anything that was unclean before was now to be eaten”, this is ignoring the plain meaning of the scripture. The voice said just that.

      Acts 10
      12 Wherein were all manner of fourfooted beasts of the earth, and wild beasts, and creeping things, and fowls of the air.

      13 And there came a voice to him, Rise, Peter; kill, and eat.

      The voice lowered unclean animals down, along with clean, and made no distinction between them but the gave the very clear command (at least to Peter) to eat them, with no distinction. The Voice did not say “Slay and eat the clean animals”. So you are eisegeting by adding that command.

      “It did not say that everything on the sheet was cleansed.” – Then verse 13 has no meaning, nor verse 15. Lowered down was “all” kinds, unclean/common, and clean. What does common mean? Well lets look at koinoō in the Greek.

      koinoō – koi-no’-ō (pronunciation)

      Outline of Biblical Usage

      1. to make common

      A. to make (Levitically) unclean, render unhallowed, defile, profane

      B. to declare or count unclean

      It was a secondary way of saying ‘unclean’, expressing Peter’s revulsion against eating unclean animals of any kind. As in fact the only definition of ‘common/koinoō’ is “unclean”. In fact many times it is translated as ‘defiled’, carrying the meaning of unclean.

      Usage of koinoō in Hebrews for reference:

      Hebrews 9:13

      13 For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean [koinoō], sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh:

      14 How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?

      Bo- “The sheet represented the concept in Peter’s mind…his prejudice about gentiles…that they were all unclean. It was a wrong concept.” -True, we agree.

      Bo- “Just like some animals were cleansed/sanctified to eat shortly after Adam and Eve were expelled from the garden and Noah knew what they were at the time of the flood,” -Eisegesis. Nowhere are Adam and Eve told that certain animals were clean to eat and other unclean to eat. They were given herbs and plants to eat. So that part is eisegesis. We know that Able sacrificed animals, so God may have given clean and unclean rules for sacrifice, but not for eating. And the clean/unclean in regards to sacrifice is also conjecture. It may be true, but is conjecture non-the-less and could be counted as eisegesis since nowhere does the Bible say this.

      Regarding Noah. It’s also pure eisegesis to claim that Noah knew which animals were clean/unclean to ‘eat’. He only knew which animals were clean/unclean to sacrifice as the Bible states.

      Genesis 8
      20 And Noah builded an altar unto the Lord; and took of every clean beast, and of every clean fowl, and offered burnt offerings on the altar.

      No mention of eating, just God smelling the sweet savour of sacrifices. What we do read about eating in Noah’s family is this:

      Genesis 9
      3 Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things.

      4 But flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat.

      Noah was allowed to eat ‘every moving thing that liveth’ as long as the blood was drained.

      Israel’s food laws have no foundation in Adam and Eve, nor Noah.

      Bo- “so now Peter was to get the point that some gentiles were cleansed and acceptable to YHWH.” -adding the word “some” is eisegesis since the the Lord included “all” kinds in his educational vision. Bo is blurring the lines that the nations are now to be blessed by Israel and included in her blessings, by limiting it to ‘some’.

    202. Bo
      May 22nd, 2014 @ 11:19 am

      Benjamin,

      So you disagree with Dr. Browns view?

    203. Benjamin Warkentin
      May 22nd, 2014 @ 11:29 am

      Bo, yes I disagree.

      “The reality of the symbolic command is important for the reality of the command it symbolized.”

    204. Benjamin Warkentin
      May 22nd, 2014 @ 11:30 am

      I disagree with Dr. Brown on quite a few things :P

    205. Benjamin Warkentin
      May 22nd, 2014 @ 11:34 am

      But I’m always willing to listen and stand with those whom I disagree with, as long as we agree on the fundamentals.

      Sorry for the mini-posts.

    206. Sheila
      May 22nd, 2014 @ 11:45 am

      Bo,

      EISEGESIS: the interpretation of a text (as of the Bible) by reading into it one’s own ideas- http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/eisegesis

      “Peter was eating with the gentiles until the dudes from Jerusalem came. He was reprimanded for hypocrisy. For acting differently than the truth for the sake of looking good to the Jerusalem dudes. Nothing is said about anyone eating unclean animal meat. They may have been only eating bread or vegetables or Hebrew National Hot Dogs on bagels. The text does not say what they were eating. To insert into the text that Peter, or the gentiles for that matter, were eating anything unclean is eisegesis instead of exegesis.”

      Bo, what hyprocrisy is Paul speaking of if not that Peter would “eat” what the Gentiles ate? Come on! It was no longer “considered unclean” is the whole point. That’s why Peter felt “at liberty” to eat with them. Because in Christ he has that liberty and that’s exactly what Paul goes on to say. What does he mean when he says he won’t build again what was torn down. What was it that was torn down?

    207. Sheila
      May 22nd, 2014 @ 12:00 pm

      Bo,

      I won’t be drawn off topic here, for you and I have covered the same ground now for years. I’m working on discovering a literal temple or not with Nicholas.

      Eph 2:13 But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ.
      14 For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us;
      15 Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace;
      16 And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby:
      17 And came and preached peace to you which were afar off, and to them that were nigh.
      18 For through him we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father.

      We don’t have access through “one law” but “one Spirit.”

      The center wall of partition—the law—was torn down.

      And, Bo, when you say, YHWH, remember who He is!!

    208. Sheila
      May 22nd, 2014 @ 12:26 pm

      Bo,

      I worry for you. You’re a lovely person but with a misguided idea of how to please God. It pleased God to send His Son to reconcile you to Himself. You have no righteousness apart from Him yet you set about to establish rules and regulations anyway. It’s admirable that you so want to please Him but what pleases Him is that you walk in faith in the work of Jesus not of the law of Moses.

      God doesn’t need to establish a world of Jewry. He made all the nations and has saved all the nations who come to Him through Messiah not the works of the law.

      Now, you may say you know that, but then you’ll launch right into verse after verse of why it’s not so. I pray that you’ll have the veil removed from your eyes for as long as you’re romancing Moses you’re distancing yourself from the blood of Messiah.

    209. Nicholas
      May 22nd, 2014 @ 12:52 pm

      Bo,

      But if there’s going to be a literal Third Temple, then I have to be circumcised, right? Either way, if it’s the body of Christ or if it’s an actual building, Ezekiel seems to demand that we be circumcised in order to enter. Do I have that understanding correct?

    210. Nicholas
      May 22nd, 2014 @ 12:59 pm

      Hi Sheila,

      Do Millennialists believe that Christ will reign on earth in a period before the Last Judgement, and prior to the Resurrection, during which people will still be living normally, as we do now, albeit in peace, marrying and giving in marriage, being born and dying, etc, and that the Lord will set up his Kingdom in Israel and reign from Jerusalem?

    211. Nicholas
      May 22nd, 2014 @ 1:24 pm

      Hi Sheila,

      Actually, I believe you already answered the question in my preceding post. When Christ returns in the Millennial Age, there will be a Resurrection, but only of the righteous? But we are to expect another event after the Second Coming, after 1,000 years, which will complete the Judgement?

    212. Bo
      May 22nd, 2014 @ 7:24 pm

      Nicholas,

      You still do not quite have it right. To enter the body of Messiah, we do not need to be circumcised Physically…but we are circumcised in heart when we enter. To enter the the third temple, we do have to be circumcised physically and in heart according to Ezekiel. So, the third temple is not the body of Messiah. The only way to say that the third temple is the body of Messiah is to insist on physical circumcision to be saved or not believe Ezekiel.

      Shalom

    213. Nicholas
      May 22nd, 2014 @ 7:45 pm

      So I will have to be circumcised, if I am going to enter the Third Temple?

    214. Bo
      May 22nd, 2014 @ 7:58 pm

      Nicholas,

      What does Ezekiel say?

    215. Bo
      May 22nd, 2014 @ 7:59 pm

      Eze 44:9 Thus saith the Lord GOD; No stranger, uncircumcised in heart, nor uncircumcised in flesh, shall enter into my sanctuary, of any stranger that is among the children of Israel.

    216. Sheila
      May 22nd, 2014 @ 8:20 pm

      Hi Nicholas,

      Yes, that’s correct. Only the righteous in Messiah, Jesus, will be resurrected when He returns. We’ll receive our new bodies that will be eternal like His. Scripture says the saints will reign with Him for a 1,000 years during which time the people of the nations will live out their natural lives. The idea of the saints reigning and executing righteous judgement with Messiah is spoken of in the FT (First Testament) too.

      Psalm 149

      Dan 7:22 Until the Ancient of days came, and judgment was given to the saints of the most High; and the time came that the saints possessed the kingdom.

      Dan 7:27 And the kingdom and dominion, and the greatness of the kingdom under the whole heaven, shall be given to the people of the saints of the most High, whose kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, and all dominions shall serve and obey him.

      Mat 19:28 And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

      2Ti 2:12 If we suffer, we shall also reign with him: if we deny him, he also will deny us:

      Rev 5:10 And hast made us unto our God kings and priests: and we shall reign on the earth.

      Revelation 20:4 And I saw thrones, and they sat on them, and judgment was committed to them. Then I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded for their witness to Jesus and for the word of God, who had not worshiped the beast or his image, and had not received his mark on their foreheads or on their hands. And they lived and reigned with Christ for a thousand years. 5 But the rest of the dead did not live again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection. 6 Blessed and holy is he who has part in the first resurrection. Over such the second death has no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with Him a thousand years.

      At the beginning of the Mill. Satan will be chained up and cast into the bottomless pit for those 1,000 years.

      Rev 20:1 Then I saw an angel coming down from heaven, having the key to the bottomless pit and a great chain in his hand. 2 He laid hold of the dragon, that serpent of old, who is the Devil and Satan, and bound him for a thousand years; 3 and he cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal on him, so that he should deceive the nations no more till the thousand years were finished. But after these things he must be released for a little while.

      We’ll have to backtrack to this event later, but the ones known as the Beast and the False Prophet are already in the bottomless pit having been conquered upon Christ’s return. The Beast and the False Prophet are humans who have given themselves over to the influence of evil, satanic spirits who are able to gather together a confederacy of nations to make war against Israel before Messiah returns. I’ll cover that in a later post as there are FT Scriptures that speak to the same thing.

      At the end of the 1,000 years Satan is released from his imprisonment and immediately goes out to deceive the nations once more and to gather them together to now do battle with Messiah. He gathers a great number from the four corners of the earth, which is said to be Gog and Magog and surrounds Jerusalem and the camp of the saints but it is no battle at all for God very decisively causes fire to come down from Heaven and it devours them immediately! Satan is cast alive into the lake of fire and tormented for all eternity. That Satan is able to gather anyone at all speaks to the truth that man is still capable of sin and only the saints are wholly righteous during the Millennium. Rebellion against God is still possible and is not eradicated until after this event.

      Rev 20:7-10

      After the 1,000 years are over and the last rebellion takes place, the rest of the dead will be resurrected to the final judgement, also known as the Great White Throne Judgement. All those not written in the Lamb’s Book of Life will be cast into the lake of fire. At that time death and hell will be consigned to the lake of fire as well. The heavens and the earth will be made anew and the New Jerusalem will come down to us from Heaven, the curse will be lifted and there will be no more death, sickness or sin. There will be no more evil inclination for the earth will be filled with the knowledge of the Lord and only the righteous will remain. Hallelujah!

      Rev 21:1
      And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea.
      2 And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.
      3 And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God.

      I can understand the preterist view that Revelation was written to the churches of John’s day because they’re right, it was. However, it can’t possibly be only to those of John’s day because we see that we’re not living in a new heaven and a new earth. The antichrist hasn’t come yet and neither have the saints possessed any kingdom yet. We’re not ruling with Messiah and we’ve not received our new bodies. While it is true that John absolutely had a message for the churches in his day, I believe the message was the soon destruction of Jerusalem in 70AD. Jesus had warned that when they saw Jerusalem surrounded by an army to flee immediately and not even take the time to pack.

      The hyperbolic language of all the prophets was also used by John and he incorporated it in the same way. Where he differs is in the formulaic outline that he used. Whereas the prophets of the FT would give paragraphs of events for their time and then out of the blue drop a prophecy about Messiah, or then give paragraphs about future events, sometimes stating the future before the present warning, John’s formula follows sort of a one-step-forward and two-steps-back rhythm. He takes you forward to events and then backtracks to greatly elaborate on certain events he’s just outlined. It took me years to be able to understand what he was doing because I found the book to be more than intimidating at first!

      There’s more in depth Scripture to share in future posts that will hopefully make things even clearer for you concerning how I’ve come to interpret the Millennium and the events that lead up to it. I hope I’m not boring you to death! :) If I’m moving too fast just let me know.

      If we have no third temple there’s no way antichrist can enter it and proclaim to be God.

    217. Bo
      May 22nd, 2014 @ 8:24 pm

      Sheila,

      It is time to turn off the emotions and turn on the reason. Reading between the lines is not good Biblical scholarship. Read what it says…nothing is said about what was being eaten, but only that Peter and Barnabas stopped eating with the gentiles when the Jerusalem dudes came down. We do not know what believing gentiles ate or were eating. It is an assumption that they were eating unclean animal meat. If you assume nothing into the text, there is no way to stated that Peter was eating unclean meat nor that the gentiles were. Try no assumptions and no emotions.

      We know from scripture that the Jerusalem dudes were upset with Peter going into a gentiles home and eating with them from Acts 11. You really need to know what things Orthodox Jews consider unclean before you jump to conclusions about what Peter might have eaten.

      I stayed in an Orthodox home in Israel that had two sinks…one for meat the other for milk products. They will not even eat chicken with cheese because of their interpretation of not eating of not boiling a kid in its mother’s milk.

      So a gentile could be eating chicken with bovine milk gravy and be considered totally unclean by the Jews, though chickens and cows are not in any way boiling a baby goat in its mother’s milk. It is not a Torah law to not eat with gentiles, but is a Jewish law…and Peter was fearing man and tried to please them instead of YHWH. But you will not see what you do not want to see.

    218. Sheila
      May 22nd, 2014 @ 8:36 pm

      Bo,

      I don’t mean that you have “no” righteousness but that none of us have what it takes to face God in the final analysis.

      Shalom my friend!

    219. Benjamin Warkentin
      May 22nd, 2014 @ 9:52 pm

      Bo,

      “It is time to turn off the emotions and turn on the reason.” -This seems to be out of line, and with no reference to what you are talking about.

      Her concern for you? Or what you said in the next sentence? “Reading between the lines is not good Biblical scholarship”? -Actually it’s the mark of a great thinker, an in-depth scholar. One of the best things that I was taught when studying Scripture is to always ask questions. When did Jesus say this to that person? Why did Jesus say this to that person? Where did Jesus say this to that person? Did He say it on a feast day? Where the Pharisees listening when He said it? etc, etc. It drives you to find the answers.

      -Bo, “We do not know what believing gentiles ate or were eating. It is an assumption that they were eating unclean animal meat.” -And a very well educated assumption at that, one that you would naturally draw from the text, specially if you asked questions and dug into it. But lets look at that last part again, “It is an assumption that they were eating unclean animal meat”, you are making assumptions as well Bo, you are assuming that they were not eating unclean meat. It’s just that your assumption is the opposite of Sheila’s, and mine. Sheila looks at the verse and doesn’t just see that they were eating with Gentiles, but when the Jews came around they kept their distance. No, she sees that Peter was ‘living after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews’ and she also see’s that eating was involved and was mentioned in the immediate context of the passage. So whatever ‘living after the manner of the Gentiles’ means, it’s dealing with their food customs, and these are Gentiles after all, they have no food laws.

      And you have yet to answer Sheila in her request to know what Galatians 2:18-19 means.

      18 For if I build again the things which I destroyed, I make myself a transgressor.

      19 For I through the law am dead to the law, that I might live unto God.

    220. Bo
      May 22nd, 2014 @ 11:02 pm

      Benjamin,

      I am assuming nothing. The text does not say what they were eating. It only says that Peter stopped eating with the gentiles. I have shown some things that have been true of orthodox Jewish People for a long time. You assume that the gentile believers were eating unclean meat. Noah was a gentile. He knew what animals were clean and unclean. Actually Noah was a pre-gentile and a pre-Israelite that had revelation from YHWH about clean and unclean. Clean and unclean is not a Mosaic law, it existed long before Moses. The law’s requirements is not something that came into being in a vacuum and all of a sudden was a bunch of rules and regulations to follow. Many things existed as the instructions of YHWH that were carried over into what YHWH told Moses to teach.

      Noah is held up as a righteous person…so was Cornelius. It is totally wrong to assume that either Noah or Cornelius or the gentiles that Peter was eating with ate unclean animals. With no assumptions, all we know is that the Orthodox Jews did not approve of eating with gentiles and that Peter tried to placate them. With a little history and further investigation into their commandments of men, we know that they were apposed to such “fellowship” because of many things other than unclean animal meat. I just leave it as, “we do not know what the gentiles were eating and that we have no evidence that Peter or Paul or anyone in scripture was eating unclean animal meat. The passage does not tell us anything about what Peter or the gentiles were eating. It tells us that Peter was hypocritical for seeking to pleas man instead of YHWH.

      Try again to just say what the passage does say with no reading between the lines. Start with what is said and build other scriptures on that. You do not know how hard I fought against doing this…just as you are doing now. But when I really laid down my preconceived notions and only accepted what was actually said, I could not justify eating unclean animals from the words of scripture.

      I will deal with your unfounded statements about what was indicated in Peter’s vision when I have more time. Suffice it to say that there is no precedent in scripture where visions are taken as literal, and most are obviously impossible to take literally. No one believes that John ate a physical book or that the baker had three baskets on his head.

    221. Nicholas
      May 22nd, 2014 @ 11:04 pm

      Bo,

      Ezekiel refers to circumcision of the flesh. Okay, so I have to be circumcised to enter the Third Temple.

      Well, now I have another question: What about women? Will they have to be circumcised, too?

    222. Nicholas
      May 23rd, 2014 @ 12:12 am

      Hi Sheila,

      No, I’m not bored at all.
      We’re getting into very interesting territory. :)

      Revelation is indeed a complicated book. The idea that there will be two resurrections seems to me to be foreign to the Catholic conception of the End Times. The Church teaches emphatically that the Second Coming will mark the Last Judgment, the general judgement. And we are not to expect any other judgement. Immediately upon his return, Christ will resurrect the dead, reward or condemn souls, defeat Satan and the Antichrist, and establish his kingdom on earth. All of this will occur at the same time. Then, the New Heaven, the New Earth, and the Heavenly Jerusalem will come down and the Eternal Age will commence. Having said that, I will admit that it is difficult for me to make sense of verses in the OT, and in the NT, which seem to allude to a period during which the nations will serve the righteous, with whom Christ will reign. I have to research the issue a bit more.

      When the Bible speaks of a castigation of Israel, of the nations surrounding Israel, we believe that this refers to the persecution of Christians (specifically, of the Catholic Church) which will take place in the Tribulation, as it did in the time of the Roman emperors.

      The Church recognizes a body of extra-Magisterial revelation (the prophecies of saints, holy men and women, and, usually, the Virgin Mary, who appears in apparitions in places like Lourdes, France and Fatima, Portugal). Although the Church does not mandate that we recognize “private revelations,” most Catholics take them into consideration. In several Church-approved apparitions, the Virgin explains, “Rome will become the seat of the Antichrist.” There will be an apostate pope, the vicar of the Antichrist. He will put an end to the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. A false religion, a false church, will eclipse the true Church, the remnant of which will go into hiding, back to the catacombs, at it were.

      The Antichrist will set himself up in the Temple of God, which is the Catholic Church, in our understanding (more specifically, the Catholic altar). He will use the Church to accomplish his end. However, this does not necessarily mean that he will not have a physical presence in the physical city of Jerusalem.

      That’s how we see it.

    223. Sheila
      May 23rd, 2014 @ 12:55 am

      Nicholas,

      Thank you for being honest even though it must pain you to consider that your beloved church could be tempted away from the truth. I’m wondering now if we don’t need each other in order to tie the end time scenario all together? Let’s forge ahead with our studies and exchange of thoughts and ask the Lord to bless our endeavor.

      The persecution will come it’s just a matter of being conscious of how to meet it when it does. I’m afraid in that respect, we’re both in the same boat together with Israel. There is the final “Time of Jacob’s Trouble” as it’s called.

      Jer 30:7 Alas! for that day is great, so that none is like it: it is even the time of Jacob’s trouble; but he shall be saved out of it.

      Even the Orthodox Jews are expecting the same! I would have to think on how all three might fall into place according to Scripture.

      I’ll say, it certainly is getting interesting! Can’t wait to pick it up again tomorrow.

      Talk to you then!

    224. Nicholas
      May 23rd, 2014 @ 2:10 am

      Well, Sheila, Revelation is obviously very nuanced, and minds far more gifted than mine have been struggling to understand its true meaning for generations, so I have to take care not to be hasty in my interpretation, especially if my ideas start to conflict with the Church’s.

      It’s good stuff!
      Talk to you tomorrow.

    225. Bo
      May 23rd, 2014 @ 8:29 am

      Nicholas,

      “Ezekiel refers to circumcision of the flesh. Okay, so I have to be circumcised to enter the Third Temple.

      Well, now I have another question: What about women? Will they have to be circumcised, too?”

      The above is rhetoric and sarcasm. It is not an admission to what Ezekiel says. It is not even dealing with what Ezekiel says. There is no such thing in all of the Bible a s female circumcision. It is a red herring to ask such a question instead of dealing with the matter at hand. So please answer in an honest tone.

      Does Ezekiel say that one must be circumcised in the flesh and in heart to enter the third temple? If your answer is “yes,” how can that be reconciled with the idea that the body of Messiah is the third temple since the apostles said otherwise about entering the body of Messiah? If your answer is “no,” what does “uncircumcised in flesh” mean? If you have evidence that Ezekiel didn’t really write what is contained in 44:9 then you do not need to answer either “yes” or “no,” but you must show what he did write. If you think he wrote “uncircumcised in flesh,” then you must show what he did mean.

      Eze 44:9 Thus saith the Lord GOD; No stranger, uncircumcised in heart, nor uncircumcised in flesh, shall enter into my sanctuary, of any stranger that is among the children of Israel.

      Obviously, you cannot have your cake and eat it too. Either one must be circumcised in the flesh and heart to enter the body of Messiah or the the body of Messiah is not the third temple.

      Please be fair with your response and speak truthfully. If the verse does not square with your theology, then admit it. If there is a good explanation as to why your theology does line up with this verse, then show us how that is true. But do not post red herrings and sarcasm in answer to a sincere scriptural question.

    226. Sheila
      May 23rd, 2014 @ 10:01 am

      Bo,

      Alright now, this is hilarious!

      “It would also be a bad hermeneutic to start eating gentiles since some of them are now cleansed :) But if you want to go for a literal interpretation…”

      Don’t be angry, Bo. Just answer the questions, please.

      Benjamin,

      Thanks for the vote of confidence. It does my heart good!

    227. Bo
      May 23rd, 2014 @ 10:12 am

      Sheila,

      I am not angry…do you see the smiley face?

      What do you think of the passage in Ezekiel that I have been speaking to Nicholas about? Do you see how the verse tells us that there will be a 3rd literal temple where circumcision is required to enter and that the third temple cannot be the body of Messiah because circumcision is not required to enter it?

    228. Benjamin Warkentin
      May 23rd, 2014 @ 10:43 am

      Good morning,

      Bo- “I am assuming nothing. The text does not say what they were eating. It only says that Peter stopped eating with the gentiles.” -We need to be fair with the text Bo. You are making assumptions. You believe they were eating clean foods and so you assume that to be the case in spite of the evidence to the contrary. Peter was not just breaking Jewish custom to eat with Gentiles, he was ‘living after the manner of the Gentiles’ which carries meaning, it means he was indulging in Gentile customs, and the context is ‘eating’.

      Bo- “Noah was a gentile. He knew what animals were clean and unclean.” -Thank you for dropping the idea of clean/unclean to ‘eat’. Since that was not known to Noah. Noah knew which animals God wanted as sacrifices upon the altar.

      Bo- “Clean and unclean is not a Mosaic law, it existed long before Moses.” -For food this is not true. Unclean/clean laws regarding food came with Moses. Show me scripture stating otherwise and I will retract. The only law Noah had was to refrain from eating blood.

      Bo- “Many things existed as the instructions of YHWH that were carried over into what YHWH told Moses to teach.” -Show this to be true regarding clean/unclean dietary laws.

      Bo- “It is totally wrong to assume that either Noah or Cornelius or the gentiles that Peter was eating with ate unclean animals.” -How so? Noah had no such laws, Cornelius had no such laws. Noah was told to eat ‘everything that liveth’. How does eating animals pre-dietary laws make one unrighteous? Specially seeing that Abram was counted righteous before being circumcised, which that law came after.

      Bo- “Start with what is said and build other scriptures on that.” -Sheila and I seem to be the ones doing just that, raising very relevant scriptures which you have not responded to.

      Bo- “You do not know how hard I fought against doing this…just as you are doing now.” -Don’t give up the fight. You are building for yourself what is supposed to have been destroyed.

      It seems folks are moving on to the temple, I may comment on that soon.

    229. Benjamin Warkentin
      May 23rd, 2014 @ 11:13 am

      Was just thinking and had to make another small post.

      Bo said, “Also the voice did not say that anything that was unclean before was now to be eaten[in other words, clean]…. ”

      But then a contradiction and refutation of this idea is given.

      “…so now Peter was to get the point that some gentiles were cleansed and acceptable to YHWH.”

      But according to the arguments given thus far, nothing new was cleansed. But now some gentiles are cleansed? How do we draw this conclusion from the vision if the vision didn’t cleanse anything that was previously unclean/common?

      To give a further quote in this regard which contradicts the argument, Bo said, “It would also be a bad hermeneutic to start eating gentiles since some of them are now cleansed”. If something is now cleansed, it was not cleansed before.

    230. Sheila
      May 23rd, 2014 @ 11:27 am

      Bo,

      Actually I’ve been thinking on it for the longest time now.

      A certain passage comes to mind concerning it, not that it sums it up completely but that it does speak to the circumcision. It has something to do with there being “no more the Philistine in the house of the Lord.” Do you know the one I mean? My memory fails me right now. That’s happened too often lately. I think it’s this new allergy medication. I have this constant tickle in my throat. Doctor said it’s actually my sinuses. (I’m constantly stirring up the dirt where all the pollen has settled)

      I believe we may have a situation where the Jews in the Millennium are taken to serve a literal temple. It doesn’t make sense though in light of the Body of Messiah being taken for Priests too. How do we incorporate both into the prophecies? I don’t know yet.

      Why the difference in dimensions, if in fact there are any, because I certainly haven’t double checked that? It’s only what I’ve heard so maybe I should investigate that statement further. I’m not usually slack like that.

      Why would members of the Church need to be circumcised to enter? They don’t. But then there is no mention of another temple after Jesus other than the one antichrist is said to enter. Although that’s a biggie in my mind and there’s no way around it, antichrist appears to enter a literal temple as a figurative one doesn’t fit the passage at all.

      It’s something we definitely need to work out. And if there is a literal temple is it in direct opposition to the figurative one? I don’t think so. If we look at the allusion to the “bride” we see we have different examples of it. The bride of the FT, the bride of Christ. The New Jerusalem as the bride. So it could be we have different examples of the temple of God. They don’t have to negate each other.

      But we’re back to the idea of no uncircumcised person entering. We know there never were any females involved so we can rule out those in the body of Christ. That leaves only the males and probably the Jews. That way the FT prophecies concerning them will be fulfilled as well. That makes the most sense to me. That in the Mill. the Jews will serve the temple in Jerusalem during Messiah’s reign.

      Okay, so, what is the purpose of the temple? The sacrifices “are” in opposition to the sacrifice of Messiah. The antitype has been absolutely fulfilled. That’s the major problem that I can see. There is one partial idea but it still needs a Scriptural basis I think. There will still be natural people and they will be eating natural food BUT then we have the wolf lying with the lamb and the animals eating straw together so are people going to still be eating them?! That’s sad…and maybe that’s why we would offer thanksgiving to God for providing their life to us as well. After all there is still the evil inclination in mankind as we’re the only ones with resurrected bodies. After all, even the angels ate regular food (as well as manna) while they were on our earthly plain.

      ???

      We need to talk that out and bandy some ideas around.

    231. Sheila
      May 23rd, 2014 @ 11:30 am

      Good morning, Benjamin.

    232. Benjamin Warkentin
      May 23rd, 2014 @ 11:35 am

      Temple in Ezekiel 44:

      9 Thus saith the Lord God; No stranger, uncircumcised in heart, nor uncircumcised in flesh, shall enter into my sanctuary, of any stranger that is among the children of Israel.

      It seems this passage is only dealing with strangers. Gentile believers are no longer strangers. So this passage is not dealing with believers. The drive of the passage is to show that nothing defiling will enter the Sanctuary being spoken of.

      A parallel passage is Revelation 21:27

      27 And there shall in no wise enter into it any thing that defileth, neither whatsoever worketh abomination, or maketh a lie: but they which are written in the Lamb’s book of life.

      Still digging around.

    233. Sheila
      May 23rd, 2014 @ 11:56 am

      Thanks Benjamin,

      Something just came to me. Whenever we see the words “abomination and a lie” it’s referring to idolatry. That means no one who practices idolatry shall enter.

    234. Sheila
      May 23rd, 2014 @ 12:06 pm

      Zec. 14:21 Yes, every pot in Jerusalem and Judah shall be holiness to the LORD of hosts. Everyone who sacrifices shall come and take them and cook in them. In that day there shall no longer be a Canaanite in the house of the LORD of hosts.

    235. Sheila
      May 23rd, 2014 @ 12:26 pm

      In reading Eze. 44, the eastern gate is the one that is now blocked up and inaccessible. There’s interesting tradition behind that.

      http://www.bible-history.com/jewishtemple/JEWISH_TEMPLEThe_Golden_Gate.htm

    236. Sheila
      May 23rd, 2014 @ 12:28 pm

      You know, if I was hosting that site I’d insist they found something else to advertise on it! Good grief!

    237. Nicholas
      May 23rd, 2014 @ 12:43 pm

      Hi Bo,

      I was not being sarcastic at all. My point was to demonstrate that Ezekiel’s reference to circumcision of the flesh cannot possibly be taken literally.

      In Christ Jesus, there is no gender distinction, since we are all one in him. Ezekiel’s Temple, in which all of us enter, cannot make circumcision of the flesh a condition, especially since the Apostles did away with it altogether.

      Therefore, Ezekiel, through typology, identifies the rite through which all believers will pass on their way into the true Temple, the body of Christ. This new inauguration will effect a true circumcision, both of the flesh and of the heart, a real spiritual regeneration.

      Ezekiel is referring to baptism.

      Bingo!

    238. Benjamin Warkentin
      May 23rd, 2014 @ 12:48 pm

      Nicholas,

      “Therefore, Ezekiel, through typology, identifies the rite through which all believers will pass on their way into the true Temple, the body of Christ.”

      The Temple is not the body of Christ since it is the body of Christ which enters the Temple. They are distinct.

    239. Nicholas
      May 23rd, 2014 @ 12:49 pm

      Benjamin,

      In what sense does the body of Christ enter the Temple? Are you referring to Christ himself, or to the body of believers?

    240. Benjamin Warkentin
      May 23rd, 2014 @ 1:10 pm

      The body of believers. Sorry for not clarifying.

      Isaiah 16:5

      5 And in mercy shall the throne be established: and he shall sit upon it in truth in the tabernacle of David, judging, and seeking judgment, and hasting righteousness.

      Jeremiah 23:5-6

      5 Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will raise unto David a righteous Branch, and a King shall reign and prosper, and shall execute judgment and justice in the earth.

      6 In his days Judah shall be saved, and Israel shall dwell safely: and this is his name whereby he shall be called, The Lord Our Righteousness.

      These I raise just to show that Jesus will physically reign here on Earth from Israel on the Throne of David during the Millennium.

    241. Nicholas
      May 23rd, 2014 @ 1:18 pm

      Christ will reign on the Throne of David, yes, I agree. He is not going to reign in Rome. He will reign in the New Jerusalem.

      Even so, we enter his body, which is the Temple (John 2:19), when we become Christians (from the Catholic point of view, upon being baptized).

    242. Nicholas
      May 23rd, 2014 @ 1:30 pm

      Sheila,

      You do understand my point that, according to our view, the Catholic Church is a literal Temple, by virtue of the Sacrifice of the Mass, as well as a spiritual temple?

      I tend to interchange “figurative” and “spiritual.” Ezekiel’s vision is a figurative one, but it has a literal component, as well. The Temple represents a spiritual reality, because the Church (the Mystical Body of Christ) is spiritual. However, the Church offers a literal sacrifice of atonement (the Eucharist) upon a literal altar.

      I think we have come to a point where the issue revolves around our understandings of the Millennium.

    243. Sheila
      May 23rd, 2014 @ 1:55 pm

      Nicholas—”You do understand my point that, according to our view, the Catholic Church is a literal Temple, by virtue of the Sacrifice of the Mass, as well as a spiritual temple?”

      I’m trying. If the Catholic Church is a literal Temple what is it’s function?

      I understand that we, ourselves, are also a temple and that Christ dwells in all believers by way of the Holy Spirit.

      I understand spiritual and figurative. I do the same.

      The only reason I look to Ezekiels’s vision as having a literal component is that “someone” will desecrate a literal temple is what it sounds like to me. It would be untenable to say that antichrist could ever desecrate the entire body of Christ as He is the Temple of the Lord. According to Scripture that literal temple is in Jerusalem. Also, the New Jerusalem doesn’t come down to us until after the Millennium is over. In the New Jerusalem there is no temple.

      Concerning the Millennium. I’m only interpreting what Scripture says will be. I’ve not read anything into it that’s not written in black and white.

      If we take the FT Scriptures that tell of the events leading up to Christ’s second coming we’re left with the verses that speak to His reigning over His enemies until all are subdued under Him. According to the Revelation, the last enemy to be conquered is death and that is only after the Millennium too.

      There are so many Scripture verses that can only be fulfilled during the Millennium, or at least during a literal reign of Messiah. He didn’t come to reign the first time but He will fulfill the Scripture that speaks to that the second time.

      I’ve no reason at all to doubt a literal 1,000 year reign that all might be fulfilled.

      I’ll gather a few verses that could only be completed during that time.

    244. Benjamin Warkentin
      May 23rd, 2014 @ 1:57 pm

      Nicholas,

      I just wanted to draw attention to a portion of the Scripture I quoted, “and shall execute judgment and justice in the earth.” which indicates that at the time Jesus is reigning on the Throne of David, there will be injustices requiring judgements.

      Isaiah 65:17-20 sheds light on the restoration of heaven and Earth in the Millennium, but also the fact that it will not be perfect until the Eternal Order begins. Sins requiring judgements are still present while Jesus is reigning on the Throne of David.

      17 For, behold, I create new heavens and a new earth: and the former shall not be remembered, nor come into mind.

      18 But be ye glad and rejoice for ever in that which I create: for, behold, I create Jerusalem a rejoicing, and her people a joy.

      19 And I will rejoice in Jerusalem, and joy in my people: and the voice of weeping shall be no more heard in her, nor the voice of crying.

      20 There shall be no more thence an infant of days, nor an old man that hath not filled his days: for the child shall die an hundred years old; but the sinner being an hundred years old shall be accursed.

      The ESV renders verse 20 as follows:

      20 No more shall there be in it an infant who lives but a few days, or an old man who does not fill out his days, for the young man shall die a hundred years old, and the sinner a hundred years old shall be accursed.

      I really want to dig into this, “However, the Church offers a literal sacrifice of atonement (the Eucharist) upon a literal altar.” but I will refrain since it will take us way off topic.

    245. Sheila
      May 23rd, 2014 @ 1:59 pm

      Nicholas,

      Or do you mean the Catholic Church “has” a literal temple–a place of centralized worship?

      Question—Why isn’t it in Jerusalem rather than Rome?

    246. Sheila
      May 23rd, 2014 @ 2:31 pm

      Benjamin,

      I don’t think it’s way off topic, but right in line with the third temple—sacrifices of what type?

    247. Sheila
      May 23rd, 2014 @ 3:14 pm

      Benjamin,

      I wasn’t asking that question of you, I was just giving an example of what we’re looking into!

    248. Nicholas
      May 23rd, 2014 @ 3:19 pm

      Hi Sheila,

      No, there is no “centralized” place of worship, as Christ explains, “Believe me, an hour is coming when neither in this mountain nor in Jerusalem will you worship the Father.”

      The centrality of Jerusalem was a characteristic of the Old Covenant, but, in the New Covenant, Jerusalem is a spiritual reality: the Church. The Catholic position holds that the terms “Israel,” “Jerusalem,” and “the Temple,” these refer to the Body of Christ, both the physical body of Jesus and the Mystical Body, the body of believers, the people of God (as per Peter, who refers to Christians as living stones of the spiritual house). The Church, in her liturgy, offers to the Father the selfsame sacrifice of propitiation which Christ offered upon Calvary. Because there is no centrality in worship, the sacrifice is one which is offered “in every place,” “from the rising of the sun to its setting,” as Malachi prophesies. The sacrifice takes place upon the altar. The altar can be anywhere, in any church, (in any building, in fact), in anyone’s home, outdoors, etc. We have to ask ourselves, “What is the point of the Temple?” It exists because of the altar on which its sacrifice takes place. “Israel” and “Jerusalem,” even in the Old Covenant, these concepts were only as relevant as the Temple which stood in the midst of the nation, in its capital city. The Church, the new nation of God, has in its center, in the “source and summit of the Christian life” (as the Catechism states), the Eucharist, the pure oblation, the re-presentation of Christ’s perfect work of reconciliation.

      When the Antichrist comes, he will enter the Temple: he will penetrate the body of believers, and he will desecrate their altar. There will be an apostasy. Those who remain true to the faith delivered to the Apostles will have to flee and go into hiding. This will take place in the Tribulation.

    249. Nicholas
      May 23rd, 2014 @ 3:23 pm

      Benjamin,

      There are verses which can be interpreted as referring to a Millennial reign of Christ prior to the Last Judgment. I understand. But I am still uncomfortable with the idea that there will be two resurrections. That seems to be totally contrary to historical Christian doctrine.

    250. Benjamin Warkentin
      May 23rd, 2014 @ 3:54 pm

      Nicholas,

      I don’t see what else we can come to in light of Revelation 20:4-7 and beyond.

      4 And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.

      5 But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection.

      6 Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years.

      7 And when the thousand years are expired, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison,

      So the Bible says blessed are they who participate in the first resurrection, implying there will be a second. Which is described further down in the same chapter:

      13 And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.

      14 And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.

      15 And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.

    251. Nicholas
      May 23rd, 2014 @ 4:04 pm

      Benjamin,

      So I understand, you believe that there will be sin and lawlessness in the Millennial reign of Christ?

    252. Benjamin Warkentin
      May 23rd, 2014 @ 4:11 pm

      John 4:21
      21 Jesus saith unto her, Woman, believe me, the hour cometh, when ye shall neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father.

      Jesus seems to have the destruction of 70 AD in mind in his conversation with this woman. Today there are many Messianic Gentiles and Messianic Jews who worship the Father in Jerusalem, etc. He seems to be referring specifically to the coming destruction because for a time, they would indeed be unable to worship God there due to the destruction which would take place.

    253. Nicholas
      May 23rd, 2014 @ 4:23 pm

      In his conversation with the Samaritan woman, Christ makes it clear that Jerusalem would no longer be the central place of worship, and that the city would no longer be necessary. This was the point that I was making to Sheila.

      The events of 70 AD sealed the deal. The Jerusalem of the Old Covenant ceased to exist after the Romans, whom God used as an instrument of judgement, destroyed the city and its Temple. Even Josephus recounts that the devastation was such that no one would believe that the city ever existed.

    254. Sheila
      May 23rd, 2014 @ 4:26 pm

      Nicholas,

      I hope you have some keys to those catacombs!! :)

      I need to break and make dinner but I’ll think on some things at the same time. I hope to make time this evening to rejoin the conversation.

    255. Sheila
      May 23rd, 2014 @ 4:28 pm

      And we’re to worship now in spirit and in truth. Got it.

    256. Nicholas
      May 23rd, 2014 @ 4:30 pm

      Yeah, I hope so, too :)

    257. Bo
      May 23rd, 2014 @ 5:01 pm

      Benjamin, Sheila and Nicholas,

      Lets start with the English:

      If Gentiles are not strangers via being in the body of Messiah, are they Israelites or some special class that does not have to abide by the law? Is the word strangers used here to denote only those that are neither members of the body of Messaih or Jewish, or is it used to mean that they are not homeborn? The normal use in the Tanakh is a delineation between one of Israelite lineage and one that is was born to gentile parents. Strangers can join themselves to YHWH and they are still not called homeborn.

      I do not think that the point is that only uncircumcised “strangers” will not be allowed to enter, but anyone uncircumcised…in a very real sense, a Jewish person that refuses to be circumcised in flesh is a stranger. If His parents didn’t circumcise him as an infant and he refuses when he is an adult, he is cut off from Israel. As a matter of fact, at present, Israel has been scattered to all the nations of the earth and have become strangers/gentiles and are uncircumcised in heart or flesh or both. But to enter the temple they must be circumcised in both heart and the flesh.

      Some of these have accepted Messiah and are circumcised in heart. A lot are not circumcised in flesh. Some Jewish people are circumcised in flesh but not in heart. Are they allowed to enter? They are not strangers in the physical sense, but they are resistant to YHWH.

      A major principle in scripture is that there is one law for the stranger and the homeborn…impartiality in judgement…no respecter of persons. I seriously doubt that either a Jew, or an Israelite by birth, or a gentile with no Israelite heritage will be allowed to enter the temple unless they are circumcised in both heart and flesh. To make exceptions to one that is a Jew who is only circumcised in flesh or to one that is a member of the body of Messiah who only circumcised in heart does not satisfy the idea of there being one law for the stranger and the homeborn.

      Now for the Hebrew:

      The word used for stranger in this passage is the word for son…”ben” and not the usual word meaning stranger…”Ger.” So no son may enter if they are not circumcised in flesh and in heart. If we are now sons, then this applies to us. Through the idea of adoption or being grafted in, we are sons. The meaning is probably more general than even this. It probably means any male of any age, whether Jew, Israelite, or gentile.

      The idea that baptism is circumcision in flesh is flawed on many levels.

      The only passage that contains both baptism and circumcision is:

      Colossians 2
      11 In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ:
      12 Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.

      We are circumcised without hands. In other words, it is not in the flesh. The circumcision of Messiah (that He performs) is heart circumcision. We are buried in baptism, not circumcised by it. As a mater of fact, baptism is about a good conscience…a circumcised heart producing obedience.

      1Peter 3
      21 The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:

      So baptism is a sign of a circumcised heart. It is not circumcision of the flesh. It is obvious that Ezekiel is speaking of a physical temple with physical animal sacrifices and physical circumcision.

      So to equate baptism with the physical circumcision spoken of by Ezekiel is nothing more than grasping at straws in the final analysis.

      To try to use the idea that only the unregenerate need to be circumcised in the flesh does not account for the fact that they are not circumcised in heart if they are unregenerate…so they are excluded anyway. The only logical and consistent view of Ezekiel’s statements is that only those that are regenerate (circumcised in heart) and are circumcised in the flesh may enter the third temple. It will be in existence during the 1000 year reign of Messiah in which He will rule with a rod of iron. He is more than capable of ensuring that both stipulations are met.

      OK! Knock these arguments down if you can. Please let me know where my logic or scriptural understanding is lacking.

      Shalom

    258. Nicholas
      May 23rd, 2014 @ 5:28 pm

      Bo,

      Firstly, let me say that I appreciate your knowledge of scripture.

      I believe with all my heart that Ezekiel is speaking metaphorically. I want to be clear about that. I am not simply trying to provide an apologetic for Catholicism. Even though the concept of ritual immersion existed in the Judaism of his day, the prophet would not have articulated covenantal purification in those terms, but he rather utilizes the relatable analogy of circumcision. He has a vision. He sees offerings of atonement, of thanksgiving and praise, etc. He sees people going up to offer sacrifice. These people are circumcised in heart and in flesh. For him, in his day and in his context, according to his experiences, he relates in the best and clearest way a reality which will take place in a future time, in an age far removed from his own. Dr. Brown has made this point, or something to this effect, in his Jewish Objections series: Isaiah has a vision of swords being formed into plowshares in the Messianic age; well, are we to expect that actual swords and actual plowshares? Obviously this is not to be taken hyper-literally. Moreover, in the Psalmist’s prophecy of the crucifixion, there were no bulls surrounding the cross of Christ, there were no lions roaming around. What then? Did we miss something. It’s really the same principle.

      The New Testament indicates that the Apostles believed that the Second Coming was immanent. If this was the case, and if they understood Ezekiel as you do, hyper-literally, why on earth would Peter abrogate circumcision in the first place? This is something to consider. There is no conflation of circumcision and baptism in the New Testament, this is true. But Ezekiel’s vision is another context entirely. The prophet is stressing a point about the regeneration of the soul. Moreover, in the Catholic understanding, baptism effects an ontological change in the person, so there is a physical component to it, as well. The stain of original sin is truly removed.

      Paul makes it very clear that God could care less about genital mutilation. The sign of the New Covenant is baptism. Circumcision avails absolutely nothing. It was only a type of the things to come, just as the Levitical cult predicted Calvary. This carnal approach to prophecy is indicative of a dangerously misguided hermeneutic.

      Thank you, and God bless.

    259. Benjamin Warkentin
      May 23rd, 2014 @ 6:32 pm

      Nicholas,

      “Christ makes it clear that Jerusalem would no longer be the central place of worship” -But it will be again in the future, in the Millennium.

      Isaiah 11:10-12

      10 And in that day there shall be a root of Jesse, which shall stand for an ensign of the people; to it shall the Gentiles seek: and his rest shall be glorious.

      11 And it shall come to pass in that day, that the Lord shall set his hand again the second time to recover the remnant of his people, which shall be left, from Assyria, and from Egypt, and from Pathros, and from Cush, and from Elam, and from Shinar, and from Hamath, and from the islands of the sea.

      12 And he shall set up an ensign for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth.

      -This ensign is set up in the Land of Israel.

      In the following, Gentiles will travel to Israel to see God.

      Isaiah 66:18-24

      18 For I know their works and their thoughts: it shall come, that I will gather all nations and tongues; and they shall come, and see my glory.

      19 And I will set a sign among them, and I will send those that escape of them unto the nations, to Tarshish, Pul, and Lud, that draw the bow, to Tubal, and Javan, to the isles afar off, that have not heard my fame, neither have seen my glory; and they shall declare my glory among the Gentiles.

      20 And they shall bring all your brethren for an offering unto the Lord out of all nations upon horses, and in chariots, and in litters, and upon mules, and upon swift beasts, to my holy mountain Jerusalem, saith the Lord, as the children of Israel bring an offering in a clean vessel into the house of the Lord.

      21 And I will also take of them for priests and for Levites, saith the Lord.

      22 For as the new heavens and the new earth, which I will make, shall remain before me, saith the Lord, so shall your seed and your name remain.

      23 And it shall come to pass, that from one new moon to another, and from one sabbath to another, shall all flesh come to worship before me, saith the Lord.

      24 And they shall go forth, and look upon the carcases of the men that have transgressed against me: for their worm shall not die, neither shall their fire be quenched; and they shall be an abhorring unto all flesh.

      “The Jerusalem of the Old Covenant ceased to exist” -Not sure what you mean by this exactly. Yes, Jerusalem was destroyed, but God promised it would be rebuilt and re-established as the Jewish homeland, and that Messiah would one day return to her when she welcomed him back. So by no means has Jerusalem ceased to exist in God’s purposes and indeed He has wonderful things in store for her that He has promised Israel.

    260. Nicholas
      May 23rd, 2014 @ 6:45 pm

      Benjamin,

      I understand the prophesies of the ingathering to have a spiritual application. Respectfully, I do not believe that the modern city of Jerusalem is the same Jerusalem that existed prior to AD 70. No offense to anyone here, but I hold to “replacement theology,” as it is called, although this tends to be a somewhat pejorative phrase. That does not mean that I do not believe that God will call the Jews back to himself at some point, however.

    261. Benjamin Warkentin
      May 23rd, 2014 @ 6:47 pm

      Now you just have to back up what you claim. How is the Jerusalem today not the same Jerusalem?

    262. Benjamin Warkentin
      May 23rd, 2014 @ 7:08 pm

      Bo,

      “If Gentiles are not strangers via being in the body of Messiah, are they Israelites or some special class that does not have to abide by the law?” -They are not Israelites, they are members of the Church, the Bride of Christ. And they do have to abide by the law, the law of Christ.

      Bo- “or is it used to mean that they are not homeborn?” -Yes, those who are not ethnically Jewish, clarified further in the text as those non-Jews who have not submitted to Jesus for salvation via circumcision.

      Bo- “a Jewish person that refuses to be circumcised in flesh is a stranger. If His parents didn’t circumcise him as an infant and he refuses when he is an adult, he is cut off from Israel.” -We have to consider what age we are speaking of here, this is the Millennium. There will be no uncircumcised Jews. All Israel has been saved. The whole of the nation has come to Messiah by this time. So the passage is definitely not speaking of Jews. No Jew will refuse the requirements of the Messiah in the Millennium.

      Bo- “Israel has been scattered to all the nations of the earth and have become strangers/gentiles…” -Cult belief. A Jew cannot become a Gentile.

      Bo- “Some Jewish people are circumcised in flesh but not in heart. Are they allowed to enter? They are not strangers in the physical sense, but they are resistant to YHWH.” -This ties back into the fact that no Jew in the millennium will resist YHWH.

      Bo- “To make exceptions” I personally make no exceptions.

      The rest of the post was dealing with baptism which I was not equating the two so there is no disagreement there.

    263. Nicholas
      May 23rd, 2014 @ 7:40 pm

      Benjamin,

      Jerusalem was a physical city in the Old Covenant. The Old Covenant was fulfilled and abrogated. Jerusalem, the city of God, no longer exists. The city itself pointed to a heavenly reality which would find its fulfillment in the Church, which is now truly the city of God and Christ. This is the Israel and the Jerusalem to which the visions of the prophets pointed. This was the plan of God from the beginning. God’s ultimate design for mankind is not a parcel of desert but a spiritual kingdom in the Resurrection.

    264. Bo
      May 23rd, 2014 @ 7:48 pm

      Benjamin,

      So what of the Hebrew word for sons instead of stranger? You originally used the idea of us not being strangers. But Ezekiel does not say strangers in the Hebrew. He just says sons…males. Is Ezekiel saying that both physical and heart circumcision are requirements to enter the the third temple or not? Is this requirement for circumcision only for those that are strangers? Do you think that there will be unregenerate people during the millennium? Will they be able to enter the temple if not circumcised in flesh and heart? How can they be circumcised in heart and still be unregenerate?

    265. Bo
      May 23rd, 2014 @ 8:30 pm

      Nicholas,

      So you believe what the Church tells you to believe even if the Bible says something different. You must adjust what the words of scripture say by viewing them as symbolic if the Church dogma makes it impossible to believe the words as literal. And you view the vision of Ezekiel as symbolic, but do not view the vision of Peter about gentiles as only symbolic even though the interpretation in scripture shows it to be only symbolic with the one interpretation spelled out very clearly. But the clearly literal verses in Ezekiel must be symbolic, not because scripture says they are, but because to view them literally would contradict what the Church teaches. Do you see any intellectual dishonesty in all of this?

    266. Nicholas
      May 23rd, 2014 @ 8:33 pm

      No, Bo, I don’t see any dishonesty.

    267. Bo
      May 23rd, 2014 @ 8:40 pm

      Nicholas,

      So you view the scripture through the glasses of religion instead of viewing religion through the glasses of scripture. Do you see that your view of the two visions are choosing to go against what is the specifically stated interpretation in one and against the obvious literal language in the other? Do you see any inconsistancy?

    268. Bo
      May 23rd, 2014 @ 8:49 pm

      Benjamin,

      If Gentiles are not strangers via being in the body of Messiah, are they exempt from the statement of Ezekiel that only those males that are circumcised both in heart and in flesh can enter the temple?

    269. Nicholas
      May 23rd, 2014 @ 8:56 pm

      Bo, people have been wrestling with the Scriptures for 2,000 years. I can’t simply read the Bible and say, I think it means this or that. I have to look at things in light of Tradition. As the Eunuch said to Philip, “How will I understand unless someone explains it to me.” The Jews don’t see Jesus in Isaiah 53. We know that they are mistaken, but, at the end of the day, someone has to step in and point out the truth definitively.

    270. Bo
      May 23rd, 2014 @ 9:19 pm

      Benjamin,

      A Jew is an Israelite, but an Israelite is not necessarily a Jew. The terms are not interchangeable most times. The new covenant is made with Israel and with Judah…not just with Judah/the Jews. In Ezekiel the two houses are separate until they are reunited as one stick. The Israelites do not become Judah/Jews. But they are called Israel once joined.

      Ezekiel 37
      16 Moreover, thou son of man, take thee one stick, and write upon it, For Judah, and for the children of Israel his companions: then take another stick, and write upon it, For Joseph, the stick of Ephraim, and for all the house of Israel his companions:
      17 And join them one to another into one stick; and they shall become one in thine hand.
      18 And when the children of thy people shall speak unto thee, saying, Wilt thou not shew us what thou meanest by these?
      19 Say unto them, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, I will take the stick of Joseph, which is in the hand of Ephraim, and the tribes of Israel his fellows, and will put them with him, even with the stick of Judah, and make them one stick, and they shall be one in mine hand.
      20 And the sticks whereon thou writest shall be in thine hand before their eyes.
      21 And say unto them, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, I will take the children of Israel from among the heathen, whither they be gone, and will gather them on every side, and bring them into their own land…
      27 My tabernacle also shall be with them: yea, I will be their God, and they shall be my people.
      28 And the heathen shall know that I the LORD do sanctify Israel, when my sanctuary shall be in the midst of them for evermore.

      This is not a “cult teaching.” Judah is recognizable and Ephriam/Israel is still scattered and without any genealogy to prove who they are. Until both houses of Israel are united as one and known as Israel, the terms should be used carefully in discussing Biblical truths.

    271. Sheila
      May 23rd, 2014 @ 11:21 pm

      I’m having visions of my head resting on a nice, soft, literal pillow. It could be interpreted to mean that I’m either figuratively very tired or that I actually am getting ready for bed! What do you know they’re all true!!

      Talk again tomorrow. Get some rest guys. :)

    272. Nicholas
      May 23rd, 2014 @ 11:43 pm

      Dr. Brown is probably thinking, Why is it always only these four? Isn’t there anybody else out there?!

    273. Bo
      May 23rd, 2014 @ 11:57 pm

      Hello everyone.

      I made a mistake. The passage in Ezekiel has the Hebrew word “nakar” after “ben,” so the translation in English would literally be “sons of a stranger” and not simply sons. Sorry. I will get back here after Sabbath.

      Shabbat Shalom

    274. Sheila
      May 24th, 2014 @ 9:52 am

      Nicholas,

      Actually, the last paragraph (you were talking about the antichrist as part of the personal apostasy) makes sense with the exception that Scripture suggests we will outwardly either worship the antichrist or face persecution. Why would we face persecution if our apostasy was one of the heart? Who would know? It seems it must be an open rebellion that will be visible outwardly in devotion to a lie.

      What of something you said earlier? That there is a prophecy that antichrist will displace the Pope, I think is how you explained it. Because after piecing together both First and New Testament Scriptures it seems that the antichrist will institute some form of idolatry in possibly setting up an image of himself that is to be worshiped as representative of him. That he could better accomplish this through an institution that, in my mind, (don’t be offended as I think you know it’s the Protestant view) already has many statues and icons that are a part of their worship seems to make sense.

      It appears that this antichrist figure will claim to be the Messiah and go about working fabulous miracles, even making fire come down from heaven in sight of men, and fooling those who are not the very elect. Those who don’t know any better will follow him thinking him to be the fulfillment of prophesy.

      Now think carefully on this. If the Catholic church is “not” expecting a Millennial reign but are only expecting Christ to return, begin the judgment and dispense with the wicked, wouldn’t they be more inclined to follow someone making the same claims if that person showed up in Rome rather than Jerusalem?

      Whereas, because of our theology, the Protestant view would be the exact opposite. We would be more likely to be fooled if antichrist showed up in Jerusalem as opposed to Rome.

      Likewise, the Jews would only follow someone who came to Jerusalem, as Rome doesn’t figure into their theology at all. In fact, they look to the Church as the very instrument of persecution. It’s something we’ve had to live with almost since the inception of the Church age. It seems satan infiltrated some in the Church early on.

      Nicholas,

      I too believe that there will be natural people capable of sin during the Millennium. As I showed previously concerning the saints reigning with Christ, we must be reigning over people other than each other as all believers will be declared righteous and given our eternal bodies when Christ returns. That and a prophecy which speaks of the millennium with some people being cursed, even as they’re only children at 100 years old. In order to execute righteous judgement there must be something to judge, which means there must be someone to judge.

      Bo—”A major principle in scripture is that there is one law for the stranger and the homeborn…impartiality in judgement…no respecter of persons. I seriously doubt that either a Jew, or an Israelite by birth, or a gentile with no Israelite heritage will be allowed to enter the temple unless they are circumcised in both heart and flesh. To make exceptions to one that is a Jew who is only circumcised in flesh or to one that is a member of the body of Messiah who only circumcised in heart does not satisfy the idea of there being one law for the stranger and the homeborn.”

      What I see is that the priests had all sorts of rules and regulations that the other people did not. No stranger could have been a priest and no priest would have been a stranger. The priests were born into Israel as Levites. Strangers are always and only proselytes and can’t be taken for priests. The Bible couldn’t have been speaking of only one law for the stranger and the homeborn concerning approaching the altar as there is a really big difference when it comes to the service of the temple.

      We’re no longer strangers anyway as we’re part of the larger Body of Christ which consists of both Jew and Gentile. As far as the NT states the sacrificial system is null and void now that God’s perfect sacrifice has been made.

      But, if, as the NT states, we’re now priests to Messiah what is our role as priests other than to bring the sacrifices of praise and worship rather than of animals and grain offerings? And that we are said to be kings and priests to our God we are given the same title as the early Israelites yet we can’t serve as they did? Being kings and priests they were to spread the knowledge of the one true God to the ends of the earth. It is the mostly gentile body of believers who have fulfilled that mission and are continuing to do so.

      We’re no closer to understanding what role the temple would serve in the Millennium.

      “Behold, the Man whose name is the Branch, From His place He shall branch out, And HE SHALL BUILD THE TEMPLE, Yes, He shall build the temple of the Lord. He shall bear the glory, and sit and rule on His throne; So he shall be a priest on His throne, And the counsel of peace shall be between them both.” (Zec 6:12)

      Messiah built the Temple already but will He oversee another in the Millennium or will one be built before His second advent? Can we find the answer in Scripture, if only by default? Because I know there is none that comes right out and says that.

      “With what shall I come before the Lord and bow myself before the High God? Shall I come before Him with burnt offerings, with calves a year old? Will the Lord be pleased with thousands of rams or ten thousand rivers of oil? Shall I give my firstborn for my transgression, the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul? He has shown you, O man, what is good; and what does the Lord require of you: To do justice, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God” (Mic. 6:6-8).

      That passage was spoken before the advent of Messiah as the sacrificial system pointed to Him.

      Bo,

      I think you’re trying to make a mountain out of a molehill. If we are of the Body of Messiah and we will be so into the Millennium, why would we need to enter a literal temple in the first place? We are, each of us, the temple, spiritually, and no literal temple can represent that truth. In going after only the literal you’ve negated the higher truth of what Messiah built in Himself. He also represents the Temple as no one may approach the Father except through Him.

      And you’re trying to show why Gentiles believers need to be circumcised and follow the law of Moses after all. We don’t and never will. There’s more to be said for Ezekiel not being literal after reading your argument than not. Because if it contradicts the teachings of the New Testament than it’s our interpretation that’s not matching up. I’m sure you’re thrilled to find Ezekiel stating what he does but I don’t see then how it could ever apply to those in the Church. It must mean something else for us to be taken as priests and kings. Something is definitely not adding up.

      Scripture says Messiah will build the Temple and He did upon His resurrection. We haven’t worked it out yet to my satisfaction because, honestly, we’re no further along than we were in my mind.

      You’ve brought up reasons why it can’t be taken literally. The only way it could be is if only Messianic Jews were in attendance at the altar. And you’ve not shown why we need an altar with sacrifices either. That’s one of the questions I’d like to discover. Since we still have natural people in the Mill. we need to discover “if” the sacrifices are just that—sacrifices for food. Why would the entire system that was designed to point to Messiah now be instituted for another reason completely contrary to it?

      Verses to consider concerning the Temple:

      Zec 6:12

      “Then speak to him, saying, ‘Thus says the LORD of hosts, saying:
      “Behold, the Man whose name is the BRANCH!
      From His place He shall branch out,
      And He shall build the temple of the LORD;
      13 Yes, He shall build the temple of the LORD.
      He shall bear the glory,
      And shall sit and rule on His throne;
      So He shall be a priest on His throne,
      And the counsel of peace shall be between them both.” ’

      Mar 14:58 “We heard Him say, ‘I will destroy this temple made with hands, and within three days I will build another made without hands.’ ”

      He is both King and High Priest.

      Other Views on the Temple

      Eph 2:19 Now, therefore, you are no longer strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, 20 having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief cornerstone, 21 in whom the whole building, being fitted together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord, 22 in whom you also are being built together for a dwelling place of God in the Spirit.

      1Co 3:9 For we are labourers together with God: ye are God’s husbandry, ye are God’s building.

      Heb 3:3 For this One has been counted worthy of more glory than Moses, inasmuch as He who built the house has more honor than the house.

      1Co 3:17 If anyone defiles the temple of God, God will destroy him. For the temple of God is holy, which temple you are.

      2Co 6:16 And what agreement has the temple of God with idols? For you are the temple of the living God. As God has said:

      “I will dwell in them
      And walk among them.
      I will be their God,
      And they shall be My people.”

      1 Corinthians 3:16
      Do you not know that you are the temple of God and that the Spirit of God dwells in you?

      1 Corinthians 6:19
      Or do you not know that your body is the temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God, and you are not your own?

      2 Thessalonians 2:4
      who opposes and exalts himself above all that is called God or that is worshiped, so that he sits as God in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God.

      Rev 7:13 Then one of the elders answered, saying to me, “Who are these arrayed in white robes, and where did they come from?”

      14 And I said to him, “Sir, you know.”

      So he said to me, “These are the ones who come out of the great tribulation, and washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb. 15 Therefore they are before the throne of God, and serve Him day and night in His temple. And He who sits on the throne will dwell among them. 16 They shall neither hunger anymore nor thirst anymore; the sun shall not strike them, nor any heat; 17 for the Lamb who is in the midst of the throne will shepherd them and lead them to living fountains of waters. And God will wipe away every tear from their eyes.”

      Bo, I think that answers to who is able to serve the Temple. A great multitude is serving and it doesn’t say a word about circumcision. They are made clean by the blood of the Lamb. In other places the saints are clothed in fine, white linen just as the priests were.

      I’m still thinking on it.

    275. Sheila
      May 24th, 2014 @ 9:55 am

      Darn, I forgot to go back and insert the Scriptures in places where I made certain statements taken from them. Oh well, hopefully everyone knows their Bible well enough to fill it in for themselves.

      Nicholas,

      It just turns out that sometimes there are only a few people interested in any particular thread. They’re probably reading it but for whatever reason don’t care to join. I do that a lot; just read along without joining in.

    276. Benjamin Warkentin
      May 24th, 2014 @ 11:28 am

      Good morning,

      Bo, no worries about the ‘Nekar’ part. I almost did the same thing when I was looking at the Hebrew, I saw it have ‘ben’ listed, and almost didn’t notice the tiny arrow below it indicating that another word was also included in the translation, nekar. So I almost did the same thing.

      But to deal with the other things you asked:

      Bo- “Is this requirement for circumcision only for those that are strangers?” -According to the text, yes, only strangers are in discussion. (v.9)

      Bo- “Do you think that there will be unregenerate people during the millennium?” -Yes, Scripture tells of sinners during the millennium, it also speaks of Yeshua ruling judgments and serving justice among the nations. And there will eventually be the final rebellion.

      Bo- “Will they be able to enter the temple if not circumcised in flesh and heart?” -No. They are forbidden to enter in the Ezekiel passage.

      Bo- “How can they be circumcised in heart and still be unregenerate?” -They cannot be.

      Bo- “If Gentiles are not strangers via being in the body of Messiah, are they exempt from the statement of Ezekiel that only those males that are circumcised both in heart and in flesh can enter the temple?” -It would seem to matter which Gentiles we are talking about. All Gentiles saved from times past till the millennium will now have glorified bodies, new bodies given to them by the Lord, which will be exactly as God wants them to be.

      Dealing with natural Gentiles in the kingdom, an extensive passage is Isaiah 56:1-8. At the time of the setting up of the Kingdom, there may be some feeling among the sheep Gentiles that, because of the exalted position of Israel, the Gentiles will be excluded from receiving the benefits of Millennial Temple worship (vv. 1-3). But this will not be the case, for the Temple ministry will be open to all Gentiles who are rightly related to the King. Under no circumstances will they be excluded either because they are Gentiles or because they are mutilated (vv. 4-5). It is then and only then that the House of God will be called truly a house of prayer for all nations (vv. 6-7). When will that be? At the time of Israel’s final regathering (v. 8)

      Another passage dealing with Gentile Millennial Temple Worship is Isaiah 66:18-24 where they are taken by God to be priests and given eternal names, ‘if’ they have joined themselves to the Lord (which would entail the circumcisions mentioned elsewhere).

      I guess from the above passage’s we have discovered ‘one’ exception to the circumcision rule, and that’s that some eunuchs, which most likely cannot be circumcised (??) will still be allowed to enter if they are rightly related to the King (Isa 56:4-5)

      4 For thus saith the Lord unto the eunuchs that keep my sabbaths, and choose the things that please me, and take hold of my covenant;

      5 Even unto them will I give in mine house and within my walls a place and a name better than of sons and of daughters: I will give them an everlasting name, that shall not be cut off.

    277. Sheila
      May 24th, 2014 @ 12:00 pm

      Benjamin,

      So, in only being eunuchs that keep his sabbath, again we’re dealing with those of the Jews only.

    278. Benjamin Warkentin
      May 24th, 2014 @ 12:20 pm

      I believe the passage is speaking of Gentile eunuchs which have joined themselves to the Lord.

    279. Sheila
      May 24th, 2014 @ 12:31 pm

      Oh, because I was thinking of that passage in Acts 8 of the eunuch who had come to worship at Jerusalem, I guess.

    280. Sheila
      May 24th, 2014 @ 12:32 pm

      That’s a really strange interjection in NT Scripture which I always thought spoke to that passage.

    281. Sheila
      May 24th, 2014 @ 12:43 pm

      So, where are we then? Benjamin, you believe there’ll be a literal temple at Jerusalem. And Bo, I imagine believes the same.

      I’m still on the fence because of the sacrifices and their meaning. Can we deduce that they will point back to Christ’s work? I’m not sure about that or how it would be related to the people of the different nations. Well, except possibly when they must appear during the prescribed feast days of the Lord or suffer the consequences. Will they then accept Jesus as the Messiah after seeing a visual display of the type? Does that even seem logical?

      These questions have come up because of the centrality of the sacrificial system pointing to Messiah. How do we then roll back the clock, so to speak, and begin again? And, also, when we consider that the Orthodox Jews don’t see Jesus in the Sacrificial system what will it mean to those in Messiah to have it re-instituted?

      I still have a lot of questions that I never really looked far enough into before. Maybe this is one of those matters that belong to the Lord, our God and not to us. Deut. 29:29.

    282. Sheila
      May 24th, 2014 @ 12:46 pm

      Nicholas, I’m thinking you don’t believe in a literal temple, is that right?

    283. Sheila
      May 24th, 2014 @ 12:50 pm

      Let me say, though, that I used to just accept the fact that the temple was literal and that sacrifices would be instituted because people would be still thanking God for providing for them but considering the centrality of the Cross I’m not so sure. Also, it seems the animals and some of nature will be under the reign of Messiah as well so it seems sad to be still eating them. Is that a girly thing?! :)

    284. Sheila
      May 24th, 2014 @ 1:23 pm

      Well, I see in post # 274, that I got the two temples mixed up. The Millennial temple with the New Jerusalem Temple. Oops. :)

      Back to checking on some other Scriptures.

    285. Nicholas
      May 24th, 2014 @ 1:34 pm

      Sheila,

      I’m going to prepare a more thorough response later tonight but I want to make a quick point: We do believe in a literal temple. The Church is a literal temple in that the liturgy is a literal sacrifice. But this temple has a spiritual characteristic, as well, since the Church is the Mystical Body of Christ. We believe that Ezekiel’s Temple is the body of Jesus and, by extension, the spiritual reality of the body of the ingrafted. The Church is also an institution. It is a concrete entity with a hierarchy, the bishops, the successors of the Apostles, with the pope, the successor of Peter, at their head.

      The Catholic altar is truly an altar of sacrifice. The sacrifice of Christ is offered to God in thanksgiving (Eucharistia), in commemoration of the Lord’s passover. Because the mass is the re-presentation of Calvary, it is truly a sacrifice of atonement.

      Regarding the rebuilding of a physical Temple in Jerusalem, a literal building, we do not accept this theology.

    286. Benjamin Warkentin
      May 24th, 2014 @ 2:00 pm

      “Ezekiel is not the only one to speak of the Millennial Temple and sacrifices. Other prophets spoke of these things in a non-apocalyptic context. The Millennial Temple is spoken of in Isaiah 2:3; 60:13; Daniel 9:24; Joel 3:18; and Haggai 2:7, 9. The Millennial sacrifices are mentioned in Isaiah 56:6-7; 60:7; 66:18-23; Jeremiah 33:18; Malachi 3:3-4; and Zechariah 14:16-21 (this last passage speaks of the observance of the Feast of Tabernacles in the Messianic Kingdom but it required special sacrifices as part of its observance). Therefore, more than one passage and more than one prophet would have to be allegorized away if there is no Millennial Temple or Millennial sacrifice.

      The Millennial Temple is not the only temple that Ezekiel describes. In chapters 8-11, he describes the departure of the Shechinah Glory from Israel from the First Temple. All agree that his description of the Temple and the events that happen there are very literal. In chapters 40-48, Ezekiel describes the future return of the Shechinah Glory into the Fourth Temple. If what he said about the First Temple was literal, then what he says about the Fourth Temple should also be taken literally.”

      I was looking over some very interesting details regarding the millennial sacrifices which I will include in the next post.

    287. Benjamin Warkentin
      May 24th, 2014 @ 2:10 pm

      Here are those details about the sacrifices I was mentioning I would post above:

      —————

      FIRST OBJECTION:
      This would mean a return to the sacrificial system of the Mosaic Law, which ended when Messiah died and therefore violates all that the New Testament teaches about the termination of the Law as a rule of life.

      ANSWER:
      While there are many similarities with the sacrifices of the Mosaic Law, as there are between the sacrifices of Noah and Moses, the differences show they are not the same. It was these very differences that kept the rabbis from accepting Ezekiel into the Hebrew Canon for some time. These differences include the following. In the consecration of the altar (Mosaic: Exodus 29:1-37; Millennial: Ezekiel 43:18-27) there are the following differences: the Mosaic anointed the altar while the Ezekiel had no anointing; the Mosaic offered a bullock for a sin offering for all seven days while the Ezekiel offered a bullock on the first day only; the Mosaic offered no goat while the Ezekiel offers goats for the last six days; the Mosaic applied blood on the horns of the altar only while the Ezekiel applies blood on the horns, the corners, and upon the lower molding round about; for the burnt offering, the Mosaic offered a ram every day while the Ezekiel offers both a bullock and a ram every day; the Mosaic offered a ram for the consecration of the priesthood but Ezekiel has no ram for the consecration of the priesthood, only for the altar; the Mosaic had the Ark of the Covenant but the Millennial Temple will not have the Ark of the Covenant (Jeremiah 3:16); under the Mosaic Law, only the High Priest could enter the Holy of Holies but in Ezekiel 44:15-16, all priests will be able to enter; the rules of marriage found in 44:22 were applicable to only the High Priest under the Mosaic Law but in Ezekiel, they will be applicable to all priests; under the Mosaic Law, the first of Nisan was not a special holy day but will be under the Ezekiel system (45:18); the procedure described in 45:19 differs from the Mosaic in two ways: in the animal chosen, the Mosaic had a male goat while the Ezekiel has a bullock, and in the way the animal was disposed of, the Mosaic disposed of the animal outside the camp, while the Ezekiel is inside the camp; concerning the Passover (45:21-24), in the Mosaic, the Passover was a family affair with the head of the household performing the ritual while in the Ezekiel the Prince will perform the ritual on behalf of the nation; in the Mosaic, the Passover was a one day festival while in the Ezekiel it will last for seven days; the Mosaic offered an unblemished lamb while the Ezekiel offers a bullock; there is also a difference in the number of sacrifices offered between the Mosaic (Numbers 28:16-24) and the Ezekiel; there is also a difference in the measures of the meal offering between the Mosaic and the Ezekiel; concerning the Feast of Tabernacles (45:25) there is a difference in the quantity of the offerings (Numbers 29:12-34) and the Ezekiel does not have the added eighth day that the Mosaic had (Numbers 29:35-38); as for the Sabbath offerings (46:4-5), the Ezekiel requires six lambs and a ram which is more than the Mosaic (Numbers 28:9) which required only two lambs and a ram and the same will be true with the meal offering; concerning the New Moon offerings (46:6-7), the Mosaic required two bulls, one ram, and seven lambs while the Ezekiel will require one bullock, six lambs, and one ram; there is also a difference in the daily offering (46:13-15) since the Mosaic (Exodus 29:38-42; Numbers 28:3-4) required two lambs each day both morning and evening while the Ezekiel will require one lamb each morning and none in the evening; there is also a difference in the daily meal offering (Exodus 29:40; Numbers 28:5); in the Mosaic Law, the observance of the Feast of Tabernacles was mandatory for Jews only while under Kingdom Law it will be mandatory for both Jews and Gentiles (Zechariah 14:16-21); under the Law of Moses, only Jews could be priests but under Kingdom Law, Gentiles will also serve as priests (Isaiah 66:18-21). All these differences show that this is not a return to the Law of Moses but it is a new system under Kingdom Law and so it does not violate what the New Testament teaches concerning the termination of the Law with Messiah’s death.

    288. Nicholas
      May 24th, 2014 @ 2:39 pm

      Benjamin,

      What’s the Fourth Temple?

    289. Sheila
      May 24th, 2014 @ 2:46 pm

      Benjamin,

      Thanks for that. I’d like to keep it for future reference. What should I reference if I post it somewhere else?

      Perhaps then, the sacrifices are for the consecration of the temple and the people, to cleanse them.

    290. Sheila
      May 24th, 2014 @ 2:49 pm

      Nicholas,

      I imagine they’re including Holy of Holies and the altar in the wilderness as #1 as there is no temple in the New Jerusalem. Seeing as the sacrifices of the Mosaic Covenant started there. Is that it, Benjamin?

    291. Benjamin Warkentin
      May 24th, 2014 @ 3:16 pm

      - The first Temple is Solomon’s Temple.
      - The second Temple had two phases, the first known as Zerubbabel’s Temple and the Second as Herod’s Temple since indeed they are one and the same Temple.
      - The third Temple is the Tribulational Temple mentioned in Isaiah 66:1-6. It is a Temple that the Lord does not sanction.
      -The fourth Temple is the Millennial Temple.

      Shiela, for the sacrifice reference you can point them to: http://www.ariel.org/pdf/mag-fall2012.pdf

    292. Nicholas
      May 24th, 2014 @ 3:38 pm

      Benjamin,

      I don’t see a Temple there, in Isaiah 66:1-6. Could you elaborate on it a bit? Or maybe it’s not literal. :)

    293. Nicholas
      May 24th, 2014 @ 3:39 pm

      That is to say, I don’t see a “Tribulational Temple.”

    294. Sheila
      May 24th, 2014 @ 4:59 pm

      Okay,it’s become clear now. And I have to agree with what, it looks like Whitcomb, has said:

      “D. THE PRIVELEGE OF LIFE AND PHYSICAL
      BLESSING IN A THEOCRATIC KINGDOM

      “This is a view innovated by Whitcomb: ‘However, such sacrifices
      will not be totally voluntary and purely memorial as is true of the
      Christian eucharist. Ezekiel says that God will “accept” people on the
      basis of animal sacrifices (43:27), and they are “to make atonement for
      the house of Israel” (45:17; cf. 45:15). In other words, just as in Old
      Testament times, the privilege of life and physical blessing in the
      theocratic kingdom will be contingent upon outward conformity to the
      ceremonial law. Such conformity did not bring salvation in Old
      Testament times, but saved Israelites willingly conformed. Only faith in
      God could bring salvation, and this has been God’s plan in every
      dispensation. It is a serious mistake, therefore, to insist that these
      sacrifices will be expiatory. They were certainly not expiatory in the
      Mosaic economy…and they will not be so in the Millennium. But their
      symbolic and pedagogic value, unlike the communion service, will be
      upheld by a legalistic system of enforced participation. For example,
      those who decide to neglect the annual Feast of Tabernacles will be
      punished by a drought or a plague…If the true significance of the five
      offerings be understood, it is not difficult to see how they could serve as
      effective vehicles of divine instruction and discipline for Israel and the
      nations during the Kingdom age.’”

      “(pg. 22 – For a detailed defense of
      this position see “Christ’s Atonement and Animal Sacrifices
      in Israel,” Grace Theological Journal 6:2, Fall 1985, pgs. 201-217)”

      http://www.ariel.org/pdf/mag-fall2012.pdf

      I’ve always felt that having the nations living under the Mosaic Law of some sort (not particularly the sacrifices–although at one time I did) made sense because they were very high standards and difficult to do. I don’t see where people will be killed, necessarily, for what might be considered a minor infraction of the law. But it seems they will be cursed for not abiding by it. I think it’s also the way in which the Jews will realize the promises God made to them that they would rule over the nations and be obeyed by them. That part makes perfectly good sense to me, otherwise we have a good portion of Scripture with no closure to it, it’s just left hanging.

      All the nations who come against Israel in the latter days, which it looks like we’re moving into those very days, will be sending representatives to Jerusalem in the Millennium or else!

      They won’t like it much!

    295. Benjamin Warkentin
      May 24th, 2014 @ 5:19 pm

      Nicholas,

      “I don’t see a Temple there, in Isaiah 66:1-6. Could you elaborate on it a bit? Or maybe it’s not literal.”

      Sure Nicholas, the temple is mentioned in verse 1:

      …where is the house that ye build unto me? and where is the place of my rest?…

      When reading about the prior temples they are always referred to as the house of the Lord, etc. So verse 1 is where the actual temple is mentioned. We have a problem is the house/temple mentioned is the Church, etc. since abominable sacrifices are taking place there. That verse 1 is speaking of the temple is then reconfirmed by the following verses when animal sacrifices are made, which can only be sacrificed in the temple.

      Verse 3:
      He that killeth an ox is as if he slew a man; he that sacrificeth a lamb, as if he cut off a dog’s neck; he that offereth an oblation, as if he offered swine’s blood; he that burneth incense, as if he blessed an idol. Yea, they have chosen their own ways, and their soul delighteth in their abominations.

      Then again in verse 6, temple is explicitly used.

    296. Nicholas
      May 24th, 2014 @ 6:02 pm

      Benjamin,

      Yes, even the word “temple” appears. I see. However, how do we know that this refers to the Tribulation Temple, as you mentioned? Is that clear from the context? Could this simply be the Temple in Jerusalem? Malachi uses similar language, if I recall, with God condemning the Israelites for bringing defective gifts to the altar.

    297. Benjamin Warkentin
      May 24th, 2014 @ 6:55 pm

      Nicholas,

      Using deduction, God sanctioned Solomon’s Temple and lived there. He also sanctioned the second Temple and lived there as well. The temple in the Isaiah passage in unsanctioned when God mocks “where is the house that ye build unto me? and where is the place of my rest?”. So this is not the first nor second temples, and it definitely will not be the Millennial temple since Messiah will establish priests for it. It will be a temple built without God’s blessing on it.

    298. Nicholas
      May 24th, 2014 @ 8:52 pm

      Benjamin,

      Are there other passages that refer to this non-sanctioned temple?

    299. Sheila
      May 24th, 2014 @ 9:57 pm

      Benjamin,

      I don’t read it quite like that. I think it’s referring first to the second temple and the spirit that pervaded it. It also looks ahead to the destruction at the end of this age. At the time of Christ’s first coming, the priestly sect was so enamored of the splendor of the buildings that they missed the way in which “the Glory of the second temple would far exceed the first.” They were practicing their offerings with a spirit that was as good as idolatry is what I think. Remember Isaiah is looking ahead to the eventual rebuilding of the temple after their captivity in Bablylon. It could be that some had brought their learned idolatry back with them.

      I also think it suits the birth of the Gospel age and the destruction of Jerusalem that followed because, “when I called no one answered, when I spoke they did not hear; but they did evil before my eyes, and chose that in which I do not delight.”

      Verses one and two are reminiscent of Solomon’s words upon dedication of the first temple.

      The pride of the buildings in the second temple are spoken of even by the Apostles to the Lord, “See all these magnificent stones..” I think it was Josephus who said the temple shown in the sun for miles away it was so magnificent.

      The Lord goes on to say in the NT, “and you shall be hated by all men for My Name’s sake.”

      “Your brethren who hated you,
      Who cast you out for My name’s sake, said,
      ‘Let the Lord be glorified,
      That we may see your joy.’
      But they shall be ashamed.”

      6 The sound of noise from the city!
      A voice from the temple!
      The voice of the Lord,
      Who fully repays His enemies!

      The Lord is present in the temple. He repays those who thought the building and they themselves more glorious than Messiah who was it’s true glory. Hag 2:9 ‘The glory of this latter temple shall be greater than the former,’ says the LORD of hosts. ‘And in this place I will give peace,’ says the LORD of hosts.” Even as Malachi foretold. Mal 3:1 Jesus speaks of what will come to those who hate Him.

      7 “Before she was in labor, she gave birth;
      Before her pain came,
      She delivered a male child.
      8 Who has heard such a thing?
      Who has seen such things?
      Shall the earth be made to give birth in one day?
      Or shall a nation be born at once?
      For as soon as Zion was in labor,
      She gave birth to her children.
      9 Shall I bring to the time of birth, and not cause delivery?” says the Lord.
      “Shall I who cause delivery shut up the womb?” says your God.
      10 “Rejoice with Jerusalem,
      And be glad with her, all you who love her;
      Rejoice for joy with her, all you who mourn for her;
      11 That you may feed and be satisfied
      With the consolation of her bosom,
      That you may drink deeply and be delighted
      With the abundance of her glory.”
      12 For thus says the Lord:

      “Behold, I will extend peace to her like a river,
      And the glory of the Gentiles like a flowing stream.
      Then you shall feed;
      On her sides shall you be carried,
      And be dandled on her knees.
      13 As one whom his mother comforts,
      So I will comfort you;
      And you shall be comforted in Jerusalem.
      14 When you see this, your heart shall rejoice,
      And your bones shall flourish like grass;
      The hand of the Lord shall be known to His servants,
      And His indignation to His enemies.”

      ( Isa 57:19 Act 10:36 Rom 5:1 14:17 Eph 2:13-17 Phl 4:7 ) The Lord came to extend peace and reconciliation “but they would not!” Later it was that “those who would not that I should reign over them bring here and slay them.” The Gospel age is born and the gentiles are partakers of the milk of the Gospel. They are comforted by the Good News together with His people. The nation of Israel was effectively “born again” although the numbers were small. This also looks forward to the national birth of the nation in the future. Of their being “born in one day” and yet again on the future Day of Atonement when the remnant will all be saved at once (is what it sounds like to me).

      15 For behold, the Lord will come with fire
      And with His chariots, like a whirlwind,
      To render His anger with fury,
      And His rebuke with flames of fire.
      16 For by fire and by His sword
      The Lord will judge all flesh; [all those deserving judgement]
      And the slain of the Lord shall be many.
      17 “Those who sanctify themselves and purify themselves,
      To go to the gardens
      After an idol in the midst,
      Eating swine’s flesh and the abomination and the mouse,
      Shall be consumed together,” says the Lord.

      Those practicing idolatry were consumed together with those who rejected the Lord and called for His crucifixion. Some say that the Israelites were cured of idolatry after the Baylonian exile but I think it was most likely after the destruction of the temple that the Lord occupied that cured them. They were so thoroughly dispersed they had no desire to practice idolatry again.

      18 “For I know their works and their thoughts. It shall be that I will gather all nations and tongues; and they shall come and see My glory. 19 I will set a sign among them; and those among them who escape I will send to the nations: to Tarshish and Pul[a] and Lud, who draw the bow, and Tubal and Javan, to the coastlands afar off who have not heard My fame nor seen My glory. And they shall declare My glory among the Gentiles. 20 Then they shall bring all your brethren for an offering to the Lord out of all nations, on horses and in chariots and in litters, on mules and on camels, to My holy mountain Jerusalem,” says the Lord, “as the children of Israel bring an offering in a clean vessel into the house of the Lord. 21 And I will also take some of them for priests and Levites,” says the Lord.

      That sounds exactly like the spread of the Gospel to me. Also, those warned to flee Jerusalem took the Gospel message with them. In the reverse, so shall a great number return to the mountain of the Lord in the latter days.

      “Then” is looking ahead to those parallel events closer to the second advent and the ultimate judgement of those that hate Him. Those who are longing for Him and His appearing will glorify His Name!

      Psa 86:9 All nations whom You have made
      Shall come and worship before You, O Lord,
      And shall glorify Your name.

      Mal 1:11 For from the rising of the sun, even to its going down,
      My name shall be great among the Gentiles;
      In every place incense shall be offered to My name,
      And a pure offering;
      For My name shall be great among the nations,”
      Says the LORD of hosts.

      Rev 15:4 Who shall not fear You, O Lord, and glorify Your name?
      For You alone are holy.
      For all nations shall come and worship before You,
      For Your judgments have been manifested.”

    300. Benjamin Warkentin
      May 24th, 2014 @ 10:16 pm

      Nicholas,

      Other Scriptures do shed light on the tribulational temple, yes.

      Much more revelation is given in the Scriptures regarding how this Third Temple will become an abomination. The beginning of this Abomination of Desolation is given in Daniel 9:27:

      27 And he shall make a firm covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease; and upon the wing of abominations shall come one that maketh desolate; and even unto the full end, and that determined, shall wrath be poured out upon the desolate.

      This passage speaks of the breaking of the covenant between Israel and the Antichrist in the middle of the Tribulation.

      The key timing element, then, regarding the Temple of the Tribulation, is that in the middle of the Tribulation it is already standing and functioning, and has been functioning for at least a little while.

      Another related passage that speaks of the Abomination of Desolation is found in Matthew 24:15-16:

      15 When therefore ye see the abomination of desolation, which was spoken of through Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place (let him that readeth understand),

      16 then let them that are in Judaea flee unto the mountains:

      In this passage, Jesus gives a warning sign to the Jews who will be living in the middle of the Tribulation. The warning is that, just as soon as they see or hear of the Abomination of Desolation, they are to get out of Israel, and they must get out of Israel very quickly.

      There are other passages as well speaking of the tribulational temple being trampled underfoot by the nations during the great tribulation period.

    301. Bo
      May 24th, 2014 @ 10:23 pm

      Benjamin,

      Thanks for the answers and details about the differences between the Ezekiel temple (that I call the third because the tribulational temple will not really be a true temple) and the former ones. Are we going to call the Ezekiel temple the third or are we going to call it the fourth? It looks like we agree on most of what Ezekiel says regarding this. And I agree that to believe that Ezekiel’s temple is symbolic instead of literal will cause all kinds of problems throughout scripture. One that comes to mind is the fact that those that do not come up to Jerusalem to keep the feast of tabernacles will be punished with no rain and such. If we spiritualize the feast of tabernacles, don’t we have to spiritualise the rain that doesn’ come and on and on and on. By the time we get done, we will be allegorizing virtually all of scripture to be sure that our narrow view is not contradicted by the facts.

      Thanks for understanding my silly mistake. Trying to keep up with this thread between work and other responsibilities can get pretty hectic. I guess coffee break hermeneutics is not the most accurate or the most insightful method of studying scripture.

      I think that the people spoken of that enter the sanctuary are not just priests and Levites…but strangers. The Sanctuary is the whole temple area, if I am not mistaken. The holy place and the altar could only be approached by priests and Levites in either temple. It seems like Paul got into trouble because some of the Jews assumed that he had brought Trophimus into the sanctuary. It goes without saying that Paul would not be allowed to approach the altar or the holy place and he would have been in trouble for attempting such with or without Trophimus.(Acts 21:28-29)

      Shalom

    302. Sheila
      May 24th, 2014 @ 10:28 pm

      Bo,

      Did you have time to read the link that Benjamin provided for us? It has some good articles and a good outline about Ezekiel’s temple and the sacrifices.

      I’m still reading on it…

    303. Bo
      May 24th, 2014 @ 10:39 pm

      It is interesting that the physical temple requires physical circumcision whether in the past or in the future. There really is no way around what Ezekiel says about physical circumcision. It is a requirement in the Millennial temple. I am thinking that Isaiah is alluding to Messianic believers being made priests and Levites also in this temple. We are to be kings and priests for a thousand years if I am not mistaken.

      Isaiah 66
      15 For, behold, the LORD will come with fire, and with his chariots like a whirlwind, to render his anger with fury, and his rebuke with flames of fire.
      16 For by fire and by his sword will the LORD plead with all flesh: and the slain of the LORD shall be many.
      17 They that sanctify themselves, and purify themselves in the gardens behind one tree in the midst, eating swine’s flesh, and the abomination, and the mouse, shall be consumed together, saith the LORD.
      18 For I know their works and their thoughts: it shall come, that I will gather all nations and tongues; and they shall come, and see my glory.
      19 And I will set a sign among them, and I will send those that escape of them unto the nations, to Tarshish, Pul, and Lud, that draw the bow, to Tubal, and Javan, to the isles afar off, that have not heard my fame, neither have seen my glory; and they shall declare my glory among the Gentiles.
      20 And they shall bring all your brethren for an offering unto the LORD out of all nations upon horses, and in chariots, and in litters, and upon mules, and upon swift beasts, to my holy mountain Jerusalem, saith the LORD, as the children of Israel bring an offering in a clean vessel into the house of the LORD.
      21 And I will also take of them for priests and for Levites, saith the LORD.
      22 For as the new heavens and the new earth, which I will make, shall remain before me, saith the LORD, so shall your seed and your name remain.
      23 And it shall come to pass, that from one new moon to another, and from one sabbath to another, shall all flesh come to worship before me, saith the LORD.

      It looks to me like those that have made themselves abominable with eating unclean things will be destroyed when Messiah returns and that those that have been found faithful among the gentiles will be made to priests and Levites and that Sabbaths and New moons will also be kept by everyone…”all flesh” that is left after the day of YHWH.

      Shalom

    304. Sheila
      May 24th, 2014 @ 10:42 pm

      Bo,

      I’ll be careful not to eat an unregenerate Gentiles! :)

    305. Benjamin Warkentin
      May 24th, 2014 @ 10:44 pm

      Bo,

      I don’t mind limiting it to three since indeed I agree with you that only three are Temples of God. The additional one is not (if one holds to a tribulational temple being built), so I am fine dropping it from the numbering list.

      Sheila,

      “The Lord is present in the temple.” was this in reference to the Isaiah 66 passage, verse 6?

      I wouldn’t say present as in dwelling there, I would say He visits it in judgement.

      This passage begins with a protest from God, who makes it clear in verse 1, that no house that Israel builds at this time will be acceptable, for God will not come and reside in it as He resided in the First Temple and He will reside again in the Millennial Temple. According to verse 2, what God will require at this time is not a new house, but faith. In verse 3, He declares that He will not accept sacrifices, and the very fact that they will build this Temple shows their failure in verse 4 to listen to God’s Word and come to God through faith in Yeshua the Messiah. Then in verse 5, Isaiah has a word of encouragement to those faithful Jews who will not participate in the rebuilding of the Temple, but who are seeking to do God’s will. Thus, we know there is going to be a faithful Remnant who will not participate or be involved in the rebuilding of the Jewish Temple for the Great Tribulation period. Finally, in verse 6, Isaiah says that this new Temple will result only in judgment. This Temple will not result in forgiveness of sin; it will not result in an acceptable worship; it will result only in judgment from God.

    306. Bo
      May 24th, 2014 @ 10:45 pm

      Sheila,

      I am just getting back and have not read it. I am a bit familiar with this topic though as those of my ilk are pretty convinced of there being a physical temple and animal sacrifices being done in it. We like the idea that the new moons and Sabbaths and feasts of YHWH will be observed too.

      There is just something wonderful about the idea of the smell of barbecue and a big party at the beginning of every month and for 7 days in the spring an fall that just makes my mouth water and my eyes brighten :)

      Shalom

    307. Bo
      May 24th, 2014 @ 10:52 pm

      Nicholas,

      I am wondering how the anti-pope/anti-messiah will stop the offerings in your scheme of things. If the body of Messiah is the third temple, won’t there be individual churches celebrating the mass all over the earth? The anti-messiah is supposed to cause the sacrifices and offerings to cease for over 3 years. How can this be done all over the earth? Will he make an edict that all the bishops and priests will follow?

      Shalom

    308. Sheila
      May 24th, 2014 @ 10:53 pm

      He does like to grill out! (I hope that’s not sacrilegious) He shouldn’t have given me such a sense of humor!

    309. Bo
      May 24th, 2014 @ 10:56 pm

      Sheila,

      Most of the offerings were eaten, if not by the people that brought them along with their friends, then by the priests and Levites.

    310. Nicholas
      May 24th, 2014 @ 10:56 pm

      Benjamin,

      I still don’t see any explicit reference to a Temple that is not sanctioned by God. That God does not delight in the sacrifices being offered in the temple, this point I get. But that the temple itself is not pleasing to God, I don’t see that. Malachi, the last prophet before John the Baptist, interprets this situation for us: God will refine his priests, and they will offer sacrifices which will be acceptable. The offerings are not pure and the people are worshipping in vain. The Old system is fading away. But the refiner will come, and he will refine his priests. This, I believe, is the correct hermeneutic.

    311. Nicholas
      May 24th, 2014 @ 11:00 pm

      Bo,

      Yes, that’s right. There will be an apostasy among bishops and priests. They will follow the rubrics of the antipope and they will offer a false mass. It will not be the real Eucharist.

    312. Bo
      May 24th, 2014 @ 11:18 pm

      Nicholas,

      What will make it false? Will it be a complete, all encompassing, everywhere thing? How is it possible for every priest and Bishop to all of sudden be fooled? Are there already many imposters and deluded priests…maybe the vast majority? Or is it still so far in the future that most priests are still faithful?

    313. Nicholas
      May 24th, 2014 @ 11:34 pm

      Bo,

      As a matter of fact, the apostasy has already started. Since the modernizations of the Second Vatican Council, the Church has suffered enormously. I think this is quite clear. We are living in an unprecedented time in which large numbers of Catholic clergy are unorthodox. There is a massive homosexual lobby in the Church, as well, and we have an almost ritualistic sex abuse crisis on our hands. There is a huge problem.

      This may be merely an antitype of a future situation. In any event, the Antichrist will be able to deceive many souls, so I can see such an outcome occurring among bishops and priests in large numbers, just as it is occurring now.

    314. Sheila
      May 25th, 2014 @ 12:10 am

      Nicholas,

      If you ever need my help or to just leave where you are you can come to me for help. If things get crazy, you know. As you may have noticed too it seems things are beginning to accelerate and decline very quickly lately. You can reach me on Facebook @ Sheila Caldon, just in case.

      That’s an invitation for anyone of you. Really.

    315. Sheila
      May 25th, 2014 @ 12:11 am

      Calling it a day. Good night.

    316. Nicholas
      May 25th, 2014 @ 12:45 am

      Sheila,

      My longer response:

      Regarding the apostasy, it will indeed be an outward one, not merely one of hearts. People will worship the Beast and participate in his rites. Exactly what this will look like, no one knows.

      The Antichrist will put in power an antipope. I believe the prophecy to which I referred comes from the apparitions of the Virgin Mary under the title of Our Lady of La Salette. She explains, “Rome will become the seat of the Antichrist.” Exactly what this means is open to debate. Will the Antichrist actually take his seat in Rome? I think it is more likely he will reign in Rome by proxy, through the antipope. I do believe the Antichrist will have for his headquarters the city of Jerusalem. However, he will use the Catholic Church (or rather, the Catholic Church “in eclipse”) as the implement through which he will spread his false religion. The Bible mentions the worship of “his image.” This could be an actual idol, in the proper sense, a gold statue or something, but I think the term may have an esoteric meaning.

      I think the Antichrist will take power in the State of Israel. This is my personal belief. Catholics do expect Christ to return on the Mount of Olives, so I cannot picture a situation in which we would welcome a figure who “appears” in Rome. Rome does not in and of itself have a theological significance in Catholicism, expect for the fact that Peter and Paul were martyred there.

      To be quite frank, the Church has already been primed for its occupation by demonic powers. Pope Pius X, at the end of the Nineteenth Century, defined the heresy of “Modernism” as “the synthesis of all heresies.” Modernism opens up Christian theology to erroneous interpretations based upon rationalist philosophy. A Modernist might, for instance, deny the inerrancy of scripture, believe the resurrection of Christ was merely a “spiritual” phenomenon, etc. In the middle of the Twentieth Century, we saw the Second Vatican Council, which many view as the principle means through which a wave of Modernism crashed into the ranks of the Church. This is what we have today: a Church plagued with unorthodox clergy, many of whom, even at the highest levels, hold to or have expressed in some way various points of view which conflict totally with established dogma. Prior to the reforms of Vatican II, every priest had to swear an oath against Modernism. This was done away with. After the Council, Pope Paul VI admitted, “The smoke of Satan has entered the sanctuary.” Of course, he had quite a bit to do with that, since many of the measures he took brought about a radical change in Catholic worship and discipline. In fact, the Church prior to Vatican II, at least outwardly, in appearances, might on many levels look to us like a different religion altogether.

      Since Vatican II, the Church has been moving towards a perverted form of ecumenism. I think this is the crux of the problem. There are movements within the Church which do not merely strive for Christian unity but also for some form of unity with religions which have nothing in common with Christianity at all. It is conceivable that the ultimate end of this trend is the religion of the Antichrist. I believe the Antichrist will set up a hodgepodge faith—essentially, a dogma-free religious system. He will use the Church to accomplish this goal. Something very similar is already being worked out in the Episcopal denomination. With all due respect to our friend Greg, the Episcopal Church barely holds to any form of historical Christian orthodoxy anymore, neither in faith nor morals. (He would probably agree, because he doesn’t either.) A Buddhist would feel at home in an Episcopal congregation. This, I believe, is the essential characteristic of the future religion, and this experiment is working itself out within the Catholic Church today.

    317. Nicholas
      May 25th, 2014 @ 12:53 am

      Thanks, Sheila, I appreciate it.

    318. Sheila
      May 25th, 2014 @ 6:36 am

      Thanks for that, Nicholas. It must be hard to think that your beloved religion could be an instrument of great apostasy and a proxy of the very antichrist. Of course the Protestants aren’t fairing any better. Many are falling away from the truth these days and are welcoming into the fold those that are unregenerate and holding onto their sin. Modernism has already gotten a big foothold in many denominations and specifically many individual churches. The Presbyterian church I sometimes attend broke from the National church some years ago because of certain decisions they made, namely to welcome gays and lesbians, on the abortion issue (we believe it is sin) and on the ordination of women, which we don’t agree with. We don’t believe in divorce with the exception of adultery and desertion. We are considered to be Conservative and Orthodox and don’t abide by decisions made by those who embraced modernism. We believe in the inerrancy of Scripture, the trinity and the bodily resurrection of Jesus as well as the virgin birth. These are part of the articles of faith.

      I’ve more to discuss with you but will be working outside while it is still cool out there! Talk to you in a bit.

    319. Benjamin Warkentin
      May 25th, 2014 @ 8:23 am

      Nicholas,

      “Malachi, the last prophet before John the Baptist, interprets this situation for us: God will refine his priests, and they will offer sacrifices which will be acceptable.” -Yes the passage does speak of refining priests, but which priests? The passage is explicit in identifying them as those that are from the Tribe of Levi. No other type of priest is in view here.

      Malachi 2:1,4

      1 And now, O ye priests, this commandment is for you.

      4 And ye shall know that I have sent this commandment unto you, that my covenant might be with Levi, saith the Lord of hosts.

      The context of the passage is dealing with Malachi’s day as well:

      Malachi 2

      2 If ye will not hear, and if ye will not lay it to heart, to give glory unto my name, saith the Lord of hosts, I will even send a curse upon you, and I will curse your blessings: yea, I have cursed them already, because ye do not lay it to heart.

      ‘I have cursed them already’ brings that passage to Malachi’s time. There are other passages which do the same, and the point would be to show that at the time of Malachi, the Second Temple is standing and operating in a sacrificial way. The priests and people are just far from God and polluting their sacrifices. But non-the-less the Temple stands and God is calling them back to pure sacrifices (animal sacrifices).

      In the Isaiah passage, God speaks of a temple that will be built by the people (future, not one that was currently standing), a temple that He will not accept sacrifices from. This disqualifies the Second Temple which when built offered acceptable sacrifices.

      Isaiah 66:1
      …where is the house that ye build unto me?…

      Nicholas- “But the refiner will come, and he will refine his priests.” -The Church is not in view here as the text identifies them as those from the Tribe of Levi, of Jewish ethnicity.

      We have to be careful, specially when redefining words.

    320. Nicholas
      May 25th, 2014 @ 9:43 am

      Benjamin,

      Malachi prophesies a “pure offering,” which stands in contradiction to the sacrifices of the Levitical cult. I believe that Isaiah’s message also reflects the reality of the fading away of the Old system. The two themes are identical. The refiner identified by Malachi is Christ himself, who offers the perfect sacrifice on the cross, thereby renewing the system of sacrifice and perfecting it. That Malachi refers to “Levites” does not necessarily mean that the future priests will be Jews. God tells Isaiah that he will choose priests from among the gentiles, and Malachi explains that a perfect oblation will be offered among the nations, “in every place,” and not just in Jerusalem or any one centralized location.

    321. Nicholas
      May 25th, 2014 @ 9:47 am

      Sheila,

      Yes, that’s exactly right. The very same plagues that have come into the Roman Catholic Church have had their way with the Protestant church, as well, especially within mainline circles, with large denominations promoting radical re-intepretations of the Bible, gay marriage, abortion, etc.

    322. Bo
      May 25th, 2014 @ 9:59 am

      Nicholas,

      You Wrote:
      “Malachi prophesies a “pure offering,” which stands in contradiction to the sacrifices of the Levitical cult. I believe that Isaiah’s message also reflects the reality of the fading away of the Old system.”

      I do not think that we are reading the same book. The final verses of Malachi are:

      Malachi 4
      4 Remember ye the law of Moses my servant, which I commanded unto him in Horeb for all Israel, with the statutes and judgments.
      5 Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the LORD:
      6 And he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers, lest I come and smite the earth with a curse.

      The pure offering is one that is done from pure hearts according to the specifications of YHWH’s statutes.

      Shalom

    323. Nicholas
      May 25th, 2014 @ 10:15 am

      Bo,

      The context speaks of a refinement of the priesthood. The pure offering stands in contrast to defective sacrifices, and anticipates the passing away of the Old order. The offering is made “in every place” and by the gentiles. It cannot refer merely to pious supplications. Moreover, Malachi speaks explicitly of Christ, who will enact the changes.

    324. Benjamin Warkentin
      May 25th, 2014 @ 11:09 am

      Nicholas,

      Context is always very relevant and important.

      Nicholas- “That Malachi refers to “Levites” does not necessarily mean that the future priests will be Jews.” -The Lord begs to differ.

      Malachi 3
      3 And he shall sit as a refiner and purifier of silver: and he shall purify the sons of Levi, and purge them as gold and silver, that they may offer unto the Lord an offering in righteousness.

      4 Then shall the offering of Judah and Jerusalem be pleasant unto the Lord, as in the days of old, and as in former years.

      -It is quite clear who is being discussed here. “the sons of Levi”(vv.3) tied more intricately with “Judah and Jerusalem”(vv.4a) and even more intricately with “as in the days of old, and as in former years”(vv.4b).

      Nicholas- “The refiner identified by Malachi is Christ himself” -Very true indeed. But at the first coming or the second? As of yet the Tribe of Levi has not been refined. The reference to the refiner sitting would be a reference to the throne of David at Messiahs second coming. Also at Messiahs first coming, the sacrifices of Judah and Jerusalem ceased to be acceptable to God, they did not become acceptable.

      Nicholas- “who offers the perfect sacrifice on the cross, thereby renewing the system of sacrifice and perfecting it.” -Hebrews 10:10-12,14

      10 By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

      11 And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins:

      12 But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;

      14 For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.

      Jesus did not ‘renew’ the system of sacrifice, He made the one true sacrifice, once-for all, which all other sacrifices before had pointed to.

    325. Nicholas
      May 25th, 2014 @ 11:16 am

      Okay, Benjamin, I’ll deal with those issues in a little while, watching the Pope in Jerusalem right now.

    326. Bo
      May 25th, 2014 @ 11:28 am

      Nicholas,

      Malachi 1
      11 For, from the rising of the sun to its going in, Great is My name among nations, And in every place perfume is brought nigh to My name, and a pure present, For great is My name among nations, Said Jehovah of Hosts. (Youngs Literal Translation.)

      The word offering in the KJV is translated present many, many times and is used of bring people gifts as well as gifts to YHWH. These presents/offerings, whether food items or prayers are brought to YHWH by the people, not presented by the priests to the people.

      The contrast that is being presented by Malachi is one that should shame the Levites. He is saying that the gentiles all over the place are offering sincere offerings of prayer and thanksgiving and possibly even food offerings. It is happening even as the Levites are polluting YHWH’s altar. Prayer is often symbolically called incense/perfume. So YHWH is deriding the Priests for not even living up to what the gentiles everywhere are doing even in their ignorance.

      We see an example of a gentile that was sincere before YHWH in a passage that we have touched on recently. This man’s alms and prayers were accepted by YHWH as gifts/offerings to Him.

      Acts 10
      1 There was a certain man in Caesarea called Cornelius, a centurion of the band called the Italian band,
      2 A devout man, and one that feared God with all his house, which gave much alms to the people, and prayed to God alway.
      3 He saw in a vision evidently about the ninth hour of the day an angel of God coming in to him, and saying unto him, Cornelius.
      4 And when he looked on him, he was afraid, and said, What is it, Lord? And he said unto him, Thy prayers and thine alms are come up for a memorial before God.

      The above was offered to YHWH before he was a regenerate believer. YHWH has always had people in every nation that call upon Him sincerely while in ignorance.

      Malachi 3
      1 Behold, I will send my messenger, and he shall prepare the way before me: and the Lord, whom ye seek, shall suddenly come to his temple, even the messenger of the covenant, whom ye delight in: behold, he shall come, saith the LORD of hosts.
      2 But who may abide the day of his coming? and who shall stand when he appeareth? for he is like a refiner’s fire, and like fullers’ soap:
      3 And he shall sit as a refiner and purifier of silver: and he shall purify the sons of Levi, and purge them as gold and silver, that they may offer unto the LORD an offering in righteousness.
      4 Then shall the offering of Judah and Jerusalem be pleasant unto the LORD, as in the days of old, and as in former years.
      5 And I will come near to you to judgment; and I will be a swift witness against the sorcerers, and against the adulterers, and against false swearers, and against those that oppress the hireling in his wages, the widow, and the fatherless, and that turn aside the stranger from his right, and fear not me, saith the LORD of hosts.
      6 For I am the LORD, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed.

      YHWH does not change. Paul says that the gifts and callings of YHWH are without repentance in Romans. He is referring to the things like the call to the Levites and the sons of Aaron being placed in the position to offer sacrifices and do the temple service. There is a reason that YHWH has not totally eliminated Israel. He made a promise to them. The son’s of Zadok will be ministers in His temple during the millennium. YHWH cannot take back this promise. So He will purify the sons of Levi…not change the offering or the place where it is offered.

      The money, food, clothing and time that parishioners contribute to church pr that they donate to charity may be the kind of offering that Malachi is referring to if they are given in sincerity and thankfulness to YHWH. The Eurcharist is not at all the same as to the idea of which Malachi is speaking. And to get really technical, The Catholic church has never been in every place. It is in a lot of places, but even after 1700 years it is lacking representation in many locations.

      And Malachi still ends with a literal command to be careful to keep the law of Moses with its statutes and ordinances. And the only offerings that the “New Testament” speaks of as far as the royal priesthood offering is at this time is:

      Heb 13:15 By him therefore let us offer the sacrifice of praise to God continually, that is, the fruit of our lips giving thanks to his name.

      1Pe 2:5 Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.

      2Co 9:7 Every man according as he purposeth in his heart, so let him give; not grudgingly, or of necessity: for God loveth a cheerful giver.

      Mt 25:45 Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me.

      Shalom

    327. Bo
      May 25th, 2014 @ 11:30 am

      Benjamin,

      Did you see post 303?

    328. Bo
      May 25th, 2014 @ 11:34 am

      One more type of offering that I forgot to put in there is:

      Romans 12
      1 I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service.
      2 And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God.

    329. Nicholas
      May 25th, 2014 @ 12:00 pm

      Bo,

      You believe that the refinement of which Malachi speaks has not yet taken place, correct? And the pure present was already being offered in the prophet’s own time?

    330. Bo
      May 25th, 2014 @ 12:13 pm

      Nicholas,

      I think that is what it says. Don’t you think Cornelius was an example of such offerings and prayer? It is not “the pure present,” but a pure gift/offering/present in every place by sincere gentiles. Lots of pure presents. It all looks pretty present tense throughout chapter one.

      Shalom

    331. Bo
      May 25th, 2014 @ 12:28 pm

      The refiner has come the first time. He has not not come the second time when he will rule with a rod of iron and when we will tread upon the wicked.

      Malachi 4
      3 And ye shall tread down the wicked; for they shall be ashes under the soles of your feet in the day that I shall do this, saith the LORD of hosts.

      In that day, Levi will be refined. I am thinking that Elijah will come before the refining spoken of. The great and dreadful day of YHWH has not come yet.

      Isaiah 61
      1 The Spirit of the Lord GOD is upon me; because the LORD hath anointed me to preach good tidings unto the meek; he hath sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to them that are bound;
      2 To proclaim the acceptable year of the LORD, and the day of vengeance of our God; to comfort all that mourn;
      3 To appoint unto them that mourn in Zion, to give unto them beauty for ashes, the oil of joy for mourning, the garment of praise for the spirit of heaviness; that they might be called trees of righteousness, the planting of the LORD, that he might be glorified.
      4 And they shall build the old wastes, they shall raise up the former desolations, and they shall repair the waste cities, the desolations of many generations.
      5 And strangers shall stand and feed your flocks, and the sons of the alien shall be your plowmen and your vinedressers.
      6 But ye shall be named the Priests of the LORD: men shall call you the Ministers of our God: ye shall eat the riches of the Gentiles, and in their glory shall ye boast yourselves.

      Notice that Messiah stopped on purpose in the middle of the sentence. Israel existed at the point that He was on earth. The second coming will begin with vengeance and culminate in the restoration of Israel and the priesthood.

      Luke 4
      17 And there was delivered unto him the book of the prophet Esaias. And when he had opened the book, he found the place where it was written,
      18 The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised,
      19 To preach the acceptable year of the Lord.
      20 And he closed the book, and he gave it again to the minister, and sat down. And the eyes of all them that were in the synagogue were fastened on him.

      Shalom

    332. Benjamin Warkentin
      May 25th, 2014 @ 1:01 pm

      Bo,

      “Did you see post 303?” -Yes I did.

      I don’t agree with your conclusion though. I think it’s missing a few elements.

      I believe you’re wanting me to address Isaiah 66:17 which reads:

      17 They that sanctify themselves, and purify themselves in the gardens behind one tree in the midst, eating swine’s flesh, and the abomination, and the mouse, shall be consumed together, saith the Lord.

      I believe your conclusion was, “those that have made themselves abominable with eating unclean things will be destroyed when Messiah returns”. But that conclusion misses the much more encompassing sin that is being described, that of ritualistic Idolatry.

      The verse starts off mentioned those who sanctify themselves, meaning by another means than the one God has provided, they pursue Idolatry. Then we read that they purify themselves in the gardens, which were places of Idol worship:

      Isaiah 54:3 (etc.)

      3 A people that provoketh me to anger continually to my face; that sacrificeth in gardens, and burneth incense upon altars of brick;

      The passage continues to describe this act of idolatry in the gardens, eating swine’s flesh (ref. Isaiah 65:4). Then it concludes that the abomination and the mouse will be consumed together by the Lord.

      The mouse is another symbol of Idolatry.

      1 Samuel 6:4

      4 Then said they, What shall be the trespass offering which we shall return to him? They answered, Five golden emerods, and five golden mice, according to the number of the lords of the Philistines: for one plague was on you all, and on your lords.

      So every element mentioned in Isaiah 66:17 is in accord with Idol worship in particular, not food in general.

    333. Benjamin Warkentin
      May 25th, 2014 @ 1:15 pm

      Bo, good stuff on Luke 4. I enjoyed that.

    334. Nicholas
      May 25th, 2014 @ 1:20 pm

      Bo,

      So, the Levitical priesthood has not yet been refined, then? And, when this does happen, when Christ does this, the offerings will not be propitiatory, not atonement sacrifices? They will point back to the cross?

    335. Nicholas
      May 25th, 2014 @ 1:27 pm

      Benjamin,

      Obviously I see the references in Malachi as pointing to the Eucharist. This was the understanding of the Church historically. But I know we will not see eye to eye.

      We can open up a discussion about the propitiatory nature of the mass in light of the affirmation in the Book of Hebrews that Christ offered himself “once for all,” but I want to go back to the Tribulation Temple for a moment. Is this temple a false temple? Is this the one in which the “mouse” will be consumed, etc?

      And also, who will build this temple? Isn’t the Antichrist supposed to enter the Temple of God? So, who will build the Temple of God? Christ, I would think, right? Wouldn’t the Temple of God have to be up and running before the Antichrist comes to desecrate it?

      Could you give me a summary of the events? I’d appreciate it. Thanks.

    336. Bo
      May 25th, 2014 @ 1:35 pm

      Benjamin,

      I was also wanting you comment on the rest of the passage.

      Isaiah 66
      17 They that sanctify themselves, and purify themselves in the gardens behind one tree in the midst, eating swine’s flesh, and the abomination, and the mouse, shall be consumed together, saith the LORD.

      17 Those sanctifying and cleansing themselves at the gardens, After Ahad in the midst, Eating flesh of the sow, And of the abomination, and of the mouse, Together are consumed, An affirmation of Jehovah.(YLT)

      It looks to me like, not that the mouse and abomination are consumed (which doe not mean eaten) by YHWH, but that those that eat those things are destroyed with fire. I have no doubt that idolatry is being spoken of in the passage. But isn’t it strange that the mark of these idolaters is what they are eating? How they are setting themselves apart? How they are supposedly purifying themselves in a way that is contrary to YHWH’s commandments? It does not look to be symbolic meanings to the three things that they are eating.

      According to Paul, covetousness is idolatry. Covetousness is desiring what does not belong to you. It is lusting after things that YHWH has forbidden or has not provided. Is it any wonder that the aspects of idolatry that are spoken of in this passage are eating unclean animal meat? Maybe even the things that we think are small things or insignificant things are the little foxes that spoil the vine. Maybe those that desire/lust after forbidden flesh are harboring a little idolatry in their hearts…the lust of the eyes, the lust of the flesh, and the pride of life. It looks good for food, it tastes good, and it proves that we can make our own decisions concerning what is good an evil instead of obeying YHWH’s rules. The heart of man can easily deceive itself into thinking that things are clean when they are not.

      Verse 18 For I know their works and their thoughts…

      So what do you think of the aspect of choosing priests and Levites from those that return? Are some of them gentiles? What do you think of keeping the feasts of YHWH?

    337. Sheila
      May 25th, 2014 @ 2:08 pm

      Bo,

      What feasts are you saying they’re keeping in the Millennium?

      The things they were eating were offered to an idol. That’s what they did. They offered them up and then ate them. So now you’re going back to Gentiles eating ham sandwiches? We’re not Jews and we’re not the priests of Isaiah’s day. It was expressly forbidden to them. It was not a covenant with the nations but with Israel. We were never forbidden to eat ham.

      Let’s go back to where you didn’t answer my questions about what was torn down.

    338. Sheila
      May 25th, 2014 @ 2:24 pm

      Nicholas,

      In the time of the Maccabees, Antiochus Epiphenes desecrated the temple by offering swine’s blood upon the altar and setting up “the abomination of desecration probably in worship of Zeus or possibly Baal Shamem. The Jews later purified the temple again and resumed worship there. I don’t see why that’s not the case again.

      Paul tells us that antichrist will enter the temple of God showing himself that he is God. A temple built to God on the Temple Mount is God’s temple.

    339. Sheila
      May 25th, 2014 @ 2:27 pm

      Antiochus Epiphanes was the little horn of Daniel 8.

    340. Sheila
      May 25th, 2014 @ 2:40 pm
    341. Nicholas
      May 25th, 2014 @ 2:43 pm

      Sheila

      Indeed, Antiochus was a type of antichrist. But who will build the Third Temple, if it is not the Church? The Temple has to be here before the Antichrist comes to desecrate it. I assume that the Antichrist is not going to build a temple to God himself. That doesn’t make sense.

    342. Sheila
      May 25th, 2014 @ 2:58 pm

      Nicholas,

      No. He wouldn’t do that. It seems that there is already in the works money put aside to build the temple. I think it’s called “Temple Faithful” or such, although I’d have to look it up again. Anyway the funds are there and I’m certain the Jews would be the ones to build it. Remember there are rules and regulations regarding that too. What’s not clear is that it took over 40 years to complete the second temple, but then I imagine just the actual temple wouldn’t take anywhere near that long. Antichrist is said to make a treaty with Israel for seven years and after 3-1/2 years break that treaty. It’s then that the persecution and the desecration will probably take place.

    343. Sheila
      May 25th, 2014 @ 3:05 pm

      These verses speak to that:

      Revelation 11:2
      But leave out the court which is outside the temple, and do not measure it, for it has been given to the Gentiles. And they will tread the holy city underfoot for forty-two months.

      Revelation 13:5
      And he was given a mouth speaking great things and blasphemies, and he was given authority to continue for forty-two months.

    344. Nicholas
      May 25th, 2014 @ 3:08 pm

      So, the Israeli’s are going to build the Third Temple.

      Sheila, I think there are some serious theological problems with that idea. I will give my two cents later.

    345. Sheila
      May 25th, 2014 @ 3:25 pm

      Nicholas,

      Why would anyone else build the temple? Do you think the antichrist will build it? Because it’s untenable to think Christians would build it knowing what it means. Of course I’m sure there’s lots of money coming in from them to help. I can think of one right off the bat but shouldn’t say.

    346. Sheila
      May 25th, 2014 @ 3:31 pm

      Nicholas,

      Of this peace treaty that’s supposed to be for seven years. What peace treaty is it that the whole world seems to be interested in negotiating? I can say if the one between Israel and Palestine were ever negotiated I’d start worrying! There are some well known authors, Richardson and the other is Walid Shoebot that wrote some contemporary and interesting books on the middle east. They seem to think Saudi Arabia and Turkey will be key players in the end times and that the Muslim world will also have a hand in the confederacy that comes against Israel. It doesn’t take a big stretch of the imagination to see that happening. Although I’m not certain of why Palestine was left out of their theories. It seems too obvious maybe.

    347. Sheila
      May 25th, 2014 @ 3:39 pm

      Nicholas,

      The other one was Joel Richardson. I couldn’t remember his first name. Have you heard of either one of them? A lot of Evangelicals are thinking the confederacy comes from Europe but I don’t see that happening at all. The Bible says that those of Edom and Tyre and Babylon have yet to get their just rewards. Those prophecies have not yet found their completion but according to one the Lord “comes from Edom with His clothes dyed red” with blood. Only thing is, where is modern day Edom? Tyre is in Lebanon and we know where Babylon is. Are they just types of the final enemy or are they yet slated for future ruin? I think it’s the latter.

    348. Nicholas
      May 25th, 2014 @ 4:31 pm

      Sheila,

      When you say Christians would not build the Temple knowing what it means, do you mean because it would usher in the Antichrist?

    349. Sheila
      May 25th, 2014 @ 4:47 pm

      Yes, Nicholas, that’s what I’m thinking. Everyone I know has a knowledge of antichrist coming to the temple before the persecution starts. The Jews don’t believe in our theology so they’re unphased by it. I wouldn’t think Muslims would know of it either.

    350. Sheila
      May 25th, 2014 @ 5:01 pm

      Nicholas,

      Did you know that in the Muslim end-time scenario, they have recognized the rider of the white horse in the book of Revelation, 6:8 as their savior, their Mahdi? They picked him out as the one on the first horse coming to conquer.

    351. Nicholas
      May 25th, 2014 @ 5:20 pm

      Sheila, I think the Mahdi is the false prophet spoken of in Revelation. This would be a separate figure from the Antichrist. The Muslims also believe in the return of Jesus. They believe he will work with the Mahdi to defeat their version of the Antichrist. Because they have everything upside down, I think it’s possible that their “Jesus” is the real Antichrist and their Antichrist is really Christ.

    352. Sheila
      May 25th, 2014 @ 5:34 pm

      Here’s some of the things the Mahdi will do:

      The Mahdi is Islam’s primary messiah figure.
      He will be a descendant of Muhammad and will bear Muhammad’s name (Muhammad bin Abdullah).
      He will be a very devout Muslim.
      He will be an unparalleled spiritual, political and military world leader.
      He will emerge after a period of great turmoil and suffering upon the earth.
      He will establish justice and righteousness throughout the world and eradicate tyranny and oppression.
      He will be the Caliph and Imam (vice-regent and leader) of Muslims worldwide
      He will lead a world revolution and establish a new world order.
      He will lead military action against all those who oppose him.
      He will invade many countries.
      He will make a seven year peace treaty with a Jew of priestly lineage.
      He will conquer Israel for Islam and lead the “faithful Muslims” in a final slaughter/battle against Jews.
      He will establish the new Islamic world headquarters from Jerusalem.
      He will rule for seven years (possibly as much as eight or nine).
      He will cause Islam to be the only religion practiced on the earth.
      He will appear riding a white horse (possibly symbolic).
      He will discover some previously undiscovered biblical manuscripts that he will use to argue with the Jews and cause some Jews to convert to Islam.
      He will also re-discover the Ark of the Covenant from the Sea of Galilee, which he will bring to Jerusalem.
      He will have supernatural power from Allah over the wind and the rain and crops.
      He will posses and distribute enormous amounts of wealth.
      He will be loved by all the people of the earth.

      http://www.google.com/url?sa=D&q=http://www.answering-islam.org/Authors/JR/Future/ch05_comparing_the_biblical_antichrist.htm&usg=AFQjCNFHAJdhxHRWQgJ8eexWafmFSp7WBA

    353. Sheila
      May 25th, 2014 @ 5:44 pm

      Rev. 6:2 rather, not 8.

    354. Benjamin Warkentin
      May 25th, 2014 @ 6:17 pm

      Bo,

      “(which doe not mean eaten)” Yes, I was not implying eating by the word consume, usually consume is in reference to fire, etc. destruction.

      Bo- “But isn’t it strange that the mark of these idolaters is what they are eating?” not at all since in Isaiah’s day they were probably eating such things, maybe event the blood of the flesh. The passage does not specify. The point was that all these things are elsewhere associate with pagan idolatry. And if eating swine’s flesh in general, apart from idolatry is in view, then all church saints are going to be destroyed, including Paul, etc. since the Church eats such things based on the Word of God in the NT.

      Bo- “How they are supposedly purifying themselves in a way that is contrary to YHWH’s commandments” -I knew you would do this. You are placing the entire emphasis on the swine and not on the Idolatry. The purifying aspect was connected to the garden first and foremost, idolatry. Only one aspect was tied to food.

      Bo- “Maybe those that desire/lust after forbidden flesh are harboring a little idolatry in their hearts” -I do not eat pepperoni because I lust after it. I eat it because Yeshua himself cleansed all foods.

      Bo- “So what do you think of the aspect of choosing priests and Levites from those that return? Are some of them gentiles?” -No, some of them are not Gentiles. Some Gentiles are chosen to serve as priests but they are not Levites. So no, some Levites that return are not Gentiles.

    355. Nicholas
      May 25th, 2014 @ 6:23 pm

      Sheila,

      Well, that sounds like the Antichrist all right. We have to see how it plays out. I am only speculating when I say that I think that the Islamic Jesus might be the Antichrist. It could be the Mahdi, and it might be someone who continues the Mahdi’s work. The Mahdi is bad news. That much we know. And so is Islam in general.

      In any event, regarding the Third Temple, here’s the thing: I don’t think that the Jews would be capable of building a temple which God recognizes. They can build a building, but it would not be a temple of God. How could it be, since Judaism rejects Christ? Moreover, the Messiah is supposed to build the Temple. Of course, we believe that this was done already, when Christ came the first time. Christ makes it clear that his body is the Temple.

      To be frank, the temple that the Jews will build will be a temple in derogation of God. Its sacrifices will be in derogation of the Messiah. God would not dwell in a temple whose very existence speaks to a denial of his Son. A physical and literal Third Temple built in Israel on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem, built by those who reject God, this cannot be God’s Temple.

    356. Benjamin Warkentin
      May 25th, 2014 @ 6:29 pm

      Nicholas,

      “They can build a building, but it would not be a temple of God.” -Exactly, and this is what Isaiah is speaking of.

    357. Nicholas
      May 25th, 2014 @ 7:00 pm

      Benjamin,

      So, the Antichrist will enter this false temple?

    358. Benjamin Warkentin
      May 25th, 2014 @ 7:07 pm

      Nicholas,

      Yes, the temple standing during the tribulation, which the anti-Christ and the world will view as the Temple of God.

    359. Sheila
      May 25th, 2014 @ 7:17 pm

      I’m just going by what Scripture says:

      2Th 2:4 Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.

    360. Benjamin Warkentin
      May 25th, 2014 @ 7:38 pm

      Amen Sheila. It’s our final authority.

    361. Nicholas
      May 25th, 2014 @ 8:28 pm

      Sheila and Benjamin,

      I would still maintain that whatever they put on the Temple Mount would not be the Temple of God. I think the scriptures are clear on the point that the Messiah accomplishes the building of the Temple, which Christ does in his Resurrection.

    362. Sheila
      May 25th, 2014 @ 9:35 pm

      Nicholas,

      Yeah, with the Mahdi it’s hard to say if he’s “the” bad boy or a precursor. There’s a false prophet too that work’s for him so I’d think whoever his sidekick is we’ll be looking for a duo of doom! It makes sense though, because if I’m not mistaken, the Mahdi shows up with who is supposed to be Jesus. It seems too cut and dry to us, but “for those who are perishing, God will send them strong delusions and they will believe the lie because they didn’t believe the truth.” 2 Thess 2:11

      I understand the point you’re making about Jesus being the Temple of God and that’s true. We are also spoken of as the Temple of God. I don’t think a literal temple negates those truths. I think it’s another element of those earthly things that have not come to completion yet. When the Jews realize their mistake, that the one they thought would be their Messiah turns out to be a nightmare, then they will turn to Jesus before the last trumpet of the Day of Atonement and be saved! They must welcome Him back to Jerusalem with the words, “Blessed is He who comes in the Name of the LORD.” That’s the prophetic fulfillment of the Fall Feast Days and other Bible verses for it to happen like that.

      On considering Ezekiel’s Temple as the same that antichrist will desecrate, the sacrifices will also serve to cleanse it before the Millennium begins. After reading that article in the link Benjamin gave us together with all the prophecies concerning the Jews who come to Christ as reigning over their enemies in the Mill., I think it all comes together as literal in my mind. Christ is still the dwelling place of God, we’re still the dwelling place of the Holy Spirit (of the Trinity really) and according to Scripture the Lord will dwell in Jerusalem for 1,000 years before the New Heaven and the New Earth are inaugurated.

      And Life is Good! :)

    363. Bo
      May 25th, 2014 @ 9:52 pm

      Benjamin,

      If this:

      Mr 7:19 Because it entereth not into his heart, but into the belly, and goeth out into the draught, purging all meats?

      means that Messiah cleansed all foods, then all I have to say is nothing in scripture says that pork or mice or reptiles are food. “Meats” does mean food in the passage in question. And no person that He was speaking to would have thought that unclean animal flesh was food. But the passage does not say that He cleansed all unclean animals. It says that the body is purged of food, or at least the impurities in it, via the latrine.

      Mr 7:19 because it doth not enter into his heart, but into the belly, and into the drain it doth go out, purifying all the meats.’(YLT)

      “Now, this has often been interpreted as a
      divine command for Peter to eat treif (i.e.
      unclean food), but the text says nothing of
      the kind. Rather, as Peter was soon to
      understand…”God has shown me that I should
      not call any man impure or unclean.” (Acts
      10:28b). But that is not the point I want to
      emphasize here. Rather, it is Peter’s earlier
      response to the visionary command to kill and
      eat unclean animals…If his Master and Teacher
      had revoked the dietary laws, as some have
      understood Mark 7:19, surely Peter would have
      understood, especially if Peter had been a
      primary source of mark’s information.”-Dr. Michael Brown, in “Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus”, volume 4, says this of Acts 10:9-16 on page 27-275:

      This is the only passage that might give the unlearned or careless person the impression that Messiah did away with His Father’s rules. But He said not to think such a thing.

      Mt 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
      18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
      19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

      YHWH’s dietary instructions may be some of the least commandments, but to be great in the kingdom one must keep and teach them. Now, when everything is fulfilled and heaven and earth pass away, then there is the possibility that some jots and tittles will pass from the law. But Messiah has not fulfilled the law and the prophets completely…yet. Else why are we having the discussion about the millennium and the second coming and the final judgment?

      So it is still interesting that the future judgment will come upon those that eat pork and mice and the abomination according to Isaiah…actually according to YHWH who inspired Isaiah to write those words. It was not Isaiah’s thought process, it is YHWH’s. Idolatry has always been tied to eating things that are forbidden.

    364. Bo
      May 25th, 2014 @ 10:18 pm

      As a matter of fact, the very first idolatry was concerning eating from a tree that YHWH said not to eat from. And the very last book says that those that keep YHWH’s commandments will get to eat from the tree of life that has been withheld from mankind ever since they ate of that forbidden fruit. (It was eaten but it was not given to us as food.) That last book also says that when time is up, those that are unclean will be unclean/filthy still, too.

      Revelation 22
      11 He that is unjust, let him be unjust still: and he which is filthy, let him be filthy still: and he that is righteous, let him be righteous still: and he that is holy, let him be holy still.
      12 And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be.
      13 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last.
      14 Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.

    365. Bo
      May 25th, 2014 @ 10:22 pm

      Benjamin,

      You wrote:
      ” And if eating swine’s flesh in general, apart from idolatry is in view, then all church saints are going to be destroyed, including Paul, etc. since the Church eats such things based on the Word of God in the NT.”

      Paul didn’t eat pork. He didn’t break the law.

      Ac 21:24 Them take, and purify thyself with them, and be at charges with them, that they may shave their heads: and all may know that those things, whereof they were informed concerning thee, are nothing; but that thou thyself also walkest orderly, and keepest the law.

      Ac 25:8 While he answered for himself, Neither against the law of the Jews, neither against the temple, nor yet against Caesar, have I offended any thing at all.

    366. Nicholas
      May 25th, 2014 @ 10:23 pm

      We’ll have to pick it up again tomorrow, everyone.

      The Pope is in Jerusalem, going to the Western Wall, coverage begins 1am EST on EWTN.

      Good night.

    367. Bo
      May 26th, 2014 @ 12:02 am

      Sheila,

      You do not usually like the way I say things so here are a few things I found that are interesting. None of them are my exact view, but I think that all of them have some merit.

      Galatians 2
      “2:17 But if while we seek to be justified by Christ, we ourselves are still found sinners – If we continue in sin, will it therefore follow, that Christ is the minister or countenancer of sin?
      2:18 By no means. For if I build again – By my sinful practice.The things which I destroyed – By my preaching, I only make myself – Or show myself, not Christ, to be a transgressor; the whole blame lies on me, not him or his gospel. As if he had said, The objection were just, if the gospel promised justification to men continuing in sin.But it does not. Therefore if any who profess the gospel do not live according to it, they are sinners, it is certain, but not justified, and so the gospel is clear.” -John Wesley’s Explanatory Notes

      “18. The edifice which St Paul had pulled down was not, as some suppose, the Levitical law of meats, or the Mosaic ceremonial law, in themselves considered. It was not, as a rule of life, but as a ground of justification, that he utterly repudiated and swept them away.

      I make myself] Rather, I prove, I conclude myself to be; nearly = I convict myself.

      a transgressor] nearly equivalent to ‘sinner’ above, which had primary reference to the Gentiles. Sin is the transgression or violation of the law. If I am now trying to build up again the system of justification by legal obedience, I by that very attempt convict myself of having been a transgressor, when instead of obeying the law, I sought to destroy its obligation.” -Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges

      “We ourselves are Jews by birth and not Gentile sinners; yet we know that [whether Jewish nor Gentile] a person is not justified by the works of the law [i.e., conversion, circumcision, etc.] but through faith in Jesus Christ, so we [the Jewish believers] also have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law, because by the works of the law no one will be justified. But if, in our endeavour to be justified in Christ, we too were found to be sinners [by eating and fellowshipping with Gentiles], is Christ then a servant of sin? [In other words, does becoming a believer mean we forsake Torah? Is eating and fellowshipping with Gentiles really a sin against Torah?] Certainly not! For if I rebuild what I tore down, I prove myself to be a transgressor. -Galatians 2:15-18

      That is to say to Peter, “If you of all people, Peter, rebuild a sharp division between Jew and Gentile by removing yourself from table fellowship with Gentiles, you are rebuilding the barrier that you originally tore down. If you refuse to eat and worship with them, you rebuild the barrier that you originally tore down. You yourself were the first of the apostles to tear that separation down. If now you are putting it back up, then you are admitting that you were wrong in the first place, and you are proving yourself to have been living in sin and transgression.” – The Holy Epistle to the Galatians by D. Thomas Lancaster

      Shalom

    368. Sheila
      May 26th, 2014 @ 8:25 am

      Bo,

      I heard Lancaster say, “If you refuse to EAT and worship with them, you rebuild the barrier that you originally tore down. You yourself were the first of the apostles to TEAR THAT SEPARATION DOWN. If now you are putting it back up, then you are admitting that you were wrong in the first place, and you are proving yourself to have been living in sin and transgression.”

      I’ll have my opinion on it later as I’m trying to get some things done before the thunderstorms coming today.

    369. Bo
      May 26th, 2014 @ 9:02 am

      Sheila,

      Did you hear how he prefaced those statements?

      “If you of all people, Peter, rebuild a sharp division between Jew and Gentile by removing yourself from table fellowship with Gentiles, you are rebuilding the barrier that you originally tore down.”

      Or just the last part of what he said?

    370. Bo
      May 26th, 2014 @ 9:11 am

      Sheila,

      Did you see the other takes from the other sources? Do you see that this passage is difficult for scholars to agree on? Do you think that Paul is speaking hypothetically when he says “I tore down”? Or do you think that he is still rebuking Peter and actually speaking of him? Or do you think he is only speaking for himself? Or some other option? Do you think that he tore it down, or did Peter, or did YHWH tear something down? If YHWH tore something down, why does Paul say I?

      I will await your response and then see if I have anything to add. But just so you know, I have a different take than even the three above.

    371. Bo
      May 26th, 2014 @ 9:42 am

      Sheila,

      You wrote:
      “What feasts are you saying they’re keeping in the Millennium?”

      At least these that are mentioned specifically:

      Sabbath and New Moon

      Isa 66:23 And it shall come to pass, that from one new moon to another, and from one sabbath to another, shall all flesh come to worship before me, saith the LORD.

      Eze 46:1 Thus saith the Lord GOD; The gate of the inner court that looketh toward the east shall be shut the six working days; but on the sabbath it shall be opened, and in the day of the new moon it shall be opened.
      2 And the prince shall enter by the way of the porch of that gate without, and shall stand by the post of the gate, and the priests shall prepare his burnt offering and his peace offerings, and he shall worship at the threshold of the gate: then he shall go forth; but the gate shall not be shut until the evening.
      3 Likewise the people of the land shall worship at the door of this gate before the LORD in the sabbaths and in the new moons.

      Passover, Unleavened Bread, and Tabernacles

      Eze 45:
      21 In the first month, in the fourteenth day of the month, ye shall have the passover, a feast of seven days; unleavened bread shall be eaten.
      22 And upon that day shall the prince prepare for himself and for all the people of the land a bullock for a sin offering.
      23 And seven days of the feast he shall prepare a burnt offering to the LORD, seven bullocks and seven rams without blemish daily the seven days; and a kid of the goats daily for a sin offering.
      24 And he shall prepare a meat offering of an ephah for a bullock, and an ephah for a ram, and an hin of oil for an ephah.
      25 In the seventh month, in the fifteenth day of the month, shall he do the like in the feast of the seven days, according to the sin offering, according to the burnt offering, and according to the meat offering, and according to the oil.

      Zec 14:16 And it shall come to pass, that every one that is left of all the nations which came against Jerusalem shall even go up from year to year to worship the King, the LORD of hosts, and to keep the feast of tabernacles.
      17 And it shall be, that whoso will not come up of all the families of the earth unto Jerusalem to worship the King, the LORD of hosts, even upon them shall be no rain.
      18 And if the family of Egypt go not up, and come not, that have no rain; there shall be the plague, wherewith the LORD will smite the heathen that come not up to keep the feast of tabernacles.
      19 This shall be the punishment of Egypt, and the punishment of all nations that come not up to keep the feast of tabernacles.

      Shalom

    372. Bo
      May 26th, 2014 @ 11:28 am

      Nicholas,

      You wrote many posts ago:
      “Bo, I already gave my response. The verses about the Commandments are redundant. I already explained that we do not believe that the Decalogue has been discarded. The kosher laws and circumcision, none of that is to be observed by those who are under the law of grace. Acts makes this very clear. That’s all there is to it.”

      How do you know that it is only the commandments in the Decalogue that are still in effect and that that is what is being spoken of by John and Paul when they say law? Transgression of the Law is different than transgression of the 10 commandments. The 10 commandments are actually called the 10 words or the testimony in scripture. YHWH’s law includes the 10 words, but the intricacies are much more far reaching. What about the greatest commandment and the second that is like unto it. (Love YHWH with your whole being and your neighbor as yourself.) Are they also in effect? What about cannibalism and homosexuality? Are they still forbidden? We are getting way outside the 10 words now. The passages are not redundant as you think. They tell us something…something that is different than what you believe. Let’s look closer.

      James 1
      22 But be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving your own selves.
      23 For if any be a hearer of the word, and not a doer, he is like unto a man beholding his natural face in a glass:
      24 For he beholdeth himself, and goeth his way, and straightway forgetteth what manner of man he was.
      25 But whoso looketh into the perfect law of liberty, and continueth therein, he being not a forgetful hearer, but a doer of the work, this man shall be blessed in his deed.

      What law was James speaking of…the perfect one. David had something to say about this.

      Psalm 19
      7 The law of the LORD is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple.
      8 The statutes of the LORD are right, rejoicing the heart: the commandment of the LORD is pure, enlightening the eyes.
      9 The fear of the LORD is clean, enduring for ever: the judgments of the LORD are true and righteous altogether.
      10 More to be desired are they than gold, yea, than much fine gold: sweeter also than honey and the honeycomb.
      11 Moreover by them is thy servant warned: and in keeping of them there is great reward.
      12 Who can understand his errors? cleanse thou me from secret faults.
      13 Keep back thy servant also from presumptuous sins; let them not have dominion over me: then shall I be upright, and I shall be innocent from the great transgression.
      14 Let the words of my mouth, and the meditation of my heart, be acceptable in thy sight, O LORD, my strength, and my redeemer.

      As you can see, James is borrowing his terminology from David. YHWH’s law contains the testimony (10 words), statutes, commandments, and judgments. James says that we are to be doers of the word, not of just the 10 commandments. He says that we will be blessed in our deed if we obey it all. David says it in different words, “Moreover by them is thy servant warned: and in keeping of them there is great reward.” James says that we deceive ourselves if we do not take heed to all the words of YHWH. David says that we will have hidden faults and presumptuous sin that may go as far as committing the great transgression if we neglect to pay attention to all aspects of YHWH’s word.

      Matthew 5
      19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

      Messiah is referring to all the law and the prophets when He makes the above statement. In context, He says not one of the smallest marks in the law will be removed until heaven and earth pass away and everything is fulfilled. Those that pay close attention to even the smallest of commandments and put them into practice and teach others to do the same are to be rewarded with a high position in His kingdom when it comes to earth for a thousand years. Those that refuse even the smallest of rules will be least in the kingdom.

      To be continued:

    373. Bo
      May 26th, 2014 @ 11:29 am

      Continued from above:

      Matthew 7
      21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
      22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
      23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.
      24 Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock:
      25 And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon a rock.
      26 And every one that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand:
      27 And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell: and great was the fall of it.
      28 And it came to pass, when Jesus had ended these sayings, the people were astonished at his doctrine:

      So what is the will of the Father? Is it not everything contained in His word? The laws and statutes and judgments and commandments? Do those that relegate these things to obscurity enter the Kingdom of heaven according to verse 21 above? “Depart from me ye workers of iniquity” is another phrase from the Psalms. It has a context.

      Psalm 119
      113 I hate vain thoughts: but thy law do I love.
      114 Thou art my hiding place and my shield: I hope in thy word.
      115 Depart from me, ye evildoers: for I will keep the commandments of my God.
      116 Uphold me according unto thy word, that I may live: and let me not be ashamed of my hope.
      117 Hold thou me up, and I shall be safe: and I will have respect unto thy statutes continually.
      118 Thou hast trodden down all them that err from thy statutes: for their deceit is falsehood.
      119 Thou puttest away all the wicked of the earth like dross: therefore I love thy testimonies.
      120 My flesh trembleth for fear of thee; and I am afraid of thy judgments.

      Once again it includes all of YHWH’s law…His word, His commandments, His statutes, His testimonies, and His judgments. It is a vain thought to think that YHWH’s law does not apply to us. Grace is not a license to sin according to Paul. He also says that our faith does not void YHWH’s law. He says both of these things in the strongest of terms. Both Paul and John state that transgression of the law is sin.

      So the words of Messiah are a warning to us to be doers of YHWH’s word/will/law lest we be least in the kingdom or if we slip too far…barred from the kingdom. Our houses are built on the sand if we do not take heed to Messiah telling us to honor His Father by obeying Him. This doctrine was shocking to those that originally heard Him. Likely you are also astonished, but there is a reason that James and Y’shua used phrases from the Psalms to take us back to the ideas of the original writers and more so to the ideas of the inspirer of those words.

      It is much better for us to think of all of YHWH’s commandments when we see the word commandment, rather than comforting ourselves with the idea that we are just fine if we keep just 10…well actually only 8 ½ to 9.

      So when you say, “The kosher laws and circumcision, none of that is to be observed by those who are under the law of grace. Acts makes this very clear. That’s all there is to it.”, you are forgetting that that there is a context in which Acts was written. The context is that new believing gentiles are not to be compelled to be circumcised to be saved. They are not made to know all the commandments before being baptized. They are saved by grace and are expected to grow by hearing the word and putting it into practice, like James says.

      And there is no such thing in scripture as the “law of grace.” There is law and there is grace. They go hand in hand. There is no such thing as grace where there is no law to be broken. Grace gives us a new chance because we have already broken the law. The law has not changed. It still tells us when we sin. Sin is the transgression of the law. Grace makes it where we can be pardoned. It gives us a new start when we repent. The past sin is no longer held against us so we have hope that we can receive reward for doing what is right.

      To be continued below:

    374. Bo
      May 26th, 2014 @ 11:30 am

      Continued from above:

      Without grace we are doomed and hopeless because we are already condemned because we have already broken the law. It is too late and there is no good reason to do what is right. We just as well live for ourselves and enjoy the pleasures of sin for the season of our life. It will be all the pleasure that we will get, because hell awaits us. So Grace empowers us to do what is right…to not break the law. It gives us incentive to repent and to become obedient to YHWH’s law. For faith and grace do not make the law void.

      1Jo 3:4 Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.
      Ro 3:31 Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.
      Ro 6:15 What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid.

      Ga 5:4 Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace.

      Heb 10:28 He that despised Moses’ law died without mercy under two or three witnesses:
      29 Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?

      Heb 12:14 Follow peace with all men, and holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord:
      15 Looking diligently lest any man fail of the grace of God; lest any root of bitterness springing up trouble you, and thereby many be defiled;

      Falling from grace is when we trust our own actions to save us. It is salvation by works. But failing the grace of YHWH or doing despite to the Spirit of grace is when we think that we can continue to walk in sin/transgression of the law, doing what we want, and not be held accountable. So we are not allowed to trust in our ability to do what is right nor are we to trust in our ideas of what is right. Grace only works if we repent of our sin/transgression of the law. The root of bitterness spoken of above has a context also. What is it according to scripture?

      De 29:18 Be sure there is no man, woman, clan, or tribe among you today whose heart turns away from the LORD our God to go and worship the gods of those nations. Be sure there is no root among you bearing poisonous and bitter fruit.
      19 When someone hears the words of this oath, he may bless himself in his mind, thinking, ‘I will have peace even though I follow my /own/ stubborn heart.’ This will lead to the destruction of the well-watered /land/ as well as the dry /land/. (HCSB)

      The bitter root that grows till it defiles many is thinking that you can continue in our own way without consequence. It is continuing to break the law, thinking that grace will cover it and that there will be no judgment. It actually spreads like leaven and ruins the lives of those around us. It gives them the false hope that YHWH’s word/ law does not apply. It causes congregations or a societies to be judged because it cannot be left to continue. It defiles many…it has defiled many. It is why the call in Revelation is to come out of the whore (the current church system, Catholic and protestant alike) and not continue to partake of her sins/transgressions of the law so that we will not receive of her plagues.

      Re 18:4 And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues.

      You and Sheila have been noted to believe that the Catholic and protestant churches are in sin and getting worse. It is time to come out. It is time to do the will of the Father and to stop letting the root of bitterness defile your thinking. Sin is still the transgression of the law. Be doers of the word instead of just reading it, lest you continue to deceive yourselves. Do be ones that know Him and are known of Him.

      Mt 7:23 and then I will acknowledge to them, that—I never knew you, depart from me ye who are working lawlessness. (YLT)
      1Jo 2:3 And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments.
      4 He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.

      Shalom

    375. Bo
      May 26th, 2014 @ 12:42 pm

      Benjamin,

      Da 1:17 As for these four children, God gave them knowledge and skill in all learning and wisdom: and Daniel had understanding in all visions and dreams.

      Da 9:21 Yea, whiles I was speaking in prayer, even the man Gabriel, whom I had seen in the vision at the beginning, being caused to fly swiftly, touched me about the time of the evening oblation.
      22 And he informed me, and talked with me, and said, O Daniel, I am now come forth to give thee skill and understanding.

      There is a reason that people in the scripture sought out people like Joseph and Daniel to interpret dreams, and they even needed help from YHWH to get it right. The dreamers and the dream interpreters would just make a mess, if they did it themselves. They might take something literally that was meant symbolically. Here are a few questions for you.

      In Numbers 24, does YHWH really have buckets to pour water mixed with see out? Will Israel really eat nations? Is that a command that gives them permission to be cannibals? Are people now clean to eat? Does a real star come out of Jacob? Does a physical scepter rise out of Israel? What kind of nests did the Kenites live in? Were they birds?

      In Daniel 4, is there a real tree that grows into heaven? Is it really cut down?
      In Daniel 7, do 4 strange looking beasts really come out of the ocean physically?
      In Daniel 8, is there a real horn that casts real stars to the real ground?

      Re 10:8 And the voice which I heard from heaven spake unto me again, and said, Go and take the little book which is open in the hand of the angel which standeth upon the sea and upon the earth.
      9 And I went unto the angel, and said unto him, Give me the little book. And he said unto me, Take it, and eat it up; and it shall make thy belly bitter, but it shall be in thy mouth sweet as honey.

      So are books now to be considered a new form of desert that will make us sick? Did John start eating books, or was there a singular meaning to the command? Was the command about any physical book? Did John think that there was a physical meaning beyond the interpretation that the angel gave? Should we interpret this incident to mean something other than the given interpretation? Should we think that the dreams and visions of Daniel, Joseph, Pharaoh, John, and Peter are to be taken literally, especially in light of the fact that we are given the meaning of these dreams and visions from YHWH and His messengers?

      Peter was in doubt that the vision could mean for him to indiscriminately kill and eat anything and everything…even after 3 times of hearing, “rise, kill and eat.” He knew better than to jump down off of the roof and run to the nearest pig farm and gorge himself. He knew that the vision was not to be taken literally. Then YHWH gives him the interpretation. It is that any gentile that YHWH has cleansed should not be considered to be unclean. That is the only YHWH given interpretation. Just like all symbolic dreams and visions, it doesn’t apply literally.

      Ac 10:28 And he said unto them, Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation; but God hath shewed me that I should not call any man common or unclean.

      Peter was a product of Judaism. He considered all gentiles and their houses unclean. He said that is was unlawful for a Jew to go into a gentile’s home. It is a Jewish commandment of men that he is referring to, for there is no such command in scripture. He was racist and prejudiced against gentiles.

      Peter went into the house of a gentile and ate with him. We do not know the menu. Probably some bread and maybe some wine. Even that is speculation. There is no statement that shows that he ate any unclean animal flesh. If the passage is supposed to teach that unclean animals are now acceptable for food, there are 2 long chapters that could have just said so. It could have been recorded that Peter and those with him had their first fried frog legs or clam chowder. But the scripture says no such thing.

      It is still a Jewish law and commandment of men for them to not eat with gentiles. It still is not a law found in scripture. It is still a law found in scripture that there are unclean animals that we are not to eat. It is a Christian law and commandment of men that we can eat such things. Religion has a hard time just accepting what scripture says.

      Noah knew what animals were clean and unclean. He collected 3.5 times as many clean ones as unclean ones. He offered sacrifices of the clean animals, but not the unclean ones. Did he eat unclean ones? The scripture never says that he did. Did he eat any clean ones? The scripture never says. One thing we do know is that only clean animals can be sacrificed to YHWH and He commanded His people not to eat unclean animals. Another thing that we know is that many of the sacrifices are to be eaten by the priests, Levites and the one that brings the offering and he can share it with his friends and family. Is clean and unclean only in regards to sacrifices? No. It is also in regards to eating. Israel was to be YHWH’s priests. They were to represent YHWH. Does YHWH eat unclean animals? Does he think that roast pork is a sweet smelling savor? Well, He came in the flesh and didn’t eat anything unclean. Does it represent YHWH when we eat unclean animals? If Messiah had done such a thing, would it be a proper representation of His Father? We are supposed to be YHWH’s priests. We are supposed to represent YHWH. We are supposed to walk in the steps of Messiah. He did not sin/transgress the law.

      There are other things that YHWH says are unclean. Is it just the “Old Law” that does not apply or is it still the right way to represent YHWH? Did these laws come into existence only for temple worship?

      Ge 35:2 Then Jacob said unto his household, and to all that were with him, Put away the strange gods that are among you, and be clean, and change your garments:
      3 And let us arise, and go up to Bethel; and I will make there an altar unto God, who answered me in the day of my distress, and was with me in the way which I went.
      4 And they gave unto Jacob all the strange gods which were in their hand, and all their earrings which were in their ears; and Jacob hid them under the oak which was by Shechem.

      Ex 19:10 And the LORD said unto Moses, Go unto the people, and sanctify them to day and to morrow, and let them wash their clothes,
      11 And be ready against the third day: for the third day the LORD will come down in the sight of all the people upon mount Sinai..
      14 And Moses went down from the mount unto the people, and sanctified the people; and they washed their clothes.
      15 And he said unto the people, Be ready against the third day: come not at your wives.

      The above are examples of clean laws that existed before temple worship. Clean and unclean have existed from long before the Law of Moses.

      Ge 26:5 Because that Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws.

      Abraham kept YHWH’s laws and statutes and commandments and he obeyed YHWH’s voice. Why do we think that we only have to obey His voice and ignore the things that have been YHWH’s laws and commandments and statutes from the beginning?

      Jer 16:19 O LORD, my strength, and my fortress, and my refuge in the day of affliction, the Gentiles shall come unto thee from the ends of the earth, and shall say, Surely our fathers have inherited lies, vanity, and things wherein there is no profit.

      1Pe 1: 14 As obedient children, not fashioning yourselves according to the former lusts in your ignorance:
      15 But as he which hath called you is holy, so be ye holy in all manner of conversation;
      16 Because it is written, Be ye holy; for I am holy.
      17 And if ye call on the Father, who without respect of persons judgeth according to every man’s work, pass the time of your sojourning here in fear:
      18 Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers;

      So we can take heed and live holy and clean lives according to what YHWH has commanded or we can go by the lies and traditions and commandments of men that we have inherited.

      Jer 5:31 The prophets prophesy falsely, and the priests bear rule by their means; and my people love to have it so: and what will ye do in the end thereof?

      Let’s not put words in YHWH’s mouth, especially when He has been explicit about the interpretation of a vision and what is clean and unclean.

      De 4:6 Keep therefore and do them; for this is your wisdom and your understanding in the sight of the nations, which shall hear all these statutes, and say, Surely this great nation is a wise and understanding people.
      7 For what nation is there so great, who hath God so nigh unto them, as the LORD our God is in all things that we call upon him for?
      8 And what nation is there so great, that hath statutes and judgments so righteous as all this law, which I set before you this day?
      9 Only take heed to thyself, and keep thy soul diligently, lest thou forget the things which thine eyes have seen, and lest they depart from thy heart all the days of thy life: but teach them thy sons, and thy sons’ sons;

      Pr 3:5 Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding.
      6 In all thy ways acknowledge him, and he shall direct thy paths.
      7 Be not wise in thine own eyes: fear the LORD, and depart from evil.

      Are we really wise…or just wise in our own eyes?

      Shalom

    376. Sheila
      May 26th, 2014 @ 1:05 pm

      Bo,

      The incident that took place with Peter and Paul is the continuation of what those “judaizers” were teaching, namely that Gentiles had to be circumcised and keep the law of Moses. Paul tells them that that is NOT the revelation that he had received of Jesus when he went to Sinai in the desert. Perhaps it was even when he was “caught up to the third heaven” and heard things he couldn’t even speak of. Regardless, he’s dumbfounded and will set them back on the right track. Gentiles do NOT need to be circumcised NOR keep the law of Moses. You have to completely mutilate the text in order to come away believing that they do. In fact, he makes clear that even the Jews are now set at liberty concerning the law. “For Christ is the end of the law [concerning] righteousness for all who believe.” (Rom 10:4) And, “Those of you who are justified by works of the law, you are fallen from Grace.” (Gal 5:4)

      Gal 2:1
      Then after fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, and also took Titus with me. 2 And I went up by revelation, and communicated to them that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but privately to those who were of reputation, lest by any means I might run, or had run, in vain. 3 Yet NOT EVEN TITUS who was with me, being a Greek, WAS COMPELLED TO BE CURCUMCISED. 4 And this occurred because of FALSE BROTHERS secretly brought in (who came in by stealth to SPY OUT OUR LIBERTY which we have in Christ Jesus, that they MIGHT BRING US INTO BONDAGE), 5 to whom we DID NOT YIELD SUBMISSION even for an hour, THAT THE TRUTH OF THE GOSPEL might continue with you.

      Peter was rebuked in no uncertain terms for EATING WITH the Gentiles UNTIL the judaizers came around. He even had Barnabas carried away with their nonsense and hypocrisy. He says “certain men” (not from the decision of the council in Jerusalem) came to spy out the LIBERTY that was now theirs. They believed in the Gosel yet were clinging to the old way and didn’t want to accept that the Gospel displaced the law of Moses. What was this liberty that they now had if not to fellowship in taking meals with the Gentiles and that the center wall of partition–that which divided Jew from Gentile—THE LAW–not just the sacrificial system but the dietary laws– was now torn down? Paul asked, “Why would I build again the wall that was torn down?” He won’t and neither should Peter even as Peter was the Apostle to the Jews he knew better after having received the revelation given to Paul. You have twisted the plain reading for your own purposes because you spend entirely too much time at the foot of Mt. Sinai. You need to move into the promised land and even beyond that to the time of Messiah. Messiah’s death and resurrection was much more monumental than you acknowledge and it supersedes the law of Moses. I know you do this because you truly believe that’s what pleases God. “Is God pleased with thousands of rams and rivers of oil?” “He has shown you what is good and what the Lord requires of you, to do justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.” (Mic 6:7-8) You might as well say that those are the laws of Christ. There was no mercy under the law of Moses. You know the law and the prophets are summed up in this: “To love the Lord, your God, with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength, and to love your neighbor as yourself.” Do you see sacrifices and circumcision in that statement? No.

      Let me ask you a question, do you believe the sacrificial system of atonement is now null and void? If you do, why are you holding on to the dietary laws together with the fringe laws of articles of clothing? The law is “all of it” and not a matter of picking and choosing which you think you can actually pull off. It’s been made fun of but just to prove a point, why don’t you stone disobedient children? The Torah says to do it. But you haven’t done it, have you? You’re picking and choosing.

      Gal 2:16
      “knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law but by faith in Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we might be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law; for by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified.
      Psa 143:2
      And enter not into judgment with thy servant: for in thy sight shall no man living be justified.

      17 “But if, while we seek to be justified by Christ, we ourselves also are found sinners, is Christ therefore a minister of sin? Certainly not! 18 For if I build again those things which I destroyed, I make myself a transgressor. 19 For I through the law died to the law that I might live to God. 20 I have been crucified with Christ; it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself for me. 21 I do not set aside the grace of God; for if righteousness comes through the law, then Christ died in vain.”

      Maybe you’ll better hear the words of Jameison, Faussett and Brown as you’ve heard many of my words before.

      “16. not justified by the works of the law–as the GROUND of justification. “The works of the law” are those which have the law for their object–which are wrought to fulfil the law [ALFORD].
      but by–Translate, “But only (in no other way save) through faith in Jesus Christ,” as the MEAN and instrument of justification.
      Jesus Christ–In the second case, read with the oldest manuscripts, “Christ Jesus,” the Messiahship coming into prominence in the case of Jewish believers, as “Jesus” does in the first case, referring to the general proposition.
      justified by the faith of Christ–that is, by Christ, the object of faith, as the ground of our justification.
      for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified–He rests his argument on this as an axiom in theology, referring to Psa 143:2, “Moses and Jesus Christ; The law and the promise; Doing and believing; Works and faith; Wages and the gift; The curse and the blessing–are represented as diametrically opposed” [BENGEL]. The moral law is, in respect to justification, more legal than the ceremonial, which was an elementary and preliminary Gospel: So “Sinai” ( Gal 4:24 ), which is more famed for the Decalogue than for the ceremonial law, is made pre-eminently the type of legal bondage. Thus, justification by the law, whether the moral or ceremonial, is excluded ( Rom 3:20 ).”

      “17. Greek, “But if, seeking to be justified IN (that is, in believing union with) Christ (who has in the Gospel theory fulfilled the law for us), we (you and I) ourselves also were found (in your and my former communion with Gentiles) sinners (such as from the Jewish standpoint that now we resume, we should be regarded, since we have cast aside the law, thus having put ourselves in the same category as the Gentiles, who, being without the law, are, in the Jewish view, “sinners,” Gal 2:15 ), is therefore Christ, the minister of sin?” (Are we to admit the conclusion, in this case inevitable, that Christ having failed to justify us by faith, so has become to us the minister of sin, by putting us in the position of “sinners,” as the Judaic theory, if correct, would make us, along with all others who are “without the law,” Rom 2:14 1Cr 9:21; and with whom, by eating with them, we have identified ourselves?) The Christian mind revolts from so shocking a conclusion, and so, from the theory which would result in it. The whole sin lies, not with Christ, but with him who would necessitate such a blasphemous inference. But his false theory, though “seeking” from Christ, we have not “found” salvation (in contradiction to Christ’s own words, Mat 7:7 ), but “have been ourselves also (like the Gentiles) found” to be “sinners,” by having entered into communion with Gentiles ( Gal 2:12 ).”

      Do you see, Bo? The law was never a end in itself. It was made to point us to the need for a Savior who is Messiah, Jesus. For if the law was able to make a person righteous, then Christ died in vain! As I’ve said before, He could have showed up, said, “Keep the Law of Moses–or else!” and then gone on back to Heaven, in which case we wouldn’t have known who in the world He was… Christ died for exactly that reason, no man will be declared righteous by works of the law–period. You want to make it, “and” … with faith. You can’t.

      Now, before you go accusing us of living in sin because we’re justified by faith, just go look in the mirror and see your cropped little head (your own description :) ) looking back at you feeling all proud of yourself and then compare yourself to the perfect righteousness of Messiah (the second YHWH and second Person of the Trinity) and declare yourself righteous before Him. What did you come up with? “Go ahead, I’ll wait on you…” :)

    377. Bo
      May 26th, 2014 @ 1:31 pm

      Sheila,

      I never said that anyone could become righteous by keeping the law. I have always upheld that whoever is righteous by keeping the law has fallen from grace. Messiah is the end of the law for righteousness is something I fully believe in. He is the goal of the law for righteousness. He is not the end of the law or of the law doing what it was intended to do…reveal sin. Righteousness is by grace. The law just tells us when we are not acting the way we should. It can never produce righteousness. Grace does that by empowering us to obey YHWH’s every word.

      Got to get to work. I’ll be back for more fun and excitement many hours from now.

      PS I didn’t read your whole post as I am off to work. I just couldn’t let your accusation of me mutilating the text stand uncontested for 5 or 6 hours.

    378. Sheila
      May 26th, 2014 @ 1:48 pm

      Bo,

      Yeah, well, Adam and Eve had only one commandment and they blew it! The Bible says Abraham “believed God” and was counted righteous. What can anyone do with 613? How many have you whittled it down to?

      Scripture says, “Until Shiloh comes” and again, “the Lord shall raise up a Prophet like myself, Him you shall hear”

      Deut 18:15 “The Lord your God will raise up for you a Prophet like me from your midst, from your brethren. Him you shall hear, 16 according to all you desired of the Lord your God in Horeb in the day of the assembly, saying, ‘Let me not hear again the voice of the Lord my God, nor let me see this great fire anymore, lest I die.’

      17 “And the Lord said to me: ‘What they have spoken is good. 18 I will raise up for them a Prophet like you from among their brethren, and will put My words in His mouth, and He shall speak to them all that I command Him. 19 And it shall be that whoever will not hear My words, which He speaks in My name, I will require it of him.”

      You’re not hearing Him. He has spoken through Hi Son who then spoke through the Apostles in the Name of YHWH. He came in the Name of YHWH. He IS YHWH!

    379. Sheila
      May 26th, 2014 @ 1:51 pm

      Bo,

      Alright. I’ll check in after dinner.

    380. Sheila
      May 26th, 2014 @ 6:45 pm

      Bo,

      Just for the record, when I was saved, I guess about 7 years ago now, I thought just like you do. I got lost in the First Testament for the longest time because of the Words of Jesus. I finally realized that I wasn’t Jewish and then I found the Epistles which tied it all together and I could then actually start living a full and peaceful life without fear. I did it for the same reason, I wanted to please God out of thankfulness for what He’d given me. It pleased Him that I trusted in His Son and in His Righteousness to save me to the uttermost as there was no doing it on my own. I’m now being conformed to His image on a daily basis and I’m not going back to Sinai.

    381. jon
      May 26th, 2014 @ 7:03 pm

      Sheila, Bo, this is a record for a thread on this website. Have either of you read Hypergrace?
      It would be interesting to bring that into the conversation. Keep going, I am enjoying this conversation.

    382. jon
      May 26th, 2014 @ 7:08 pm

      Re pork conversation- In the new millenium there will not be a blessing over the pork roast. Why eat it now? I do not condemn anyone who eats it, but it is an interesting topic with like minded people. There is a good reason not to eat unclean meats, and a spiritual blessing to be had if avoiding meats not made for human consumption.

    383. Sheila
      May 26th, 2014 @ 8:58 pm

      Jon,

      What, no BBQ?!! I’ll just invite Peter, he’ll eat it.

    384. Sheila
      May 26th, 2014 @ 9:04 pm

      Jon,

      I got the book but haven’t had time to read it yet. Are you saying there’s already a thread started about it? Could you give the URL, please?

    385. Bo
      May 26th, 2014 @ 9:13 pm

      Sheila,

      You wrote:
      “17 “And the Lord said to me: ‘What they have spoken is good. 18 I will raise up for them a Prophet like you from among their brethren, and will put My words in His mouth, and He shall speak to them all that I command Him. 19 And it shall be that whoever will not hear My words, which He speaks in My name, I will require it of him.”

      You’re not hearing Him. He has spoken through Hi Son who then spoke through the Apostles in the Name of YHWH. He came in the Name of YHWH. He IS YHWH!”

      Who is not listening to him???? Here is what He said.

      Mt 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
      18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
      19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

      I accept this fully. You think that YHWH’s commandments do not matter. You are willing to ignore most of the least and at least one of the big ten…at least that is what I have gathered.

      Heaven and earth are still here and there are many things in the law and the prophets that are yet to be fulfilled.

    386. Sheila
      May 26th, 2014 @ 9:24 pm

      Bo,

      Don’t rush to answer this question, but, why then did Jesus go to the cross?

    387. Bo
      May 26th, 2014 @ 9:48 pm

      Sheila,

      You wrote:
      “Just for the record, when I was saved, I guess about 7 years ago now, I thought just like you do.”

      Well…I was saved 35 years ago and I thought just like you do now. About 20 years ago I hurt my back severely and could not walk for months. I was in terrible pain and walked all bent over for years and years. During this time I spent over 8 hrs. a day studying scripture on my Mac laptop. From scripture and a Strong’s concordance I came to much of what I believe now…from comparing scripture with scripture testing and comparing everything from both testimonies. My beliefs are founded on the whole word of YHWH. Nothing contradicts from Genesis to Revelation. Nothing is at odds either. I refuse to twist what Paul says to be at variance with the rest of scripture. I refuse to use one passage to void another. Messiah, the Son does not have a different Law or view than His Father…they are one.

      The law never saved anyone from Genesis to Revelation, but those that were saved by grace from Genesis to Revelation kept YHWH’s law. The ones that were not saved refused or could not keep it. That is just the way it is with a carnal minded man. He cannot subject Himself to YHWH’s law.

      Ro 8:7 Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.

      Ro 3:31 Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.

      Ro 6:15 What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid.

      Ro 7:7 What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.

      What part of “God forbid” do you not understand? The law is not sin. You are saying that it is sin to keep the law. It still reveals what is sin. Grace does not allow us to sin/break the law. Faith does not void the law. The carnal mind will come up with every conceivable excuse to not have to keep YHWH’s law. It will even read the very verses that I just quoted and not understand plain Greek or English. It cannot. It is deceived into thinking that one can read YHWH’s law and not put it into practice and be just fine, contrary to James.

      Jas 1:22 But be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving your own selves.
      23 For if any be a hearer of the word, and not a doer, he is like unto a man beholding his natural face in a glass:
      24 For he beholdeth himself, and goeth his way, and straightway forgetteth what manner of man he was.
      25 But whoso looketh into the perfect law of liberty, and continueth therein, he being not a forgetful hearer, but a doer of the work, this man shall be blessed in his deed.

      The carnal mind just cannot believe that YHWH’s law is perfect and that keeping it will bring blessing. It thinks that the law is bondage instead of a law of liberty. It thinks that it is not perfect. It just cannot accept the whole word of YHWH. It has to pick and choose just the things that it is comfortable with or that the society is comfortable with or that its church is comfortable with. So it deceives itself and thinks that those that do not do what YWHH’s says are righteous when they are not. But it has to believe this or it would condemn itself.

      1Jo 3:4 Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.
      5 And ye know that he was manifested to take away our sins; and in him is no sin.
      6 Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not: whosoever sinneth hath not seen him, neither known him.
      7 Little children, let no man deceive you: he that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous.

      Sin is the transgression of the law and those that continue to sin/transgress the law do not know him. It is plain, but the carnal mind just cannot receive it.

      The new covenant is supposed to make us want to keep YHWH’s law. That is what having it written on our hearts means. When it is written on stone and is forced upon us it is the ministration of death. When it is something that we want to do because of YHWH’s spirit within us, it is the ministration of life. If we do not want to do it, we are carnal minded.

      Jeremiah 31
      31 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:
      32 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD:
      33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.

      I do not expect you to get it. YHWH will have to reveal it to you. You might try asking Him to do just that. Ask him to renew your mind so that it is not carnal so that you can begin to agree with YHWH’s law and become obedient.

      Shalom

    388. Bo
      May 26th, 2014 @ 10:16 pm

      Sheila,

      You wrote:
      “Don’t rush to answer this question, but, why then did Jesus go to the cross?”

      Well it wasn’t to make everything His Father said null and void…that is for sure.

      We went to purchase us back from being slaves to sin so that we could be free to love and serve Him. He paid our bride price so that we could be arrayed in fine linen which is the righteous acts of the saints. So that He could have a spotless bride that is washed in His word and makes herself ready by submitting to his every word. He went because He loves us…so that he could have a people zealous for good works.

      Tit 2:14 Who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works.

      What good works? The ones that were written down long ago (before ordained) that we should walk in them.

      Eph 2:10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.

      Where do we find out what those works are? In the scripture that Timothy knew when he was a child. (Hint: none of the “New Testament” was written at that time.) It makes us wise unto salvation…smart in living a saved life.

      2Ti 3:15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
      16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
      17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

      He went because we needed Him to go. Because we were dead in trespasses and sins and could not help ourselves.

      Should I go on. You know the same verses that I do.

      Shalom

    389. Sheila
      May 26th, 2014 @ 10:23 pm

      Bo,

      Perhaps you already had that prepared, whether or not I’d still like an answer as to why I need to believe in Jesus and why did He go to the Cross?

      Eph 2:

      14 For He Himself is our peace, who has made both one, and has broken down the middle wall of separation, 15 having abolished in His flesh the enmity, that is, the law of commandments contained in ordinances, so as to create in Himself one new man from the two, thus making peace, 16 and that He might reconcile them both to God in one body through the cross, thereby putting to death the enmity. 17 And He came and preached peace to you who were afar off and to those who were near. 18 For through Him we both have access by one Spirit to the Father.

    390. Bo
      May 26th, 2014 @ 10:28 pm

      Sheila,

      Nothing was prepared. All spur of the moment. I think I answered you in post 388.

    391. Bo
      May 26th, 2014 @ 10:30 pm

      Sheila,

      What specific laws in Torah can you think of that keep Jews and gentiles separated?

    392. Sheila
      May 26th, 2014 @ 10:58 pm

      Bo,

      Let’s just agree to disagree on those points because we’ve not convinced each other in over three years of discussing it. It seems to come up regardless of where the conversation starts and that’s not fair to others who are discussing the topic at hand. Not just that but then Dr. Brown will step in and shut it down. I understand that you believe that even though we’re Gentiles we need to keep the law of Moses. I strongly disagree but let’s leave it at that and if it comes up again, other than under the heading of “Do we need to keep the law of Moses?” I’ll have to ignore it.

      Deal? I don’t want to be always at odds with you because you can be down right funny and you bring a lot of different ways of seeing things to the conversation. So, let’s make peace between us knowing how the other feels about it. Okay?

    393. Ray
      May 26th, 2014 @ 11:05 pm

      According to Eph 2:14 (KJV) what is it that the Lord has broken down that separated Israel from the Gentile believers, and what was the enmity between the Jew and the Gentile?

      Now if we be for Christ, should we seek to build up again that which he has taken down?

    394. Ray
      May 26th, 2014 @ 11:10 pm

      I didn’t even see # 389.

    395. Bo
      May 26th, 2014 @ 11:11 pm

      Sheila,

      Fine with me, but I just wonder what someone does with the scriptures that I post that are so obviously pointing in one direction. All one has to do is search “good works” or “God forbid” or “unclean” or “new moon” or “sabbath” or, or, or. It just becomes so obvious. That is the way I started. Then I started to look up the Greek and Hebrew word numbers and search those and compare the contexts of every reference. A really amazing one is the root of bitterness, just look up gall and wormwood and bitterness and root and any other thing in the passages that apply. Read and think and read and think and be amazed. I guess I just love puzzles.

      Shalom

    396. Bo
      May 26th, 2014 @ 11:12 pm

      Ray,

      Can you think of any laws or commandments in Torah that keep Jews and gentiles separated?

    397. Sheila
      May 26th, 2014 @ 11:19 pm

      Ray,

      It was meant to come to you when it did. :) What do you think of the Millennial temple? Is it literal or no?

    398. Sheila
      May 26th, 2014 @ 11:22 pm

      Bo,

      That’s exactly how I started out studying Scripture. I would do word searches and read every verse and then start again. It is amazing! But don’t go there… :)

    399. Nicholas
      May 26th, 2014 @ 11:22 pm

      Hi everyone,

      I lost track of the thread. If there were any points I did not address sufficiently, or if you have any other objections to the Catholic perspective on things, let me know.

      PS: The Millennium is not really a major issue for me, to be honest, since the Church has no official position about it, but we reject the notion that a Third Temple will appear in Jerusalem, since the Body of Christ is the Temple. (A temple will appear in Jerusalem, but it will not be God’s Temple.)

      Thanks.

      Good debate.

    400. Bo
      May 26th, 2014 @ 11:29 pm

      Nicholas,

      In case you didn’t see it, I posted to you here: http://www.lineoffireradio.com/2014/05/16/dr-brown-answers-your-questions-65/comment-page-8/#comment-816169

      Just click and the link will take you right there.

      Shalom

    401. Sheila
      May 26th, 2014 @ 11:44 pm

      Nicholas,

      It was a good debate and I enjoyed getting to know you and your perspective on things! Thanks for hanging out!

    402. Ray
      May 27th, 2014 @ 6:58 am

      Bo, which laws do you believe cause enmity between Jews and believing Gentiles today?

    403. Ray
      May 27th, 2014 @ 7:01 am

      Sheila, I don’t know anything about a millennial temple.

    404. Bo
      May 27th, 2014 @ 11:16 am

      Ray,

      The ones that are doctrines and commandments of men made by Christianity and Judaism.

    405. Nicholas
      May 27th, 2014 @ 12:11 pm

      Sheila,
      My pleasure, thank you.

      Bo,
      I’ll look into those posts.

    406. Sheila
      May 27th, 2014 @ 12:51 pm

      Benjamin,

      Thanks to you too! It seems you’d already thought things out pretty well. Good discussion!

    407. Sheila
      May 27th, 2014 @ 12:52 pm

      Bo,

      I wish I could answer your last questions but you know I can’t. Good discussion on the temple, though! Thanks!

    408. Benjamin Warkentin
      May 27th, 2014 @ 1:04 pm

      Sorry for my absence the last day or two. I am just dropping by to say that a few personal matters that have required my attention have arisen so I will not be able to follow and post much for a while.

      I’ll check things when I can.

      Grace and peace,
      -Benjamin

    409. Nicholas
      May 27th, 2014 @ 1:10 pm

      Bo,

      The law finds its goal in Christ. If we keep the commandments of Christ, (specifically, the commandment to love one another), we have kept the whole law, by virtue of our membership in the body of Christ, in the New Covenant, which is by the grace of God. Christ said, Treat others as you would have others treat you, and this summarizes the law and the prophets. This is the law which Christ imposes, not circumcision, not dietary restrictions.

      Otherwise, your understanding of the many exhortations in the New Testament which speak to the necessity of good works is quite similar to Catholic teaching. We do not accept Martin Luther’s “sola fide” theology. Faith, by itself, does not save us, only faith working through love, by grace.

      Ultimately, I have to ask a simple question: Do I have to be circumcised and keep the Kosher laws? If I do not do these things, am I in spiritual jeopardy? You have made it clear that these things are not binding on salvation, but that we must keep them anyway, in thanksgiving, or something to that effect.

    410. Bo
      May 27th, 2014 @ 2:37 pm

      Nicholas,

      “Spiritual jeopardy?” In a sense we are always in spiritual jeopardy and in a sense we are never in spiritual jeopardy. If we want to do what He says and want to know what He says, we are not in jeopardy, though we fail. If we do not want to do what He says or do not want to know what He says, we are in jeopardy. Each day and hour we are in a battle to either be informed and obedient or to settle for one or the other or neither. So our obedience is not really obedience if we do not bother with the all the facts. It is not obedience if we only obey part of what we know. Partial obedience and delayed obedience is rebellion…just ask my children. Ignorance of the law is no excuse. Staying in the complacency of “I know enough” is intent to disobey. It is very deceitful.

      It is not a matter of “have to” but “ought to.” “Have to” is very close or identical with trusting in works to save us. “Do not have to” is very close to or identical to sinning that grace may abound and voiding the law. “Ought to” is recognizing YHWH’s authority and our accountability to Him. It is humbling ourselves to YHWH and His word. It is rejecting the carnal mindedness that cannot be subject to YHWH’s law.

      To truly love does sum up the law and the prophets. If love is informed and real it fulfills the law and the prophets. “Fulfill” does not mean that it replaces them. It means that they are actuated in our lives. So John can rightly say:

      1 John 5
      2 By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God, and keep his commandments.
      3 For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous.

      We are really rightly loving our brothers only when we are devoted to YHWH and keeping His commandments. We are only really devoted to YHWH when we keep His commandments out of a heart that wants to keep them. If His commandments are “have to’s” for us, we are not in the right place spiritually. If they are “do not have to’s” for us, we are not in the right place either. It is only when they are “Ought to’s” and we want to that we are really loving Him or our neighbors. When I want to do the things that I ought to, I do end up fulfilling them…I end up doing them.

      The heart that wants to keep YHWH’s commandments, keeps them. The act of keeping them proves where our hearts really are. James says as much. We can never fulfill any commandment without doing it. Real love empowers us to act appropriately and constrains us to learn what is appropriate…not just one or the other.

      The test of us really loving others is not just that we want to do what is right, but that we want to know what is right to do. As a boy, how many little birds did I kill by wanting to love them? I did not know what was right to do…or I just couldn’t do it because of my love for my self in having fun with the baby bird. (A child is born with a carnal mind.) My love was not perfect because it was not founded on the righteous thing to do.

      This is also what happens with those that say they love each other, but cannot stop cohabiting outside of marriage. They cannot bring themselves to stop “loving” one another. They might say that they are fulfilling the law, because love fulfills the law. We would say that they must obey the law to only have physical relations inside of marriage to really fulfill love.

      So for love to fulfill the law, love must be filled full of the knowledge of what is right/righteous. We really do only love our brothers correctly when we are keeping YHWH’s commandments. Good intentions are not good enough when we ignore some of the facts or do not want to know them. And grace is there for the sincere in heart that do the best they know how. Grace is not there for those that are not sincere in heart no matter how much they do right. Sincerity is not a feeling of love, like I had for those birds or the unmarried couple previously discussed. It is the dedication to love in the best way possible and to ever be learning that way.

      You do not have to do any law to become saved. You do not have to do any law to stay saved. But to do either, you have to want to do what YHWH asks you to do and you have to want to learn what that is.

      Ex 19:8 And all the people answered together, and said, All that the LORD hath spoken we will do. And Moses returned the words of the people unto the LORD.

      De 5:29 O that there were such an heart in them, that they would fear me, and keep all my commandments always, that it might be well with them, and with their children for ever!

      The Rougher Way

      So many times I’ve heard it said,
      “The way to hell is smoothly paved
      with the high and good intentions
      of those that think they’re surely saved.”

      But those that turn around and climb
      the rocky path to heavens gates,
      though they stumble often times,
      for their good deeds, reward awaits.

      It’s NOT the heart or thought that counts,
      though pure and noble they may be,
      if the hands and feet attached
      are pointed toward the flaming sea.

      The only kind of faith that’s true
      is clearly seen by all around.
      It’s not belief or what we say
      but what we DO on earthly ground.

      The Creator of our world has said
      He fights against the ones that think
      that they can go their asphalt way
      proudly blinded to how low they sink.

      But grace and strength await the soul
      that can bring himself to say
      “I was wrong…I’ll do Your will.”
      And continue up the rougher way.

      Shalom

    411. Nicholas
      May 27th, 2014 @ 4:16 pm

      Bo,

      I agree with your essential message but never in the New Testament do the inspired authors demand that we obey the legalism of the Torah. Christ proclaims all foods clean. Later, in Peter’s vision, this is brought to a more perfect decree. Peter and Paul make it clear that no one need feel obligated to bear the “yoke” of circumcision. I simply cannot reconcile your views with the Scriptures or with established Christian teaching.

    412. Ray
      May 27th, 2014 @ 5:41 pm

      If today they don’t in effect say, “To the cross and the gospel of his grace.”, Isn’t it because they don’t walk in the light?

    413. Bo
      May 27th, 2014 @ 6:20 pm

      Nicholas,

      Where does Messiah declare all animal flesh clean?

      Where in the interpretation of Peter’s vision does it say that unclean animals are clean to eat?

      Where does it say that circumcision in and of itself is a yoke?

      Shalom

    414. Bo
      May 27th, 2014 @ 6:27 pm

      Ray,

      That is a cute statement, but try this one that is not so cute but very serious:

      Isa 8:20 To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.

      Mt 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
      18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
      19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

      Messiah spoke according to the law and the testimony/ten commandments. You do not. So you can agree with false witnesses if you want.

      Ac 6:13 And set up false witnesses, which said, This man ceaseth not to speak blasphemous words against this holy place, and the law:
      14 For we have heard him say, that this Jesus of Nazareth shall destroy this place, and shall change the customs which Moses delivered us.

    415. Bo
      May 27th, 2014 @ 6:33 pm

      Ray,

      Who is it that walks in the light?

      1 John 1
      7 But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.
      8 If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.
      9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

      Those that confess their sin are cleansed and and walk in the light. What is John’s definition of sin?

      1 John 3:4 Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.

      If you think that it is fine to transgress the law, you will not confess that it is sin when you transgress it, and you will be walking in darkness because you refuse to obey YHWH’s commandments.

      1John 2
      3 And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments.
      4 He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.

    416. Bo
      May 27th, 2014 @ 7:36 pm

      Nicholas,

      And for the record, nowhere does it say that circumcision is wrong or that it ruins your salvation. It says that trusting in circumcision for obtaining righteousness is wrong. Paul circumcised Timothy. We do not need to be circumcised to get saved, just like we do not need to honor our parents to get saved. But both are the right thing to do. One is an aspect of living righteously the other is a an aspect of holiness. Holiness is not speaking in hushed tones in a cathedral. It is doing the things that YHWH has asked us to do as a sign that we are His special people. Without holiness, no one will see YHWH. Without holiness, you might get to be a street sweeper in the millennium, but you will not enjoy being a close confidant of the King. Those that keep and teach even the least of the commandments will enjoy be called great in the kingdom. Paul proved and testified that he kept all the law. He will be great in the kingdom.

      Ac 21:24 Them take, and purify thyself with them, and be at charges with them, that they may shave their heads: and all may know that those things, whereof they were informed concerning thee, are nothing; but that thou thyself also walkest orderly, and keepest the law.

      Ac 25:8 While he answered for himself, Neither against the law of the Jews, neither against the temple, nor yet against Caesar, have I offended any thing at all.

      I await the answers to the three questions that I asked.

      Shalom

    417. Bo
      May 27th, 2014 @ 7:44 pm

      Ray,

      1 John 1
      8 If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.
      9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

      1 John 3:4 Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.

      You say that you have no sin when you transgress YHWH’s law instead of confessing it as sin and repenting. How can the truth be in you? How can you be being cleansed with out confession and repentance?

      Pr 28:13 He that covereth his sins shall not prosper: but whoso confesseth and forsaketh them shall have mercy.
      14 Happy is the man that feareth alway: but he that hardeneth his heart shall fall into mischief.

      Pr 28:9 He that turneth away his ear from hearing the law, even his prayer shall be abomination.

      Abomination means disgusting. Do you really want to go there?

    418. Ray
      May 27th, 2014 @ 10:14 pm

      If a man can not believe in righteousness without the law, he can not believe the gospel.

    419. Bo
      May 27th, 2014 @ 10:22 pm

      Ray,

      If a man does not start doing what is righteous after he supposedly believes, then his faith is dead and is no better than the demons that believe and tremble. If only men that have this dead faith would even tremble when the word of YHWH is presented to them it would be better. But when they just shirk it off with platitudes and without giving those scriptures that are brought up a second thought, is very discouraging and telling.

    420. Nicholas
      May 28th, 2014 @ 12:03 am

      Bo,

      #1) And he saith unto them, Are ye so without understanding also? Do ye not perceive, that whatsoever thing from without entereth into the man, it cannot defile him; because it entereth not into his heart, but into the belly, and goeth out into the draught, purging all meats? And he said, That which cometh out of the man, that defileth the man. (Mark 7:18-20)

      (Yes, I know that the phrase, “In saying this, he made all foods clean” is a later addition, but it is nevertheless an accurate exegesis.)

      #2) And the voice spake unto him again the second time, What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common. (Acts 10:15)

      (And this is also the Messiah speaking, since the Messiah is God, so we can use this for #1, too.)

      #3) Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear? (Acts 15:10)

      (The context demonstrates that this is also a reference to circumcision.)

      Now, I know that you are going to re-interpret these passages in a way totally inconsistent with the understanding of Christian teaching from the earliest times, so it was quite pointless for me to have gone through the effort of cutting and pasting verses.

      Really, Bo, we have to be honest with ourselves. Forget about Roman Catholicism for a minute. Even what you understand to be the primitive church did not impose circumcision on gentile converts, and I think this is quite clear from scripture. The legalistic measures which God demanded in the Torah served their purpose for their appointed time. This was not the eternal plan of God, that we should all mutilate our bodies. To what end would he have desired this? Christ’s death and resurrection has brought us into a new father-son relationship with God, a relationship based upon the reality of our adoption.

    421. Bo
      May 28th, 2014 @ 10:46 am

      Nicholas,

      I know that you will want to go with Roman Catholic belief no matter what is presented, but let us be faithful to what the scriptures actually say in context.

      Concerning Mark 7 and Acts 10 here is Dr. Brown’s assessment.

      “Now, this has often been interpreted as a
      divine command for Peter to eat treif (i.e.
      unclean food), but the text says nothing of
      the kind. Rather, as Peter was soon to
      understand…”God has shown me that I should
      not call any man impure or unclean.” (Acts
      10:28b). But that is not the point I want to
      emphasize here. Rather, it is Peter’s earlier
      response to the visionary command to kill and
      eat unclean animals…If his Master and Teacher
      had revoked the dietary laws, as some have
      understood Mark 7:19, surely Peter would have
      understood, especially if Peter had been a
      primary source of mark’s information.”-Dr. Michael Brown, in “Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus”, volume 4, says this of Acts 10:9-16 on page 27-275:

      He agrees with you that it is fine for gentiles to eat unclean animals, but he does not think that it does justice to the words of the two texts in question to interpret them to mean that Messiah cleansed unclean animal flesh. I hold that he is being intellectually honest about these two texts, but disagree with him about concerning the legitimacy of gentiles having permission to eat unclean things. The other texts that supposedly support such a thing are inconclusive at best.

      I wrote this earlier to Benjamin:

      “Mr 7:19 Because it entereth not into his heart, but into the belly, and goeth out into the draught, purging all meats?

      Mr 7:19 because it doth not enter into his heart, but into the belly, and into the drain it doth go out, purifying all the meats.’(YLT)

      means that Messiah cleansed all foods, then all I have to say is nothing in scripture says that pork or mice or reptiles are food. “Meats” does mean food in the passage in question. And no person that He was speaking to would have thought that unclean animal flesh was food. But the passage does not say that He cleansed all unclean animals. It says that the body is purged of food, or at least the impurities in it, via the latrine.

      And yes it is not what goes into a man that defileth him…it is that which is in his heart that comes forth in our actions and words. Let’s look at the list of things that defile us.

      Mark 7
      21 For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders,
      22 Thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness:
      23 All these evil things come from within, and defile the man.

      The word covetousness is in the list. When we lust after things that are not allowed to us…like another’s wife or home, we show that we are defiled in thought. When we act on those lusts, we are unclean. Unclean animal flesh is not allowed to us as food. It is never called food in scripture. It is called making ourselves abominable/disgusting to YHWH. It is pride to insist that we have a fight to eat something that YHWH has disallowed. It is foolish to eat those things also. It is lasciviousness (unbridled lust or licentiousness) to not be able to pass up unclean animal flesh. On four counts, purposely eating unclean animal flesh defiles us from the inside.

      But lets look further into Mark 7.

      Mark 7
      7 Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
      8 For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.
      9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition…

      There is a commandment of YHWH to not eat unclean animal flesh. Our man-made commandments and doctrines say that it is fine to eat such things. We have laid aside YHWH’s commandment to hold to our traditions. Full well we reject YHWH’s commandment. Matthew gives us a little more information about this exact incident.

      Matthew 15
      6 …Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition.
      7 Ye hypocrites, well did Esaias prophesy of you, saying,
      8 This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me.
      9 But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.

      When we refuse YHWH’s commandments to keep our own ideas, we make the word of YHWH of none effect, we are found to be hearers of the word instead of doers of the word, our hearts are far from Him and our worship becomes vain.

      Concerning Peter’s vision. It nowhere states that YHWH has made unclean animals, clean. It says that we should not call any man common or unclean. It says not to call common what YHWH has cleansed. We there is no statement in this passage or any other in scripture that says that YHWH has cleansed unclean animals. The last book of the Bible which is also the last one written contains proof that YHWH continues to call some animals unclean. He would be contradicting Himself if He had cleansed all unclean animals. He does not contradict Himself. There are still unclean animals.

      Re 18:2 And he cried mightily with a strong voice, saying, Babylon the great is fallen, is fallen, and is become the habitation of devils, and the hold of every foul spirit, and a cage of every unclean and hateful bird.

      And if you are tempted to say that it is meant to be taken symbolically in Revelation, you have just proven that you are inconsistent and wrong to take Peter’s vision literally when you want to take John’s as symbolic. This is especially true because Peter was given the interpretation of His vision and it had nothing to do with unclean animals being made clean.

      Concerning Acts 15:

      Acts 15
      1 And certain men which came down from Judaea taught the brethren, and said, Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved…
      5 But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses…
      10 Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?
      11 But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they.

      So when we look at the context, we find that the yoke was not circumcision in and of itself. It was circumcision for salvation. The issue was was righteousness by works for salvation. Peter said that the yoke was too heavy to bear for both his generation of Jews and their ancestors. What is too difficult about being circumcised at 8 days old? How is that a yoke. It is a little cut that is symbolic of a covenant. It would be like us saying that it is too difficult for us to wear a wedding ring or to get a marriage license. It is a bit of discomfort to be circumcised as an adult, but it is not a yoke that is too heavy for us.

      The yoke that is too heavy is trying to live perfectly to be saved. The contrast is not between being saved by grace or being circumcised, it is between being saved by grace or being saved by works. No one is capable to maintain a perfect record of sinlessness. Anyone can survive a small cut.

      Deuteronomy 30
      10 if thou shalt obey the voice of Jehovah thy God, to keep his commandments and his statutes which are written in this book of the law; if thou turn unto Jehovah thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul.
      11 For this commandment which I command thee this day, it is not too hard for thee, neither is it far off.
      12 It is not in heaven, that thou shouldest say, Who shall go up for us to heaven, and bring it unto us, and make us to hear it, that we may do it?
      13 Neither is it beyond the sea, that thou shouldest say, Who shall go over the sea for us, and bring it unto us, and make us to hear it, that we may do it?
      14 But the word is very nigh unto thee, in thy mouth, and in thy heart, that thou mayest do it.

      The law is not too difficult for us to do if it is in our mouths and our hearts…if we can speak it (know it) and want to do it. The law is not too heavy of a yoke in and of itself, but only if we are trusting in our ability to keep it to be saved. Grace is supposed to change our hearts to what to do what YHWH says and to want to know what YHWH says. We should want to be obedient children.

      Our adoption does not give us permission to disobey the rules of the house. By virtue of adoption, we ought to want to keep the rules of the house. Our works will prove whether we are obedient sons or children of disobedience.

      Ephesians 2
      1 And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins;
      2 Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience:
      3 Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others.
      4 But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us,
      5 Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved;)
      6 And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus:
      7 That in the ages to come he might shew the exceeding riches of his grace in his kindness toward us through Christ Jesus.
      8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
      9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.
      10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.

      We are created unto good works that were lain down long before we came to faith. (The law and the Prophets) We are not saved by those works, we are saved unto them. It is not YHWH’s Spirit that instructs us or pulls us toward disobedience. It is the spirit of the world.

      Ephesians 5
      3 But fornication, and all uncleanness, or covetousness, let it not be once named among you, as becometh saints;
      4 Neither filthiness, nor foolish talking, nor jesting, which are not convenient: but rather giving of thanks.
      5 For this ye know, that no whoremonger, nor unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, hath any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God.
      6 Let no man deceive you with vain words: for because of these things cometh the wrath of God upon the children of disobedience.

      The list above contains some of the same words in Mark 7. And there are other words that we should pay close attention to. Namely: uncleanness, filthiness, and unclean person. The wrath of YHWH comes upon the children of disobedience that are given to these things. Inheritance in the kingdom is at stake. Those that do and teach all the commandments will receive a great inheritance. Those that fail to keep some of the smallest commandments and teach others that it is fine to break them will be least in the kingdom…receive a small inheritance. Those that refuse to keep and teach others to keep the big commandments, where will they be?

      I am sure that this is new to you. I know how you feel. There is still time for you to repent and join your Father in his vineyard doing His will in even the small matters.

      Matthew 21
      28 But what think ye? A certain man had two sons; and he came to the first, and said, Son, go work to day in my vineyard.
      29 He answered and said, I will not: but afterward he repented, and went.
      30 And he came to the second, and said likewise. And he answered and said, I go, sir: and went not.
      31 Whether of them twain did the will of his father? They say unto him, The first. Jesus saith unto them, Verily I say unto you, That the publicans and the harlots go into the kingdom of God before you.

      What think ye? Which do you want to be? The son that gives lip service or the son that ultimately can’t resist obeying his Father when he comes to his senses? The will of the Father is the Law and the Prophets. Judaism and Christianity both say, “I go Sir.” Messiah told us that the commandments of men keep us from keeping the Father’s commandments. Judaism is guilty on some counts. Christianity is also guilty on some counts. Both religions cause vain worship. Both make the commandments of YHWH of none effect.

      A real believer does the works because he wants to do them and he wants to know what they are. Those that endure till the end are those that do two very important things.

      Revelation 14
      12 Here is a call for the endurance of the saints, those who keep the commandments of God and their faith in Jesus.

      Shalom

    422. Nicholas
      May 28th, 2014 @ 12:45 pm

      Bo,

      Thank you for your input. You know the Bible far better than I do, but, then again, I have not been studying scripture for very long. But I do know my faith. I cannot be persuaded to abandon the church of 2,000 years just because a fellow on the internet puts forth certain arguments. I say this will all respect and affection.

      I must say that I think that even a non-Trinitarian could, using your methods of logic, present tangible evidence to demonstrate that there is no such thing as the Trinity, but that it is a later invention of the Catholic Church. I have seen them do it. With such a person I could argue for days, trying to convince him of his error, but then he would keep citing verses with absolute conviction. And we would get nowhere. This is why I affirm that there has to be a third party who steps in and settles the matter definitively. As you know, I believe that this responsibility falls upon the Church.

      The Church is in a time of crisis. I am the first person to admit this. However, her teachings are still available to all who will heed them, even if the pope himself no longer presents them to the faithful. But they are there nevertheless. Christ Jesus never gave us a Bible, but he set up a system, whether we recognize it or not. This very system produced the scriptures over which we are arguing. Frankly, I think our discussion is spiraling into oblivion, because I can think that these verses mean one thing ,and you can think that they mean something else, and we can think and ponder until the day we die, but we will never arrive at any conclusive situation. Unless you view yourself as a prophet of God, I think you should re-examine your understanding of the Bible, which is at odds with the credentials of the entirety of Christendom, not just my church.

      So, I’d prefer to leave it at that.

      Thank you and God bless.

    423. Bo
      May 28th, 2014 @ 1:40 pm

      Nicholas,

      Messiah did not set up a system that gave us the Bible. He inspired men called prophets and apostles to write down His words to us. These words are there for all to see from Genesis to Revelaton. The systems that have come about via different interpretations of the inspired words of YHWH always get stuck in a rut and cannot get out. I think that I have presented a fair case from all of scripture to show that the Catholic and protestant and Jewish systems have failed as concerning doing and teaching YHWH’s commandments. The words of scripture attests to the fact that commandments of men and false doctrine prevails in the current systems. It is time to come out of her and be truly holy to YHWH instead of a partaker of Babylons sins and thus her plagues.

      Shalom

    424. rockypath1
      July 11th, 2014 @ 2:28 pm

      Nicholas,

      I am Catholic and mostly enjoyed your sound Catholic scholarship. Though a few times you seemed close to implying that the Catholic Church was close to being apostate. And the use of private revelation may not be helpful or realistic in these discussions. Some of it will not hold up to scrutiny and could lead people astray through confusion if not actually heretical in their apparent (private) revelations.

      Sheila was charming, scholarly and good natured. Much appreciated.

      And while I appreciate the scholarship and obvious intelligence of Bo and Benjamin I am just left bewildered and disheartened at this, virtually new, chasing after something else – something never seen in the early Church and much outright rejected there.

      I just can’t help but think that in this type of individualism people are just chasing after whatever suits them with absolutely no deference to what early Church practice and belief (tradition) showed was the true apostolic teachings. You know – from Jesus.

      What we are being subjected to now is just an extraordinary cacophony of confusion of private interpretations.

      All that was held as true from the early (apostolically taught) Church is disregarded in favor of ones own exegesis (or rather eisegesis).

      Its as if the people of today reject apostolic authority and divine protection as if it means nothing. As if God would not protect us and provide a sanctioned refuge.

      John 14:26
      But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.

      But now, no generation can trust in any real verifiable truth except for that which leads them along the path of their own interpretation of scripture.

      With rejection of the Catholic Church (the early Church) the reset button has been pushed but now there is no authoritative teacher and teachings and everyone sits in the chair of Peter (Matthew 16:16-19), or the Chair of Moses for those messianic types.

      And the organic traditions from the apostles to the early faithful from Jesus are tangled and tangling.

      The mustard seed has grown large but other planters are sowing crops that threaten to overwhelm the tree.

      This is the extremely grave inconsistency that Protestantism cannot deal with and leads to such abominations as Hypergrace that Dr. Brown rightfully attacks.

      But Dr. Brown still fails to address Sola Scriptura problem and the underlying result of us being left orphans on earth. Our God never left us orphans in OT days. Never. Why now?

      If we extrapolate a few thousand more years, there will be such a confusion of beliefs we won’t know what to beliefs. Thank you Martin Luther.

      May God help us all.

    425. Sheila
      July 12th, 2014 @ 2:02 pm

      Hi Rockypath1,

      First, I’d like to thank you for the compliment. I’ll try to better live up to it!

      Don’t be so pessimistic, though. On the important matters of salvation, justification, sanctification and all the major areas of orthodoxy, I can say that Benjamin, Nicholas and I are completely in agreement—Bo, not so much, although, he does state that his salvation is through grace alone, but, then he throws the law in for good measure, I guess… I think he’s got holiness mixed up with keeping the law, as if you couldn’t be holy without it. I strongly disagree with him on that, as you probably guessed.

      When it comes to prophecy, though, it really is open for discussion. I don’t see where it harms anyone or does violence to the Bible to have an educated opinion based on Scripture. Of course, that’s where the variation comes in, because we each may interpret it a bit differently based on our knowledge and reading of Scripture. I don’t see the harm in bantering ideas about concerning the Millennium or the reality or not of a Third Temple. That’s where our discussion was fruitful. I got to hear other perspectives and ideas on it and I actually came away with a better appreciation of the nuances concerning the Millennial reign of Christ. Some questions weren’t answered to my satisfaction , but, that gives me something to do in my personal studies! :) To accept someone else’s opinion or interpretation on matters of Sola Scriptura, I’d like to know, first, for myself, whether or not they’ve got it right. Do you see? If they’re in error, then my understanding will be in error and who knows where that could lead?

      So, rest assured, on the Majors, we’re all in agreement! Those things unimportant to salvation, such as prophecy is, are open for discussion and debate and that’s what we’re engaged in.

      Bo is one of a kind–although, there’s more who think like he does these days. Of course, you’re right that Protestants certainly do have a smorgasbord of denominations and disagreements, especially in light of the current social issues of abortion, homosexuality and Israel’s place in redemptive history. But, overall, we’re all saved by the blood of Jesus and that’s where we all stand together. It’s the common denominator even between Catholics and Protestants! Not that there aren’t major differences, just that Salvation remains the same. :)

      So, don’t be so pessimistic, the Lord will certainly gather us all together in Himself when the time is fulfilled and we’ll know all things for certain! Glorious Day!

      And…we can meet in person.

      Be well.

    426. Nicholas
      July 14th, 2014 @ 12:44 pm

      Hey Sheila,

      Thank you, just got to see this now.

      Yes, at the common denominator, we are in agreement.

      God bless.

    427. Nicholas
      July 14th, 2014 @ 1:51 pm

      Hi rockypath1,

      Our Evangelical brethren lack a magisterial authority. This leads to a fair amount of confusion. A faith which divorces the Church and Sacred Tradition from Scripture denies the fullness of revelation.

      I walk a fine line here. We are in agreement with Protestants on that which C. S. Lewis terms “mere Christianity,” this is true. But, the question we have to ask is, are these fundamental points, these common denominators, are they sufficient for salvation? I think that, as Catholics, it is our obligation to encourage Christians of non-Catholic confessions to consider the call to unity, which is, in fact, Christ’s own call, which can only be fulfilled within his Mystical Body. Christ prayed that we may all be one. However, most do not recognize that this prayer was in fact answered and granted when the Holy Spirit descended upon the Apostles on Pentecost. The Church is the source of this oneness, which exists in perfect order inside her walls. Outside of her, there is chaos. There is truth, but truth mixed with falsehood. In the shelter of the Church, there is the safety of orthodoxy.

      I listen intently when people call into Dr. Brown’s show. More often than not he provides excellent responses, and I find myself agreeing with him most of the time. However, he is not always correct. I cannot be his judge, but I can pronounce on certain of his opinions when they contradict established dogma. He would disagree but he only has his own personal understanding of the Bible to substantiate his claims. I think that many call into his show in the mindset that he is a kind of magisterium unto himself, and that he has all the answers. Sometimes he tends to speak with a kind of presumptive authority. I say this of course with all due respect to him. He is a very learned scholar. His credentials are excellent, there’s no doubt about it. At the same time, he’s not infallible.

    428. Nicholas
      July 14th, 2014 @ 2:06 pm

      {continuing from previous}

      The point is that, in Evangelical circles, teachers, who act on their own, become puffed up, as if they are beacons of absolute truth and unique guardians of orthodoxy, when they stand only on their fallible interpretations of Scripture. As if they are prophets, the faithful flock to them with all that exasperates them in life, laying before them all their concerns and hoping for relief.

      Regarding the crisis in the Church, I will try to address that topic a little later on.

    429. Nicholas
      July 14th, 2014 @ 2:45 pm

      Just to clarify, I am not accusing Dr. Brown of puffing up himself. He is gracious and often self-examining.

      I only mean to express that some who seek the advice of individual teachers may run the risk of puffing them up, as if they have a direct connection to God. In effect, the teachers assume the role of the Church, or fill the void, as it were. They fill the place which the Magisterium would normally occupy in the life of the Christian.

    430. rockypath1
      July 15th, 2014 @ 8:08 am

      Nicholas,

      I agree with you completely here. Dr. Brown is about as good as it gets and I have a certain amount of admiration for him. With all the come-hither voices beckoning in the evangelical world he walks a line that is steady and reasonable but unfortunately still is able ignore the realities of what was ALWAYS believed by the early Church and therefore is apostolic – from Jesus – and under the protection of the Holy Spirit.

      I am often shocked at the presumptive and arrogant nature of evangelical/fundamentalist leadership (and their supporters) as displayed by their own Youtube videos. MacArthur, Hagee, Zins, etc., etc., etc. are more of mischief than of God. With OSAS-Hypergrace leading many down the garden path what else is to be expected.

      I have spent too much time on the Youtube channels defending the Catholic faith from the egregious attacks of bible-only Christians who read the bible but do not fathom. Too much time fending off zombie-like same old-same old attacks spawned by Boettner and fertilized by Chick. So much false witness born of severe ignorance. And not a little malice.

      One must acknowledge that the Youtube venue attracts the worst elements and is not necessarily the best barometer.

      I have had to pull away from that venue so as to keep peaceful.

      It helps to see such separated brethren as Dr. Brown for his integrity and goodwill and those like Sheila who have gentle hearts.

    431. Nicholas
      July 15th, 2014 @ 5:22 pm

      rockypath1,

      Thanks. It really is good to find another Catholic here.

      I agree with your observation that Dr. Brown would make a great Catholic. He defends the Arminian position exceptionally well against Dr. White, and, of course, Arminians are nearly Catholic in their understanding of predestination. To be honest, because the Israel issue is so important to him, I think that it would be nearly impossible for him to digest the Catholic perspective, which teaches emphatically that the Israel of God is the Church. From what I understand, Dr. Brown does not separate his Christian faith from dispensationalism. If I am not mistaken, the belief that the modern state of Israel is the chosen nation, as opposed to the Church, is a foundational to Dr. Brown’s beliefs.

    432. rockypath1
      July 16th, 2014 @ 11:49 am

      Nicholas,

      It is hard to fathom the role of Israel and the role of Jewish faithful in terms of the New Covenant. I know that God has not turned his back on the Jews or the covenant he made. How that is played out remains to be seen.

      Dr Brown failing seems to be similar to that of Protestantism in general. And this, bluntly, is a failure (grand delusion) to see the organic development of the sacramental Church from the teachings of Jesus through the apostles and to the early Church and then to ALL generations. This includes the development of the Church authority (episcopoi (bishops) and elders (presbyteroi (priests)) through laying of hands etc.

      Its all there in the bible and early Church. Who dares then to recreate the faith in their own image. Not me.

      I was just reading through an essay by Fr. Dwight Longenecker at

      http://www.catholic.com/magazine/articles/stewards-of-the-kingdom

      Irenaeus writes (in the 2nd century),
      “Those who wish to see the truth can observe in every church the tradition of the Apostles made manifest in the whole world . . . therefore we refute those who hold unauthorized assemblies . . . by pointing to the greatest and oldest church, a church known to all men, which was founded and established at Rome by the most renowned apostles Peter and Paul . . . for this Church has the position of leadership and authority, and therefore every church, that is, the faithful everywhere must needs agree with the church at Rome for in her the apostolic tradition has ever been preserved by the faithful from all parts of the world.” (Against Heresies, 3:3)

      and…

      Obedience to the bishop as the head of the Church was crucial. Ignatius of Antioch (student of John the Apostle) (lived AD c. 35 or 50 – 98 to 117) writes to the Christians at Smyrna and condemns congregationalism using language that is clearly hierarchical:

      “All of you follow the bishop as Jesus Christ followed the Father, and the presbytery as the apostles; respect the deacons as ordained by God. Let no one do anything that pertains to the church apart from the bishop. Let that be considered a valid Eucharist which is under the bishop or one who he has delegated . . . it is not permitted to baptize or hold a love feast independently of the bishop.” (Letter to the Smyrnaeans, ch. 8)

      and…

      The New Testament and the writings of the apostolic Fathers portray the Church as centralized, hierarchical, and universal. The need for unity is stressed. Heresy and schism are anathema. Allegiance to the hierarchical chain of command guarantees unity: God sent his Son Jesus. Jesus sent the apostles. The apostles appointed their successors. The bishops are in charge.

      So Pope Clement of Rome (died 99 AD) writes:

      The apostles received the gospel for us from the Lord Jesus Christ: Jesus the Christ was sent from God. Thus Christ is from God, the apostles from Christ. In both cases the process was orderly and derived from the will of God. (Letter to the Corinthians, ch. 42)

    433. rockypath1
      July 16th, 2014 @ 11:58 am

      Nicholas,

      By the way. There are a lot of good Catholic posters on Youtube pages such as https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZuJ077vOXTI

      But I do not recommend YouTube venues for anyone who cannot be patient, loving and charitable. And since this only sometimes describes myself I have pulled back from posting there and mean to end it completely. Its an unpeaceful addiction.

      Perhaps this venue is less insane and less-filled with anti Catholic false witness. I think it probably is from what I have seen so far.

    434. Nicholas
      July 16th, 2014 @ 1:15 pm

      rockypath1,

      It is true that God has not turned his back on the Jews. The Devil has blinded the firstborn people, and so the Church prays for their conversion. I do believe in a future conversion of the Jews, but most will probably not convert. Even so, dispensational Zionism has no place in Catholic teaching, but it is foundational in Dr. Brown’s theology, foundational and, furthermore, absolutely non-negotiable. Dr. Brown affirms that the Jews have to accept Christ. I applaud him for that. Many Evangelicals today tend to embrace dual-coventantism. Dr. Brown does not.

      {For the record, I support Israel, but I am not, properly speaking, a Zionist, not in a theological sense.}

      Honestly, when we quote the Fathers to Protestants, they tend to be in denial. I can only say that they’re in denial, I wouldn’t venture to accuse them of being intellectually dishonest. Dr. White, for instance, has no way of dealing with the writings of St. Ignatius of Antioch on the Eucharist, but he often cites him in debates against Muslims when he defends the primitive belief in the deity of Christ, which is terribly inconsistent. The unanimous testimony of the Fathers speaks volumes on the Real Presence and on the mass as a sacrifice. It’s really just impossible to reinterpret them without being completely anachronistic.

    435. rockypath1
      July 17th, 2014 @ 10:13 am

      Nicholas,

      Although I know many aspects of dispensationalist (pre-millennialism etc), I am relatively ignorant on its overall beliefs and foundations, particularly its notions of Israel versus Church, and the seven dispensations following Darby and Scofield.

      I just quickly reviewed two tracts to get a better idea of dispensationalism that you are much more familiar with than I.

      http://www.ignatiusinsight.com/features2006/colson_eschatology_jun06.asp

      http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article4531.htm

      “A dispensationalist keeps Israel and the Church distinct…

      2. This distinction between Israel and the church is born out of a system of hermeneutics that is usually called literal interpretation…

      3. A third aspect… concerns the underlying purpose of God in the world… namely, the glory of God… To the normative dispensationalist, the soteriological, or saving, program of God is not the only program but one of the means God is using in the total program of glorifying Himself.”

      The whole Israel vs Church argument/issue has not quite gelled with me yet. If you have any better tracts than these let me know.

      *************

      I gather White is persona non grata amongst Catholic debaters now. Here is a blog I stumbled across awhile back that takes issue with White’s “Abuse” of rhetoric in his debates.

      http://socrates58.blogspot.ca/2007/11/defense-of-my-opinion-on-james-whites.html

      ***********************

      Most discussion I have, or try to have, regarding the overwhelming evidence on the Real Presence Eucharistic nature of the early Church is either ignored, denied or obfuscated. What else can they do.

      For protestants to admit to the historic reality that the early Church was absolutely Real Presence Eucharistic in nature and function requires a change in course.

      Real Presence Eucharist history confirms John 6 in its literal meaning as given by Jesus in this his longest exhortation on any one issue.

      If the early Church was in fact Real Presence Eucharistic then this was unequivocally a teaching from the apostles.

      Would one rather follow Calvin and Luther on this issues than the apostles.

      It would seem so.

      It is simple logic and is only ignored if history itself is denied.

      Sadly it always seems to be this way.

    436. rockypath1
      July 17th, 2014 @ 10:26 am

      Nicholas,

      Is it your understanding that Dr Brown, as a dispensationalist, is entitled or required (by this ideology) as a Jew to NOT be part of the Eucharistic-Petrine Church even if he determined it (the Catholic Church) historically and theologically correct and divinely established. But correct and established only for gentiles?

    437. Sheila
      July 17th, 2014 @ 1:08 pm

      Rockypath1,

      I’d like to respond to your post if you don’t mind. Let me gather my thoughts and I’ll post later on.

      Thanks!

    438. Sheila
      July 17th, 2014 @ 9:14 pm

      Rockypath1,

      Meantime, could you elaborate on the Real Presence Eucharist history, please? What is the evidence you have of the Apostles understanding of the Passover outside of the Bible—which doesn’t contain anything that I can discover about it? Do you have anything that I could read about the earliest writings confirming your statement?

      Thanks!

    439. Sheila
      July 17th, 2014 @ 10:16 pm

      Hi Rockypath1,

      The understanding I’ve developed about Israel, as an entity separate from the Church and all other nations as well, is derived from Scripture, mostly in the Prophets and from Paul’s discourse about it. I also had to consider the Lord’s own words about how the prophets were understood by the Apostles. Taken as a whole, one can’t help but accept that Israel is the nation in whom the Lord will be glorified when He returns. “And His feet shall touch down that day on the Mount of Olives…” is the fulfillment of the Lord’s last discourse with His disciples and is stated in Zech 14, being the fulfillment of Acts 1.

      Acts 1:4 And being assembled together with them, He commanded them not to depart from Jerusalem, but to wait for the Promise of the Father, “which,” He said, “you have heard from Me; 5 for John truly baptized with water, but you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now.”

      6 Therefore, when they had come together, they asked Him, saying, “Lord, will You at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?”

      7 And He said to them, “It is not for you to know times or seasons which the Father has put in His own authority. 8 But you shall receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you shall be witnesses to Me in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth.”

      9 Now when He had spoken these things, while they watched, He was taken up, and a cloud received Him out of their sight. 10 And while they looked steadfastly toward heaven as He went up, behold, two men stood by them in white apparel, 11 who also said, “Men of Galilee, why do you stand gazing up into heaven? This same Jesus, who was taken up from you into heaven, will so come in like manner as you saw Him go into heaven.”

      In the previous exchange, we have the Disciples asking the Lord when the kingdom will be restored to Israel. Notice the Lord’s answer. He doesn’t tell them that’s it’s no longer in the cards for them, He says, “It is not for you to know times or seasons which the Father has put in His own authority.” In other words, “It’s not for you to know when.” Then He closes with the Great Commission.

      To leave off a very important discussion about Israel’s future destiny isn’t the best way to get a correct understanding of their place in God’s plan of redemption. I think a lot of people completely negate the caveat inherent in the Lord’s words. He doesn’t say it’s not going to happen, He says what He says, “It’s not for you to know when.” Big difference which leads to a shallow understanding of Israel’s future, especially when you’d have to negate quite a few prophecies in order to write them out of God’s plan of salvation.

      I understand the truth that Jew and Gentile are now one new man in Messiah, and I’m not saying the Israelites will get a free pass to redemption. They won’t come into the fold or the Congregation (the Church) of believers until they repent and believe the Gospel. That this will only happen at the zero hour is outlined by the Prophets. I think perhaps you’re of the mind-set that we all believe God has a special admission set aside for the Jews and that’s not what I believe and neither is it what Dr. Brown believes. Taken solely from Scripture, God’s plan is that He has a remnant of Israelites who will yet be saved, en mass, at the last before He returns. I’m not saying every Jew living at that time will be saved, but, a remnant will be saved through Grace at the last trumpet, probably on the Day of Atonement.

      If you need me to outline why that is so, I’d be happy to!

      Thanks!

    440. Nicholas
      July 17th, 2014 @ 11:26 pm

      rockypath1,

      There may be different camps in the dispensationalist movement. Moreover, Dr. Brown may not consider himself a dispensationalist, per se. I am using the term broadly, to describe those who believe in a literal state of Israel at the fulfillment of Biblical prophecy, one which exists separate from the Church. Dr. Brown does not believe that the Church of Christ is the New Israel. But the Catholic Church teaches this emphatically. There is no Israel apart from the Israel of God, which is the Catholic Church, the bride of the Lamb. This is the whole point: Israel, as a nation in the Old Testament, pre-figured the more perfect Israel which would come: the Church, into which the Jews and the gentiles would exist together, intermingled and no longer set apart from each other. In the Church, there is no longer Jew or gentile. St. Paul explains, “All are one in Christ Jesus.” Therefore, as Catholics, we cannot be theological Zionists. Political Zionism is acceptable. We can support Israel as a country, but not as a divinely mandated polity. God fulfilled his promises to Israel. The Jews have every opportunity to enter the land promised to their forefathers. It is the Universal Church and its gates are open. Within its walls everyone is welcome, irrespective of ethnicity.

      Dr. Brown does not hold to dual-covenantalism. Sheila laid it out well. Dr. Brown would never say that the Jews have a special route to salvation apart from the body of Messiah (that is, apart from faith in Christ). So, in effect, Dr. Brown would agree that, in order for the Jews to be saved, they have to convert to Christianity. Thus, in a certain sense, Dr. Brown also believes that the Jews have to enter the Church. He would define “church” differently, of course. The idea that the Jewish people have a path to salvation apart from Jesus Christ has been embraced in many circles of mainstream Christianity, especially by pop Evangelicals like John Hagee, who at one point had the audacity to claim that Christ “did not come to be the Messiah.” Such a claim blatantly defies the scriptural witness. It is preposterous and downright blasphemous. Unfortunately, this is being promoted even in Catholic circles, with many bishops fostering the notion that the Church should no longer concern itself with proselytization.

    441. Nicholas
      July 17th, 2014 @ 11:37 pm

      rockypath1,

      In response to your last post,

      I have no doubt that, if Dr. Brown were to become convinced that the Catholic Church is the true Church founded by Christ, he would become Catholic, and he would encourage everyone to be Catholic with him, Jew or gentile. I know that Dr. Brown is a sincere man. If he believed that Catholicism was the truth, he would not let his views on Israel stand in the way of his becoming Catholic.

    442. Nicholas
      July 17th, 2014 @ 11:44 pm

      rockypath1,

      I just want to add: Because “replacement theology” is the official position of the Church, Dr. Brown would necessarily find this immediately off-putting, and this is a major hindrance for a Messianic Evangelical. It is certainly true that a history of anti-Semitism in the Catholic tradition is also another obstacle. What we can do is remind our friends that the Catholic Church never officially held “anti-Semitic” views. The Church never taught that the Jews corporately are responsible for the death of Christ, and Vatican II officially repudiated the notion. Vatican II is not my favorite council, as I made clear in other posts, but some good came of it. The Church never taught that the Jews have been accursed by God, although this was believed by many Catholics historically, but more so due to European cultural prejudice.

    443. rockypath1
      July 18th, 2014 @ 8:46 am

      Shiela,

      Thanks for your posts on Israel Shiela. There is room for theological speculation to be sure, as long as it does not alter or conflict with revealed truth. Your points regarding Acts 1 and the restoration of Israel are reasonable and may in fact suggest some sort of reality.

      By the way, I do not believe that God has a special admission set aside for the Jews at all.

      I have to try to make a living so this is all I can say for now, having used up most of todays allotment on a YouTube response.

      I will definitely get back to you ASAP.

    444. rockypath1
      July 18th, 2014 @ 8:57 am

      Nicholas,

      Thanks for your edifying posts. I will back on here soon.

      Interestingly I stumbled onto a Catholic Answers Radio Show yesterday with guest Roy Schoeman, a Jew who had a road to Damascus type conversion (in two parts) to Catholic Christianity. He seems legit.

      http://www.catholic.com/radio/shows/evangelizing-the-jewish-people-13459

      I am presently half way through the following recording from his website.

      http://www.salvationisfromthejews.com/videophilly.html

      I have bookmarked the following but have not yet listened to his three part testimony.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y-ptx70y1SQ

    445. rockypath1
      July 18th, 2014 @ 9:49 am

      Shiela,

      Just briefly. The centrality of Real Presence Eucharistic faith gatherings is conveyed by the writings of the early fathers and the didache. for me it follows that the apostles taught this to the early Church. And in this any contentitious issues regarding John 6 are edified.

      There many excerpts I could list but that usually is just results in glaze-overs. My favorite early Church Father quote is from Ignatius.

      Ignatius 100AD (student of John the apostle)
      “They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not admit that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ,..” – Ignatius, third Bishop of Antioch, “Letter to the Smyrnaeans”, @ 80-110 A.D.”

      Books on the Passover/last supper/Eucharistic understanding

      A Father Who Keeps His Promises
      by Scott Hahn

      The Lamb’s Supper
      by Scott Hahn

      Jesus and the Jewish Roots of the Eucharist
      (Unlocking the Secrets of the Last Supper)
      by Brant Pitre.

      The book by Pitre remains in my reading queue. I am not voracious reader or significant scholar. so do not expect too much from me. ;)

      The compendium on the Church Fathers I most often hear of is the following:

      William A. Jurgens (Translator)
      Faith of the Early Fathers: Three-Volume set

    446. rockypath1
      July 18th, 2014 @ 9:52 am

      Youtube is good in that you can go back and edit your comments and correct typos etc. I am always sloppy with putting “there” for “their” or for “they’re”.

    447. rockypath1
      July 18th, 2014 @ 10:20 am

      Sheila,

      I just found this synopsis from Hahn who has made a study of Passover and Communion.

      The Eucharist as The Lamb’s Supper – HAHN
      from a talk by Scott Hahn

      One of the most important ways that the Old Covenant foreshadows the New is in its use of the image of the sacrificial lamb. Let’s see how this relates to the Eucharist in Scripture.

      First, take a look at Revelation 5. In Revelation 5, there is a scroll with seven seals that nobody can break open and everybody is really upset. In fact John almost begins to cry. In 5, verse 2, “A strong angel proclaimed with a loud voice, ‘Who is worthy to open the scroll and break its seals?’ And no one in heaven and on earth or under the earth was able to open the scroll or to look into it.” What is the scroll? The word is biblion. Most likely it’s a reference to a covenant document, the New Covenant document that nobody is worthy to break open. “And I wept much, but no one was found worthy to open the scroll or to look into it,” because this scroll would consummate and fulfill the promises of the Old Testament.

      “Then one of the elders said to me, ‘Weep not. Lo, the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Root of David, he has conquered so that he can open the scroll and seven seals.’” You could almost feel the hallelujah rising up from within your soul. The Lion of the tribe of Judah! You turn. You look and John turns to look and what does he see in verse 6, ” And between the throne and the four living creatures and among the elders I saw,” what? Aslan, the lion? No. David crowned with glory? No. You’d think so, a lion and a king are the words used to describe it. “I turned and I saw a lamb standing, looking as though it had been slain.”

      Jesus Christ is the son of David and the king of the new and heavenly Jerusalem. He is the Lion of the tribe of Judah and He is the Lamb of God, slain from the foundation of the world, as it said elsewhere in Revelation. But here in heaven on the throne of glory, after His crucifixion, His resurrection, His ascension, His enthronement, He still looks like a lamb. He still looks as though He had been slain. Why not clean up the body? Why not wipe away the wounds? Why continue resembling a lamb? Because He’s continuing the Passover offerings, the sacrifice. Not by dying, not by bleeding and not by suffering but by continuing to offer up Himself as the firstborn and as the unblemished lamb, as the perpetual, timeless, everlasting sacrifice of praise to the Father.

      And what do the people do? They rejoice and they break out into a song. And what is the song, “Worthy art thou to take the scroll and to open its seals for thou was slain.” Past tense, “And by thy blood didst ransom men for God from every tribe and tongue and people and nation.” And what has he done? He’s become a priest to be sure, but for what purpose? “He has made them a kingdom and priest to our God.” He has made those whom he has saved priests. And what do priests do? They offer sacrifice.

      Has Christ’s sacrifice ended all sacrifices? No. Christ’s sacrifice has ended all ineffective, bloody animal sacrifices that never did anything anyway. Now for the first time in history we can really begin to offer sacrifice to God. Romans 12 says, “Offer your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God.” And it wouldn’t be holy and acceptable except that it’s united to Christ’s perpetual sacrifice. He’s not bleeding. He’s not dying. He’s not suffering, but he is offering a sacrifice as a lamb does, as a priest king does continually, forever.

      And that’s what it’s all about. John wouldn’t see a lamb looking as though it had been slain if the whole kit and caboodle was completed and done. Yes, it’s completed and done, but it’s still going on, and it’s going to go on forever in the future. Why? Because Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today and forever, as Hebrews tells us.

      Now, is this strange? Is this teaching novel? Well, let’s take a look at 1st Corinthians and see how natural it seems to the apostle Paul. We have already looked at 1st Corinthians 5, “Christ, our Passover,” that’s in verse 7, “Christ, our Paschal Lamb has been sacrificed. Let us therefore celebrate the festival not with the old leaven, the leaven of malice and evil, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.” What’s he talking about? Is he talking about leaven being like sin. No. He’s saying let us celebrate the feast with unleavened bread. What feast? The Eucharist! The sacrifice continues because communion must be celebrated. We’ve got to eat the lamb, the resurrected, glorified, enthroned lamb that still looks as though he’d been slain because he’s still giving himself to us.

      Turn over with me now to Corinthians, chapter 9, verse 13. He says, “Do you not know that those who are employed in the temple service get their food from the temple and those who serve at the altar share in the sacrificial offerings in the same way the Lord commanded. That those who proclaim the gospel should get their living by the gospel.” Now we might be tempted to read Corinthians 9, 13 and 14 and say, “Well, back in the Old Testament they did temple service and altar service and sacrifice, but now in the New Testament they only proclaim the word.”

      The problem with that is that Paul goes on to say, Corinthians 11, as we will see, how Christ’s death is proclaimed. Take a look with me at 1st Corinthians, 11:23-26. “For I received from the Lord what I shall deliver to you.” Interesting, he received it not from Peter and the apostles. When Jesus appeared to Paul on the road to Damascus or perhaps at some other time, what did Jesus deliver to Paul? Instructions for the Eucharist. “I received from the Lord what I also deliver to you. That the Lord Jesus Christ, on the night when He was betrayed, took bread, and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, ‘This is my body, which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.’ In the same way also the cup after supper saying, ‘This cup is the New Covenant in my blood. Do this.” Commandment, imperative tense. “As often as you drink it in remembrance of me. For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until He comes.”

      You proclaim the gospel. Let’s go back then to Corinthians 9, verse 14, “In the same way the Lord commanded that those who proclaim the gospel should get their living by the gospel.” How does Paul proclaim the gospel? Just by preaching? Or by celebrating the Eucharist? “As often as you do this, you proclaim the Lord’s death until He comes.” That’s the gospel. Paul is talking in verses 13 and 14 about how he should be supported as an apostle and he does so in conjunction with temple service at an altar where there is sacrificial offerings which he as an apostle has the right to receive from. What’s he talking about? A New Covenant temple? A New Covenant altar? A New Covenant sacrifice where he proclaims the gospel by celebrating the Eucharist.

      Now let’s go on to Corinthians 10 and get things straight really quickly here because Corinthians 10, gives us a proper warning. In the first ten verses of Corinthians 10, Paul says that back in the Old Testament with Moses, verse 3, “They all ate the same supernatural food and all drank the same supernatural drink.” The water from the rock and the manna in the wilderness and both, Paul says in a sense, were signs of Christ’s presence among them. Nevertheless, verse 5, “with most of them God was not pleased for they were overthrown in the wilderness.”

      In the next three verses he describes the Golden Calf incident where thousands of them died. In other words just because you receive supernatural food and drink doesn’t mean you’ve got it made in the shade. You have to set things right with God and keep things right with the Lord. Verse 11, “Now these things happened to them as a warning, but they were written down for our instruction upon whom the end of the ages has come.” We now have a greater and much more supernatural food and drink. So we can relax? No. We’ve got to be even more circumspect in searching out our hearts and making sure we are right with God.

      He goes on in verse 16, “The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a coenia, a communion, a participation in the blood of Christ?” Not a symbol. But a share, a communion. The bread which we break , is it not a coenia, a communion in the body of Christ. “Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body for we all partake of the one bread.” He doesn’t mean to say that there’s one enormous loaf that we all take a piece from. There are many loaves of bread. There are many breads in that earthly sense, but there’s only one bread in the heavenly sense, and that’s Christ. Because we receive from one bread Christ, the Bread of Life, we who are many become one body, namely, the Body of Christ. He’s suggesting that we become what we eat.

      He goes on to contrast our sacrifice with other sacrifices and he says, verse 18, “Consider the people of Israel. Are not those who eat the sacrifices partners in the altar?” What he is saying is back then when you eat the sacrifice, you have a communion in the altar of those animals. Now we have a communion on all of our altars in the New Covenant with Christ, the Lamb of God. Verse 21, “You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons. You cannot partake of the table of the Lord and the table of demons. Shall we provoke the Lord with jealousy? Are we stronger than he?” For some reason God takes this with the utmost seriousness. Why?

      Corinthians 11, he spells it out even clearer. We’ve already read verses 23 through 26. Now we can conclude with verse 27 where he says, “Whoever, therefore, eats the bread and drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of the Body and the Blood of the Lord.” Now that language is actually like civil judicial language. Somebody who’s practically guilty of murder or capital offense is guilty of the body and blood. Now if it’s only a symbol, he might be guilty in some lesser sense, but when you profane the Lord’s Supper, you actually become guilty of profaning the Body and Blood of the Lord. “Let a man examine himself, therefore, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning,” — the symbolism? No. “…the body, eats and drinks judgment upon himself.”

      Now is he just speaking metaphorically? He couldn’t be because in the next verse he says, “That is why many of you are weak and ill and some have died.” To receive the Eucharist in a state of mortal sin is playing with fire of the worst sort. He goes on in chapter 12, verse 12, “For just as the body is one,” the Church, that is, “…and has many members and all the members of the body though many are one body, so it is with Christ for by one Spirit we were all baptized in the one body.” When we received the water of Baptism, we received the Spirit of God. “And all were made to drink of the one Spirit.” When we receive Eucharist, Communion, we receive the Spirit as well as the flesh and the blood and the body, soul, humanity and divinity of Christ.

      This is significant, very significant. This, in fact, gives us the whole interpretive key to the Book of Revelation. Many non-Catholic as well as Catholic scholars have noticed that the whole structure of Revelation is a big Passover liturgy where Christ, the Priest King, the firstborn Son and the Lamb looking as though it’s been slain conducts and celebrates the heavenly liturgy. And the earthly liturgy is meant to be a reflection in that, a participation in that, and the early Church took it for granted. There is the Lamb looking as though it’s been slain and making all of the people in heaven priests so they can assist in the offering of the firstborn son of God to the Father and join themselves with it.

      ________________________________________
      Abridged from Scott Hahn’s audio and video tape presentation,
      “Eucharist: Holy Meal” as it appears in the “Catholic Adult Education on Video Program”

    448. Bo
      July 18th, 2014 @ 12:17 pm

      Rockypath 1 and Nicholas,

      Would you please read this short article about how the early chruch fathers did not believe in the real presence in the bread and wine? It is respectfully done without rhetoric or insult.

      http://onefold.wordpress.com/early-church-evidence-refutes-real-presence/

      Shalom

    449. Sheila
      July 18th, 2014 @ 1:44 pm

      rockypath1,

      Thanks for that. I’ll read it over again as I just quickly glazed over it the first time.

      I just read the Didache and this is all that was said about the Eucharist:

      Chapter 9. The Eucharist.   Now concerning the Eucharist, give thanks this way. First, concerning the cup:

      We thank thee, our Father, for the holy vine of David Thy servant, which You madest known to us through Jesus Thy Servant; to Thee be the glory for ever.. And concerning the broken bread:

      We thank Thee, our Father, for the life and knowledge which You madest known to us through Jesus Thy Servant; to Thee be the glory for ever. Even as this broken bread was scattered over the hills, and was gathered together and became one, so let Thy Church be gathered together and became one, so let Thy Church be gathered together from the ends of the earth into Thy kingdom; for Thine is the glory and the power through Jesus Christ for ever..

      But let no one eat or drink of your Eucharist, unless they have been baptized into the name of the Lord; for concerning this also the Lord has said, “Give not that which is holy to the dogs.”

      the Twelve Apostles Early Christians (2009-12-16). The Didache (Kindle Locations 119-121). BooksAndSuch. Kindle Edition.

      I don’t really have time right now to read another book but I’ll most likely choose one that you suggested in order to gain a better understanding of your belief concerning the Eucharist.

      Thanks.

    450. Bo
      July 18th, 2014 @ 2:19 pm

      Sheila,

      You will like the article I linked to.

      Shalom

    451. Nicholas
      July 18th, 2014 @ 3:40 pm

      I’ll check it out, Bo, thanks, but my mind is already made up :)

    452. Bo
      July 18th, 2014 @ 6:59 pm

      Nicholas,

      As long as your mind is not like concrete…thoroughly mixed up and set in stone. And as long as you are careful who washes your brain. And as long as the truth of scripture trumps history and mans ideas. OK

      Shalom

    453. rockypath1
      July 19th, 2014 @ 12:07 pm

      Hi Bo, The following is a bit much but take what you can and leave the rest. its a little piecemeal.

      Its hard to know how to frame an answer with regard to the website. I have been involved with YouTube online apologetics with some of the most virulent anti-Catholics that exist.

      The website you gave has a writer who offers several ambiguous passages from a very small selection of the Church Fathers. I think these are relied in an attempt to obfuscate the reality of what was held not only by the Church Fathers in question but in fact by the whole body of Church Fathers.

      Again my apologies for not organizing this better. Not enough time.

      ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

      Here is a good summary of just what and apostolic tradion is.

      http://www.catholic.com/tracts/apostolic-tradition

      ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

      Tracts on what Catholics believe and why

      http://www.catholic.com/tracts/the-real-presence

      http://www.catholic.com/tracts/christ-in-the-eucharist

      :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

      Paul himeself offers this
      1 Corinthians 11:23-29
      “23 For I received from the Lord what I also handed on to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took a loaf of bread, 24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, “This is my body that is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” 25 In the same way he took the cup also, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.” 26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.

      Partaking of the Supper Unworthily
      27 Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be answerable for the body and blood of the Lord. 28 Examine yourselves, and only then eat of the bread and drink of the cup29 For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself. 30 That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died.[d
      "

      Could it really be that a mere metaphorical meal would bring about judgment and sickness and death? I do not believe this could be.

      :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

      Just last week I had someone insisting that pro Eucharist St. Augustine was against the Catholic view. Any small amount of looking at the passages will show the truth of it.

      This website you offer has a veneer of scholarship with not much else going for it. Clement of Alexandria was especially chosen the website writer because he has some ambiguous metaphorical-sounding prose and yet elsewhere Clement says

      "And the blood of the Lord is twofold. For there is the blood of His flesh, by which we are redeemed from corruption; and the spiritual, that by which we are anointed. And to drink the blood of Jesus, is to become partaker of the Lord’s immortality; the Spirit being the energetic principle of the Word, as blood is of flesh."

      Accordingly, as wine is blended with water, so is the Spirit with man. And the one, the mixture of wine and water, nourishes to faith; while the other, the Spirit, conducts to immortality. And the mixture of both— of the water and of the Word— is called Eucharist, renowned and glorious grace; and they who by faith partake of it are sanctified both in body and soul. For the divine mixture, man, the Father's will has mystically compounded by the Spirit and the Word. For, in truth, the spirit is joined to the soul, which is inspired by it; and the flesh, by reason of which the Word became flesh, to the Word."[Book II, Chapter 2 of the Paedagogos]

      The Eucharist was NEVER believed, as your website writer offers, to be a ” remembrance of the Lord’s passion to be observed by those who are born of the Spirit, for they alone are partakers of Christ’s immortality.” These are just the opinions of the writer in some kind of hoped-for revisionist history that did not exist. The writing of Clement is clear – it was ” called Eucharist , renowned and glorious grace; and they who by faith partake of it are sanctified both in body and soul”. He is speaking of a sacramental meal of bread and wine that imparts REAL grace towards sanctification. This is how the Eucharist is defined in this age and also obviously in Clements age.. Fairly orthodox.

      Tertullian. (On the Resurrection of the Flesh 37)

      The writer goes on to say that Tertullian actually dismantles John 6 with some the old chestnut that Jesus negates his entire Real Presence insistence all of a sudden by saying ” It is the spirit that quickens; and then added, The flesh profits nothing” Anyone who knows this phrase understands that Jesus is saying You must understand what I am telling you will be accomplished by the Holy Spirit and your understanding is merely carnal (of the flesh) ignorance leading to the inability to accept or fathom. Full Stop.

      Anyway you can read someone who has already cleared up the this anti-Eucharistic charge against Tertullian

      http://catholicdefense.blogspot.ca/2014/02/did-tertullian-deny-real-presence.html

      The main thing is that ALL the early Church believed in the Real Presence and ALL the Church believed it down to Calvin and Zwingli. This was the tradition (from traditio – to be handed down) of the Chruch by word and deed and by scripture and by writings of the early Church. And ANY who did not believe were considered heretics. Clement was not a heretic and the early Church knew what he believed and this is why he was held in high regard.

      Bo, there is scholarship and then there is muddy the water “psuedo-scholarship”. I am not saying you are muddying the water but your are referring to a website that is. There is a broad phenomenom of this type of pseudo-scholarship out there within fundamentalist Protestantism. It is no-holds-barred scholarship. Lorraine Boettner may have been the most damaging of just this type of pseudo-scholarship from which a lot of erroneous and mischievous ideas about Catholicism arose. His errors in truth are widely disseminated now and widely held.

      John MacCarthy is ludicrous in his anti-Catholic diatribes. Notoriusly smearing with wilfull distortions of Catholic teachings.

      #######################

      MANY protestant non-fundamentalist scholars admit and endorse the Real Presence reality of the early Church belief.

      More people (many ex-prostentant pastors) point to the Church fathers as the key reasons for coming back to a Eucharistic Church.

      Here are the clear quotes of those fathers relied on in this website that point to their real belief.

      http://www.therealpresence.org/eucharst/father/a5.html#justin

      I have spoken out against this phenomenon amongst bible-only fundamentalism as a form of false witness. While this website you offer may have elements of scholarship I think it has more of obfuscation than scholarship.

      ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
      I acknowledge that Jesus himeself in John 6 sounds metaphorical in nature before he ramps up his dialogue to dispel this sense. And it works – His disciples leave him when they realized he is NOT being symbolic.

      And further more John the apostle indicts Judas in John 6 for being of that group and leaves Jesus at the same place they left him John6:66

      ###############################################################

      SELECTED PROTESTANT (NON-FUNDAMENTALIS SCHOLARS

      Eight reputable Protestant scholarly sources to back up that there was virtual unanimity of belief in the Real Presence all through that early period.

      If you read nothing else please not that famed protestant scholare wrote this:

      “Eucharistic teaching, it should be understood AT THE OUTSET, was in general unquestioningly realist, i.e., the consecrated bread and wine were taken to be, and were treated and designated as, the Savior’s body and blood” (Early Christian Doctrines, 440).

      :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

      1) Otto W. Heick, A History of Christian Thought, vol.1, Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1965, 221-222:

      The Post-Apostolic Fathers and . . . almost all the Fathers of the ancient Church . . . impress one with their natural and unconcerned realism. To them the Eucharist was in some sense the body and blood of Christ.

      2) Williston Walker, A History of the Christian Church, 3rd ed., rev. by Robert T. Handy, NY: Scribners, 1970, 90-91:

      By the middle of the 2nd century, the conception of a real presence of Christ in the Supper was wide-spread . . . The essentials of the ‘Catholic’ view were already at hand by 253.

      3) Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, v.3, A.D. 311-600, rev. 5th ed., Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, rep. 1974, orig. 1910, 492, 500, 507:

      The doctrine of the sacrament of the Eucharist was not a subject of theological controversy . . . . till the time of Paschasius Radbert, in the ninth century . . .

      In general, this period, . . . was already very strongly inclined toward the doctrine of transubstantiation, and toward the Greek and Roman sacrifice of the mass, which are inseparable in so far as a real sacrifice requires the real presence of the victim……

      [Augustine] at the same time holds fast the real presence of Christ in the Supper . . . He was also inclined, with the Oriental fathers, to ascribe a saving virtue to the consecrated elements.

      Note: Schaff had just for two pages (pp.498-500) shown how St. Augustine spoke of symbolism in the Eucharist as well, but he honestly admits that the great Father accepted the Real Presence “at the same time.” Catholics have a reasonable explanation for the “symbolic” utterances, which are able to be harmonized with the Real Presence, but Protestants, who maintain that Augustine was a Calvinist or Zwingian in his Eucharistic views must ignore the numerous references to an explicit Real Presence in Augustine, and of course this is objectionable scholarship.

      Augustine . . . on the other hand, he calls the celebration of the communion ‘verissimum sacrificium’ of the body of Christ. The church, he says, offers (‘immolat’) to God the sacrifice of thanks in the body of Christ. [City of God, 10,20]

      4) J.D. Douglas, ed., The New International Dictionary of the Christian Church, Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, rev. ed., 1978, 245 [a VERY hostile source!]:

      The Fathers . . . [believed] that the union with Christ given and confirmed in the Supper was as real as that which took place in the incarnation of the Word in human flesh.

      5) F.L. Cross and E.A. Livingstone, eds., The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, Oxford Univ. Press, 2nd ed., 1983, 475-476, 1221:

      That the Eucharist conveyed to the believer the Body and Blood of Christ was universally accepted from the first . . . Even where the elements were spoken of as ‘symbols’ or ‘antitypes’ there was no intention of denying the reality of the Presence in the gifts . . . In the Patristic period there was remarkably little in the way of controversy on the subject . . . The first controversies on the nature of the Eucharistic Presence date from the earlier Middle Ages. In the 9th century Paschasius Radbertus raised doubts as to the identity of Christ’s Eucharistic Body with His Body in heaven, but won practically no support. Considerably greater stir was provoked in the 11th century by the teaching of Berengar, who opposed the doctrine of the Real Presence. He retracted his opinion, however, before his death in 1088 . . .

      It was also widely held from the first that the Eucharist is in some sense a sacrifice, though here again definition was gradual. The suggestion of sacrifice is contained in much of the NT language . . . the words of institution, ‘covenant,’ ‘memorial,’ ‘poured out,’ all have sacrificial associations. In early post-NT times the constant repudiation of carnal sacrifice and emphasis on life and prayer at Christian worship did not hinder the Eucharist from being described as a sacrifice from the first . . .

      From early times the Eucharistic offering was called a sacrifice in virtue of its immediate relation to the sacrifice of Christ.

      6) Jaroslav Pelikan, The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition (100-600), Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press, 1971, 146-147, 166-168, 170, 236-237:

      By the date of the Didache [anywhere from about 60 to 160, depending on the scholar]. . . the application of the term ‘sacrifice’ to the Eucharist seems to have been quite natural, together with the identification of the Christian Eucharist as the ‘pure offering’ commanded in Malachi 1:11 . . .

      The Christian liturgies were already using similar language about the offering of the prayers, the gifts, and the lives of the worshipers, and probably also about the offering of the sacrifice of the Mass, so that the sacrificial interpretation of the death of Christ never lacked a liturgical frame of reference . . .

      . . . the doctrine of the real presence of the body and blood of Christ in the Eucharist, which did not become the subject of controversy until the ninth century. The definitive and precise formulation of the crucial doctrinal issues concerning the Eucharist had to await that controversy and others that followed even later. This does not mean at all, however, that the church did not yet have a doctrine of the Eucharist; it does mean that the statements of its doctrine must not be sought in polemical and dogmatic treatises devoted to sacramental theology. It means also that the effort to cross-examine the fathers of the second or third century about where they stood in the controversies of the ninth or sixteenth century is both silly and futile . . .

      Yet it does seem ‘express and clear’ that no orthodox father of the second or third century of whom we have record declared the presence of the body and blood of Christ in the Eucharist to be no more than symbolic (although Clement and Origen came close to doing so) or specified a process of substantial change by which the presence was effected (although Ignatius and Justin came close to doing so). Within the limits of those excluded extremes was the doctrine of the real presence . . .

      The theologians did not have adequate concepts within which to formulate a doctrine of the real presence that evidently was already believed by the church even though it was not yet taught by explicit instruction or confessed by creeds . . .

      Liturgical evidence suggests an understanding of the Eucharist as a sacrifice, whose relation to the sacrifices of the Old testament was one of archetype to type, and whose relation to the sacrifice of Calvary was one of ‘re-presentation,’ just as the bread of the Eucharist ‘re-presented’ the body of Christ . . . the doctrine of the person of Christ had to be clarified before there could be concepts that could bear the weight of eucharistic teaching . . .

      Theodore [c.350-428] set forth the doctrine of the real presence, and even a theory of sacramental transformation of the elements, in highly explicit language . . . ‘At first it is laid upon the altar as a mere bread and wine mixed with water, but by the coming of the Holy Spirit it is transformed into body and blood, and thus it is changed into the power of a spiritual and immortal nourishment.’ [Hom. catech. 16,36] these and similar passages in Theodore are an indication that the twin ideas of the transformation of the eucharistic elements and the transformation of the communicant were so widely held and so firmly established in the thought and language of the church that everyone had to acknowledge them.

      7) J.N.D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, San Francisco:Harper & Row, 1978, 447, provides this statement on the heels of Augustine’s Ennar 98:

      One could multiply texts like these which show Augustine taking for granted the traditional identification of the elements with the sacred body and blood. There can be no doubt that he [Augustine] shared the realism held by almost all of his contemporaries and predecessors.

      “Eucharistic teaching, it should be understood AT THE OUTSET, was in general unquestioningly realist, i.e., the consecrated bread and wine were taken to be, and were treated and designated as, the Savior’s body and blood” (Early Christian Doctrines, 440).

      8) Carl Volz, Faith and Practice in the Early Church, Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1983, 107:

      Early Christians were convinced that in some way Christ was actually present in the consecrated elements of bread and wine.

    454. Nicholas
      July 19th, 2014 @ 5:01 pm

      rockypath1,

      The development of Eucharistic theology parallels the development of Trinitarian theology. The belief in the real presence goes back to the Apostles, but it took time before the Church was able to articulate her understanding of the change which occurs during consecration. Similarly, the Apostles believed in the deity of Christ and the personality of the Holy Spirit, but the terms “substance” and “person,” which come from Hellenistic philosophy, were employed later, when the Church deliberated upon and clarified her comprehension of the nature of God.

      The three persons of the Trinity are mentioned in scripture, but their precise relationship is not discussed in depth. Moreover, the personality of the Holy Spirit is only implicit in the Bible. As Catholics, we believe that the doctrine of the Trinity is a revelation which God gave to the Church through her councils.

      I always find it ironic that James White, when he debates Muslims, cites St. Ignatius of Antioch to defend the deity of Christ, yet that same Church Father believed in the Catholic understanding of the Eucharist. I mentioned this before but it is worth bringing up again.

      Interesting, the early Reformers did not deny the real presence. Luther had a skewed view of it but the Evangelical notion of mere bread and wine is quite devolved from his. The main issue for the Reformation was the sacrificial character of the mass, which stems from Luther’s views on predestination, which eclipses the Church’s sacramental theology, denying that the sacraments, (the chief of which is the Eucharist and its sacrifice), avail for salvation.

    455. rockypath1
      July 19th, 2014 @ 6:09 pm

      Thanks Nicholas. Well said. I understand that Luther was quite disturbed at the rejection of the Real Presence Eucharist by Calvin et al.

      I sent my last composition away without a thorough review. Mea Culpa.

      Erratum
      “If you read nothing else please NOTE that famed protestant scholar J.N.D. KELLY wrote this…

    456. rockypath1
      July 19th, 2014 @ 6:58 pm

      Bo,

      And what does this website and this writers words really offer to you or anyone.

      Could it prove that the early Church was never Real Presence?

      Could this mans writings on Clement of Alexander and a few others provide comfort to you and those that cannot abide by the possibility that Real Presence Eucharistic celebration was at the centre of faith worship in the early Church because so that you do NOT have to adjust your ideas of faith action to be in accord with Gods actual revelation.

      So was the early Church entirely Real Presence Eucharistic despite what the writer on your website offered?

      If not when did the Catholic Church and Orthodox churches become Eucharistic centred in its worship and have it as the source and summit of their faith worship?

      It must have been before the Catholic-Orthodox schism over a thousand years ago. Right?

      By all evidence that one can provide, does not faith and secular history clearly show that the entire Church was Real Presence Eucharistic?

      Would you follow then a man on some website who is able to bring argument against some early Church writer who may have discussed a few items in a metaphorical sense – as we all do. As Jesus did. But who also discussed things literally and actually.

      Was God with the early Church (that mustard seed) that was more than evidently Real Presence Eucharistic?

      Are we called to believe that this tradition (from “tradition” which means to hand down) was in fact from the apostles, who learned it from Jesus and was therefor sanctioned by God?

      Did God NOT have that power to protect the teachings of what the entire Church actually believed until a few men came along in the 1500s and caused all to have so very much reset it all at THAT point.

      You tell me what to make of it all and John 14:26 then.

      “But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.”

      Again I ask, was our God so ineffectual that the Holy Spirit actually did NOT have the power to keep us on the straight and narrow for 1500 years until a few (not so wholesome) men came along?

      If He let Real Presence Eucharist slip in amongst the sheep and it was not true then why did Jesus bother at all?

      It boggles the mind, does it not?

    457. Bo
      July 20th, 2014 @ 12:03 pm

      rockypath1,

      http://onefold.wordpress.com/early-church-evidence-refutes-real-presence/

      Did you read the link? It shows that the early church leaders did not believe in the real presence of Messiah in the elements. Your church tells you the opposite. So your chruch stands against what is said in scripture and against those that were closest to those that wrote the scriptures. It is not apostolic authority, but apostate authority that you follow.

      Shalom

    458. rockypath1
      July 21st, 2014 @ 3:39 pm

      Holy smokes Bo.

      Are you denying the historical fact that the Catholic and Othordox churches were Real Presence Eucharistic. Historic Reality.

      There is nothing in that link which has the weight you think it does. I see your not the scholar I thought you were.

      And you read NOTHING of what I gave you.

      Read the early Church fathers for yourself and not the shameful obfuscator or onefole.wordpress. It is just that easy.

      There is only a few Church fathers your link pseudo-scholar discusses and then he only choses some ambiguous metaphorical quotes of a very tine minority of early Church fathers who ALL were Real Presence Eucharistic- including the ones he uses (Clement of Alexandrai, Tertullian and Origen).

      You begin to sound too much like the false witness persecutors I am used to on Youtube. How sad.

      The early Church was unequivocally Real Presence Eucharistic.

      This then from the apostles.

      This from Jesus.

      You cannot create your own false reality without jeopardizing your own salvation.

    459. Bo
      July 21st, 2014 @ 10:12 pm

      Rodkypath1,

      You wrote:
      “There is only a few Church fathers your link pseudo-scholar discusses and then he only choses some ambiguous metaphorical quotes of a very tine minority of early Church fathers who ALL were Real Presence Eucharistic- including the ones he uses (Clement of Alexandrai, Tertullian and Origen).”

      I am wondering how these can be real presence people when their quotes in context show otherwise. But I am pretty sure that you will believe what the Catholic church tells you to believe whether or not history or the Bible says the same thing. Messiahs words concerning eating His flesh, in context, show that He was speaking metaphorically. And there is nothing elsewhere in the entire Bible that even hints at anyone thinking that it is real flesh and blood.

      Shalom

    460. rockypath1
      July 22nd, 2014 @ 7:12 am

      Bo,

      Secular history will verify that the early Church History was undeniably Real Presence Eucharist.

      You only have to look at the fact that the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church history held this view. Do you think this came out of a vacuum. And developed in some latter day time.

      Cherry picking a few early writers with a few ambiguous quotes can hardly negate the body of early Church writers who do NOT support the information given in your website information. I think this is called eisegesis. No?

      When one tries to make reality (including authentic history) fit what they want rather than what is true and what God wants, well we get a lot of instability and 33,000 plus protestant denominations and growing rapidly.

      This is NOT obedience to what the apostles taught.

      I see you do not read what is in front of you out of fear but I will give support for Real Presence Eucharist in John 6. Symbolic? Impossible.

    461. rockypath1
      July 22nd, 2014 @ 7:16 am

      Bo,

      SYMBOLIC COMMUNION LEADS TO DEATH FOR TAKING JESUS IN WHEN YOU ARE IN STATE OF SIN.

      1 Corinthians 10:16-17
      16 The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a sharing in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a sharing in the body of Christ? 17 Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread.

      1 Corinthians 11:23-29
      The Institution of the Lord’s Supper

      23 For I received from the Lord what I also handed on to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took a loaf of bread, 24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, “This is my body that is for[a] you. Do this in remembrance of me.” 25 In the same way he took the cup also, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.” 26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.

      Partaking of the Supper Unworthily

      27 Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be answerable for the body and blood of the Lord. 28 Examine yourselves, and only then eat of the bread and drink of the cup. 29 For all who eat and drink[b] without discerning the body,[c] eat and drink judgment against themselves.

    462. rockypath1
      July 22nd, 2014 @ 7:36 am

      Bo,

      ROAD TO EMMAUS (Immediately after His resurrection)

      28 As they came near the village to which they were going, he walked ahead as if he were going on. 29 But they urged him strongly, saying, “Stay with us, because it is almost evening and the day is now nearly over.” So he went in to stay with them. 30 When he was at the table with them, he took bread, blessed and broke it, and gave it to them. 31 Then their eyes were opened, and they recognized him; and he vanished from their sight. 32 They said to each other, “Were not our hearts burning within us[f] while he was talking to us on the road, while he was opening the scriptures to us?” 33 That same hour they got up and returned to Jerusalem; and they found the eleven and their companions gathered together. 34 They were saying, “The Lord has risen indeed, and he has appeared to Simon!” 35 Then they told what had happened on the road, and HOW HE HAD BEEN MADE KNOWN TO THEM IN THE BREAKING OF THE BREAD. (Luke 24:13-35).

      The importance of the recognition of Jesus at the breaking of bread is obvious. The insight of the immediate post-resurrection occurrence by Jesus is not to be dismissed.

      What is Luke saying here?

    463. Bo
      July 22nd, 2014 @ 7:50 am

      Rockypath1,

      Joh 6:63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

      Please note that in the above verses that you quote that we are not partaking of His death or even His physical body and blood, but are proclaiming His death until He comes. It also says that the cup is the new covenant in His blood, not that the wine in the cup is blood. Drinking in an unworthy manner has nothing to do with not believing that it is actual flesh and blood. It has to do with us examining/looking at ourselves, not us being able to see/discern real flesh and blood in the elements.

      You left out a verse. We need to discern whether we are part of the body of Messiah, not that the bread is real flesh. We are partakes of that one bread, not real flesh.

      1Cor 10
      17 For we being many are one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread.

      What the church has turned into communion and the Eucharist is really the age old Passover meal. Paul tells us to keep the feast of unleavened bread earlier in 1Coriinthians not some new communion thing.

      1Co 5:8 Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.

      When we allow sin/leaven into the congregation, we eat and drink damnation to ourselves by partaking with them. We are not allowed to eat with unrepentant “believers.”

      1Co 5:11 But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat.

      The Passover meal always carried a strict command and if eaten unworthily would cause sickness and death.

      Ex 12:14 And this day shall be unto you for a memorial; and ye shall keep it a feast to the LORD throughout your generations; ye shall keep it a feast by an ordinance for ever.
      15 Seven days shall ye eat unleavened bread; even the first day ye shall put away leaven out of your houses: for whosoever eateth leavened bread from the first day until the seventh day, that soul shall be cut off from Israel.

      2Ch 30:18 For a multitude of the people, even many of Ephraim, and Manasseh, Issachar, and Zebulun, had not cleansed themselves, yet did they eat the passover otherwise than it was written. But Hezekiah prayed for them, saying, The good LORD pardon every one
      19 That prepareth his heart to seek God, the LORD God of his fathers, though he be not cleansed according to the purification of the sanctuary.
      20 And the LORD hearkened to Hezekiah, and healed the people.

      Shalom

    464. Bo
      July 22nd, 2014 @ 7:51 am

      They recognized Messiah blessing the bread, not Messiah’s real flesh as the bread.

    465. Bo
      July 22nd, 2014 @ 7:53 am

      He was made known to them in the breaking of the bread, not His flesh being the bread or the bread being His flesh.

    466. rockypath1
      July 22nd, 2014 @ 8:24 am

      Bo et al.,

      The early Church held the Real Presence of Jesus as the communion bread and wine (the Eucharist) as the central act of their faith gatherings. These were the acts of giving thanks, which is what Eucharist means.

      The Eucharist is the undeniable sign of authentic faith that was declared symbolic by Calvin in the early 1500s and yet this (what Calvin did) is EXACTLY what Jesus stubbornly insisted was a false interpretation in His longest discourse on any one given subject – His Real Presence to come in our Communion bread and wine (John 6).

      “VERY TRULY, I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Those who eat my FLESH and drink my blood have eternal life, and I will raise them up on the last day; for my flesh is TRUE food and my blood is TRUE drink. Those who eat my FLESH and drink my blood abide in me, and I in them.” [John 6:53-56]

      He employs a word in verse 53 that literally meant “gnawing on”, the way a wild animal gnaws on a bone. It loses its graphic realism when it is translated as “eat”. Why does he INTENSIFY the graphic realism of His statements by saying unless you GNAW on My flesh and lap up My blood, you have no life in you. Because he means them to understand the realism of it and to reject the meaphoric/symbolic understanding they had started with.

      (PLEASE NOTE: the Greek word for body used in John 6:52-58 is SARX, which means specifically and only “physical FLESH.” Aramaic scholars indicate that sarx is as close as you can get in Greek to the Aramaic bisra, which Jesus himself used. That is why the KJV versions also uses the word flesh. Why would Jesus use the word flesh. That may be a dead give away.)

      Jesus makes no attempt to soften what he said, no attempt to correct “misunderstandings,” for there were none. The AUDIENCE understood him perfectly well. They no longer thought he was speaking metaphorically.

      If they had misunderstood or mistook him then WHY no correction?

      Many of his disciples left him at this moment and it seems this is also where JUDAS left him (lost his faith) as Jesus brings him into the discussion at the point where the unfaithful disciples abandon Him The teaching on this were just too hard for them. Yes they left him because they KNEW he meant it.

      John 6:64-69.
      The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life. 64 But among you there are some who do not believe.” For Jesus knew from the first who were the ones that did not believe, and who was the ONE THAT WOULD BETRAY HIM. 65 And he said, “For this reason I have told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted by the Father.”

      66 Because of this many of his disciples turned back and no longer went about with him. 67 So Jesus asked the twelve, “Do you also wish to go away?” 68 Simon Peter answered him, “Lord, to whom can we go? You have the words of eternal life. 69 We have come to believe and know that you are the Holy One of God”

      Look now. In these words we see that the apostles stick with Jesus though totally bewildered. It was only after the last supper and His Resurrection that they really understood HOW he could and would be consumed as a Real Presence – in the communion bread and wine – the Eucharist.

      And this is why they taught this truth to the early Church.

      And this is why the entire early Church was Real Presence Eucharistic.

      And this is the most unshakable litmus test that points to the TRUE path.

      If you are not in a Eucharistic Church You are outside the FULLNESS of His Divine Will.

      LOOK AT THE TWO SEPARATE REFERENCES to JUDAS IN THIS CHAPTER. WHY, WHY, WHY? Why do they occur in the context of the devastating abandonment by his disciples.

      And remember Jesus makes no attempt to correct
      any misunderstanding here.

      He lets them leave because they finally understand Him correctly. He was NOT being metaphorical. This is proven by their abandonment (John 6:66), proven by the apostles bewilderment and proven by the warning Jesus is giving those who will reject Him in the Real Presence by bringing up Judas at this time.

      ON JUDAS
      Immediately before the unfaithful disciples abandon him because of His insistence that they must eat his body and drink His blood (as spiritual food). To be understood as Spiritual derived. BUT NOT symbolic.

      64 But among you there are some who do not believe.” For Jesus knew from the first who were the ones that did not believe, and who was the one that would betray him [John 6:64).

      John 6 finishes with what? Oddly it finishes with a final reference to JUDAS the ultimate betrayer (like those who JUST betrayed him in the Eucharist).

      "Jesus answered them, “Did I not choose you, the twelve? Yet one of you is a devil.” 71 He was speaking of Judas son of Simon Iscariot, for he, though one of the twelve, was going to betray him." [JOHN 6:70]

      The bringing up of Judas in this most significant of bible chapters is a clear enough warning for those who also want to abandon Jesus in His Real Presence Eucharist.

      Look again at the how Peter and the apostles were clueless, dazed and bewildered but DID NOT leave him.

      This was the obedient action that is pointed to.

      After the last supper (PASSOVER) institution of Communion eating and drinking of the body and blood and after the resurrection of our Lord and after the outpouring of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost we have the reason why the apostles accepted and taught Real Presence Eucharistic faith to the early Church.

      This is why the apostle taught it.

      This is why the early Church was Real Presence Eucharistic.

      :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

      So WHY how can someone interpret Jesus as being entirely metaphorical, totally symbolic?

      At the beginning or John 6 this is what everyone was thinking He was doing – being metaphorical.

      But He did NOT let it stand at this and went on to frame the entire dialogue as a factual and literal eating of his flesh and blood in a spiritual (non-symbolic) reality that they would NOT accept.

      So they abandoned him. Was He such an incompetent teacher that He would not make sure that this teaching was understood properly. Of course He did.

      [Except the unfaithful disciples of John 6:66 and then Calvin and Zwingli some 1500 years later.]

      ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

      ANOTHER VERY INTERESTING PASSAGE John 6:62

      Does this offend you? 62 Then what if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before?

      Here Jesus seems to be saying “how are you going to deal with me levitating into heaven if you cannot allow for God’s power and ability to accomplish such anti-natural states.

    467. rockypath1
      July 22nd, 2014 @ 8:30 am

      Bo,

      Given the unshakable fact that the entire early Church was Real Presence Eucharistic, we must assume by the power of the Holy Spirit and the teaching of the apostles that this is TRULY what Jesus wanted for us. This is what HE gave us. Everything else is obfuscation and disobedience.

      Peace brother.

    468. rockypath1
      July 22nd, 2014 @ 8:46 am

      CHURCH FATHERS ON THE EUCHARIST

      Background information on Real Presence Eucharitic celebration.

      Especially take note of Clement below.

      We know the Church Fathers were REAL PRESENCE EUCHARISTIC because this would have been part of their orthodoxy and obedience. The Church demands four major characteristics to be exhibited in the life and works of an early Church leader if he is to be considered a Father of the Church. These are antiquity, meaning that he lived before the eighth century (the death of St. John Damascene [cir. A.D. 750] ); doctrinal orthodoxy; personal sanctity; and approval by the Church.

      By the way Tertullian and Origen did not quite stand up to the Orthodox part, especially Tertullian.

      Also please note, especially if you do not read or retain any of the information on the Church Fathers or the Ecliasastical Writers below, that one of your own famous and respected Protestant scholar and historian of the early Church J. N. D. Kelly, writes:

      “Eucharistic teaching, it should be understood at the outset, was in general unquestioningly realist, i.e., the consecrated bread and wine were taken to be, and were treated and designated as, the Savior’s body and blood” (Early Christian Doctrines, 440).

      Mr. Kelly knew the Church Fathers well. Though he acknowledged the early church belief I do not know if he personally agreed with it. No matter.

      ********************************

      DIDACHE

      Before Clement, the Didache (a liturgical manual circa A.D. 70), stated, “On the Lord’s Day . . . gather together, break bread and offer the Eucharist, after confessing your transgressions so that your sacrifice may be pure.

      ********************************

      IGNATIUS of Antioch
      “I have no taste for corruptible food nor for the pleasures of this life. I desire the bread of God, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, who was of the seed of David; and for drink I desire his blood, which is love incorruptible” (Letter to the Romans 7:3 [A.D. 110]).

      “Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes” (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2–7:1 [A.D. 110]).

      ********************************

      JUSTIN MARTYR
      “We call this food Eucharist, and no one else is permitted to partake of it, except one who believes our teaching to be true and who has been washed in the washing which is for the remission of sins and for regeneration [i.e., has received baptism] and is thereby living as Christ enjoined. For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Saviour was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nurtured, is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus” (First Apology 66 [A.D. 151]).

      ********************************

      IRENAEUS
      “If the Lord were from other than the Father, how could he rightly take bread, which is of the same creation as our own, and confess it to be his body and affirm that the mixture in the cup is his blood?” (Against Heresies 4:33–32 [A.D. 189]).

      “He has declared the cup, a part of creation, to be his own blood, from which he causes our blood to flow; and the bread, a part of creation, he has established as his own body, from which he gives increase unto our bodies. When, therefore, the mixed cup [wine and water] and the baked bread receives the Word of God and becomes the Eucharist, the body of Christ, and from these the substance of our flesh is increased and supported, how can they say that the flesh is not capable of receiving the gift of God, which is eternal life—flesh which is nourished by the body and blood of the Lord, and is in fact a member of him?” (ibid., 5:2).

      ********************************

      CLEMENT of Alexandria
      “’Eat my flesh,’ [Jesus] says, ‘and drink my blood.’ The Lord supplies us with these intimate nutrients, he delivers over his flesh and pours out his blood, and nothing is lacking for the growth of his children” (The Instructor of Children 1:6:43:3 [A.D. 191]).

      ["Scholars have found it no easy task to sum up the chief points of Clement's teaching. As has already been intimated, he lacks technical precision and makes no pretense to orderly exposition. It is easy, therefore, to misjudge him. We accept the discriminating judgment of Tixeront. Clement's rule of faith was sound. He admitted the authority of the Church's tradition. He would be, first of all, a Christian, accepting "the ecclesiastical rule", but he would also strive to remain a philosopher, and bring his reason to bear in matters of religion." http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04045a.htm

      ["Clement explains that the Lord feeds Christians with His own flesh and blood even as a mother feeds her infant child from her own body: 'The young brood which the Lord Himself brought forth with throes of the flesh, which the Lord Himself swaddled with precious blood. O holy birth, O holy swaddling clothes, the Word is all to the babe, father and mother and tutor and nurse. "Eat ye My flesh," He says, "and drink ye My blood." This suitable food the Lord supplies to us, and offers flesh and pours out blood; and the little children lack nothing that their growth needs.' [Clement of Alexandria, Paed I:vi:42,43]” (vol 1, pg 37-38) http://www.philvaz.com/apologetics/num29.htm

      ********************************

      TERTULLIAN
      “[T]here is not a soul that can at all procure salvation, except it believe whilst it is in the flesh, so true is it that the flesh is the very condition on which salvation hinges. And since the soul is, in consequence of its salvation, chosen to the service of God, it is the flesh which actually renders it capable of such service. The flesh, indeed, is washed [in baptism], in order that the soul may be cleansed . . . the flesh is shadowed with the imposition of hands [in confirmation], that the soul also may be illuminated by the Spirit; the flesh feeds [in the Eucharist] on the body and blood of Christ, that the soul likewise may be filled with God” (The Resurrection of the Dead 8 [A.D. 210]).

      ********************************

      HIPPOLYTUS
      “And she [Wisdom] has furnished her table’ [Prov. 9:2] . . . refers to his [Christ’s] honored and undefiled body and blood, which day by day are administered and offered sacrificially at the spiritual divine table, as a memorial of that first and ever-memorable table of the spiritual divine supper [i.e., the Last Supper]” (Fragment from Commentary on Proverbs [A.D. 217]).

      ********************************

      ORIGEN
      “Formerly there was baptism in an obscure way . . . now, however, in full view, there is regeneration in water and in the Holy Spirit. Formerly, in an obscure way, there was manna for food; now, however, in full view, there is the true food, the flesh of the Word of God, as he himself says: ‘My flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink’ [John 6:55]” (Homilies on Numbers 7:2 [A.D. 248]).

      ********************************

      CYPRIAN of Carthage
      “He [Paul] threatens, moreover, the stubborn and forward, and denounces them, saying, ‘Whosoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily, is guilty of the body and blood of the Lord’ [1 Cor. 11:27]. All these warnings being scorned and condemned—[lapsed Christians will often take Communion] before their sin is expiated, before confession has been made of their crime, before their conscience has been purged by sacrifice and by the hand of the priest, before the offense of an angry and threatening Lord has been appeased, [and so] violence is done to his body and blood; and they sin now against their Lord more with their hand and mouth than when they denied their Lord” (The Lapsed 15–16 [A.D. 251]).

      ********************************

      COUNCIL OF NICAEA (325 AD)
      “It has come to the knowledge of the holy and great synod that, in some districts and cities, the deacons administer the Eucharist to the presbyters [i.e., priests], whereas neither canon nor custom permits that they who have no right to offer [the Eucharistic sacrifice] should give the Body of Christ to them that do offer [it]” (Canon 18 [A.D. 325]).

      ********************************

      APHRAAHAT the Persian Sage
      “After having spoken thus [at the Last Supper], the Lord rose up from the place where he had made the Passover and had given his body as food and his blood as drink, and he went with his disciples to the place where he was to be arrested.” (Treatises 12:6 [A.D. 340]).

      ********************************

      CYRIL of Jerusalem
      “The bread and the wine of the Eucharist before the holy invocation of the adorable Trinity were simple bread and wine, but the invocation having been made, the bread becomes the body of Christ and the wine the blood of Christ” (Catechetical Lectures 19:7 [A.D. 350]).

      “Do not, therefore, regard the bread and wine as simply that; for they are, according to the Master’s declaration, the body and blood of Christ. Even though the senses suggest to you the other, let faith make you firm. Do not judge in this matter by taste, but be fully assured by the faith, not doubting that you have been deemed worthy of the body and blood of Christ. . . . [Since you are] fully convinced that the apparent bread is not bread, even though it is sensible to the taste, but the body of Christ, and that the apparent wine is not wine, even though the taste would have it so, . . . partake of that bread as something spiritual, and put a cheerful face on your soul” (ibid., 22:6, 9).

      ********************************

      AMBROSE of Milan
      “Perhaps you may be saying, ‘I see something else; how can you assure me that I am receiving the body of Christ?’ It but remains for us to prove it. And how many are the examples we might use! . . . Christ is in that sacrament, because it is the body of Christ” (The Mysteries 9:50, 58 [A.D. 390]).

      ********************************

      THEODORE of Mopsuestia
      “When [Christ] gave the bread he did not say, ‘This is the symbol of my body,’ but, ‘This is my body.’ In the same way, when he gave the cup of his blood he did not say, ‘This is the symbol of my blood,’ but, ‘This is my blood’; for he wanted us to look upon the [Eucharistic elements] after their reception of grace and the coming of the Holy Spirit not according to their nature, but receive them as they are, the body and blood of our Lord. We ought . . . not regard [the elements] merely as bread and cup, but as the body and blood of the Lord, into which they were transformed by the descent of the Holy Spirit” (Catechetical Homilies 5:1 [A.D. 405]).

      ********************************

      AUGUSTINE
      “Christ was carried in his own hands when, referring to his own body, he said, ‘This is my body’ [Matt. 26:26]. For he carried that body in his hands” (Explanations of the Psalms 33:1:10 [A.D. 405]).

      “I promised you [new Christians], who have now been baptized, a sermon in which I would explain the sacrament of the Lord’s Table. . . . That bread which you see on the altar, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the body of Christ. That chalice, or rather, what is in that chalice, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the blood of Christ” (Sermons 227 [A.D. 411]).

      “What you see is the bread and the chalice; that is what your own eyes report to you. But what your faith obliges you to accept is that the bread is the body of Christ and the chalice is the blood of Christ. This has been said very briefly, which may perhaps be sufficient for faith; yet faith does not desire instruction” (ibid., 272).

      ********************************

      Council of Ephesus
      “We will necessarily add this also. Proclaiming the death, according to the flesh, of the only-begotten Son of God, that is Jesus Christ, confessing his resurrection from the dead, and his ascension into heaven, we offer the unbloody sacrifice in the churches, and so go on to the mystical thanksgivings, and are sanctified, having received his holy flesh and the precious blood of Christ the Savior of us all. And not as common flesh do we receive it; God forbid: nor as of a man sanctified and associated with the Word according to the unity of worth, or as having a divine indwelling, but as truly the life-giving and very flesh of the Word himself. For he is the life according to his nature as God, and when he became united to his flesh, he made it also to be life-giving” (Session 1, Letter of Cyril to Nestorius [A.D. 431]).

    469. Bo
      July 22nd, 2014 @ 8:47 am

      rodkypath1,

      “Was He such an incompetent teacher that He would not make sure that this teaching was understood properly[?]”

      He was such a great teacher that He could spell out exactly what He meant and still puprposely keep people from understanding Him. And then clarify to His disciples with sayings like “the flesh profiteth nothing.”

      Mt 13:10 And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables?
      11 He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given.
      12 For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance: but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath.

      13 Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand.
      14 And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive:
      15 For this people’s heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.

      And you only quoted half of this verse:

      Joh 6:63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

      “The flesh profiteth nothing” is in direct reference to Messiah’s discourse on eating His flesh. He explained Himself privately to His closest disciples and most of the others left, precisely because they were left with the misunderstanding that they would have to become cannibals. “Eating His flesh” is gaining spiritual nourishment from hearing His words and putting them into practice.

      Joh 4:32 But he said unto them, I have meat to eat that ye know not of.
      33 Therefore said the disciples one to another, Hath any man brought him ought to eat?
      34 Jesus saith unto them, My meat is to do the will of him that sent me, and to finish his work.

    470. rockypath1
      July 22nd, 2014 @ 8:47 am

      PASSOVER and eating the UNBLEMISHED LAMB.
      The Jews celebrate Passover as a commemoration of their liberation over 3,300 years ago by God from slavery in ancient Egypt and their birth as a nation under the leadership of Moses.

      God (through Moses) forced Egypt to let them go by killing the first born sons of all the Egyptians.

      Recall that the Hebrew sons were spared when (as directed) the Jewish families marked the doorposts of their homes with the blood of a slaughtered and UNBLEMISHED SPRING LAMB. The Angel of death then passed over these homes, hence the name passover.

      BUT they would not have been saved if they had not followed all they were told to do in order to complete the mystery,

      The Hebrews HAD TO eat the lamb.

      Jesus IS the unblemished lamb. This is the obvious prophetic reality of the Passover that is not lost on any Christian. Right?

      Passover and their safety from the angel of death coming into their house depended on one final action.

      They MUST eat the lamb. Our lord in the bread and wine. The Eucharist.

      In order to facilitate our own salvation we also MUST eat the lamb.

    471. Bo
      July 22nd, 2014 @ 9:00 am

      Rockypath1,

      According to your dates above, it looks to me like the first time real presence was believed was more than a 100 years after Messiah. A lot of false doctrine can infiltrate in a 100 years. A lot of paganism can be assimilated.

      The Scriptures contain nothing of this “real presence” doctrine, so it is obvious that the Roman church and many others were apostate from a very early on. (See Revelation chapters 2 and 3)

      Acts 20
      27 For I have not shunned to declare unto you all the counsel of God.
      29 For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.
      30 Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.
      31 Therefore watch, and remember, that by the space of three years I ceased not to warn every one night and day with tears.
      32 And now, brethren, I commend you to God, and to the word of his grace, which is able to build you up, and to give you an inheritance among all them which are sanctified.

      Paul taught the word of YHWH and then commended the disciples to “the word of His grace” and not to a real presence doctrine. Grievous wolves entered in early. The enemy planted tares among the good wheat. The kingdom of heaven was corrupted from shortly after the apostles. Real presence and “communion” replaced the true celebration of Passover and unleavened bread that Paul told us to keep.

    472. Bo
      July 22nd, 2014 @ 9:03 am

      rockypath1,

      You wrote:
      “In order to facilitate our own salvation we also MUST eat the lamb.”

      Yes, not literally, but just as Messiah told us to…by hearing His words and putting them into practice. And by realizing that the flesh profiteth nothing.

    473. rockypath1
      July 22nd, 2014 @ 9:28 am

      John 14:26
      But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.

      You CLEARLY REJECT this.

      Only one Church teaches the same thing from the inception of our faith from Jesus, down through years through ALL generations for the sake and salvation of ALL.

      Who are the wolves but those who deny Jesus in the Eucharist and have led so very, very many away in disobedience and error. 33,000 protestant denominations teaching significantly different doctrine can’t be wrong! Really. The signs are there. The WOLVES are known. Are YOU a wolf Bo, with your radically different messianic faith. You bet. As you lead people away from apostolic teaching and obfuscate history and scripture.

      Eucharist. Clearly supported by biblically and by Holy Tradition.

      “Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught, either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours.” (2 Thess 2:15)

      “I praise you because you remember me in everything and hold fast to the traditions, just as I handed them on to you.” (1 Cor 11:2).

      Sola Scriptura. Non biblical and heretical. Latter day development from Luther in 1500s. Leading 100s of millions into confusion and false faith, abomination (Hypergrace) (rejection of Eucharist) (rejection of Church authority).

      Bo, God may lead you to truth by his grace in His good time and yours.

      But it is evident that you choose passages to support your ideas and your new traditions and reject the traditions firmly established by the apostles.

      This is cafeteria Christianity and really took off in the 1500s.

      To seek His truth and being open to the movement of His grace we must be of goodwill and obedient to Him and not our own assumptions and make-believe history.

      Perhaps someday the seeds planted on this day will take root.

      May God be with you.

    474. Bo
      July 22nd, 2014 @ 9:57 am

      rockypath1,

      you wrote:
      “John 14:26
      But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.

      You CLEARLY REJECT this.

      Only one Church teaches the same thing from the inception of our faith from Jesus, down through years through ALL generations for the sake and salvation of ALL.”

      No, I clearly accept it and duly note that not one time did the Holy Spirit direct the apostles to teach that there is real presence in the bread and wine. There is not one recorded word in scripture that says such a thing. The only church that teaches such a thing started well over a hundred years after Messiah. It is the harlot in Revelation. Mystery Babylon. It teaches Messiah’s servants to eat things offered to idols and to commit spiritual fornication in the very same tradition that the pagans did using the same symbols of idolatry.

      You wrote:
      ““Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught, either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours.” (2 Thess 2:15)

      “I praise you because you remember me in everything and hold fast to the traditions, just as I handed them on to you.” (1 Cor 11:2).”

      And none of those traditions contain any mention of real presence but do ask us to keep the Biblical feasts of YHWH instead of pagan styled communion and false sabbaths.

      You wrote:
      “Bo, God may lead you to truth by his grace in His good time and yours.

      But it is evident that you choose passages to support your ideas and your new traditions and reject the traditions firmly established by the apostles.”

      I do not “choose passages” to support my ideas. I quote them to you and you do not accept what they say. You have ears, but hear not. You have eyes that see not. My traditions are not new, but are as old as creation. They are mentioned in the very beginning of the Bible. Yours are not even mentioned in the Bible. There is no Easter and xmas and lent and Sunday sabbath anywhere in scripture. I do not have cafeteria christianity. Protestantism may have this problem to greater and lessor degree, but I do not. I accept every word of YHWH. I hear every word of Messiah including, “the flesh profiteth nothing.” The Catholic church is based only on the doctrines of mere men that have twisted the truth to align with pagan idolatry and continues to reject the scripture in actuality.

      The scripture is the words of the apostles and prophets and is what the Spirit speaks to us. Since the Catholic church rejects what is contained in the Scripture, it rejects true faith. It has changed the times and laws of YHWH and is thus antichrist. The mother of harlots.

      Da 7:25 And he shall speak great words against the most High, and shall wear out the saints of the most High, and think to change times and laws: and they shall be given into his hand until a time and times and the dividing of time.

      History has no instance of real presence for well over a hundred years. It is on my side. It shows that real presence was invented much later by false teachers.

      There is time for you to repent. May it be soon.

      Shalom

    475. Bo
      July 22nd, 2014 @ 11:09 am

      rockypath1,

      John 6
      63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

      67 Then said Jesus unto the twelve, Will ye also go away?
      68 Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life.

      The people in Messiah’s day that heard Him say to eat His flesh and drink His blood had the good sense to not follow someone that would teach this literally. The disciples had the good sense enough to continue to follow Him once He told them that it was a metaphor. They followed Him because he had the words of life, not because His physical flesh and blood would be literal food.

      But what of the church system that thinks that He was being literal and still claims to follow Him? What of the people that go along with this? It is not good sense. It is paganism. It is mystery religion…mystery Babylon. It teaches a false Messiah…a cannibal…a pagan entity.

      Shalom

    476. rockypath1
      July 22nd, 2014 @ 11:15 am

      There is a profound satanic delusion amongst your assemblies Bo. You show extraordinary ignorance (in the truest sense of the dictionary definition). You know nothing of the early Church and yet you hate her.

      But this is the Church founded by Jesus, and it is His body.

      You cannot hate Jesus and profess to love him too. It is nonsensical.

      Irenaeus writes (in the 2nd century),
      “Those who wish to see the truth can observe in every church the tradition of the Apostles made manifest in the whole world . . . therefore we refute those who hold unauthorized assemblies . . . by pointing to the greatest and oldest church, a church known to all men, which was founded and established at Rome by the most renowned apostles Peter and Paul . . . for this Church has the position of leadership and authority, and therefore every church, that is, the faithful everywhere must needs agree with the church at Rome for in her the apostolic tradition has ever been preserved by the faithful from all parts of the world.” (Against Heresies, 3:3)

      and…

      Obedience to the bishop as the head of the Church was crucial. Ignatius of Antioch writes to the Christians at Smyrna and condemns congregationalism using language that is clearly hierarchical:

      “All of you follow the bishop as Jesus Christ followed the Father, and the presbytery as the apostles; respect the deacons as ordained by God. Let no one do anything that pertains to the church apart from the bishop. Let that be considered a valid Eucharist which is under the bishop or one who he has delegated . . . it is not permitted to baptize or hold a love feast independently of the bishop.” (Letter to the Smyrnaeans, ch. 8)

      and…

      The New Testament and the writings of the apostolic Fathers portray the Church as centralized, hierarchical, and universal. The need for unity is stressed. Heresy and schism are anathema. Allegiance to the hierarchical chain of command guarantees unity: God sent his Son Jesus. Jesus sent the apostles. The apostles appointed their successors. The bishops are in charge.

      So Clement of Rome writes:

      The apostles received the gospel for us from the Lord Jesus Christ: Jesus the Christ was sent from God. Thus Christ is from God, the apostles from Christ. In both cases the process was orderly and derived from the will of God. (Letter to the Corinthians, ch. 42)

      http://www.catholic.com/magazine/articles/stewards-of-the-kingdom

    477. rockypath1
      July 22nd, 2014 @ 11:28 am

      Bo,

      JUST WHY DID JESUS CHANGE THE NAME SIMON TO ROCK?

      # We KNOW that when God changes someones name it is for a covenantal type reason? Right Bo. You cannot deny this. Or can you?

      There is only one reason. Remember Bo, Jesus is God and He knew what he was going to do with Mr. Rock.

      You and bible-only Christians offer a lot of vague texts that you think gives you some legitimacy and then gloss over the critical, ground-shaking ones texts like Matthew 16:16-19. Why is that?

      There is just too much in the grammar and context that will not allow for any other interpretation than that Peter HIMSELF was the central element of Matthew 16. Yes it is true that it is Peter’s revelation of truth that has Jesus declaring the following.

      “But who do you say that I am?” 16 Simon Peter answered, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.” 17 And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father in heaven. And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock[e] I will build my church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”

      Two things:

      1) Jesus has already changed Simon’s name to ROCK (John 1:42) in anticipation of this authorization as head of the Church (for all generations). To say it was about “revelation” and not Peter (Rock) is to obfuscated the obvious play on words here.

      2) If it was not about Peter then we would not have Jesus giving him (Peter) and ONLY Peter the keys of authority and the powers to bind and loose.

      To give the rename Simon to “Rock” indicates that our Lord entrusted to him a special authority

      Lets step back a little.

      *******************

      It was very significant that Jesus renames Peter to Rock in that there must be a reason. Surely Jesus had a reason and a good reason for doing this. He was just not handing out a nickname for a bit of fun or like something that might be done as some high school high-jinx.

      We know that God had a reason for the names that were changed in the Old Testament and this points to why Jesus did what he did (And surely Jesus foresaw the future of Peter’s name change and the contention of it and that of matthew 16):

      Gen 17:5 “Neither shall thy name any more be called Abram…thy name shall be Abraham; for a father of many nations have I made thee.”

      Gen 32:28 “And He said, thy name shall be called no more Jacob, but Israel”. Jacob founder – twelve tribes of Israel.

      These name changes were outward signs of covenants made that would last forever. And just as these were signs of a promise made so is Simon-Peters name change an indication of something to come – and something that would last down through time.

      John 1:42 “You are Simon son of John. You are to be called Kepha (Cephas) (Rock).”

      Now Peter himself is not so much the direct recipient of this name change as is the new covenant church – in Peter’s authoritative role or position.

      And again please remember, besides the change of name, Jesus unequivocally gives something else to Simon-Peter that is unique – the Keys of the Kingdom.

      “I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” [Matthew 16:19]

      This refers back to Isaiah 22:22 where Eliakim as steward of the royal House of David was essentially the prime minister (or steward) of the kingdom. In charge of the Kingdom when the King is away.

      “And I will place on his shoulder the key of the house of David; he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open.” [Isaiah 22:22].

      Peter himself then is commissioned to become the steward (the Prime Minister) of a kingdom. And while the King is away he has the authority to wield the King’s power. Peter’s authoritative role will continue as the keys of the prime minister are always passed along.

      So is the promise inherent in Peter’s new name (and these keys) fulfilled? There is only one unique body that can fulfill this – the new covenant church (the Catholic Church).

      *********************

      Yes the element of “revealed truth” (revelation) that Peter was inspired to speak was revealed by His “Father in heaven” and it is just this inspiration of truthful revelation that is to be inherent in the steady hand of Peter and his successors down through all generations.

      Matthew 16
      And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father in heaven”

      Peter and his successors would keep the teachings of the Church inviolate and in accordance with God’s will forever. This is critical. And ALL believers must be obedient to this or the Church will be splintered and many will become confused.

      By denying the role of Peter is to set your own self up as the purveyor of inspired truth – and I just don’t see that in the bible – or as a possible source of reliability.

      There is more in the bible that refers to Peter and his EXTREMELY prominent capacity. Its very remarkable Bo.

    478. rockypath1
      July 22nd, 2014 @ 11:32 am

      Jesus used certain words to instruct (ordain the apostles) to perform the Eucharistic Celebration. His statement, “Do this in remembrance of me,” may also be translated, “Offer this as my memorial sacrifice”

      This priesthood is identical with the office of elder. In fact, the term “priest” is simply a shortened, English version of the Greek word for “elder,” as any dictionary will confirm. In Greek, the word for elder is presbuteros. That word was transliterated into Latin as presbyter, which then in English became shortened to priest. That’s why you never hear about “Catholic elders.” It is because Catholic priests are Catholics elders.

      Titus 1:5 (KJV), Paul tells Titus: ” For this cause I left thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee” The Douay Rheims versions (the Catholic KJV) say priests not elders.

      James 5:14-15 says: “Is any man sick among you? Let him bring in the priests of the Church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil, in the name of the Lord. And the prayer of faith shall save the sick man; and the Lord shall raise him up; and if he be in sins, they shall be forgiven him.”

      Akin’s insight from James 5 is that New Testament priesthood is a sacramental priesthood. (A sacrament is an outward, physical means that communicate God’s grace to us.) We have the priests of the church – that is, the presbyters or “elders” of the church – distributing the sacrament of holy anointing. The priests come in, anoint the sick person with oil, and pray over him so that he might be raised up and forgiven any sins he has committed.

      John 20:21-23
      Another sacrament the elders (priests) of the Church administer. Jesus says “Receive the Holy Spirit. . . . Whoever’s sins you forgive, they are forgiven; whoever’s sins you retain, they are retained.” John 20:22: “Receive the Holy Spirit. When Jesus commissions his ministers to forgive sins, he tells them to “Receive the Holy Spirit” and then breathes on them. [John 20:22]

      This gift of the Holy Spirit, through the laying on of hands IS ORDINATION.

      2 Tim 1:6
      We find the same pattern in 2 Timothy 1:6, when Paul urges his protégé to fulfill his ministry and says: “I remind you to rekindle the gift of God that is within you through the laying on of my hands.”

      1 Tim 4:14
      Paul tells Timothy that he must fulfill his ministry as an evangelist and tells him: “Do not neglect the gift you have, which was given you by prophetic utterance when the council of elders laid their hands upon you.”

      Part of Timothy’s duty as a bishop-evangelist was to ordain priests (elders) in different congregations

      1 Tim. 5:19-22
      “Against an elder receive not an accusation, but before two or three witnesses. Them that sin rebuke before all, that others also may fear. I charge thee before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, and the elect angels, that thou observe these things without preferring one before another, doing nothing by partiality. Lay hands suddenly on no man, neither be partaker of other men’s sins: keep thyself pure.”

      Akin states “Timothy, as well as Titus and other early evangelist-bishops, carried out this ministry of ordaining priests, and the result is what we have today in the Catholic Church: a sacramental priesthood with a chain of ordinations running straight back to the first century, whose links can be clearly documented from Church history.”

      PRIEST
      The English word “priest” is derived from the Greek word presbuteros, which is commonly rendered into Bible English as “elder” or “presbyter.”

      BISHOPS

      Episcopos arises from two words, epi (over) and skopeo (to see), andi t means literally “an overseer”: We translate it as “bishop.” The King James Version renders the office of overseer, episkopen, as “bishopric” (Acts 1:20). the apostles ordained certain men, giving them authority over multiple congregations (dioceses), each with its own presbyters. These were endowed with the power to ordain additional presbyters as needed to shepherd the flock and carry on the work of the gospel.

      Titus and Timothy were two of those early episcopoi and clearly were above the office of presbuteros. They had the authority to select, ordain, and govern other presbyters, as is evidenced by Paul’s instructions

    479. Bo
      July 22nd, 2014 @ 11:51 am

      rockypath1,

      I love the real early church that is explained in scripture. The false Babylon harlot church that solidified as the Roman Catholic church…that I do not love. You mistake the two. It is obvious from Catholic doctrine that they have supplanted true doctrine. The changes are obvious. You continue to quote from those that were many, many generations removed from the apostles as some kind of proof that Catholicism is the early church. No one is fooled by this except those that want to be fooled.

      Shalom

    480. rockypath1
      July 22nd, 2014 @ 12:50 pm

      Bo,

      It is you that mistakes the two. There is some kind of fake Berean, made-up history (non-history) of an early Church that no one takes seriously except for those who want so badly to create a legitimate foundation where one is otherwise completely lacking. Is that you Bo.

      I have tested your waters and I find you are mostly part of the false witness camp of believers that is sadly all to common amongst the bible-only believers. By your comments you might be quite at home with those who delight in claiming that hundreds aborted fetuses are found in the sewers of convents or child sacrifices occur in the basements of Catholic Churches. I am just as likely to hear the same stuff you are starting to reveal on this all too common of venue at the following.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M3ie46V2wfw

      A very common phenomenon and one the relies on fake credential, make belief history and absurd pseudo-scholarship such as Jack Chick. I thought you had more going for you than that. It is more of the persecution variety than anything.

    481. rockypath1
      July 22nd, 2014 @ 12:55 pm

      WHO IS THE WHORE OF BABYLON

      When the Whore falls we read, “‘Rejoice over her, O heaven! Rejoice, saints and apostles and prophets! God has judged her for the way she treated you’. . . . In her was found the blood of prophets and of the saints, and of all who have been killed on the earth” (Rev 18:20 and 24).

      So, the Whore could not be the Catholic Church because 1) it did not exist to kill the old testament prophets and

      2) No blood is on the Churches hand with respect to any Apostle.

      Prophets existed as a group only in the Old Testament and in the first century (Acts 11:27-28, 13:1, 15:32, 21:10). Since the Whore persecuted apostles and prophets, the Whore must have existed in the first century and BEFORE.

      WHO KILLED THE PROPHETS
      Indeed, Jesus himself could not be any clearer in Matthew 23:37: “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, killing the prophets and stoning those who are sent to you!

      Rev 17:5 “Babylon the great, mother of whores and of earth’s abominations.” 6 And I saw that the woman was drunk with the blood of the saints and the blood of the witnesses to Jesus….”

      Rev 17:18 The woman you saw is the great city that rules over the kings of the earth.”

      Rev 18:10 “Alas, alas, the great city, Babylon, the mighty city! For in one hour your judgment has come.”

      Rev 18:20 “Rejoice over her, O heaven, you saints and apostles and prophets! For God has given judgment for you against her.’

      SO WHO IS BABYLON – THE GREAT CITY MOTHER OF WHORES

      ANSWER

      REV 1:8 The GREAT CITY “where also their lord was crucified – JERUSALEM

      NOT ROME!

      Passages of Revelation pertaining to the whore or the harlot makes sense when it is referring to ancient PAGAN Rome but make no sense when Fundamentalists try to associate it with modern Rome. The passage says that the Whore will have power over kings. Modern Rome has no power over modern “kings”, in fact there are almost no kings left in the world. Nor does the Church (which rests on Vatican hill outside of the 7 hills of Rome) have power over political leaders, otherwise ABORTION, PORNOGRAPHY, and HOMOSEXUALITY with HOMOSEXUAL MARRIAGE would not be legal in the civilized world. Revelation says that the whore was the center of commerce. (Rev 18:17-19) No economist today will say that modern Rome or the church is a leader in commerce. The US, Japan, etc are. However, ancient Pagan Rome was a leader in commerce.

      The Vatican is on Vatican hill and outside the 7 hills of Rome that that city is built on.

      And it MUST be noted the bibles including the KJV translate it not as hill but as mountain.

      Revelation 17:9
      And here is the mind which hath wisdom. The seven heads are seven mountains, on which the woman sitteth.

      Jerusalem is built on 7 mounts.

      One source, http://jesus-messiah.com/prophecy/rev-13.html, lists the seven, and explains a bit more of why some authors list different mountains, and includes a map: 1.) Mount Gared; 2.) Mount Goath; 3.) Mount Acra; 4.) Mount Bezetha; 5.) Mount Moriah; 6.) Mount Ophel; 7.) Mount Zion.

      The seven mountains upon which Jerusalem was built are (according to wikipedia): Scopus, Nob, Olivet, “Mount of Corruption” or “Mount of Offence”, “Mount Zion”, the “Ophel Mount” and the new “Mount Zion.”

      Or perhaps interpetations are far more complex than the followers of Jack Chick might expect,

      Who knows? Perhaps the 7 mountains refer to the 7 continents. Perhaps the harlot is in fact apostate Christianity of a protestant variety. It may not hurt to look at all the possibility but NO ONE should go about insisting that their interpretation against another faith is correct. It is too convoluted with too many possibilities.

      And no one should contradict scripture in their assertions. Like you are doing Bo.

    482. rockypath1
      July 22nd, 2014 @ 1:03 pm

      7 MISSING BOOKS FROM THE BIBLE (Deuterocanonical (Apocrypha))

      If Bible-only Christians admit that the early Eucharistic Church was somehow in fact guided by the Holy Spirit in choosing the correct (inspired) gospels and letters from amongst the many available at the time, then how can they say the seven books removed by Luther were NOT inspired?

      To say the early Eucharistic Church included these 7 books in error is to say that any other book accepted in the original bible canon might NOT be inspired either. Or that one of the other texts left out might have actually been inspired.

      Did it take the Holy Spirit 1300 years before He could get Luther to correct the error that He originally let slip in?

      IN FACT, to say the Eucharistic Church made an error in compiling the bible is to say the Holy Spirit was not active in the selection of the correct books, gospels and letters and therefore we can have NO certainty of the inspiration (validity) of ANY book contained in the New Testament.

      To say the early Eucharistic Church was not the Catholic Church is an absurdity and is only done to create a false historical reality in order to justify ones own foundation – if that were possible.

      ********************************

      BACKGROUND

      Through a process of intense discernment guided by the Holy Spirit, the successors of the Apostles determined in the fourth century which of the writings of their day were Sacred Tradition—the “Word of God”—and which were not inspired writings of the Church.

      The canon of Scripture was first affirmed at the Council of Rome in 382 under Pope Damasus, which included all and only the seventy-three books Catholics honor today. This canon was repeated at Hippo and at Carthage (A.D. 393 and 397, respectively) and has been repeated ever since.

      7 MISSING BOOKS in Protestant bible

      Books of Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus (The Wisdom of Sirach), Tobias, Judith, Baruch, First and Second Machabees.

      The 7 books were part of the Greek Septuagint used by NT writers. Jesus probably used it. There is much evidence for this and it is widely accepted. As for reference from the 7 books compare Hebrews 11:35 with 2 Maccabees 7). And others cross references too.

    483. Bo
      July 22nd, 2014 @ 1:40 pm

      Rockypath1,

      You have a problem. The mother of harlots has daughters…lots of them. They are the very protestant churches that you call wolves. The mother that begat them is Rome…Papal Rome. You confess that the protestant churches are whores and fail to recognize their Mother.

      I have not brought up anything about history that you have not mentioned. I have made no claims regarding the atrocities that you have mentioned. They may be true or they may not be true. One thing has been becoming quite clear though, Catholic priests have a homosex and pedophilia problem. There are historic accounts concerning the immorality of Catholic priests going way back and they continue to the present. Then there are the indulgences and the inquisition and and and…

      Of all the well meaning people that are Catholics, it is a shame that they are devoted to a system that produces so much evil and superstition. A system that hijacked the true faith. There is good reason that the first 100 years of the church have no historic accounts that demonstrate a link to Roman Catholicism. It does not exist. Roman Catholicism congeals out of much apostasy and becomes the world antimessiah religion with Constantine.

      But we digress. As to the topic of real presence bread and wine. The scripture does not support it. History before 150 does not support it. All you claims have been proven false.

      You wrote:
      “Jesus used certain words to instruct (ordain the apostles) to perform the Eucharistic Celebration. His statement, “Do this in remembrance of me,” may also be translated, “Offer this as my memorial sacrifice”

      Hmmmm!??

      The Catholic Douay Rheims translation does not even do that. There is nothing about sacrifice in the passage. Nothing about offering.

      Luke 22
      19 And taking bread, he gave thanks and brake and gave to them, saying: This is my body, which is given for you. Do this for a commemoration of me. (Douay Rheims)

      You are grasping at straws. Flesh profits nothing.

      John 6
      63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

      Shalom

    484. Sheila
      July 22nd, 2014 @ 2:13 pm

      rockypath1,

      You said (way up there somewhere!): “He employs a word in verse 53 that literally meant “gnawing on”, the way a wild animal gnaws on a bone. It loses its graphic realism when it is translated as “eat”. Why does he INTENSIFY the graphic realism of His statements by saying unless you GNAW on My flesh and lap up My blood, you have no life in you. Because he means them to understand the realism of it and to reject the meaphoric/symbolic understanding they had started with.”

      I think what’s going on here is that the Lord is equating Himself with the Passover Lamb that the Israelites celebrated as indicative of the Exodus. They were to eat “all of it” and brush the blood on the lintels and doorpost. None was to step outside of the protective barrier of their residence or they would be destroyed. There was to be “none left over until morning” but each was to prepare and eat only as much as they needed. So, in following the command, I imagine they actually did “gnaw” on the bone to dispose of it.

      I believe that’s the equation He’s drawing on when He uses the analogy of eating and drinking of the Son of Man.

      Every Jew would have equated the Passover with coming out of Egypt. Jesus says, I am that Lamb of God and I am that Judge who will “pass-over” your sins and preserve your life by giving mine. If you do not have me in your inward parts, you have no life in you. The passover lamb would most likely have hearkened back to the substitute given to Abraham in place of Isaac also.

      Paul speaks of the Spirit of Christ and of us receiving the Holy Spirit who bears witness with our spirit that we are the children of God. This is given upon our Confession of Faith and not during the taking of communion. It was during Pentacost that the Holy Spirit fell on those present. I don’t see where the sharing of bread and wine is of more importance than that of the communion of the saints remembering the Lord’s suffering for our sins as “the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world.” That some were sick when eating it, being unworthy, makes sense without the supernatural transposition of the literal body of Christ. They were there to gorge themselves and were eating in the wrong spirit, rather than of remembrance of Christ as the Passover Lamb. They weren’t right with God when they partook of it.

      That’s how I understand it.

      Messiah is present in all of the Jews Feast days and He is especially present in the Passover. Notice He refers to Himself as “the Son of Man.” To use that description is to equate Himself with the “Son of Man” of Daniel 7 who “rides upon the clouds” and is “brought before the Ancient of Days” (the Father) in Heaven. Those verses in Daniel is the litmus test to the divinity of Messiah and to His being the ultimate Judge of the world whose Kingdom is an everlasting one. In fact, the Son of Man is more important in establishing His divinity than the expression, the “Son of God.”

      Anyway, the communion of Saints is another way of coming together as One in Messiah in remembrance of His death for our sins; His “body broken for us” and His “blood shed for the remission of our sins.” There’s no need for transubstantiation.

      After saying that, I do understand that the tradition you’ve embraced, or, perhaps even grown up in, has elaborated on that belief to your satisfaction, apparently, and you’re convinced of it’s truth. I hope you come to understand the way in which I’ve come to appreciate the Passover meal. It’s a gathering in appreciation and remembrance of Messiah as a sacrifice for us.

      I don’t see where it’s a matter of salvation to believe one way or another and if you believe otherwise, perhaps I missed that part. I admit that I haven’t read every post in the conversation yet. I’ve been trying to catch up on another conversation and to work up my response there, so, I’ve had to leave off responding to other posts.

      Thanks! And may the Lord richly bless you in your service of Him!

    485. Bo
      July 22nd, 2014 @ 11:10 pm

      Sheila,

      I think that rockypath1 thinks that not believing that the elements become the physical flesh and blood of Messiah constitutes not discerning the body of Messiah and therefore it is eating and drinking damnation to yourself. If I am correct, he thinks it is an issue of salvation. But of course he would probably not think that a protestant could bless the elements so that they become the physical body and blood because they have not had hands laid on them from the Catholic church. So maybe protestants do not have to worry about eating and drinking damnation, because they are already damned because they do not partake of the body and blood of Messiah. Maybe he will elaborate.

      Shalom

    486. Sheila
      July 23rd, 2014 @ 12:45 am

      So, Bo, do you agree with what I wrote out? I didn’t want to offend anyone.

    487. rockypath1
      July 23rd, 2014 @ 7:04 am

      Bo,

      You have got to do better than this bizarre interpretion of Verse 63. Its a stale old chestnut that has no merit for your position. Just the opposite.

      John 6
      63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

      Are we to understand that Christ had just commanded his disciples to eat his flesh, then said their doing so would be pointless? Is that what “the flesh is of no avail” means? “Eat my flesh, but you’ll find it’s a waste of time”—is that what he was saying? Hardly.

      The fact is that Christ’s flesh avails much! If it were of no avail, then the Son of God incarnated for no reason, he died for no reason, and he rose from the dead for no reason. Christ’s flesh profits us more than anyone else’s in the world. If it profits us nothing, so that the incarnation, death, and resurrection of Christ are of no avail, then “your faith is futile and you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished” (1 Cor. 15:17b–18).

      In John 6:63 “flesh profits nothing” refers to mankind’s inclination to think using only what their natural human reason would tell them rather than what God would tell them. Thus in John 8:15–16 Jesus tells his opponents: “You judge according to the flesh, I judge no one. Yet even if I do judge, my judgment is true, for it is not I alone that judge, but I and he who sent me.” So natural human judgment, unaided by God’s grace, is unreliable; but God’s judgment is always true.

      And were the disciples to understand the line “The words I have spoken to you are spirit and life” as nothing but a circumlocution (and a very clumsy one at that) for “symbolic”? No one can come up with such interpretations unless he first holds to the Fundamentalist position and thinks it necessary to find a rationale, no matter how forced, for evading the Catholic interpretation. In John 6:63 “flesh” does not refer to Christ’s own flesh—the context makes this clear—but to mankind’s inclination to think on a natural, human level. “The words I have spoken to you are spirit” does not mean “What I have just said is symbolic.” The word “spirit” is never used that way in the Bible. The line means that what Christ has said will be understood only through faith; only by the power of the Spirit and the drawing of the Father (cf. John 6:37, 44–45, 65).

    488. rockypath1
      July 23rd, 2014 @ 8:10 am

      bo/shiela

      I would not say anyone is damned for not having the sacraments given by Jesus. But they are certainly uniquely efficacious toward sanctification and therefore towards the goal of salvation.

      I believe in the saving grace of Jesus but see a paradox in what Jesus says for those who believe in his death on the cross and yet reject his body and blood in the bread and wine.

      Jesus said
      “Very truly, I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54 Those who eat my flesh and drink my blood have eternal life, and I will raise them up on the last day; 55 for my flesh is true food and my blood is true drink. 56 Those who eat my flesh and drink my blood abide in me, and I in them.”

      NOTE: the “Truly truly” or “verily, verily” is a rabbinic method for saying what is about to follow is literally true.

      I gave the biblical evidence that shows the development of the Catholic ministerial priesthood (bishops and priesthood). And the Eucharistic sacrament is certainly the prime mover of this necessity.

      No it is unfathomable (and unbiblical) that just any believer could consecrate the bread and wine. (It is done by the work of the Holy Spirit and not by the power of any human/priest.)

      I would note here also that the reason there are so very many incorrupt saints in the Catholic Church is meant as a sign of the truth of this holy sacrament. If any think satan has this power they are in error and in jeopardy of blaspheming Jesus and the Holy Spirit.

    489. rockypath1
      July 23rd, 2014 @ 8:14 am

      Bo,

      You have created a fallacious straw man of the Catholic Church that is easier for you to believe and therefore very easy for you to knock down.

      For the sake of your own credibility you may want to NOT take fundamentalist talking points too seriously.

      I am baffled that you are still able to think that the early Church was not entirely Real Presence Eucharistic. Did you really read my historic posts or those who are not Catholic? Did you really do your own research?

      IGNATIOUS of ANTIOCH was a student of JOHN the APOSTLE and this holy martyr is clear (and VERY EARLY CHURCH):

      Referring to “those who hold heterodox opinions,” that “they abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in his goodness, raised up again” (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2, 7:1).

      Forty years later, JUSTIN MARTYR, wrote, “Not as common bread or common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nourished, . . . is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus” (First Apology 66:1–20).

      THESE MEN DIED FOR THEIR FAITH BO!

      THIS then IS an apostolic tradition if nothing else.

      And I think I would take the opinion of highly respected protestant early Church scholar Church J. N. D. Kelly more than than your anti-Catholic website you offered. In his humility and integrity he acknowledges:

      “Eucharistic teaching, it should be understood at the outset, was in general unquestioningly realist, i.e., the consecrated bread and wine were taken to be, and were treated and designated as, the Savior’s body and blood” (Early Christian Doctrines, 440).

      And I gave many others who agree. They have done their homework and are men of honor. They are above creating false realities.

      Whatever else might be said, the early Church took John 6 literally. In fact, there is no record from the early centuries that implies Christians doubted the constant Catholic interpretation.

      There exists no document in which the literal interpretation is opposed and only the metaphorical accepted.

    490. rockypath1
      July 23rd, 2014 @ 8:51 am

      Shiela,

      I understand your ideas but my conclusions are based on the historical fact that the early Church was entirely Real Presence Eucharistic.

      This certainly edifies John 6 but John 6 stands well enough alone.

      “Very truly I say …” A rabbinic declaration that what follow is to be taken literally.

      His references to Judas are powerful indicators of betrayal. It is a warning not to betray him as the unfaithful disciples did in John 6:66..

      His reference to the ascension as an indicator of Gods power to enact what He says no matter how we in our limited capacity cannot accept it.

      Peter accepts it in the name of the apostles though he clearly does not get it. Obedience and faith.

      Jesus is not backing down. He never does. He ramps it up until the squeak and then abandon Him. He would not do this in order to proclaim the metaphorical nature of his flesh. That was the easy thing to understand and that is what they wanted to accept. He did not let them but took them to a higher spiritual place.

      With his death and resurrection. And with Pentecost we now have a fuller acceptance (by his disciples) of His meaning and intentions.

      We Catholics believe because this is what He gave us to partake of.

      And it was certainly given by the apostles or that sacred tradition would not have existed.

      I can not see the logic in a just a metaphorical interpretation given this historical reality.

      Surely Sheila you must recognize the reality of what was always believed and guarded by the early Church – for ALL generations.

      Do you also really think that the reformers were giving the true apostolic truth then?

      Where the heck did they get their authority. Luther was Real Presence Eucharistic but Calvin took precedence on this issue. Why? Do you really think that the Church was apostate until these new traditions were developed 1500 years later.

      You do know that there is NO support for Sola Scriptura in the bible?

      You know in a very real sense, the Mormons take the same stand. They would also say that God had not the power to protect the truest teaching He gave to the apostles. The all was apostate from the get-go. That all those centuries the people were lost, confused or deluded. For the Mormons an angel descended and gave them reconstituted truth after 2000 years of Catholic corruption.

      What we have is a principle that basically says John 14:26 was NOT true and that God was basically ineffectual.

      “But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.”

      This I will not believe.

      I gave more on some of this above.

      Once I noted that Bo was not actually reading the supporting information and held the same simplistic hostile anti-Catholic fundamentalists views, I just gave some of most critical supporting information I had and was ready to leave the page. So I gave he biblical roots for the ministerial priesthood and why it is important. And I gave some minor information on the Church who had the Divine infallible authority to discern the canon of the bible but not the charism to do anything else except to be foul and apostate. Something is wrong with this notion.

      Thanks for you peaceful discussion Sheila. May Gods blessing be upon you. And Bo too ;)

      Garry

    491. Sheila
      July 23rd, 2014 @ 11:59 am

      Thanks for that, Garry. As I said I didn’t read all of the discussion but will go back now and tackle it since you put so much effort into it. I apologize for that.

      You said, “You do know that there is NO support for Sola Scriptura in the bible?”

      I have to differ with you on that point. The Bible is God’s revelation of His self and of the coming of Messiah. It’s a God breathed document from beginning to end. Also, in the New Testament we have Paul stating “2Ti 3:16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.”

      That’s Sola Scriptura if I ever heard it!

      Thank you for a good and civil discussion too!

    492. Bo
      July 23rd, 2014 @ 12:18 pm

      rockypath1.

      You wrote:
      “THESE MEN DIED FOR THEIR FAITH BO!”

      Muslims die for their faith too. It does not mean that they believe the correct things. What is the date of the first solid belief in real presence?

    493. rockypath1
      July 23rd, 2014 @ 12:19 pm

      Sheila,

      I can’t argue with the fact that scripture is God-breathed and profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.”

      However, it is too much to say that scripture has authority over the Church. Or that any human being, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, has his/her own personal authority when it comes to doctrine or moral behavior. Examples and history show otherwise – to potential mass confusion.

      One must be obedient first to the Church and authority and its God-given traditions.

      We know that Sola Scriptura and personal interpretation has led to many thousands of splinters and many grave interpretations such as hypergrace (OSAS) vs sanctification. We see the Southern Baptist and Seventh Day Adventist (and others) allowing for abortion. Some assemblies accept homosexual behavior as okay.

      Jesus said, “If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” [Mat18:17-18]

      Luke 10:16
      “He who hears YOU hears ME. He who rejects YOU rejects Me

      Ephesians 5:27
      27 so as to present the church to himself in splendor, without a spot or wrinkle or anything of the kind—yes, so that she may be holy and without blemish.

      1 Timothy 3:15
      15 if I am delayed, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth.

      2 Peter 1:20
      20 First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation,

      2 Peter 3:14-17
      14 Therefore, beloved, while you are waiting for these things, strive to be found by him at peace, without spot or blemish; 15 and regard the patience of our Lord as salvation. So also our beloved brother Paul wrote to you according to the wisdom given to him, 16 speaking of this as he does in all his letters. There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures. 17 You therefore, beloved, since you are forewarned, beware that you are not carried away with the error of the lawless and lose your own stability.

      Thank you for elevating my own discussion Sheila by your goodwill.

      I cannot say that this gives NO

    494. Bo
      July 23rd, 2014 @ 5:14 pm

      rockypath1.

      You wrote:
      “THESE MEN DIED FOR THEIR FAITH BO!”

      Muslims die for their faith too. It does not mean that they believe the correct things. What is the date of the first solid belief in real presence? Please give the quote and the date of its writing.

    495. rockypath1
      July 24th, 2014 @ 7:57 am

      Bo,

      Paul, the didache, Ignatius, Justyn martyr and all the many others should be enough.

      The testimony of the early Church stands and is clear for those who are obedient to what the apostles gave.

      What else is THIS belief except for what the apostles taught. This did not come from thin air. This is the God-breathed Church testimony.

      “If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” [Mat 18:17-18]

      Go ask Ignatius who learned his faith at the foot John who saw our Lord crucified and who spoke with Him after His resurrection and who wrote John 6 etc. If you do not believe Jesus, the apostles and the early Church testimony what more can be offered.

      You have your own agenda and this takes precedence. You are looking to every latter day concretion that gives you permission to obscure what was conveyed from the start. Apostolic faith. From Jesus. Guided by the Holy Spirit. For ALL generations. It can’t get any simpler or more obvious.

    496. rockypath1
      July 24th, 2014 @ 8:50 am

      Irenaeus

      Irenaeus has been called the most important witness of the Christianity in the 2nd century. Taught by Polycarp, who had been instructed by John the apostle, Irenaeus became bishop of Lyons in 178 CE. In his Against the Heresies, Irenaeus wrote, “Although there are many dialects in the world, the force of the tradition is one and the same. For the same faith is held and handed down by the churches established in the German states, the Spains, among the Celtic tribes, in the East, in Libya, and in the central portions of the world…” In Book 3, Irenaeus continues his defense of the unity of the church around the bishop, writing, “By pointing out the apostolic tradition and faith announced to mankind, which has been brought down to our time by successions of bishops, in the greatest, most ancient, and well known church, founded and established by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, at Rome, we can confound all who in any other way… gather more than they ought.”

    497. Bo
      July 24th, 2014 @ 9:18 am

      rockypath1,

      I just want the earliest reference, and its date, that is obviously real presence directly stated from someone that was not an apostle.

    498. rockypath1
      July 24th, 2014 @ 10:54 am

      Bo,

      If you are sincerely interested in the truth you will find that information for yourself.

      You have been given enough now to discern the truth of it all.

    499. Bo
      July 24th, 2014 @ 11:06 am

      rockypath1,

      In other words…you and I both know that the idea real presence is at least 2 generations removed from the apostles and that no apostle taught such a thing. You do not want to publish the what I asked for because it is damning to the Catholic Church’s position. There is no true continuance between the Apostles doctrine and Catholic doctrine on this matter and many, many more.

      Shalom

    500. Bo
      July 24th, 2014 @ 11:09 am

      rockypath1,

      And I have read the early Church fathers over and over. I know a bit about the topic. I have found the truth. I was just hoping that you would admit the truth to yourself even if you could not admit it to us.

      Shalom

    501. Bo
      July 24th, 2014 @ 11:18 am

      rockypath1,

      You wrote:
      “Paul, the didache, Ignatius, Justyn martyr and all the many others should be enough.”

      Paul does not teach real presence, as I have demonstrated. The didache does not teach it. Ignatius wrote in the second century and it is in doubt what he teaches about it. Justyn Martyr is late second century.

      Some reading our dialogue would probably like to read this:

      http://onefold.wordpress.com/early-church-evidence-refutes-real-presence/

      Shalom

    502. rockypath1
      July 24th, 2014 @ 12:54 pm

      It is suggested that anyone reading the Bo-rockypath dialogue might want to review ALL the information presented above rather than resorting to the misleading (shoddy) pseudo-scholarship of the onefold website (shoddiness explained above).

      ;)

    503. Bo
      July 24th, 2014 @ 1:06 pm

      It is suggested that anyone that reads the dialogue above remember that rockypath1 does not want to admit that the real presence doctrine does not show up till at least 2 generations after the apostles and that it is based upon the writings and traditions of men instead of the scripture.

      Shalom

    504. rockypath1
      July 25th, 2014 @ 7:29 am

      The Real Presence Eucharistic doctrine is fully explicated by Jesus in John 6 and edified by the undeniable reality that ALL the early Church was Real Presence Eucharistic.

      John the apostle taught what Jesus taught straight to Ignatius of Antioch who said:

      “They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not admit that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ,..”

      and

      “Be not deceived, my brethren: If anyone follows a maker of schism [i.e., is a schismatic], he does not inherit the kingdom of God; if anyone walks in strange doctrine [i.e., is a heretic], he has no part in the passion [of Christ]. Take care, then, to use one Eucharist, so that whatever you do, you do according to God: For there is one flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, and one cup in the union of his blood; one altar, as there is one bishop, with the presbytery and my fellow servants, the deacons” (Letter to the Philadelphians 3:3–4:1 [A.D. 110]).

      http://www.catholic.com/blog/tim-staples/is-the-eucharist-truly-jesus-body-and-blood

      http://www.catholic.com/tracts/christ-in-the-eucharist

      FOR THOSE WHO PREFER AN AUDIO BROADCAST

      http://www.catholic.com/speakers/talks/the-eucharist-god%E2%80%99s-extravagant-love-revealed

      Eucharistic Miracles
      http://www.catholic.com/magazine/articles/eucharistic-miracles-evidence-of-the-real-presence

      ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

      POST MORTEM

      Too much scripture, history and early Church tradition proclaims Real Presence Eucharistic reality to allow it to be brushed aside. God will NOT give those of illwill an unending revelation because they already deny what is given. They want only to follow after their own gods and they will do so no matter how much they are given.

      God hardens the hearts of those of illwill. Those who smear and disparage for their purposes will not listen to the Church and create their own reality.

      Mat18:17-18
      Jesus said, “If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; & if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile & a tax collector.

      Blessings to all who, though not Real Presence Eucharistic, still behave with charity and goodwill and attempt good scholarship with integrity.

      Renowned Protestant historian of the early Church J. N. D. Kelly, writes:

      “Eucharistic teaching, it should be understood at the outset, was in general unquestioningly realist, i.e., the consecrated bread and wine were taken to be, and were treated and designated as, the Savior’s body and blood” (Early Christian Doctrines, 440).

      Bo or J.N.D. Kelly (with the voice of entire early Apostolic Church)?

    505. Bo
      July 25th, 2014 @ 11:37 am

      rockypath1,

      Some may want to hear see this short video that reveals the blasphemy of the Catholic church in its real presence doctrine:

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IWAmfRZwEJk

      The issue is not history, but the teachings of scripture. Those things written after the scripture are to be judged by it and not scripture interpreted in a way to approve the traditions and doctrines of men. Whatever any church or church leader, 70 years removed from Messiah, did does not prove orthodoxy. The scripture judges their orthodoxy or not.

      Shalom

    506. Bo
      July 25th, 2014 @ 11:40 am

      The above link starts the video toward the end instead of at the beginning for some reason. To hear the whole message you will need to slide the progress bar marker back to the beginning.

      Shalom

    507. rockypath1
      July 27th, 2014 @ 6:36 am

      I heartily recommend Bo’s immediately previous cited YouTube video from Mike Gendron as a shameful and embarrassing example of fundamentalist bible-protestant mischief.

      The mockery of the Eucharist (in the unconsecrated “wafer”) is specifically noted as a blemish on the character of Mike Gendron (and his giggling friend) and all fundamentalist bible-only protestants who join themselves to this trash.

      Not only is it disrespectful, it is half-baked, quasi-pseudo scholarship. Only a little effort on discerning the history of the early Church will show this.

      Protestants of goodwill will be embarrassed and some may even acknowledge the nature of this exhibition.

      Peace.

    508. Bo
      July 27th, 2014 @ 8:45 am

      rockypath1,

      You are very good at insults…and bad historical deductions. There is no such thing as real presence in any writing within 100 years of Messiah’s death.

    509. Bo
      July 27th, 2014 @ 9:53 am

      rockypath1 believes in the infallibility of and office…a mere man. I believe in the infallibility of YHWH’s word. That word explicitly denies real presence doctrine. Rockypath1 may continue to pile historical record upon historical record showing what the apostate Catholic Church always believed, but it will be piled on the foundation of paganism and traditions of men and not on the real foundation of Messiah and the apostle’s doctrine. Catholics of good will would do well to read for themselves and think for themselves and leave off on the talking points.

      Luke 22
      19 And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me.
      20 Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you.

      Please note that this is to be done in remembrance of Messiah, and is thus symbolic in nature. If the “real presence” was indicated, it would not be in remembrance, but in actuality.

      What was in the cup? Wine. No blood, but the new covenant in His blood. It was a covenant meal, not a lawful way to enjoy cannibalism and imbibe eternal life.

      John 6
      63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life…
      67 Then said Jesus unto the twelve, Will ye also go away?
      68 Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life.

      Messiah is not saying to remember Him by eating Him. He is saying to remember Him by eating unleavened bread and and drinking the cup of wine after the Passover dinner, which just happens to be called the cup of salvation/deliverance. A memorial is not the real thing. So let’s do what Messiah said and memorialize Him on the day in the way He said to, and not participate in some pagan magic incantation and cannibalistic mysticism.

      Paul is a second witness.

      1Co 11:23 For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread:
      24 And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.
      25 After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.
      26 For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord’s death till he come.

      We symbolically show (Literally: announce or declare.) the Messiah’s death until He returns. We do not bring down His flesh and blood, we bring down the message of it. We do not produce the actual flesh and blood of His death. That is a much different type of showing. We do it in remembrance…as a memorial.

      This is what the apostles taught. Whatever church “father”, not matter how early, that actually teaches real presence is simply in error. Whatever Church does this, is deceiving us.

    510. Greg Allen
      July 27th, 2014 @ 10:11 am

      Bo,

      It is one thing to question the infallibility of papal decrees (lots of Catholics do!) but it is a huge jump to call the church apostate.

      I think the Catholic church is wrong, on a number of points, but what church or individual Christian isn’t?

      The term “apostate” should be reserved for those who have denounced Jesus and his message. Clearly, the Catholics have not done that.

    511. Greg Allen
      July 27th, 2014 @ 10:18 am

      Bo,

      Since you don’t go to a church, what do you do on Sunday mornings? (or Saturday, if the case)

      Do you do some sort of home church service?

      Most people I know who don’t attend church tend to also blow-off the Sabbath as a ritual but I suspect that you don’t.

      (PS I’m not trying to bait you. I don’t know many people as devout as you who aren’t also active in church and I’m honestly curious about how that works for you.)

    512. Greg Allen
      July 27th, 2014 @ 10:36 am

      rockypath,

      I couldn’t quite follow all your discussion with Bo but I do have a question for you, since I meet very few people, even Catholics, defend transubstantiation.

      Do you believe it in a literal, scientific way?

      (Please excuse how yucky this is:)

      As in — if a hospital took a stomach pump to a post-communion Christian, the doctors would find human flesh and blood with Jesus’ DNA?

      That kind of literal transformation of the bread and wine? Or do you believe in something less literal than that?

      Again, I apologize for the unpleasant scenario but that’s my honest question about transubstantiation.

    513. Bo
      July 27th, 2014 @ 11:02 am

      Greg,

      I stand by the word apostate. But I also think that your church is the same. Claiming true faith is different than actually having it. We all sin. We do not all teach that sin to others as good doctrine. Speaking the name of “Jesus” is not the same as speaking of the true Messiah.

      We keep YHWH’s 7th day Sabbath and His feast days and spend hours reading scripture, discussing it and worshiping in song and prayer. We take the day completely off and spend time together enjoying YHWH’s creation…esp. each other. Sometimes we have other families over to participate in either the fun and fellowship or the worship time or both.

    514. Greg Allen
      July 27th, 2014 @ 11:21 am

      Bo,

      My church is only apostate if you have added “anti-gay” to the salvation.

      I don’t consider that apostasy but it is arguably heresy. (I personally, try to be conservative about using that label as well.).

      But the RCs don’t like the gays either — what makes them apostate in your mind?

      2.

      Thanks for answering my question.

      It sounds like you draw somewhat from the Jewish sabbath tradition minus the attending synagogue.

      Which feasts do you celebrate? The Christian one? I can’t imagine your boss giving you 50 days off for the feast of Pentecost. ;-)

      Even though I don’t ritually celebrate Sabbath beyond attending church, I do try to respect the spirit of the Sabbath and keep the rest of the day restful.

      Ironically, when I was a pastor, the Sabbath was the least restful day for me. It left me exhausted!

    515. Bo
      July 27th, 2014 @ 5:24 pm

      Greg,

      We keep the feasts of YHWH. The ones that Messiah kept. The only ones found in the Bible. Leviticus 23 outlines them. We also keep the sighted new moons and some of us keep Chanukah and Purim. The actual count of days off of work is around 70 days a year. Unless you count the middle days of the feasts which would add about 10 more days off, but they are not actually sabbaths. That we know of, we do not borrow from the Jewish idea. We simply read what the scripture says and put it into practice. When we gather with others, it usually includes eating together like the early church.

      Any church that preaches a different “Jesus” or different gospel than Paul preached or that is shown in the gospels is apostate. So yes, those churches that accept abortion or gay lifestyle or that teach salvation that is bestowed by works or practices idol worship by another name or that incorporate paganism into its worship are apostate…scripturally speaking. There are probably people in those churches that are still saved, but the system is the harlot of Babylon and her daughters. It is time to come out and be holy to YHWH.

    516. Greg Allen
      July 27th, 2014 @ 8:20 pm

      >> those churches that accept abortion or gay lifestyle … are apostate … scripturally speaking.

      NOT scripturally speaking. Bo speaking.

      Huge difference.

    517. Greg Allen
      July 27th, 2014 @ 8:23 pm

      Anyone know what happened to Van?

      Did he just quit coming here or did Dr. Brown ban him?

    518. Greg Allen
      July 27th, 2014 @ 9:00 pm

      >> those churches that accept abortion or gay lifestyle

      In an odd way — you and I agree on a narrow point.

      I also think the bible condemns a gay lifestyle.

      I just don’t think that “lifestyle” is loving, monogamous gay marriage. I think it is pederasty and temple prostitution.

    519. Bo
      July 28th, 2014 @ 12:00 am

      Greg,

      The problem is that committed homosex is exactly what states will cause one to forfeit their inheritance in the kingdom. This sin or that sin can be forgiven, a continuous lifestyle of sin proves that we do not really believe in the real Messiah and do not have His Spirit of grace. So what of those that preach, “Peace, peace when there is no peace” to those that are in the predicament of rebelling against YHWH via committed homosex? Do they not cause more harm than those that are involved in the sinful lifestyle?

      Lu 17:2 It were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he cast into the sea, than that he should offend one of these little ones.

      In case you are wondering…causing someone to stumble or offending them, as it is used in scripture, does not mean hurting their feelings by calling sin, sin. It means helping them to sin…tripping them from walking in paths of righteousness. That is what you are doing, Greg. You are helping homosexuals to sin and encouraging them to continue in it. And your church that agrees with you is apostate.

    520. rockypath1
      July 28th, 2014 @ 8:39 am

      bo

      Bo said, “rockypath1 believes in the infallibility of and office…a mere man. I believe in the infallibility of YHWH’s word. That word explicitly denies real presence doctrine. ”

      You do realize Moses was virtually infallible in his pronouncements. And the prophets, what of them. So when Jesus says I give the keys…what you bind on earth…is bound in heaven.

      Further statements are just bluster with no backing.

      One can not have the entire early Church believing in Real Presence Eucharistic celebration (with very, very, very early history documentation) without it obviously being part of a HOLY ORAL TRADITION. You know, from Jesus through the apostles to the Church. Oh and with a little help form the Holy Spirit.

      John 14:26
      But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.

      None of the early Jewish Christians supported your form of latterday worship. NONE.

      I showed you much from scripture which gave the roots why the Lord’s day became the new day of rest. And your silence was deafening.

      Believe selectively and in anti-biblical disobedience if you choose. But THAT is not a choice any person should make

    521. Greg Allen
      July 28th, 2014 @ 8:53 am

      Bo,

      >Lu 17:2 It were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he cast into the sea, than that he should offend one of these little ones.

      Ironically, this is the verse I would show you, ase wll.

      I firmly believe that the church’s unbiblical anti-gay stance is causing millions of Americans — especially young people — to stumble.

      All the polls would back me up on this, BTW. Millions of Americans are leaving the church because they perceive us (correctly, I believe) to be bigots.

      The evangelical church as being anti-gay to salvation itself.

      So, a whole generation is rejecting the gospel because of our unbiblical, anti-gay bigotry.

      This, I believe, is the stumble caused by the church’s stance on the gays. And it is a very real one.

      I know you don’t believe this — but sometimes society leads the church on moral issues. Especially the conservative church. They did it on acceptance of the Jews. Society led the church on slavery, segregation and inter-marriage. Society led the church on suffrage and equality for women. And, now, society is leading the church on equality for our LGBT brothers and sisters.

    522. Greg Allen
      July 28th, 2014 @ 8:55 am

      >>The evangelical church as being anti-gay to salvation itself.

      The Evangelical church has _added_ being anti-gay to salvation itself.

    523. Greg Allen
      July 28th, 2014 @ 9:01 am

      rockypath and Bo,

      >>I showed you much from scripture which gave the roots why the Lord’s day became the new day of rest. And your silence was deafening.

      Here is my question about that issue:

      Since the creation account (and, of course, creation itself) long preceded the Gregorian calendar isn’t it impossible to know which “day” the Lord rested on?

      Yes, it was the seventh but maybe God started creating on Tuesday!

      Sorry if this comes across as silly but this whole debate strikes me as a little silly.

      I say — pick a day to worship and rest and enjoy it. No need to be legalistic about it. Sunday works for me because that’s when my church meets. In some Muslim countries, my church met on Friday because Sunday was a working day. That was fine, too.

    524. Bo
      July 28th, 2014 @ 9:07 am

      rockypath1,

      I didn’t know that you wanted me to give a rebuttal to your statements on Sabbath being changed to Sunday. I thought it was kind of a rant. I saw nothing in your post about it that had any substance worth much, if any, rebutting and it might get us called on the carper for being off topic. I will reread it and give it a shot. I do not know where the post is. Can you point me too it, please?

      Shalom

    525. Greg Allen
      July 28th, 2014 @ 9:09 am

      Rockypath,

      I am really curious about your answer to my question about transubstantiation.

      Do you believe it is a literal _scientific_ phenomenon? I mean, something that happens on a molecular level.

      I’m not asking this as a trick question. (But, it seems fairly easy to prove or disprove.)

      Like most Christians, (I assume) I view it as a spiritual ritual outside the realm of science.

      I suppose I have an even more important question — why is the doctrine of transubstantiation so important to you? Is not a spiritual reality enough? Is there a reason it also has to be material and literal?

    526. rockypath1
      July 28th, 2014 @ 9:18 am

      Bo

      You said, “You are very good at insults…and bad historical deductions.”

      And yet YOU have not hesitated for a minute to declare the Catholic Church (the early Church) “apostate” and the Whore of Babylon. And in support of your views you offer a profoundly malformed YouTube presentation showing Mike Gendron mocking the Eucharist.

      And you call me insulting? For what?

      For saying Gendron was “shameful and embarrassing” and an example of fundamentalist bible-protestant mischief”

      This kind of mischief from bible-only protestants is indeed rampant on Youtube and typically so juvenile you would think a person of the simplest education would recognize it for what it is – False Witness. But not so. Many lap it up. And the fuel of this false witness is Ill-Will.

      I believe Dr. Brown addresses the issue of ill-will of one bible-Christian group against another as being shocking and unacceptable. I hope to see him acknowledge the stench of anti-Catholic persecution from bible-Christians. Or is this an acceptable form of persecution. It is in fact a broad and deep phenomenon across YouTube and that means the world. And seems to be acceptable to the rank and file bible Christian – though most may not partake actively.

      Gendrons, mockery and disrespect for the beliefs of others is disgusting.

      If you choose Larraine Boettner, Alex Hyslop and Jack Chick as your mentors then you WILL lose most of your credibility. That’s your choice.

      But I will false assumptions and false history as legitimate part of any debate.

      So you are being held accountable to a higher standard of integrity and good scholarship and honorable behavior. You may not be used to this.

      Would one expect anything but goodwill, respect, pure scholarship, integrity and credibility from a follower of Jesus (Yeshua)? You tell me.

      Bo I know and discern good scholarship and a basic amount of goodwill. Sadly, I cannot say that I see these in your work here.

    527. Greg Allen
      July 28th, 2014 @ 9:35 am

      Rockypath,

      >>I believe Dr. Brown addresses the issue of ill-will of one bible-Christian group against another as being shocking and unacceptable. I hope to see him acknowledge the stench of anti-Catholic persecution from bible-Christians.

      Some of the best things I have heard on “Line of Fire” is Dr. Brown speaking of church unity.

      He said this repeatedly in his debates with John MacArthur.

      But I think there are limits to this Christian unity. As a liberal Christian, I certainly feel excluded.

      Have you heard Dr. Brown make exclusionary comments about Catholics? I don’t remember any but it’s not something I would be sensitive too.

    528. Greg Allen
      July 28th, 2014 @ 9:38 am

      >>Gendrons, mockery and disrespect for the beliefs of others is disgusting.

      “Gendrons”? I couldn’t even find that one using Google!

      Even if it is not a real word — it should be! ;-)

    529. rockypath1
      July 28th, 2014 @ 9:47 am

      Greg Allen

      Transubstantiation is that reality of the bread and wine truly, truly becoming the flesh and blood of our Lord Jesus under the remaining form of bread and wine.

      And this believed only with the eyes of faith and not possibly by an electron scanning microprobe?

      Who can believe such a thing as the Real Presence. It is absurd and ridiculous. Right?

      But Jesus gave this and therefore we believe.

      Jesus also gave authority to the Church to discern this (Mat 16) and therefore we believe.

      Jesus was unequivocal in John 6 and this is edified by the fact that entire early Church was Real Presence Eucharist. And therefore WE believe.

      We believe because the apostles MUST have taught this reality and because the Holy Spirit was sent to guide us to all truth.

      John 14:26
      But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.

      And so we are obedient to a most difficult reality. Accomplished by the Holy Spirit.

      What did Peter say to Jesus after the unfaithful disciples left Jesus?

      67 So Jesus asked the twelve, “Do you also wish to go away?” 68 Simon Peter answered him, “Lord, to whom can we go? You have the words of eternal life. 69 We have come to believe and know that you are the Holy One of God.

      Peter was stunned and bewildered but was obedient until the Last Supper revelation and Pentecost came a full understanding.

      Apostolic teaching brought this to the early Church and to those who TODAY remain obedient to that HOLY tradition.

      How can we leave THIS then?

    530. Bo
      July 28th, 2014 @ 9:52 am

      Greg,

      You wrote:
      “Since the creation account (and, of course, creation itself) long preceded the Gregorian calendar isn’t it impossible to know which “day” the Lord rested on?

      Yes, it was the seventh but maybe God started creating on Tuesday!

      Sorry if this comes across as silly but this whole debate strikes me as a little silly.”

      Actually it is not silly but a dire situation. Since YHWH commanded us to keep His Sabbath holy right alongside not committing adultery and not committing murder and spoke it audibly to millions of witnesses, He is pretty serious about it.

      No time has been lost or days of the week mixed up in calendar changes. YHWH laid it out clearly at Creation that He set the seventh day apart and blessed it. During the Exodus about 2500 years later, YHWH miraculously proved for 40 years what day the seventh was by not providing manna on that day. He commanded that we keep that day because of His example. He did not say to take one in seven off of work.

      Messiah, who was YHWH in the flesh, did not sin in the slightest. He never said that the Jews were keeping the wrong day, but that they had messed up how it was kept. So everything was in order until 2000 years ago. Since then, Jews all over the world have made very certain to keep the correct day and the with the change to a seven day week in Rome beginning from Agustus, we have the whole western world keeping track of time quite well. When our calendar was changed from the Julian to the Gregorian, no change in the day of the week was made. So we know that, at least from the Exodus till now, that we are correct and we know that YHWH remembered when He rested at the end of creation.

      He spoke from the mount that we should now remember that very day of the week and keep it set apart (Holy like He made it) from the others by not working, and giving our family, our workers and our animals a day off on that exact day.

      Keeping the Sabbath holy is a distinctive mark of YHWH being our master instead of us doing things our own way. When we do it differently, we are showing who our master is. Sunday being our sabbath shows our pagan roots…and that the Catholic Church is our master. Protestants that continue to keep Sunday instead of the Seventh day are still doing obeisance to the Pope in this area. It is certain that Messiah never changed the Sabbath to Sunday, nor did any apostle.

      The early church kept the Sabbath. And Sunday was instituted by the Roman Catholic Church much later.

      “William Cave wrote “… the Sabbath or ‘Saturday’ (for so the word sabbatum is constantly used in the writings of the fathers, when speaking of it as it relates to Christians) was held by them in great veneration, and especially in the Eastern parts honoured with all the public solemnities of religion. This is plain, not only from some passages in Ignatius and Clemens’s Constitutions, but from writers of more unquestionable credit and authority. Athanasius, bishop of Alexandria, tells us that they assembled on Saturdays… to worship Jesus Christ, the Lord of the Sabbath.”[15]

      15. Cave, Primitive Christianity: or the Religion of the Ancient Christians in the First Ages of the Gospel. 1840, revised edition by H. Cary. Oxford, London, pp. 84–85).”

      -http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polycarp

    531. Greg Allen
      July 28th, 2014 @ 9:56 am

      Rocky,

      >>Transubstantiation is that reality of the bread and wine truly, truly becoming the flesh and blood of our Lord Jesus under the remaining form of bread and wine.
      >> And this believed only with the eyes of faith and not possibly by an electron scanning microprobe?

      I think you answered my question by saying.. “under the remaining form of bread and wine” and “not possibly by an electron scanning microprobe”

      In other words — not scientifically true.

      I, myself, can still accept your view of transubstantiation as being “true.”

      I get into arguments with my atheist friends all the time over “truth.” Science is only one kind of truth. In a way, it’s the most primitive truth. But, it’s all they got.

    532. Bo
      July 28th, 2014 @ 10:05 am

      Greg,

      Do not let rockhpath1 fool you. No apostle taught real presence. It is well over a 100 years after Messiah that such an idea surfaces somewhat. It is pagan at its roots.

      The word of YHWH explicitly denies real presence doctrine. Rockypath1 may continue to pile historical record upon historical record showing what the apostate Catholic Church always believed, but it will be piled on the foundation of paganism and traditions of men and not on the real foundation of Messiah and the apostle’s doctrine. Catholics of good will would do well to read for themselves and think for themselves and leave off on the talking points.

      Luke 22
      19 And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me.
      20 Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you.

      Please note that this is to be done in remembrance of Messiah, and is thus symbolic in nature. If the “real presence” was indicated, it would not be in remembrance, but in actuality.

      What was in the cup? Wine. No blood, but the new covenant in His blood. It was a covenant meal, not a lawful way to enjoy cannibalism and imbibe eternal life.

      John 6
      63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life…
      67 Then said Jesus unto the twelve, Will ye also go away?
      68 Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life.

      Messiah is not saying to remember Him by eating Him. He is saying to remember Him by eating unleavened bread and and drinking the cup of wine after the Passover dinner, which just happens to be called the cup of salvation/deliverance. A memorial is not the real thing. So let’s do what Messiah said and memorialize Him on the day in the way He said to, and not participate in some pagan magic incantation and cannibalistic mysticism.

      Paul is a second witness.

      1Co 11:23 For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread:
      24 And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.
      25 After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.
      26 For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord’s death till he come.

      We symbolically show (Literally: announce or declare.) the Messiah’s death until He returns. We do not bring down His flesh and blood, we bring down the message of it. We do not produce the actual flesh and blood of His death. That is a much different type of showing. We do it in remembrance…as a memorial.

      This is what the apostles taught. Whatever church “father”, not matter how early, that actually teaches real presence is simply in error. Whatever Church does this, is deceiving us.

      Matthew 26
      29 But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom.

      Mr 14:25 Verily I say unto you, I will drink no more of the fruit of the vine, until that day that I drink it new in the kingdom of God.

      Please note that Messiah does not say that the liquid in the cup is now blood, but still wine…the fruit of the vine. He will drink it again in the kingdom when He returns to rule and reign.

    533. Greg Allen
      July 28th, 2014 @ 10:06 am

      Bo,

      I can’t debate you on this issue since I really don’t know much about it. But I do have questions.

      Are you really suggesting that, since the very creation of Adam, humans kept track of a seven day week? With calendars and everything?

      I just assumed that all those thousands of years ago, they tracked time with the new moons and seasons but didn’t have weekends and work weeks.

      My second — isn’t “sabbath” a practice rather than a day?

      Like “devotions” or “prayer” or “fasting” “worshipping” “feasts” etc ? Those things are also the Lord’s, right?

    534. Greg Allen
      July 28th, 2014 @ 10:15 am

      Bo and Rocky,

      I had to dig into my memory but here are the verses my first church used to justify meeting on Sunday:

      Romans 14:5–6
      5 One person considers one day more sacred than another; another considers every day alike. Each of them should be fully convinced in their own mind. 6 Whoever regards one day as special does so to the Lord.

      And

      Colossians 2:16–17
      16 Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival,f a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day.h 17 These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ.

      Does not this give you two freedom to respectfully rest on different days?

    535. Bo
      July 28th, 2014 @ 10:26 am

      Greg,
      I think man kept track. Even if man lost track of the days, YHWH kept track of time and proclaimed His Sabbath via 40 years of miracles. The Jews kept track of when that was at least from that point on and the rest of the western world for the last 2000 years.

      YHWH has very day specific feasts. Feasting is a practice. The feast of tabernacles is celebrated on exact days of the Biblical calendar. Resting is a practice. Resting on the day that YHWH calls THE SABBATH is what He asks of us though. Even the English idea of “feast” is not what the Hebrew word means. “Moed” means “appointment.” And appointment happens at a certain time and place.

      Ex 16:29 See, for that the LORD hath given you the sabbath, therefore he giveth you on the sixth day the bread of two days; abide ye every man in his place, let no man go out of his place on the seventh day.

      Ex 20:8 Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.

      Eze 20:20 And hallow my sabbaths; and they shall be a sign between me and you, that ye may know that I am the LORD your God.

    536. Greg Allen
      July 28th, 2014 @ 10:29 am

      Bo,

      >>Do not let rockhpath1 fool you. No apostle taught real presence. It is well over a 100 years after Messiah that such an idea surfaces somewhat.

      It depends on what “real” means — right?

      When Jesus promises: “For where two or three gather in my name, there am I with them.”

      Is Jesus’ presence “real” in your mind?

      My church has 1,500 members, so we always can get more than two together for communion! ;-)

      As for the pagan connections with Catholicism — I think all church attending Christians need to be humble about that.

      We have more paganism in our church that we realize — from wedding rituals, to our views of angels and demons, to the day we celebrate Christmas, Easter candy, … even to the drinking songs in our hymnals.

      I suppose you think you’ve purged all paganism by giving-up church and just meeting in your home. And, maybe you have. But it wouldn’t surprise me if a church historian or sociologist could look at what you personally do and find some pagan influences.

    537. Bo
      July 28th, 2014 @ 10:33 am

      Greg,

      Messiah directly said that He would be in the midst of any two apostles when they made a decision regarding the church. He does not say that His “real presence” is in the bread and wine.

    538. rockypath1
      July 28th, 2014 @ 10:33 am

      Greg,

      Truly, Dr Brown restores my faith in non-Catholic believers. I respect his integrity and his goodwill.

      After spending a lot of time contesting with anti-Catholics on some very corrupt Youtube sites I was becoming fairly cynical about some very bizarre false witness.

      :::::::::::::::::::::::::

      But Greg,

      Sexual purity is a requirement for all Christians and is not acceptable outside marriage. So should homosexuals be permitted to marry (in the church) and be given God’s blessing here. Are we not called to stand against the world and the devil and not live according to its ever-changing moral relativity.

      Homosexuality is against the natural law and therefore could not be of God. Those who SEEM to be in this condition from early onset are called to a higher form of obedience. And this means chastity, as difficult as that seems and as harsh as it may seem.

      Much of the bible-Christian world does not regard obedience and discipline and the call to holiness (sanctification) as part of the legitimate Christian faith any more. This is what Dr. Brown himself speaks out against in his activity against Hypergrace. This is close to Catholic teaching also.

      As sexual abstinence is often used as a bludgeon to hit the Catholic Church’s requirements for the priesthood (with respect to sexual misconduct), an overall antipathy for it “as unhealthy” now seems part of the bible-only culture.

      There seems a growing unwillingness by the bible-only camp to be obedient to His will in other areas too and these show a tendency to be overreaching, all-inclusive, over-tolerant and too accepting.

      Several assemblies including the Southern Baptists and the Seventh Day Adventist, now find it acceptable for an abortion option even though it is couched in cautionary but highly liberalized excuse-giving language. Murder of the unborn – who would of thought it possible in these assemblies. And encouraging the young in this way.

      This ALL without recourse to the damage it is incurring in the souls of those who are given permission (encouragement) to sin.

      Misguided sympathy.

    539. Greg Allen
      July 28th, 2014 @ 10:35 am

      Well, Bo. You have out-debated me on this one.

      I’m not being snarky — you obviously know way more about this than I do.

      And in the spirit of Colossians 2:16, I bless you in it.

      From what little I know about you — it seems that Sabbath and feasts are very meaningful for you.

      It’s the same for my devout Jewish friends and, in the few times they’ve included me, it struck me as a very beautiful thing.

    540. Greg Allen
      July 28th, 2014 @ 10:41 am

      rocky,

      Just when we were having a moment of ecumenical unity, you dumped gays and abortion on me!

      I’m the lightening rod here, on that issue, and I’ve argued your points many times before. (Effectively and biblically, I believe.)

      But, I gather that you think the bible’s commandment for Christian unity should include the Catholics but not gay Christians nor we liberals who love them.

      At least your circle of unity is getting bigger!

    541. Greg Allen
      July 28th, 2014 @ 10:50 am

      Bo

      >>Messiah directly said that He would be in the midst of any two apostles when they made a decision regarding the church.

      Oh, Bo, your argument just jumped the shark on that one.

      Saying that Matthew 18:20 applies to solely to church business meetings and only between original apostles is WAY out of the mainstream.

      >> He does not say that His “real presence” is in the bread and wine.

      Again, it depends on what ‘real’ means. Does it mean really present in bodily form? Or does it mean in in spirit — as through the Holy Spirit. Or something else?

      Depending on what you mean by “real presence” — I may agree with you.

    542. rockypath1
      July 28th, 2014 @ 10:51 am

      Greg,

      SABBATH CHANGE?

      SEE this other Dr. Brown site where Bo and myself continued our discussion.

      http://www.lineoffireradio.com/2012/01/17/is-mary-really-the-mother-of-god/comment-page-5/#comment-886247

      Much of it compiled from various sources on why the Sabbath was changed to the Lord’s day Sunday.

      I also gave information on the apostolic action of laying of hands towards elders (presbyteroi (priest) and episcopoi (bishosps). This is the real biblical reality,

      Eucharistic Consecration is the reason the priesthood was needed and developed and was given by the laying on of hands. The written tradition (bible) regarding the laying on of hands is clear enough and was further ingrained via the apostolic oral teachings (traditions) that the early Church received.

      This is NOT rocket science. Jesus meant for us to receive the written and oral traditions from the apostles for ALL generations.

      This disobedience to the Church is a marvel to behold.

    543. Greg Allen
      July 28th, 2014 @ 11:01 am

      rockypath,

      Thanks for the link but I think I’m going to bow-out on this discussion.

      I believe that the Colossians 2 passage I cited earlier gives us all freedom to respectfully disagree on this.

      I would also heed the many verses cautioning us against legalism.

      I believe in the spirit and value of sabbath rest and worship. Lots of people must work on Sunday — including pastors! — and if they want to take their sabboth on another day, I’m pretty sure God is good with that.

    544. rockypath1
      July 28th, 2014 @ 11:05 am

      Greg,

      I hope I did not leave you with the impression that we should not love those with homosexual tendencies. Anyone who is liberal or conservative should love them.

      But this is not to say we can accept active homosexuality. Just as we cannot accept an active heterosexual lifestyle (outside marriage).

      Sin is a reality that cannot be accepted for the sake of four score and 20 years of life when salvation is for an eternity.

      Allowing for homosexual activity as part of the faith is false compassion.

      Do you believe in sin?

      Can you not see the subversion of human nature in this. Sex is for procreation and obviously was created for this.

      And then there is the problem of redefinition of marriage and the family and the “liberal” rights of homosexual adoption.

      Abortion is a more obvious sin. I hope that is not acceptable to you under any circumstances.

      And by the way. I was called to live for many, many, many celibate years in my youth and later in my middle ages. I felt that faith called me to a celibate life (and NO masturbation) during those times and I was fully capable of doing this. And this with a pretty healthy sexual drive too. Believe me. No exaggeration there. Been there done that.

    545. Greg Allen
      July 28th, 2014 @ 11:09 am

      Rocky >>This is NOT rocket science. Jesus meant for us to receive the written and oral traditions from the apostles for ALL generations.

      It might be more complicated than rocket science. Seriously.

      I do think we Christians are to receive his teachings as transmitted through the bible.

      I do think we are to respect the wisdom and traditions of previous generations.

      I suspect that most Christians would also agree. Even us liberal ones!

      But, beyond that… it gets incredibly complicated.

      For example, these days I’m a Anglo-Catholic but not a Roman Catholic Which oral tradition do I follow? Yours? Do you then ignore the traditions of my church?

      What about the Eastern orthodox who have no Catholicism in them at all but are as apostolic as your church?

      It gets very complicated very fast. Worse than rocket science? Maybe!

    546. rockypath1
      July 28th, 2014 @ 11:09 am

      Greg,

      The Sabbath thing is not an issue for me as I believe there was real and authoritative reasons as I gave. Bo thinks otherwise and seems totally to have missed ALL the scriptural references for the change that I gave in that other posting.

      Peace.

    547. Greg Allen
      July 28th, 2014 @ 11:17 am

      Rocky,

      Dr. Brown has hinted at banning me from this site for disagreeing with him on the gay issue. He views it as a personal attack on him.

      So, forgive me for not responding to you. If you go back and search, I have _many times_ addressed every issue you raise — with the bible, church history, logic, morality, science.

      And I haven’t convinced a single person here!

      As for celibacy — I did the same. I married later in life and my wife was my first. And, it was not easy!

      That puts you and I in a very small group, BTW.

      I was a youth minister in a couple of different conservative churchess and had a sense of how many teens and their parents were celebrate before marriage. We’d have lessons and testimonies on sex and you could pretty easily figure it out.

      Not many fully succeed in waiting for marriage– even among the loudest advocates for celibacy.

    548. Greg Allen
      July 28th, 2014 @ 11:21 am

      I’m looking back on my last post and am appalled at may poor spelling and grammar — so maybe it’s time to call it a day.

      I’ll blame the three cups of coffee ;-)

      Have a blessed day, everyone.

    549. rockypath1
      July 28th, 2014 @ 11:23 am

      Greg,

      I took pains to say the holy Apostolic traditions. Those received from Jesus directly from the apostles. Those that came later are more correctly defined as the traditions of men.

      The Orthodox and the Catholic teachings both apostolic. The Orthodox at the very least held the Bishop of Rome as first among equals. But in history the Bishop of Rome was from the onset believed to hold the keys of Peter.

      I discussed this either on this site or the other Dr. Brown one I gave.

      There has just got to be a blend of believing the written apostolic tradition and the oral early Church affirmation. The Real Presence Eucharist affirmation proclaims the reality of oral tradition. It edifies what was taught by Jesus in John 6 and in the last supper passages.

      If one does not bow to this rule – the early Church authority – you end up with one revelation but with a cacophony of interpretations. Tens of thousands even, and growing.

      Bo’s interpretation is just one. And it one that is even farther away from the early church than most. And there seems to be an ever growing number of bizarre assemblies rising up.

      This Hypergrace (OSAS) thing is totally out there too.

    550. rockypath1
      July 28th, 2014 @ 11:26 am

      Greg,

      The only thing I can say about posting on YouTube instead of this venue is that it allows one to go back the next day and actually re-edit and restate what one was trying (incoherently) to say the previous day.

      peace.

    551. Greg Allen
      July 28th, 2014 @ 11:30 am

      OK — one last response:

      We Episcopalians consider ourselves and apostolic church as well. I don’t know how the RCs think about that.

      Supposedly, when the bishop laid hands on me, this was in an unbroken tradition (via your church) back to the apostles.

      >> This Hypergrace (OSAS) thing is totally out there too.

      I’ve been listening with an open mind to Dr. Brown “Hypergrace” for months.

      I’m still trying to decide if it is actually a real thing. It also seems like it could be another contrived controversy.

      Of course people abuse the doctrine of grace (in all churches!) but is it really a movement in the church? I’m not convinced but my mind isn’t made up, either.

    552. Bo
      July 28th, 2014 @ 11:53 am

      rockypath1,

      You wrote:
      “Eucharistic Consecration is the reason the priesthood was needed and developed and was given by the laying on of hands. The written tradition (bible) regarding the laying on of hands is clear enough and was further ingrained via the apostolic oral teachings (traditions) that the early Church received.

      This is NOT rocket science. Jesus meant for us to receive the written and oral traditions from the apostles for ALL generations.”

      Sorry, there is nothing to backup oral traditions being binding. The one thing that Messiah constantly was calling the Jewish religious leaders on the carpet for was their oral traditions. He upheld the written word 100%. It was obvious then and now that oral traditions are just a way for men to get their hands in the pie. It is also pretty obvious that many of the practices of the Roman Catholic Church, and to a lessor degree those that sprang from her, are pagan. That is where oral tradition can lead, and lead quickly. This problem was warned of by the apostles and Messiah. We dare not trust the words of men, but only the written word of YHWH.

      The whole idea or “real presence” and “Apostolic succession” and “Sunday Sabbath” is nothing more than doctrines of men…traditions of men…oral traditions. The pagan idea of the bread and wine being magically changed via a special class of people (priest, sorcerer, witch doctor, shaman, whatever?) that can only learn the secrets and receive the authority and power to do so is just warmed over mystery cult at best and satanic ritual at worst. Superstition and magic and secret oral traditions have no place in true worship.

    553. rockypath1
      July 28th, 2014 @ 1:51 pm

      Bo,

      Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught, either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours. (2 Thess 2:15)

      I praise you because you remember me in everything and hold fast to the traditions, just as I handed them on to you. (1 Cor 11:2).

      There are also many other things that Jesus did, but if these were to be described individually, I do not think the whole world would contain books that would be written. (John 21:25)

      I have much to write to you, but I do not wish to write with pen and ink. Instead, I hope to see you soon, when we can talk face to face. (3 John 13-14)

      Know this first of all, that there is no prophecy of scripture that is a matter of personal interpretation, for no prophecy ever came through human will; but rather human beings moved by the Holy Spirit spoke under the influence of God. (2 Pet 1:20-21)

      You can read the bible selectively and look at Church History selectively or you can turn back to what we were given and not the latter day traditions you have grabbed on to.

      Its all from Jesus, from the apostles under the direction of the Holy Spirit and you mock them all.

    554. Nicholas
      July 28th, 2014 @ 1:53 pm

      Greg,

      I hope you don’t leave these boards for good. It was always interesting chatting with you.

    555. Greg Allen
      July 28th, 2014 @ 2:44 pm

      Nicholas,

      Thanks! Dr. Brown occasionally hints at banning me but he hasn’t yet.

      He accuses me of personally attacking him but, honestly, I don’t perceive myself doing that.

      I do disagree with him, in clear terms, but not in any way that Dr. Brown doesn’t disagree with others.

      But I really try to not question anyone’s sincerity or devalue the grace of God in their lives.

      That’s what I consider a personal attack.

    556. Bo
      July 28th, 2014 @ 3:12 pm

      rockypath1,

      I know those passages as well as the next guy. I am fine with any “tradition” of the apostles. I am not fine with the ones that the Catholic Church brought in from paganism. You have no proof of the traditions that you espouse being from the apostles. This I have shown over and over. The traditions that the Bible speaks of are almost always spelled out somewhere else in scripture. Obviously the head covering of women is one of them and the church has backed down on this. It has stopped greeting with holy kisses and many other things in scripture that are the apostles traditions…like keeping Sabbath on the seventh day and YHWH feasts.

      You conveniently do not list some other passages concerning traditions…that are true of the Catholic system.

      Mt 15:3 But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?

      9 But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.

      Church fathers 100 years after Messiah come to mind:

      Col 2:8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.

      Indulgences come to mind:

      1Pe 1:18 Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers;

      I think that you have inherited lies via false traditions.

      Jer 16:19 O LORD, my strength, and my fortress, and my refuge in the day of affliction, the Gentiles shall come unto thee from the ends of the earth, and shall say, Surely our fathers have inherited lies, vanity, and things wherein there is no profit.

    Leave a Reply